Talk:1986 California Proposition 64
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Text of initiative
editWhy was the text removed? It's only a few sentences long, and since there are disputes over what the initiative would do, I thought that having the text available would be a useful reference. --Coleacanth (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Source texts of any kind belong in Wikisource, and this text is already there. We're all intelligent enough to realize that the mere text of a law isn't sufficient to show what its effect would be. Will Beback talk 16:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Things that happened 20 years later
editPicking one thing that happened twenty years after the events covered in this article is a form of original research. It is inappropriate to add facts from sources that don't mention LaRouche or Prop.64. Otherwise, we could fill the article with comparisons of the forecasts by LaRouche with the actual outcomes, etc. If there's a source that discusses later events in the context of Prop. 64 then that'd be appropriate to summarize. Will Beback talk 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:I disagree. If it is notable to say that LaRouche accused the CDC of malfeasance because they didn't back universal testing (despite the fact that such testing was not part of Prop. 64,) then it is worth noting their response, even if it took them a long time. By including the issue of the CDC and testing, you made it relevant. Maybe we should invite outside comment. --Coleacanth (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're proposing to include material from a source that doesn't mention LaRouche or Prop. 64. Would it be appropriate to include statistics that show how incorrect the predictions made by the proponents? Information that shows statements about the transmission of AIDS were entirely wrong? And so on? Where do we draw the line? Will Beback talk 03:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sources
edit- Once-rejected AIDS initiative gets back on California ballot December 04, 1987 edition Cheryl Sullivan, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
For future use. Will Beback talk
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on California Proposition 64 (1986). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209141015/http://www.etext.org:80/Politics/LaRouche/larouche.program.15 to http://www.etext.org/Politics/LaRouche/larouche.program.15
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209141015/http://www.etext.org:80/Politics/LaRouche/larouche.program.15 to http://www.etext.org/Politics/LaRouche/larouche.program.15
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It is currently unclear from the page what, if anything, the impact of this initiative would have been.
editThe article currently reads:
- Proponents argued that the measures would merely return AIDS to the list of communicable diseases under the public health laws.[...]Opponents characterized it as an effort to force HIV-positive individuals out of their jobs and into quarantine. Said Helen Miramontes, R.N., president of the California Nurses Association:
- Health professionals believe that Proposition 64 would seriously hurt their ability to treat and find a cure for AIDS. Current medical efforts based on years of research will be undermined by the fear generated by this irrational proposition.
I, like many readers of Wikipedia, am not a Californian from the 1980s, so this makes no sense to me. AIDS is clearly a communicable disease, under the dictionary definition of "communicable". Was this a special type of communicable? Was there some special implication of this list under "the public health laws"? This may most easily be remedied with more extended quotes/summaries of the proponents' and opponents' arguments. I won't do this, but I'm flagging it here in case anyone else wants to take a crack. Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)