![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sunwoo.kim98.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
13 Hour Filibuster The major new sources claim that Wendy Davis’ filibuster went 10-11 hours.
This is because they filed their stories before Midnight Texas time and went to bed.
Had they stayed up and done their fucking jobs, they would have seen the Parliamentary Inquiries. Not just a delaying tactic, but a way to inform the viewing public what they can expect.
And Wendy Davis’ Filibuster did not end with the third sustained point of order, but with a vote of the body to end her filibuster.
That vote did not happen during the 13 hours. That vote was most likely one of the 4 fictitious votes that happened past midnight.
Therefore Wendy Davis’ filibuster went the full 13 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address
If she was not performing the action of filibustering, and if the sources collectively cite that she was not, to say otherwise would be counter-wiki standards. However, if the sources point to the opposite, then the 13 hour mark must be used. Wikipedia is not journalism, though, and cannot behave as an investigative periodical, but as a reflection of what properly vetted sources attest to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.90.169 ( talk) 04:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is this even an article? None of this article discusses the actual bill. It would appear to be only about the fillibuster. Arzel ( talk) 19:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The new abortion restrictions in Texas have just been found unconstitutional, but I'm having trouble determining, from a quick look, if House Bill 2 is the same as Senate Bill 5, and if it would be appropriate to use a "law" title rather than a "bill" title (as these were signed into law even if they did not take effect due to being unconstitutional). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems this bill was originally called Senate Bill 5 but is now called House Bill 2, [1] so I think it should be moved. What do others think? Everymorning (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sunwoo.kim98.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
13 Hour Filibuster The major new sources claim that Wendy Davis’ filibuster went 10-11 hours.
This is because they filed their stories before Midnight Texas time and went to bed.
Had they stayed up and done their fucking jobs, they would have seen the Parliamentary Inquiries. Not just a delaying tactic, but a way to inform the viewing public what they can expect.
And Wendy Davis’ Filibuster did not end with the third sustained point of order, but with a vote of the body to end her filibuster.
That vote did not happen during the 13 hours. That vote was most likely one of the 4 fictitious votes that happened past midnight.
Therefore Wendy Davis’ filibuster went the full 13 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address
If she was not performing the action of filibustering, and if the sources collectively cite that she was not, to say otherwise would be counter-wiki standards. However, if the sources point to the opposite, then the 13 hour mark must be used. Wikipedia is not journalism, though, and cannot behave as an investigative periodical, but as a reflection of what properly vetted sources attest to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.90.169 ( talk) 04:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is this even an article? None of this article discusses the actual bill. It would appear to be only about the fillibuster. Arzel ( talk) 19:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The new abortion restrictions in Texas have just been found unconstitutional, but I'm having trouble determining, from a quick look, if House Bill 2 is the same as Senate Bill 5, and if it would be appropriate to use a "law" title rather than a "bill" title (as these were signed into law even if they did not take effect due to being unconstitutional). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems this bill was originally called Senate Bill 5 but is now called House Bill 2, [1] so I think it should be moved. What do others think? Everymorning (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)