Talk:2006 Arizona Proposition 107

message: 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)
thread_title: discussion of the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Panchitavilletalk 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Why did it fail? 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Flag of Phoenix, Arizona.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730184524/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/ElectionInformation.htm to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/ElectionInformation.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506224114/http://www.azsos.gov:80/election/2006/Info/PubPamphlet/Sun_Sounds/english/Prop107.htm to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/Info/PubPamphlet/Sun_Sounds/english/Prop107.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922143737/http://www.noprop107.com/ to http://www.noprop107.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified