Talk:2004 Alabama Amendment 2

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 2004, Alabama voters refused to repeal language requiring racial segregation in schools?

• Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Separation_of_Schools,_Amendment_2_(2004)

• • ALT1: ... that in 2004, Alabama voters rejected a measure that would have repealed the state's segregation requirements, as well as the poll tax and no right to a publicly funded education provisions? Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Separation_of_Schools,_Amendment_2_(2004)
  • Reviewed:

Created by Thefinals626472 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Thefinals626472 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC).

• Comment: link the article. Roast (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• Hey, Thefinals626472, thanks for the nom! Welcome to DYK, glad we have a new referendum writer on the project :) I hope you don't mind, I've done a bit of tweaking on the article. Article is new enough, long enough, sourced, neutral, and plagiarism free. Hook is cited (remember to copy the citation in the article to the sentence containing the hook fact) and interesting (ALT1 is a bit too long). No image provided, no QPQ required. The only thing that's missing is that there's only one independent source: Phillip Rawls, writing two different pieces for AP. In order to meet WP:GNG, there needs to be probably one more RS covering the referendum in depth- i don't know if there are other news sources out there, but there seems to be a great essay in the Alabama Law Review (Google Scholar is your friend!). Would you be willing to incorporate some info from there? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Hello! I have added two more sources, though I was not able to use any info from the one page from your source. Regarding ALT 1: I agree that it's clunky; I felt ALT 0 would be enough to really grab people's attention and so I think that it would be the best overall fit. Also, in a newspaper article by the Mobile Register, I found a picture of Mobile County Probate Court employees conducting a recount following the amendment having such a close result. The Register shut down in 2023, and I was wondering what copyright laws would still apply in this situation. I understand it's almost certainly not public domain, but would it qualify for fair use? I really think it would be a nice addition to the article. Here is a link to the article with the picture: https://www.newspapers.com/image-view/1167466466/ Thefinals626472 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
    • @Thefinals626472: We'll go with ALT0, then! I don't think that would qualify for fair use on enwiki, our criteria are incredibly narrow; we allow fair use images pretty much only when (1) there will never be a freely licensable way to illustrate the core concept (usually a deceased person or creative work) or (2) the image itself is what's being discussed. As far as the essay goes, if you email me, I can send you back the full ten pages :) for DYK purposes, though, good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Per concerns raised at WT:DYK#2004 Alabama Amendment 2 (nom), I have pulled this from Prep. Issues remain regarding both article context and hook wording. Per the discussion there, I have struck ALT0 (the originally promoted hook) as well as ALT1 as being rejected in the review (and also for being too long). A new hook and the context concerns need to be addressed before this can be reapproved. Courtesy ping to Szmenderowiecki. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
• @Thefinals626472: Please return to this nomination and propose a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Delcoan: Oops. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: New proposed hook that cuts back on 80 or so characters:

ALT2: ... that a 2004 ballot measure repealing Jim Crow laws in Alabama failed after opponents claimed taxes would spike? Delcoan (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that works. @Szmenderowiecki: Is this good to go now? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• • If they say yes, obviously then its fine, but if they say no because they want me to add more info about the tax opposition claims to the article body, I'd like some help (from anyone) because I wasn't totally sure what else to add. Delcoan (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Delcoan I can help you out with that. The hook with the current state of the article is fine. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 05:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Delcoan (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• Okay. I assume everything is good to go now with ALT2? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
• @Theleekycauldron: @Szmenderowiecki:

Delcoan (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Not my review, I personally don't care so long as the hook is accurate and interesting. If you need my opinion, ALT2 absolutely works. Factual and pretty interesting. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 10:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, if there are no remaining objections, then we can go with ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Delcoan (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)