Talk:2004 Arizona Proposition 200

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).

Campaign

This section says: "Supporters also relied for justification on a FAIR study that determined that Arizona taxpayers pay $1.3 billion to cover health, education, and incarceration costs of illegal immigrants. This FAIR study is contradicted directly by the Wells-Fargo Thunderbird School of International Management, an international business graduate school in Phoenix, AZ, which in 2003 published a study called "The Economic Impact of Arizona-Mexico Relationship". The study concludes that immigrants contribute $599 million to Arizona..."

As written, it's not true, because the first part refers to "illegal immigrants" while the second refers to "immigrants." Because the two terms are very much not synonymous, the one doesn't "directly contradict" the other. Did the Thunderbird study actually refer to illegal immigrants? -Kris Schnee 07:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're covering the campaign in that section. The linked citation goes to a blog summarizing the contents.[1] The term used there is "immigrants". I think this is an ambiguity we'll just have to live with. Perhaps the main point is simply that the opposing sides commission or publicized reports favoring their viewpoints. What's more important is what issues got the most advertising and discussion. If these were the numbers bandied about in the campaign we might find some news reports, but old ones are evaporating already. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks but this entire article appears to be written by pro-illegal immigration proponents. The POV is obviously skewed simply by the following sentence under "Proponents"

"Despite a huge effort by political leadership on both sides of the aisle to defeat it, the electorate passed Proposition 200 with 56 percent of voters voting in the affirmative"

Both sides tried to defeat it? Yet the proposition passed by a 56 to 44% margin? Please, get real folks.

I believe the margin was signifigantly higher than that but for the time being IMHO, it seems the majority of AZ voters approved the measure. I rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AZ Gila Monster (talk • contribs) 06:34, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

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) 14:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Consensus currently appears to be against the proposed page move. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:PRECISION 82.132.139.248 (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The year is required to disambiguate. I believe there can be a Prop 100 any year, however I'm not familiar with Arizona propositions, the majority of which are probably not notable. How do these ballot initiatives get their numbers? Submit a {{subst:move-multi}} please. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To disambiguate from what? --BDD (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Proposition 100 (2008) from Arizona Proposition 100 (2010) – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Wikipedia convention is to include the year: as an example, see Proposition 8 (disambiguation) Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Arizona prop numbers are all over the place each election - see for example English for Children (Arizona Proposition 203, 2000). Apteva (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We disambiguate when necessary; in the absence of conflicting topics, prefer the more concise titles. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be worth a look at Category:Ballot measures to see how consistently ballot measures are being named. For example, Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 vs. Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000). My oppose above was to the speedy, it's not a cut-in-stone oppose. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a specific convention on this would be at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)—looks like there isn't one. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Requested moves – this discussion needs moved to a higher level. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Talk:Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000), which proposes:
- Arizona Proposition 102 (2008) → Arizona Proposition 102 – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There have been other propositions numbered 200 in Arizona, such as the Payday Loan Reform Act in 2008. Quark7 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I can see an argument for omitting the year in states where the numbers do not repeat – although even that seems debatable – I don't the merit of getting rid of the years where as here there are apparently multiple Arizona Proposition 100s. Even where the number has not yet repeated it seems if it's a proposition in a state where that's possible it seems like a best practice to just include the year to avoid future confusion. AgnosticAphid talk 00:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – per RM at Talk:Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, Arizona Proposition 102 (2008) recently moved to Arizona Proposition 102. I reaffirm my oppose to this move, and feel that if these pages are not moved, as seems to be the consensus, then the Arizona Proposition 102 (2008) move, which was a (non-admin closure), should be reversed. – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arizona Proposition 200 (2004). 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]