Jump to content

Talk:2008 California Proposition 8

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chrisvls (talk | contribs) at 16:08, 2 April 2021 (→Lead sentence: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nominee2008 California Proposition 8 was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 16, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
May 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on California Proposition 8 (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for cleanup

In the Post-election events section, there is a substantial amount of duplication between the Immediate response and Fines subsections, including duplication of an image. If someone could remove the duplication that would be great! 192.91.171.36 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Removed dup image - FlightTime (open channel) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in an opinion page by The New York Times, the Times called the backlash a "mob veto," and urged violence against the supporters to cease, signed on by academics, politicians and writers.

This is false. There's no citation for it because no such column existed. An ad, purchased by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, ran in the NY Times using the phrase "mob veto". It wasn't a column, and shouldn't be attributed to the paper. Possibly redundant (definitely more political) page Protests against Proposition 8 supporters is more accurate. Thank you Paulspyder (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference that may be used as a citation for that claim;
"The Fund ran a full page New York Times ad in 2008 suggesting that opponents of the unconstitutional California Proposition 8 were “thugs” seeking a “mob veto” via a an anti-Mormon “religious war” has worked to erode the separation of church and state through pushing to allow prayer at government functions, religious symbols in public spaces, public funding for religious schools, and discrimination against same-sex couples by those with faith-based anti-LGBTQ views".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and this one;
A full-page New York Times ad has sparked a war of words between gay groups and their allies and conservative religious leaders. The ad, sponsored by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asserts that gays and lesbians have engaged in a pattern of mob violence against Mormons after the passage of Proposition 8 in California; gays meanwhile have pushed back, asserting that the church is not the victim. The ad, headlined “No Mob Veto,” claims that since Prop. 8 passed, angry gays have engaged in mob-like and threatening actions, some disguised as demonstrations, over the vote to ban same-gender marriage in California.
So clearly your bias and original research is the issue and not the accuracy of the article's claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That and your not understanding what an opinion page is.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been a lot more tired last night than I thought because this morning I can see the real issue is stating that the Times called the backlash a "mob veto. That is inaccurate. It was a special interest group that made the claim not the paper.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done:--Mark Miller (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: Closing this request as part of housekeeping as it seems to be completed. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That whole paragraph at the end of the lede should be placed somewhere in the body. It's really awkward to have something so detailed in the lede.TheLonelyGoatherder (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Error

In section 3.3.1, the first sentence is grammatically incorrect. The word "while" is used twice, the first use of "while" should be removed to fix the sentence. H, H, R... character (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

I saw a reference to Prop 8 on a CDP article. I hovered over it and all it said was that it was a proposition and constitutional amendment that passed. Could have been a tax law, or bail reform, or anything. Given MOS:FIRST, it seems to me that the first sentence should at least introduce the topic of the law. Also, describing it as "passed" but not saying it is no longer in effect also seems to bury the lead.

  • Old version: Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment that passed in the November 2008 California state elections.
  • New version: Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court.

It seems to be overly technical to have both the proposition and constitutional amendment references, though they are technically correct.

  • Shorter still version: Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition to ban same-sex marriage that passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court.

Discuss. Chris vLS (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_California_Proposition_8&oldid=1015633537"