Talk:SaveCalifornia.com

Notability criteria
The article now exceeds Wikipedia's notability guidelines (not rules) for organizations.

✅An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. (see list below)

✅The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. (multiple sources; multiple regions; multiple topics - see list below).

✅If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. (see list below)

✅The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. (see list below)

✅A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself. (see list below)

National Scope
 * 1) The Christian Science Monitor.
 * 2) Southern Poverty Law Center
 * 3) USA Today
 * 4) Mother Jones
 * 5) CNN, MSNBC and CBS (not cited in the article)

Regional Scope
 * 1) The (Williamantic, CT) Chronicle
 * 2) The Washington Times
 * 3) The Sacramento Bee
 * 4) Daily News of Los Angeles
 * 5) 9 News Colorado (A Gannett Company)
 * 6) San Francisco Chronicle

Local Scope
 * 1) Sacramento News & Review

One final note: SaveCalifornia.com is not merely another website of a few crazed homophobes. They have publicly, politically and vocally opposed Proposition 8 every step of the way, and now the matter sits on the steps of the US Supreme Court. Their collective political activism impinges upon the lives of millions of Americans as has been thoroughly documented by multiple reliable sources. – MrX 16:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC); 16:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC); 20:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having a difficult time finding some of the articles. When I go to some of the newspaper sites, they have other articles from the stated time frames but not the ones you've cited (e.g., Daily News Los Angeles, The Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee.)  As you've put an access date, could you also put the link that you accessed?  I realize a link is just a convenience and not required, but it's odd that the web sites don't have them.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They were from NewsBank and I didn't think they were accessible, however I just tried a couple in other browsers and they worked. Could you try this link and let me know if you can see the article? Thanks – MrX 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that link worked. I would put those NewsBank links in the URL field and keep the original citation info.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I wish I would have known that a few dozen articles ago. OK, I will add the links presently. – MrX 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Landmark case
Hi 72Dino! I noticed you reverted "landmark case" back to "case" here. The source citation says "Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's strongly worded opinion in the landmark case — the first in a federal court to examine if states can lawfully limit marriage to a man and a woman..." Could you please elaborate on the reversion? Much thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. The word "landmark" is generally (but not always) considered positive.  MSNBC does not have to be neutral (and they aren't), but Wikipedia does.  Removing the adjective is an easy way to remove the POV that the ruling was positive.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with you that Wikipedia has to be neutral. :)  However, please see Perry v. Brown.  What do you make of the fact that the main article here on Wikipedia states in the lede "The case has long been regarded as a landmark case..." with citations?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it sounds like they are pushing a point of view on the main article. Of course, WP:OSE isn't a reason for this article to replicate that POV.  I just feel it is more neutral to remove the adjective that really doesn't add anything to the article anyway.  72Dino (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, I'm not able to see the connection between "landmark" and "positive" with respect to WP:NPOV, nor do I think editors are pushing a particular point of view by saying that the case was a landmark case (whether here, or in the main article). This case changed the course of the law in California over an issue which drew significant media attention and nearly  80% of the electorate (something like 13,000,000 people) voted, with a majority voting to deny same sex marriage and the Court's ruling overturning that law on constitutional grounds.  Landmark cases are cases in which the ruling substantially changes existing laws.  In what ways might one argue that this case is not a landmark case?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the connection between "landmark" and "positive" is only in my eyes. If that is the case, I'll defer to other editors.  In fact, I won't remove the term again in any case.  However, I still do not see how the adjective adds to this article. 72Dino (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only a single adjective, but I do think it's important to include so that the reader understands the significance this ruling had in the eyes of millions of people. Thanks for taking the time to discuss the matter.  As a quick side note on "landmark" and "positive", I think one of the best cases of all time to consider in that regard is Plessy v. Ferguson.  Considered to be a landmark decision in a very negative fashion, it managed to stand for more than 50 years before it was repudiated by Brown v. Board of Education.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation to their own articles?
Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaveCalifornia.com#cite_note-SC120522-18 really a citation?

Obviously he said it, but this citation seems... Spurious. There's no evidence the linked site actually has evidence for its claims or is a good source as per wikipedia rules... 174.62.69.11 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The citation supports this text:


 * It's permissible to use a primary source, in this case the subjects own web site, for content as long as it's not self-serving. Here is the relevant guideline: WP:SELFSOURCE. - MrX 19:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)