Talk:Protests against Proposition 8 supporters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Just plain silly

"Kathryn Lopez, editor of the conservative journal the National Review Online, did not explicitly address the difference between publicly available records regarding campaign financing and the privacy of individuals in the voting booth when she stated". This is POV. It is plain from the text reads that she is comparing who shares the responsibility for the measure in that some donated and some voted. You don't have to state this in the preface. DavidBailey (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

By tying different forms of support (some traceable and some not) to the question of whether or not the groups experience any kind of response, it is misleading. Yes, it is clear that some donated and some voted, but the difference in the transparency and the public disclosure of this behavior as it applies to individuals is not expressed in Lopez' statement, yet very relevant to her argument. However, since it is not clear that African-Americans are at all relevant to the argument that is trying to be made by including the quote, I have deleted the first sentence instead. I am still not sure that fully addresses my concerns, but it is a step in the right direction.--Bhuck (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My subsequent edits have now fully addressed my concerns. I hope they also meet with your approval. Keep in mind that a "Criticism" section does not serve the purpose of providing a forum for clippings of op-ed pieces, but instead should have the effect of analyzing the criticism. In this case, my edits analyze the different ways the term "support" is used. This is hardly something that is "silly."--Bhuck (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Refuting the "70% black" statement

The 70% black statement was removed from the article, but here's a poll that refutes the role played by race in Prop8, and emphasizes the role of religion in it. tedder (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of using the category "black", the poll uses the category "nonwhite", which includes Asians, for example.--Bhuck (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: politics: time for a RfC on neutrality, POV, ownership

Plenty of issues on this article.

• Strong feelings on all sides of this article. Just read the talk page (above) and the edit summary to see the polarized feelings about this. For instance, here's an addition on one side, and here's a revert on another side
• Ownership issues: see the per-user summary. User:DavidBailey has made some good edits to this, but is certainly biased (as are other editors, but this user has been dominant in the edits and in squelching any edits that lean against his POV.
• Does this article even begin on Wikipedia? Most of it is of the form "some said.." and "this side dislikes this other side..". I'm not sure if it could be made unbiased. There was discussion about the title of the page, and it was even moved around a couple of times. (sorry, I'm not sure how to find a log of the page moves)
• Note I posted this on the NPOV noticeboard approximately two weeks ago, with no comments.
• Finally, and most importantly, how can this article be made neutral and not offend those with strong feelings on all sides of the fence?

Thanks. tedder (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Proceedurally close this RFC Well intended to help improve an article but rather loosely focused. I applaud efforts to improve articles but there's a bit too much going on to get a lot of meaningful movement. I suggest breaking things down into separate actionable items (hint:do the easy ones first). If there remains one sticking point then relist a neutral RFC to address that - like "Should this article include five photos or are the three we have adequate?" This keeps the discussion more targeted neutral and clear as to what the issue is and what information needs consensus. -- Banjeboi 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A response since I'm named in this request for assistance:

• The reverts you show, I believe may have been accidental as two editors were editing the article at once. The section disappeared when I added it and another editor changed the section immediately preceding.
• "begin on Wikipedia?" I think you mean "belong on Wikipedia". The reason for the more vague words is that if you do a search for articles you will find MANY editors and writers from both the pro and con sides have reservations about the boycotts and serious reservations about the intimidation occurring. The citations back this up.
• Believe it or not, I'm trying to edit from an NPOV that includes the perspective of those who have been Pro Prop 8 and those who have been opposed. Check the quotes in refuting the criticism, I added those. I'm trying to balance the article. The problem is that a few editors are trying to strip out all perspective of those who are Pro Prop 8 and just leave in the Anti Prop 8 perspective. This is does not satisfy WP:NPOV. Also, I am certainly not the only editor who has trying to include both the Pro and Anti perspectives. If you check the history, there have been 3-4 editors trying to represent a similar perspective, however there are a few editors who seem hellbent on keeping this material out of the article. (i.e., the only rights being violated are the LGBT community and the only ones being targeted are those who donated regardless of their religion or religious views. This can be shown as false from the citations.)
• That's a tough question when an opposing viewpoint can't even be left in part of the article without the whole article being called POV and having the content removed.

Thanks for your efforts to improve the article. DavidBailey (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Communication theory

According to communication theory, each piece of communication has a sender and a recipient. What the sender says might not be what the recipient hears. Here we have a piece of communication. David Bailey says that Kathryn Lopez is not implying something. I think that a reader, when reading that comment, will be inclined to draw such comparisons. How can we know what Lopez' true motivations were? Even if we got a sworn statement from her, she could be lying. If the article is about boycotts, and if the question is why orthodox bishops are not being boycotted, isn't the obvious answer that they don't engage in businesses subject to boycott, unlike LDS laity?--Bhuck (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're both implying meaning from her statement. The only NPOV is to not editorialize, but just to present the statement and let the reader make up their mind. DavidBailey (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether her statement is sufficiently notable and relevant to the subject at hand to be worth quoting. I have moved the page away from the specifically boycott-related topic in an attempt to help here, but am still not sure that a quote by her represents a balanced and fair treatment of the subject.--Bhuck (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are balancing quotes from both sides of the perspective here, because these are opinions from both groups. Your aggressive editing removing anything you consider non-NPOV often strips out any idea that there has been any unfair treatment of Proposition 8 supporters, but that's really not representing both sides of the argument. DavidBailey (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am still not sure that presenting such extensive quotes (regardless of which side they are from) really is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. I don't think there is much doubt about what Ms. Lopez thinks on the matter, but why should her opinion be more notable than three million other people, some of whom probably think similarly and others of whom don't?--Bhuck (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Resolved

 – Content merged. -- Banjeboi 00:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Per our NPOV policies we should merge everything useful out of the "Criticism" section and place it elsewhere. Criticism and controversy sections are signs of POV writing and should be avoided. Instead anything useful should be moved and presented neutrally and balanced. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What recommendations do you have to present both the Pro and Con view of Proposition 8 supporter boycotting and other protest actions? It's fairly polarizing and there are two very different perspectives on the topic. It's been extremely challenging to write text that both sides agree with. DavidBailey (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the sections to Reception and Rebuttals per WP:CRIT. DavidBailey (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea ... that's a step but this isn't a book or movie or one philosopher's line of reasoning that can be fairly summarized, received and rebutted as such. This is a series of activist actions, some organized, some individual, some pseudo-terroristic and some benign. First off we aren't in a rush and I generally prefer to leave in items that don't quite fit because they help inform the larger picture. I think a lot of background is missing - I seem to recall quite a backlash against black voters with gay black leaders providing some response. There is also a lot missing on why LGBT people would target the churches and what role those churches played. In some cases, it was profound. There is also a long history of persecution of LGBT people by these churches so it's worth at least mentioning that. There didn't seems to be any mainstream LGBT organizations coordinating these - at all. That's unique - as is that most of it was occurring online. There were 18,000 couples whose families were put on the line - many of them were heavily invested, we can touch on why they are so passionate about opposing the proposition and contrast that why those who fought to pass it did so. There is some compelling background information that informs. not all of it has to go in right now but these are some of the issues that seem to be neglected. The list of those boycotted - it really shouldn't be a list. We can tell the story of each one - even if only a sentence or two - and weave that into a timeline of events in quick succession. I would think that would be followed by the content that seems to be hovering toward the rebuttal section. So we have the background, the protests, the immediate effects, the calls for diplomacy, the "official" responses and we see where it goes from there. i have to rest for a bit now. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

Resolved

 – Section merged to lede. -- Banjeboi 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article's lead and the "Background" section are largely redundant and should be merged into one (i.e. Background section perhaps removed entirely, and information previously contained there, but not yet mentioned in the lead should be worked into the lead). Or is there a reason for repeating what Prop 8 was, when it passed, etc?--Bhuck (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have merged the two sections. I am still a bit concerned, though, that the actual subject of the article, in bold-face type, does not show up until the middle of the second paragraph.--Bhuck (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the concern. Does this article need as much backstory on Prop. 8 as it provides? If we provide less, readers could always click through the Prop. 8 links for context... I'm not sure which I think is preferable, but it would be nice to clear up what this article is about. My first attempt to write it has some POV problems of its own, but ... as a starting point, what needs to be within this article lead that isn't in something like: "In late 2008, some opponents of prop 8 targeted specific individuals and groups supporting Proposition 8 with various forms of protest, including candlelight vigils, pickets and boycotts. These protests against proposition 8 supporters received a great deal of attention in the media."? Anyway, I'm just throwing out ideas. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The redundancy was part of the transitioning and clean-up of the article. It's better to errantly repeat something than not state it at all. Some of the key points about the proposition should remain to help inform our readers why the proposition itself and, separately, why the protests against the supporters are notable. In general I think things are improving. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the current level of redundancy so much, but I am still concerned that the bold-faced subject of the article does not appear until the second paragraph. Unfortunately, I don't have a constructive idea at the moment about how that could be fixed, but maybe someone else does?--Bhuck (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to address this. -- Banjeboi 03:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"If upheld..."

Resolved

I think the version which implies that a particular section of the constitution might not be upheld is making more assumptions than the version which does not make such an implication. How do other people feel about this edit?--Bhuck (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference that the language has already been added and lawsuits haven't held up enforcement. Until the courts act it should be stable enough. -- Banjeboi 15:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)