Talk:2015 Michigan Proposal 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Michigan Proposal 1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problems with the article

There are currently a lot of problems with the article, and this is reflected in the current tags on the article. The COI tag is there because Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan, a group opposed to the Proposal, announced that they had created this article upon finding that there was none. It appears that much of the material so far has come from members of that group. The POV tag is there because the article is a bit one-sided, especially the section with the arguments in favor of the proposal. The article, as it currently stands, seems to indicate that the only reason people are supporting the Proposal is because there is no alternative. There is also a lot of unreferenced material and use of sources that are not reliable. I'll be going through to try to do a broad cleanup of the article and place tags around material that needs sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to have copyright violation problems. At least the first two sentences are identical to the Ballotpedia article about this measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.238.236.2 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ballotpedia's text is not copyrighted (in fact, they give express license to copy from the site); however, it'd be better to write our own wording, rather than just copying Ballotpedia. I'm still working on copy editing the copy and paste parts from editorials (which is a bit more of a borderline case of a copyright violation), and then I'll work on the lede. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the editorials, I suggest you put quotes in the notes section, using an efn-ua| format with a reference in the note. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Groups supporting and opposing the proposal

I suggest we remove the bulleted lists of groups supporting and opposing the proposal. Most of the organizations in the list are there without a source (and thus could be removed immediately, but I've held off in order to try to gain a more broad consensus as to the list issue in general), and a lot of the groups, like the individual county/district Republican groups and Tea Party groups simply are not notable. The article is already long and wordy as it is, and those lists are just making it longer. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to be bold here and have removed the list. Too much of that list is unsourced, and we do not need every single organization who opposes the proposal named here. As we get more sources for individual GOP committees opposing the proposal, the best option is to increase the number in the sentence starting with "As many as" and add a ref. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of the defeat information

I put it near the front of the article. However, it could be its own section. What do you think? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We will need a results section (I put it at the end for now), but it is worth mentioning in the lede that it was defeated. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michigan Ballot Proposal 2015-1. 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) 01:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]