Talk:2020 California Proposition 16

"Asians is the only overrepresented ethnic group" is clearly wrong

see https://edsource.org/2020/students-at-californias-top-tier-universities-dont-reflect-states-racial-and-ethnic-diversity-says-urban-institute-study/635332

Maybe write "white and Asian" as the citation does.

Could someone with edit capability help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lezhao (talk • contribs) 05:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Making both arguments side-by-side

talk) 22:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Much like the official arguments themselves, I feel like the additional arguments and groups in favor/against should be aligned in a table such that the reader can see each point side-by-side.

• This is an interesting idea, though remember that Wikipedia is not a guide book and we should prefer prose over lists. I think we should wait to get feedback from others on this before implementing it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm personally not opposed to it in concept. It's just that in practice, both in the official and additional arguments, it's not mobile-friendly. I'll mention now that I also don't think some subsection fonts look good even on the desktop version, but I'm relatively content leaving them be consdering the greater changes. UCFiatLux (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Issues with community-organized polls

talk) 21:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC) There have been numerous studies showing that these community-organized polls are innaccurate. With a new PPIC poll coming out this Wednesday, it wouldn't make any sense to keep these polls here.

There have been numerous studies showing that these community-organized polls are innaccurate. Do you have an example? I read through the talk page and the only relevant discussion I noticed was this one where there was a rough consensus to include the polls. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if we have a new PPIC poll we can drop the SurveyUSA one (which historically is inaccurate) and if ethnic cross-tabs are provided by PPIC for relevant groups (Asians especially), we can drop the community based ones. The main argument here is the limited attention given by media to polls other than PPIC and IGS Usaar33 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring

An unknown IP user and McMasterCarr1995 have deleted huge portions of the page and inserted editorial-type material in neutral sections like "Background." I've tried to revert multiple times. I've already requested page protection. InfinityJackson (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I just saw. They should grant it. They should turn to the talk page before engaging in a massive change like that. I hope protection is granted. UCFiatLux (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

McMasterCarr1995 has not attempted to utilize the talk page, where multiple users have already agreed more or less to the content. Taking a look at his or her edits, it is obvious, this person is biased beyond a reasonable degree. Editorial type materials do not belong in top levels. Neither should he or she be editing neutral statements. Requesting administrator action against the user. InfinityJackson (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Requests for temporary extended confirmed protection as well as administrator action against the previously-named user have been made. That's hopefully to protect this page from nonconstructive edits and vandalism. InfinityJackson (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding some evidence for admin review. The following are highly questionable edits. In the former link, the user changed quoted material in the 400-line range that stems from printed arguments in a ballot guide. The latter edit is made throughout with no NPOV. (see this edit and this edit). InfinityJackson (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Dispute: Affirmative Action in K-12 education

This section is highly biased toward the pro side, violates the Wikipedia:No_original_research rule, and is factually wrong. In particular, the central claim that Prop 209 is causing racial segregation is unsourced and is logically false given that Prop 209 restricts neither court-mandated (per Prop 209's legal text) nor voluntary desegration programs. This section isn't even internally consistent - for instance, while arguing segregation is bad, it also argues it is beneficial for Black students to have Black teachers, but that is largely only possible if Black students are segregated given the small (~5.5%) Black population in California.

There may be some benefits toward having more minority teachers, but this is a separate issue from (de-)segregation and is not California specific - the reader may refer to Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States to understand benefits of these programs.

I propose this entire section be deleted in its current form given its misleading nature. Usaar33 (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you're reading a little too much into it. I didn't write this section, but I think most users doing a plain reading of the text would not believe that Prop 209 is causing segregation. I do agree that the language could have clarified better, so I edited that. That said, this section has a wealth of information from reliable sources. I think it belongs here. InfinityJackson (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your modification, but the claim that "Current law prohibits school districts in California from using certain race-conscious programs to increase diversity." remains unsourced and as noted above, false. Without that line, the connection to Prop 209 goes away and the entire discussion about K-12 student segregation becomes irrelevant. Again, this article being about Prop 16 should only discuss Prop 209 and affirmative action programs affected by it; this article should not be duplicating Affirmative_action_in_the_United_StatesUsaar33 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this section is appropriate. It could use a few edits and maybe additional citations, but the author generally did a good job citing his or work. I think you're right in that voluntary and involuntary school segregation programs are not prohibited by Prop 209, but I think certain race-conscious hiring and funding formulas are prohibited by Prop 209. UCFiatLux (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not the citations; it's the irrelevance - you can write a well cited section about pears in the apple article; doesn't mean it sound be there.

Yes, race-conscious hiring is banned - no idea about funding (certainly you can fund by socioeconomics and test scores though), but that's a separate topic from segregation. Besides, theoretical policy changes don't matter - to be present in this article, only actual policy changes in California resulting from 209 are relevant. Public contracting and college admissions are clear examples of an impact; this section fails to show one in k-12.

I see it as reasonable to give this section two days to be made relevant - after that I'll just delete it. Usaar33 (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the introduction around segregation can be edited, but by and large, this section is relevant. To say that there has to be a demonstrable impact from 1996 is absurd. Prop 209 has an impact regardless because it prohibits certain kinds of race-conscious policies in K-12. You said it yourself. I think we can add the Berkeley article or a similar one as a finding. We can edit the language for better NPOV. I'll try to tomorrow. InfinityJackson (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Prop 209 has no impact if there never were and were unlikely to be racial preferences invoked in certain areas in the counter-factual that Prop 209 never passed. If we want to dance around the theoretical, this would largely just duplicate Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States. Any reader is free to look there for detailed understanding. Usaar33 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there were diversity hiring programs in K-12 that were eliminated because of 209. There honestly may have been some higher education diversity hiring programs that were cancelled too. I'm still looking. The lawsuit about voluntary desegregation programs though is interesting because the legality of such programs were brought into question and that history probably should be noted. InfinityJackson (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if you find relevant programs eliminated, that would be proper to include. As it has been over two days, I'm deleting this entire section and will note elsewhere that voluntary desegreation programs were ruled to not be affected. You have the ability to view any section of course in history if you wish to rewrite the removed section. Usaar33 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This section should not have been removed. Since Prop 209 had impacts by preventing policy changes and throwing things into question, it was still relevant and there was no consensus about removing it. If anything, there should have been edits. There are other parts of this page that have relatively comparative perspectives and are still relevant to readers. We should let readers have the opportunity to read it and decide. I will sometime put it back and maybe make some edits myself. I think someone else said that they will also make edits, but it should not have been removed. UCFiatLux (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This section should not have been re-instantiated without consensus reached here, especially after consensus has been reached to delete it. In particular, it absolutely should not have been added back without the POV tag. I have removed it again.

I want to again stress this section does not belong here as it is not relevant. The official voters guide analysis doesn't explicitly mention K-12 education at all (unlike contracting and university admissions, worthy of their own sections). There's not much coherent external analysis of the impact to Prop 209 on K-12, making this largely violate both POV and Wikipedia:No_original_research rules to reach a conclusion - that Prop 16 would have an effect on K-12 education - not established by mainstream sources. Why is this section anymore relevant than any of the laundry list of potential uses of preferential policies in government?

Furthermore, the arguments are largely biased or misleading and generally don't paint a coherent picture (we're intermixing funding and segregation). The issue rate is too high for this to be present (even if it were relevant) Here's an almost sentence by sentence analysis of the errors:

• Explicitly "race-conscious" policies in K-12 are desegregation bussing, not Brown which simply held de jure segregation was illegal.
• It's largely irrelevant to a voter that Prop 209 led to a court case involving public school desegregation. All that matters is that it is legal and therefore Prop 16 has no effect.
• The funding arguments are generally US, not CA specific. The CA data in that article doesn't even seem reasonable in the report as there are few school districts in CA that are 75% non-Hispanic white in California. (You might as well just state Marin County has disproportionate high funding, which is a much more precise statement and applies to 1% of students)
• "Funding gap" is a model by the TCF not defined here; it doesn't represent different levels of funding and is thus misleading.
• The Black students doing better with Black teachers is a weird argument. Is the intention here to argue that racial segregation is a good thing? Either way, it's not even stated how often this is true already in CA.
• The second sentence statistics is a strange and misleading follow-up as the actual difference between Black teachers (4.1%) and students (5.5%) is considerably smaller and no evidence is given why the larger white-non-white gap matters.
• It's largely irrelevant what other states currently do, especially if CA never had such funding policies, unless there is actually a stated mainstream intention to make things work this way. To avoid the currently POV issue, it would be relevant to point out that CA does add an extra 20% funding for disadvantaged students (based on SES metrics); no attempt to compare effectiveness between race-neutral and race-using programs is provided.

Usaar33 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the section to begin with. I'm going to put it back up and put up a NPOV flag, but it's going back up. You yourself said that 209 bans certain race-conscious efforts in education and K-12 education. Plus, there are other sections here that point to what other states have done. I didn't write it nor edit much actually before putting it back, but I think we should respect the bulk of what folks added in. What was added by a previous editor is well cited and caution should be exercised. The voter guide mentions schools. In general, it mentions public contracting, employment, and education because those are the specific provisions mentioned by Prop 209. That's potentially a good model we can work with for the organization here, but merging K-12 and higher education may be tricky, and I don't think that's what many folks want to do anyways. If you would like to add your finding about the 20% bonus for disadvantaged students, you are welcome to add it. InfinityJackson

Sorry, misinterpreted prior statements as consensus. I've restored the WP:OR tag as this violates WP:SYN; the voter guide [[1]] does not mention K-12 education explicitly - the "pro" argument only mentions ill-defined "access" to K-12. There's no more justification to put K-12 here than there is for every single government agency that potentially can use affirmative action and this starts to violate terseness/relevance goals to do so.

Citations are not the concern here; it's the violation of WP:SYN - it is drawing material from multiple sources to imply a solution (banning AA is having a material effect on public education) not established by sources. Just as Wikipedia officially views stating "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." as improper editorial synthesis, this section is as well as it is attempting to synthesize multiple sources to draw a non-mainstream conclusion (Prop 209 being active is affecting K-12)

Secondly, it is not the job of other editor's to correct WP:POV either; the section was introduced in a highly biased and misleading way and as I note above is not easily redeemable. Usaar33 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

After going through all the arguments and revisions of this section, I have to agree with Usaar33 that it should be removed. It's just not relevant and is clearly biased as written. In my mind, the first point is perhaps the only part that is relevant but it is still moot given the outcome of the supreme court case. Here are my issues with the other points:

• Point 2 - Talk about spin. What about the notion that passing Prop 16 would create the illusion that our educational outcomes are more equitable than they really are? Wouldn't this lead to a weaker argument for fixing the referenced funding gaps?
• Point 3 - The cited article is written by a communications manager who in turn references unpublished working papers. This is unnacceptable.
• Point 4 - Irrelevant and incorrect. First, non-white students in CA K-12 account for 73% of the total student population, not 77%. Second, the comparison is not apples to apples. It appears the working age population in CA (https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/specialreports/CA_Employment_Summary_Table.pdf) is about 37% non-white, which is in line with the cited percentage of teachers of color.
• Point 5 - I fail to see how this is relevant.

XwhereswhatX (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's late and I only came here for a second. Point 4 seems to stand up, and seems worthwhile in terms of inclusion in this section. Point 5 remains relevant in that California is not able to engage in policies like other states have. As stated by one of the citations, legislation seems to be impacted. UCFiatLux (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Point 4 however remains irrelevant as the article fails to demonstrate any harm from teacher demographics differing from student (other than point 3 which applies to only 5% of the population). Agree with User:XwhereswhatX in general, though I'd let point 3 slide a bit on POV issues. (while still noting it's bizarre to say the least to be effectively arguing for the "benefits" of racial segregation).

But most importantly, while WP:POV is a large issue, the biggest issue is that the entirety of the section violates WP:SYN as I describe above. This hasn't been addressed directly by supporters of this section (User:UCFiatLux and User:InfinityJackson) after a week. I propose deleting the section in 48 hours if it cannot be established this does not violate WP:SYN. Usaar33 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked into the EDD data. It seems to count Hispanics as White. Anyways, I've been busy trying to defend this page from vandalism and nonconstructive edits, so bear with me for a second. The third point links to working papers, but it seems sound nonetheless, so much so that JHU sent out a press release about their findings. The findings seem to stand on their own. They do not violate WP:SYN. InfinityJackson (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out.

You may be misunderstanding WP:SYN. The key point is: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

There's internal and broader violations here.

An "internal" example is "Teacher demographics": It is not established that teacher/student demographic differences in CA are harmful to education of students by the article. The author of the section has used this statistic to imply it is (by following the Black student/teacher research), but that is largely irrelevant given CA demographics.

An "external" example is the wider article. There are no mainstream examples of Prop 209 affecting any programs related to K-12 education (outside a court challenge that lost). No external sourcing establishes that Prop 16 has an actual impact on K-12. It is this fact that it a violation of WP:SYN -- no cited articles say Prop 16 will change K-12 education in any way. Concluding that 16 affects K-12 is "improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion"

(24 hour timer starts) Usaar33 (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the material and we might need an outside party to mediate. But the claims stand up on their own. There is an impact on CA lawmaking if Prop 209 restricts certain types of race-conscious programs, which it does. And legislation that would have been considered likely didn't move forward or was squashed because of Prop 209. That itself is an impact you yourself have said. I think in good faith, we can probably remove the JHU and AU link if it's bothersome. I think it's reputable enough, but I can understand that it may be better without. UCFiatLux (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry I protected so quickly. I'm glad talk page discussion is still going on, and at first glance it looks productive. I'll do my best to read through this section and give my thoughts in a few hours. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on this soon. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @UCFiatLux and InfinityJackson: Do either of you know of a source that connects proposition 16 to K-12 education? If so, the WP:SYNTH problem is resolved because we can use the source and verify that the connection is not original research. If not source can be found, the disputed text should be removed per WP:ONUS and WP:NOR. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Usaar33 and XwhereswhatX: I've WP:BOLDly removed two bullet points, here and here, which I think are completely unrelated to the subject. I agree that without sources connecting them to prop 16 those should not be restored. As for the remaining points, they seem facially relevant. Is this version better, and if not what further changes would you suggest? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Wugapodes: Thanks for the intervention. I agree that your cited changes are indeed improvements. If we simply must keep this section, which I do not think we should for the same reasons as Usaar33, we at least need to modify what was previously Point 4 in my last comment. After your changes, but before McMasterCarr1995 deleted everything, the text of Point 4 read "Statistics from the California Department of Education show that California's teachers do not reflect the demographics of the state or the students...". My previous comment explains why the part in bold is false and should thereby be removed.XwhereswhatX (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Wugapodes. The folding into background helps a lot (I had an earlier version that did this in fact - as discussed elsewhere on this page) in readability. Appreciate the clean-up on K-12; I made some WP:BOLD additional changes to drop the "race-concious" term which is ambiguous between merely non-discriminatory (toward minorities) and preferential policies explicitly favoring minorities.

I do still feel we are stretching WP:ONUS with this section. There's no explicit mention of K-12 education in the official voter guide analysis. It's true "public employment" is mentioned, but this article can get quite long if the threshold for inclusion is any race-preferential policy in any public industry in the United States. (police, fire, doctors, whatever might all be there). I'd move that the threshold for inclusion should be that a specific policy existed within California prior to Prop 209.

Usaar33 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and hopefully others can improve them further. I think your threshhold is reasonable, but I'm not sure it will be workable. In general, we should include information in proportion with its coverage in reliable, secondary sources (see due weight policy). Reading through the article I found a citation to a Press Enterprise article which discusses how prop 16 would affect K-12 education. Given that, I think some mention of K-12 education is warranted. What if we combined the College admissions section and K-12 section into a general "Education" section? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That article seems not to be noting how Prop 16 impacts K-12, but citing that flawed K-12 education as something to be fixed in its own right. Note that the article is written by a Prop 16 opponent -- the opponent certainly does not argue for race-preferential policies within K-12.

College admission itself is by far the most contentious aspect of this proposition, as exemplified by news media focus and high Asian American representation within the opposition, so it is worthy of its own section. If we must keep some of these K-12 facts, I do think a broad "other education" section may be valid though as that could also cover things like higher ed faculty hiring if one wished to add items there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaar33 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We've talked about the sectioning of certain sections before. Prop 209 and Prop 16's main areas are in public contracting, education, and employment. The most contentious segment is higher education admissions, and there seems to be some desire to keep that section standalone. "Other education" sounds weird. Potentially, we should merge everything into an "Education" with more subsections. Just please consider Prop 209 and 16 also affect higher education outreach and retention programs as well as potentially K-12 funding formulas, K-12 hiring within the greater public employment contexts. I understand organizing this is tricky and I don't what the right answer may be. Regarding media articles on K-12, there isn't much. Assemblywoman Weber who was a co-author of ACA-5 has mentioned teacher diversity here and some proponents talk about local control funding formulas and hiring, but they don't seem to be getting media traction. UCFiatLux (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

McMasterCarr1995 talk) 21:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Respectfully, most Wikipedia articles on propositions only include "background," and not specific impacts such as the paragraphs outlined below that have raised quite heated debate. Therefore, I find it prudent to delete the entirety of these paragraphs. In addition, any information that is provided in these paragraphs is heavily skewed towards the affirmative side (showing the negative aspects of Prop 209, while suspiciously leaving out the benefits of it). I am happy to discuss this move further.

@McMasterCarr1995: Thanks for your perspective. While other articles may not give analysis, the consensus here is that the public debate should be covered in an encyclopedic manner. In general, it's also better to avoid wholesale removal when possible because it doesn't leave much to improve on. If significant perspectives are being left out, it would be better for everyone to include them rather than remove useful information. Are there ways to rephrase the removed paragraphs that you think would make them more neutral? I would also encourage you to point out sources that have been neglected. If reliable secondary sources are saying that (1) Prop 209 has benefits and (2) those benefits are related to the topic of Prop 16, then per our due-weight policy we should discuss how to incorporate them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Some top-level article information outside the support/opposition sections describing affirmative action in X are highly skewed toward the Pro side. One solution to mitigate this issue is to fold the biased sections directly into the "Support" side. Otherwise, the following issues must be addressed.

Affirmative action in college admissions

Studies that argue API admissions rates declined in the absolute sense when said decline was cause by the university system becoming more competitive are specious and agenda-pushing. As can be trivially seen in other sources, the Asian American admission rate fell slower than any other group, suggesting API benefited from the removal of affirmative action. Other sources in this very article (e.g. Bleemer paper) concede that Asians directly benefit in higher admissions rates without affirmative action.

An alternative source showing API admissions rates increased on a relative basis could be provided, but in the sense of providing help to a reader, we should just remove the misleading study. Usaar33 (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the API paper and it seems to address a specific argument from the Fisher case. I think it and the research holds water, but I think it might not fit as is. I think it's okay to go. What do other folks think? InfinityJackson (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind. UCFiatLux (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll delete this tomorrow (to give more time for any dissent) and remove the NPOV tag. Usaar33 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Affirmative action in public contracts

The historical background is largely irrelevant, as Prop 209 is prohibiting preferential treatment for minority contractors, not permitting discrimination thereof. Absent historical context around preferential treatment for minority contractors, the introduction section should be removed as it may mislead the reader to incorrectly believe Prop 209 is leading to the state discriminating against said groups. Usaar33 (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that that information is misleading. It doesn't even mention 209 but does reference affirmative action in the public sector and contracting broadly. I think it's fair. InfinityJackson (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

At the minimum then, it's not relevant. Executive Order 11246 refers to federal contracting non-discrimination requirements. Prop 209 had no effect on this and indeed no effect on federal contracting policies (explicitly exempted in section 31(e); any historical background should address state and local policies. This article is about Prop 209/Prop 16 (affirmative action in state and local contracts were affected), not the greater Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States.

My proposal is that the initial introduction be deleted, stating just "Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California state government and many local governments had affirmative action programs in place for minority and women business enterprises (MWBEs]". The Relevant Findings then consist of the existing two arguments (first one discussing the loss of contracts to MWBEs, second discussing reduction in government operating expenses) Usaar33 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jackson. I don't think someone doing a plain reading of the text would make that connection with 209. It's just more background information. UCFiatLux (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

How are you justifying what background information goes into this article? With such a controversial issue, it is possible to introduce bias by selectively pulling from Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States. In particular, I don't think this background information is any more relevant than any other background information about affirmative action in public contracting in the United States, but pulling all that information does not provide value. We can simply direct readers to read the relevant sections in the parent article if they wish to have a detailed understanding of history. Usaar33 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It's four very benign sounding sentences with actual citations. There is no neutrality issue here. If anything, I think it's possible to move it into Background. I don't think having a few sentences or paragraphs about affirmative action is a bad thing. This initiative is about affirmative action. InfinityJackson (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's just fold this discussion into the "internal redundancies" area; the problem again is not "citations" - it's the excessive duplication of content internally or externally. Usaar33 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it can be moved somewhere to Background. It'll look weird without a brief introduction while the college admissions portion has an appropriate introduction. InfinityJackson (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Folded it in. I changed the introduction to be a bit more relevant, focusing on the Revised Philidelphia Plan which was the first instance of preferential treatment and noting the speicfic AA requirements of EO 11246. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaar33 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove information redundant with Affirmative Action in United States Article?

Substantial amount of this article is redundant with Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States. It's rather arbitrary which sections of that article we pull into here, so I move we just remove redundancies.

In particular, the entire "public opinion" regarding Affirmative Action can be removed and transferred to Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States, leaving only the relevant CA polling data by independent organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaar33 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this section has been here since the very beginning. There's limited information about information about attitudes held by Blacks and Asians. What's on there now adds nuance and further detail to the page from reliable sources. I think this should stay. InfinityJackson (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

In the last two weeks two high quality, independent polls have been released with racial cross-tabs (I added them in specifically). Is there evidence that the community foundation data are high quality pollsters? Additionally, given that we know that there is a large disconnect between "affirmative action" support and the a specific implementation thereof (explicit racial considerations), much of the earlier information appears irrelevant. All that is really interesting to a reader is what current polls on this measure are. (In general this article has both heavy internal and external redundancies and in the interest of being more readable, should be trimmed) Usaar33 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there information that these groups are not? They seem to be research driven and the numbers seem to line up wherever possible. Potentially, the oldest surveys can go, but the most recent ones still seem relevant, especially since they do ask questions about Prop 16. Even the disaggregated data in the AAPI Data survey is interesting. It serves a purpose. I think they belong here. UCFiatLux (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The AAPI surveys specifically lack reproducibility. The methodology described is vague, saying no more than it was some combination of telephone and online interviews to registered voters who identity as Asian American, with no details on how that population was drawn. Compare to the PPIC methodology or IGS survey methodology (at bottom), which is considerably more detailed -- I could reproduce what they did if I wanted to. Is there evidence that these community group surveys meet the notability guidelines? e.g. the PPIC and IGS survey results are widely reported in mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaar33 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find out from the researchers about the methodology. There's a Sacramento Bee article that mentions the Latino Decisions report. There are a few articles from NPR affiliates and other outlets that cite the AAPI Data. I think it's worth it to keep here. InfinityJackson (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair. I do move though that we remove the "public opinion" about affirmative action due to which can be folded into Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States and leave only polling data. We'll have two polling sections for "wide-scale pollsters" and "community-based organizations". This should as an upside improve readability. Usaar33 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, made the move. Usaar33 (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Also cleaned up the polls. BTW, I also think APIData's methodology is poor. An obvious problem is that they aren't reweighing demographics, which generally pollsters do. For instance, the survey result for prop 16 is 18% Chinese but Chinese Americans represent 26% of Asian Americans in CA. In general, I've been less than impressed with the organization, but will keep for now given limited ethnic cross-tabs on other pollsters. Usaar33 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting consideration. I want to point out it may be perhaps that 16-18% of likely or registered AAPI voters in CA are Chinese. Perhaps many Chinese Californians are just too young to vote yet or are not yet citizens. Considering that the folks behind the poll seem to be university professors, I would assume they have a reasoning behind that if that's the case. I also noticed it was taken down. I'll put it back up, subject to further discussion. I strongly think that it's a unique perspective having this disaggregated data. This also was originally a part of a Public Opinion section in prose but was orphaned at some point. UCFiatLux (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Internal Redundancies

In addition to heavy duplication of content with other articles, this article is heavily redundant with itself, reading as though multiple authors wrote sections independently without context on the rest of the article. In particular, the "Context" section is largely redundant with the intro. Affirmative action in X sections are largely redundant with Impacts. Such redundancy is lowering article quality, leaving it unnecessarily verbose.

My proposal is the following:

• Delete 2nd paragraph of pre-contents introduction and incorporate that into Background/Context. Background/Context will largely be a summary of Proposition 209 itself and historical attempts to repeal 209 (i.e. renamed to "Historical Context")
• Delete entire Background/Impacts section, which is redundant with the "Affirmative Action in X" sections. Move "Affirmative Action in X" sections into Background, leaving "Impacts on college education" and "Impacts on minority contracting"
• Move "Related State measures regarding affirmative action" into context section, which allows for other redundancies about which states ban AA in college admissions to be removed. Usaar33 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. I think it's fine to delete the second paragraph and the Impacts section as long as we try to save and move the citations. Some folks like to keep them. I hesitate to change the names of these sections also. InfinityJackson (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the second paragraph is fine. I think it provides some succinct forward-looking information that would be hard to include in a following section. I think we can simplify the last sentence and keep it in the Background section where more information can be discussed regarding Prop 209 and affirmative action. InfinityJackson (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a go at this tomorrow (leaving time for you to clean up the AA in K-12 section) which may be moved around. Again, I do think this needs to be folded into "Background" -> this article is about a measure not affirmative action itself (AA is relevant background however) Usaar33 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent. I think we can integrate the Bakke sentence into the first sentence and include the citation and reference to Bakke in the Background section. That way the second paragraph is two sentences and still provides some relevant overall summary that's difficult to include in the Background section. Then, the last sentence with the votes can be taken out or simplified because that information is already in the Background section and the preceding sentence already says Prop 16 and ACA 5 were legislatively referred. InfinityJackson (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is there a 'Response by Asian Americans' vs 'Public Opinion' section?

Aren't Asian Americans part of the Public Opinion? Is there a specific reason(s) why there is a separation between these two sections? Any clarification in this matter is greatly appreciated. Mutatedmushrooms (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's my observation that Asian Americans are really passionate about this issue. It seems from the No Campaign's board and the No Campaign's social media that their vocal supporters are largely made up of Asian Americans. But also on the other side, there are decades-old organizations that even predate the Civil Rights Movement. I also noticed that on the Chinese version of this page, it's heavily one-sided. I think you do raise a good point. The statistics unique to Asian Americans, from AAPI Data, could go into the Response by Asian Americans section. I don't mind either way. UCFiatLux (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I restructured this section; it should be a bit clearer now. Usaar33 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the repetition between this section and the Public Option/Polling by race section, there is already a dedicated section listing all organizations in support/opposition of Prop 16. The second and third paragraphs of this section relist some of the Asian organizations in support/opposition of the proposition in an unbalanced manner. Other than "The debate about affirmative action has drawn strong opinions from both supporters and opponents within the Asian American community. The debate has largely centered around affirmative action in college admissions", the rest are redundant and suggest to remove. CAProp16 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)CAProp16

Unbalanced article

This article clearly has a neutrality issue when there is only one section for Support and 18 sections for Opposition. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"An unbalanced article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources." This criteria is unrelated to the length or number of sections within the Support or Opposition. XwhereswhatX (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this page has a neutrality issue. A lot of it is relevant, but perhaps is better suited for other pages like Affirmative action in the United States or 1996 California Proposition 209. Expert input may be needed. UCFiatLux (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate as to why you believe there is a neutrality issue here? What portions specifically are irrelevant? XwhereswhatX (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

After doing another quick read today, a lot of it would be better suited for the two pages said above. We can even add new sections to those pages and then really summarize the arguments on this one. We should also add links to the official ballot statements so far and the official campaign websites. I may do those small additions today if I have the time. UCFiatLux (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Connerly was born in the deep south, saw racial discrimination first hand, and found it to be wrong." It's hard to take this article seriously with a sentence like this. 2601:647:4000:BFC0:49D4:AF21:AD95:C23E (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the reference cited at the end of that paragraph? Here is a quote from Ward Connerly provided in that source: “I was born in the deep south, in Leesville, Louisiana, in 1939,” he began. “Therefore, I have personal familiarity with racial discrimination— and, it’s wrong.” XwhereswhatX (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There are three users who say that the neutrality is questionable. A lot of the material in the opposition segment is not inherently related to Prop 16 itself because a lot of it predates it. A lot of it belongs therefore belongs in the aforementioned articles. Some sections, to be fair, should be deleted or reworded including the portion about global competitiveness. The connections there are very thin, for example. The random quote from President Obama doesn't fit in. The thing is... if we ask ourselves is this page (to the extent reasonable and possible) absent of editorial bias? Does this page give due weight to both sides? The answers are both no. We can improve on this page and we should. Until then, this warning has to stay up. UCFiatLux (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the Obama quote and that the opposition could use some rewording. Much of it seems like it was written by someone with high running emotions. That said, I think it is really important to remain cognizant of the fact that the relative lengths of the support and opposition sections is irrelevant to the neutrality of the article as a whole. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the arguments in favor of racial and gender discrimination (i.e. the support section) are fewer and weaker than those opposing it. XwhereswhatX (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree the warning is needed. I removed the material that was solely sourced from campaign literature. More cleanup is still needed. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the article is okay, except for the section on "debt slavery". That specific claim is over-the-top and irrelevant. The Federalist is not a reliable source, due to its right-wing bias; and the article referenced has nothing to do with Prop 16 or 209. I should acknowledge my positionality here: I am a liberal California Democrat and racial minority and I am thankful that Prop 209 protected my equal right to education when I applied to UC, so I oppose Prop 16. However, the "debt slavery" reference is just not correct and should be removed. Narayansg (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The state has finished reviewing the official voter guide documents. I'm ready to edit the bulk of the page using basically those arguments and BallotPedia. But before I do, does anyone have any additional thoughts? UCFiatLux (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please just get it done and remove the warning. As long as that warning is up, we are pushing readers towards potentially less reliable sources of information on this important topic. This gets voted on in a few months! The article should make it clear that Prop 16 would sanction racial and gender discrimination in California. If that fact gets obfuscated in any way, then you have a truly unbalanced article on your hands. Keep it factual and please make haste. I appreciate your willingness to contribute so much of your time to this. XwhereswhatX (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw what another user proposed and ran with it. The page definitely lacked balance but also needed some touch ups here and there. The opposition section was essentially packed full of editorials and was written with little neutrality. Some of the subsections were not arguments in of themselves (Ward Connerly). A lot of the language was not unbiased. I recognize my edit may be imperfect (nothing is), but I hope that it at least provides a better framework for both sides to address each other's claims in other sections. FearTheTree (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I see a lot changed. I'm sorry. I've been busy the past month. I think someone else did much of what I was going to do already! I can still add the official voter guide arguments on both sides later or someone can add them too if folks think more is needed. Personally, I think we could maybe do with a "Further information: Proposition 209" line in the Background section. But I think we can begin talking about whether or not this page has NPOV now.

Added the official arguments (left out the rebuttals for length). Still, this addition is lengthy, but hopefully balanced and informative. We could honestly just settle for the official argument summaries which are about three sentences each and just link to the voter guide with the same link. Any thoughts? Also, I think that this page more or less is fine by me for balance and NPOV. If no one objects, I think we can take down the warning maybe next weekend. UCFiatLux (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SurveyUSA and KPIX

User:73.223.138.142 raised questions about my "inaccurate" tagging of the SurveyUSA poll. The reference details my comments:

Unlike the SurveyUSA poll, two recent polls show more opposition than support.

A survey released earlier this month by the Public Policy Institute of California, a think-tank based in San Francisco, found the measure was favored by just 31 percent of voters, with nearly 50 percent opposed and 22 percent undecided.

Similar numbers surfaced in a poll at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, the oldest public policy research center in the state. Results showed the measure was backed by 33 percent of the respondents, with 41 percent opposed and 26 percent undecided.

“I can’t image people are changing their position that quickly,” said Brian Adams, a professor of political science at San Diego State University.

“It’s rare to get polling that’s that different, with that large of a discrepancy, so I would assume it has something to do with the wording of the question.”

The poll question said the measure “would allow diversity to be considered as a factor in public employment, education and contracting decisions,” while the ballot language says it would permit “government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity.”

While the difference in language is small, Kousser said the slight change may account for the discrepancies.

“You can see large swings in voting based on just the language on the ballot,” Kousser said. “People don’t like the idea of using race to make decisions, but they like diversity, so focusing on the ultimate goal, rather than the mechanism of affirmative action could be a route to victory for those who support it.”

As noted the poll question differed from the ballot language to the point it was meaningless. The results disagree not only with the other two independent polls, but also the Latino Community Foundation's survey (which used more correct ballot language). In particular, the cross-tabs also look impossible - there's no way support for racial preferences would split 33%-41% amongst Republicans. (Prop 209 split 80%-20% as a comparison point in exit polls). To avoid reader confusion, it may be best to just remove the SurveyUSA poll altogether. Thoughts?

Usaar33 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I did notice that in the article as well. But what's interesting is that if you look at the PPIC and UC Berkeley poll, they also use the word "diversity", so I'm just not sure if that's what the issue with the poll was. Clearly, however, something is off about the SurveyUSA poll (could just be an outlier). I did notice, looking at polling from 2016 and 2018, that SurveyUSA polling on ballot measures tends to be *very* inaccurate. Perhaps we could have the polling on this page mirror that of Ballotpedia? Ballotpedia has not added the SurveyUSA poll (as of now, at least). 73.223.138.142 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, isn't that indeed what the ballot title is?

Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

That's what the official ballot title is. 73.223.138.142 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ballot titles are notoriously biased in CA. I believe the issue is that they didn't read the Summary which clearly states "Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in order to address diversity by repealing constitutional provision prohibiting such policies." PPIC and IGCS both clearly provide those to the recipient. (Amusing to think about how many people are confident enough to believe they've "decided" on a measure solely from knowing its title)

And yes, I also support removing the survey. Will do so tomorrow if no one objects.

Usaar33 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't even know it was a SurveyUSA poll. I think we should exercise caution and leave it. It may just be an outlier by using the initiative title versus the initiative summary, but it was also sponsored by the San Diego Union Tribune and ABC 10. More polls are going to come out, and we'll see what happens. Maybe other polls will do that same. Consider leaving a citation to the Union-Tribune article. InfinityJackson (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just remove the dubious tag and clarify that summary was not presented.

I'm perfectly okay with keeping the poll, but I just thought I'd point out that Ballotpedia *still* has not added the SurveyUSA poll for any of the California propositions this year, so I don't think they view it as reliable, for what it's worth. (They added the PPIC and UC Berkeley polls very fast) 73.223.138.142 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright, if it's still not on Ballotpedia by 4 October UTC, let's delete it Usaar33 (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly think it should stay. We're going to have more polls come in. We need to let the readers see what's out there. If SurveyUSA/ABC10/Union Tribune wrong, they'll be proven wrong in subsequent polls. UCFiatLux (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that a pool with 500 sample size should be on this page, especially when two other polls with 3X and 10X sample size are available. There are a lot of smaller pools like this, and the results varied wildly (ex: KPIX had a poll with 800+ votes, with 88% no, 10% yes and 2% undecided. That poll did not get on this wikipage.) If there are better polls out coming out later, everyone is welcomed to add.

Also, every poll should come with the corresponding polling question - as it is well known that even minor wording difference causes swings in results. CAProp16 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)CAProp16

Do you have a link to your KPIX poll? I still err on the side of caution and leaving this poll here. It again was done by a somewhat reputable firm and cosponsored by the Union Tribune and one of the San Diego TV outlets. It doesn't seem like a convenience sample. UCFiatLux (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that the KPIX poll was added, but I can't seem to find the poll anywhere. Did you share the right link? @McMasterCarr1995 UCFiatLux (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Affirmative Action definition

User:UCFiatLux It is critical that the definition of "affirmative action" be consistent throughout the article.

• If affirmative action means policies that explicitly consider applicants race, etc., affirmative action is banned. As the entire article describes Prop 209 as banning affirmative action, I have made this the working definition.
• If affirmative action is used in the more general sense of "ositive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and culture from which they have been historically excluded." (old definition), well, affirmative action is not banned. UC certainly engages in positive steps to do this, including, but not limited to, SES preferences and targeted recruiting.

I don't care which we use, but we must have consistency. If the second definition is used, the article should not be describing affirmative action as banned. Usaar33 (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Much of the confusion was caused by the inconsistent definition of "affirmative action" used in the context of explaining what prop 209 does and does not ban. The media often deliberately chooses whichever definition that suits the purpose to confuse voters.

Race-based, sex-based, national origin-based affirmation was banned by prop 209. See the original text of the legislation.

Other forms of affirmative action like socioeconomic based affirmative action are allowed and are currently deployed all over CA universities and the public sector.

Agree with the above comment that it is critical that Wikipedia consistently uses the same definition throughout the page. CAProp16 (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)CAProp16

Affirmative action has historically been associated with efforts to increase the representation of women and minorities. Yes, "socioeconomic affirmative action" exists but that is not the traditionally accepted definition of "affirmative action." Even here on this website, the definition refers to women and minorities. InfinityJackson (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright, the definition you've added is workable. We can stick with explicit preferences/favoring Usaar33 (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, while I recognize this definition "favoring particular groups based on their gender, race, creed or nationality in areas in which they were excluded in the past." is commonly used elsewhere, it still isn't quite correct in this article. College diversification policies aren't justified by past exclusion at all [Bakke] and are inconsistent with such a rationale. So either, colleges aren't using affirmative action, just "racial preferences" or this definition of "affirmative action" is too narrow. It's hard to find a good workable definition - if something has something would be useful! Usaar33 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Usaar33: Sorry for chiming to so late on this important issue. The term affirmative action (AA) has been defined to mean a number of things by many reputable sources. For example, the current Oxford and Webster definitions are even at odds with each other. Rather than sift through all of the different interpretations out there, if we look at the origin of the term we see that it comes from President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925, which mandates that projects financed with federal funds “take affirmative action” to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. To me that seems to suggest that the general term AA refers specifically to SES-based AA. If this is the case, then the language on the ballot is verifiably false because it claims that Prop 209 banned AA. Hence, I believe the only acceptable definition of AA in modern contexts is one that encompasses both race-based AA and SES-based AA. Regardless, these two concepts should never be conflated.XwhereswhatX (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Top-level introduction

There's been some back and forth on this section. I've made another revision to improve accuracy and POV:

• It's not clear to me that Bakke banned quotas outside higher education admissions. Quotas seem to be present for MBE enterprises at the time of prop 209's massing. To this point, I've expressed this only applies to higher ed.
• I've added back the socioeconomic considerations as the fact that universities can consider SES is a major opposition argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaar33 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

I see that (Use mdy dates) and (Use American English) tags was deleted by user who engaging edit warring. Please reinstate the tags and warn any users, particularly InfinityJackson that this article is written in American English and MDY date format because i fear that any editors would edit references in DMY format. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests are not a vehicle to continue edit warring. Despite the big warning on top of this page, let me once again remind you that this article is subject to WP:1RR discretionary sanction. An administrator has been notified. Melmann 19:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

1RR restriction removed

Hi everyone. You probably noticed my pings and recent edits. If you disagree with any of my changes, please revert them per WP:BRD and let me know. As the admin who placed the discretionary sanctions, I am explicitly allowing you to revert my edits without violating the 1RR. If anyone cares about the specifics of that, ask, but the main point is: don't be afraid to revert me if you disagree. I'll follow up here with more extensive reasons for my changes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually just going to remove the 1RR restriction for now. If things get out of hand, we can request it be added back, but for now I think it is actually preventing collaboration. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of Wugapodes' recent edits

Okay, I think my spurt of editing is wrapped up, and everyone is encourage to improve upon them or revert them (if that's an improvement). I tried to leave tags where I could to guide further editing I think would be helpful, so if you think you can resolve a tag, please do so and then remove it. Some general thoughts I had reading the article:

• There are too many lists of quotes, and I think this impacts perceived neutrality. Most quotes are from politicians and people pushing a POV, so the quotes are going to be pretty POV too. Where we can, we should summarize the general points common to them, and only include a selection of quotes as examples. The lists themselves are also a problem per MOS:PROSE, but I think solving one will help solve the other. I tried to give an example of how to do this when I merged the "Text of the measure" section into the background.
• I think the "Support" and "Oppose" sections should be combined since it seems similar to why criticism sections are perceived as non-neutral. Obviously we still have criticism and controversy sections, so there's nothing against policy here, but since POV is part of this dispute, it would be helpful if we can present those arguments in conversation with each other. I tried to give an example of one solution to this by moving the official support and oppose arguments to their own section and juxtaposing them. It may seem small, but having a neutral section heading in the TOC is helpful I think.
  • Similarly, "Response by Asian Americans" should probably be combined with a more general response section.
• More secondary sources are needed. Most of the article seems based on the voter guide and legislative records. While that's a good start, the above changes will be a lot easier if we can point to how other people have weighed these arguments and analyzed the measure.
• There almost no information on the process by which ACA5 passed which is an important part of the background for this proposition. Presumably when it was being debated in the legislature, there were news reports and such on it. More of those would be helpful.
• I pruned the "Additional arguments" lists, though I'll admit it wasn't exactly rigorous. There was some I was pretty borderline on, so I'd be happy to discuss any removals that did or should occur.
  • It may be a good idea to look through those and salvage any sources you all think are good.

Hopefully that helps, and feel free to ask me to clarify anything. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally look to Ballotpedia for some inspiration. I suggested someone put in the argument section from there and someone did. It's been tinkered multiple times, and that's great. I think this page has a fair amount of secondary sources already. If anything, we can add a couple media editorials. I know for this issue, the SF Chronicle, LA Times, and San Diego Union Tribune support. The Wall Street Journal and OC Register oppose. Aside from ACA-5 coverage, was there something you were thinking of in terms of secondary sources? The Asian American section, if I remember correctly, was born out of an opposition subsection which is why it was changed and then left there. Do you have any ideas about how to fold it in? I know it's redundant because those organizations are listed in both support and opposition lists, but other editors seemed to have pointed Asian Americans in other sections as well. Regarding arguments, I think you're right to flag Gaurav's. I think it can be switched out though. UCFiatLux (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think editorials would be incredibly helpful, especially if they were used to develop "Response by Asian Americans" into a general "Response" section. Information on the fundraising and spending would also be helpful if available, and I saw that the "Response by Asian Americans" section had a brief mention of some campaign contribution statistics. Other than that I don't have many more specific ideas. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up after sock puppets

Pretty much every major contributor is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but the article still needs work. Is anyone still around who (1) has ideas on how to improve the article and (2) is not a sock puppet? I'm going to revert to my version from yesterday and then do some more clean-up. Feel free to help out. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This article will be edit warred until after the election is over. I'd just wait until after Nov. 3rd and then try to clean it up. I'll probably try to help but not until after the election, it's just pointless before then. Can also add some analysis w.r.t. the results after we get them. 73.223.138.142 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'll probably try to help but not until after the election, it's just pointless before then. This article could influence the outcome of the vote. I would say it's somewhat pointless after that, not before.XwhereswhatX (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• • The point of Wikipedia is not to influence public opinion, it's to serve as an archive of information. And all the reputable polls essentially say that it's going to be a landslide defeat anyway so I highly doubt that this article will meaningfully impact anything. 73.223.138.142 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• • • If the point is not to influence public opinion, then this page should not have been allowed to exist prior to the election.XwhereswhatX (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the vigilance, but I believe you are incorrect about the copyright status. Firstly, I cannot find a copyright statement anywhere on the document, so if I missed it please let me know. That said, official documents published by the California government are generally in the public domain according to County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition (2009). In that case, a California state judge ruled that the California Public Records Act (a state law) prohibits the state government from holding or exercising copyright over public records except where specifically allowed by statute: "The Legislature knows how to explicitly authorize public bodies to secure copyrights when it means to do so....while [the California Public Records Act] recognizes the availability of copyright protection for software in a proper case, it provides no statutory authority for asserting any other copyright interest" (see also Harvard Library State Copyright Resource Center). The Official Voter Information Guide you linked is a publication of the California Secretary of State and issued to every California voter as required by law in the California Election Code, division 9, chapter 1, article 7. That article, entitled "State Voter Information Guide", defines the voter guide and what it must contain; it does not authorize copyright for the guide. This would explain why I couldn't find a copyright statement on the document, as state law and legal precedent place it in the public domain. On what basis do you believe the guide is protected by copyright? — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that in general the works of the California government are public domain. However each webpage of the California Secretary of State is marked at the bootom as "Copyright © 2020 California Secretary of State", so I have to assume that this document is copyright as well, even though there is no copyright statement on the document itself. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. Under Wikipedia rules, documents are assumed to be copyright unless proven otherwise. Regardless of the copyright issue, copypasting large quotations from documents is not very encyclopedic. Wikipedia uses a summary style. The contents of the document should be summarized, not quoted verbatim.— Diannaa (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

But you've just shown that the Secretary of State knows how to mark their copyright when they have it. You are correct that some things without a copyright mark are actually under copyright, but most things in the public domain also don't have a copyright mark. You agree that "in general the works of the California government are public domain" and clearly the Secretary of State knows how to mark copyright when they do have it. So the most logical explanation for why this one doesn't have a copyright mark is because it is not under copyright. Of course, you're right that we err on the side of assuming copyright protection, but I have presented you with court cases and state law clearly showing that this work is not protected. We no longer need to assume the copyright status: it does not have a copyright mark because by California law it is not under copyright.

To be clear, even federal law is in agreement on this point so we cannot look to federal copyright law to try and find a hidden copyright over this work. To be clear, the California Official Voter Information Guide is not a literary work, it is a public record produced and distributed by a state government agency as a matter of law in furtherance of a basic government function. Even if you were correct that this was a literary work, you are incorrect about federal copyright law. According to Building Officials and Code Administration v. Code Tech (1st. Cir 1980) state governments determine whether publications of their government are covered by copyright. In that case a federal judge ruled that federal copyright law allows state governments the ability to decide whether their works are under copyright or not. This was reaffirmed in 2001 by a different federal circuit in County of Suffolk v. First American Real Estate (2nd Cir. 2001). These two federal cases were cited in County of Santa Clara above and the Florida case Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner to demonstrate that federal copyright law grants states the right to determine the copyright status of works created by their government. County of Santa Clara ruled that under California law works of the government are not protected by copyright unless specifically authorized by statute. In that same case, the judge ruled that the California Public Records Act did allow copyright over computer software. This would explain why the website, a computer program executed in a browser, is marked as under copyright---because a specific statute authorizes it. In contrast, I showed that the statute defining the Official Voter Information Guide does not authorize copyright protection which would explain why the Secretary of State did not put a copyright statement on it.

While you may be correct that rewriting the content would be an improvement, per WP:PRESERVE I would recommend that you be bold and fix it instead of removing otherwise useful content (so useful it was required by law to be mailed to every voter in the state). I have reverted your removal per the above, but if you have evidence that California law has authorized copyright for the Official Voter Information Guide let me know and I will self-revert. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)