Talk:Strauss v. Horton

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

Doesn't explain the Constitutional Amendment process[edit]

This article doesn't really clarify how the California Constitution can be amended. If it's by a simple majority vote, it doesn't seem like the protections contained in it are very strong...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caveats: Things That Need Looking At[edit]

I am not a lawyer, as will be readily apparent to readers who are. This means that much of my wording is likely imprecise. I know I've used the wrong cite format for the various court paperwork, but at least I got something down that's clear. In places I read the court documents and summarized them, I think clearly and fairly, but at some point I worry that that approaches WP:OR. Any and all assistance welcome. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the amici section could use a list of notable amici, pro and con. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify[edit]

I do see some legal talk in the article is there a way to make it more understandable to the average reader? Knowledgekid8712:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be happy to clean up the legal talk you see. However, I am familiar enough with basic legalese that I don't notice it. If you get the chance, please point out what words we should clean up and we will look into it.—Shattered Gnome (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review[edit]

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

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • 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)
  • 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) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead in this article has the same problems as I encountered on the Proposition 8 mother article. I think that the plaintiffs, a partial history, and the reasons for lawsuit and its contents should be included in the lead. Perhaps somebody with more experience in law could work on that? --haha169 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrations and events[edit]

I'm removing this sentence:

Amnesty International has also condemned Proposition 8, saying that "states should never withhold rights based on minority status".[35]

because it is neither a demonstration nor an event. If you want to insert it elsewhere in the article, do so with a balanced point of view. This means, you must represent both sides. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protect?[edit]

Given on how recent events could stir up emotions on both sides I would protect this article in the near future (or sooner). Knowledgekid87 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfPP --haha169 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the decision could be announced any day, and send flocks of saboteurs here, I agree. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not now - AfD RfD doesn't accept premature nominations. --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's usually the policy of the Court to announce 1-2 days in advance of the decision that the decision will be announced, maybe we can semi-protect then? --Joe Decker (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfPP still doesn't accept premature nominations. You could try - maybe they've changed that rule or they might give an exception for this given previous precedent on California, Vermont, and Iowa articles...but I'm not sure if it would work. In any case, waiting to see if there actually is any vandalism would solve a lot of problems. --haha169 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal suit[edit]

Doesn't this article need to also address federal lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 that was filed after the CA Supreme Court decision?[1] 75.76.213.106 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to make that a separate article. This article is already fairly long, and a single court case per article is fairly standard for law articles. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Proposition 8 article mentions the legal challenges (Strauss v. Horton, and the federal suit). I don't think Strauss v. Horton (the CA case) needs to refer to the federal case. Dr.enh (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was only recently moved to Strauss v. Horton; originally it was an article for all legal challenges to Prop 8. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Strauss v. Horton. 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 09:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Strauss v. Horton. 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 10:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Strauss v. Horton. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strauss_v._Horton&oldid=1205282166"