Talk:2022 Kansas abortion referendum

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Kansas may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Why is this full of misinformation? .

All the amendment does is give Kansans the ability to vote on the issue. Kansas also has laws protecting mothers from pregnancies that could kill them. I do not know why this wiki is blatantly lying. 174.250.211.0 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to the #Arguments section. Also read the sources too —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 10:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was proposed in this section that 2022 Kansas Value Them Both Amendment be renamed and moved to 2022 Kansas Amendment 2.

result:
No consensus. See insufficient agreement below that this article should be renamed as proposed, nor is there agreement that the current title is acceptable or unacceptable. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a page move. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disclaimer: this closure is neutral; whether or not there is consensus, only the arguments in the request below are reflected, nothing else.

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Result:
No consensus. See insufficient agreement below that this article should be renamed as proposed, nor is there agreement that the current title is acceptable or unacceptable. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a page move. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disclaimer: this closure is neutral; whether or not there is consensus, only the arguments in the request below are reflected, nothing else.

2022 Kansas Value Them Both Amendment → 2022 Kansas Amendment 2 – The requested move is in line with 2005 Kansas Amendment 1 and various similar articles for votes in other states (see Category:2018 ballot measures, Category:2020 ballot measures, etc.). Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the Kansas Secretary of State doesn't even list it as "Amendment 2" (I only added it because some news sources use the term) and it's more commonly known as "Value Them Both" per WP:COMMONNAME. (Just for disclosure, I'm the article's creator here.) —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 23:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, "Value Them Both" as a ballot title is political messaging and WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We can note the political name in the heading but it shouldn't be the article title Nevermore27 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As noted by twotwofourtysix, it was officially run as the "Value Them Both" amendment and that was the title on the ballot; it is a political title, but it was a politically-motivated action, so changing it may have the implication of mediating it into something that appears less than an anti-abortion initiative. And, since (as of this post) it's projected to not pass, it therefore will not become an amendment to the Kansas Constitution, creating a misnomer for whatever future proposals go to the ballot. Having just looked, CNN, for example, call it "amendment/issue 1", which just adds to the confusion. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if we don't want to give it a title like "Amendment 2" or "Issue 1" which may be inaccurate, I think "2022 Kansas reproductive rights/abortion rights ballot measure" would be a workable solution. I really have a problem with allowing political messaging to weasel its way into neutral sites like this. There's a reason we don't have articles titled "pro-choice" or "pro-life", because those are political messages. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small note: the side campaigning for a "yes" vote on this measure is literally called "Value Them Both" [1]. This for sure runs afoul of WP:NOTNEUTRAL. I would also dispute that COMMONNAME applies, because I sincerely doubt anyone who doesn't support the measure calls it that. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this sounds biased towards one side or the other here but including "reproductive rights/abortion rights" would also not quite be neutral since it rings familiar to opponents' arguments that this is about taking away/keeping rights etc. I also don't think there are any other ballot measure pages with a title that includes a short description of its content. Maybe this is too WP:OTHERSTUFF but I say that Illinois Fair Tax also has a title that isn't really neutral but personally I'm fine with it because that's its official title. Anyway, stating the obvious here but reasonable minds can disagree. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 08:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that something in this spirit would be pragmatic, perhaps omitting 'rights'. · | (t - c) 09:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As we have a news source calling it "Amendment 2" I think that's the most neutral thing to call it. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified oppose: I think that renaming the article would be worthwhile, but not to an ambiguous title ('Amendment 2' does not have the same sort of traction as, say, Proposition 8). I like Nevermore27's suggestion. · | (t - c) 09:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure what the best name for this article is, but after seeing this discussion I checked the New York Times coverage [2] [3], and neither article uses the "Value Them Both" name for the amendment and instead refer to it as "constitutional amendment" or a "ballot referendum." Not sure this is the best move for an encyclopedia tone, but it does appear some WP:RS aren't using the name "Value Them Both" for whatever reason.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Current title is WP:NOTNEUTRAL This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NC-GAL (the naming convention for election and referendum articles). Number 5 7 10:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per twotwofortysix and ~~Nevermore27~~ Bacon Noodles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear I support moving away from "Value Them Both", I'm just not fussed about what it's moved to. The current name is biased as sin Nevermore27 (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nevermore27: That's my mistake. I meant to put down Bacon Noodles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The naming convention for referenda articles is clear. Moreover, this is not the "common name" for the referendum in the RS. Neutrality^talk 03:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; consistency is very useful here and there isn't a strong enough case to use the "Value Them Both" title compared to many other amendments. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose I think ultimately the question is whether or not the existing title is an appropriate title for the article. There are a wide variety of conventions used to describe referenda on this site, and I have no reason to think this is inappropriate. There are a lot of articles with politically-charged titles on Wikipedia, simply because that is the name of the topic. Given that this ballot measure was widely called “Value Them Both” by the news media and supporters and opponents alike, it is perfectly fitting. Also, it was also literally titled that on the ballot. That being said, I would say a wide variety of other titles could be appropriate as well. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Really frustrating that this patently NOTNEUTRAL name is allowed to continue. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I regret my soft opposition to the name change as the current title is actively worse. · | (t - c) 14:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want another actually official title of the referendum/amendent that can be uncontroversial and neutral, the answer to that would probably only be the bill title House Concurrent Resolution 5003 (HCR 5003), which is listed in the Kansas SOS website. I would mildly support something along the lines of "2022 Kansas abortion referendum" but I respectfully disagree anything else that seems too long/descriptive or official-sounding names that aren't actually official (Amendment 2, etc.). Either way, improving and adding to the content in this article, instead of fighting over its title, would go a long way in making it better imo. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 07:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for infobox

It's not clear to me what the infobox is trying to say in regards to the results. The first part is yes or no on the amendment but right after it says for and against the amendment. It should be concise and consistent with the rest of the article. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 12:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is a result of the fact that the Infobox referendum template limits the infobox to saying yes or no. It should say for or against in the entire infobox. Gust Justice (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gust Justice Actually this is false. There are the yes_text and no_text parameters that allow for modification. Example Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't realise that. I've changed the infobox accordingly. Gust Justice (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it matters if one thing says for/against and another is yes/no. They ultimately mean the same thing. Many other articles, including 2020 California Proposition 22, use both interchangeably. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 05:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Please let me know if anyone objects to me renaming this article to 2022 Kansas abortion referendum. This descriptive name is in line with other articles (e.g., 2022 Missouri marijuana legalization initiative). If anyone objects, I will open a requested move. If nobody objects, I'll move the article in three days' time. Neutrality^talk 01:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objection, I have made the move. Neutrality^talk 03:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bill passed

Well the bill passed by a landslide because there are restrictions. 136.37.105.109 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added this for more information I used other Wikipedia pages for a source. It was criticized by both sizes due to it being confusing on rape and incest. It would have been successful but voters were concerned that it would be banned without acceptation even though it was neutral on it. Kansas bans abortion after 5 months which is strict compared to California which allows it until the baby can survive out of the womb. Kansas has the second most lax laws out of every red state the only one that is more lax is Alaska which does not have any laws restricting abortion or protecting abortion. 136.37.105.109 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]