This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon 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
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
A fact from 2004 Alabama Amendment 2 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 January2026(check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 7 months ago19 comments7 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
