Talk:2008 California Proposition 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old[edit]

I changed the findings of the UC Davis AIC study. If you read the study (or even just the executive summary) it clearly says that there will likely be no additional costs to consumers from the initiative. I also clarified that the study is only an economic analysis of the initiative and has absolutely no recommendations regarding the welfare impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wps4738 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems highly biased. I'm not familiar enough with the issue to edit it myself but should changes be considered?

I think it's becoming less biased and progressing fairly well. It does need some finesse and layout edits though (Marcino (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There were a few sentences that were definitely biased so I took them out. Alice1869 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Alice1869[reply]

I don't understand why the sentence about HSUS freely admitting that the Prop is almost entirely focused on battery cages is biased. They themselves have said that veal is not an issue, and gestation crates are minimal. I am re-inserting the sentence. Poliwatcher (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-inserted the sentence, but am open to debate that perhaps it should go in a diff part of article. I just think that since the opening paragraph explicitly states that the prop deals w/ gestation/veal crates and battery cages (which is true, the actual language does), this does not accurately reflect the reality in CA even by HSUS' own admission.

I also suggest that we be at least a little more specific when we mention which sentences we delete/insert. Poliwatcher (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madaxecho, I changed your edit stating that the Inititiative is known as "The Prevention to Farm Animal Cruelty Act" because it was amended by Sec of State on July 03, 2008 to "Standards for Confining Farm Animals". I sourced both so that there would be no confusion. Poliwatcher (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thing needs to be WIKIFIED[edit]

I've seldom seen a WP entry with so many weasel words. To wit: "Californians for SAFE Food is a broad-based and growing coalition of public health and food safety experts, labor unions, consumers, family farmers and veterinarians who want to keep food choices in California safe, local and affordable. The coalition has already received the endorsement of a number of prominent groups and individuals". Oh? And who says that "SAFE" "wants to keep...food choices safe..."? Given that there's no WP entry for "Californians for SAFE Food", where does the writer get their information about what SAFE and its goals are? And "prominent groups and individuals"? The entry lists such "prominent" groups as the "Kern County Taxpayers Association" (a whopping 739 Google hits), and the so-called "National Animal Interest Alliance", which is actually a front for meat, horse racing and other industries that exploit animals. Nine footnotes in a lengthy WP entry on a current political issue is simply absurd. Someone needs to do their homework and reference this thing properly, and get rid of the weasel words. Bricology (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since no one stepped up to the plate (so to speak), I've removed some of the most egregious weasel words, such as "...broad-based and growing" and "...who want to keep food choices in California safe, local and affordable". Bricology (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find an issue with the section about giving police powers to the people. The author interprets the law to state the Humane Society can just appoint a limited authority law enforcement officer, but according to the same code quoted Corp. Code 14502(C)(3)(b)the humane society has to request a humane officer be appointed by a judge. Also it should be pointed out that a majority of the Animal Control duties in California are conducted by county or City Animal Control Agencies. These individuals are actual government employees often working in the police or sheriffs department. This Proposition will not change anything about the power of any individual. The corporations code quoted is not changed. The author just chose to display parts of a very long code that make it seem how they wanted. Everyone should be assured the humane society cannot appoint someone to go knock on the doors of these farms to execute a search warrant. Also it may be pointed out that a search warrant has to be signed by a judge. So even if the authors perception of the law was so, it would still have to pas muster with a judge. I am not familiar with editing wiki's so I am just going to post here. Corporations Code 14502(C)(3)(b): The humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shall recommend any appointee to the judge of the superior court in and for the county or city and county in which the humane society is incorporated... [1] 72.67.154.113 (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for your comments on the "poice powers" section. I'll take a closer look at your comments and also the extensive revisions I see that have been made to the section already, and then I'll see if i can come up with some constructive edits later today. Poliwatcher (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Prop 2 supporter, and I have avoided editing the "arguments of opponents" in the interest of fairness. However, any neutral, third-party who is interested in maintaining the accuracy and objectivity of Wikipedia articles may want to consider something else, in addition to the problems with the "police powers" section. The entire first three sections of "Assertions by opponents" ... "Undermines animal welfare & food safety in California," "Threatens food safety and increases salmonella risk," and "Jeopardizes public health" ... are completely inaccurate. The opponents imply that Prop 2 requires animals to be kept outside of cages or have access to the outdoors. There is no such language in Prop 2. This can be easily confirmed by reading the full text of the initiative ... http://www.yesonprop2.com/files/2007-08-09_07-0041_Initiative.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madaxecho (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (oops, sorry I am new to this and don't know how to sign these)[reply]

WHO DELETED THE ENTIRETY OF THE SUPPORTERS' ARGUMENTS? I am actually opposed to this measure, but it's ridiculous to vandalize the article in this way. I am undoing those changes. Poliwatcher (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is vandalism and dishonesty going on. I have edited the "poll results" section accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.9.150 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the changing of the section on police powers, but upon further reflection I do not believe it is completely relevant to the wiki. This proposition is not changing the law regarding Humane Societies. Also Humane societies only have powers in counties where they are contracted by the governing agency in the county. So with that said they are sanctioned by both the state and local governments, as well as the court system. Also if you look further into the code regarding the Humane Officers you will find that humane officers are required to undergo the same amount of training as a peace officer. [2] (police, and sheriff[3]). The training is through the POST system, and is the same police academy peace officer have to go through right now to be a sheriff or police officer. If you were to dig a little deeper into the penal code Animal Control Officers (who are employees of a county or city making them government employees)are required to obtain less education to enforce the laws: 830.9. Animal control officers are not peace officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer as specified in Section 836 and the power to serve warrants as specified in Sections 1523 and 1530 during the course and within the scope of their employment, if those officers successfully complete a course in the exercise of those powers pursuant to Section 832. That part of the training course specified in Section 832 pertaining to the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required for any animal control officer whose employing agency prohibits the use of firearms. For the purposes of this section, "firearms" includes capture guns, blowguns, carbon dioxide operated rifles and pistols, air guns, handguns, rifles, and shotguns. [4]

I understand the point that is trying to be made, that the people promoting the law are also the ones enforcing the law. But this is a point that may unduely bias individuals. Police and Sheriffs Deparments often support laws, and when one is considering this law the Humane Society should be considered on the same level as Police and Sheriffs Departments because of how the law places them in the whole scheme of things.

Just fyi I am not with the humane society. So dont think I am trying to promote anything with them. I am just trying to clarify some information to make sure an unbiased article is provided. So please consider what I have said, and if you must keep that section maybe revise it to say varies law enforcement agencies including the humane society can enforce this law.

It just concerns me because the article seems to imply that rogue people will be running around enforcing this law everywhere. This is not the case.

"Normally, investigations surrounding and arrests for alleged violations of criminal statutes are conducted by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities."

This is from your article, and is one of the statements that concerns me. This is 100% untrue. The District Attorney, Sheriffs Department, and Police Departments avoid these cases. They are often given to the profesionals who are appointed to these duties by law, Animal Control Officers and Humane officers.

Also in reference to your statement about P.C. 599 these individuals still have to prove probable cause to a judge to obtain a search warrant. So they have to do the exact same thing a Sheriffs deputy or Police officer would have to do. The judge then has to use his judgement of the law, and decide wether to sign the warrant or not.

72.67.154.113 (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am surprised, but then not so surprised, that someone opposed to Prop 2 apparently took it upon themselves to delete the entire section of supporters arguments. Again, I am a Prop 2 supporter, so I will not edit opponents arguments, but I do hope that people will explore the references for themselves, and realize the multiple deceptions in the "assertions by opponents" section. Not only does Prop 2 have no effect whatsoever on the current California laws regarding Humane Officers, it has no effect whatsoever on the ability of farmers to keep animals indoors or in cages, or monitor them for Salmonella, which makes the three sections on Salmonella and bird flu completely irrelevant. Perhaps identifying these statements as "assertions" clears wikipedia of being responsible for these falsehoods, but in that case perhaps a "fact check" section at the end of the article is in order. Madaxecho (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it looks like nobody is interested in fact-checking, so I'll issue this challenge instead, to anyone who is an opponent of Prop 2 and thinks that it decreases food safety:

Please provide references which indicate that "management characteristics" of egg farms which ensure food safety include not allowing hens to fully spread their wings.

Please provide the specific language of Prop 2 which requires that egg-laying hens be kept outside of cages or outdoors ... or otherwise -

a)Please provide references which support the implication that housing egg-laying hens indoors in cages where they are able to fully extend their wings will increase the risk of Salmonella contamination of eggs.

b)Please provide references which support the implication that housing egg-laying hens indoors in cages where they are able to fully extend their wings will increase the risk of them contracting bird flu.

Thanks. Madaxecho (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Feel free to substitute "stand up, lie down, and/or turn around" for "spread wings" in the references, and please include links for verification. Thanks. Madaxecho (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I hope that I am doing this right. I just came to this site to get information about Prop. 2, and I also thought that the article sounded biased. In particular, it seems that this sentence or "fact" needs to have some kind of citation or verification: "and the animals must have their beaks painfully cut off" REALLY? I have heard people who are against animal cruelty make statements like this before, about chicken debeaking, but I have never seen an actual credible source talking about a chicken's beak being actually "cut off" The only thing I could even find REFERENCE to when I tried to research the subject was the practice of blunting the sharp tip of the beak, which hardly seems comparable to "painfully cutting off the entire beak". I think that sentence or phrase is misleading and should be either cited or removed from the article. I felt so strongly about this I just created a wikipedia account user name so I could add to this discussion. Again, I am deeply sorry if I posted this in the wrong place or did something wrong. It is my first time posting to wikipedia. Michelsb (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Beak trimming, or debeaking, or whatever you want to call it, is done by machine, with variable results. Sometimes the very tip of the beak is cut off, and sometimes quite a large portion is cut off. Have you seen chickens after this process? I have. Many of them are missing a good 2/3 of the top portion of their beak, which can prevent them from eating properly. As for being painful, I suppose that only birds could REALLY answer that question, but consider this. Birds' beaks are like our fingernails. If we cut off the tips of our nails only, it doesn't hurt. But then, they grow back. Chickens are debeaked one time in their lives, which means that the beak must be "trimmed" down to the quick to prevent it from growing back. This is where growing tissue, blood vessels, and yes nerve endings are. Hope this helps. Madaxecho (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added a link to the wiki article on "debeaking." Thanks again for the question. Madaxecho (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes a quote from the AVMA within the supporters section, but the AVMA has issued statements OPPOSING Proposition 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.249.69 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=66604823487+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
  2. ^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=66604823487+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
  3. ^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=8293507720+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
  4. ^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=8293507720+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

assertions by opponents/supporters[edit]

These sections are very very bad for this article. Having long sections on point of view is not how wikipedia works. These sections should be merged into a NPOV section that shows supporters and opponents claims (along with facts) in agacent sentences or paragraphs. The way it stands now is unacceptable. Comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is not a reliable source, and this article misreports the conclusions of this study [2], which says that dust samples are a better way to test for Salmonella, and does *not* say that "separating feces from eggs is NOT an effective way to prevent the spread of this disease". Wikipedia is not a place for spreading propoganda. I am right now merging the two sections. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the following information because it has no relation to the proposition, claimed or otherwise: "Many hens suffered from a bleeding and prolapsed uterus, making them more susceptible to infections, and their eggs more likely to be contaminated with bacteria. There were no veterinarians called to address either of these issues, according to the investigator." Fresheneesz (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also removing this, as it has no relation to Prop 2 except for an argumentative example related to diseased animals: "In early 2008, a Humane Society investigation of a Southern California slaughter plant reported the introduction of sick and crippled cows into our food supply. As diseased animals are more likely to carry illnesses that can be transmitted to humans, this prompted authorities to pull meat off school menus and initiate a nationwide recall. [1]"
Removing this as it is simple boasting, and unrelated to the prop: "Current management characteristics of egg farms ensure food safety. The food safety management practices of California egg producers are among the most successful in the United States and are directly credited for decreasing Salmonella prevalence at the consumer level. " Fresheneesz (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also removing this as unneccessary and mostly irrelevant "CEQAP is composed of university and extension researchers, state and federal health and agricultural officials, private poultry veterinarians, egg producers and processors, and egg association representatives. [2] " Fresheneesz (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its fairly obvious why this sentence shouldn't be anywhere near wikipedia: "Thus, Prop 2 is better for both animal and human health, which is why it is endorsed by nearly 60 California health care professionals, The Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Union of Concerned Scientists." Fresheneesz (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing this uncited information. I have read articles that report the opposite of this, and thus find it dubious: "Lower concentrations of waste from healthier animals means a lower chance of Salmonella ending up in our eggs. In addition to simple concentrations of bacteria, there is another importance difference between battery cages and enriched cages, related to the natural behavior of birds. Under normal conditions, birds of all species are careful not to deposit their feces into their nests. This is an instinct that they have which allows them to keep their eggs clean and free of disease. Hens in furnished cages lay their eggs in nests, but deposit feces in other parts of the cage. However, hens in battery cages are immobile, and therefore forced to lay eggs and deposit feces in the same place. There is a much higher chance that eggs will come into contact with bird feces in battery cages than with furnished cages. " Fresheneesz (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing this as extraneous and redundant: "The FDA document “Guide to Investigation of Eggs and Farms Implicated In Foodborne Outbreaks of Salmonella Enteritidis” even states that the FDA “is focusing their efforts on achieving the reduction and eventual eradication of egg related [Salmonella Enteritidis] illness in humans” and that they are doing so “by conducting traceback and farm investigations in order to determine the source of the eggs and the contamination.” [3]" Fresheneesz (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing this information as consisiting of parts that are either redundant, irrelevant, or POV: "Finally, according to the World Health Organization, transmission of Bird Flu from poultry to humans results in “very serious disease” and “could mark the start of a global outbreak (a pandemic).”[4] In order to avoid such a potentially disastrous pandemic, it is important to allow the California egg industry to continue adhering to its strict safety guidelines to keep California consumers safe and healthy." Fresheneesz (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing unsourced claims: "European studies that investigate the benefits of different housing systems for egg-laying hens have shown that animals kept in enriched cages are under far less stress than those kept in battery cages. The reason stated is that hens are able to move around freely, perch, dust-bathe, and lay their eggs in nests as well as showing far less aggression towards each other, since they can simply move away from each other when conflicts arise." Fresheneesz (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Beef Recall Latest in a Bad Year". U.S. News & World Report. 2008-02-20. Retrieved 2008-09-21.
  2. ^ Castellan, DM et al. 2004. “Descriptive Study of California Egg Layer Premises and Analysis of Risk Factors for Salmonella enterica serotype enteritidis as Characterized by Manure Drag Swabs.” Avian Diseases 48:550-561
  3. ^ Ibid
  4. ^ World Health Organization. December 5, 2005. Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response (EPR). Avian Influenza Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/avian_faqs/en/.

New health and food safety section[edit]

I made a NPOV heath and food safey section out of the arguments from both sides. It probably still contains a lot of POV, and I would apprecite any help in consolidating redundant information and making POV comments NPOV. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I've been waiting for an objective observer to take part in this article. I have also removed the entire sections on bird flu and humane officers, as they are completely irrelevant. Prop 2 does not require animals to be housed outdoors, nor does it change existing California laws regarding enforcement of animal cruelty measures. Madaxecho (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I will work on adding those citations when I have a bit more time. Madaxecho (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... well maybe not. I was just told that this constitutes vandalism? Oh well, maybe people will read this section and find out the truth for themselves. Madaxecho (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I tried again. Maybe this time it won't be considered "vandalism," but it does look pretty silly to have two complete sections in this article that are completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Madaxecho (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I guess the administrator has decided that the irrelevant sections stay in, even though they are completely misleading. Wikipedia truly sucks as an objective resource. Madaxecho (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for attempting to help and being a good sport about people reverting your work. Adding comments on wikipedia is indeed improper (and is considered vandalism if continued after warning). I did remove the section on humane officers, because after seeing your (improper) edit I couldn't find any evidence that Prop 2 has text relating to humane officers. Next time please start a section on the talk page about the problem - I would have seen it on this talk page as well.
Also, when there is controversy about a subject, starting a talk page discussion about your edit, reasoning, and argument against the reverter's reasoning (or lack of reasoning) is the proper way to respond.
As for the bird flu, it is unclear to me that it is irrelevant, and it does look like supporters and opponents alike see it as an issue for some reason. Some of the information may not be relevant, but I can't say with confidence right now that the entire section is. If you can provide a source or sufficient reasoning to remove the rest of the information, please do so on the talk page so everyone can take part in the discussion. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relevance of the bird flu section[edit]

I would like to have some discussion about the relevance of the bird flu section. The information developed in that section seems to have no direct link to Prop 2 and might in that case constitute Original Research. By having the information in this article it implies that the information has to do with Prop 2, and even if it does, without the proper sourcing it may have to be removed. Comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opponents of Prop 2 have incorrectly implied that it forces farmers to keep their birds outdoors, exposing them to migratory birds and hence bird flu. If you look at the language of Proposition 2, there is absolutely no requirement that birds or any other animals must live outdoors. It's that simple. I don't mind at all that you altered my contributions. In fact, I'm glad that someone has actually tried to make this article more objective. Keep up the good work. Madaxecho (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I guess the "supporters" argument about bird flu and overcrowding still does apply, so on second thought removing the entire section may not really be necessary. At any rate, I'm tired of being accused of vandalism, and I'm not interested in learning wiki etiquette (no offense) so I'll leave it to you to figure out. Thanks for verifying my comments on the "humane officers" stuff. I appreciate it. Madaxecho (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No cages?[edit]

Is there a reason why there's so much mention of things regarding cages vs. no cages? It doesn't seem like that's the question here (the lede implies that this would only require bigger cages). —AySz88\^-^ 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this means that either those things should be removed, or the lede changed to make that more explicit. —AySz88\^-^ 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severe vandalizing by 12.2.122.29[edit]

12.2.122.29 severely vandalized this article at 10:44, 5 November 2008. There have been 7 edits since then. Therefore, I will undo the last 8 edits, taking this article back to the last version by Andrew Kelly (06:08, 5 November 2008). My apologies. I will try to recover the good edits that I am undoing. Wideangle (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished performing those undo's, and I restored both of the good edits. Happyinokc was the author of both of those good edits, as well as an undo of a vandalism attack. Wideangle (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prop 2 Passes!!![edit]

You deleted out the election results. The initiative was passed yesterday by a wide margin ... woohoo!!! (Since this is the discussion page, I assume that a "woohoo" is acceptable and not vandalism.) And sorry, but I still say that wiki sucks. I will never use it as a reference on any other issue, and I will tell others to do likewise. Madaxecho (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion forum. Talk pages are only for discussing changes to the article. They are not for general discussion on the topic that the article concerns (ie don't talk about prop 2 and how happy you are it passed) — TheBilly(Talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madaxecho, I assume that you are talking to me when you say "You deleted out the election results." And I assume, therefore, that you read my section entitled "Severe vandalizing by 12.2.122.29" which explains why I had to perform those undo's. Apparently, you saw the Prop 2 article during the short time between my finishing the undo's and my restoration of the Happyinokc edit that provided the election results. I did restore the election results, and another wikipedian has since updated them. Concerning your displeasure about Wikipedia, I refer interested readers to Criticism of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Wideangle (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Vote totals" versus "Results"[edit]

"Vote totals" is better than "Results" as the title of the section containing the vote totals. "Results" is too nebulous. The actual results of Proposition 2 will include changes in the ways farm animals are treated, changes in which egg farmers will be successful and which will be unsuccessful, possible prosecutions and convictions, and possible future changes in laws in other states. Therefore, I am changing the title of the section back to "Vote totals". Wideangle (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This article has multiple issues"[edit]

At 03:23, 6 November 2008, TheBilly added an "articleissues" box at the top of the article with parameters disputed, npov, original research and weasel. I wish to use this section to list the instances of each of these issues that are mentioned in this discussion page. I am not promising to get to work to correct them before this list is completed and agreed upon (or, at least, acquiesced to). Whoever else wants to get to work on them, have at it. Wideangle (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is disputed[edit]

In the top section, there is this sentence: "Article seems highly biased." Wideangle (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This allegation is ambiguous and is old (it was made on 8/19/08). Many changes to the article have been made since then. Please provide specifics if you want us to take action. Wideangle (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section entitled "This thing needs to be WIKIFIED", there is the following statement: "I understand the point that is trying to be made, that the people promoting the law are also the ones enforcing the law. But this is a point that may unduely bias individuals." Wideangle (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I don't see any text about who will enforce the law. Apparently, that text was deleted some time in the past. Issue resolved. Wideangle (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section entitled "This thing needs to be WIKIFIED", there is the following statement: "... the article sounded biased. In particular, it seems that this sentence ... needs to have some kind of citation or verification: 'and the animals must have their beaks painfully cut off ' ". Wideangle (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I don't see any mention of beaks. Apparently, that text was deleted some time in the past. Issue resolved. Wideangle (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May contain original research or unverifiable claims[edit]

In the section entitled "This thing needs to be WIKIFIED", there is the following statement: "... it seems that this sentence ... needs to have some kind of citation or verification: 'and the animals must have their beaks painfully cut off' ". Wideangle (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article no longer contains any mention of beaks. Apparently, that text was deleted some time in the past. Issue resolved. Wideangle (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section entitled "relevance of the bird flu section", there is the following statement: "The information developed in [the bird flu] section seems to have no direct link to Prop 2 and might in that case constitute Original Research. By having the information in this article it implies that the information has to do with Prop 2, and even if it does, without the proper sourcing it may have to be removed. Wideangle (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy is disputed[edit]

In the section entitled "This thing needs to be WIKIFIED", there is the following statement: "Not only does Prop 2 have no effect whatsoever on the current California laws regarding Humane Officers, it has no effect whatsoever on the ability of farmers to keep animals indoors or in cages, or monitor them for Salmonella, which makes the three sections on Salmonella and bird flu completely irrelevant. Perhaps identifying these statements as 'assertions' clears wikipedia of being responsible for these falsehoods". Wideangle (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section entitled "This thing needs to be WIKIFIED", there is the following statement: "... it seems that this sentence or 'fact' needs to have some kind of citation or verification: 'and the animals must have their beaks painfully cut off ' ". Wideangle (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article no longer contains any mention of beaks. Apparently, that text was deleted some time in the past. Issue resolved. Wideangle (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "debeaking". This is a practice of cutting the tips of the beak off before they are transported to a cage. It usually happens when the chickens are around two months old. It is done to protect the birds from each other. Chickens, like many birds like the taste of blood and will peck each other and even dead chickens. About 10 years ago, when debeaking was done manually, a beak would be cut to far up and cause the beak to bleed. The current practice uses a guide and quick iron to cut without hitting blood vessels or nerves.69.45.184.139 (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Camboia[reply]

And here are some more assertions from the article whose factual accuracy is disputed in this Talk page:

  • "Management characteristics" of egg farms which ensure food safety include not allowing hens to fully spread their wings. Wideangle (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prop 2 requires that egg-laying hens be kept outside of cages or outdoors. Wideangle (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prop 2 forces farmers to keep their birds outdoors, exposing them to migratory birds and hence bird flu. Wideangle (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Housing egg-laying hens indoors in cages where they are able to fully extend their wings will increase the risk of Salmonella contamination of eggs. Wideangle (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Housing egg-laying hens indoors in cages where they are able to fully extend their wings will increase the risk of them contracting bird flu. Wideangle (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, investigations surrounding and arrests for alleged violations of criminal statutes are conducted by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities. Wideangle (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words[edit]

In the section entitled "This thing needs to be WIKIFIED", there is the following quotation from the article that is alleged to contain weasel words: "Californians for SAFE Food is a broad-based and growing coalition of public health and food safety experts, labor unions, consumers, family farmers and veterinarians who want to keep food choices in California safe, local and affordable. The coalition has already received the endorsement of a number of prominent groups and individuals". Wideangle (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?[edit]

There should be a section discussing the actual results of the proposals passing (to go along with the already present prediction of effects). Have any egg producers announced they are moving out of state? Any lawsuits filed against it? Any producers announce that they are staying and converting their processes? Rmhermen (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should not redirect here.[edit]

No one outside California knows or cares about this "proposition 2." The 2008 Massachusetts proposition 2 has had nationwide repercussions. 24.91.229.193 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times wrote an editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09thu3.html) endorsing California's Proposition 2 of 2008, in which they present the issue of severe confinement of farm animals as a national issue ("We urge every state to enact similar laws"). A number of individuals and organizations of national stature, based outside California, took positions either pro or con (see California_Proposition_2_(2008)#Supporters_of_Prop_2 and California_Proposition_2_(2008)#Opponents_of_Prop_2). Massachusetts ballot measures are not known as "Propositions" (as in California); rather, they are known as "Questions". See the Wikipedia article "Massachusetts 2008 ballot measures". Thus, one refers to "the 2008 Massachusetts Question 2", not to "the 2008 Massachusetts Proposition 2". If you are inclined to create a redirect to redirect "Question 2" to the article on 2008 Massachusetts Question 2, feel free. Wideangle (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PETA[edit]

In the "Supporters of Prop 2" section, under "Key endorsements as of October 27, 2008", somebody recently added PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). However, PETA did not endorse Prop 2 until October 31, 2008 (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/10/terminate_cruel.php) -- just four days before the election. I have therefore deleted that reference to PETA. Wideangle (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove initial tags[edit]

There are four tags at the top of the article that were placed there in November 2008: neutrality, original research, factual accuracy, and weasel words. Many changes have been made to the article since November 2008 (including many made by me). I propose to now remove the four tags. Wideangle (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No responses having been made, I have removed the four tags. Wideangle (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to actual proposition is now broken[edit]

The first reference in this entry, to the text of the proposition itself, is broken. I cannot find another source for it, and would appreciate assistance. Ethan1701 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on California Proposition 2 (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on California Proposition 2 (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on California Proposition 2 (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on California Proposition 2 (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

An editor has requested for Proposition 2 (disambiguation) to be moved to Proposition 2. Since you had some involvement with Proposition 2 (disambiguation), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Proposition 2 (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_California_Proposition_2&oldid=1196514183"