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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Kansas 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.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Abortion 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.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
All the amendment does is give Kansans the ability to vote on the issue. Kansas also has laws protecting mothers from pregnancies that could kill them. I do not know why this wiki is blatantly lying.
174.250.211.0 (
talk)
15:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
result: No consensus. See insufficient agreement below that this article should be renamed as proposed, nor is there agreement that the current title is acceptable or unacceptable. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a page move. Thanks and
kudos to editors for your input;
good health to all!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'r there20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
disclaimer: this closure is neutral; whether or not there is consensus, only the arguments in the request below are reflected, nothing else.
Result: No consensus. See insufficient agreement below that this article should be renamed as proposed, nor is there agreement that the current title is acceptable or unacceptable. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a page move. Thanks and
kudos to editors for your input;
good health to all!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'r there20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
disclaimer: this closure is neutral; whether or not there is consensus, only the arguments in the request below are reflected, nothing else.
Oppose As noted by
twotwofourtysix, it was officially run as the "Value Them Both" amendment and that was the title on the ballot; it is a political title, but it was a politically-motivated action, so changing it may have the implication of mediating it into something that appears less than an anti-abortion initiative. And, since (as of this post) it's projected to not pass, it therefore will not become an amendment to the Kansas Constitution, creating a misnomer for whatever future proposals go to the ballot. Having just looked, CNN, for example,
call it "amendment/issue 1", which just adds to the confusion. --
Bacon Noodles (
talk •
contribs •
uploads)
04:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
if we don't want to give it a title like "Amendment 2" or "Issue 1" which may be inaccurate, I think "2022 Kansas reproductive rights/abortion rights ballot measure" would be a workable solution. I really have a problem with allowing political messaging to weasel its way into neutral sites like this. There's a reason we don't have articles titled "pro-choice" or "pro-life", because those are political messages. Nevermore27 (
talk)
06:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Small note: the side campaigning for a "yes" vote on this measure is literally called "Value Them Both"
[1]. This for sure runs afoul of
WP:NOTNEUTRAL. I would also dispute that COMMONNAME applies, because I sincerely doubt anyone who doesn't support the measure calls it that. Nevermore27 (
talk)
06:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Sorry if this sounds biased towards one side or the other here but including "reproductive rights/abortion rights" would also not quite be neutral since it rings familiar to opponents' arguments that this is about taking away/keeping rights etc. I also don't think there are any other ballot measure pages with a title that includes a short description of its content. Maybe this is too
WP:OTHERSTUFF but I say that
Illinois Fair Tax also has a title that isn't really neutral but personally I'm fine with it because that's its official title. Anyway, stating the obvious here but reasonable minds can disagree. —
twotwofourtysix(
talk ||
edits)08:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Qualified oppose: I think that renaming the article would be worthwhile, but not to an ambiguous title ('Amendment 2' does not have the same sort of traction as, say,
Proposition 8). I like Nevermore27's suggestion. · | (
t -
c)09:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Not sure what the best name for this article is, but after seeing this discussion I checked the
New York Times coverage
[2][3], and neither article uses the "Value Them Both" name for the amendment and instead refer to it as "constitutional amendment" or a "ballot referendum." Not sure this is the best move for an encyclopedia tone, but it does appear some
WP:RS aren't using the name "Value Them Both" for whatever reason.
TulsaPoliticsFan (
talk)
21:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
To be clear I support moving away from "Value Them Both", I'm just not fussed about what it's moved to. The current name is biased as sin Nevermore27 (
talk)
04:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nom; consistency is very useful here and there isn't a strong enough case to use the "Value Them Both" title compared to many other amendments.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
03:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Mild oppose I think ultimately the question is whether or not the existing title is an appropriate title for the article. There are a wide variety of conventions used to describe referenda on this site, and I have no reason to think this is inappropriate. There are a lot of articles with politically-charged titles on Wikipedia, simply because that is the name of the topic. Given that this ballot measure was widely called “Value Them Both” by the news media and supporters and opponents alike, it is perfectly fitting. Also, it was also literally titled that on the ballot. That being said, I would say a wide variety of other titles could be appropriate as well. hello, i'm a
member |
talk to me!02:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you want another actually official title of the referendum/amendent that can be uncontroversial and neutral, the answer to that would probably only be the bill title House Concurrent Resolution 5003 (HCR 5003), which is
listed in the Kansas SOS website. I would mildly support something along the lines of "2022 Kansas abortion referendum" but I respectfully disagree anything else that seems too long/descriptive or official-sounding names that aren't actually official (Amendment 2, etc.). Either way, improving and adding to the content in this article, instead of fighting over its title, would go a long way in making it better imo. —
twotwofourtysix(
talk ||
edits)07:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Clarification for infobox
It's not clear to me what the infobox is trying to say in regards to the results. The first part is yes or no on the amendment but right after it says for and against the amendment. It should be concise and consistent with the rest of the article.
Callmemirela 🍁 talk12:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately this is a result of the fact that the Infobox referendum template limits the infobox to saying yes or no. It should say for or against in the entire infobox.
Gust Justice (
talk)
14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply