 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Initiative 200. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150505075813/http://www.sos.wa.gov/office/404.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/elections/1998/i200_legaltext.aspx to http://www.sos.wa.gov/office/404.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/elections/1998/i200_legaltext.aspx
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Specifying "Opposition and Outcomes" breaks the impartiality that's supposed to be on Wikipedia. It gives readers of this article a slanted view against I-200. Proponents are only mentioned once in the entire section, and it's only for refutation. This section also trivializes support of the bill by putting "colorblind" in quotes, a dubious claim as it has no reference to back up that proponents actually say I-200 pushed towards a colorblind society. Colorblind is also a non-neutral term that some left leaning individuals have problems with (see https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/colorblindness-adds-to-racism/), making the proponents' arguments a straw man rather than showing their argument fairly.
The quote cited in this section has emotionally charged language, and while that's not bad, since it's in conjunction with the generally negative view of the bill, the section again pushes people towards one direction.
The fact that Eyman moved money from the campaign to himself literally has nothing to do with the bill itself and should immediately be removed. It's not even an outcome of the bill, it's a side effect that came up years later. This feels like it's put in there to, again, push people against the bill since the sponsor of the bill is corrupt. This is clearly illogical because it relies on ad hominem.
Instead, this section should be changed to be only outcomes as this can be more neutral. There are legitimate concerns that minorities don't get involved anymore, but there needs to be evidence showing a decline and linking that decline to I-200. This section currently only focuses on one specific minority group, American Indians. This twists information, cherry picking it, and gives the reader an unfair and slanted view on the state's handling of higher education, and thus their view on the bill. If the outcomes section were fair, it would not only include more recent data, as this is from 2006, it would also include all racial and ethnic groups and how college rates have been effected by this initiative.
There needs to be some serious work done to either fix this section or remove it entirely as it's too biased in one direction for the general population to get a non-biased view on. I personally believe that an outcomes section is not bad, just finding several non-biased sources and writing impartially will be the hard part.
Let me know your thoughts on this and hit me up to try and solve this section.
Gett Numbers ( talk) 05:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have broken the criticisms and outcome section, and added some sources. I believe your worries could be alleviated by another section of support before the opposition section. Captchacatcher ( talk) 00:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
+1ing the above comment. This page is clearly biased