Talk:2009 Washington Referendum 71

Approve vs Reject?

Should this section be moved to top of the article? For people looking for quick info on the subject, having this more accessible might be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.130.58 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Along with this, the statement "this marked the first time in the United States that voters had approved a state-wide gay-rights ballot measure" is dubious, because one could arguably say that Arizona_Proposition_107_(2006) was the first (although a similar referendum which did not also affect straight people was approved two years later: Arizona Proposition 102 (2008)).

Washington Referendum 71 (2009) confirmed a law that extended rights; Arizona Proposition 107 (2006) would have prohibited the recognition of rights that never existed, and were not scheduled to exist. I think the distinction is significant and notable, although I agree that the statement in the article is unclear. --Dr.enh (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing the second paragraph?

As it reads now, the language in the second paragraph seems that it could be confusing as to the meaning of an "approve" or "reject" vote - "Proponents of holding the referendum hope to head off same sex marriage, by recinding the expansion legislation" would seem to indicate that an "approve" vote might stop some new same-sex marriage law. The actual ballot language is rather different; an "approve" vote keeps the current civil union language, while a "reject" vote rejects the civil unions bill passed by the legislature. Since this is a confusing issue (approval of the referendum keeps the law as it stands, and rejection changes the law, the reverse of the usual procedure), and people are likely to turn to Wikipedia for answers, it seems to me like there should be a concise paragraph or two at the top describing exactly what "approve" and "reject" mean on the ballot. Yes, it's explored later in the article - but, unfortunately, not everybody is going to read the entire thing. 67.160.77.37 (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

What part of the article is not NPOV? VoodooIsland (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I adjusted the capitalization of two section titles to meet MoS standards. I also regularized the format of dates. Duanewilliams (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edited for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VelmaSaltines (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a tough one - maybe someone more experienced than me can help out. While it's definitely a verifiable claim that the main opponent of R-71, Protect Marriage Washington, counts such organizations as 'Concerned Citizens of Pierce County' and 'Facts for Freedom' as endorsing a vote of 'reject,' it's not clear that it's possible to verify these organizations' endorsements (or their existence). Neither have any web presence to speak of and as far as is possible to tell, have not issued press releases detailing their endorsement. So where does Wikipedia's mandate fall? Thanks for any answers. 128.138.140.163 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Edited:128.138.140.163 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed "alleged fraud" section

I just removed an entire section from the main article. This section was called "Alleged fraud" and it linked to and described a video in which someone was collecting signatures related to a Referendum 71 initiative, and doing so in what was purported to be a fraudulent way. The link to the video and limited commentary about it make the discussion a primary source of news, which is not allowed. Also it seems to me that the entire discussion was from an unverifiable source; it is not certain that the person depicted in the video was authorized by any reputable social group to speak on behalf of them to the media, and if he was not, then the incident was not notable. Finally it was not stated who was alleging the fraud or why that accusation should be notable. If anyone disagrees then say something here. Blue Rasberry 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of Referendum 71

This section formerly contained a list of people who supported the referendum as an avenue to reject the legislation. I added a list of major figures who supported the referendum as an avenue to approve the legislation, then subdivided the supporters by those endorsing approval or rejection, then cited both sides through the single largest political activist organizations on each side. Comments? Blue Rasberry 17:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Signature release controversy

The bit about the signature release is tangential to the subject matter of the referendum, but as this issue has gotten national attention as a government transparency and freedom of information issue, I thought it warranted mention in the article. Blue Rasberry 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Listing all entities named on a website

Today user 205.241.49.131 changed the text in the article about endorsements from "Over 240 organizations" to a list of what seems to be 240 organizations, all individually cited to the same source. While this definitely is useful information, and I am sure it was a good-faith effort, I am not sure this is appropriate for general readers of this article because it is too exhaustive. Even if it is appropriate, it needs to be reformatted to condense the data.

Most of the organizations and officials listed do not have wikiarticles, so this list is unlikely to get developed without at least 100 new wikiarticles being created. I think that WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here. I prefer to say that 240 organizations all agree on this topic, and then cite the page that lists these organizations and verifies the statement. But on the other hand, I do not want to discount this effort at improving the article.

What does everyone else think? Blue Rasberry 20:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When I checked out the page this morning (yours was the last edit), pretty much everything looked fine. I agree that the full list was excessive, and think the current list (naming notable members of said full list, e.g. WA Bar Assoc., WA Assoc. of Churches, etc) is better than any previous incarnation.

I've got my own reservations about some of the more misleading ones (NAACP should really be listed as NAACP, King County chapter - the parent organization has not weighed in; what exactly ARE 'Facts for Freedom' and 'Washington Opposed to Pro-Homosexual Policies,' and are they notable enough to list on Wikipedia?), but I'll leave it to someone with more experience to futz with. Hope the page stays relatively free of vandalism the next couple weeks. 128.138.140.163 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutralized Language

Edited the "Background" section, replacing "a hate group" with "an activist group" as I thought the term "hate group" was biased. If anyone can think of a better word than activist, feel free to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeRadicalX51 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Election Results

I think this section is premature, as not all the votes are counted yet. As of this writing, there are still 414,282 ballots to be counted, which is more than enough to change the current margins (source). FreeRadicalX51 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence at the bottom saying that these results were as of this time and date. And, I added how many ballots are estimated to be left to be counted, according to the Secretary of State's website. Also, we need to change the election result box to Approve or Reject, instead of Yes and No. Dobby421 (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)