![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article doesn't really clarify how the California Constitution can be amended. If it's by a simple majority vote, it doesn't seem like the protections contained in it are very strong...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 04:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, as will be readily apparent to readers who are. This means that much of my wording is likely imprecise. I know I've used the wrong cite format for the various court paperwork, but at least I got something down that's clear. In places I read the court documents and summarized them, I think clearly and fairly, but at some point I worry that that approaches WP:OR. Any and all assistance welcome. -- Joe Decker ( talk) 07:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I do see some legal talk in the article is there a way to make it more understandable to the average reader? Knowledgekid87 12:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, MrBell ( talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead in this article has the same problems as I encountered on the Proposition 8 mother article. I think that the plaintiffs, a partial history, and the reasons for lawsuit and its contents should be included in the lead. Perhaps somebody with more experience in law could work on that? -- haha169 ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing this sentence:
Amnesty International has also condemned Proposition 8, saying that "states should never withhold rights based on minority status".[35]
because it is neither a demonstration nor an event. If you want to insert it elsewhere in the article, do so with a balanced point of view. This means, you must represent both sides. Ejnogarb ( talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Given on how recent events could stir up emotions on both sides I would protect this article in the near future (or sooner). Knowledgekid87 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this article need to also address federal lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 that was filed after the CA Supreme Court decision? [1] 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 01:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Strauss v. Horton. 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.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Strauss v. Horton. 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.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Strauss v. Horton. 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 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article doesn't really clarify how the California Constitution can be amended. If it's by a simple majority vote, it doesn't seem like the protections contained in it are very strong...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 04:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, as will be readily apparent to readers who are. This means that much of my wording is likely imprecise. I know I've used the wrong cite format for the various court paperwork, but at least I got something down that's clear. In places I read the court documents and summarized them, I think clearly and fairly, but at some point I worry that that approaches WP:OR. Any and all assistance welcome. -- Joe Decker ( talk) 07:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I do see some legal talk in the article is there a way to make it more understandable to the average reader? Knowledgekid87 12:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, MrBell ( talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead in this article has the same problems as I encountered on the Proposition 8 mother article. I think that the plaintiffs, a partial history, and the reasons for lawsuit and its contents should be included in the lead. Perhaps somebody with more experience in law could work on that? -- haha169 ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing this sentence:
Amnesty International has also condemned Proposition 8, saying that "states should never withhold rights based on minority status".[35]
because it is neither a demonstration nor an event. If you want to insert it elsewhere in the article, do so with a balanced point of view. This means, you must represent both sides. Ejnogarb ( talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Given on how recent events could stir up emotions on both sides I would protect this article in the near future (or sooner). Knowledgekid87 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this article need to also address federal lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 that was filed after the CA Supreme Court decision? [1] 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 01:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Strauss v. Horton. 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.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Strauss v. Horton. 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.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Strauss v. Horton. 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 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)