Talk:Washington Initiative 957 (2007)

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep, nomination withdrawn by nominator.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Consistent formatting

For whatever reason, there is an extensive project here on Wikipedia covering initiatives in Washington State (see List of Washington initiatives to the people.) Assuming I-957 gets enough signatures to make it to the 2007 ballot, it will get merged with that list, so please keep an eye consistent formatting.

I'm not sure if landmark decision is what's meant by "test case", but I'm pretty certain test case is not the intended article. --Weeble 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added section-by-section summary of the initiative

This seemed a reasonable way to flesh out the article and hopefully get the "stub" flag removed. I've done my best to be NPOV. I think a bit about the public reaction would be appropriate, but I'm not sure how to document them. Thoughts? TechBear 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by sponsor

The Washington Secretary of State's website listing 2007 initiatives to the people (here) notes that I-957 has been withdrawn by the sponsor. Since the initiative will not be on the ballot, should this article be deleted or should this be noted in the article and the article itself retained? I'm not sure about proper procedures. The WA-DOMA website has not published a statement on this yet. TechBear 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first section to past tense when mentioning the initiative and also clarified up front that the initiative was withdrawn so there would be no doubt that this was now of historical interest only. Since the AfD consensus was to keep the article, how do you think it should be handled going forward? Leave as is, or what? I gather there was a fair amount of press coverage at the time, so maybe some of that could be included to show reactions to the initiative and it's importance to gay marriage and equal rights from both sides. See here on metafilter for some blog comments (although it's not a usable source). — Becksguy 07:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Started a new talk section regarding organization. ZueJay (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

One of the hardest parts of legislation articles, at least ones that don't become law, statute, etc., is organization. I would think something along these lines might work: Background, Legislative history (with initiative text), Legal analysis, Effects/Impact, Arguments for, Arguments against. Admittedly, I borrowed that potential outline from a proposed organization for the Federal Marriage Amendment primarily written by User:TheronJ. ZueJay (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resources for improving this article

Not all of these links may meet Wikipedia standards as references; I'm just parking them here for reference.

TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this "merge" effort suddently come from?

This article has been challenged several times for deletion, and has consistently withstood those challenges. I dispute the effort to merge it out of existence without discussion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and merging are not the same, and implying that they are is inherently ludicrous. This initiative makes a lot more sense in context with the earlier court case that it was a direct response to - heck, without the court case, it never would have existed.. I felt that the content made more sense there, and while I reworded some, nothing was removed. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since merging was not discussed or even mentioned on either of the two AfDs, those discussions can't be viewed as an argument against a merge. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add insult to injury, all of the content of this page still remains at Andersen v. King County, so at the moment, this entire article is duplicate content. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]