Talk:2008 California Proposition 8

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.18.164.15 (talk) at 23:59, 12 August 2010 (→See also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:59, 12 August 2010 by 82.18.164.15 (talk) (→See also)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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

	California portal 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

	Politics portal 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.

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.

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)

"And the tyranny critique takes one side of a two-sided issue." Very true - There is such a thing as tyranny from a minority or an elite. So I agree that it should not be added to any see also section.82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Judge Walker claimed to be openly gay

matter considerd and rejected - ongoing discussion raises WP:SOAP and WP:BLP concerns
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) I have removed the discussion here, Misplaced Pages is not a forum to discuss this. Judge walker being gay and having that as an impact on Prop 8 can be debated by anyone so it is not a good idea to have that information placed in this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I strongly agree with NotARepublican55 that this should be mentioned in the article. If not then all articles which expicitly reference politians/judges according to their religious affiliations/beliefs in connection to policy decisions / legislative decisions would also need to be altered. It is easier therefore to include the fact that is quoted above, than to have to trawl every other article to remove other references. Not to mention it would imply that bias only exists on one side of the discussion. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Any number of articles or parts of articles on wikipedia "can be debated by anyone" - to say this has no bearing on what is appropriate to include in an article. Whether one likes or dislikes Fox News is beside the point. When the page is unlocked an additional footnote linking to the article above beside footnote 10 needs to be added for balance.82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) We've agreed not to add this material to this article, in a discussion that was removed as a WP:BLP violation. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the fact that other articles have problems doesn't mean we need to introduce those problems here for balance. The Fox news piece is not reliable, and appears to be factually wrong, so no, it would not be a useful citation. If there's nothing further, we should probably archive the rest of this too. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Where does the Fox news article "appear to be factually wrong". If it merely differs from another news article, that in itself is not sufficient to deduce that it is factually wrong - the other article might be. So I would like to know in what regard you consider it to be wrong, and what source you are comparing it with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Also who agreed not to add it?82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Let's face it Misplaced Pages itself is not reliable or authoritative and never will be because of the nature of it - ask yourself how it could be? and valid discussions continue to be "archived" away too quickly because some editors don't like what is being discussed. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I do agree on NOT adding it. Are we going to add that the judge was white in racism cases, man in woman's right cases, etc.? -- Kim van der Linde 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

matter considerd and rejected - ongoing discussion raises WP:SOAP and WP:BLP concerns

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

I have removed the discussion here, Misplaced Pages is not a forum to discuss this. Judge walker being gay and having that as an impact on Prop 8 can be debated by anyone so it is not a good idea to have that information placed in this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with NotARepublican55 that this should be mentioned in the article. If not then all articles which expicitly reference politians/judges according to their religious affiliations/beliefs in connection to policy decisions / legislative decisions would also need to be altered. It is easier therefore to include the fact that is quoted above, than to have to trawl every other article to remove other references. Not to mention it would imply that bias only exists on one side of the discussion. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Any number of articles or parts of articles on wikipedia "can be debated by anyone" - to say this has no bearing on what is appropriate to include in an article. Whether one likes or dislikes Fox News is beside the point. When the page is unlocked an additional footnote linking to the article above beside footnote 10 needs to be added for balance.82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We've agreed not to add this material to this article, in a discussion that was removed as a WP:BLP violation. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the fact that other articles have problems doesn't mean we need to introduce those problems here for balance. The Fox news piece is not reliable, and appears to be factually wrong, so no, it would not be a useful citation. If there's nothing further, we should probably archive the rest of this too. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does the Fox news article "appear to be factually wrong". If it merely differs from another news article, that in itself is not sufficient to deduce that it is factually wrong - the other article might be. So I would like to know in what regard you consider it to be wrong, and what source you are comparing it with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also who agreed not to add it?82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it Misplaced Pages itself is not reliable or authoritative and never will be because of the nature of it - ask yourself how it could be? and valid discussions continue to be "archived" away too quickly because some editors don't like what is being discussed. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree on NOT adding it. Are we going to add that the judge was white in racism cases, man in woman's right cases, etc.? -- Kim van der Linde 23:18, 12 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)

Categories: