Talk:Protests against Proposition 8 supporters

November 15, 2008 anti-Proposition 8 protests merge proposal

It might be useful, in the sense of portraying the larger context, to merge this article with November 15, 2008 anti-Proposition 8 protests.--Bhuck (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Opposed. This is rather foolish as these are two distinct topics. November 15, 2008 anti-Proposition 8 protests is about the mass protest marches that took place nationwide across the US against the passage of the proposition. This article concerns acts, protests and retribution against specific supporters of the proposition and is ongoing. There is no controversy associated with those protest marches whereas many of these protest actions are seen as quite controversial. -- Banjeboi 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Boycotts and white powder scares are also two distinct topics with differing levels of acceptance as well, yet they are lumped together into one article. The background and the goals are quite similar, the only difference is the means. If only the "good" protests get to come into the November 15 article, it means the other one is more the bad list, and that kind of value judgement is not really in the interests of Wikipedia, is it? The other article also discusses nationwide events, in Utah and New York, for example.--Bhuck (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

These boycotts and (alleged) white powder scares are both generally retaliatory responses against specific supporters. Until the FBI determines who exactly sent the white powder, by the way, we may be treading on original research unless we clearly state what reliable sources tie them into this subject. The November 15, 2008 anti-Proposition 8 protests were mass protests about LGBT people and allies generally marching/protesting against the passage and that article is focussed on ... anti-Proposition 8 protests coordinated on that date. This article is about specific actions against supporters, it's ongoing, and multiple issues about the nature of the protests, the churches rights to politically engage, etc are also ongoing and have multiple viewpoints. November 15, 2008 anti-Proposition 8 protests were pretty much one-sided as are most mass protest marches. Merging the two would be bad for both articles. -- Banjeboi 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I am not sure that applying that logic to this article would not result in splitting it back into a boycott article, a graffiti article, a recall-against-elected-officials article, etc.--Bhuck (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If each of those sub-subjects is notable they may warrant their own article - this article would still be where they are summarized and to the point of the idea of a merger these are still two different concepts. The November 15, 2008 anti-Proposition 8 protests were generalized similar to pride marches but politicized on one aspect of LGBT rights whereas this article addresses a unique backlash aimed against confirmed supporters of the proposition. Those marches may have had aspects of the sentiment but the actions covered here are about directly impacting those who were deemed to have caused the proposition to succeed. -- Banjeboi 11:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm, okay. I found that, coming to this article fresh, the title of the article didn't convey that the topic of the article was only those that impacted specific individuals. I'll try and think of how to clarify the article topic. The end of the lead paragraph does not make that clear at all. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if this article is about actions "directly impacting those who were deemed to have caused the proposition to succeed", then it needs a new name and a rewrite. The title should be something like Negative Impacts of Anti-Proposition 8 Protests, the lead paragraph should exclude "marches" and "protests" from the list of types of actions which have led to negative impacts against Proposition 8 supporters, and so on. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you've raised similar concerns elsewhere so just to stay on point this thread is about a merger proposal and my comments were addressing that. Some of the people who took part in those loosely organized marches and protests did so against Proposition 8 supporters. But certainly not all did and that was not the stated organizing intent of the 15 November protests. Hence there is some overlap but clearly we do have two related but separate subjects. The 15 November protests were one day and nation-wide; these protests against Proposition 8 supporters have been ongoing and generally not as organized and have been seen, in some cases, as controversial. This article needs a lot of work but combining the two articles won't help either. Adding "Negative" to the title, btw, would be POV, adding "Impacts of" isn't needed as this is the main article and isn't large enough yet to warrant a spin-off article of the impacts of these protests. I think the issues you raise are certainly valid but can be cleared up through regular editing of the lede. -- Banjeboi 05:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I see where you're going with this, I'd likely be satisfied with the cleanup of the lede. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at some rewording of the lead to reflect the central topic of this article as you describe. Feedback welcome, of course.--Joe Decker (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think we need to add a section on the Nov 15 actions summarizing why the marches themselves were notable and then showing how some of the November 15, 2008 anti-Proposition 8 protests were against supporters. I think mainly specific churches but there may be other examples. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree we need a section on the 15 November protests saying they were notable, although I found little evidence that the specific protests of 15 November were at church locations. I have a vague recollection (and I could very well be mistaken) that there was concern about protesting at church locations by this point. I actually added, and then deleted a sentence suggesting some were but of the particular marches on 15 November I couldn't find an example, although I could find examples in the week prior to November 15. Hardly means there wasn't one, of course. --Joe Decker (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Idea: Scrap this article

I dont think there is a need for the lists and such and this article can be summerized on the California Proposition 8 topic as it appears someone already tried to do. The main point in this article I feel is to point out what the protesters did to the supporters and ONLY information that can be backed by two or so references should be included on the California Proposition 8 topic in my opinion. Knowledgekid87 15:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree in part, disagree in part. In general, I am very concerned (thus the POV tag I added) with the claimed topic of the article, which has been explained to me above as "directed" protests. I have begun to edit the article to conform to that claim. I do think there's valuable information here, and the P8 article itself is too long, I do think some of the material, including this, under the P8 umbrealla needs to end up somewhere. But I'm open to other concrete proposals. And, any proposal needs to be fleshed out with appropriate balance and context. We're far from that now, but I want to at least start *moving* in the right direction. --Joe Decker (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to try to delete the article but I think that would go nowhere as the subject is clearly notable and sourcing clearly exists - the rest remains clean-up through regular editing. -- Banjeboi 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

opposite-sex couple does not equal heterosexual

I had to re-remove the wikilink to heterosexuality. Per WP:Wikilink if nothing else. Wikilinks should generally not be a surprise or misleading - not that it was intended. Instead the issue is our presuming that anyone on paper who is an opposite sex couple couple is heterosexual. I wanted to add a note so you'd see the underlying logic. -- Banjeboi 03:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a case where there is a certain ambiguity in the language. I suppose one could use the term "monosexual" for a couple in which only one sex is represented (for example, where both of the partners are male), and "bisexual" for a couple in which there is a partner from each of two sexes (such as one male and one female). This is not normally what one thinks of when one hears the term "bisexual couple", so I suppose "homosexual couple" for couples where both partners are of the same sex (regardless of their orientation), and "heterosexual couple" for couples where the partners are of different sexes (again regardless of their orientation) might also be mistakenly presumed to mean that the partners are themselves individually heterosexually oriented, which is not what I meant to imply with the wikilink. I have linked opposite sex now as an alternative, though that target article is not nearly as eloquent in describing opposite-sex couples as the article same-sex couple is in describing its subject. I think it is POV if we make a big deal out of explaining the one sort of phenomenon but do not think the other sort of phenomenon to merit an explanation at all but instead to be taken for granted as being the standard.--Bhuck (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think these are amongst the reasons same-sex couple is named as such, etc. I've removed opposite sex wikilink as we don't link to disambiguous pages. I believe it's because the links are to be a furtherance of detail on the item linked - you click Experimental music and reasonably expect to learn on that subject, not a list of articles called Experimental music. We even have a wikilink checker that looks at links to ensure they aren't disambiguous. -- Banjeboi 13:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the rule about not linking to disambiguation pages, but thought that turning a blind eye to that rule would have been the lesser of two evils. Where should we link to in order to inform people about the nature of opposite-sex couples and the rules and regulations to which they are supposed to adhere? I am not sure I understand your first sentence: what do you mean by "is named as such"? Shouldn't opposite-sex couples also be "named as such", too? I think that an opposite-sex couple is heterosexual, even if the individuals who make up such a couple are not. Surely you would agree with me that a homosexual person can engage in heterosexual sex (even if he or she might not enjoy it as much as a heterosexual person does), and a heterosexual person can engage in homosexual sex. So why can't a homosexual person be part of a heterosexual couple or a heterosexual person be part of a homosexual couple? Here is an article about two elderly heterosexual women who registered as partners in Schleswig-Holstein--I would term them a homosexual couple, even though they are both heterosexual.--Bhuck (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant the same issues are why the article is same-sex couple rather than gay couple or homosexual couple or non-heterosexual couple, it's more neutral. And the issue was the underlying link to heterosexuality because not all opposite-sex couples are actually heterosexual. -- Banjeboi 15:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then let's back up a step. Why is same-sex a redirect to Homosexuality, but opposite-sex does not exist, while opposite sex is a disambiguation page? And why does the topic of same-sex couples seem to need explaining, while the topic of opposite-sex couples seem to be self-explanatory? I realize this is getting away from the specific subject at hand, but it helps when trying to select the appropriate thing to which to link or not to link.--Bhuck (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure same-sex should redirect to homosexuality but the majority of usages suggests that is the best target. It's a common phrase used in the media all the time. Opposite-sex isn't. The cultural norm is to assume an opposite sex couple is a married couple unless they are qualified in some other way, "romantically linked", dating, "just friends", etc. The culture and language issues that pertain to queer couples is still quite new and still evolving. You might also note that while same-sex goes to homosexuality, same-sex couple and same-sex marriage do not. In this article we use the latter two phrases instead. I think the bigger issue is the line of overlinking. I'm not convinced we need to link marriage as most of the readers will be clear enough what that is - but that link can stay I guess. Do we really need to clarify what an opposite sex couple is? Personally, I would support an article about "same-sex" "opposite-sex" phrases and how they developed in usage but they likely would share an article. -- Banjeboi 01:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

I dont think that info about the churches needs to be included, alot of people not just chrurches donated to prop 8 and this kind of singles them out.

"including the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches, which actively campaigned in favor of California's Proposition 8 through volunteer and financial support for the measure, took place starting in November 2008."

Idk there is just something about the opening that seems off.

Knowledgekid87 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored it, slightly reworded and with a citation, because their particularly notable support helps explain the reaction against them subsequently described by the article. AV3000 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with keeping it, it seems everyone personally targeted was religiously affiliated as well, the boycott list seems to be mostly Mormon-based folks. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hit List?

Is it prudent to have a hit list included in this article? Or, is publicizing the hit list the reason for the article?24.21.105.252 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont feel as if its a hit list, the things on the list are just things that some of the people against prop 8 did to the people who supported it. However the things on the list should be things that already happened and not ongoing.Knowledgekid87 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not going to change anything in the article, but I have grave concerns. It is not by my read a "list of things done to people" as much as a list of people to whom things should (according to the activists) be done. Dangerous ground.24.21.105.252 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

These are items recounted in reliable sources. Personally I think it should be in prose rather than list form but their names, actions and re-action have been published so unclear what dangerous ground you're alerting us? -- Banjeboi 00:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that the "hit list" was actually put in as a sort of hagiography or Book of Martyrs -- which is also POV, but the other POV, so if it is unclear which POV it is, maybe it is NPOV after all?--Bhuck (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Past tense action (which most of the list admittedly is, like the people who already got fired from their jobs as a result of being "outed" and targeted) is finished and is history so is legitimate, but PROPOSED targets should have the benefit of not having Wikipedia publicize their names. A logical extension of problem, if it became a trend, would have any group with a hit list and an axe to grind using Wikipedia as a place to publish it. Wikipedia is not a personal noticeboard forum like Craig's List. Or so I thought. Imagine a group of hate-filled gun-toting homophobes like that nutjob church that protests at soldier funerals publishing lists of homosexuals with a "call for action" against those individuals..... very disturbing precedent to be publishing hit lists. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you check out who added the names and what other edits those accounts make, I think you will have to conclude that the author who added the names was not supportive of the proposed actions, but I have no problem if you decide to delete any names you might want to delete.--Bhuck (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a list containing specifics names to be innappropriate and unencyclopedic. It does nothing for the article but give out information about private individuals who are simply not here to defend themselves. I do see this as a hit list.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Fresno Church Vandalism statement and change in language

I removed the statement "the pastor's church was also vandalized". After looking at the references, neither of the pages had any mention of the vandalism of his church. Also I changed the phrase ". . . .close to making an arrest" to "As of August 12th, 2009, no arrest have been made." because. . . well there haven't been any. I also changed some verbs to past tense. 98.224.102.46 (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on Manchester's hypocrisy about marriage

The article notes that a hotel owned by Doug Manchester was the target of a boycott because of his heavy cash support of Prop 8. He's now walked out on his wife and has drained their shared accounts to play hardball with her in the divorce proceeding. [1] This has resulted in criticism of him for hypocrisy. Is that kind of criticism within the scope of this article, or does it cover only demonstrations, boycotts, vandalism, and other overt acts? JamesMLane t c 08:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:NOTSOAPBOX. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Protests against Proposition 8 supporters. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081112043118/http://www.sacbee.com:80/101/story/1382472.html to http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1382472.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604174839/http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11062015?source=rss to http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11062015?source=rss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604174852/http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11041943 to http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11041943

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Protests against Proposition 8 supporters. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://nomobveto.org/nytad.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090222214402/http://www.sacbee.com:80/crime/story/1399018.html to http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091116125804/http://archives.chicagotribune.com:80/2008/nov/20/news/chi-ap-mi-gayactivistprotes to http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/20/news/chi-ap-mi-gayactivistprotes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218074133/http://www.kcpw.org:80/article/7009 to http://www.kcpw.org/article/7009

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

advertising

Editor User:Mark Miller has been repeatedly trying to remove references to a full-page NYTimes ad as an advertisement, to the degree that he has repeatedly falsified a quote because he thought that the real quote provided "less neutral wording" than what he desired. Can we agree that a full-page ad in the NYT is an advertisement, and not just a "paid opinion piece" (which makes it sound like the signers were paid for that opinion... which I don't know not to have been the case, but I don't have a source to say it is. In fact, that entire paragraph is a sourcing problem, all primary sources.) Even the people who placed the ad call it an ad. In addition, he altered text to claim that the ads signers were "13 men who represented various Christian, Jewish, and Roman Catholic groups" - it is not clear what such groups, say, Douglas Laycock or Roger Scruton represents, and if Alveda King is a man, someone better tell her, because she seems to think otherwise. Since I've been addressing individual edits with undos, I am not going to do the whole revert of his edits to that paragraph right now, but can someone else take a look and see if they concur that the older version should be restored? --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Strong accusations but I wonder if your own bias in refusing to understand that it was a paid opinion piece that was not an "Advertisement" that sold a product. By not specifying it as a paid opinion piece and over emphasizing "ad" it seems more likely to diminish what it really was, an opinion of the sponsors and signers. By the way, the other full page "ad" taken out in response by the gay community was also an opinion piece. Calling either strictly an "ad" is misleading at best.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The Above editor seems to believe I am attempting to falsify something as if I am attempting push my own bias. This is part of an edit that began on the main article on Prop 8 that made it sound as if the New York Times had mad the accusations printed. The New York Times piece accused the LGBT community of violence and "Mob Veto". " Advertising is a marketing communication that employs an openly sponsored, non-personal message to promote or sell a product, service or idea." This was more than trying to sell an idea make to make specific accusations. An Opinion piece or in this case an Op-ed is; "an opinion piece that appears on a page in the newspaper dedicated solely to them, often written by a subject-matter expert, a person with a unique perspective on an issue, or a regular columnist employed by the paper. Op-eds may be solicited by the editorial staff, but may also be submitted by the author for publication. Although the decision to publish such a piece rests with the editorial board, any opinions expressed are those of the author. A letter to the editor is a common example of this". A response was then published and was also an Op-ed. Ads do not respond to each others. Opinion pieces do.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I should note that I took into consideration that the sponsor and the signers were not the same and made that clear in the wording. Saying that calling it a "paid piece" makes it sound like the signers paid after I already noted that the wording can reflect that and made the change.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not an op-ed. An op-ed goes through the editorial process of the paper, and this was not on the op-ed page of the paper. This was on its own page, an advertising page. The idea that ads do not respond to other ads is a bizarre invention, and is not true even of ads for products. And whether you falsified something is not even a question; you replaced a real quote with a fake one, and then when I pointed out in the edit summary that that was what you had done, you restored your falsehood anyway. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

this was correct to revert but the accusation in the header leads me to believe you lack good faith.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, please remember, regardless of our opposing views to follow BLP policy about living persons.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what BLP transgression you're suggesting; please either be specific in your accusation or withdraw the suggestion. Meanwhile, you should review both WP:BRD and WP:DEADLINK - we don't just delete dead links... not that the link you deleted in this edit is dead, it's actually alive.

You've added material sourcing it to the "Colorado Independent", a source that has not, as far as I can find, been vetted at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and which was at the time part of Center for Independent Media, an organization that the Pew Research Center felt engaged in skewed journalism. That source is making claims that are contradicted by our archived direct source for the advertisement. The advertisement does have 13 signers, but they are not all men, nor are they all listed as even being affiliated with some organization, much less "representing" those organizations. It's a problematic source and should not be relied on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted "Church of Jesus Christ" (ambiguous) to "LDS Church." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)