Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:41, 13 August 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 California Proposition 8 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 21 days

	2008 California Proposition 8 was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 16, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed May 17, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2008 California Proposition 8. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2008 California Proposition 8 at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

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 Twinkle)~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. --j⚛e decker 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? 7daysahead (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Native94080 *likes!* Native94080 (talk) 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/) Catsintheattic (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.6.218.95, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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.

174.6.218.95 (talk) 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... 68.227.169.133 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: 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 the RS noticeboard whether this source is reliable for the content it supports. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 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, there68.2.47.164 (talk) 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

Tyranny of the majority should be added to the "See also" section. --138.110.206.100 (talk) 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. hamiltonstone (talk) 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 WP:WEIGHT 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. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, Minoritarianism (Tyranny Of the Minority) must be included in the Legal Challenges section to maintain NPOV.174.25.8.116 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC) A REDDSON

Judge Walker openly gay

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."

This should be mention. Had he been a fundamentalist Christian who had upheld Prop 8, that would've been mentioned. NotARepublican55 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not the central article on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Walker isn't mentioned here. The gayness of that Bush appointee is mentioned on the case's page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 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. - Wikidemon (talk) 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:

1. "any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding" (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4))
2. "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (28 U.S.C. § 455(a))

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."

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." Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (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 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 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. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. Native94080 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You all might want to overlook the U.S. Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which deals with a Christian group wanting recognition from a public law school in San Francisco. The Christian group is anti-gay. Their website here explains their own analysis of the SCOTUS decision. Native94080 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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?

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? Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Folks, this isn't a WP:FORUM. 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. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2010 (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? Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (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 WP:FORUM policy, that is the proper place to raise that disagreement.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I object to the dishonest misuse of WP:FORUM. I have proposed two different versions of a change for the article, and you are claiming WP:FORUM 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. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 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. -- Kim van der Linde 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User WTWU, if you want to discuss controversy about the judge's sexual orientation, please refer to the judge's wiki-talk page by clicking here. Native94080 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Got an axe to grind trying to minimize something, "Native"? Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 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? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And it should be noted that there is some question about whether he is openly gay, which makes inclusion of such a statement even more problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 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. WP:BLP 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. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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 WP:NOTFORUM, and Fox News isn't really a trustworthy source for factual information. AGiorgio08 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

and Fox News isn't really a trustworthy source for factual information. - I do believe that statement is ridiculous enough that your "contribution" need not be mentioned again. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

EXCUSE YOU. Nobody had standing to simply close this, much less run around deleting comments all over. I find it hilarious that an honest discussion is something you are incapable of holding. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, stop trying to close the discussion by fiat, "knowledgekid". You're not an administrator and there is not a consensus, though you keep lying and trying to claim one. The question is whether the circumstances of the case - even a brief synopsis regarding the controversy or a link to the page regarding the controversy - should be in this article. Trying to dishonestly "close" the debate early is ridiculous. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be updated in light of recent court decision.

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. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class California articles
• Mid-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles