Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Biased article

Of course this article doesn't mention the fact gays stormed into a church service a week after they lost, disrupting families and children that were just having their Sunday service. Why doesn't it mention this side too? http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=220613

This article makes it seem like the gay community was harmless in it's response against prop 8. In reality they have shown racist and anti-black opinions among themselves. Why doesn't this article mention this. Here's a sincerely yours a pro-gay activist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html YVNP (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should report on the factual events of the post-election demonstrations. However, I think the above link is more inflammatory than a reputable source. Perhaps a more appropriate document could be found. MrBell (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no "reputable" news source that dares to report such disgraceful behavior by a hateful few, fearing that issuing such reports would imply that most gay-marriage activists are racist (which of course they are not). The absence of more "appropriate" sources reporting such events is less a reflection of the unreliability of this source and more a reflection of the timidity of mainstream news sources. Just saying, just because a report is inflammatory doesn't make it untrue, and I see no reason other than that it's "inflammatory" to treat it as disreputable. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Potentially relevant article: From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27669478/

'Exit polls in California showed that the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters, which has prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination.'

'Kathryn Kolbert, a black lesbian who is president of People for the American Way, a Washington-based group that monitors the religious right, was so worried about a backlash that she wrote a memo to colleagues, warning it is wrong and self-defeating to blame black voters for the outcome.'

'"It's always easy to scapegoat when you are feeling bitter about a loss," Kolbert said. "What we do in America when we are frustrated is blame the people we always blame."'

MSNBC has reported repeatedly on the apparent racial divide and anti-black/latino/etc. reactions that followed. I think CNN has as well. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence from the MSNBC article with some distillation of the rest of the quote, could be included, that some gays felt abandoned by African-American groups and that some African-American commentators/supporters felt they were being scapegoated or that the campaign had not been respectful to their concerns. However, delving into specific commentators or the more blatant claims of bigotry and infighting gives it too much importance. Every time there is an issue at all that has to do with race and civil rights it seems that some people are ready to cry racism, or entitlement, etc. That seems like routine squawking of a sort that accompanies every political issue, and is not a special feature of this one. Giving it too much room gives it undue credence. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Huffingtonpost is not a reliable source period.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Huffington may be biased towards liberalism but it isn't the only source. I'll try to find some others. YVNP (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A second note that article uses sources as well. Among them is an article from the New York Times. YVNP (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The 10,000 protesters in NYC is the estimate of the organizers only, who have an undue interest in inflating their numbers from what started as a facebook link-up. The police would not provide any collaborating estimate and the source provided as support is only quoting hearsay from the unnamed organizers themselves. Actual on-site photos show less than a 500 people. The source is too weak and the entire sentence should be removed as unsupportable.

It's also important to point out that Scott Eckern's role of artistic director was largely honorary and the position is being eliminated entirely with his resignation. Richard Lewis, the executive producer of the California Musical Theatre said, "We're not going to worry about having a so-called artistic director. That was a title specific to Scott." http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1393290.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceese (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Legally, Prop 8 went into effect on November 5th 2008 by the California Constitution.

SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

A link to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_constitution article is needed. It is important to note that "From 1911, the height of the U.S. Progressive Era, to 1986, the California Constitution was amended or revised over 500 times." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_constitution#cite_note-6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceese (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This article does sound bias, in that it cites several examples of threats and acts of violence committed by the Prop 8 opponents against Prop 8 proponents, but not vice-versa. Such examples would include vandalism against progressive churches that opposed Proposition 8 (http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6479879), the attack of a 'Yes-on-8' supporter against a 'No-on-8' supporter (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/29/state/n064853D35.DTL&tsp=1 ; http://www.ktla.com/landing_topstories/?Official--Gay-Man-Attacked-With-Yes-on-P=1&blockID=120717&feedID=1198) and even the murder of a gay man who opposed Proposition 8 by a Prop 8 supporter (http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/81888) which I am surprised has not gained more media attention.

The 'Demonstration' section of this article would more meet Wikipedia's standards if it presents examples of threats and violence from both sides of the fence, but concludes that protests and demonstrations have been mostly peaceful, and that leaders on both sides (activist groups and churches) have made public the necessity for peace and non-violence. Mikeindaburg (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Demographics???

Pardon my ignorance of proper Wikipedia terminology, but there is self-evident bias in the selective nature of information provided in the 'Demographics' section of the article that compromises Wikipedia's ideal of encyclopedic neutrality. The Bush supporter and Republican demographics in particular are obviously intended to associate prop 8 support with unpopular names. If the intent of the article was to provide demographic information in an unbiased way, data would have been provided for non-Bush supporters and Independent and Democratic demographics, for example. A defense of the currently listed demographic info as unbiased would be entertaining to read, but futile.

On the other hand, it's no big surprise to find bias emanating from Wikipedia, even an article that is 'locked down' to prevent such bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibojopayne (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say, 10 days after that initial post, I now LOVE the current Demographics section, especially since folks are not only putting up with, but now defending the edits I suggested. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, never mind. Peace. 98.203.153.154 (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem as though the demographics list only those groups that sided strongly on the yes side, and info for strong support on the no side would be good to include as well. However, coming here with an attitude is rather unhelpful and simply shows a bias you have against wikipedia. Do you have any specific numbers you'd like to see up there? and maybe some references for them. Though the article may be locked, changes can always be suggested on the talk page. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, the section could become something more than "who passed prop 8?". we could also add other strong prop8 voters such as iraq-war supporters, gun-owners (mentioned elsewhereon Talk). we could add strong no voters: young folk, jews, obama voters. It may be worth emphasizing in the section that the exit polls are a fairly inaccurate judge of actual voter demographics anyway (eg, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5689) even if they are all the info we have. There was only one polling organisation this year (http://www.exit-poll.net/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MairAW (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As balance between Yes and No voter demographics is essential to maintain the appearance of unbias, I heartily agree with MairAW here. My compliments to RobHar, and yes, I do have a few specific numbers and words I would like added to the article, listed just below (btw, data from CNN poll, website given next to signature below):

"Religious attendance and affiliation were strongly correlated with voting habits. 84% of weekly religious attenders voted Yes, while 54% of occasional and 83% of 'never' attenders voted No. Also, 64% of Catholics, 65% of Protestants and 81% of White Evangelicals voted Yes, while 90% of the 'none' religion category voted No. 'Other' and Jewish voter samples were too small to be statistically significant, but the data suggests they, too, leaned strongly No.

"Marriage and children also shared a strong correlation with vote choice. 60% of those married voted Yes, while 62% of those unmarried voted No. Further, 64% of those with children under 18 years old voted Yes, while 56% of those without children under 18 voted No."

"Racial results had African Americans voting Yes at an exceptionally high rate, 70%. Other races split the vote nearly evenly: Latinos voted Yes 53% and 'Other' leaned Yes by 51%, while Whites and Asians voted No by 51%."

(CNN poll numbers found at: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p2). Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Further suggested changes, with data from same CNN exit poll:

"Party ID and ideology also bore a significant correlation to the vote. While 82% of Republicans voted Yes, 54% of Independents and 64% of Democrats voted No. Likewise, 85% of Conservatives voted Yes, while 53% of Moderates and 78% of Liberals voted No.

"Gender and income differences shared virtually no correlation with the vote."

I hope it's not too dry; if anyone wants to spice up those stats, feel free. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:AGF, which is a good principle to work by, rather than to assume that people are pushing a political agenda. The two groups most strongly and interestingly (and therefore notably) in favor of the measure are African-Americans and the Mormon Church. Other than that is it any surprise (and therefore, is it worth highlighting) that Jews, liberals, young people, democrats, and gay people are opposed, that church-goers are generally more in favor, and that most racial groups other than African-Americans don't break strongly one way or the other? That's just repeating that some segments are more liberal than others on social issues, something that would be redundant to repeat in every article where it comes up. That African-Americans support the measure tells us something about culture in America; that the Mormon Church and some Catholic groups chose to take a stand tells us something about religious politics. If you look at the discussion history you can see how this came about. Before the vote we did have a long laundry list of supporters and poll results. But that itself is politically divisive because it pigeonholes people, and it's not really too relevant because in the end the main thing that matters is that it passed. Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording in the demographics article currently reads "X was important to... ". Would it be better to rephrase it to highlight some _interesting_ demographics as you've phrased it above; "The two groups most strongly and interestingly (and therefore notably) in favor of the measure are African-Americans and the Mormon Church. " (plus numbers + refs of course). I know there's been some discussion already on the phrasing, but the section could include an introduction ("as well as the expected demographics, exit polling indicated some interesting ... somethings: "), and then let the paras be reduced to "X group, who make up Y% of the voter base, voted strongly (Z%) for/against the measure" and leave the reader to decide how "important" that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MairAW (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that makes a lot of sense. It's usually best to avoid essay-like statements like "importantly", "interestingly", "surprisingly", and even "notably" (because that implies something on Wikipedia). Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about WP:AGF. Still, to point out that Bush supporters and Republicans were leaning Yes is just as obvious as young people tending to vote No; the latter group is more socially liberal, the former more socially conservative. And while some find the African-American vote for both Obama and Yes to be paradoxical, it's no big secret that African Americans tend to vote Democrat and are also tend to be socially conservative. LDS folks are more socially conservative and leaned heavily Yes, too - again, no big surprise there.

But speaking of religious politics, which no one seems to think unworthy of note, some data here struck me as very under-noticed. According to CNN exit polls, above, Catholics and Protestants - 30% and 43% of the electorate, respectively - voted 64% and 65% Yes, respectively. Almost identically. Combine the two, that's a little less than two thirds of 73% of the population, which means the remaining quarter or so of the electorate voted overwhelmingly no - 90% of the 'none' religion group, for example. So while the African-American yes vote was lopsided - about 2 to 1 - it was roughly equal to the overwhelming Catholic-Protestant majority's overwhelming yes vote. What I think interesting is that the no vote relied so heavily upon 'other' and 'none' religious votes, and that those votes were even more lopsided than either African-American or Protestant-Catholic votes. I'm not trying to be biased, please remember WP:AGF; so pardon the long post, I just find this disparity extremely interesting and terribly under-noticed.Wikibojopayne (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon and MairAR - come to think of it, I believe the point of a "Demographics" section is not to highlight what you or I think is particularly curious about the demographics, but to highlight significant correlations in voting patterns! In the racial category, as you noted, the African American vote is exceptionally strongly tied to the Yes vote; yet other categories are strong indicators of voting behavior, and therefore deserving to be in the article, but are conspicuously absent: ideology, family stats, etc. In any case, I see no compelling reason why a demographics section should lack so much of the data strongly correlated to the vote! And why not a spectrum of data in each of these categories? I have some suggested changes a few comments up, see what you think of them. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or that the "Demographics" section isn't really about the demographic? Right now, it's more like "Measure 8 passed because" instead of a breakdown of demographic. It doesn't mention how many democrats supported 8. And it clumps all church goers together. Whereas evanglicals, catholics, and protestants voted differently. I dont know where SFGate got its numbers from. But here are some quotes from the article.

"Prop. 8 found support among 81 percent of white evangelicals, 65 percent of white Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics and 84 percent of weekly worshipers."

"61 percent of those older than 65 voted for it, while 61 percent of those younger than 30 voted against it."

"Eighty-two percent of Republicans supported Prop. 8. Only 36 percent of Democrats supported the measure"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/MN5R1435T4.DTL

Elsonlam1 (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elsonlam1; the "Demographics" section needs to include more demographics to avoid the impression of undue selectivity. Particularly, I'd like the major No leaning groups to get equal attention with the Yes leaners. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arizona polls showed race, party and religion were not big factors. Age and income were. Prop 102 failed in Pima County (Tucson region, University of Arizona), mostly because the republicans in the foothills voted no.

…the more affluent and educated voters were, the more likely they were to vote against the measure. CNN found that 69 percent of Arizona voters making less than $100,000 voted to ban gay marriage. In contrast, 57 percent of people making more than $100,000 voted no. University of Arizona sociology instructor Jason Crockett cautioned against jumping to conclusions based on exit polls but said the higher incomes likely mirror education levels."With higher education, you have people who are exposed to lots of different cultures," said Crockett, explaining why that group would be more likely to oppose the ban.

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/266630.php The local paper did a precinct-by-precinct count. Exit polling matched their data. I'm looking for the FL, CA and AR election data. It would be interesting to find out stats on civil rights and educational level, esp relating to interracial marriage. I have collected a mass of data, but written nothing. The proponents and their tactics are interesting enough to be in an encyclopedia. Romanfall (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)romanfall

Generally, I think Wikibojopayne's suggestions (imbedded at an earlier point in this discussion, and dated 06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)) are quite reasonable--it is good to point out statistical anomalies on both sides of the vote. I might quibble somewhat with the details of just which categories are presented and how, but the high level of opposition among non-churchgoers is sufficiently remarkable to warrant mention, just as the high level of support among African-Americans and among gun-owners is remarkable. With regard to the statistic about Protestants, this is potentially misleading if we also add the statistic about Evangelicals, since Evangelicals are a subset of Protestants. If we mention Evangelicals, then we should only mention "non-evangelical Protestants", and we don't have a statistic for them. Since the statistic for Protestants as a whole was 65%, if we assume that half of Protestants are white evangelicals, and they voted 81% in favor, then the other half of Protestants must have been only 49% in favor. Unfortunately, this starts to drift off into the realm of speculation or original research. But the statistic for white evangelicals is much more impressive and meaningful than the statistic for Protestants in general. Mainline Protestant denominations, such as the United Methodist Church or the Episcopal Church (United States), either did not take a position on the ballot initiative or even opposed it.--Bhuck (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bhuck. Yeah, I agree that the Evangelical information is oddly put the way I suggested; just thought it should be in there somehow. I agree that estimating the non-Evangelical Protestant vote looks like would be quite valuable, but would sadly stray into original research. It is worth noting about a quarter of Evangelicals ((17% Evan.) - (13% Prot. Evan.) = 4%, or <25% of 17%) did not identify as Protestant - probably Catholic and 'Other'. Also, less than a third of Protestants are Evangelical: (43% Prot.) - (13% Prot. Evan.) = (30% non-Evan. Prot.) Remember, only 29% of the population is White Prot., whereas 42% of the population is Prot. All that to say, even without the Evan. vote, the Prot. vote would have leaned Yes, though much less so. Alas! if only we had more demographic info. (*Note: 'population' here refers to voters on prop 8, not population in general.*) Here's a suggested rearrangement the Evan. info so the religion part of the suggested edit reads:

"Religious attendance and affiliation were strongly correlated with voting habits. 84% of weekly religious attenders voted Yes, while 54% of occasional and 83% of 'never' attenders voted No. Also, 64% of Catholics and 65% of Protestants voted Yes, while 90% of the 'none' religion category voted No. In addition, White Evangelical/Born Agains, the overwhelming majority of whom made up about a little less than a third of the Protestant camp, voted 81% Yes. 'Other' and Jewish voter samples were too small to be statistically significant, but the data suggests they, too, leaned strongly No."

I'm still not totally satisfied with this rearrangement of Evangelical info, but it's a little better than before. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heck - since there's no data for the White non-Evangelical Protestants, let's just leave the White Evangelical Protestant numbers out of it. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the San Jose Mercury News and they cited a new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). I am quoting from the 2 articles.

-"Among Californians with a high school diploma or less, 69 percent voted for Proposition 8. Among college graduates, 57 percent voted against it."

-"Proposition 8 also got strong backing from ... voters who earned less than $40,000 a year (63 percent)"

-"And now the new data indicates that 61 percent of Latinos voted for the ban, an even higher percentage than exit polls indicated on Election Day"

-"Because African-Americans and Latinos tend to have lower incomes and a lower share of college graduates than whites, Baldassare said the racial voting pattern on same-sex marriage was really a reflection of education and income."

http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/1447721.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_11131721?source=rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.65.164 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who originally objected to the change from "Demographics" to "CNN Exit Poll". The reason for my objection had less to do with the emotional responses listed here than it did with the fact that an entire level-3 section, with several subsections, devoted to a single poll seems excessive from an encyclopedic standpoint. If the subsection is to be devoted to a single poll, its main points should be boiled down to a paragraph or two. However, this is not optimum: A subsection on "Demographics," culling data from sources other than a single exit poll, would be much more useful. Rangergordon (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Demographics??? 2

The Demographics section has clearly gotten way out of control, likely due to strong feelings about the black vote being given unduly high attention. Frankly, I agree that the black vote should not be the focal point of the Demographics section; that's why I fought for a more data-inclusive section. I tried to keep edits consistent with the existing shape of the article, however, and opted to keep it as clean and small as reasonably possible. Now there is just anarchy. So I'm making a big retaliatory edit to restore a sense of order; if you have a problem with it please let's talk about it here before making more radical and destabilizing edits. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

btw, MrBell's latest additions are great. Peace. 98.203.153.154 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the demographics section really need to be so big? Especially since the exit poll data reliability has been called into question. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it needs to be so big, but I think it should highlight those segments of the population from which statistically significant levels of support or opposition to the measure came. Not sure if a 65/35 split is significant enough, but those groups where the correlation was 70/30 or even 84/16, should not be deleted. Why, for example "Bush supporters" are more like linking global warming to pirates than "African American" or "atheist" voters (and "gun owners" still needs to be added), is not clear to me. The recent deletion of Bush supporters, therefore, does not meet my approval.--Bhuck (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Bhuck. It's silly to put Bush supporters here, when their demographics are nearly the same as conservatives in general. This is a POV attempt to associate Bush with Proposition 8. It isn't relevant. DavidBailey (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that "conservatives in general" are clearly identified in the poll and to the extent that their support is identical to the support by "Bush supporters", then I would agree that mentioning the same group of people twice under two different names is redundant and therefore unnecessary. If the margin of support between "Republican voters" and "Bush supporters" differs by 5% or more, then I think it should be mentioned. Similarly, if "gun owners" are clearly the same as "conservatives in general" (and in this case I think that may be even less the case), we could get by with mentioning just one of those categories. There is, however, a problem if we start to lump suburban voters who don't much care about abortion but want high levels of defense spending and lower capital gains taxes together with rural voters who care very strongly about abortion and are avid hunters. Both groups might be Republican voters, and both might be termed conservative (but they are certainly conservative in different ways), and if their level of support for Proposition 8 differs, I think this should be made clear.

Similarly, I am still not entirely satisfied with the religious breakdowns. Why mention Catholics and Protestants separately if their level of support is so nearly equal (64% and 65%)? On the other hand, the level of support from evangelical Protestants (something like 85%) differs significantly, but that implies that there are also non-evangelical Protestants for whom we have no figures. Precisely the contrast between evangelical Protestants and mainline Protestants would be very significant for the article, but we are limited by the categories the poll-takers used. And one of those categories happens to be "Bush supporters"--if this is "a POV attempt to associate Bush with Proposition 8" then it is a bias of the poll-takers and not of Wikipedia if Wikipedia is just reporting the poll-takers' results (No Original Research).--Bhuck (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is POV on the part of the poll, we should either omit it, or find a poll that is less POV, don't you think? Cheers! DavidBailey (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How would you suggest depicting the support among "conservatives in general"? Are "conservatives in general" identical with Bush supporters in your mind, or does one group differ from another?--Bhuck (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is a toughie. The article reads "Likewise, 85% of conservatives voted Yes, while 53% of moderates and 78% of liberals voted No. Conservatives made up three tenths of those polled, while moderates took up four in nine and liberals just over a quarter of the total." I guess the pollers asked about conservatives, too! And to your earlier point, 5% isn't very significant, considering that 5% only equals 1/20th. I don't think it's worth mentioning unless there's a notable reason to do so. DavidBailey (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that "conservative" is not specific enough for me. I guess we could say "self-identified conservatives" (maybe some conservatives did not self-identify, or some who self-identified are not really conservative but misunderstood the term?). If we were to supply the statistic of those who supported the Iraq war (do you have to be conservative to do so?) instead of the statistic of those who supported Bush, that would be an adequate substitute in my mind.--Bhuck (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a prevelent POV among the left that all things "bad" and "conservative" must be associated with Bush, neither of which is accurate. Exit polling associating Bush with support of a state measure in California is a cheap political stunt, not worthy of coverage of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. DavidBailey (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What bad, conservative things are not associated with Bush? What do we even mean by bad and conservative? Is support for the Iraq war bad and conservative? There seems to be some overlap between support for the Iraq war and support for Proposition 8. Whether or not that has anything to do with Bush or not is not too relevant, in my mind. Because even if Bush is not around, people who support the Iraq war and gun ownership will find some other leader. The question is just whether such people are conservative, or whether all conservatives share such views, etc. Maybe William Safire is conservative, but maybe he is a fan of gun control and an opponent of Proposition 8. The malleability of the term conservative may not be quite as severe as the haziness surrounding what people mean by "liberal", but more specific questions and aspects of identity are helpful in such contexts.--Bhuck (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that whether or not it's convenient to say that anyone who supports Bush is also conservative, this is certainly not the case. As a result, reporting things in such a fashion is counterproductive and has a specific POV which violates WP:NPOV. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, we are more or less in agreement. Regarding the second, we are not entirely in agreement, partly because there are too many POVs which might be considered to be represented by such reporting, some of them diametrically opposed to others, making a clear attribution of the POV difficult. The waters are just too muddy to say for sure. You will note I am not re-inserting the Bush reference, even though I remain dissatisfied with the poorly defined term "conservative" and have suggested certain other attributes (Iraq war support, gun ownership) which might help to clarify what kind of conservative is meant here without making reference to the individual person of Bush.--Bhuck (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording proposal

I propose that we revise the wording in the lede to read "The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage that they assert preserves marriage and protects schoolchildren" instead of "The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage while claiming that failure to change the constitution would require changes to school curriculum and threaten church tax benefits". The new wording is the argument used in the Official Voter Guide and is neutral because it only reports on the assertions of proponents. The previous wording is not the argument used in the Guide. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The current wording came from the proponent and opponent websites. Merely stating "protects school children" is a bit vague. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly was the problem with my minor change? Isn't that the gist of their opposition, as indicated by the court cases discussed in the article? "Unfair and wrong" mean nothing as it's extremely vague, and reduces their objection to a state of subjectivity and arbitrariness. Their objection is grounded in the fact that Prop 8 contradicts the constitution, not that it's simply "wrong". There is no right or wrong here. Orane (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support your change. I reverted it because apparently any changes to those two sentences must achieve a new consensus on the talk page. As noted above, the current wording on the proponents gives the wrong impression of the main arguments as stated in the voter guide. I tried to change that and was reverted. So, hopefully there will be a new consensus on our changes. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll accept it soon. People have been very anal about this article, which is understandable given it's sensitive nature. I also support your change, though I think that "protecting school children" is vague and could use some tuning. For the most party, I think that the views of the proponents and opponents are not adequately discussed in the intro and need expansion promptly. Orane (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My first draft of wording could be expanded to say "protect children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage", which is almost verbatim one of the argument points in the voter guide. Again, this would be stated as just the opinion of proponents. We'll see. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think "prevent" is more neutral than "protect", but I'm not sure a change from the older wording is really in order.--Bhuck (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The word protect is used in the voter guide, that is why I used it. The issue I have with the older wording is the emphasis on changing school curriculum and church taxation. The phrase about changing curriculum is unclear and church taxation is not even used in the protectmarriage.com talking points. I feel we should stick to the arguments as stated from the official document. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The extent to which the measure either "protected" schoolchildren or "prevented" some harm to schoolchildren, etc., is a red herring. The amendment itself contains no provision for public education. Rangergordon (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to be aware that 1) the "original document" was composed by people who were interested in persuading people that their own POV was correct. While the state did put certain limits on what they could say and not say in the voter guide, it does not mean that everything that got printed in the voter guide would meet Wikipedia's standard for neutrality, and 2) the attempt to portray the measure as something which might prevent harm to schoolchildren, while this might very well be a red herring (personally I think it certainly is), may have convinced some people to vote for the proposition and is therefore relevant to understanding the outcome. In the same way, even if there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if a government were to claim that there were such weapons, it might be easier for that government to garner support for military action against Iraq, and therefore the argument (regardless of the truth of the argument) is relevant to understanding the decisions that were made.--Bhuck (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Both sides have their own point of view . . . that's the nature of these propositions. And it is entirely proper to state each side's POV on Wikipedia as long as it is identified as such and not as fact. And, the argument about school curriculum being a red herring is irrelevant. The point is the argument was used by the proponents, and that is what is being reported, not whether it is right or wrong. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that each side's POV should be presented, but that does not mean that it should be presented using that group's POV way of phrasing things. We don't write "Hitler wanted to invade Poland because 'Poland represents a threat to Germany,' as he claimed in a radio address in 1939. The Polish government, on the other hand, argued that it represented a sovereign nation and that international law forbade German troops from crossing its borders." Instead, we write that he claimed that Poland represented a threat to Germany, and ideally, we would place his claim in a context showing what kind of threat Poland may or may not have presented. The POV that Poland was not a threat also needs to be adequately presented, so that the reader is equipped to estimate the threat him- or herself, even if the Polish arguments against the invasion were not addressing the question of whether or not Poland was a threat, but instead focusing on issues like international law, sovereign territory, national self-rule, etc. Likewise here, even if Proposition 8 opponents did not provide the counter-argument to the "protection of children" claim, we should still ensure that the reader can evaluate the meaning and validity of the claim. Perhaps it would be going too far to write, "Drawing on fears frequently cited by the religious right and those wanting to discredit homosexuality, proponents of Proposition 8 cunningly inserted a subtext of pederasty into official voting guide materials by claiming that legalizing gay marriage would result in the need to 'protect children'", but I do think that there are serious NPOV problems if we just present the pro-arguments in the way the pro-supporters phrased them.--Bhuck (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Bhuck is entirely correct: Slavish, unmindful attempts to satisfy NPOV are likely to be unsuccessful, resulting in the encyclopedic equivalent of journalistic false balance. (I fear, however, that the example involving the German invasion of Poland may constitute a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.)

Verifiability absolutely applies here. It can be verified that Proposition 8's proponents advanced the "protection of children" claim in campaign ads. If research is available, it might even be possible to verify that a certain number of voters were persuaded by that claim. Either of these facts could be included--in relevant sections as historical information.

However, the issue at hand is whether or not Proposition 8 can be described as containing legal provisions for the protection of children. This is not subject to dispute; it can be verified or falsified by examination of the amendment's language. No such provision was made--the amendment contains no mention of children or their protection. Therefore, a bare statement that Proposition 8 protects children is NPOV, and descriptive language implying that Proposition 8 somehow might have protected children constitutes false balance. Rangergordon (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit concerned about the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument myself, but couldn't think of an alternative at the time. Now I have come up with one: "The German Democratic Republic wanted to build a wall around West Berlin, arguing that the forces of capitalism, fascism and western imperialism that were present in West Berlin, if not properly contained, represented a threat to the peaceable existence of the workers' and peasants' state. West Germans and other NATO allies, on the other hand, protested the human rights issues presented by dividing families and inhibiting the free movement of goods and people." Without subjecting the claim that fascist imperialist forces were present in West Berlin to critical examination but presenting it "slavishly" and "unmindfully", Wikipedia would in fact violate NPOV by using such direct quotes.--Bhuck (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

requesting a couple edits

The Complaints section reference URL is malformed and should read "url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/politics/26marriage.html"

A reference for the citation-needed statement "Executive producer Richard Lewis stated that Eckern was not forced to resign but did so of his own accord." is "http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1393290.html"

AV3000 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure Eckern just decided to leave for no particular reason. The last person in the world that would give an accurate statement on the issue is anyone who has a financial or employment interest in the organization being boycotted. This is a thin veil over plain political pressure. No one ever gets canned from a cabinet or Congressional level position in the Federal Government either, and yet they always seem to "resign" in the middle of a firestorm. I'm certain it's all just coincidence. DavidBailey (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it's up to the readers. I added your reference. DavidBailey (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

These kinds of "voluntary" resignations do come up regularly. I think the standard phrasing is "Sen. X resigned amidst controversy." Is it reasonable to assume that everybody knows what that means? Rangergordon (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. DavidBailey (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone please make these edits:

The section that says that LA County joined lawsuits by LA (city), SF (city) and Santa Clara County should also mention that the lawsuit was joined by the Counties of San Mateo, Alameda, Marin and Santa Cruz. (http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=2840)

Results are a bit out of date. Currently, it's YES - 6,838,107 (52.3%) NO - 6,246,463 (47.7%)

--71.6.12.114 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Demographics changed to CNN exit poll

I have changed the title of the section to more accurately reflect the contents. There is nothing else discussed in this section other than the results a single exit poll from CNN. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm undoing the title change because, if you notice, "Demographics" is a third-level section header encompassing not only the CNN poll, but also a number of fourth-level subsections including "Presidential Preference," "African-American Voters," "Religious Attendance," "Marriage Status" and so on.

However, Ramsey2006's point is well taken: Wikipedia's rendering of third- and fourth-level headings--at least on my browser--does not make them easily distinguishable. Rangergordon (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see that it is a third level heading. However, if you notice, all of the 4th level headings are not concerned with demographic information in general, but rather are merely elaboration of data from a single CNN poll. There is absolutely nothing contained in any of the subheadings that does not result from this one CNN exit poll. The level is not the issue. It is an entire section (including subsections) based upon a single CNN exit poll. It is about a single exit poll that happens to have created a big stir, and the resulting fallout of the poll, not demographics in general. A general section this large on the demographics of Prop 8 attitudes would pull in information originating from a variety of sources. One could ask why a single exit poll is taking up so much space in this article. This question is much more pressing if the section in question is presented with a title that is more general than the actual contents of the section. Without the exit poll, there is no section, and no subsections either. The section is simply not about the demographics of anything other than the demograhics of the individuals who responded to this one exit poll. We don't even know which precincts we are reporting the demographics of. By having CNN exit poll in gthe third levelheading, we avoid the necessity of multiple subsection titles like Presidential preference of CNN exit poll respondents, since the "CNN exit poll" part is assumed to follow from the third level heading. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ramsey2006 that the section should be named "CNN exit poll". This is a much more accurate description of the section's (and its subsections') content. RobHar (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the objection raised was not accurate, I have changed the section name to "CNN exit poll" again. If there are any other objections just raise them here. RobHar (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's spent too much time on the Demographics section, I agree with name change to CNN exit poll. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 summary

"Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry".

POV.

"Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to return the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, a condition that existed before a ruling by the California Supreme Court".

NPOV.

75.168.222.140 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no POV problems with the first version. The main effect of Prop 8 (and the effect that was sought by those supporting it) was to eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry, that was previously guarenteed by the CA Constitution. The first version says that quite directly. The second version simply omits the real effect. It is not even mentioned in the supposedly NPOV version. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There was never any "right" for same sex couples to "marry". It was made up by the California Supreme Court. Your comment is indicative of the "progressive left" POV throughout Wikipedia. You are pushing your agenda. The intro is currently POV.

"Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to return the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, a condition that existed before a ruling by the California Supreme Court".

Is a true statement and NPOV. 75.168.211.27 (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As it's been said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias," and as is evident in this complaint, the simple reporting of fact leads some to allege a POV issue, which is not stimulated by the existence of a POV but its absence - the act of disregarding the complainants' POV. It is in fact true that the proposition "restrict[ed] the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry." This sore winner's version introduces the POV that the definition of marriage is somehow unchangable and must be "returned" to some prior state. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think right is well-defined as, "legal or moral entitlements or permissions." Therefore, the opening statement is correct. The court decided that same-sex marriage was a right, a legal or moral entitlement or permission. The proposition's intent, though drafted before the court case, was to indeed restrict the definition of marriage and eliminate that entitlement/permission of same-sex marriage. Yes, a different condition existed before the court case, but I think that's explained well in the article. Perhaps the sections could be rearranged to mention the history of marriage in California and In re Marriage Cases sooner and move the results down, but maybe we should wait until the official results come out? MrBell ^(talk) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Courts cannot make up rights, quoting some television actor doesn't make the intro any less POV, and post-modernist groupthink on Wikipedia is pervasive. This is another battlefield in the culture war. 75.168.219.191 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexual couples don't have a right to marry either. Laws have been made allowing them to marry. Everyone has a right to equality (as encoded in various constitutions). It is this right that has been revoked from homosexuals. Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to equality. In this specific case, this equality is manifested through the right to marry just like heterosexuals. RobHar (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no battle here, and wikipedia is not the grounds for which you may wage your personal war against all who disagree with you. Oh, also, courts do make rights, or rather, they make changes to the constitution so that all sentient beings are given equal rights. Please don't make me cite the numerous court cases that have taken place throughout time, which have granted rights to minorities that had previously not existed because one person was sexist, or another was racist. I wonder how long it will be before a word is made that signifies a religious bias against minorities.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are in denial of the obvious post-modernism at wikipedia. Pushing my agenda? Pot, kettle, black. 75.168.204.55 (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the correct interpretation is that there was a right protected under the state constitution of same sex couples to marry, and the proposition (assuming it is upheld) changed the constitution to deny that right. The right recognized by the supreme court was retroactive. The ruling was not that henceforth there will be a right, but that there is a right and that the laws to the contrary violate that right. If you want to get the timing correct, the best way to do that is to say that it was a right "recently recognized by the supreme court" or something like that. As a legal matter rights are not created by courts, they are created by constitutions and laws, and found or recognized by courts interpreting those. Wikidemon (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said. RobHar (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Legally, Wikidemon is dead right. Indeed, the very title and summary of Prop 8 include the text, "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry". NB - if the court upholds Prop 8, this will set a precedent that rights can be recognized by the courts and then eliminated by constitutional amendment; in which case, they must tackle a chicken-and-egg conundrum: which comes first, rights or constitutions (since the US Constitution was created expressly to establish a government most suitable to securing rights, per the Declaration of Independence)? But if the court strikes down Prop 8, it creates almost tyrannical power for the judiciary, removing the central check on its authority. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon and Wikibojopayne. Should the lede be changed to include Wikidemon's "was a right recently recognized by the supreme court?" Also, what about the results section (should it be after the history section)? After the official results come out, what would be a better ordering of the sections, or is the current one sufficient? MrBell ^(talk) 16:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there was so much agreement on this point, I made an edit which emphasizes the recentness of the recognition of the right. Perhaps that does the trick?--Bhuck (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Question: should lede's have citations, or do they only represent a summary of the article? MrBell ^(talk) 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Mrbell: Incidentally, I also prefer the spelling "lede." But, according to Wikipedia:Lead section, "there is not ... an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." The lede should create interest, establish context, summarize and, yes, "be carefully sourced as appropriate." While it's always a good idea to stick as closely to facts as possible, this seems especially important in the lede.

Regarding the issue at hand, I urge caution against any lede statements such as "the right of same-sex couples to marry existed [only] for a short time" or such rights "had [only] recently been recognized by the Supreme Court of California." While such a statement has a measure of surface truth, it also implies that this particular right was somehow less legally valid than others. Perhaps a case for this could be made, but it would open up a can of worms, and legal hairsplitting belongs anywhere in the article but the lede. Also, terms such as "recently" and "short time" are needlessly vague; why not be specific? If establishing this duration is important, the most factual way to do so is by stating dates: "The right for same-sex couples to marry was recognized in California from June 19 to November 4." Rangergordon (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Thanks for the clarification. Therefore, it sounds like this lede (or lead) needs to better summarize the article and have some refs? Any suggestions? MrBell ^(talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there was so much agreement on this point, I made an edit which emphasizes the recentness of the recognition of the right. Perhaps that does the trick?--Bhuck (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I caution against citing the "recentness" of the Cal Supremes' decision to imply either: 1. that the court decision was less valid than other, more longstanding, decisions; or, 2. that, prior to the amendment, the right of gays and lesbians to marry in California was merely theoretical and still subject to ratification by a majority of voters. It really must be made clear that Proposition 8's stated purpose and sole material effect was to amend the constitution to eliminate an existing right. There has been much confusion over this point, but the role of the Judicial Branch is constitutionally well defined; arguments that it is subordinate to the Legislative and/or Executive branches are politically motivated, violating NPOV and verifiability by reliable sources. This point simply is not a matter of opinion or consensus.

That being said, there's no reason not to cite the date of the court decision as Bhuck did. The edit is fine: It does not emphasize "recentness"—it simply states a fact. My only quibble is stylistic/grammatical: I don't think of court decisions as being "from" months, but "of" months (i.e. the "ruling of May 2008"). However, it still sounds awkward and overly periphrastic to me. I suggest this: "... a May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling which recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry ..." Rangergordon (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rangergordon and have no problem with the suggested re-wording. Although a native English speaker, I can only conclude that my phrasing must have been a result of back-translating via German ("...in einem Urteil vom Mai 2008...").--Bhuck (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nov. 15 merge into proposal (rejected)

Resolved

I've proposed that a newly created article about Nov. 15 protests be merged into this article. The protest page as it is now doesn't have enough unique information to constitute a stand-alone article, but the content fits within this subject. LH (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Opposed. The proposition 8 article is huge so merging even more content into it seems unhelpful at best. The 15 November protests were notable in size, nationwide coverage - especially for one state's proposition - and that they were organized grass roots style via the internet in a very short time. That article needs clean-up not demolition. -- Banjeboi 03:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Opposed. The Nov 15 protests are notable enough to deserve their own article. Hell, they took place in at least 3 cities here in Iowa. Although spurred by Prop 8, the protests had national scope, and have a significance that goes well beyond the laws and ballot initiatives of any one state. For example, much of the focus here was on the fact that the Iowa Supremes are just now taking up the issue (Iowa's law having already having been ruled unconstitutional by a lower state court), and are expected to rule sometime next year. If we merge it here, the section is likely to expand in several directions and overwhelm this article with information that is only tangentially related to Prop 8, forcing us to reevaluate the title of this article to reflect the wider focus. Better to have a stub section here on the national fallout with a link to the main Nov 15 article. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed as per above, develop rather than merge. rkmlai (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed: I don't know whether or not the protest article will develop enough to be sustainable, but because the protests occurred outside California and often incorporated non-Californian issues, such as Ramsey2006 mentions, and because this article is big already, merging would not be helpful.--Bhuck (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed: As a matter of fact, I think that the section about the protests should be reduced to a paragraph with it split to the protest article. This main article is getting pretty long. --w^{L<speak·check>} 04:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of the current information is about protests leading up to the November 15th protests so is more appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.34.224 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed. It make more sense to merge this with Protests against Proposition 8 supporters, perhaps to make a unified "after election day" article linked from the main one. tedder (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then let's not do this merger.--Bhuck (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation of "Revision"

The article currently discusses the legal challenges to and the CA Supreme Court ruling regarding the proposition. A challenge to the proposition is based on it being a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. Constitutional revision currently redirects to Constitution, but the latter article doesn't seem to specifically explain what a revision is. Might I ask someone to clarify this here or add wikilink to the explanation? I found this (page 2) which states, "[r]evisions, intended as substantial changes in quantity or quality..." but I still don't understand the concrete difference between a revision and an amendment. I added a request for comment on the Portal:Law page too. Thanks. MrBell ^(talk) 18:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding revision vs. amendment, Nkocharh made some additions[[1]] and I followed with a few more. Do these changes offer a better explanation? MrBell ^(talk) 20:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see someone appreciated the work I did over at California Constitution. I had created the section on amendments and revisions there because of my confusion over this very issue and after seeing how many people were asking this question. And yes, I think this article explains it adequately now. Nice job. :) Thompsontough (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Day Without a Gay

Should this be integrated into the article? Wildroot (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be more appropriate in the post-Prop 8 events under Protests against Proposition 8 supporters. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it think it should be on the article, just like the whole "satire movie" thing. It is a rather big deal, and not just some small little thing that isn't major enough to fit on the article.--cooljuno411 05:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest putting it on Join the Impact. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

auto-archiving

I'm boldly adding auto archiving to threads untouched for more than 3 weeks as this page is quite active. The paramater is set to leave a minimum of 8 threads so they page will also not empty. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Law suits LDS church

I read this on the news, wonder if its relevant for the article? --Rootbeerjunky (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionality

The article starts with the claim that Proposition Eight "changed the Constitition of California" this is an opinion that most voters, rightly or wrongly, would reject.

The Constitution of California no where mentions a right to "gay marriage" and no evidence is offered in the article that the writers of the Constitution of California defined any homosexual relationship as "marriage". All Proposition Eight did was to support the traditionial definition of marriage (whether this is a good or bad definition I leave moot) that had been upheld by the voters of California in Proposition 22.

No where in the Constitution of California is the Supreme Court of California given the right to AMEND the Constitution. It may be a very good thing to amend the Consititution of California to allow "gay marriage" - but five judges do not have any lawful authority to do so.

Therefore Proposition Eight did NOT "change" the Constitution of the Califorina, it prevented the effort of five judges to (wisely or unwisely) change the Constitution of California.

This is a legal matter - not a matter of "straight versus gay" and there are many gay people who would agree with every word I have just typed.

Paul Marks - comment ends. The rest is not from me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.92.241 (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and I'm sure there are many gay people (and lots of voters) who would also agree that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Effect on Reality? None. Relevance? None. You are right that California's constitution did not mention a right to gay marriage. NOR did it mention a right to straight marriage. This is mainly because THERE IS NO right to straight marriage. As far as governments are concerned it is a contractual arrangement endorsed by the authority of said government and nothing more. You can no more say that there is a right to marriage than you can say that there is a right to any other kind of contract. What gays do have is a right to equal protection under the law. If straight people can enter a marriage contract based on love, then gay people can too. Now proposition 8 may be able to deny them that right, it may not, but as far as politico-legal issues are concerned Proposition 8 is about equal protection (and the extent of it).59.38.32.9 (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Just like it'd take some serious amendments to the Constitution to declare that blue-eyed people or Muslims or whatever get all fees waived at the DMV. Prop 8 involves creating a constitutional distinction between two classes of citizens, and is therefore arguably a significant change. --GenkiNeko (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The California Supreme Court took it upon themselves to create a new definition of marriage in California. Proposition 8 returned marriage to it's proper definition. 75.168.209.73 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, I'm afraid. Legally, the supreme court DEFINED marriage in California under the standards of the constitution (EG: no discrimination) as being incapable of discriminating based on gender. So there was no change, the SC determined that a constitution which flatly discriminates on matters of gender is invalid on those criterion. Ergo, gender distinctions were taken out of marriage because the SC deemed them constitutionally incompatible. The practical result is that the law has ALWAYS been wrong, and now the original, appropriate constitutional and legal definition has been enacted. Proposition 8 changed the constitution to discriminate directly once more. 24.222.253.151 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The California Supreme Court took it upon themselves to create a new definition of marriage in California. Proposition 8 returned marriage to it's proper definition. The cultural norm is for opposite sex marriage, as this reflects societal recognition of the biological imperative for procreation. Same sex "marriage" is made up. You stand corrected. 75.168.204.47 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the constitution word for word the same after the passage of Proposition 8, or were there words added? I believe the latter is the case. Having searched the article cursorily, though, I did not find a verbatim copy of the sentence that was added, nor did I find any reference as to which part of the constitution (beginning, middle, end) this sentence was attached. That might be something we could be more explicit about, in order to clear up confusion like this.--Bhuck (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

GenkiNeko: could you elaborate on what defines a "significant change?" There is some info, but I think the article could use a more solid definition to clear up the confusion. Thanks.

Bhuck is correct. The constitution was changed (amended). Even before In re Marriage Cases, Prop 8's intent was to amend the constitution. However, let's not focus on whether the Supreme Court decision was "a new definition" or if "the law has ALWAYS been wrong." Rather, let's focus on presenting the "facts and facts about opinions." Let the reader choose their own opinions or biases. Unregistered users: let's avoid soapboxing, please. MrBell ^(talk) 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

It is probably still a bit too soon, but in a few days, we might want to re-try for Good Article status. The problem last time was that the article was not stable, with ca. 20 edits a day being made and the final results not having been certified. This has now changed.--Bhuck (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Should we rearrange the sections to show chronological order (e.g. History first, then Contributors, Opinion polls, Results, and Post-election events)? MrBell ^(talk) 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

More than the stability as an issue was that the impact of the vote was not readily apparent since the GA nomination was in November. I suggest for this article that one or a few editors go through it and consolidate some of these sections. The 2 - 3 sentence subsections need to be absorbed into other sections. The Table of Contents is unwieldy right now. Some of it needs to be summarized such as the Overall section in CNN Poll, and the article should be restructured. Why is Results at the top instead of after the introduction of the initiative? It seems as if the article is a collection of facts, where it should be rather a story told about the political process relating to the proposition. Take a look at other GA level Legal articles as a basis for comparison. Certainly, any part of the article that is questionable in terms of copyright violations needs to be fixed immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the length of certain sections, such as the ProtectMarriage.com letter, the CNN exit poll, and Post-election events (mostly Demonstrations)? Should we consider creating new articles or merging some info with other articles. I see there is considerable debate over at Protests against Proposition 8 supporters, and that might affect editing of Prop 8. Would thinning out the Demonstrations section be a worthy pursuit? MrBell ^(talk) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the CNN exit poll section is important because it is the only indication as to which groups supported and opposed the proposition. Part of the reason it is so long is that the question of support among African-Americans is such a touchy issue--the other part is that, aside from ethnicity, it is difficult to reach a consensus on just which issues (support of Bush, the Iraq War, gun ownership, religious practices, etc.) are relevant and which are not, so there is a tendency to state as many facts as possible, rather than doing the analysis of separating relevant from irrelevant facts. Simply shortening it without addressing these underlying issues will probably not be much of a stable improvement.

I also think we need to include the text of the amendment in the article, particularly because various people writing on the discussion page seem to not recognize which words, if any, were added to the California constitution.--Bhuck (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb in deciding how much information should be included in an article, and of what nature, is to measure what reliable sources have said about the topic. Of all the sources listed as references, how much weight do they put on the CNN poll? The protests afterward? The constitutionality of the proposition? Some will put more weight on some issues than others and some sources will be better than others, so you'll have to take them all into account. If you find that some information is somewhat valuable, but there is no way to place it in text, such as how I imagine the CNN poll is treated, consider a footnote section, similar to this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the CNN poll section now? In the notes section, I changed some refs to external links (it wouldn't work otherwise) and removed the in-line citations that referenced the poll but added that ref to the first sentence of the "CNN exit poll" section. Comments and suggestions? MrBell ^(talk) 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Renewed discussion

How about a renewal of the GA assessment discussion?

• What are the guidelines for tables of content? Is Prop 8's table of contents still too unruly? If so, should we change the subsections headings to bold titles only (e.g. ====Political figures==== to '''Political figures''')?
• What about the lead? Is it an appropriate indepedent summary?
• What about those longer sections, such as ProtectMarriage.com letter to Equality California donors and Demonstrations? Could they be shortened/moved to other articles?
• Any other suggestions for improvement? MrBell ^(talk) 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the lead, the final paragraph should be reduced from eight to three sentences or so. Otherwise it seems ok. As for the "longer sections", I think sections about specific actions/activities of the campaign (like the letter to donors) should probably be presented in a more general context without a header of their own.--Bhuck (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the lead's final paragraph, what about something simple?:

"After the election, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. The California Supreme Court has seen numerous lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8 from gay couples and government entities, challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court accepted the lawsuit and is expected to reach a ruling during 2009."

I left out the and claims of hate crimes because they're explained later in the article.

Do you mean "general context" as in reduce the size of the letter to donors subsection or just remove the header?

Lastly, concerning the subsection California Proposition 8 (2008)#Election results, what do you think about removing some statements in the first and second paragraphs discussing the release of the results? Also, the third paragraph seems out of place. I hesitate to remove it but think it might not add much to the article itself. It's appears to be more of an encouragement than an encyclopedic fact. MrBell ^(talk) 00:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested lead sounds fine to me.

With regard to the Protectmarriage.com letter, I would say combine that with the section about campaign spending and retitle it something about campaign finance or so. It might also be good to incorporate some reference to the subsequent boycotts of donors (even though they did not start until after the election, whereas protectmarriage.com made its threats before the election, I still see some parallels that might be worth pointing out).

Boycotting activity (not just threats) against supporters of Prop 8 actually began long before the election, predating the ProtectMarriage.com letter. See [2]BlueDigDog (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the election results subsection of the "Post-election events" section, I would say we could get rid of that entirely. Perhaps a fact or two that is worth saving could be moved to the "results" section. Also, with regard to the "CNN exit poll" section of the results, I think we finally have enough data that we could expand that section to include other indications of demographic correlations to voting behavior: see here, where there is a link to the .pdf of the study results.--Bhuck (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See also the section below: #New survey on Prop 8--Bhuck (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• One more thing: a bot just deleted an image, so the article now (again) has a severe imagery imbalance (5 anti, 1 pro). —EqualRights (talk)

Too bad about the deleted image. I thought it was a good balance to the discussions about imagery balance. I'll look for another one, but I'm not too good at finding stuff like that. Any thoughts were I could look?

How about this for a ProtectMarriage.com letter:

ProtectMarriage.com reportedly sent letters requesting that previous contributors to Equality California make similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com, stating, "It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage." A ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman estimated that 36 companies were targeted for the letter.

It's missing something with regard to the intent to publish names/blacklist and what Bhuck said about the subsequent boycotts. Suggestions?

I made some edits to the election results subsection. Is itAre the edits suitable?

Great links to the info for the CNN exit poll section. Any suggestions how it should be incorporated? MrBell ^(talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed and moved the ProtectMarriage.com letter per Bhuck's suggestions above. FYI: While I didn't initially add the ProtectMarriage.com letter, months ago I expanded it greatly to better illustrate both points-of-view (but made it excessively large on purpose, which was a mistake). MrBell ^(talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Probably the bot deleting the images is biased and opposed to Proposition 8.</sarcasm> I added a sentence relating the use of contributors' names before the election to the use of such names after the election. Otherwise, I think things look pretty good. Will have to give more thought to how to include the additional demographic information--that's not something I can do when there are a lot of other things on my plate as well--but no need to monopolize the information in case there are others out there with more time on their hands.--Bhuck (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, MrBell ^(talk) 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)