Talk:Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK.

[edit] NPOV tag

an anon added an NPOV tag. I've rolled it back as I see no assertion of NPOV or support for that tagging on this talk page. If there is a need for the tag please outline some of the issues you see with the article here on this talk. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my revert on 04:35, 27 November 2006: Anonymous user inappropriately changed much of the information to past tense. Prop2 does not even take effect until December 22 '06 and faces court challenges, and even after it does take effect some of the things changed to past tense should actually remain in the present tense (example: "seeks to end" being changed to "ended"; when changed to past tense this actually changes the entire meaning of the statement, not just the tense). Some of the changes to past tense may have been proper, and I will reinstate any changes that were appropriate ASAP (or perhaps someone else will help with this). With regard to the election results taken from MichiganProposal2.org, the source for this information should be changed to the official numbers from the Michigan Secretary of State, although the numbers appear to match. The link to this site at the bottom of the page should not have been deleted, however, and I see no evidence of this being a copycat site. Rather, it appears to contain much original language and philosophy with regard to affirmative action and the impact of Proposal 2. The fact that the website owner(s)/author(s) chose to register the domain name privately does not mean the link to the site should be deleted from a simple list. I firmly believe it is/was one of the most popular sources of information on the proposal leading up to election day, and I was the one who added the link to it. Every time I ran a search for anything related to the proposal on Google or Yahoo up until election day, it placed at the top of the search results as a paid, sponsored link.

I added that "supporters of the MCRI" had committed fraud, since otherwise the article reads like the ballot initiative itself had done this. - Bongadorus, 11 December 2006

[edit] Question

What was the Proposal 2 of 2004, the one to recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman only? Michiganotaku 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gratz picture

Is there really a reason to have Jenny Gratz's picture up here? I recognize she was one of the driving forces behind the MCRI, but the article is the MCRI. I don't think it merits a picture. It doesn't help the reader.--Lindsay (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gratz was not just "one of the driving forces behind the MCRI" she was the MCRI's executive director. Furthermore the lawsuit that brought the case to a head for Michigan has one brought by her against the University of Michigan. The case was heard by the US Supreme Court. So if a picture of anyone is to appear in the article, it would be hers.

As for notability: her and Ward Connerly, were the public face of MCRI in interviews and TV commercials.

Your statement that it “doesn't help the reader” is an opinion I suppose one can make about a picture of anyone in any article. The implied notion being that a person’s ideas and actions are noteworthy but all images are irrelevant. I think most readers would prefer a picture nonetheless.--Redandready (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Images often help the reader (If the article is about apples or apes, a picture of an apple or ape). Or if the image of a person is associated with a movement (NAZI Germany and Hitler). But I don't think my statement of Gratz's photo as unhelpful is my opinion . . . it's just NOT helpful. It's not like someone reading about the MCRI would say, hey I wish I could see what one of the leaders of the ballot initiative looked like . . . . To me it just seems like putting up a photo of a person for the sake of doing it. My $0.02. --Lindsay (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This fits your own criteria: "Or if the image of a person is associated with a movement..."--Redandready (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, agree to disagree. But you really contort what I said when my example was NAZI Germany vis-a-vis a state ballot initiative. Come on.--Lindsay (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only quoted what I thought was the relevant part of your comment, specifically to avoid any comparison between this topic and Nazi Germany. The pertinent portion of your comment was the association of a person with a movement, not the degree to which a movement may be good, evil, or atrocious.--Redandready (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)