Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 8

Mormon church targeted
It seems like it would be useful to have a section on the issue and controversy around the targeting of the Mormon church by certain Prop. 8 opponents. But I don't want to write the section if people are against such a section existing at all. Below are some relevant citations and quotes from the articles.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html
 * Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support

'Church leaders also said they found it disturbing that their church was being singled out.

That sentiment was echoed by Roman Catholic Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento, who issued a statement saying: "Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful."'


 * Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL

"All of California's Catholic bishops have all come out in favor of the measure. So have many evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. Yet it is Mormons, who account for 2 percent of the state population, who are catching the most heat."

'"We seem to be the symbol of the Yes on 8 campaign," said Rand King, 60, a Walnut Creek resident who is Mormon and who was watching Sunday's protest from inside the temple's gates.

Prop. 8 opponents are increasingly narrowing their focus on Mormons, harnessing technology and open-records laws in their efforts. One Web site run by a Prop. 8 opponent, Mormonsfor8.com, identifies the name and hometown of every Mormon donor. On the Daily Kos, the nation's most popular liberal blog, there is a campaign to use that information to look into the lives of Mormons who financially support Prop. 8.

It has led some Mormons to question why other religious groups in the coalition aren't being targeted.

"I don't think it's politically expedient to point the finger at the Catholic Church," said Dave Christensen, 52, a Mormon and an Alamo resident who donated $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. "You don't get the mileage criticizing a church that has more clout."'

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/387887_mormononline15.html
 * Mormons under siege for Prop. 8 role

"To liberal America, the Church of the Latter Day Saints and its 12 million members around the world are suddenly public enemy number one."

'"It's easier to attack a minority religion, especially one that frankly isn't very well understood, than to protest because 70 percent of African American voters also supported Proposition 8," says Mike Ottermeyer, a somewhat exasperated church spokesman.'

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story
 * Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple in Westwood

"It was the latest in an escalating campaign directed against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its role in marshaling millions of dollars in contributions from its members for the successful campaign to take away same-sex marriage rights."

"During the campaign, a website established by Proposition 8 opponents used campaign finance data and other public records to track Mormon political contributions to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Opponents estimated that members of the church had given more than $20 million, but the amount is difficult to confirm since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors.

Critics of the website noted that the religious affiliations of other political donors are not generally researched."

'Jeff Flint, strategist for Yes on 8, called the ad "despicable" and said it "crossed every line of decency."

"I am appalled at the level of Mormon-bashing that went on during the Proposition 8 campaign and continues to this day," he said. "If this activity were directed against any other church, if someone put up a website that targeted Jews or Catholics in a similar fashion for the mere act of participating in a political campaign, it would be widely and rightfully condemned."

Members and leaders of the Catholic Church and other Christian churches were also heavily involved in the campaign to pass Proposition 8. The Knights of Columbus, which is tied to the Catholic Church, gave $1 million, and several evangelical groups gave millions more. But they have not come under the same kind of attack.'

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/20/01429/971
 * How YOU can defeat Prop 8 and preserve marriage equality.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,459544,00.html
 * Activists Target Mormons for Gay-Marriage Ban's Success in California

"Even the state of California itself has announced that it is investigating the church's involvement in Proposition 8, which was approved by a vote of 52 percent to 48 percent and, barring a Supreme Court overturn, will ban gay marriage in the state.

There have been no other reports of backlash against other groups that supported Prop 8, notably African-Americans and other churches and religious denominations that turned out in heavy numbers to push through the ban."

'Rev. Roland Stringfellow, coordinator of the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations, a network of gay-friendly religious organizations, said that he has heard of African American individuals being harassed for the passage of Prop 8, but that many are using the Mormon Church as a scapegoat for their anger.

"Many gays and lesbians have been hurt by the church and they see the Mormons as a way of taking out that aggression, not only on the Prop 8 position, but on their life in general," he told FOXNews.com.

"I think simply it comes down to everyone needing a scapegoat. I think we're seeing that with the Republican Party, where people are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin as to why John McCain lost."'

'But gay activists say they are right to single out the Mormons for the success of California's ballot initiative.

"What is clear in any case is that we did not lose this election because of African Americans," Lorri Jean wrote.

"Even if African Americans had voted for and against Prop 8 in the same proportion as white voters, we still would have lost."
 * Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html

' Federal officials have launched a preliminary inquiry into whether recent acts of vandalism against Mormon temples and meeting houses are hate crimes, a department spokesman said Friday.

"We are looking into whether these acts are intimidating people into not going into houses of worship," said Juan Becerra, of the Salt Lake City FBI. "The right to worship is a basic civil right."'

'Sacramento church officials have stepped up security at the Mormon temple in Rancho Cordova. Ten church buildings in the region have been vandalized since the election, said Lisa West, spokeswoman for the church in the Sacramento area. "That's more than we usually get in an entire year."'


 * Mormons Targeted for Prop 8 Mobilization

http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=6238226&pid=81


 * Same-sex marriage supporters target LDS donors for Prop. 8

http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story/Same-sex-marriage-supporters-target-LDS-donors/75b8Kg4Ao0-9AzbA8z9F3w.cspx

'And this apparently does not sit well with a Daily Kos blogger who writes,

"..when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state's constitution...there will be hell to pay."

The LDS Church has previously acknowledged not everyone would agree with its view on this issue but the Daily Kos seems to have a new way of dealing with the church.

That same blogger links to a list of what the writer says are Mormons financially supporting Prop. 8.

He also writes:

"...if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights...they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny."

Apparently referring to the LDS Church as "the religious right" the Daily Kos blogger urges readers to "find us some ammo."

Thus suggesting, perhaps, that dirt be dug up on those Mormons who are contributing to the pro-Prop. 8 movement.'


 * Boycott Mormon businesses and Anyone else who Supported Prop 8

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/17558/6463

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903209.html
 * The Wrong Way to Win Gay Marriage Rights

"The outcome is very much in doubt, with polls showing a tight race. But even if supporters of same-sex marriage manage to defeat Prop 8 and preserve the legality of such marriages here, their campaign against Prop 8 may eventually be considered something of a setback for the cause of marriage equality.

Why? The "No on 8" campaign has been a strategic disaster, squandering the considerable political momentum that same-sex marriage had here. TV ads have been unfocused and confusing, and the far more disciplined Yes on 8 campaign has dominated the narrative in the newspapers and other media. The No campaign recently brought in new public relations and media consultants in the kind of last-minute shake-up that is characteristic of floundering campaigns.

Despite numerous advantages -- the court ruling this spring legalizing gay marriage, triumphant media reports on the thousands of couples who have held wedding ceremonies in recent months -- surveys now show public opinion moving in favor of the ban.

So, in these desperate final weeks, the new campaign team for No on 8 has adopted a tough, closing message that may yet salvage victory for same-sex marriage. The message? The people behind the ban are Mormons.

This a high-risk move, despite the message's accuracy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better known as the Mormon church, has made unusually direct appeals to its members nationwide to support Prop 8 with their time, money or both. And Mormons have responded. By some estimates, more than one-half of the $30 million-plus in donations in favor of Prop 8 has come from members of the church.

This Mormon support is so vast that it's a political vulnerability for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. In polls, Americans register a low opinion of the Mormon religion (In a 2007 CBS News survey, the religion had a 25 percent favorable rating; the only faith less popular was Islam) The church's history on marriage -- it ended polygamy in 1890 -- is a complicated one. So Mormons are a tempting target. But by raising the issue of Mormon support for the ban, supporters of same-sex marriage, who have spent decades battling religious prejudice, are now in the awkward position of profiting from religious prejudice.

There is rough justice in that. Perhaps too rough. It's unlikely that the progressive groups would ever single out their political opponents' religion if the religion in question was Judaism or Catholicism. But they haven't hesitated in making an issue of the Mormon connection: No on 8 petitions circulated by progressive organizations demand that Mormons retreat from their support of Prop 8, and the executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which backs progressives in ballot initiative campaigns, has used the Huffington Post to frame the election in religious terms: "Do you believe the Mormon church shares your values on marriage or do you believe the constitution should treat everyone equally?"

At the extreme, the "Kossacks" at Daily Kos are compiling a list of Mormon donors to the Prop 8 campaign and urging people to send in damaging information about individual Mormons that can be used against the Yes on 8 effort.

In defending such tactics, supporters of same-sex marriage invoke an eye-for-an-eye logic, and not without justification. The Yes on 8 campaign has been cynically skillful in changing the subject from whether gays deserve marriage equality to more highly charged questions. Will churches be sued for refusing to marry gay couples? Or will young children have to be taught about same-sex marriage in schools? Both claims, advanced in Yes on 8 ads, have little basis in fact. California education leaders have been particularly adamant in refuting the latter. But these denials have served the purposes of the Yes on 8 campaign by focusing attention on schools and churches rather than on the needs of gay couples.

In its final days, the campaign in California feels less like a debate over the nature of marriage and more like a low-down discussion of which is creepier: gay sex or Mormons?

The No on 8 campaign may well prevail in that argument, and a win is usually a win in politics. But that's not true when it comes to advancing a controversial change in a major social institution. An ugly victory in California under such circumstances doesn't provide much of a foundation to advance same-sex marriage rights in the rest of the country."


 * Americans Have Less Favorable View Of Mormon Faith Than Of Most Other Religions

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/opinion/polls/main2469572.shtml

"Americans have a less favorable view of the Mormon religion than most other faiths. Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Christian fundamentalism were all seen more positively than Mormonism in the poll. Only Islam, of all the religions asked about, ranked lower.

Twenty-five percent of Americans said they have a favorable impression of the Mormon religion, while three in 10 have an unfavorable impression. Another 39 percent haven't heard enough about the religion to say.

Other religions are viewed more favorably: Protestantism (61%), Catholicism (51%), Judaism (48%), and Christian fundamentalist religions (35%)."

So the question is: Do we want to include a section that addresses the targeting of Mormon's and their church? (For the record I'm not Mormon and I don't belong to any church. I just thought that this is an issue that has been getting a fair amount of press but that isn't covered in the WP article.) Hoping To Help (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's my opinion, for what it's worth: we should include mention of the increase in anti-mormon hate-crimes, threats against churches, etc, but we should do all of that in the broader context of the entire HateCrime SubSection, trying to keep it brief, instead of breaking it into further elaborate bits. What i mean is: let's keep that subtopic all in one heading, rather than fracture further, because this Article is so long overall, we probably won't help our readers if we keep stretching it longer and longer. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First let me share my bias. I much prefer things to be broken up into sections. I'm much more likely to read something if it is broken up into sections with useful headings than if I'm presented with an article of the same length but that is not separated into sections. This especially holds true for reading things on the web.


 * Also, the problem with having it under the hate crime heading is that only a small fraction of the anti-Mormon activity can be classified as crimes. Most is perfectly legal. Various legal activities that targeted Mormons have been characterized as everything from being necessary and morally right b/c the people doing it believed they were exposing unfair, bigoted and/or illegal actions of the Mormon church ... to others characterizing the actions of certain anti-prop 8 people as morally reprehensible and/or bigoted (but still legal) blackballing and/or McCarthyism. But only a very small percentage of the activities targeting the Mormon church would fall under the category of hate crimes.Hoping To Help (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, your points are valid, and i can see how you might approach a rewrite with more elaboration. But if you do fracture the subsections further, could i still please request that you try to find a balance between Accuracy (which appears to be a high priority for you) and Concision (which is a preference of mine, but which i humbly suppose is less serious of a priority.) I don't doubt you could boldly make this article contain even more information, i just hope it doesn't become too profuse such that the most salient bits become diluted by the auxiliary subtopics. And certainly you have a right to laugh at me for making such suggestions— because i'm definitely way too verbose, so it might seem hypocritical for me to request that you somehow be succinct. Thanks, hope that's not too much CrazyTalk, ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is valid to consider a section on whether or not Mormons are being disproportionately targeted, but it is difficult to know how to objectively define "disproportionate". One of the news articles uses the %age of the population in California (2%) as a comparison, but that assumes that all Californians were equally in favor of Prop 8, or that at least the 52% who were in favor at all were all equally prominent and effective in organizing their advocacy.  If we consider that some groups may have been more prominent and more effective in organizing their advocacy, we would expect such groups to also receive proportionately more criticism from opponents.  So the question becomes 1) How do we measure prominence and effectiveness in organizing advocacy? and 2) What kind of relationship (linear, exponential, or a more complicated equation) do we expect to find between increasing prominence and effectiveness and increasing opposition?
 * My own personal belief is that Mormons were exceptionally prominent and effective, so we would expect to find a higher degree of opposition to them as well, but it might be that the degree of opposition we actually find is higher still than what we would expect to find based solely on their prominence and effectiveness in advocacy for Prop 8--but proving that objectively seems difficult. Things that would help would be incidents like burning the Book of Mormon (but that happened in Colorado, not California, and the evidence linking it to Prop 8 is very tenuous at best) or things which mention Mormon religious tenets specifically...and the problem then is that if the incidents do not specifically mention Prop 8 (like graffiti does), it is unclear whether they have any connection to Prop 8.  What would be clearest are incidents where, say, a threat letter is found which says something like "If you don't stop believing your homophobic angels..." (link between Mormon theology documented by angels, and relating to Prop 8 through the word homophobic) or "We can't marry once, much less practice polygamy" (link between anachronistic misperception of Mormonism and the marriage issue of Prop 8), or where the rioters who desecrate religious symbols also shout Prop-8-related slogans in front of reliable and neutral witnesses.--Bhuck (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bhuck -- Thanks for responding. What I hear you saying is that you think that the Mormon's have most likely been targeted in an amount that is proportional to their prominence and effectiveness in organizing the campaign in favor of Prop 8. I believe that is a reasonable position -- although I also believe its' just part of the story.  I believe that it's likely that some people have additional motives for focusing on Mormon's. Including having a personal dislike/unease with the Mormon culture/history/religion, and/or because they believe the Mormon's don't have as much political/cultural power as the Catholics Church, the Orthodox Jewish Church, or the black churches.  But what I believe doesn't matter.   Because my goal is to do my best to write from WP:NPOV and to avoid doing WP:OR or even WP:SYNTH.


 * Additionally, you've proposed a certain test of what you'd need to see in order to prove whether other motives are at play. Which probably makes sense if we were convicting someone of a crime ... or even making the assertions ourselves. But since we're just writing about other people's observations/ideas/beliefs, proof isn't needed. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:Verifiability)


 * All I've proposed is that we include in the article a section that presents information from the many reliable sources WP:RS that have written about the various ways Mormon's are being targeted. If reliable sources also include speculation/opinions/assertions/theories as to what is motivating the targeting then we could also include that information by directly attributing it to the source in the body of the article (as per WP guidelines).


 * How does this sound to you? Hoping To Help (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the abstract, I think such an addition would be possible. It would have to be sufficiently attributive, since as you say, we are writing about other people's ideas and not making the assertions ourselves.  And it should be fairly brief, since Mormons are not what Proposition 8 is about.  Perhaps, in fact, it would be a better addition to the LDS article than to here, depending on the degree to which the "additional motives for focusing on Mormons" play a role.  After all, it is not just Prop 8 opponents who have a personal dislike/unease with Mormon culture/history/religion.  The truly relevant bit is the degree to which that intersects, and we should be careful not to turn Wikipedia into a collection of rumors (all of which, of course, are properly attributed).  So I suppose for me it would depend greatly on the concrete text proposed.--Bhuck (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Crimes against supporters and opponents of Prop 8
I'm moving the information about various crimes against supporters and opponents out of "Post Election Events" and into it's own section. I'm doing this for three reasons: Hoping To Help (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This level of crimes against supporters and opponents of a ballot measure is rare (and so especially notable) in a modern California election and so deserves it's own section.
 * 2) The crimes happened both before and after the election and so didn't fit into any other section.
 * 3) I believe having sub-sections will make the document much easier to read and make the table of contents much more usable.


 * As far as i can tell, you have done a great job of fitting things into the overall structure which is mostly chronological in style. In the future, i wouldn't be surprised if other editors came along and tweaked certain bits for neutrality by trimming away anything non-vital, or by extending strong references to the most important bits. Your overall layout makes it most informative to me, as a reader. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think having its own section is good for the reasons you describe, but I think there are too many sub-sections...every bit of evidence and each individual reference is starting to get its own subheader.--Bhuck (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, your latest concision has made it much better, easier for readers to cover quickly without too much "fracturing". I think this is a very good Neutral blend between succinctness and exhaustiveness. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 07:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with the idea of sectioning things off. The Squicks (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Civil Union removed from "See Also" Section. Why?
Civil Union was removed from the "See Also" Section with the comment: "This link is not directly related, its a seperate issue.)"

It's not obvious to me how it is a more of a separate issue than the Briggs Initiative which was left as a category.

Civil Unions are often mentioned in articles about Proposition 8 (and I just did a google search and got 451,000 hits. Where a search for Proposition 8 and Briggs Initiative just gets 31,000 hits.). In California Civil Unions are mainly for same sex couples. And the first sentence in the wikipedia definition fo Civil Unions is: "A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage."

I could see instead having Domestic partnership in California in the See Also section. Hoping To Help (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It can't be described as a "separate issue", at least not in America, certainly not in California. There aren't really any discussions of same-sex marriage in America during the past decade which don't include Civil Unions. It's at least as relevant as the other "See Also" materials here. We should put it back on the "See Also" list. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I couldn't figure out why the other editor removed it. I thought maybe I was missing something -- or that there might be some ongoing dispute around the issue. I've put it back in. Hoping To Help (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Full FBI quote about anthrax hoax.
It's important to include the full FBI quote about the anthrax hoax -- if just part of the quote is used it slants the meaning and becomes POV. Also, the way it was written at one time violates WP:SAY. Hoping To Help (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the other version, with the complete quote, to be problematic as well. I prefer the version "Although the FBI stated that there was no evidence at that time linking the incidents to Proposition 8 opponents, news sources speculated that these were hate crimes directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Knights of Columbus for their support of Proposition 8."  You seem to believe that "News sources reasoned that these were hate crimes directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Knights of Columbus for their support of Proposition 8. Although, FBI Special Agent Juan Becerra stated: "We've got to follow the evidence and at this point we have not received anything that would lead us to believe the opponents of Prop. 8 are behind any kind of terroristic activity. It would be irresponsible to say that at this point." " more closely reflect NPOV, a conclusion with which I would disagree.  There are several differences involved here:


 * 1) The order: should the FBI be mentioned first, or should the news sources be mentioned first?  Since the news sources are reporting what the FBI said, and since the FBI was more directly involved with the investigation, I think the FBI should be mentioned first.
 * 2) reasoned vs. speculated: I think each of these words has a certain bias to it.  We can't say the news sources "reported" or "claimed" that these were hate crimes.  Maybe there are some other options neither of us has suggested yet?
 * 3) Having a comma after "Although" and breaking that up into two sentences seems stylistically problematic--nothing much to do with the content, but I think the meaning is partially obscured by poor style here.
 * 4) Whether this was FBI Special Agent Juan Becerra or FBI Regular Agent Jane Doe really doesn't seem to be particularly adding much and is an unnecessary expansion of the text with distracting details, unless you are trying to imply that Juan Becerra does not really represent the "true view" of the FBI, but was just expressing his personal opinion, which I find a rather dubious claim.
 * 5) Similarly, learning that the FBI "has got to follow the evidence" seems somewhat off-topic at this point--why do we need to elaborate on this with that part of the quote?  What bias does it introduce if we leave that out?
 * 6) The core issue "at this point we have not received anything that would lead us to believe the opponents of Prop. 8 are behind any kind of terroristic activity" is, I believe, accurately reflected in the paraphrased version I offer: "there was no evidence at that time linking the incidents to Proposition 8 opponents" -- where do you see a difference here?  The quote uses many more words to say the same thing.  If the summary is misleading, please explain why!
 * 7) The bit about "It would be irresponsible to say that at this point" is somewhat redundant to what has already been mentioned in the quote, and might raise the expectation in the readers' minds that at another point it might be responsible to draw a conclusion, but then does not follow this up by quoting the FBI's position from another point in time (later)--why do you feel that it is important to raise this issue and then leave it dangling?  By adding "at that time" to my summary, I thought I would have cleared up that issue with you, but you seem to disagree.--Bhuck (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bhuck - Thanks for spending the time to break up the issues into the different parts. I'm going to try and address each one individually:
 * "The order": I don't have a strong opinion on which should be mentioned first. Although, I have some reservations about your underlying reasoning. It is true that the newspapers were reporting what the FBI said -- but only as part of a larger article. The overall focus of the articles were that the anthrax hoax happened. The FBI isn't the source about the event occurring -- nor is the FBI commenting on it the main thing that makes it news worthy. What makes it news worthy (and the overall thing that the articles focus on) is that the two biggest organizations backing prop 8 received an anthrax hoax just days after Prop. 8 passed.
 * "reasoned vs. speculated:" How about "attributed"
 * "Having a comma after "Although": I'm not attached to the style or format and I agree that not obscuring the meaning is especially important. That's why I'd like to find a way to include the full quote.  There is a reason the newspapers included the full quote -- taking out any part of it changes the meaning.
 * "Include FBI Special Agent's name": I'm not attached to including the the agents name. And I didn't include it because I was trying to slant something as you postulated. I included it b/c the newspapers included it. That is how they identified the information. Do you think they included it to slant their reporting? I imagine that they included it because it is good reporting to name your source and explicitly quote them whenever possible. But I'd be fine to add "FBI spokesman" to his name, if it's important to you.
 * "Including, 'has got to follow the evidence' ": If it is off topic why do you think the newspapers included it? When I read the partial quote it makes me think that the FBI agent doesn't believe this is connected to Prop 8. When I read the entire quote it makes me think that the FBI believes it IS connected with Prop. 8 -- but they don't want to say so publicly.
 * "If the summary is misleading, please explain why!": See above. If the professional reporters and the FBI agent chose to use more words ... maybe there is a reason. The two versions definitely communicate different meanings from my perspective.  And I would ask why you are so dead against using a few extra words? The professional reporters thought it was the right choice.
 * " 'It would be irresponsible to say that at this point' ... might raise the expectation in the readers minds that at another point it might be responsible to draw a conclusion.": I think you're right. It does leave open that possibility -- and that's why the FBI agent said it. And that's why the newspapers decided to repeat it. And that's why we should include it as well -- because including the entire quote would more accurately reflect the words and thoughts of the FBI and the newspapers. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Smelt v. United States of America
Would it be necessary to add reference of another lawsuit against Proposition 8 - jointly filed against DOMA? --haha169 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Elections in california
Why does this exist on this page? I can maybe see why people would want to see it after looking at this, but it isn't directly related and it's very distracting at the very top... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberwockgee (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is on every related CA-election topic. Proposition 8 is in the template, anyway, so... --haha169 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought this was unique to the California pages, but I see now that it's not.... It seems the other pages I had looked at just had other pictures above this kind of template so it didn't show up at the very top.  Jabberwockgee (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Error under "lawuists"
There is an error in the section "California Supreme Court cases."

The quote which reads "[T]he aim of Proposition 8 [. . .] I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution," is not a part of the majority opinion. It is the closing paragraph of the dissent written by Carlos Moreno, and has no legal bearing on the case itself or its disposition.

As it is currently written, this portion of the article insinuates said quote is a part of the majority opinion itself and does have legal weight, which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.113.133 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Error not there. The quote is, though, but stated that the quote is part of the dissenting opinion. --haha169 (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

LDS Church has The Historical Right to support Prop 8
I’m not a member of the Mormon Church but I think if any church, The LDS Church would be most working for Prop 8. I am for Prop 8 and would ABSOLUTELY vote for a YES on a law like it here in Illinois. But getting back to the LDS Church; they have historical reasons to support Prop 8. Why would you ask, because The U.S. once already defined to a degree what Marriage is. Remember The U.S. Government outlawed any form of Polygamy when it was practice by the LDS Church. Remember Both Young and Smith had more then one wife, so this is a critical issue. Why could The U.S. tell the LDS Church no you can’t have polygamy and The LDS Church didn’t have a vote like Prop 8 The U.S. simply said NO!!!!! So I say if we did it to The LDS Church why not Pass Prop 8. How do we as a society then define marriage? When we told The LDS Church no Polygamy and allow same sex marriage? We have to stand for one, One man and One Woman. No same sex or one man with many women. When we allow same sex, we open the door for many other things like polygamy and incest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.172.5 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the LDS Church's stance on Polygamy still means anything, it's that the LDS Church should not be able to define marriage for the rest of the country, and should defer to the country like it did when the church wanted statehood for Utah.


 * However, you should try to relate your topics to the article, and the improvement of it.  Fortuyn ist (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * An article's talk page isn't a forum. I agree with Fortuynist. Limit your comments to possible improvements. --haha169 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

bigots would be funny if they weren't so dangerous making gay marriage legal wouldn't open the door for polyagamy (which the LDS practiced for years) or incest hate mongers like you just say it will to scare people into denying another group of people their rights

Shorten Crimes against supporters and opponents
I am removing all anecdotal crimes that have no documented connection to Prop. 8. As FBI Special Agent Juan Becerra stated (in some of the material I deleted), speculation on the motives of attackers is irresponsible. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Dr.enh (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As per my GA review, I support this approach. Good job. The section still needs a general introductory sentence sometime. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, Wikipedia is not a court of law. And it is very important that we not engage in WP:OR or even WP:SYNTH. But including the information on the anthrax hoax is doing none of the above. It is just including information that was reported by numerous reliable sources.


 * The article doesn't declare anyone guilty. It speculates that there may be a connection between the two organizations being the largest supporters of Prop 8 and their receiving letters with white powder from California. The bottom line is that we are following the lead of the reliable sources WP:RS. Excluding it would be POV. Espcially given that you chose to leave in the speculation linking the increase in reported anti-gay hate crimes to proposition 8. I believe both should be left in.


 * I've edited the anthrax section to just state the facts and state that LDS claims the attack was by prop. 8 opponents. And I included the denials by the prop. 8 opponents. If you believe it is still unbalanced I welcome your feedback.  Hoping To Help (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the picture of a protest against a LDS temple from the Crimes section, because a protest is not a crime. I did not move this picture to the Protest section, because that section already has a lot of pictures. Dr.enh (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The caption states that the LDS church is a heavily targeted group for crimes. There are very few pictures of crimes in action on Wikipedia, because there really is no such thing. Just a symbolic image should suffice - and it is indeed in-topic. --haha169 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A protest is not a crime. It is dishonest to label a picture of a protest with a caption about a crime. An appropriate picture for this section would relate to the text, e.g. a picture of vandalized property or a graph of hate crimes as a function of time.Dr.enh (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am shortening the Shorten Crimes against supporters and opponents. The section is so long that it gives WP:UNDUE undue weight to the acts of a very few people. I am removing speculation about crimes that may or may not be connected to Prop. 8. I am removing statements against LDS; these are free speech, not crimes. Dr.enh (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I'm very much in favor of same-sex marriage. So politically I imagine we're on the same side on this issue. I just believe the crimes committed by a very few people are very notable because of how they affect the group against which they appear to be directed.  I believe you've named three objections: WP:UNDUE, speculation, and "free speech" -- I'll address each of them in turn.


 * WP:UNDUE: Just as very, very, very few people have shot at a U.S president -- it is very notable. We don't leave an assassination attempt (or any crime) out of Wikipedia because people might wrongly blame a whole class of people for the crime instead of just the individual that committed the crime. The anthrax hoax section had nine (9) separate citations from reliable sources WP:RS including an article from the Associated Press -- one of only three news organizations given by Wikipedia policy as example of reliable sources from the "high-quality end of the market".  It has more citations than almost any other section of the Prop 8 Wikipedia article.  Probably because terroristic acts are extremely rare in the U.S. (And crimes that even may be politically motivated are especially rare.)  But we don't need to speculate why it was so heavily covered by reliable sources WP:RS -- just the fact that it was says we should include it or be in violation of WP:NPOV.


 * Speculation: As Wikipedia editors we definitely don't want to include any of our own speculations. But there is nothing wrong with including speculation by others that is widely reported in reliable sources WP:RS But to try and address your concern I removed the part that included the speculation by the newspapers. Instead it just included the fact that the anthrax hoax happened and that the LDS believed they were targeted b/c of their support of Prop. 8.  One thing that makes this "speculation" so heavily covered by the news media is that LDS believes they have been threatened because of their political actions.  If this was speculation about a particular individual then we might consider excluding it under WP:BLP -- but it is speculation about an unamed/unkown individual from a group that consists of 48% of population of California, and so clearly doesn't fall under BLP.  And even under BLP we would probably include such speculation if it were as widely reported by reliable sources as this was.


 * "Free speech"": The quote by Bash Back!’s Olympia chapter is not by itself a crime. But is was said in direct connection with a crime and as part of their taking credit for the crime -- and so it is notable and worth including.  Additionally, because it was said in connection with a crime -- it actually is an element of making this a hate crime. It goes to showing this was, at least in part, religiously  motivated. And religion is a protected class under Federal hate crime statutes.


 * Hoping To Help (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion of WP:UNDUE. Graffiti is not an assassination attempt, and an assassination attempt should play a very role in an article about a president. I also stand by my position that Wikipedia is not a court of law. It is irresponsible of us to quote speculations about motives or perpetrators of alleged crimes, until a conviction has been obtained.

I have moved material from Prop. 8, where it had undue weight, to more appropriate articles Mormonism and violence, Violence against LGBT people. Dr.enh (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What part of WP:UNDUE are you basing your assertion on? The first sentence of WP:UNDUE states:
 * "'Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
 * How could the viewpoint of the LDS church (the major backer of the initiative) not be significant? The fact that it was reported in many, many reliable sources in connection with Prop. 8 is another extremely important test that the anthrax hoax itself is relevant in this article. Again I ask, what specific part of WP:UNDUE are you basing your assertion on. And what is your reasoning that shows it outweighs the first sentence in the section? Hoping To Help (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The viewpoint of the LDS church should go in California_Proposition_8_(2008). Please put real crimes against the LDS church in Mormonism and violence or a similar article. Dr.enh (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're making a declarative statement of what you believe"should" be done. But you're not backing it up with any reasoning and you haven't addressed any of my carefully laid out points. Please join me in a dialog and exploration of this subject -- where we engage each other and actually take time to consider each others points. That will be much more effective than just telling people what you believe they "should" do.Hoping To Help (talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Including accusations when no conviction

 * Your contention that it is "irresponsible of us to quote speculations about motives or perpetrators of alleged crimes, until a conviction has been obtained" -- is, in the abstract, a reasonable stance to take. And one that in many situations I would strongly agree with. But, It fails concerning the anthrax hoax on at least four grounds. Any one being sufficient for it's inclusion:
 * Wikipedia does not have any policy saying that accusations or speculation should not be included. Quite the contrary. Even for Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP, which is especially restrictive, it states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article -- even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. And as stated above nothing about the anthrax hoax would fall under the restrictions of BLP.  (And again, even with the BLP restriction in play, there are many, many non-controversial instances in Wikipedia of articles including accusations against people where they have not been convicted of any crime.]
 * Many, many reliable sources published this information in connection with prop. 8
 * No specific person is being accused of anything.
 * The section is about "Crimes against Supporters and Opponents of Prop. 8". The anthrax hoax was undeniable a widely reported crime against a prominent prop 8. supporter.


 * BOTTOM LINE: I've spent the time to directly address the issues you raised. I'd love if you directly responded with arguments supporting your "assertions" and reference specific portions of Wikipedia policy .  I'm totally open to changing my mind. I would love a constructive, intelligent dialog.  And I'd probably like it if Wikipedia had a policy that didn't allow the inclusion of accusations of a crime unless someone was convicted -- I just don't see where that policy exists or that it would apply when no specific individual is being accused.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write about accusations of crimes allegedly related to Prop 8, please start a new article. Dr.enh (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're directing me to do something but you haven't addressed my points. And you haven't referenced any Wikipedia policy that supports your position that the particular crimes you removed should be in a separate article -- while you chose to leave the mention of other crimes in the same section of the main article. Please "show your work" -- address my points, describe your reasoning, and quote specific Wikipedia policy to support your position . That would go a long way toward our having a civil and cooperative investigation of how best to construct this article.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless, you fully address the points made on this talk page I'll be forced to conclude that your edits are based on bias and not grounded in a well reasoned application of Wikipedia policy -- and that your deletions are in violation of WP:NPOV and need to be reverted.
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A smattering of the most notable crimes in the Prop 8 article is appropriate, but more than that is WP:UNDUE and perhaps even WP:SOAP. BTW, no one can force you to conclude anything, and your threat is uncalled for. "I hope to be helpful here on Wikipedia without wasting too much of my or other people's time." Dr.enh (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples of Wikipedia including accusations without convictions

 * Above Dr.enh states: "It is irresponsible of us to quote speculations about motives or perpetrators of alleged crimes, until a conviction has been obtained." As far as I can tell this has no grounding in either Wikipedia policy nor practice.  I addressed the issue of policy above. Now I'll address practice. Here are just a few of the thousands of examples of accusations of crimes being included in a Wikipedia article -- even where there was no conviction:
 * Charlie_Sheen His Wikipedia bio states: "Jason Itzler, owner of the famous escort service NY Confidential, claimed in March 2008 that Sheen paid $20,000 for the services of two prostitutes ..." He was never charged nor convicted of the crime and he denies the allegation.
 * Hugh_Grant This article includes the statement: "Grant was arrested on allegations of assault made by paparazzo Ian Whittaker." But: "Charges were dropped on 1 June by the Crown Prosecution Service due to "insufficient evidence."[155] "
 * Rob_Lowe His article states: "Jessica Gibson, 24-year-old former nanny for Lowe, made 12 allegations against Lowe involving sexual harassment claims and labor-code violations. " The charges have since been dismissed. But the accusations are still in the article. I'm sure Lowe wishes they were not.
 * Lizzie_Borden Almost her whole article is devoted to the accusation that she killed her parents. She denied the accusations and was acquitted. But the article states: "... she was at the time (and is to an extent today) widely believed to be guilty ...". And yes, murder is an arguably much more serious crimes than we're dealing with in this article -- but the more serious the crime the more reason not to publish an unproven accusation.
 * Fatty_Arbuckle His article states: "Soon Arbuckle was accused of raping and accidentally killing Rappe...". "Though he was acquitted by a jury and received a written apology, the trial's scandal has mostly overshadowed his legacy as a pioneering comedian."


 * People often don't like to have the accusations included -- but it is Wikipedia policy to include them even when about a particular living person WP:BLP, if the accusation is "notable, relevant and well-documented."
 * Hoping To Help (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A smattering of the most notable crimes in the Prop 8 article is appropriate, but more than that is WP:UNDUE and perhaps even WP:SOAP. Dr.enh (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a simple solution, just find a picture of the mormon church WITHOUT the protesters in front of it. Okay (Throws confetti), problem solved...Knowledgekid87 20:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)