Talk:Protests against Proposition 8 supporters/Archive 1

"considering boycott"
The people listed are not considering boycotting other people or institutions; rather other people and institutions are considering boycotts of them or things with economic ties to them.--Bhuck (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Bhuck, I've changed the title to "Those Unemployed As a Consequence of Boycott". Is that vague enough for you? It covers those who either resigned due to pressure or those who were fired, but not publicly announced as such, too. DavidBailey (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were two different sections. On the section you are talking about now, I still had a problem because the imputed status "unemployed" was not documented.  Some people leave jobs to take new ones or to be self-employed.--Bhuck (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. How does "Resignations Due to Boycotts" sound? DavidBailey (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Trödel had an idea. The section is now titled "Effect of Boycotts" and each name includes their position and resignation date. How does this sound? DavidBailey (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Article title
I've moved the article from "Proposition 8 boycotts" (it was originally titled "Boycotting of Proposition 8 Supporters") to "Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters". The reason is that no one is boycotting Proposition 8 itself. Obviously, it's just a ballot measure which has already been passed. Also, no one is boycotting those who oppose the measure, only those who support it. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree because any boycott that the other side is doing is not noteable yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.101.74 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2008

Religious persecution
I am curious why various editors keep removing religious persecution. Read the linked article. It obviously applies and references have made reference to it. I guess my problem is that if you do a Google News search on "religious persecution" and "proposition 8" you get lots of hits, but mostly from opinion columnists. It appears to be a common sentiment among commentators. However, some editors have suggested that reflecting this common sentiment is a violation of NPOV. I really don't understand how to both represent this view and make the editors raising a red flag about it happy. DavidBailey (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume that mention of claims of religious persecution by opinion columnists might stand a chance of appearing in the text of the article if properly sourced. Including the article in the Category:Religious persecution, however, would imply that not only conservative opinion columnists take this view, but also that the official Wikipedia NPOV takes this view, which is probably not the case.--Bhuck (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the Homophobia category was likewise discussed and removed from the Proposition 8 (2008) article. AV3000 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on any such things. If a situation is widely considered to be such, it should be included in the article. Right now, although there are few using the phrase, people are being persecuted for their religious beliefs because they had the audacity to take political action based on their religious beliefs. This is not limited to just LDS Church members. It includes many Christians who supported the measure. However, primarily LDS Church members are the ones being targeted. DavidBailey (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The basic problem with the argument regarding the issues related to Proposition 8 is that you have one group saying that marriage is something they have to be included in to allow them the same rights as others. You have another group saying that their traditional and religious views don't allow this, even though many are unopposed to civil unions with the same advantages as marriage. The anti-8 group calls the pro-8 group bigots because they don't understand or accept the beliefs of the pro group. The pro group sees the anti group as bigots because they are attacking the pro group based on what they consider their religious beliefs. The situation is complicated by anti-8 groups that use legal acceptance of same-sex marriage to sue public services entities supported by religious groups that don't support that view. Both sides claim the other is using the power of government to attack their civil rights. The question is, how can this be presented in a NPOV, other than to state it like I have in this paragraph? What categories are appropriate to discuss the actions of each side? Those on the opposite side claim the other side doesn't understand or isn't being fair to them. DavidBailey (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DavidBailey added references to opinion pieces, which are fine to describe a point of view but are not sufficient to claim fact. The persecution category remains inappropriate; please do not add it without obtaining consensus; it's fairly clear we're going to need dispute resolution regarding this issue.  AV3000 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striving to maintain a NPOV tone. However, you are mistaken, it was in the article in its first draft, and the edit warriors are those removing it before the consensus has been reached. Please do not remove it again until then. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So because you are the initial author, your draft represents consensus, and only the people changing your draft are "edit warriors"?--Bhuck (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not claim that it has reached consensus. However, the article should be left in its original state until consensus is reached. If not, both sides continue switching it to their claimed NPOV perspective while the consensus process occurs. This is edit warring. DavidBailey (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see the reason for privileging the "original state"--wouldn't that mean that whoever writes an article first gets to keep his POV in the article until other editors have convinced him to remove it?--Bhuck (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "If a situation is widely considered to be such, it should be included in the article" -- No one is removing such things from the text of the article itself, when properly phrased. Including something in the article is a different matter from including the article in a category.  Inclusion within a category is not subject to any qualifications like "Some people think this should be in the category and others think it should not."  It is either in the category or not.--Bhuck (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that roughly half of the people involved are going to believe that attacking someone based on their religious beliefs, regardless of how inconsiderate or disconnected those beliefs may appear to gay rights activists, believe that the category DOES apply. When half thinks it should go in and half do not, who is right? I feel it may be better to err on the side of inclusion than exclusion, but I'm certain there are others who disgree. DavidBailey (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is the claim of religious persecution without any cites to support the claim. And how can there be a claim of religious persecution, if the religious group as a whole did not donate to Yes on 8 or support Proposition 8?  How can the claim be made that there is persecution based on a religious belief, when the believers supported both sides of the issue and only the believers who supported Prop 8 are being targeted?    By process of elimination, the determining factor of whether one is boycotted or not, is not based on religious belief, but whether one donated to support Prop 8.EmeryvilleEric (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple, as I have stated before, and as you, Bhuck, and AV300 keep removing wording and references, there has been wholesale hostile actions against members of the LDS Church whether or not they donated. First you remove it saying it isn't relevant, then you say there is no religious persecution and remove the tag and phrases too. Convenient perhaps, but hardly appropriate or NPOV. DavidBailey (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have removed the category from the page despite the warning. Because editors in good faith disagree over whether it inappropriately expresses a POV, the presumption must be under WP:NPOV it must not remain on the article unless consensus to include it is reached. There are also WP:BIO concerns since it amounts to labeling those in favor of the boycotts as religious persecutors. Otto4711 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. Wikipedia policy states that if part of an article is under dispute, it should not be changed until the dispute is resolved, either through consensus, mediation, or in its finality, arbitration. I will revert back to its original state. DavidBailey (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed it again. We add if there is consensus and policy to do so. I have no issue with including examples of what some call religious persecution and I have no issue with inserting reliably sourced statements that someone thinks this is religious persecution but categories are there for a reason and by the definition of the categories' article this doesn't meet the systematic persecution of either Mormons persecuting LGBT people or vice versa. If it were I'd have no issue with labeling it such. Our categories are there to inform but calling something religious persecution belittles these debates to something they are not and does a great disservice to people who actually are the victims of religious persecution. -- Banj e  b oi   03:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New section
I've moved the content that some editors seem to think doesn't belong mixed in with the boycott information into a new section detailing the extra-boycott activities. DavidBailey (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article getting off-topic
The inclusion of protests and isolated cases of vandalism is off-topic. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are included because various editors keep removing tags and phrases talking about religious persecution occurring. DavidBailey (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the religious persecution is occurring through a means other than boycotts, then it does not belong in this article. Protests and vandalism are not boycotts.  If you want to include protests and vandalism in the article, you should move it to Protests, vandalism and boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters.  Whether such a move and the resulting article title would be the basis for a consensus would then remain to be seen.  Some might argue that lumping these topics together would be similar to having an article on guns and religion or something.  While these terms are mentioned in the article liberal elite, they do not in and of themselves constitute something that naturally belongs together.  Interestingly, though, both correlate highly with support for Proposition 8.--Bhuck (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had thought about this. I don't know if it makes sense to move the article to something along the lines of "Demonstrations against Proposition 8 supporters" or "Actions against Proposition 8 supporters", which would include the calls for boycotts. Obviously, these are issues that are noteworthy and widely reported on. The benefit of moving the article to something along those lines is that it more closely aligns with the main Proposition 8 article sections, and would offload that section into this article. DavidBailey (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In principle, it might make sense, but we would have to be very careful about the wording. I am not sure that "Demonstrations" would be sufficiently broad to include boycotts.  "Actions against..." might not be considered sufficiently NPOV, though it is certainly broad in scope.  But it sounds a bit like punishment, which in turn implies a certain imputation of authority to the anti-8 side which might be misleading.--Bhuck (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are some very relevant related actions that have now been completely stripped from the article in an effort to make it "on topic". Talking about the boycotts in the absence of any mention of anthrax-scare mailings, graffiti, and intimidation which some LDS Church members have endured leaves the reader unaware that it has taken place. I think a change of title will have to happen, or a super-article which covers the other areas will need to be written. DavidBailey (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to change the article subject to something a bit broader to address your concerns.--Bhuck (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page again and expanded the lede a bit. May I also suggest that it any of y'all feel the need to delete content likely to be seen as something the others feel should remain ... paste it instead into its own talkpage section. - I've removed this because ____". I think there is a good article in here somewhere but this is also a current event so it may take some work to find it. -- Banj e  b oi   00:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

City Treasurer Recall
This is not exactly a boycott, but it is part of the post-Prop 8 events. A group is rallying to recall the city treasurer of Signal Hill because of his support for Proposition 8 (see http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_11173374). It doesn't seem to fit the article as it stands right now because it is not really a boycott, but perhaps the article needs to be expanded to include employment-related impacts like this. I will add the edit for now. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an issue to be cleared up in the lede if it's really a problem. We should avoid wikilawyering if X or Y is a boycott or not and instead focus on the content. Is the city treasurer of Signal Hill issue a part of the actions this list covers? It would seem so. An easier solution would be to add to the lede - "boycotts and similar actions were employed against supporters of Proposition 8". -- Banj e  b oi   22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the shift of the title (and thus the focus) of the article helps to clear this up and make it more obvious that mention of this case belongs in the article. I also notice that the city treasurer is an LDS bishop, which is not currently mentioned.--Bhuck (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Neutrality
I see plenty of references and no citation needed tags in the article should this be removed now? Alot of protest has happened against Prop 8 supporters and as such should be included on wikipedia as its a part of History, saying that these events didnt happen is like saying the civil rights movement was just a little fistfight. If it is more references that are needed there are tons online and even news coverage of the events that took place.

Knowledgekid87 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is a different issue than the question of whether something is properly cited. Adding ten well-cited quotes of people saying that the thought police will force people at gunpoint to marry lesbians to each other would not make the article more neutral.  The discussion on whether neutrality has been reached is actually going on at --Bhuck (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest leaving it for now, it's a developing story and the article still needs work. -- Banj e  b oi   19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag of 22 December 2008
I've added a POV tag, it's a little more complex than that, I think this article is attempting to in part be one article, and in part be another, and as a result, the article ends up, perhaps unintentionally, taking on something that seems POV-laden to me.

The article is titled "Protests against Proposition 8 supporters". When I came to this article, I think I found "against Proposition 8 supporters" a little unclear, it's fairly clear that at least a couple editors mean something more like "targeted against Proposition 8 supporters", or, and this is clearly too long a title, "Protests against specific supporters of Proposition 8 which have had a negative impact on those specific supporters." The lead paragraph then goes on to talk about "boycotts, marches, protests...", which to me suggests that it includes protests which have not had a deleterious affect on targeted supporters, as I've seen no signs that "marches" have been part of any targeted Proposition 8 campaign.

The fact that this topic muddles the waters between "protests against supporters" and "protests against supporters which have had a significant effect", and confounding the two allows the article to appear to be about the former while only listing the latter. If there is to be an article on the negative impacts on supporters of some Proposition 8 protests, then perhaps the operative noun of the title of this article should be Impacts, e.g., "Impacts of Anti-Prop-8 Protests on Supporters of Proposition 8."

So, to resolve this, I propose that we consider whether we can improve the title of the article along with reaching a more specific, spelled-out consensus about what the article is actually about. I think that step is valuable in any case, and that doing so will resolve the POV issue, at least in part, that concerns me about this article. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a discussion about focus is fine but to employ the POV tag you really need to present actionable POV items that someone can remove or fix. If you state that the title isn't NPOV then others can agree or disagree - I don't, by the way. If you state that certain items are included or purposely left-out is a POV issue then that can be addressed. Suggesting that the focus of the article should be more clear doesn't need the POV tag as much as dialog to clear up the issue. "Impacts" could be a valid subsection of the article but it may suffer from recentism to fully gauge what impacts the protests have had besides the people already listed. Some of the marches have been directed protests targeting churches and religious buildings so those have occurred. Do you have any actionable POV items to be addressed? Otherwise we should probably remove it and simply work to improve article shortcomings. -- Banj e b oi   05:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we do, indeed, need to have a discussion about focus, as we have been chasing each other through at least three different sections of the discussion page now, being told that the first section "POV tag" was an old discussion, and that the merger section was also not the appropriate place for such discussion. I would have misgivings about choosing a title which used the word "negative" -- perhaps the effect on the supporters is positive because in the long run they become more accepting of LGBT rights, or because they become less effective detractors from these rights.  Making value judgements about whether something is negative or positive is something Wikipedia should not do.  I am not thoroughly convinced by Benjiboi's arguments that the article should not be merged with the other protest article (about protests which do not have specific supporters as their targets), but I also don't see the position of having separate articles as totally unreasonable, so I am willing to be overruled, even if I am not completely convinced.  But if other editors also find the arguments for merging the articles to be convincing, maybe they will be able to persuade Benjiboi or come up with a better way of defining this article so that merging the articles seems even less reasonable.--Bhuck (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed the POV thread from a month ago as the article had changed dramatically and it was largely dormant. That thread has a bunch of sources which may prove to be helpful so I think fully archiving might be premature. We do need to move forward though. I see little wiggle room to merge the articles together except under an overly vague parameter of post-election reactions of opponents which seems largely unhelpful and unfocused. I remain convinced that the improvements on this article have been generally positive and the concerns outlined above are basic editing for clarity in the lede. I'm not convinced these are POV issues that the tag implies. That's a loaded tag that is often abused so we try to keep it on articles that warrant the concern.  -- Banj e b oi   08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, I think you are quite correct that this is not a POV issue. The only concern I have in that regard is that this article here is not too well-defined in terms of what counts and what doesn't (initially only boycotts counted, for example)--and I don't think it would be good if it got to the point where the Nov 15 article became the "good protests" and this article became the "bad protests".  I think the initial impulse for creating this article here was to pillory certain protest tactics and collect all kinds of quotes criticizing them (remember the now-deleted quote farm?), and I think the article still reflects that impulse vaguely, although far less pronouncedly than previously.--Bhuck (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi--you've asked for an actionable item, and I thought I'd provided it, let me try and communicate my concern and my proposed action once again. The specific POV issue I raised a point of view concern about is this--by listing only a select set of protests which have had a negative effect on individuals and giving it a label that describes that list to the reader as all protests against 8 supporters, the article implicitly suggests directly to the reader that all protests against 8 supporters had significant effects.  That is the issue, the "action" I recommend could take either, (but not both) of two shapes.  First--correct the title of the article and the lead of the article to indicate the more narrow.  Alternatively--make the article more inclusive of protests against Proposition 8 supporters which did not creative deleterious effects on individuals.  Of course, I'm open to discussion as to whether the POV issue I've raised is in fact a POV issue as well, if you can show me that what I perceive as a misleading article title does not push a POV, I'm more than happy to remove the POV tag myself.  Does this address your request for an "actionable item"?--I'm not trying to be obstructionist.   --Joe Decker (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addition--I see you've suggested elsewhere on the page here that a cleanup of the lede would help, and I agree, that might actually address my concerns. Would you like to take a shot at it?  --Joe Decker (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think, though, that the POV tag is still warranted. For example, much is made of white powder in envelopes, and only later does the article mention that the FBI has been unable to establish any connection.  The prominence with which such incidents are treated for which there is no established connection reflects a tendency of guilt by association.--Bhuck (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bhuck--the inclusion of the white powder stuff is a bit concerning to me as well, with no verifiable connection to Proposition 8, but a clear circumstantial connection, I understand how people could go either way. My natural impulse is to try and keep information, not remove it (I guess this makes me an anti-deletionist), but I do think there's an actionable item here as welll--I'd like to see the white powder stuff moved to a separate section.  Including it under "Accusations of religious bigotry" tends to confuse matters quite a bit, and makes it less clear what is and isn't known about the white power mailings, if the white powder incidents are going to be covered, let's at least work to make them as clearly communicated as possible, without any taint of POV-by-innuendo.  --Joe Decker (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We should work, then, to show what reliable sources state about the connection(s), if any. If they state it's just a coincidence of timing then we report that, etc. I'm not convinced that's a POV issue either though. I'll have a look and see if there is anything to add. -- Banj e b oi   23:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree completely. Also, with respect to my POV claim, I feel like my primary POV concern has now been addressed, and while there are still things to work out, I've removed the POV tag that I added.  Thanks for your patience.  --Joe Decker (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
This article seems to be heavily slanted against proposition 8 supporters- it's almost a list of "wrongs". That's why I've added the POV tag. tedder (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The opinion sources definitely need to be replaced with reputable sources. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you include "reputable", non-opinion sources when the topic is about opinion? Whether or not to boycott and why or why not? DavidBailey (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone has an authoritative way to resolve the issues of the fact that this is about commentary and opinion, please contribute it, otherwise, I'll remove the POV tag, because this is a matter of opinion and judgement. DavidBailey (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, you'll remove the POV tag because "it's a matter of opinion and judgement"? That's proof it *is* POV. Don't remove the POV tag until all POV issues have been taken care of. tedder (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tedder, you say you put the tag up. How would you resolve the perceived bias? Simply splashing a tag on an article you don't like is counterproductive and unhelpful. Also, let me try to better word what I said before. This whole topic is a matter of public opinion. I have cited numerous articles from reliable sources and sources from prominent commentators from within and without the gay community about the topic. How would you state issues of opinion and judgement without referring to editorial and opinion sources? DavidBailey (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(denesting) Here are some of my concerns: tedder (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let the facts speak for themselves: there's a lot of text that currently says "Some have (verb)". This is true with the final sentence of the summary: "There has been controversy...". To keep a NPOV, only the facts need to be presented so readers can make their own judgement. (the rest of the summary does a GREAT job at this)
 * Listing those that might be boycotted is putting undue weight on the boycotting, especially without a substantial number of sources. In other words, one loud voice could be represented by this section but it paints the whole crowd (of prop8 boycotters) with the same brush.
 * Sources that are from op/ed columns should either be removed or be backed up. (specifically: A political column in The Ledger, Huffington Post's political column, The editorial in the conservative-leaning RCP, Letters to the editor in the LA Times, and An op/ed in the Cornell Sun. I'd remove at least the majority of these from an article if it wasn't under dispute- letters to the editor are certainly NOT a notable source.
 * Finally, as you said, "This whole topic is a matter of public opinion." Adhering to a neutral point of view is even more critical because of this.
 * Thanks for your suggestions. Point-by-point:

Thanks again. DavidBailey (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to write this in "non-weasel-word style" using very specific commentator X said, and writer X said, but the fact of the matter is that tens maybe a sizable chunk of a hundred have made comments about this. Trying to document all of this is wearisome and unhelpful to the article. Would you be happier if it read something like "Many have commented..." and then give a couple of specific examples?
 * Hmmm. I've only listed those who have been listed for boycott. In all these cases they are documented in multiple sources and most are already under at least a threat of boycott. There have been press conferences, and newspaper articles have reported these in multiple interviews. I don't think in any of these cases that a single voice has put them there, but please check the sources and let me know if I've made a mistake somewhere.
 * Again, how do we illustrate the groundswell of concern about this? The problem with this issue is that the majority of voices on both sides aren't in editor chairs. They are mainly from community action. Using op-ed pieces from notable publications is appropriate in cases like this.
 * I agree that would be ideal, but please give me specific examples of how to document public opinion without quoting opinion piece sources. I think it would take polls of specific groups which are disagreeing which I haven't seen yet.


 * David, please, please go (re)read Reliable_sources. A couple things of note:
 * "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact"
 * "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. (...) if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * What I'm saying is making statements based on op-ed comments, no matter how many op-ed comments you turn up, is not the sort of thing that should be on Wikipedia. Community opinion, if notable, will be echoed in reliable news sources. (i.e., a newspaper will report it as fact, based on community opinion)
 * tedder (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read it in the past. I'm finding additional news article references. With the new references, which sources do you object to, and why, so they can be removed? DavidBailey (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go through and either remove any references that shouldn't be there (if it's 100% clear) or I'll paste them here (if it's debatable). tedder (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the reference for the letters to the editor is to provide a source illustrating that a series of letters (I think there are three or four in the link) are being written. No text of the letters is included in the article. DavidBailey (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * However, you are synthesizing what the editorials say, which is worse. In other words, text like "Some say.." isn't appropriate, even if it is referenced. Finally, I'd suggest stepping back and letting other editors try to resolve the NPOV issues on this article. You've been responsible for 2/3rds of the edits to this article (67 of 103), including creation of it, and it's hard to remove personal bias- especially in a polarizing article. tedder (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've not stopped you from adding content. Please do. I'm trying to write an article here! This is not a negative. I'll work on making the article more direct, however, if you say I haven't put any effort into keeping the article balanced, you're not paying close attention to the entirety of my writing. DavidBailey (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing this page with religious persecution and civil rights violations is a bit POV. What civil rights have been violated? What religious group has been persecuted? The boycotts are targeting financial supporters of Prop 8. EmeryvilleEric (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Actually, everyone who has left their positions to date has been LDS. Several articles have pointed out that even though Black Americans made up a larger percentage of the vote for Proposition 8, that LDS Church members are the ones being targeted because they are believed a "safer" political target. Consider the threatening a boycott of Sundance. Robert Redford has never been an LDS church member, nor is the property under LDS church ownership or control. If you're aware of the nearby Park City, Utah which also participates, it is hardly a bastion of conservatives or Mormons either. From the Utah article, "The Democrats of Summit County are the by-product of the migration of wealthy families from California in the 1990s to the ski resort town of Park City; their views are generally supportive of the economic policies favored by unions and the social policies favored by the liberals." Loss of employment related to a boycott of a person, due to their private donation to a political action group, with both the amount and the donators employer made public because of the requirements of law, could easily be construed as political and religious persecution and violation of their civil rights. To quote the Civil Rights division of the DOJ, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion." You could easily make a case that this person and others are being targeted for their religious beliefs. Also, I'll be adding additional references from what you call "reliable news sources" as they become available. DavidBailey (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a number of things here I don't quite get. Are any Mormons who did NOT donate to Proposition 8 being targeted?  If only those who donated are targeted, how do we know that it is their religion which is being targeted, rather than their stance on Proposition 8?  Furthermore, if Park City is not predominantly Mormon, and it is being targeted, how can you maintain that the boycott is religiously motivated?  Is the degree to which Roman Catholic laity responded to their church leadership's call to support Proposition 8 comparable to the degree with which Mormon laity responded to their leadership's call to support Proposition 8?  If so, it is not clear to me why Roman Catholics are not being targeted as well, but it could be that they are more rebellious and also ignore their church leadership on other topics, like birth control.  Finally, are African-Americans as significant a source of financial donations for the pro-8 campaign as Mormons?  People are not being targeted for boycotts on the basis of their votes, since the ballot is secret, but on the basis of their financial support.  These two ways of supporting Proposition 8 might not always overlap 100%.--Bhuck (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes there are Mormons who did not donate being targeted. Mormons that are part of Sundance who did not contribute for example. -- Trödel 16:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But Mormons who are part of Sundance and did not contribute are not being targeted for being Mormon are they? Sundance is not, as far as I know, Mormon.  Sundance is being targeted (if it is targeted at all--I don't think any definitive decision has been made on this point) because it is in the state of Utah.  The state of Utah, as a constituent state of the United States of America, a nation which has separation of church and state, is religiously neutral and not Mormon (though a majority of its residents happen to be Mormon).  In fact, if Sundance were to be targeted, the effect on non-Mormons would probably be higher than if something else in Utah were targeted, as Sundance is less-than-average Mormon by Utah standards.  Furthermore, it is not clear if there are any Mormons who are part of Sundance and who did not contribute to the Pro-8 campaign.  So maybe it is a non-existent constituency here that you are claiming is being targeted.--Bhuck (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bhuck, there are many LDS members being targeted for being LDS members who have not donated, or did you miss the part of about the vandalism and demonstrations? Obviously, everyone in the LA Temple did not donate to oppose the Proposition. However, only those who have donated have been boycotted that I am aware of. DavidBailey (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism and demonstrations are not boycotts. Boycotts are the subject of this article, not vandalism and demonstrations.  Are the LDS members who are being targeted by vandalism and demonstrations working for Sundance?
 * Perhaps the LDS churches that are being targeted for vandalism and demonstrations are targets because they are mistakenly perceived as taking a certain political position. My bet is that if they make clear that the perception of their political position is in fact an unfortunate mistake, and that in fact they observed strict neutrality or even opposed Proposition 8, the protests would stop immediately.  My perception is that the motivation of the protests is, in fact, political and not religious.--Bhuck (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that if all the various members and buildings of the church would repudiate their belief that marriage is ordained of God as being between a man and a women then they would no longer be targeted? Sorry, that's religious persecution. DavidBailey (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that the various members would have to repudiate their belief that the law of the state must necessarily reflect their view of the law of God in every detail. If they would stop conflating religious definitions of marriage with legal definitions of marriage, they would no longer be targeted.  Proposition 8 did nothing whatsoever to affect the religious definition of marriage.  The Metropolitan Community Church will still be marrying same-sex couples--the only difference is that they won't be recognized by the state, and in the period from June to November, no LDS congregation performed a single same-sex marriage, despite their freedom to do so--because they also had the freedom to decline.  The Roman Catholic Church has also not repudiated its belief that divorcees cannot re-marry, and yet they are not funding a campaign to repeal the divorce laws of the state of California.--Bhuck (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have been unclear, it is my understanding that every person who has stepped down and majority of those who have been targeted for donating have been LDS. The only person I don't think is LDS is Terry Caster. If you have evidence to the contrary, please add it to the article. Mormons' support of Proposition 8 is directly related to their religious tenets (check the references and see also section). Park City, per se, isn't being targeted, Sundance Festival is which also includes Park City. The reason it is being targeted is due to its proximity with the headquarters of the LDS Church. Roman Catholics as well as many Protestants in the area publicly supported Proposition 8, but as far as I know, none have been targeted. Draw your own conclusions. LDS Church members were the most significant source of donations, although there are plenty of non-Mormons who also gave generously who have not been targeted. From what I can find, the largest donation to support Prop. 8 actually came from a Catholic organization the Knights of Columbus. The largest individual donor was Howard Ahmanson, also not LDS. DavidBailey (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I'm wrong. Terry Caster is LDS, too.
 * If Howard Ahmanson is on the "dishonor Roll" list that you are citing, how can you say he is not being targeted?--Bhuck (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are the cites to backup the claims of only targeting Mormons?  The article as it stands now engages in original research and is inferring a causation from a correlation. Mormons who donated to No on 8's contributions are just as public, and they are not being targeted.  EmeryvilleEric (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The dishonor roll is not the primary list calling for boycotts. I included it here to cite the amounts donated. Also, read the references, they point out a majority of those boycotted (if not all) are LDS. And you're pretty funny Emeryville, of course LDS Church members (please avoid "Mormons" as it's vague and incorrect usage: See WP:LDS), who opposed are not being boycotted, as far as I know, no one who has opposed the measure has been boycotted. However, LDS Church members are being threatened and their buildings vandalized. This includes those who didn't make donations either way.  DavidBailey (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the primary list calling for boycotts, if not the dishonor roll?--Bhuck (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't pretend to understand the network of blogs and websites calling for boycotts. This was the one I found on Google that showed largest donation amounts. However, nearly all references in the news to boycotts that have occurred or have been commented on in the news have been targeted at LDS Church members or their places of work. DavidBailey (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that Ahmanson is being boycotted. However, he is in a "business" that has no customers in the gay community to begin with--distributing money amassed in previous generations that he has inherited control over, and distributing it to anti-gay causes.  Therefore, he is not exactly a good comparison to somebody like the owner of El Coyote restaurant.  Maybe you can think of a non-Mormon who donated to the pro-8 side and is involved in a potentially boycottable business and yet is not being boycotted?  Or maybe not.--Bhuck (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, since you seem to be editing from the Anti-Prop 8 POV, why don't you show me some notable references that discredit the perspective that most of the boycotting and other more hostile activities that you, EmeryvilleEric, and AV300 are stripping out of the article, are against members of the LDS Church. DavidBailey (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the burden of providing reliably sourced citations is on you, who originally added the content; you've had ample notice, so it will continue to be removed. AV3000 (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if you think that primarily LDS Church members aren't the ones being targeted then you haven't read the nearly 20 citations already in the article. Your repeated reversions amount to vandalism. DavidBailey (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That all depends on what you mean by "primarily". As far as I know--and I haven't found any evidence to the contrary in the various citations--no LDS members who did not contribute are being targeted.  LDS buildings are being targeted (but not for boycotts, which until recently was the focus of this article--now that the focus has expanded, we will have to consider this more seriously), but not on the basis of theological doctrine (no one is demanding that LDS views on the Angel Moroni be revised, for example), but on the basis of taking part in a political campaign.  In general, the Roman Catholic Church has also occasionally been the target of gay rights demonstrations (I can recall ACT UP demonstrators chaining themselves to the pews of St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC back in the late 80s or early 90s, and the German gay and lesbian association has also held protests outside various cathedrals)--if they are being exempted from the post-Prop-8 campaign, this would be an interesting and significant phenomenon, which would need to be better documented than it currently is--assuming that RC support was equal and comparable to LDS support (which would also need to be documented).  If you read the Prop 8 article about religious proponents, you will notice certain differences in the discussion of the two religious groups--perhaps these differences are the motivation for the different treatment?  How we can discuss these things in the article without speculating will also be something to consider.--Bhuck (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a new title, or to figure out what it's about. If the article is about every kind of protest, peaceful, violent or otherwise, against Proposition 8, then the vast majority of those protests in terms of size and activity were the November 15th marches, which are only linked here, which would be a gross violation of Wikipedia policy on undue weight. If, on the other hand, the topic of this is not all Proposition 8 protests, then the title needs to be changed to indicate what the proper scope of the article is. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my opinion, too-- see --Bhuck (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And that merge proposal has, IMHO, a rather well laid out response. Those marches were not specific protests against Prop 8 supporters as much as the proposition itself. Some of those events may have been targeted specifically but in general, no, they were traditional solidarity marches focussed on an issue. This article is about the protests focussed on specific individuals and organizations. -- Banj e b oi   20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article has been effectively rewritten and although there may still be some issues this thread has gone a bit dormant. Please start a new thread with actionable items if you feel the tag is warranted. -- Banj e b oi   20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)