Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 7

Prop 8 supporters protest during Oscar Night
Should we mention the protest that the supporters staged during Oscar Night? So far, the entire article has been protests by opponents, so this may work to balance things out. The speeches made by the winners from Milk could be mentioned as well. --haha169 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if the protest was "notable" - do you have a reference? (I googled without success) —EqualRights (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - Oscar winner condemns the protests at Kodak theater that night. - A more in-depth of the Oscar winner's view of the protests.  - some interesting extras, though not sure if completely related to Prop 8. I couldn't find any information about what the supporters of Proposition 8 found about the event, except for a few responses from a pastor: . --haha169 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles barely mention the protest in passing, with no detail as to their size/scope, so it seems non-notable —EqualRights (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found another link from the Catholic News Agency/ . But you're right - there really aren't much mention about the protests themselves...it seems that they have been overshadowed by what happened with the Oscars. Perhaps that deserves a sentence or two since the Academy Awards is so widely broadcast and visible? --haha169 (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Political figures
I've expanded the political figures section for those opposed to the proposition in order to more fully convey President Obama's public statements on the subject. If you think it should be revised let me know. SpeedyLA (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Result percentages
The results section percentages should reflect the percentages as published by the California Secretary of State and cited in the article. Ballot initiative percentages are calculated from the total number of votes cast for or against divided by the sum of votes cast for and against the initiative. Invalid and blank votes do not factor into the percentages for or against an initiative. A ballot initiative passes if the number of votes for the initiative exceed the number of votes against the initiative. Percentages derived by other calculations are OR without a cite. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New Demonstrations pertaining to Court hearing
, when these have gone and completed, where in the article should it be documented? The demonstrations section has grown incredibly long... --haha169 (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is heavily biased towards the Gay Agenda and needs to stop assuming which side of the debate is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the Gay Agenda? I am agog. --Moni3 (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you Agog. The Gay Agenda is the opposite side of the Conservative Agenda on this issue.  Conservatives want to maintain the status quo, and have marriage defined by it's traditional and standing definition.  The Gay Agenda is that the rest of the population be forced to accept (not just tolerate) Gay Marriage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From How to initiate an NPOV debate:
 * "Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article."
 * You have neither explained the exact NPOV issue nor made suggestions. —EqualRights (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, do not understand just how the article is supporting the gay agenda. Should we not mention that the proposition got a majority or what?--Bhuck (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that recent events will not put emotion into this article where it is not needed. This article has been fine for awhile, dont let it slide. Knowledgekid87 16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has mostly been buffered by recent events. The lawsuit article is in serious need of work, though, so any help would be appreciated. --haha169 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above, the lawsuits article could use a big hand, and I've written quite a bit of the original lawsuits article, but yeah, more hands there would be greatly appreciated. I'm not able to contribute much right now for reasons off-line.  --Joe Decker (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

anti-defamation league
They played a role in the anti-prop 8 campaign, but they are only mentioned in passing. As well, the link citing the only statement on them leads to a 404 not found. 129.120.177.60 (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed dead link by removing citation altogether, which was redundant with the just-previous reference. Regarding the weighting, the article was much larger in the past and "both sides" agreed to trim it down to minimal lists of notable supporters/opponents... —EqualRights (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, with hundreds of signers to sixty-some formal briefs to the court on each side, a complete listing would be quite excessive, unless someone wants to make a separate list as a page, I guess. --Joe Decker (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lead of this article is NOT balanced
This is not propaganda for those against gay marriage. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is perfectly balanced and rather neutral. It provides a stance on both sides of the argument and takes no side. Of course, if you think otherwise, be bold and fix it. Or at least suggest comments on the talk page. --haha169 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of "propaganda" anymore. But the sentence "It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry..." isn't exactly neutral. Specifically, the "right to marry" bit. But I wouldn't be exactly sure on what to change it to. Littelbro14 (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it does not sound neutral as the proposition did not specifically "eliminate same-sex couples right to marry". It did "restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples" which had the effect of eliminating the same-sex couples right to marry but that is not the same thing. Whilst people can argue about the intentions of those that put the proposition forward, it was not actually worded that way, it didn't need to be to have that effect. Maybe the sentence should say "It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, thereby eliminating same-sex couples' right to marry..." Mfield (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct to say that it was not the intent or purpose of the amendment to eliminate the right to marry, since the amendment was initiated before the right existed. However, because the right did exist at the time of the vote, it did have the effect of eliminating the right.  Therefore, the current wording is ok, since "It...eliminated same-sx couples' right to marry" ... note that the "to..." clause applies only to "to restrict" and does not go on to say "...and to eliminate same-sex couples' right..." -- instead the verb there is "eliminated", meaning that no intention is being implied.  The alternative wording is also ok, but I just don't see the difference in meaning between the two choices.--Bhuck (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe there is no inherent right for homosexuals to marry, and that there was never a valid civil right either, then there is a difference. Not to mention the connotations that certain words carry, and what-not.71.59.191.66 (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of what distinguishes an "inherent right" from any other kind of right, and the question of which civil rights are "valid" or "invalid" -- particularly if one holds to the theory that a judgement by the highest court of California was in "error" -- quickly lead one into the realm of POV. I don't think it would be a good idea for us to write that "the California Supreme Court erroneously held that an invalid civil right was inherent when in fact it was invented by the judges".  The California Supreme Court is the body with the competence to interpret the California Constitution--that is an objective fact.  If we start to quibble with that kind of thing we could also say that the pope erred when he determined that the Assumption of Mary was a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.  Perhaps we disagree about whether it is true or good, but that it is a dogma is incontestible.  Similarly, we may not think that it is a good thing to marry gay couples, but the right exists from the moment you have an enforceable judgement by a court.  Or maybe we should write that "California is a part of Mexico which has been unjustly held by the United States government since 1848"?  At some point you just have to accept that the status quo at some point in time is what it is or was, and pretending it was something else is POV, while describing the status quo is NPOV.--Bhuck (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is still an ongoing issue. It came up in 2000; it came up in 2008. If you are a biased individual like me, you're going to look at the voting trends and think that in another 8 years, Proposition X, instating gay marriage, has an excellent chance of passing. It's going to come up again from the standpoint of any objective viewer, and I'm pretty sure that declaring absolute victory forever and ever is a biased stance separate from reality.  Referendum does not codify this into law permanently, nor is the court battle over prop 8 even over. 76.167.249.45 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Election vs. Vote/Initiative/Proposition/Referendum
The phrase "After the election, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation" is totally wrong. An election is a vote which gives an individual public office, this was a vote about a law. Elections/Referendums/Initiatives are not synonymous; but they all involve voting - so a less specific verb like vote (so it would read 'After the vote, demonstrations...') would probably be understandable and most importantly correct. I understand last time I brought this up (about 5 months ago!) somebody said 'leave it to how people will understand it', but there's a difference between jargon and being plain wrong. 81.140.78.90 (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you made an account, you could change it. But the thing is, these elections were labeled as "General Elections", so we've labeled it as an election. --haha169 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But proposition 8 wasn't an election, or a general election. If I did sign up and change it though, it would be changed back anyway unless people understand why 'election' is wrong in that context. The protests were in response to the passing of the initiative, not the election of any person to public office. See the difference? 81.140.78.90 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I don't think that Haha was saying that Proposition 8 was an election, nor do I think the quote you give says that it is. I read it as talking about the greater voting event, not the proposition entirely.  I understand the desire for precise language, but I think you're making a distinction that English as commonly recognized no longer makes, if it ever did.  The term "General Election" refers both the votes for candidates but also for issues. Merriam-Webster, definition 1a at the web site, is "1 a: an act or process of electing ", and links electing to the verb elect, which includes both the sense of " to select by vote for an office, position, or membership" (the sense of the word to which you refer), but also other senses, such as "to make a selection of", which are entirely appropriate to the context of the article.  Random House, as quoted on dictionary.com, gives as sense two for the word election the sense "a public vote upon a proposition submitted."  It's not difficult to find other uses of the word in this sense, such as the usage in this article at the LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/13/local/me-prop813.  The plain fact is that words in English are often polysemous, that is, have multiple meanings whose ambiguity is resolved through shared understanding and context.  I'm all for pedantry, but honestly, I don't see that the change you suggest adds, and to my ears, "vote" sounds non-idiomatic in that context.   *shrug* --Joe Decker (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Additionally, "to elect" has the same general meaning as "to decide" or "to choose." Just as a constituency elects a person, they elect a proposition. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to the arguments of the IP. The problem is, we don't have a lemma Californian general election, 2008 to which we could link.  We do have an article about the presidential election, and we have New Zealand general election, 2008, Italian general election, 2008 and Puerto Rican general election, 2008, but those don't quite fit.--Bhuck (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * California_state_elections,_November_2008. --haha169 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Powder scares lacking evidence of a link to Proposition 8" subsection
As the text says, "the FBI stated that there was no evidence to link the envelopes to Prop. 8 opponents", so the subsection's presence in the article is WP:SYNTH and I removed it. —EqualRights (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * However, major news sources linked the anthrax scares to participation in Proposition 8. Therefore, not only should these statements be in this article, but under a section about hate crimes. Obtain a consensus before deleting or rearranging the paragraph to promote a bias. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did the major news sources make the link or did they report that there is no evidence of a link? If they made the link, then where are their sources? And why should the news sources get more weight than the FBI?  Do they know something the FBI doesn't, are they withholding evidence? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Absence of evidence isn't proof of anything. That's one reason why the FBI statement isn't given more weight: they didn't say anything accept they don't know anything. Of course, that's also no admission of guilt. However, it seems that every source that reported on this issue linked it to the LDS Church's involvement in Proposition 8. No one is singling out a guilty party, but only that the events were likely as a result of Proposition 8. Ejnogarb (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources' linkage is only implicit (not explicit), but if there's consensus to leave the inference in the article, so be it. Ejnogarb: take note of WP:AGF and WP:CYCLE rather than flinging accusations. —EqualRights (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Something also intresting is the fact that the white powder thing is listed in two areas:

1. Proposition 8 Mainpage Under "Increase in hate crime"

2. Protests against Proposition 8 supporters Under "White powder hoax" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters#White_powder_hoax

Knowledgekid87 00:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Edits are starting to heat up here about this section. If the FBI has stated that the powder attacks have not been proved to be related to Prop 8, that needs to be stated up front at the beginning of the section and cited well. It has been removed. I also saw neither weasel words or POV in the introductory paragraph. I often suggest editors include topic or introductory sentences in reviews for FA and GA.


 * I don't edit this article because I have a stake in it. I suggest if others are not able to edit it without emotion, they should avoid it. I'm referring to the template Ejnogarb placed on EqualRights' talk page (see WP:DTTR) and the subsequent removal of the inappropriate template as vandalism. Many levels of wrong going on. Cool off and come back when you can edit without passion. --Moni3 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't removed, it was placed in a second sentence because the first became a run-on sentence due to excessive editing. Currently, the section reads: suspicious white material delivered, FBI says no evidence for connection to Prop 8 opponents, probably came as result of involvement in Prop 8. It wouldn't make sense to start off by saying: FBI says no evidence for connection to Prop 8 opponents (evidence about what? that part never introduced). If you're going to focus on someone, note:


 * Bhuck's edits, which contain lots of weasel words, rearranging of paragraphs due to their "weight" (according to him).


 * EqualsRights' edits, which placed big bold words in front of this portion saying Powder scares lacking evidence of a link to Proposition 8 even though every source attributes it to Proposition 8.


 * As far as I'm concerned, we can reach a consensus without resorting to blatant POV editing. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect attribution - see this edit for the subheader additions —EqualRights (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I copied it directly; it is a correct attribution - see this edit for the subheader additions. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the edit you reference followed the one I referenced, in which I did "reword (simplify) headers" (as its comment says) that Bhuck had inserted.
 * If it's still not clear that I did not insert the subheaders, step through the edits one by one, carefully examining the changes. —EqualRights (sigh) 16:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then I'm sorry for attributing it to you (it's also the reason I sent the template). Because Bhuck didn't mention headers and you did, I assumed you were responsible. Let's agree on the wording, then. Do you think it's appropriate the way it is now? Ejnogarb (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. I'm going to try to take a break from this article, as Moni3 suggested.  —EqualRights (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do like retaining the sentence as per Bhuck's recent edit (reversion). But near as I can tell the clause goes too far, I read it as stating that the FBI has said that there is no link between the LDS vandalism and Proposition 8, whereas I believe it would be more accurate to say that the FBI has cautioned against assuming a link, that the question of whether there is or isn't a link is currently outstanding.  I'd support removing that clause entirely, I think "may have been" correctly describes the uncertainty.  Also, as an intro paragraph, I'd like it if the following paragraphs mimicked the ordering in the intro, I think that would aid comprehension.  I'd do that by moving the last paragraph of the section into the position of being the second paragraph, but there are other ways of accomplishing the same result.  Just some thoughts.--Joe Decker (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The FBI has found no link from the news articles on this. The only link is the church claiming it was No on 8 activists or sympathizers. -- Banj e  b oi   01:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand what you're saying, I agree with your understanding of the facts completely. I am simply noting that those facts are different than what the sentence I'm pointing at actually says, in a pretty meaningful way.  The sentence (not counting the first clause which is logically separate as it refers to anti-gay crime) read completely, states that the FBI has definitively stated that there were no threats or violence, FROM ANYONE, against the RC/LDS churches.  Note that "to the contrary" logically applies to the final clause.  Also, "link" can be read two ways which confuses this, there's a difference, if I may reword, between "The FBI says there is no connection between the attacks and 8" and "The FBI says it has no evidence connecting the attacks and 8", and the ambiguity of the usage of link makes it unclear which is being said here, even if we get past the other wording issue.  I propose:  "Proposition 8 has been linked to an increase in anti-gay hate crimes in California.  Some news articles have speculated that Latter-Day Saints and Roman Catholics may also have been subject to threats and vandalism from Proposition 8 opponents, but the FBI has stated that there is no evidence to link those acts to Proposition 8, and those investigations are ongoing."  Whaddya think?  --Joe Decker (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As the paragraph got deleted, I've taken the liberty of making my suggested changes. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those changes are fine by me.--Bhuck (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The list of polling percentages is 100% unclear
The list of polls, with its For and Against columns of percentages, never states whether it is describing percentages for and against Proposition 8, or for and against gay marriage. One can certainly try to guess -- but far better would be if this section stated clearly what it is talking about.Daqu (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See edit . Mr Bell  ( talk ) 17:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid an edit war on the intro paragraph of "Increase in Hate Crimes"
I think the existence of an intro summary paragraph for the section is useful for understanding the information quickly. I've made attempts to discuss that section here and discuss it with the editor who has twice deleted it today, to no avail. I am appealing to y'all for suggestions toward constructive ways of resolving this dispute. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that an intro summary section seems to introduce the article subtopic 5.4 to understand the information quickly. Is there a way to delineate this section so the piece of text being a potential edit war target becomes more specifically unidentified as a lede section of 5.4 without becoming a topic defined and directed to a {{main| article ? Peace, rkmlai (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is as much about POV as it is redundancy. This is a small section which doesn't need any kind of introductory paragraph. The information that some are adding is already reported: the FBI cautions against blaming Prop 8 opponents and that no leads have been found. The introductory paragraph reports the same information verbatim, accept it was constructed with intent of de-linking the vandalism and terrorism with Proposition 8. Every news source mentions the LDS Church's involvement in Proposition 8 as a likely cause. The introductory paragraph needs to remain deleted. Ejnogarb (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need an intro, because a reader who sees the section title will want some kind of overview of what the following material has to do with hate crime--who is committing hate crime against whom and why--and not want to be plunged completely contextless into the details of what envelopes got delivered where when and on which date what book was burned where. It is sort of like a "topic sentence" in a paragraph.  I could say "First I boiled some water.  After that, I took out a tea bag.  I put the tea bag in the water and got some tea."  Or I could say "I made some tea.  To do this, I first boiled water, then took out a tea bag, put it in the water.  After a few minutes, I had a nice cup of tea."  I think the latter version gives the reader some guideposts for what to expect and why this is all relevant.  One might argue that it is redundant to start off by saying "I made some tea" when that is mentioned in the other version as well, but I think it helps.  And I think that is roughly analogous (if somewhat less ideologically laden) to what we are doing here.--Bhuck (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your claims are dubious considering the lack of introductory paragraphs in other sections of similar length. We have titles to introduce such subjects, and this section has one which states its contents. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the rest of the article has no intro sentences or paragraphs does not mean they are altogether inappropriate. There was a time this article was being considered for GA. Including topic sentences and intro paragraphs, again, is just part of good writing. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that mentioning the FBI in the lead seems to completely de-link what happened to the LDS and prop. 8. I'm personally upset that prop 8 passed -- but it does seem like this article is written to downplay the questionable actions of some of the prop. 8 opponents. Hoping To Help (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ongoing investigation - mentioned in the LDS press release as quoting the SF Chronicle
I just reverted a non-neutral edit because Ejnogarb claimed it wasn't verified by a source, but the source listed right before the sentence (which points to a webpage with a press release directly from the church of LDS) says: San Francisco Chronicle : “Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission...." So there it is: ongoing investigation. Due to the repetitive nature of this type of editwarring, i am continuing the discussion (again!) at the admin noticeboards here. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the ref to the SF chronicle and also added more quoted text from both the SF chronicle article and the referenced November 14, 2008 Desert News article. I think it looks better now, because the issue isn't whether or not the LDS church didn't report "in time," it's that they reported just before the deadline, and whether or not they should or would have reported earlier if it wasn't for the complaint (but that just my WP:OR). Mr Bell  ( talk ) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fails to understand the Amendment Process
I guess being from Connecticut, where we can only amend the Constitution through a 2/3 vote of the State Legislature, or through a Constitutional Convention, I don't understand how this process works.

How can the California Constitution have strong provision to protect rights if all it takes is a simple majority to change it????????

The revision proscess was added to the constitution later, giving the electorate the ability to bypass the (at the time) corrupt legislatures in the hands of rail tycoons and such. The initiative process's ability to bypass judicial review (which protects civil rights, among other things) is sort of an unavoidable side effect, as there's no way to bypass the legislatures while not also bypassing the judiciary. That's what allows propositions like this one to work. In other words, the whole system is a mess. 67.180.178.60 (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a mess per say, and it doesn't bypass legal review. The initiatives are not officially and automatically submitted for judicial review but in practice are almost always challenged by someone.  Any initiative can be challenged and, if found illegal or unconstitutional, struck down.  This was the case for the prop that banned gay marriage legally and is the case for this current prop 8. - 67.172.183.20 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the Anti-Gay Marriage people had Prop 22. be a Statute and not and an Amendment in the first place.--Occono (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

usage of the term "Right" (as in "Right to marry")
Due to extensive mediation, i am familiar with the concern and controversy over this exact usage of the word "Right" which i reverted in an edit just now. The complete justification is summarized (and wikilinks to further support are found) in this particular comment, for example: emphasizes the actual name of the ballot title is "eliminates RIGHT of same-sex couples to marry", as Reliably Sourced and Verifiable as the very name of the ballot item which is the topic of this entire article. Thanks ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed intro for Hate Crimes Section
I think the intro section to the Hate Crimes section could be more balanced. Currently it says that Prop 8 "has been linked to an increase in anti-gay hate crimes". Yet says "some news articles have speculated" when talking about what happened to the churches. It seems to me that the links are just as strong for either case and so we should try for parallel language.

So I suggest we use something really short and simple like:

"Proposition 8 has been linked to an increase in anti-gay as well as anti-church hate crimes in California." Hoping To Help (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you're right about trying to be neutral, here's what i found to help guide us: WP:SAY. I'm not totally familiar with all of the Reliable Sources, nor have i read every thread on these extensive TalkPage archives, so perhaps a more veteran editor of this article can tell us whether this has been discussed in some way before, concerning our sources here? Thanks for good ideas, ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposed language. EJNO  GARB  15:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a better way of dealing with that issue would be to remove the passive voice in "has been linked"--instead we should say who has been doing the linking. And if the issue is linking versus speculating, we should decide who is authorized to do what--are prosecutors also just speculating, or is their status more "official" than that of journalists?  If both are equally entitled to link instead of merely speculate, we could make the verbs the same, but I am not sure that is completely comparable.  If PROSECUTORS on the other hand had reported the link, rather than merely journalists, the parallels would be much more comparable.--Bhuck (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Hoping To Help was making a good effort to neutrally introduce both sides of this section. While your new wording is more accurate, the clause about the FBI seems excessive since these words are repeated verbatim just a few lines down. EJNO  GARB  21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bhuck -- I agree that in general a prosecutor making a link is usually stronger than a journalist. (Although, the Dukes rape case is probably one of many counter examples) but here the police, prosecutors and journalists are making the link in both cases. And your using the FBI quote at least partially out of context. The FBI said there is no evidence of a link just in regards to the "white powder" not in regards to the vandalism or the death threat.  And as  ~Teledildonix314~ points out  WP:SAY is a useful reference. In reading it makes me aware how the current wording acts to imply that the police don't believe that any of the acts are being done by Prop. 8 oponents.  I don't believe that such such a perspective is reflected in the citations.
 * Do you really believe that the spray painting of "No on Prop. 8" was not done by a Prop 8 opponents? I'm not trying to make prop. 8 opononents look bad. I'm a prop 8 opponent myself.  Can't we get past the politics and follow  WP:SAY to make this as unbiased and balanced as possible?Hoping To Help (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if we can't reach consensus on an intro paragraph we should just skip having one. Most of the other sections don't have an intro paragraph. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the FBI info being duplicated--I overlooked that when re-adding it, though I do think it is fairly important. I added intro paragraphs to several other sections a week or two ago as well, since I think it is generally good policy to have them--but the others seem not to have been controversial. I don't think the spray painting of "No on 8" was done by someone not opposed to Prop 8, but I do think we are comparing apples and oranges here when we compare something like that to death threats against people on either side, a rise in anti-gay violence, etc. Maybe if we dropped the powder scare, we could also avoid the issue of FBI rebuttals, and we would be left with just the things where the motivations of the perpetrators are clear, even if the methods used are still quite different. By the way, the death threat against the pastor in Fresno and the vandalism to his church date from before the vote, so putting them in a section which starts off with "After the vote,..." is misleading.--Bhuck (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral intro for Hate Crime section
The first sentence in the intro:

"Prosecutors have linked Proposition 8 to an increase in anti-gay hate crimes."

is being used to summarize the first sentence in the second paragraph. It refers to no other part of the article. It doesn't seem reasonable to use one sentence to summarize another individual sentence.

Since this is controversial and we don't seem to be able to reach consensus around the likelihood of the reported events being caused by prop 8. or a particular subset of the populace -- I suggest that we remove the linkage completely and have the summary sentence just read:

"Since the passage of Proposition 8 there has been a reported increase in anti-gay and anti-church hate crimes."

Hoping To Help (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree EJNO  GARB  02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - Hoping To Help's proposed introductory sentence appears to be completely neutral, given the sources which support it. The subsequent paragraphs give enough elaboration to illustrate both "anti-gay" and "anti-church", so the proposal sounds like the best way to summarize concisely. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sections should be divided, as they were in the latest edit. It makes more sense to keep them combined under a "hate crime" section. EJNO  GARB  03:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole article is so looong... i am in favor of any edits which make it more concise. Perhaps squeezing those two sections back into one section would be more concise. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've re-merged the sections as suggested and added the new shorter intro which avoids the controversial causation attributions. Hoping To Help (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still concerned about the phrase "anti-church" -- not all churches are being targeted (no Episcopal churches, no UCC congregations), but only churches which got involved on one particular side of the campaign, and did so fairly prominently--whether they be Cornerstone in Fresno, or LDS or Roman Catholic. The messages left and threats are also phrased in such a way that their primary motivation seems not to be religious (they are not denying the resurrection or saying the groups are the "whore of Babylon" instead of the "body of Christ", nor do they say that the Angel Moroni was really a demon or deny the validity of the Book of Mormon or attack papal infallibiltiy), but primarily political.  I think the phrase "anti-church" misrepresents the motivations of the perpetrators.--Bhuck (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One exception to the "anti-church" thing may be the burning of a Book of Mormon in Colorado. This is clearly anti-Mormon, but could have been something done by evangelical Protestants opposed to anything purporting to extend the Word of God beyond what is contained in the Bible.  Just because a building administrator's speculations about the motivations of the unidentified men got quoted in a newspaper does not make this a good source for documenting Prop-8-related hate crimes.--Bhuck (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the section is fine the way it is and further editing will only muddle it. EJNO  GARB  14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bhuck, your latest edit doesn't make any sense: "Anti-prop-8" is ambiguous, and can mean hate crimes against anyone's involvement in Proposition 8 (either for or against). Anti-church sounds better because all of the victims were churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejnogarb (talk • contribs) 14:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bhuck - When I first read your changes they didn't bother me, in fact I assumed that Ejnogarb made them. I agree that the crimes were directed at churches that were against prop-8 and not all churches. But if a person said: "I'm not against blacks -- I just beat up blacks that get too involved in the political process." Would you not catagorize that as a hate crime? It seems to me that many people are mad that Prop. 8 passed and a small subset of those people are taking their anger out on the most unpopular minority on the Yes on Prop 8 side. And that unpopular minority would be the Morman church -- I imagine that's why they're receiving more attacks than the Catholics. Hoping To Help (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And Bhuck, I must admit I'm a bit confused. Earlier you wrote that there was no proof that these attacks were caused by anti-prop 8 people and so you strongly objected to wording that said the crimes were linked to the Proposition 8 controversy. And now you're saying that these are anti-Prop 8 hate crimes and not anti-church hate crimes.  So are you contending that these are ant-Prop 8 hate crimes that are being committed by people who are not involved or motivated by Proposition 8??? Hoping To Help (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to the graffiti, I never argued that they were caused by other than anti-prop 8 people--that was with regard to the powder scares. The graffiti is clearly anti-Proposition-8, by its very nature.  There were several religious leaders who did get involved in the political process to OPPOSE Proposition 8--including all of the state's Episcopal bishops, for example.  These bishops are not being targeted by the allegedly "anti-church" protestors.  And if we say the threats are "anti-Mormon", then why were they directed at Cornerstone church?  Your comparison to blacks is interesting--people protested the nomination of Clarence Thomas who did not have anything against the nomination of Thurgood Marshall, and vice-versa.  I think their protests were thus not related to race but to the political orientation of the justices, and I think that is related to the current situation, where Mormon bishops are taking more flak than Episcopal bishops from the anti-8 crowd because of their position on 8--this has nothing to do with the finer points of the doctrine of the Trinity.--Bhuck (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bhuck, of course one can be against Clarance Thomas and not be racist. But if one is spray painting the houses of black republicans and for the most part leaving alone the houses of white republicans -- that does look racist. And that is closer to what is going on here. There are specific anti-Mormon web sites put up by No on 8 people -- and the vast majority of the attacks have been against Mormons even though they make up just 2% of the population in California. Hoping To Help (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The better comparison to what is going on here is not the comparison between the houses of African-American Republicans and European-American Republicans, but the comparison between the houses of African-American Republicans and African-American Democrats. The analogy is that church membership is comparable to ethnicity, and that targeting churchgoers is selective based on the political viewpoints of the churches.  If you choose to compare people of different ethnicities but similar political viewpoints, that would be like comparing the treatment of churchgoing prop-8-proponents and non-churchgoing prop-8-proponents--and just where would you identify any significant organization of non-churchgoing prop-8-proponents?  What meeting halls of "Atheists against gay marriage" are available for spraypainting?  That kind of analogy just doesn't work.--Bhuck (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bhuck: I hope you will stop making "clarifications" to this section, which do nothing but complicate meanings and over-analyze simple facts. I support the changes made by Hoping To Help. EJNO GARB  19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, i think Bhuck raises a valid point about our need to distinguish which churches, because it is very inaccurate to simply mention churches without specifying, due to some churches being praised while others were protested. This could be worded neutrally, it's just tricky to squeeze into one long sentence so perhaps it might be best if it were divided by a comma into two phrases:
 * Since the passage of Proposition 8 there have been increases reported in anti-gay hate crimes ,  and in hate crimes against churches which supported the measure. That's neutral and concise and accurate, right? ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording looks great, but the comma seems a little weird. EJNO  GARB  20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Teledildonix314 -- I like what you wrote. Unfortunately, there is an existing error originating from my original suggestion. And I'm not sure how to fix it without getting long and cumbersome.  The increase in anti-gay hate crimes happened before Proposition 8 was passed (2008) whereas the anti-church hate crimes happened ,after Prop 8 was passed. Here's a suggestion:
 * "Proposition 8 has been linked to an increase in anti-gay hate crimes as well as hate crimes against churches that supported the measure."
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it isn't against all churches. It's also not against all people or against all groups that were in favor of Prop. 8. Since something like 70% of blacks were in favor of prop. 8 and neither they nor their churches have been targeted. So here is a second suggestion that acknowledges the focus on Mormons:
 * "Proposition 8 has been linked to an increase in anti-gay hate crimes as well as hate crimes against Mormons."
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, I would support such wording as mentioned in Hoping To Help's comment from 20:43. As for focusing specifically on Mormons--that may be true, but we are also discussing actions against the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus and against the Fresno Cornerstone pastor, neither of which are Mormon, so I am not sure if we wouldn't get into greater tangles by doing that.--Bhuck (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)