Talk:Washington Death with Dignity Act

"Criticisms" section
Frankly, it was the use of informal language (contractions, specifically) that made this stick out as something somebody pulled out of thin air. Like I said in my edit summary, it's not unreasonable to have such a section in the article, but you must source it. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Endorsements"
"I-1000 has been endorsed by the Seattle Times,[6] the Everett Herald,[7] the Olympian,[8] the Issaquah Press,[9] the Tri-City Herald,[10] and the Lewiston, Idaho Tribune.[11] The Portland Oregonian initially endorsed it in January,[12] but rescinded their endorsement in September.[13]"

None of these newspapers endorsed I-1000. They merely published editorials, these listed happening to be in favor of the proposition. I'm deleting this bit for that reason. Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * User Kristamaranatha is probably right that they are just editorials and not actual endorsements by the newspapers. Wasn't sure how to treat them however... But I error on adding data and not removing... Wanted to make sure that there was an exact balance of both sides (if that is possible.) I am replacing the clipped section with the old page source code to retain the reference record to the original articles for historical verification. Bdelisle (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I-1000 has been endorsed by the Seattle Times, the Everett Herald, the Olympian, the Issaquah Press, the Tri-City Herald, and the Lewiston, Idaho Tribune. The Portland Oregonian initially endorsed it in January, but rescinded their endorsement in September.

END SECTION "Endorsements"