Jump to content

Talk:California Assembly Bill 1634 (2007)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments on article bias

[edit]

The article is extremely biased in favor of the bill. e.g. "The opposition claims that such laws have the opposite effect, but use bad data to argue their point." and "Opposition claims that spay/neuter at 4 months creates unwanted dog aggression and has other undesirable side-effects, such as osteosarcoma, are based on studies that have been invalidated for faulty scientific method." Also, in general, the tone is very biased. Needs a NPOV pass. Kjl 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why cost figure was deleted

[edit]

The claimed $250 million annual cost of California animal shelters has been repeated by supporters of the bill many times, but this figure is not based on the actual fiscal data nor on any sound estimating method. The estimate was made by taking the annual costs for just one of California's 61 jurisdictions, and dividing this cost by the number of animals impounded there to derive a cost per animal. This was then multiplied by the total number of animals impounded throughout the entire state, which also had to be estimated by extrapolation. It also represents an unsound extrapolation from a high cost urban region to the entire state which has lower costs on average. All in all, this represents an excessively large extrapolation and is an unscientific methodology for making the cost estimate for the entire state. The evidence that the figure was derived this way is here http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Members/A40/CA-HealthyPetAct/CAStatsSummaryCost.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardog1 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the specific cost figure to the article, as a claim rather than an assertion of fact, along with a reference. --Sardog1 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference monoculture

[edit]

I'm a little concerned about the fact that most of the references on this article are located within a few sites (Save Our Dogs and NAIA Online). Can someone try to diversify the references a bit? Zetawoof(ζ) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I made a few edits to the references to address this in part, and will keep looking for alternate sources.

As far as I know, these are the places where these references are publicly available in a reasonably accessible form. Some of them can also be found in the Bill Analysis documents written by the Assembly and Senate policy committees: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_cfa_20070423_093742_asm_comm.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_cfa_20070705_122742_sen_comm.html but these reports are unhelpful for this purpose. For example, "The United States Police Canine Association, Inc." is listed as an opponent of the bill in the Senate Bill Analysis document. However, that fact is largely inaccessible as it is one line buried in a document that is 29 pages long. The reference instead to this organization's actual opposition is more clear, and gives the reader the opportunity to learn why this organization opposes the bill.

North American Police Work Dog Association lists their opposition on their own website http://board.napwda.com/viewtopic.php?p=395&sid=653111dc446f646101cfdd8ce76389b3 but it does not contain as much information as the letter on the referenced website.

Western States Police Canine Association did put their opposition letter on their website http://wspca.tripod.com/main/AB1634.pdf but it is the April 1 version of their letter rather than the more up to date June 28 version on the Save Our Dogs website.

There are other copies of these letters here http://ab1634.com/Link_Letters.htm but they are again not the most recent versions of these organizations' letters.

This bill was amended seven times, so some organizations updated their letters to reflect amendments.

The reason why most of these are on the Save Our Dogs and NAIA websites is because these groups have been leaders in the opposition to this bill, and leadership includes bringing together information in order for the public to see it. It would be nice if all of these organizations put their letters on their own websites, but that is often not the case. [FYI, one is hard pressed to find supporters' letters on the Internet; and there have been questions raised whether some listed supporters really do support the bill.] Most organizations saw their duty as only to send their letter to legislators, not put their letter on a public website.

I have not seen this information in news media reports. Why the news media reporting on this bill has been so shallow is a whole other topic. Sardog1 04:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International Association of Assistance Dog Partners letter is on their website, http://www.iaadp.org/calif2007.html but this is an April 7 version of their letter rather than the June 2 version on the referenced website. Again, it is more relevant to reference the more recent version.

I found a few more references on other websites so made some changes. Better? Sardog1 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable article content

[edit]

Petlover1634

I can take an afternoon and do a larger neutral description of this bill, with references that are not directing readers to propaganda sites (either pro or anti); it was my hope that subsequent edits would stick to the facts of the bill and stay neutral but that has not been the case. I would rather not have to take the time to do a larger neutral description, but if no one else is able to expand this in a neutral way without referencing propaganda sites, I can take the time to do it correctly, probably in mid to late Nov.

It is correct that for standard factual articles, changes should be discussed and agreed to in this area, but use of this site as a propoganda arm isn't appropriate and changes to that type of addition don't require much discussion. Thanks. -- Petlover1634

The content you keep erasing is factual and neutral. When it is stated that certain organizations support or oppose the bill, then links to references demonstrating that they support or oppose the bill is appropriate and factual article content, not propaganda. Likewise, if it is stated about supporters or opponents make claims re: the bill, then links to sites demonstrating these claims is factual, not propaganda. After all, we are acknowledging that the claims were made, not that we all agree with the claims themselves.
As an example, it is an undisputed fact that AB 1634 supporters claim that shelter costs in California exceed $250 million a year and it is fair to state this in the article. What is disputed is whether this is indeed the correct cost figure, since opponents claim that these cost figures come from an unsound extrapolation (see comments above under "Reason why cost figure was deleted"). So if this cost claim is made, it is fair to follow it with the claim that opponents make about it. It is not correct to state that this is the factual cost figure without providing compelling evidence (e.g. official and referenced cost numbers from State Controller’s Office for the entire state).
If you believe that certain content in the article you keep erasing is inappropriate, then please state on this page specifically what you believe is inappropriate and why. Sweeping it all aside along with more than 30 references as "propaganda" is not specific nor helpful toward resolving this dispute. Sardog1 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sardog1

Petlover1634 is obviously a supporter of AB 1634 while I am an opponent of the bill. That's fine, we can respect each other's POV.

On two three four five six seven eight occasions Petlover1634 has removed all edits I have made to this article. This is disrespectful of the edits I have made, which has been legitimate, proper, and researched content for this article. I consider this to be vandalism.

Suggestion for Petlover1634: please edit the portion of the article that pertains to support arguments. It is lacking in references and has been tagged by others for removal if references are not included. Please stop removing content about who the opponents of the bill are and why they oppose the bill. The information I have included on the opposition groups and motives is relevant, factual, and properly referenced. Please also stop adding false and inflammatory statements about the motives of opponents of the bill.

Let's discuss the issues of proper article content on this page, rather than simply reverting each other's edits. Neither the article nor this discussion page is an appropriate place to debate the bill. The appropriate issues for discussion revolve around what is suitable, factual content for the article. We can do this in a respectful way. Thank you. Sardog1 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, reverting a version with references (albeit refs which still need some improvement) to a version with far fewer references is highly counterproductive. In particular, referring to a version which states (without citing sources) that "supporters in the media are almost universally volunteers, while opponents in the media are primarily paid for their appearances" is definitely not an "unbiased version". Please don't do it. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another plea to Petlover1634 to use this page to discuss suitable content, and to cease removing all of my edits to the article. Your "unbiased" version is not unbiased. Sardog1 07:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petlover1634, It would be preferable to respectfully discuss article content here rather than engaging in an edit war of the article. Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution mandates that users attempt to resolve article content disputes on the discussion page. You have been repeatedly asked to participate here, but have not yet done so, and yet you continue to wipe out factual and referenced article content. The article you keep wiping out is not biased, though it is somewhat lopsided because you chose to keep reverting to an older version of the article rather than enhance the support content with references as requested. Sardog1 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petlover1634, please use this page for article content dispute resolution. Your practice of reverting to a 2 week old poorly referenced and biased version of the article is not helpful. Sardog1 01:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

The article certainly needs more work, but I don't think that repeatedly reverting to an old version of the article is a step in the right direction. Zetawoof and sardog have asked that Petlover1634 work more collaboratively, so far to no avail. Dsurber 05:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Comment' I've taken a look at several versions of the article, and I have to say that it's been through a lot of changes. At different points of its history, it's been biased both directions: in favor and against. Now, however, it is much more neutral, with opinions of both opponents and proponents of the issue. I agree that Petlover1634 should desist. -Rycr (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this article

[edit]

November 11, 2007: The support / opposition sections in this article appear to be attempts to try to influence the reader rather than enlighten. Obviously some passionate people involved with this legislation are using this article to attack one another. My quick research external to Wikipedia has turned up an enormous amount of opinion material on this bill, much of it is conflicting.

This article would be better served as a purely factual piece, without reference to explicit pro/con arguments and without obvious attempts to influence the reader to one position or another. At the very least, most of the external references do appear to be to “party line” sites. It seems that any reference to opinion articles or sites are almost guaranteed to confuse instead of enlighten.

My preference would be for a straightforward article, as shown below (references are not shown here, but would not link to any sites that had an obvious bias towards the bill).

Sample updated article:

AB 1634 is a bill authored by California Assembly Member Lloyd Levine, a Democrat The bill would require most dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered after 6 months of age. Various exemptions are provided in the bill for obtaining an intact permit, at some unspecified cost.

The bill passed the California Assembly by a narrow margin on June 6. It was deferred by Senator Levine on July 11, 2007 in the California Senate Local Government committee. Levine has stated his intention to reintroduce the bill in 2008.

Bill supporters and bill opponents are passionate in their arguments and the bill is among the most controversial pieces of current legislation in California.

Text of the bill: (text of the bill would be included here)

So, if someone besides the clearly predisposed petlover and sardog is out there to discuss removing the partisan elements of this article and turning it into a lighter, factual piece, please respond and we can work towards upgrading this article in a way that is acceptable to all, but does not push the reader towards one particular opinion.

Sc-vet 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There are no sites about AB 1634 that don't have a bias for or against the bill. The bill itself (which we all agree is a valid reference) is biased 100% toward the bill. For example, the bill contains language to exempt law enforcement dogs. To the reader who is not an expert in the breeding of law enforcement dogs, this appears to mean the bill would be no problem for law enforcement dogs. In fact, the bill is opposed by the nation's and California's largest associations of police K9 officers. They claim the bill would not protect the future supply of law enforcement dogs, and that there is no way to amend the bill's language to not harm the future supply of these dogs. The best way one will know this -- and to learn the reasons why -- is to link to the AB 1634 letters from these organizations, which the article does. Referencing the bill language without a reference to this countering analysis is implicitly taking the supporters' POV that the bill is not a problem for law enforcement dogs. Interestingly, even few opponents of the bill who are pet dog breeders understand law enforcement dogs well enough to realize this concern.
Nearly all of the news media reporting has been only shallow "he said / she said" claims with virtually no fact checking or analysis, often including defamatory personal attacks, so are less desirable references. In the view of bill opponents, most news media reporting has been poor journalism and biased toward the bill. The Bill Analysis documents are likewise largely "he said / she said" shallow sources of information.
If one wishes to understand why supporters or opponents take their positions, the useful sources are references to sites that are indeed biased one way or another. Balance can be achieved by referencing these only as claims rather than facts, confining them to the key issues, and by including references from both sides.
An article with no references with a bias for or against the bill is an article with no references about the bill at all. The article previously had very few references, and was tagged (as Wikipedia articles often are) as needing references or content would be deleted. To comply with this I spent a lot of time finding and including appropriate references, and making sure the references are only to "claims" about the bill. I also endeavored to reference subject matter experts rather than all the noise the bill generated.
I do not know where to find comparable letters stating support for the bill. There does not appear to be a site where they have been collected for easy reference. Nor do I have time to locate these letters. It might be better if a supporter of the bill spent the time to find and include appropriate support references. Petlover1634 has been invited to do so. Anyone who wishes to take the time can do it.
I honestly do not care if an AB 1634 article appears in Wikipedia at all. But if one is to be here, then I will continue to endeavor to keep it from becoming a piece that contains factually incorrect statements, slanders the motives of opponents as profit driven, is misleading, or is otherwise biased.
Most owned dogs and cats are already spayed or neutered in California. Depending on which source one believes, the figure is 70-80% for dogs and 85-90+% for cats.
The sample article above says that the bill requires "most dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered." This can appear to merely sanction the status quo that even many bill opponents agree with -- not really involving much change. It can leave the reader to think "what's the big deal, most dogs and cats are already s/n as they should be?" This description may appear to take a POV dismissing the claim that the intact permit criteria and exemption criteria in the bill are overly narrow and unworkable.
The bill does not say that dogs and cats would have to be spayed or neutered after 6 months of age but rather by 6 months of age.
IMO the sample article above is biased toward the bill. Referencing the bill without rebuttal from opponents is not a neutral position. For this reason I would prefer that an AB 1634 article be deleted from Wikipedia in its entirety rather than become (like) the sample article. BTW, the text of the bill is 10 pages long and seems excessive to copy the entire thing into the article.
I do not oppose an unbiased article. IMO the current article is factual and unbiased but it is lopsided since it has over 30 references from bill opponents and fewer from bill supporters. No one opposes including more support references. By all means, someone please add them. No one opposes expanding the bill support section of the article. By all means, someone please do so. We have asked repeatedly for a discussion of content here so we can make progress in this regard, with no progress so far. Instead, Petlover1634 has erased every single contribution I have made to this article, eight times. I have not done this, I started with an article largely written by Petlover1634 and made edits. Indeed, much of the article Petlover1634 keeps deleting was written by Petlover1634. Sardog1 05:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


>>>> Dear SC-VET - good luck, I look forward to seeing a better article. Like sardog I think I would rather see the whole thing deleted then go back and forth all the time. Just putting the bill up would probably fix this childish editing battle. I won't edit for a bit, but if the article still ends up with all the propaganda statements and links I am going to again delete them daily until the bill is done. Many of the links go pages containing outright lies about the bill and I will not let that happen in a supposedly neutral forum. Thanks. Petlover1634 08:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Lovethelanguage speaks

[edit]

Sc-vet, I can assist you in cleaning up this article. You are correct in noting that the current article is not designed to be informative, but designed to direct opinion. The editors are using Wikipedia for their own purposes. Two examples:

A - The notes from one bill supporter regarding mass deletions indicate that the writer likely does not have interest in pursuing a neutral view; and furthermore the comments are inappropriate for a public contribution site.

B - The comments from an opposition member claiming that your plainly neutral suggestions for a concise article are biased indicate that the writer is not likely to be able to see the issue from a neutral point of view.

The references are used incorrectly; references should primarily be used to support facts. If they are used to direct to opinion pieces the article should clearly note this and the opinion areas should be separate from the primary article. As an example, one of the initial references in the Support and opposition section claims as fact that this bill is generally opposed by pet owners, but then uses a special interest group site as the reference point. Other references from this section indicate that over 3/4 of pets are already altered, which seems to indicate that pet owners would be generally supportive of a spay/neuter initiative, or at the least generally neutral. I am not writing this to take a position, but to point out that the references being used to persuade rather than inform.

Also, in the discussion area, one bill opponent claims that the text of the bill itself is misleading and so cannot be included without reference to opposition arguments. This basically equates to a claim that the legislative body in California who already passed this bill was misled and cannot understand legislation as it is written, an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary proof.

Sc-vet, in conclusion, I support your suggested edits for the main article as they are clearly neutral, but I suggest adding sections called "Opinions for the bill" and "Opinions against the bill", where both supporters and opponents can add their opinions and references that they believe back up their opinions. I don't believe adding the full text of the bill is helpful, if a link to the text is provided.

Lovethelanguage 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that SC Vet intended their contribution to be a constructive attempt to represent a NPOV. My point was to try to show why it is not a NPOV.
The references in the article are used first and foremost to show that there are indeed groups who took the positions that are stated in the article, not to steer the Wikipedia reader to a certain POV. I think that the fact that I added references that take both the support and opposition positions should be evidence of this. Without these references, the claims that certain groups took a position for or against the bill, or that support or opposition groups made certain claims, are unvalidated assertions that are subject to being deleted.
Legislative bodies all over the world pass legislation without understanding its meaning. This is extremely common. This includes legislation that I agree with, and legislation that I disagree with. AB 1634 is no exception. Many believe that the California state Assembly passed AB 1634 without understanding the concerns about its impacts on the future availability of working dogs, such as law enforcement dogs. The references provided in the article are to subject matter experts who can substantiate this. I suggest reading the references for the "extraordinary proof".
RE: the comment "Other references from this section indicate that over 3/4 of pets are already altered, which seems to indicate that pet owners would be generally supportive of a spay/neuter initiative, or at the least generally neutral. I am not writing this to take a position, but to point out that the references being used to persuade rather than inform." This suggests a lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Opponents of AB 1634 are not opposed to spay/neuter. Most support voluntary spay/neuter (e.g. all of my dogs are altered). They oppose government-mandated spay/neuter. If one doesn't understand the issue even at that level, I'm not sure how one can assess whether a NPOV is being taken.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ says "the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them." I believe that the body of the article describes rather than engages in the dispute. I'm not aware that Wikipedia policy requires that the linked references must not engage in the dispute (i.e. they too must take a NPOV). I don't see how one can properly reference this article without linking to external sources that do not take a NPOV, both in support and opposition to the bill.
If others disagree that the text of the article describes rather than engages in the dispute, can we please discuss specifically here what parts of the article are a concern? It seems we are heading down the path of seeing the article completely erased to start over from scratch once again, which I do not believe is justified or constructive. I have tried several times to get the content the article discussed here so that we can resolve the dispute. It seems some keep trying to read between the lines for motives instead, rather than assessing the actual text of the article. It may be that the article does not take a NPOV. I believe it does, but I may be mistaken. Please tell me specifically what is in the text that is a concern.
If Wikipedia NPOV policy forbids articles that describe a dispute from including external references that themselves do not have a NPOV, can someone please point me to that policy? Because if that's the case, many articles are going to have to be re-written. As an example, compare to the Wikipedia article on the Patriot_act. Many of the referenced articles do not take a NPOV. This is inevitable when an article with a NPOV attempts to describe a controversial subject. Sardog1 03:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dsurber speaks

[edit]

I do not think [7:44 11 November 2007 version] of the article contains any overt bias and conforms reasonably well to the NPOV policy. I do not think it is an exceptionally good article either. The article does present the opposition position perhaps a bit better than the supporters' position. This is best remedied by improving the discussion of the supporters' position, not by deleting all of the references that back the description of the opposition position.

The statement that supporters of the bill claim or believe certain things, supported by references, even references to advocacy sites, is a statement of fact. It is not opinion or advocacy. It is not advocacy to reference advocacy sites to justify a statement about the supporters' position. It is a statement of fact to say that the KKK supports segregation and reference a page stating that on the KKK web site (assuming there is such a thing); it is not advocacy of segregation.

I just checked and the Ku Klux Klan article contains a link to the KKK web site. I doubt anyone would claim that constitutes advocacy of the KKK's positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsurber (talk • contribs) 05:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the bill is controversial, which is certainly true. If the article did not also describe the controversy by stating the positions of the supporters and opponents, then the article would be sorely deficient. Sardog's recent edits adding references to the statements describing the supporters' position are an improvement. If Petlover1634 believes that Sardog has misstated the supporters' position I would suggest that he/she edit that portion of the article to more accurately describe the supporters' position. Be sure to word it as "supporters claim" or "supporters believe" rather than as statements of fact. Most of the "facts" around this issue are highly disputed. I would suggest that Petlover1634 refrain from editing the statement of the opposition position and equally that Sardog refrain from editing the statement of the supporters position should Petlover1634 choose to edit it. It is encumbent on both to be careful to write "Supporters claim" or "Opponents believe". Bald statements of fact are likely to be contentious in this context.

One issue of fact that I think is missing is a section on the legislative history of the bill. There was quite a bit of skulduggery surrounding the Assembly vote, on both sides. A section that describes how the bill moved through the legislature I think would be a valuable addition.

I find the [2:08 11 November2007 version] to be deficient in several regards. It makes numerous assertions about what the supporters and opponents of the bill believe without any references. It also makes the following statement "supporters in the media are almost universally volunteers, while opponents in the media are primarily paid for their appearances", again without references. From my own observations, I would say this statement is false; it is certainly questionable. Lacking references it also seems to present an improper POV. I also find this statement dubious, "Most opponents agree that an overpopulation issue does exist, a small percentage believe that no overpopulation exists" and it also lacks any references. I also find the two sentences describing the supporters and opponents of the bill to be subtly biased. I could rewrite these sentences using phrases like "radical animal rights activists" and "PETA extremists" and bias it the other way. The corresponding information in the 7:44 version appears to me to be more factual and less editorial. I believe that each group mentioned would describe themselves in the terms used in the 7:44 version. I doubt that is true for the terms used in the 2:08 version. Dsurber 05:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2:08 version you're citing is specifically an old version which Petlover1634 has been reverting the article to. The 7:44 version is what that version became after some reference-hunting by Sardog. So yes, it's definitely deficient - and that's why I've been rather miffed at the multiple reversions.
However, splitting the section into two sections (on "supporters" and "opposers") is not an appropriate solution. See Wikipedia:Pro and con lists (as well as Wikipedia:Criticism and, most of all, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure) for an explanation of why this formulation is considered harmful. An integrated approach is essential. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for organizing this page better.

As currently constructed (the Nov 11 7:44 version), the article is structured with an overview, followed by a general list of bill supporters, a general list of bill opponents, claims by supporters, and finally with claims by opponents. Previously the opposition was before support, but I rearranged it to put support first because I think it's more logical and conventional that way (Pro before Con).

If I am understanding your point, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists prefers to combine the pro/con lists (e.g. the claims for and and against AB 1634) into discussion by subject. This might include statements such as "Bill supporters claim that the exemption language in AB 1634 protects law enforcement dogs adequately[refs], while bill opponents dispute this and claim the bill would reduce the future availability of dogs that are suitable for law enforcement work[refs]." Is this the sort of structure you are thinking about? Something else?

Re: comments from Dsurber. I agree that discussion around issues such as bill history would make the article more complete. I've been hesitant to add anything more since we seem to be having difficulty reaching consensus on simple issues, like what kinds of references (citations) are appropriate. Article content that might be of interest includes bill history, CVMA withdrawing as one of the five sponsors of the bill, substantial impact of celebrity involvement from Bob Barker and Lassie, background/history of how this bill developed, etc. I believe that trying to tackle any one these is likely to be 10 times harder to reach consensus about than the rather short, simple and (I thought) matter-of-fact article we currently have. Though IMO this is all valid subject matter for the article, I'm not eager to jump from the frying pan into the inferno. Sardog1 11:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AB 1634 -- A very controversial bill

[edit]

For those who haven't followed AB 1634, it's difficult to convey just how controversial the bill has been. There is no issue before the California state legislature in 2007 that is more controversial. The controversies surrounding the gay marriage bill and the 'death with dignity' bill don't even come close. Long-time observers in the state Capital say they've never seen anything like it. The fax machines of the 80 Assembly members were overwhelmed for weeks by public comment about AB 1634, and the Senate local government committee's fax machine reportedly broke down under the onslaught. Staffers were so overwhelmed with the influx of letters, emails, and faxes that they not only couldn't read it all, they couldn't even count it all.

A Wikipedia article that is a dry description of the bill without describing the key points of controversy would be grossly deficient. Describing the points of controversy requires linking to references (citations) that themselves are partisan in nature, because there is no other way to describe the controversy while satisfying the core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. This does not in anyway preclude having an article that has a NPOV. I have not found a Wikipedia policy mandating that references (citations) themselves must take a NPOV. I am seeing examples of articles where references (citations) do NOT take a NPOV. This is to be expected when a controversial topic is described. --Sardog1 12:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AB 1634. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AB 1634. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on AB 1634. 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:

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) 00:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AB 1634. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AB 1634. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_Assembly_Bill_1634_(2007)&oldid=1206511813"