Talk:2012 Washington Referendum 74

Opinion Poll

I question the encyclopedic value of including the opinion poll. Poll numbers are transient by definition, vary depending on who measures them and how, and having them appear here just doesn't look very neutral. Belchfire (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We tend to track opinion polls as they show how public opinion shift during the course of a campaign. Their transience is part of the point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well... no. Those poll numbers won't mean a thing in 3-4 weeks even if public opinion remains static, and will mean even less in 3-4 years. I suppose I could see having a section talking about how public opinion has changed leading up to this point and/or over the course of the election season, but the table that's sitting there now seems to enshrine the numbers it contains in some sort of permanence. It isn't very encyclopedic. And besides, WP:NOTNEWS. Belchfire (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of our political articles track the changes in public opinion; having these two data points gives us material to build from. They are presumably not the final polls to be done on the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• The polls are not misleading. I specifically added the sentence that it represents opinions on same-sex marriage so it wouldn't be construed as opinions in favor of the referendum or against it. Pretty clear. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What's misleading is to present these polls without pointing out that they are only tangentially related to the Referendum. Belchfire (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying language is needed to point out that these polls were on the basic issue, NOT on Referendum 74 (which is, you know, the subject of the article). Belchfire (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I just aimed for short and sweet. Also in favor of = against, not in favor. And "the following chart" is just lame IMHO. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the last edit: "Public opinion surveys, though not referencing Referendum 74, have reported those in favor of same-sex marriage and those against it." It is perhaps not quite ideal, but it gets the job done. Just so we point out to the casual reader that the polls weren't asking people how they were going to vote on the specific ballot issue that the article is based on. Belchfire (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Campaign fundraising section slightly misleading--help!

Can someone with better writing skills than me fix the campaign fundraising section, please? The way it currently is written, it sounds like Preserve marriage washington is for the referendum, and washington united for marriage is against it, which reflects the situation before the referendum had enough signatures to get on the ballot, but now kind of is the opposite of the situation, as washington united for marriage wants it passed as is and preserve marriage washington wants it voted down. I hope I'm making some sense =). thanks =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.92.181 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I've added some verbiage that should correct the situation. Belchfire (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Move Article to Washington Referendum 74 (2012)

To be in keeping with other US measures, this entry should be moved to Washington Referendum 74 (2012)

The basic title format of State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) provides maximal information very concisely: California Proposition 13 (1978), Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992), Washington Referendum 71 (2009), Washington Initiative 502 (2011), and Colorado Amendment 64 (2012). Redirects such as Proposition 13 can easily be established for famous items or from year-to-year, with those easily converted do disambiguation pages as needed should similar titles be WP:Notable. The State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) format is well established for most US states and is the simplest, most comprehensive and least ambiguous convention. Rorybowman (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Washington Initiative 1029 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: 'not moved. There appears to be no consensus for the proposed moves.' Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Useless map replaced

Yes

  70–80%

  60–70%

  50–60%

No

  70–80%

  60–70%

  50–60%

Source: General Election Results - Wash. Secretary of State

I replaced the useless map at right. It literally contains zero useful information. It does not indicate whether the referendum passed or not. It does not indicate how close the vote was. It does not indicate the total number of votes cast. It contains only one factoid: how far ahead either yes or no was per county, without accounting for how many votes were cast in that county. So we can see that 'no' was far ahead, with 70%, in tiny Garfield county, and this is treated as a significant thing. The outcome of the vote is not in any way determined by winning counties, so a map that emphasizes this is extremely misleading.

The pies-on-map version is a type of cartogram that combines geographic location with *accurate* representation of significant information; namely, the number of votes. It shows both where yes and no were ahead, and it shows how many votes that adds up to. So the 71% for no in Garfield county is displayed proportionately: there's only 1,262 votes there, out of 76,514, which is only 1.6%.

I was going to ask what changes needed to be made to make the map colorblind accessible, but I checked it with Colorblindly and it already is, so the whole issue is moot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)