This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Information from these articles could be added to the page
edithttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/10/nyregion/the-fight-over-proposition-1-in-new-york.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/nyregion/abortion-ballot-measure-ny.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/19/hochul-abortion-amendment-00180050 CGP05 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Third Siena College poll to add to the table (October 13 - 17, 2024)
edithttps://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SNY1024-Crosstabs.pdf CGP05 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- added — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing
editThis article makes claims without sources. This is a violation of Wikipedia's terms. Meh130 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
This passed
editsomeone might wanna update this as it passed with 61.8% of the vote 125.236.174.47 (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Move to New York Equal Rights Amendment?
editChecking to see if it would be controversial to move this to New York Equal Rights Amendment. This wouldn't involve a significant change in the content, but reframe to be about the law (and whatever happens with the law moving forward). @CGP05 and Snowman304: thoughts? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Probably not, to be consistent with the other similar referendum articles CGP05 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- IMO consistently is not a goal in itself if there are other reasons. Regardless, it looks like someone has reframed this page to be about an amendment, and not a proposal. Either the previous framing should be restored (a proposal to amend) or the title should be moved. Thinking about it more, I think it does make sense to keep it about the proposal for now, until/unless a bunch of sources emerge about the effect of the amendment itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done. The reframing wasn't quite as pervasive as I thought on first glance. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- IMO consistently is not a goal in itself if there are other reasons. Regardless, it looks like someone has reframed this page to be about an amendment, and not a proposal. Either the previous framing should be restored (a proposal to amend) or the title should be moved. Thinking about it more, I think it does make sense to keep it about the proposal for now, until/unless a bunch of sources emerge about the effect of the amendment itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
GA?
editThinking about nominating this over at GAN. Any suggestions/thoughts before I do? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Map
edit@ZackCarns: Thanks for the map! Could you confirm it's based on finalized election results? I noticed we still had some numbers from preliminary/projected sources until recently. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just updated the map based on what the NYT has it at. ZackCarns (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)