Talk:2006 Arizona Proposition 107

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

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

discussion of the article

So now the article is basically a reprint of the publicity pamphlet published by the Secretary of State. For neutrality's sake that's probably a good place to keep it.

Gmoneyfinancial 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Unfortunately, this article is a good example of how activists can spin a Wikipedia article out of control. Unless someone objects, I propose that we only include statements that have some factual, logical, or historical basis.

As such, I’ll be removing the statement about “rights to same-sex couples.” This is a catchy line of propaganda, but the reality is that couples do not have rights. Opposite-sex couples do not even have rights. Individuals have rights.

The statement about denying health insurance benefits is highly speculative. Nothing in the text mentions employee benefits. I’ll be removing that statement unless an editor can show some logical, legal, or historical evidence that it is true.

Gmoneyfinancial 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is mentioned here about the religious aspect of marriage. Nor about freedom of religion, etc.

Why did it fail?

We should probably have a section about why this proposition failed in Arizona, when similar referenda across the country were approved the same year. Does anybody know anything about that? Why couldn't Arizona, a red state, pass this initiative, when Wisconsin, a blue state, could? --Hyphen5 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some good questions and are worth discussing, but how do they fit into an encyclopedia article? If we tried to address why it failed we'd get a variety of opinions and speculation, but I have a hard time seeing what kind of hard, unbiased facts could possibly be included. But maybe you have some ideas of facts that would address the question. Gmoneyfinancial 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was speculation all over the media in the immediate wake of the demise of this proposition. Perhaps we could reference different proposed theories. It should probably also be mentioned that there is already discussion of reintroducing this proposition to the ballot in 2008 sans prohibitions on domestic partner coverage. Panchitaville^talk 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the function of an encyclopedia: improve access to information/analysis performed in verifiable sources. There absolutely should be such a section, and it should include citations to published reports, media articles, etc. -Pete 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is mostly for the benefit of answering the question on the discussion page and not the article, as an Arizonan, the general view in the state over the proposition was that it did not make any difference to same-sex couples (who already are prevented from marrying as per state law). The biggest concern, and one that the prop's proponents tried vehemently to discredit, was that the people most affected by the marriage amendment would have been elderly, unmarried couples who cohabitate, and the results reflected this. For the most part, it wasn't about homosexual couples, but elderly retirees, and that's how a red state rejected a "defense of marriage" bill. ToastyMcGrath 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Phoenix, Arizona.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Flag of Phoenix, Arizona.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Arizona Proposition 200 (2004) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arizona Proposition 107 (2006). 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, 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).

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) 22:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]