Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 10

Others in favour of prop 8
In the section on "Others" (subsection of prop 8 proponents), some material about Porterville City Council has recently been added that lacks citations. There's no citation to a reliable source for a claim made (that i have reverted) that there is a link between the council resolution and the town vote. I'd be surprised if it could be substantiated. This also isn't a large town centre. We need to be careful with ensuring neutral point of view, and not giving undue weight to minor aspects of the campaigns etc. Otherwise a section like this "other" sectoin will become filled with inconsequential details of every supporter of prop 8, large or small, and the same thing will happen in the "opponents" section, and we'll have another edit war on our hands. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a little bit like proving a negative, but I have researched it, and have never been able to find any news of council minutes anywhere in California that suggests that other Councils took a similar position. I am not alone: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6844975

and

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/residents-say-citys-support-for-proposition-8-hurting-them.html

It certainly would have been news IMHO if others had done this, and it would would certainly be noted in the meeting minutes. For a while I thought it may have been that San Diego addressed the issue, but I had the relevant documents forwarded to me from San Diego City Hall under a Public Records Act, and it turned out they did not take the position that Porterville did.

Now let me address your opinion that Porterville is too minor to matter with a couple of points. The National Eqauality March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Equality_March) has its origins here in Tulare County. Robin McGehee, a professor at a Tulare County Community College, organized an event called "Meet in the Middle" in Fresno to create awareness that the Prop 8 Campaign was lost in the Central Valley (that area you are referring to as "inconsequential").

That event drew the attention of Cleve Jones, who announced (I was there) the plans for the National Equality March during his speech.

While the trend of the vote overall in the Central Valley was strongly in favor of Prop 8, it was Tulare County and more specifically Porterville that led the way in the campaign in the Valley itself, and in the end it was a prevailing argument. Statewide, only 52% voted in favor, but in Tulare County, there was the highest vote in favor of Prop 8 in the entire state- 74%: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory. I don't have the figures for Porterville itself handy this minute, but in the City (of population ~50,000, not the cross-roads you might think it is), the City responded to the Call to Action by voting over 75% in favor of Prop 8.

Porterville is the 3rd largest city in Tulare County, and Tulare County in in the top 3 agricultural producing counties in the US, and arguably the world. Yes, it is primarily rural in the county, but Tulare County and Porterville are significant to California's economy, and in its politics.

The third reason why this is significant is that, even if Porterville's Council's action was not unique (although it is), the wording of it is odd at best. Here is the text of the Resolution: http://www.recorderonline.com/news/porterville-38329-state-prop.html

In it, you will see that

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville hereby pledges support for Proposition 8 and urges Porterville voters to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage by voting yes on Proposition 8.

With this clause, the body of elected representatives are not only taking a unique position, but urging those that they represent to do the bidding of the Council, whereas in representative democracy, it works the other way around - the representatives do the bidding of the people.

I am not here to start an editing war, but to note facts which were key to the outcome of the election as a whole, and which resulted in a National March on Washington in opposition. That doesn't happen every day, but it did happen starting in Porterville and Tulare County. Readers of this Wiki article deserve to know about it. Humanisland (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation Leads to 404
This is my first time discussing an article, apologies if this posting is miscategorized. The sentence "Support for Proposition 8 was strong amongst African American voters..." cites footnote 143, an article that ran in the Sacramento Bee entitled "Exit polls show Obama's coattails limited." However the link provided to that article now returns a 404 error (i.e. "The page you requested no longer exists"). I wasn't able to find an archived copy of the article.

My question is this: Is this still a valid citation?

Curious to read your thoughts! 71.202.29.84 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the discussion tab. Your instincts were spot on in trying to find an archived copy of the article that's no longer available at the Sac Bee. I took a quick stab at finding it too, but to no avail. I have removed the link (it's still there in an HTML comment, but it no longer displays in the article). The citation remains valid. Obviously, having the cited work available online is preferable, but not required: see WP:DEADREF. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Discrimination in the United States
The Category:Discrimination in the United States is appropriate, and implies nothing. Prop. 8 is discriminatory, by definition. The definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." The group in question in this article is couples consisting of one man and one woman. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the category is appropriate but for a different reason. California's Supreme Court ruled that as a matter of law forbidding same sex marriages was illegal discrimination under the state's constitution.  The voters changed the constitution so that it was no longer illegal discrimination.  Lacking a legal standard it is subjective to say whether it is discrimination or not (in the sense of the category).  But adding the category is okay because it merely informs the reader that this article reaches the subject of discrimination.  A reader wanting to know about discrimination should be informed about sexual orientation discrimination.  Even if you believe that it's okay to discriminate against gay people you should still know the subject if you want to talk about it.  By contrast I think the "homophobia" tag goes too far  This article is not about homophobia, it's about an anti-gay law.  Only indirectly is it about homophobia, that being (controversially) a presumed motive of people who discriminate.  We discussed that latter point in some detail a few months back if you search the talk page archives - Wikidemon (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether discrimination is legal or illegal, morally desirable or morally objectionable. Prop. 8 is discriminatory, and it belongs in the category "Discrimination in the United States". --Dr.enh (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that, saying that prop. 8 is discriminatory is a matter of opinion, I have been quiet about my thoughts on this until I see someone else (Captain Pickles) feels the same way on the matter. To avoid possible NPOV problems lets just drop the Category and leave the issue for the courts (or maybe history) to decide in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, let's not drop the category. Discrimination is a concept, and not necessarily a negative one. The debate around Prop 8 has been in part about the appropriateness of a law that may discriminate between classes of persons. Look at it from the point of view of someone using the category to find relevant articles, instead of thinking about the Prop 8 article for a moment. If I were looking for articles on WP that go to issues relating to discrimination in the USA, including discrimination law and social debate, would it not be odd to not find the article on Prop 8 in that list? Let me put it yet another way. Let me for the sake of argument say I agreed with Knowledgekid, "saying that prop. 8 is discriminatory is a matter of opinion". Even if that were true, that makes the category tag appropriate. The article should be in this category, even by knowledgekid's logic, because some people say Prop 8 is discriminatory. Not to tag it as relevant to the subject of discrimination implies there is no such debate, and surely no one, on any side of this discussion, would suggest that. The category should be re-instated. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * saying that prop. 8 is discriminatory is a matter of opinion Knowledgekid87, please consult the dictionary. The definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." The group in question in this article is couples consisting of one man and one woman. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr.enh, that rational is working on the basis that gays have been entitled all these years/decades/centuries all along to gay marriage. Many people, for example the people of California, by a somewhat small margin, felt for one reason or another that gays should not be granted the right/privelidge/permission to be married to one another. Was this intended to "discriminate"? Hard to say. The only people who think it is discimination is the ones who can no longer get married. I personally operate on the premise that marriage, going back to the earliest recorded times, is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, with the purpose of having a family. Gays technically can't procreate, so therefore a "gay wedding" is a oxymoron. Many people feel gay marriages are a mockery of this tradition, which coincidentally is deeply rooted in all the world religions.

By claiming prop 8 is discriminatory, you are taking the POV that gays are entitled to gay marriage. These seems partial, and some people, including myself, feel they are not.

By the way, personally I think civil unions are a good remedy. CaptainPickles (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestlly this is all fighting over a category, does prop 8 belong in discrimination in the United States? If you supported prop 8 the answer is most likely No if you were against it the answer is most likely yes. This is something that has been argued in courts and shouldnt have to spill into wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * CaptainPickles and Knowledgekid87, can you read a dictionary definition? The word "discrimination" has neither positive nor negative connotations (see the definition!), despite your irrelevant remarks about entitlement and law. Discrimination is about categories as opposed to individual merit. As an example, a minimum voting age is discrimination (based on age). --Dr.enh (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain then how Prop 8 is Discrimination in the United States? A choice was made about a group rather than a single person yes but so have so many other things that have not been labeled as discrimination in the United States. What labels a choice discrimination and what does not? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What labels a choice discrimination and what does not? A choice was made about a group rather than a single person's individual merit. ...but so have so many other things... Other stuff exists is not relevant to this discusssion.--Dr.enh (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Discrimination in the United States (Rough Consensus)
Rather than all this reverting back and forth, I am pulling a rough consensus on the matter for third party input. The question is does adding Category:Discrimination in the United States raise NPOV concerns? Please place a Keep or Remove tag and reasoning on why it should or should not be kept.

The result was Keep - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel as it is NPOV as it did involve a group yes but the courts raised the question on if or if not prop 8 was discriminatory, this all has to do with prop 8, and readers do take things diffrently. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say the courts raised the question on if prop 8 was discriminatory", it concluded it was, but that that particular example of discrimination was legal under the state constitution. I beleive that that argues for inclusion, not against it.  --Joe Decker (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay keep it, everyone makes misjudgements. At least now this issue shouldnt be raised again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Prop. 8 fits the definition of discrimination, viz. "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." The group in question in this article is couples consisting of one man and one woman. --Dr.enh (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Prop. 8 does appear to fit the definite of discrimination both here and here.  Without additional evidence, I would favor keeping the topic, unless verifiable evidence is presented that supports the aforementioned NPOV claims.  Mr Bell  ( talk ) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove I think it is a NPOV issue- by claiming "discrimination,' you are making a presumptive qualifier that same sex couples are somehow entitled of marriages, despite the fact this is contrary to the majority of current laws, court rulings, and public opinions CaptainPickles (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep First, I don't think it's accurate to say that putting this article in the Disc. cateogry is equivalent to saying "Proposition 8 discriminates."  To my mind, the category's primary function in Wikipedia (IMHO) is to point people at articles touching on the topic of social and legal discrimination, as a category, it should greatly err on the side of including articles which discuss matters for which "is this discrimination" is controversial. Even if we had a legal decision in which a law was found to not have been discriminatory in any way by a legal body after a public controversy, the controversy itself would warrant, IMHO, the inclusion of the topic in the category, not to "label" the topic of the article as being discriminatory, but because the article discusses an issue central to the question of what is or isn't discirminatory, whether or not it actually is.   Second, as a point of law, the decision that upholds 8 does  not say that "Prop 8 doesn't discriminate", in effect it says that "Prop 8 *may* (e.g., "is legally allowed to") discriminate". The difference is signficant and meaningful, and supports (from the legal usage of the term discrimination) inclusion of the article in the category. --Joe Decker (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)  (and slightly edited a few moments later for clarity.)
 * Keep: Proposition 8 is currently involved in a case regarding whether it's discriminatory (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). As some users above have commented, the category should be included because the discrimination debate over this proposition has been well-noted. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is about whether Prop. 8 is legal discrimination or illegal discrimination. There are plenty of instances of legal discrimination, such as not allowing minors to vote (based solely on their age) and not including women in the U.S. draft. --Dr.enh (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: This deserves the category simply for the reasons Dr.enh gave. Any law that says "only this class of people can do this" is, by definition, discrimination.  We have PLENTY of discriminatory laws in this country that we see as useful discrimination that benefits society.  ONLY people over the age of 21 can drink alcohol.  ONLY those with sight can drive.  ONLY those who have not been convicted of sexually predatory offenses can work in schools.  These are all GOOD forms of discrimination, but they ARE discrimination, none-the-less. Viciouslies (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the tag, per Dr enh's reasoning, and my own reasoning earlier - I want to again emphasise that categories are meant to help people find relevant and related content in Wikipedia and, whatever one might think about Prop 8 / gay marriage / civil unions etc, it is not sensible, from a reader's point of view, to not have this article in the "discrimination in the US" category, as it is an important part of the debate. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with hamiltonstone's emphasis on the interests of the reader.  Any reader who's looking through the "Discrimination in the United States" category is likely to be interested in this article. JamesMLane t c 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Electoral fraud allegation
User:JamesMLane recently added the following text to the article:
 * The Election Defense Alliance questioned the validity of the officially reported results, based on an analysis of those results and exit poll data. The two were in close agreement for another ballot proposition (requiring parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking abortions) but diverged for Proposition 8.  The organization concluded:
 * "Although this exit poll analysis cannot provide conclusive proof of election fraud (because such proof would require access to memory cards and computer code accorded proprietary exemption from public examination) it does provide the strongest indirect proof available that election results have almost certainly been altered by manipulation of the computerized voting systems."

I do not think this should be retained. This is an exceptional and disturbing claim that should require exceptional sources for support. If no-one other than the EDA is making this claim, and if there has been on substantiation of it, then it should not be in the article. Furthermore, having visited the EDA web page, this appears to be a small operation publishing non-peer-reviewed reports by one individual, so it is not clear that it meets standards for being a reliable source, certianly not in the case of such strong claims. Electoral fraud on this scale would be likely to be a state or even national scandal, spawn official investigations, front-page headlines etc. Unless all these things can be produced, then the claim should not be allowed to stand in an encyclopedia article. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that extensive validation from government sources and the corporate media should be required before we report the facts about an issue like this. It's obviously not some random crackpot blogger who says "Everyone I know voted against Prop 8 so it couldn't have passed except through fraud."  Rather, the report is based on specified data, it sets forth its methodology in detail, and it acknowledges the limits of the analysis.  Professor Phillips, who authored the report, has written a book about the contested Presidential election in Ohio in 2004.  In the recent special election in NY-23, an area newspaper published his analysis of problems with the reported results and described him as "one of the leading election fraud investigators in the United States".   This is a significant viewpoint that deserves to be reported.  (Obviously we would not assert as a fact that there was fraud, but my edit clearly attributes the intimation of fraud to the EDA.)  We should also include neutrally worded reports of any responses from the Board of Elections, other academics, etc. JamesMLane t c 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's going to be included there should be independent confirmation that it's notable (coverage in independent reliable sources) and it should be tightened up considerably. And statements like "The two were in close agreement for another ballot proposition (requiring parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking abortions) but diverged for Proposition 8" need to be attributed and properly sourced.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I wish the authors did uncover interesting patterns. However, having a significant part of my education and profession being statistics-oriented, I can assure you that it is quite clear the analysis does not even rise to the level of descriptive statistics in a first-level undergrad course, let alone offer any actual insight. This is not the kind of material that is authoritative for either side, not any more than the edited youtube videos that are sure to be available from the California Federal Courthouse in the next few days. The "study" is not even amateur hackery, and we all deserve better from our propaganda. Humanisland (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I note other editors have started to jump in and delete or revert deletions of this material. My view is consistent with CoM and HumanIsland, to delete all of it at present, and to re-instate some or all content only once better sources create a clearer picture. While Phillips may have some status, that does not necessarily transfer to any given item written by him. The question is not whether he is notable, but whether the individual publication in question meets standards for reliability. Nor would i place much trust on a minor paper's journalist's description of him. Worse, his book appears self-published, and doesn't meet the reliability criteria. One comment to CoM though - information within an article does not need to meet wikipedia's notability criteria, so that is not relevant here. It should however meet reliability criteria, and not give undue weight to particular POVs, both of which appear relevant concerns. At present the material is missing from the article following a deletion by CaptainPickles. I think it should stay deleted, and unless a consensus to the contrary emerges here, i will revert re-instatement of the material unless introduced with better sourcing. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the information in Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008) as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Protests against Prop 8 supporters
I don't think that this passage deserves another section, based on the fact that there is another section that covers violence/protests against both sides later on in the article. The section in question had a link to another page that I posted as a 'see also' on the 'Crimes against supporters and opponents' heading. Urbandale (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Multiple sections are redudndant. CaptainPickles (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The aforementioned editor has been blocked indef for vandalism.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pic Yes to 8
For you, fresh upload: --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 23:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not funny, and is POV, please remove it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)
 * Image removed per: "This is not a forum for general discussion of California Proposition 8 (2008). Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting modification of the article title
After consulting WP:TITLE (specifically WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION), as well as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I believe the title "Proposition 8" is more suitable than "California Proposition 8 (2008)". Thoughts? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would create a logistical nightmare. Current or future Prop 8s that have been or will be on the books will have to be redirected, there'd be a disambiguation page, et cetera. It is my personal opinion that keeping in line with the current format is consistent with other ballot measures, even though one could easily argue Prop 8 was one of the more famous ones, and of course there would never be confusion. Just my thoughts....anyone else? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm probably with Gnarly, but it's tricky.
 * WP:COMMONNAME says "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article". Obviously this would suggest "Proposition 8" would be the best title. However, there is an element of recentism in this. Ten years from now, when most people have forgotten about the 2008 Californian ballot, there may be less claim to say it is the commonest title. That is, the only reason "Proposition 8" is commonest is that it is the most talked about ballot measure at present; however past Californian ballot measures carrying the number 8 would be just as likely in their time to have been called that same thing. And one day, when these are all historical footnotes, none may stand out from the others.
 * WP:PRECISION favours being "precise but only as precise as is needed". The current title is as precise as possible while still successfully distinguishing ballot measures from each other (California is necessary, and 2008 is necessary).
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC includes this "If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic" - currently Proposition 8 is not the disambig page (which is Proposition 8 (disambiguation)); rather, Proposition 8 is a redirect. I can see why, If "Proposition 8" is not itself the disambiguation page, then it may as well be the actual article page.
 * Of course, as long as hatnotes are used effectively, it may not matter too much. There are a lot of articles that link to this one, so that may bear some consideration as well, though my reading of WP:MOVE does not suggest that this is a problem. Certainly, a lot of articles currently link dirrectly to "Proposition 8" (ie. the redirect). However, if the article used to be at Proposition 8, moving it again may create double redirects, which are a problem. I think this article has been moved at least twice before (from California Marriage Protection Amendment to Limit on Marriage Amendment to its current location), but there aren't any articles linking to those old locations. Dunno. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in all but one part. Most familiar with Prop 6 recall it as such as equally as "The Briggs Initiative"...and that was nearly forty years ago. Same is the case with Prop 187.


 * On a side note, I'm the first to call out recentism. I think it sucks and that it's unencylopedic. However, Prop 8 was as important in November 2008 as it is now because its aftermath is being and will be seen in our Federal courts....possibly to the Supreme Court. But that's probably off topic. What I was trying emphasize is that in order to rid the article of any whiffs of recentism, I think it would be important the keep the title the same as any ballot initiative on Wikipedia.


 * On yet another side note, thanks Hamiltonstone for breaking it down as you did. Your format will set the debate up for success. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * After thinking a bit more about this, this discussion probably needs to happen for articles on ballot initiatives in general. The format "State Initiative ## (YYYY)" is extremely common now. But it calls into question how Wikipedia's naming conventions should apply to these articles, and because of this, it probably should be discussed in a more general forum. We may need to consider bringing this up somewhere else. That said, though, I'd like to respond to some specific points:


 * GnarlyLikeWhoa, while I recognize the need for disambiguation from other possible "Proposition 8" articles, I think it's unfair to knock this proposal because "current or future Prop 8s that have been or will be on the books will have to be redirected". We can't anticipate that. If in the future, "Proposition 8" becomes too ambiguous, then we can easily change things around to reflect that. But right now, as I see it, this ballot initiative is the primary topic of the term "Proposition 8", and the term is common and precise enough for the purpose of identifying this ballot initiative.


 * hamiltonstone, maybe this Prop 8 will just be a historical footnote ten years from now, like all other past measures called Prop 8. However, this Prop 8 remains a lot more notable than your average California proposition a year and a half after the campaign (who remembers all the other props on the 2008 ballot?). It's possible that we'll talk about Prop 8 like we talk about Prop 13 — that is, without much confusion, even three decades later, and even when there were many other measures called Prop 13. Maybe it won't actually happen, but in my judgment, this is how things currently stand, and I think this should be reflected. Also, I'm skeptical that the disambiguating keywords "California" and "2008" are necessary, but I suppose this is subjective. Your point concerning double redirects is a good one, though.


 * — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't anticipate the future but we can prepare. I don't think, personally, that it is responsible to push renaming onto future editors when this can be squashed now. Further, the changing of all ballot titles is something to be taken up elsewhere. I stand by keeping Proposition 8 consistent with all other ballot titles, despite its notability. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well. I'll look for a more general forum to bring up a more general discussion on the ballot measure naming conventions. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"History of the Ballot Initiative"
While the current status of marriage equality is certainly pertinent to the movement in this moment, does "As of November 2009, when legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine was defeated by referendum, same-sex marriage had been defeated in all 31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote." belong in this section? I would argue that the status of marriage equality up until its passage would be relevant, not up until now.

If the sentence is kept, should "As of November 2009" remain? In this case I would argue that that part of the article would require monthly updates. What are your thoughts? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "History of the Ballot Initiative" should refer to the history of the CA ballot and other related topics "up until its passage", and other events should probably be moved to Same-sex marriage or other article. Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation Problem
The second paragraph of this article (beginning with "Proponents") is made up of a bunch of quotes with no citation from the affirmative side that paint a weak view of the side. Why on earth should these lines have quotes around them if no one said them? If someone can find the source, then cite them; if not, they should remove the quotations cause its just basically a poor man's argument in favor of prop 8.

Nothing like a biased wikipedia page. I don't know why it pisses me off so much, probably just overexposure to liberal bias that has finally gotten under my skin. 68.217.39.236 (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The citation for all the quotes is given at the end of the relevant paragraph. The link still works, it's a link to the California Secretary of State's web site, which gives the official ballot summaries, etc.  Here's the link.   --Joe Decker (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)  (edited for clarity and to add the URL at --Joe Decker (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC) )

California Marriage Equality Act Merge
Seeing that this bill was defeated, would it be best to merge it into this article or into Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008)? I just do not think this article is notable enough for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely. AV3000 (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Article has been redirected, much of the info on the stand alone article was already included elsewhere anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

County breakdown?
Should this stay or be removed? I'm kinda neutral on this, leaning towards stay. What you say? --haha169 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting, as long as it's sourceable (I'll take a look and add a source if I find one) I don't see any particular problem with it, but I don't feel strongly about it, either. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I sourced and checked the figures for a few of the counties. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I see no problem keeping it. The new addition does increse the size of the article though by a bit and I kind of thought the map showing the counties was enough and spoke for itself (Counties either went no or yes, red or green). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We could make it a collapsible table. Anyone well-versed with table wiki? --haha169 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, but I'm curious, lemme go take a look? --Joe Decker (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's not hard to make it a collapsable table (and in fact I have). It looks a bit odd, as noted [here], because it's both a collapsable table and a sortable table.  I adjusted the column with on county name and that helped a bit, widening the county name a little more would create more separation. What do people think?  I certainly like the reduction in space, more information for those who want it, but easy to skip over for folks who don't. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got the reference into a nicer place by introducing a table title, but the table title is kinda redundant with the section title.  (That is, it says "County breakdown" and then it repeats at the table "Breakdown of voting by county").  What would folks think about just dropping the former?  That would allow the reference to have a nice place to live, and I think it would look okay.  Thoughts? --Joe Decker (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Collapse Opinion Polling table?
Like a guy who just figured out how to use a hammer, I see a lot of nails. What would people think about making the opinion polling wikitable collapsable? (That is, giving it a show/hide button.) --Joe Decker (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea - any way to make the show / hide button on them a little more obvious though? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so, as I look on it. Have a look at a cut-down example I made of that table in my Sandbox.    Putting an additional row on it has the advantage of making the title of the table stick out, making HIDE/SHOW stick out more, and so on.  That's not as possible I don't know how to make that work for the other table I converted, the county table, though, there are limitations on how sortable tables work, and the same trick wouldn't work there unless I made it sortable as well.  I think.  :) --j &#9883; e deckertalk 00:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed discussion
The following is moved here to avoid disruption yet preserve the record - several editors have closed this due to BLP concerns over the reporting of rumors of a public official's sexuality as it relates to his job, and the likelihood of any of this material getting to the article given current sourcing appears remote - Wikidemon (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory."

This should be mention. Had he been a fundamentalist Christian who had upheld Prop 8, that would've been mentioned. NotARepublican55 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the central article on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Walker isn't mentioned here. The gayness of that Bush appointee is mentioned on the case's page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a great idea to look at legal rulings that way. For the most part, that kind of stuff is not considered relevant.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, Walker being gay means that he has major conflicts of interest in this case and should have recused. Federal law provides for required recusal in the following circumstances:
 * 1) "any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding" (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4))
 * 2) "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (28 U.S.C. § 455(a))

As a point of criticism - and a very strong analogy - I offer the following quote. Admittedly, it wouldn't fit into the article except in a "criticism of ruling" section. "His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute."

At the very least, the following phrase should be added to the end of the Post-Election Events section: "pro-Proposition 8 groups have condemned the conduct of the trial and the ruling's content on the basis that Walker, who is openly gay, should have recused himself from the case for a conflict of interest." Whether There&#39;s Weather Underground (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Walker's member of a protected minority class affected by the case was not an issue in the case, and is not related to the question of the constitutionality of the ballot measure. If that can be sourced as a major political argument, it might be appropriate in a "public reaction" section of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the article about the case, but it would have to be put in context with a sourced statement that judges who are members of a protected class (blacks, gays, straights, Christians, whatever) are not required to recuse themselves from rulings on the basis of affecting the civil rights of the class. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wikidemon. Native94080 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You all might want to overlook the U.S. Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which deals with a Christian group wanting recognition from a public law school in San Francisco. The Christian group is anti-gay.  Their website here explains their own analysis of the SCOTUS decision. Native94080 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you are not a native English speaker, "Native94080", unless you are actually asking us to ignore the case in question? Perhaps you wish us to "look over", "look into", or "look at" the case, meaning to observe and inspect for relevant information to the topic at hand?
 * I'm also not entirely sure what relevance the case you point out has regarding Walker's being gay, his duty under Federal code to recuse himself from cases in which he has a personal or financial stake, and questions now being raised in regard to the fairness of the trial as conducted and the legitimacy of Walker's decisions of fact and law thereby. Could you clarify that please? Whether There&#39;s Weather Underground (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that he's gay was well known before this case. If the defendants thought they had any hope of winning on that argument they'd have asked him to recuse himself; they didn't.  Exploding Boy (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Folks, this isn't a WP:FORUM. What's to be discussed here is the editing of this article -- and since the matter at question is a single aspect of the public response to the ruling in a case related to this Prop which has its own web page, the correct place for possible inclusion of a mention of this response is on the case's web page... as Wikidemon noted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposition for an edit to be made to this article. At the very least, it should be noted here that Walker's ruling is controversial. But why are you so afraid of an open discussion that you must scream to try to shut people up on a talk page? Whether There&#39;s Weather Underground (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rulings in lawsuits are assumed to have controversy, elsewise there would not have been a lawsuit, and in this case the possibility of appeal is mentioned. The P v. S section should be spun off into its own header, a short paragraph summary style with a "Main article" link. (And if you disagree with the WP:FORUM policy, that is the proper place to raise that disagreement.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I object to the dishonest misuse of WP:FORUM. I have proposed two different versions of a change for the article, and you are claiming WP:FORUM to avoid discussing them. That is dishonest.
 * Elsewise there would not have been a lawsuit - oh please. Lawsuits can be launched for anything at any time. This ruling is particularly controversial, as is the larger situation surrounding it. Whether There&#39;s Weather Underground (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Before anybody wants to highlight one aspect, him being gay, lets then also mention that he was first nominated by Reagan, then the elder Bush before he was finally confirmed. Main opposition argument was that he was anti gay, because of the gay Olympics case etc. He is a libertarian, and generally conservative. It is easy to cherry pick a single aspect to do some politics.... Balance is essential. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User WTWU, if you want to discuss controversy about the judge's sexual orientation, please refer to the judge's wiki-talk page by clicking here. Native94080 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Got an axe to grind trying to minimize something, "Native"? Whether There&#39;s Weather Underground (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell: he didn't recuse, wasn't asked to recuse, no significant reliable source has suggested he should have, it is not being discussed as a grounds for appeal by relevant parties. It is also a total non-issue, per Wikidemon and others. His sexuality is as relevant as his shoe size. Oh wait, has someone got a source for that? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And it should be noted that there is some question about whether he is openly gay, which makes inclusion of such a statement even more problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. We do not know if he is gay, and if he is, he is certainly not "openly" so.  The one local political gossip / scandal / hot news tidbit column from which all the other sources get this says it is an "open secret", which is different than being openly gay - almost the opposite. WP:BLP applies to talk pages, and Wikipedia editors shouldn't really be speculating about the sexuality of a person who chooses to keep it private, so I suggest we wind this down and archive the discussion, unless and until there is some strong sourcing on this.  And even there, it belongs in a different article.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How does being gay have anything to do with a conflict of interest. In this case, based on your logic, a straight judge would also be in a conflict of interest. So we would have to find a bisexual judge to take on the case? And doesn't this section also fail WP:NOTFORUM, and Fox News isn't really a trustworthy source for factual information.  A Giorgio 08  talk 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and Fox News isn't really a trustworthy source for factual information. - I do believe that statement is ridiculous enough that your "contribution" need not be mentioned again. Whether There&#39;s Weather Underground (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * EXCUSE YOU. Nobody had standing to simply close this, much less run around deleting comments all over. I find it hilarious that an honest discussion is something you are incapable of holding. Whether There&#39;s Weather Underground (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Request Protection
After a quick glance at the revision history and considering the controversial and ongoing nature of this subject, don't you think that this page should be protected? (I am admittedly a Wikipedia editing n00b, and as such can't request protection status via Twinkle)~WarrenSensei 18:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC) --~WarrenSensei 20:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! I understand the suggestion, but it probably won't happen immediatley.  Here's why: The last protection (actually, it might have been semi-prot) expired just a day or two back, where possible usually policy is to use as limited a protection as necessary to keep vandalism down to a full roar, since even vandalized articles sometimes get good conributions from anonymous IPs. This one might have to go back, but if my guess is that it'll be hard to get the page protected until there's a new cluster of vanadlism.  By the way, I'll drop a note on your talk page about how to request page-protection without a lot of hassle.  --j &#9883; e deckertalk 22:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)