Talk:1996 California Proposition 218

California High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

Archives

Archive 1

Hugely long article with some POV problems

This article is hugely long (more than 400,000 bytes before I cut a significant amount of text). This should be nowhere near as long; our guidelines on Wikipedia:Article size say that at 100,000+ bytes of "readable text" the article should certainly be split or condensed. Much of this material, to the extent it is useful, strays from the topic of Prop 218 and should be a new article, probably Taxation in California.

The article also has a large number of unsourced material (which I've cut), including unsourced contentious statements. Much of the context is also addressed to the California taxpayer (with language like "Taxpayers should assume..." etc.). This is not encyclopedic. Finally, there are significant NPOV problems throughout the text; I have cut some of the most egregious examples but there is still plenty buried in here. Neutrality^talk 13:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from another Language Log reader - I think we also need to flag up the A-class rating with the relevant projects. As far as I can tell, it was unilaterally added by the author, without a proper assessment being done. I seriously doubt that this article is worthy of an A rating. Perhaps WP:ORN might be interested, as well. Tevildo (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BOLDly assessed both the class/quality and the importance level downward (to "start-class" and "mid-importance" respectively). Neutrality^talk 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone planning to make more cuts to this page? Its still WAY too large. TLDR doesnt accurately describe it lol. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny - because as a tax lawyer doing some research for something I'm writing, I found this article amazingly detailed. I was actually completely flabbergasted as to how that much detail stayed on a Wikipedia article :-) However, I also repeated found myself hitting the "edit" button to remove non-neutral language. As it stands right now, it's basically a propaganda piece. I would be willing to bet that the IPs from the edits trace back the anti-tax group which funded the proposition in the first place. It's a shame, because for that amount of effort, they could have created something really great - and which might have made their point WITHOUT resorting to blatantly biased and self-aggrandizing language. 98.218.220.48 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR

Somebody needs to trim this page. And I don't know enough about this bill to properly rewrite it. I could go through it but it would take much longer than someone who knows about this bill. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major Neutrality Issues With This Article

I am not a frequent editor, and apologize for not knowing proper protocol, I will try to educate myself in the near future. I am journalist working in California and familiar with California politics. This article has major neutrality problems, and reads as though it were written by the political group that drafted and worked to pass the law. It needs to be properly flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD2B:B1E0:6D33:FE2A:5619:FEC (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California Proposition 218 (1996). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Overly detailed" template

There is no such thing as "overly detailed". WP:INDISCRIMINATE says absolutely *nothing* about "excessive amount of intricate detail". That template should not be placed or replaced on this or any other article. In fact, that template should be sent to TFD and deleted immediately, because it falsely pretends that our policy says something that our policy manifestly does not say. [The policy actually refers to excessive statistics which is something completely different from detail.] James500 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs improvement to summarize article, and to convey to reader EFFECTS of the Proposition

The second paragraph states some technical details about the specific sections of the law that was changed, but this is (in my OPINION) much less important/relevant to people reading this article than what EFFECTS this prop had on existing law. How did it change the law? As a better example of what could be stated, see the lead here Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which I cut and paste below:

The Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act ("Costa–Hawkins") is a California state law, enacted in 1995, which places limits on municipal rent control ordinances. Costa–Hawkins preempts the field in two major ways.[1] First, it prohibits cities from establishing rent control over certain kinds of residential units, e.g., single family dwellings and condominiums, and newly constructed[2] apartment units; these are deemed exempt. Second, it prohibits municipal "vacancy control", also called "strict" rent control.

Also, BEFORE a section explaining the effects of the Proposition, I think a single sentence explaining why this proposition was needed (Knox case issues) would help the reader understand what happened that created the political will create this initiative.

Thanks ahead of time to anyone that can write this, since I don't have the knowledge of this subject that others who have created and built this article do. Thank you to those that have created and contributed to this article!!! ----Avatar317 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]

Also, [first sentence] "which revolutionized local and regional government finance" says NOTHING about what this Proposition accomplished....how about something like: gave citizens a new ability to have a vote whenever local governments add/increase taxes or fees....or something like that.----Avatar317 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]