| Revision as of 00:30, 13 August 2010 editAGiorgio08 (talk | contribs)1,760 edits RV to include prior discussion comments. However closed again per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAP and WP:BLP← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:13, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,010 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (435 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Article history| action1 = GAN |
|
| action1date = 17:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
| action1date = 17:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
| action1link = Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)/GA1 |
|
| action1link = Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)/GA1 |
| Line 16: |
Line 18: |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=y|American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Afd-merged-from|Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008)|Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008)|21 September 2018}} |
|
|
<!--- Auto archiving configured by ] ---> |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|maxarchivesize = 45K |
|
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|minthreadsleft = 8 |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|archive = Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
|
<inputbox> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Untitled == |
|
|
|
|
|
bgcolor=transparent |
|
|
type=fulltext |
|
|
prefix=Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008) |
|
|
break=yes |
|
|
width=60 |
|
|
searchbuttonlabel=Search California Proposition 8 (2008) talk archives |
|
|
</inputbox> |
|
|
{{WPBS|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject California |class=B |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{LGBTProject |class=B |importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy |
|
|
|class = <!-- a class specified here overrides the automatic rating based on the numerical scores --> |
|
|
|importance = <!-- this works just like the usual WikiProject importance ratings --> |
|
|
|comprehensiveness = <!-- 1-10 --> |
|
|
|sourcing = <!-- 0-6 --> |
|
|
|neutrality = <!-- 0-3 --> |
|
|
|readability = <!-- 0-3 --> |
|
|
|formatting = <!-- 0-2 --> |
|
|
|illustrations = <!-- 0-2 --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request Protection == |
|
|
|
|
|
After a quick glance at the revision history and considering the controversial and ongoing nature of this subject, don't you think that this page should be protected? (I am admittedly a Misplaced Pages editing n00b, and as such can't request protection status via ])~WarrenSensei 18:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC) --~WarrenSensei 20:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi! I understand the suggestion, but it probably won't happen immediatley. Here's why: The last protection (actually, it might have been semi-prot) expired just a day or two back, where possible usually policy is to use as limited a protection as necessary to keep vandalism down to a full roar, since even vandalized articles sometimes get good conributions from anonymous IPs. This one might have to go back, but if my guess is that it'll be hard to get the page protected until there's a new cluster of vanadlism. By the way, I'll drop a note on your talk page about how to request page-protection without a lot of hassle. --<font color='#66dd44'>]]</font> 22:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Struck down 4th Aug 2010 == |
|
|
|
|
|
So it looks like this is now ruled unconstitutional (three quick references: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_15677141?nclick_check=1 and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&tsp=1); this should probably be added to the article but I'm not familiar with the minutae. Could someone whip up a new section? ] (]) 21:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Native94080 *likes!* ] (]) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:catsintheattic Yes, it should definitely be added. There appears only to be a link to the sfgate article, and not to the text of Judge Walker's decision or the video evidence (https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/) ] (]) 00:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request from 174.6.218.95, 5 August 2010 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tl|editsemiprotected}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
The article notes that exit polls are not considered reliable, and cites an article as proof. This is not true; exit polls are generally considered the most reliable polls. The article is a Republican-biased web article, citing no research to back up its claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 05:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Just who considers exit polls to be very accurate? Exit polls are generally used to measure specific demographics support/opposition, rather than the actual results. I'm not sure that it counts as a Republican bias to not consider exit polls to be unreliable... ] (]) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ESp|n}} That appears to be a reliable source for this information, so you would need to provide reliable sources which support your assertion. Alternatively, you could ask over at ] whether this source is reliable for the content it supports. Thanks, ] (]) 13:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
== We should mention the district court decision at the top == |
|
|
|
|
|
The district court overturn should be mentioned in the first or second sentence, rather than at the end of the first section, in order to keep broader summaries nearer the top. The sentence that currently appears at the bottom of the 1st section could be the 2nd sentence, or a shorter version could be used, there] (]) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC): |
|
|
United States district court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
== See also == |
|
|
|
|
|
] should be added to the "See also" section. --] (]) 20:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, for two reasons. First, we try to keep 'see also' sections tightly focussed on a limited number of highly relevant articles - the 'Tyranny' article is too tangential. Second, linking to that particular article implies a particular POV regarding Prop 8. ] (]) 23:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::The article, and the term, describe not so much the phenomenon whereby the majority makes a decision that is adverse and unfair to a minority, but rather a criticism of an inherent feature or limitation in the voting / democratic process, whereby such outcomes occur. If we just mean to say that the public enacted a mean-spirited law that unfairly hurt same-sex couples who, by virtue of being marginalized and few in numbers, lacked the votes to defend themselves, I think we could say so directly (and perhaps more neutrally than I pose it) without invoking this more abstract critique of the democratic process. But I don't think people conceive the issue here as will of the people versus tyranny of the majority so much as laws enforcing older social norms versus gay rights. If they do, and we can source it, it would make sense to work that into the text of the article in an appropriate section describing public perception and critiques of the issue. This comes up as a legal issue as well. The district judge, in the closing paragraph of one section of the opinion, referred to the limits the US Constitution places on the sorts of matters that may be decided by state action or popular vote, versus claims of judicial activism, will of the voters, etc. This will surely be picked up by the media if it has not already, and if it gets sufficient coverage it could be worked into an appropriate sentence describing the legal rationale and reaction to the decision. However, that may never satisfy ] concerns, because this article is about the whole history of the proposition and not just this one ruling. Assuming the case plays out in the US Supreme Court, the case itself will probably get its own article someday, and if there is enough discussion of the "tyranny" issue, namely, does the public get to vote on who can get married, then it could be part of that article. But Hamiltonstone is spot-on, we don't use the "see also" section to link to the general issues that the article raises, it's a tightly focused and small list of links to things directly related to the article content. And the tyranny critique takes one side of a two-sided issue. - ] (]) 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Judge Walker openly gay == |
|
|
{{hat|matter considerd and rejected - ongoing discussion raises ] and ] concerns}} |
|
|
{{discussion top}} |
|
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/ |
|
|
|
|
|
"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merger proposal == |
|
This should be mention. Had he been a fundamentalist Christian who had upheld Prop 8, that would've been mentioned. ] (]) 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is not the central article on ]. <s>Walker isn't mentioned here.</s> The gayness of that Bush appointee is mentioned on the case's page. --] (]) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's not a great idea to look at legal rulings that way. For the most part, that kind of stuff is not considered relevant. - ] (]) 23:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Wikidemon, Walker being gay means that he has major conflicts of interest in this case and should have recused. Federal law provides for required recusal in the following circumstances: |
|
|
#"any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding" (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4)) |
|
|
#"his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think ] was impactful enough to merit an article separate from this – maybe this warrants a few sentences to a paragraph as a merge to this article? ] (] • ]) (she/]) 18:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
As a point of criticism - and a very strong analogy - I offer the following quote. Admittedly, it wouldn't fit into the article except in a "criticism of ruling" section. "His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute." |
|
|
|
*'''Support''' merge. The protests article is primarily a list of locations, and if it is cut, the rest of the content is short enough to be combined into a paragraph. ] (]) 07:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. Clearly not enough for a stand-alone article here.--] (]) 13:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' merger per above. <span class="nowrap">—''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 10:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Support''' - Not enough content for a split. ] (]) 16:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
At the very least, the following phrase should be added to the end of the Post-Election Events section: "pro-Proposition 8 groups have condemned the conduct of the trial and the ruling's content on the basis that Walker, who is openly gay, should have recused himself from the case for a conflict of interest." ] (]) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Support''' per above. ] (]) 11:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Walker's member of a protected minority class affected by the case was not an issue in the case, and is not related to the question of the constitutionality of the ballot measure. If that can be sourced as a major political argument, it might be appropriate in a "public reaction" section of ], the article about the case, but it would have to be put in context with a sourced statement that judges who are members of a protected class (blacks, gays, straights, Christians, whatever) are not required to recuse themselves from rulings on the basis of affecting the civil rights of the class. - ] (]) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::{{ping|theleekycauldron}} {{ping|Hanif Al Husaini}} {{ping|Trystan}} {{ping|CX Zoom}} {{ping|Onegreatjoke}} {{ping|Hekerui}} I think we have consensus for a merge here. Perhaps one or more of you would like to jump in! ] | ] 04:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I boldly redirected, sufficient content in main article in my opinion ] (]) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2023 == |
|
::I agree with Wikidemon. ] (]) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|2008 California Proposition 8|answered=yes}} |
|
:::You all might want to overlook the U.S. Supreme Court case '']'', which deals with a Christian group wanting recognition from a public law school in San Francisco. The Christian group is anti-gay. Their website explains their own analysis of the SCOTUS decision. ] (]) 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I'm doing personal research on the repeal process of Proposition 8, and would definitely like to also find the link to the original article. Am new to editing wikipedia, saw this, wanted to update it. |
|
::::I'm guessing you are not a native English speaker, "Native94080", unless you are actually asking us to ignore the case in question? Perhaps you wish us to "look over", "look into", or "look at" the case, meaning to observe and inspect for relevant information to the topic at hand? |
|
|
|
Broken reference link to reference 268, refers me to the home page of SFGATE, not the article link. |
|
::::I'm also not entirely sure what relevance the case you point out has regarding Walker's being gay, his duty under Federal code to recuse himself from cases in which he has a personal or financial stake, and questions now being raised in regard to the fairness of the trial as conducted and the legitimacy of Walker's decisions of fact and law thereby. Could you clarify that please? ] (]) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Please add a link to an archived page of the article, as the link |
|
:::::The fact that he's gay was well known before this case. If the defendants thought they had any hope of winning on that argument they'd have asked him to recuse himself; they didn't. ] (]) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
'http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=43580' is longer public on the sfgate.com website. |
|
::::::Folks, this isn't a ]. What's to be discussed here is the editing of this article -- and since the matter at question is a single aspect of the public response to the ruling in a case related to this Prop which has its own web page, the correct place for possible inclusion of a mention of this response is on the case's web page... as Wikidemon noted. --] (]) 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Found this link: 'https://archive.is/K5Fj' from an archiving site after inputting the previous, non-working website link. ] (]) 03:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
I have made a proposition for an edit to be made to this article. At the very least, it should be noted here that Walker's ruling is '''controversial'''. But why are you so afraid of an open discussion that you must scream to try to shut people up on a talk page? ] (]) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 18:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Rulings in lawsuits are ''assumed'' to have controversy, elsewise there would not have been a lawsuit, and in this case the possibility of appeal is mentioned. The P v. S section should be spun off into its own header, a short paragraph summary style with a "Main article" link. (And if you disagree with the ] policy, that is the proper place to raise that disagreement.) --] (]) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, I object to the dishonest misuse of ]. I have proposed two different versions of a change for the article, and you are claiming ] to avoid discussing them. That is dishonest. |
|
|
::''Elsewise there would not have been a lawsuit'' - oh please. Lawsuits can be launched for anything at any time. This ruling is particularly controversial, as is the larger situation surrounding it. ] (]) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Before anybody wants to highlight one aspect, him being gay, lets then also mention that he was first nominated by Reagan, then the elder Bush before he was finally confirmed. Main opposition argument was that he was anti gay, because of the gay Olympics case etc. He is a libertarian, and generally conservative. It is easy to cherry pick a single aspect to do some politics.... Balance is essential. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::User WTWU, if you want to discuss controversy about the judge's sexual orientation, please refer to ]. ] (]) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Got an axe to grind trying to minimize something, "Native"? ] (]) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*As far as I can tell: he didn't recuse, wasn't asked to recuse, no significant reliable source has suggested he should have, it is not being discussed as a grounds for appeal by relevant parties. It is also a total non-issue, per Wikidemon and others. His sexuality is as relevant as his shoe size. Oh wait, has someone got a source for that? ] (]) 12:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::And it should be noted that there is , which makes inclusion of such a statement even more problematic. --] (]) 13:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Good point. We do not know if he is gay, and if he is, he is certainly not "openly" so. The one local political gossip / scandal / hot news tidbit column from which all the other sources get this says it is an "open secret", which is different than being openly gay - almost the opposite. ] applies to talk pages, and Misplaced Pages editors shouldn't really be speculating about the sexuality of a person who chooses to keep it private, so I suggest we wind this down and archive the discussion, unless and until there is some strong sourcing on this. And even there, it belongs in a different article. - ] (]) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== why locked? == |
|
How does being gay have anything to do with a conflict of interest. In this case, based on your logic, a straight judge would also be in a conflict of interest. So we would have to find a bisexual judge to take on the case? And doesn't this section also fail ], and Fox News isn't really a trustworthy source for factual information. ''']''' <sup><font color="black">''']'''</font></sup> 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{discussion bottom}} |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
== Needs to be updated in light of recent court decision. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why is this still locked? ] (]) 18:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
not much else to say that can't be found on the google. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Article already reflects the results of the case. Ultimate impact of case is yet unknown, pending end of stay, appeals. --] (]) 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
:You can request unprotection at ]. -- ] (]) 20:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
I'm doing personal research on the repeal process of Proposition 8, and would definitely like to also find the link to the original article. Am new to editing wikipedia, saw this, wanted to update it.
Broken reference link to reference 268, refers me to the home page of SFGATE, not the article link.
Please add a link to an archived page of the article, as the link
'http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=43580' is longer public on the sfgate.com website.
Found this link: 'https://archive.is/K5Fj' from an archiving site after inputting the previous, non-working website link. ProlificSundown (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
.svg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)