Talk:Six Californias

'red states'

Whoever wrote the final paragraph seems to have missed the fact that Florida went to Obama twice. Iglew (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are referring to POV and OR content that has since been removed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

guise pls

can the article please address the question why proponents of this are proposing for it to happen? that would really help me understand what, at the core, the heck, is supposed to be going on with this 'issue'.

I don't know why the proposal is good or bad or if it has any real chance of being real. I don't need fake controversy, but all I really know right now, is that this proposal is notable enough to have an article. skakEL 04:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. it should be notable because it will add more U.S. states, which in turn adds more seats to the U.S. Congress, which will possibly change its make up. In addition, it will divide the most populous state in the U.S., and all of its resources. As for why proponents are supporting this, we can only go by what they simply claim: "California seems to be too big and ungovernable, and state government apprently cannot keep up with every issue. Thus we propose to split California into smaller states. Each new state government will be closer to their people than the current state government, and thus be more efficient in meeting their people's needs". Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How many are there now??

The article says:

The petition would need to submit 807,615 signatures of registered California voters by July 18, 2014, to qualify as a November election ballot proposition.

How many signatures are there now?? Any web site that gets updated daily that I can check?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless the ballot supporters publicly release the daily count (which they do not seem to be doing), there is no way of knowing until they either turn in the petitions or miss that deadline. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Six Californias organization claims they submitted 1.3 million signatures. Peter Chastain ^{[habla, por favor]} 05:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

More detail on how the "states" were selected

Clearly Northern California wasnt clearly thought out if you want to toss Yolo and Sacramento Counties in with the other counties listed in the proposed states. I would like more on the reasoning to add certain counties to these proposed states since clearly, on Northern California we have a complete polar opposite on the political spectrum. 50.173.214.41 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Except for the long-standing State of Jefferson proposal, all the reliable sources I have seen seem to indicate that the proposed states seem to have been drawn arbitrarily without any reasonable explanation. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if that's quite fair. It is reasonable to consider that the divisions actually take into account existing intrastate issues. For example, the article cites that Siicon Valley would have the nations highest PCPI while neighboring Central California would have the nation's lowest, indicating that this would create a super-rich state and a super-poor state. But later analysis notes that much of Silicon Valley's water supply would have to be imported from the interior - that is, from Central California. Paying CC for water supplies would thus create a flow of money from the rich state to the poor state. While there are obviously numerous issues to be resolved with this plan, none of them are insurmountable, and the subtle interactions may make it worth carrying out. 97.68.84.119 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would need to see some sort of reliable source, not unverified speculation. On its surface, it seems unreasonable to split the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region, as well as the five-county Greater Los Angeles Area, since those countries within their respective regions are economically tied together. Since I made my previous comment, I have seen articles that claim that the ulterior motive for these proposed state boundaries is, as you basically stated, to separate the rich from the poor. But if that is the case, why are the affluent areas of Marin County being split from the rest of Silicon Valley, or those rich areas in Orange County being split from the rest of L.A.? Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Tone and neutrality?

"The Huffington Post further published a map detailing how splitting California would result in these separate rich states and poor states.[13] This segregation has led to criticism that the proposal is merely a money and political power grab for Silicon Valley and California's other wealthy areas.[14] Experts say the whole scheme is dumb and stupid."

The last sentence is: highly argumentative, based on an unattributed opinion, and is the epitome of weasel words in action.

Is this the tone that the article ought to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.132.207 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What you saw was vandalism that since has been reverted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Breaking up the electoral system in Texas and Florida would as assuredly support Democratic candidates for President as breaking up California will do for Republicans but the California ballot activists never target these 'red' states" seems argumentative. Peter Chastain ^{[habla, por favor]} 06:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the article has suffered from recent various POV and OR editing. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Much improved now. Thank you for the fix (and others!). Peter Chastain ^{[habla, por favor]} 01:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Partition and secession in California. I hardly think this proposal deserves its own article. As one of 220 proposals that have failed to pass, I'm not seeing any serious indication that this proposal is any different. Do we need 220 articles about this topic? Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless a significant number of the petitions are invalid, all indications are that this will qualify as a ballot proposition. There are enough citations to warranty a separate article added to Category:California ballot propositions. There is no justification for NOT having a separate California ballot proposition article just because the proposal will eventually not likely take effect even if it does pass (California Proposition 8 (2008) comes to my mind). Zzyzx11 (talk)
  • Then we should have an article on every ballot proposition? Seems to me that this is pure WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and nothing of encyclopedic value. We already have an article on the partition and secession in California which documents the history of these failed proposals. I suggest that Zzyzx11 use that article to improve the encyclopedic coverage of this subject rather than promoting a ballot proposition that has not even reached the ballot. This could be interpreted as a promotional endeavor rather than an encyclopedic attempt to improve the subject. I'm worried that Wikipedia is being used to promote outside interests. This worry is mitigated when we focus specifically on encyclopedic topics covered by broader, stable subjects, such as the article about the historical nature of partition and secession in California. From a distance, it looks like Wikipedia is being used to promote this proposal. The above user claims we must "wait and see, if all the signatures are approved and qualifies for the ballot", but I believe the burden is backwards. We shouldn't have this article unless it qualifies for the ballot. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

    We shouldn't have this article unless it qualifies for the ballot

    If you are citing something on grounds like WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL to temporarily redirect to partition and secession in California, I cannot argue with that. But once it qualifies, all bets are off.

    it looks like Wikipedia is being used to promote this proposal

    Have you actually read the Analysis section? I think they are way too many cited comments and opinions opposing the proposal. I cannot find enough third-party sources in favor if it to balance it out.

    Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

    How many of the 220 proposals have their own encyclopedia entry? Wouldn't it make more sense to cleanup and expand the parent topic, which already has an encyclopedic focus on the broader history of California? Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, but you are now starting to tread into the larger Wikipedia problem of systemic bias. I would like to do that -- create separate articles on those 27 "serious proposals" mentioned in that article -- but my availability and time in real life limits me as a volunteer Wikipedian. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

    But we don't need 27 new articles. We need one parent article that covers the subject in a comprehensive manner. Then, when the article grows too large, we can split it out and create summary style sections of the larger articles as needed. Why are you reversing the process? Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  If you are talking about Wikipedia:Summary style, that is a guideline, where "occasional exceptions may apply". Looks to me that an occasional exception is the consensus currently here. I do not think you are changing my mind (or others below) by just repeatedly relying on your WP:OSE arguments, like "the other state-splitting proposals don't have separate articles, therefore this one should not have one either", or "many CA propositions don't have separate articles, so this one should not have one either". Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  And you ignored my point about the Analysis section currently being highly negative and critical about the proposal. A "billionaire-financed PR release" (as you apparently called it below) would usually not have such content, or would try to spin it in a positive way. Even if you ignore the state-splitting aspects for a moment, this is still notable as depicting a billionaire trying to buy his way through the CA proposition process instead of going through the state legislature first, like Tom Steyer successfully did two years ago when he was the primary backer for Proposition 39. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose definitely notable enough to merit its own article, and per Zzyzx11.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I fail to see what is notable about one of 220 initiatives proposing to split apart the state of California. We already have a centralized article for this subject. Why does this article exist? Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Meets the (general) notability guideline, nothing more nothing less. Also, trying to contend that "this shouldn't exist because others don't" looks like WP:OSE to me. As-is, this article has substantial content anyways. Not inviting a debate over this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Notwithstanding WP:NOTNEWS, people read WP for background information about current events. Right now, this article is useful for that, and a merger would make this information less readable. Even if the initiative does not qualify for the ballot, the public debate about issues specific to this proposed split will probably remain notable. If not, we can merge later. Peter Chastain ^{[habla, por favor]} 06:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case redirect and merge to Tim Draper. Why not? I fail to see the notability of this subarticle. For one, it's been done already, 220 times in fact, which is why we have a parent article that covers the topic. Secondly, this article borders on fantasy and science fiction, which is great, but even Wikipedia doesn't have articles on unproduced scripts. Third, the deadline is on July 18, so the initiative isn't even official yet. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or a vehicle for billionaire-financed PR releases? It's getting difficult to tell the difference. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The best way to handle this will probably be to rename the article as "Proposition X (2016)" when it receives a Prop number. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice crystal ball you've got there. It's one of what, 19 proposed initiatives? How many of them have Wikipedia articles? None except this one, you say? I see. How many of them have billionaires financing them? Just this one? Gotcha. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support How many times have people said that they can split up California? Personally I don't think it would be a bad idea, considering the current state of California, but there's a good chance this will be another proposal that will go away over time. Jgera5 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  If it goes away over time, then we can deal with it per WP:10YT. But that occurs after the event in question, not before. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is confirmed for the 2016 ballot in California, more than notable per WP:GNG ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue has been widely discussed in reliable sources and social media.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. as there is enough notability and other reliable sources and it is most like going to be on the ballot. Spshu (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Why split into six U.S. states?

I know this is something of a discussion question rather than an article question, but perhaps there is some info out there answering this same question: Why would California need to be split into six separate states each having delegation to the U.S.? Why not just arrange regions or provinces that remain within the state and under one state jurisdiction? I'm not sure that it would solve any issues that Six Californias proposes to solve, but then again, I'm not so sure that Six Californias would solve anything either. If anyone knows of any sources that have already suggested this, it'd be nice to see some alternative solutions. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are located in the United States or not, but it has a government where powers are delegated. The Federal government of the United States is responsible for a set of powers, state governments are responsible for another set of powers, and the regional and local governments are responsible for a third set of powers. In many sources I have seen, those who favor California being split are only concerned about the powers given to the California state government, and feel that California is too big (both in area and in population) for it fully function. Re-arranging just the regions within the state will not help because that does not address the issues and responsibilities given to the state government. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am in the United States indeed. As such, I am familiar with the federal system and the typical treatment of powers. I fail to understand your comment "Re-arranging just the regions within the state will not help because that does not address the issues and responsibilities given to the state government." My suggestion is that the issues and responsibilities held by the state government should be handled by a new level of government within the state of California. Basically California would have the same delegation to Congress (two senators, and X representatives) but having functions devolved to intrastate but supra-municipal regional entities. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

He is assuming that you mean for another layer of government and retaining the state government instead of a con/federation of provinces. Civil rights lawsuits back in the 1960s included a "One man, one vote" rulings which prohibits non-unitary forms of state government as they struck down claims of "federal" style representation in the upper house with a member per county. Also, there is a US Constitutional requirement that the National government insure republic government forms in the states. Additional, there are mentions of state legislature and state executive authority in the US Constitution. While it is not a stated reason in this case, in also most standard that increased number of US Senators with the possibility of their party receiving some instead of none is an issue. Since, neither has been brought up it is difficult to insert into the article. Spshu (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie. I wasn't really able to understand you there, Spshu--mostly on account of an apparent language barrier (I'm a native English speaker, and I'm having excessive difficulty understanding your text). I'm not familiar with the aftermath of the civil rights lawsuits and how they would be relevant to state business other than in casting votes at the ballot box. And in fact I suspect that if this idea was seriously pursued, those certain aspects--which you say prevent this solution--would probably be overturned, since I fail to see how an intrastate federation could harm the "one man, one vote" idea. Perhaps there's something else I'm missing on this topic. I never declared nor intended that the intrastate federation would have any link to the U.S. government--it would be wholly responsible to the State of California. The only representation they would have to the U.S. would be in exactly the same form as they have now: two senators representing the entire state of California, and the (however many) representatives in the House as is true now. I fail to see how this would have any effect on the business at Capitol Hill. Either way, I guess if there's no serious consideration to this sort of solution, you're right: it would be difficult to insert into the article, but I was really hoping someone (one with more influence than I have) would have thought of this and either dismissed it or pursued it. It seems like a very logical solution and one much easier to implement than the Six Californias idea. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment about "Re-arranging just the regions within the state will not help because that does not address the issues and responsibilities given to the state government" was strictly in regards to the supporters' motives for splitting the state. At least publicly, changing the makeup of Congress is not their primary motive. What they want is five completely new state governments, with each and every responsibility given to a state government, each with a separate state legislature, separate Secretary of State offices, different state taxes and other state regulations, and so forth. What you are advocating about, adding a "new level of government within the state of California", is a completely different position. Creating supra-municipal regional entities that will still be controlled in some degree by any state law, and therefore could be changed by the California State Government in Sacramento or by California voters by ballot propositions, does not have the same effect as splitting the state.

Let me use state income tax policy as an example (since it is one of the complaints on why it is harder to live or do business in California compared to other parts of the country): by splitting the state, it will be easier for one of the new states to raise tax levels higher than what California has, while another of the new states could opt to abolish state incomes taxes just like Nevada already has. How could you do that if you only add a new level of government within California? I doubt you could get everybody in present-day California to agree to such a proposal that would give the power to let one supra-municipal regional entity enforce higher income state taxes in one region, and another supra-municipal regional entity to abolish state income taxes altogether in another region. I mean, if a Silicon Valley millionaire wanted to abolish state income taxes, it would be easier to just convince a majority of approximate 6 million people in the proposed Silicon Valley state, rather than convince a majority of over 38 million in all of California.

Environmental law would be another good example (another reason cited on why the cost of living is more expensive): if the state is split, West California could possibly get enough people to relax all their state coastal laws so they could build more and larger houses and businesses along Malibu, Los Angeles, and other areas along their portion of the present-day Pacific Coast Highway. But if you merely add another level of government within California, those in Northern California would possibly be able to still influence enough state representatives in Sacramento to block any supra-municipal regional entity from even thinking about relaxing those rules just for the LA and Malibu areas. Again, if a famous Hollywood film star wanting to build an enormous, environmentally-unfriendly coastal mansion, it would be easier to just convince a majority of approximate 11 million people in the proposed West California state, rather than convince a majority of over 38 million in all of California.

Using the words of those who historically supported creating the State of Jefferson in Northern California, merely adding a new level of government within California will not completely disassociate a conservative, more rural city like Yreka from the control of a state legislature in Sacramento dominated by the influence of liberal state representatives from Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, and other more urban areas. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. While these hurdles that you mention would persist, I'm inclined to believe that the concept would still advance home rule (just to a smaller--slightly smaller I think--extent). In the same way that L.A. County has no jurisdiction in a northern county, the West California region would have no jurisdiction in a northern region. And as I said, it would not change federal politics at all except potentially change district boundaries (but not number of districts), and therefore it would require no passage through Congress. And acknowledging that different cities and counties have different levels of property and sales tax, why couldn't the regional governments levy their own taxation--to be collected by them and disbursed by them according to the wishes of the people in their jurisdiction. But again, if there is no outside source for this discussion, there's no way for us to consider mentioning it in the article as it's all original research. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that would still advance home rule in a state like California. Maybe in some other part of the country. I'm not sure if you are from California or familiar with its state politics, but what I failed to mention in my last comment is that the state has a lot of powerful Democratic, liberal and progressive voting blocs and lobby groups, ranging from labor unions to environmentalist and others, that are all firmly entrenched in California state politics. Yes, regional governments would not change federal politics, but it will definitely change the state's politics. These groups would lose lots of power and influence if the state delegates more power to regional governments, especially powers currently held by the California Coastal Commission, the California Air Resources Board, and several other state agencies that you would not likely find in GOP-dominated "red states". And they still need some sort of tax system that is enforced across the entire state to help fund these agencies. I think if it were up to them, they would probably prefer to extend their liberal and progressive agendas to the federal government, not delegate them to lower and regional levels of government. But again, as you said, making that connection is also original research. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's true; I'm not from California, so I wasn't aware of all those things. What I'm seeing is that there's still hurdles, but these hurdles are not peculiar to a regional-governments solution; they're also naturally found in the Six Californias solution which further adds the hitch of affecting federal politics. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ballot Signature Verification

There is an important distinction between the number of ballot signatures submitted versus the number of valid ballot signatures that can qualify a measure for the ballot. There is usually a significant gap between the two. It is somewhat misleading to simply make a direct comparison between the former and the required number of the latter. It would be useful to convey the greater context that is now available from official reports that describe the progress of signature verification DCary (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Past tense

An editor has been removing all the past-tensing regarding the ballot measure (as well as adding a heaping scoop of WP:OR). All the Sept 12-and-later reliable sources that I am finding are using the past tense:

• "A California ballot initiative that would have" USA Today
• "A ballot initiative that would have" AP via ABC
• "One of the states would have been" Fox 40

....or are otherwise proclaiming its death to get on the 2016 ballot:

• "Californians will not have the chance to vote on a plan to fracture into six smaller states, at least not by 2016." CBS SF

Anyone who wants to claim that the initiative to get something on the 2016 ballot is still alive should put forth reliable sources here on the talk page and get consensus before altering the article, as it is clear from recent edits that they do not have consensus for this change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently that editor was trying to add original research and POV edits. Synthesis of published material is not permitted and should be reverted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Past tense answer

Although I am not the one who made the changes, Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee, published an article on 10/06/2014 explaining that Mr. Draper stated he may ask the State for a full count of the ballots, or may come up with another initiative in time to make the 2016 ballot. I personally called the state, and was given the information that a court order or new initiative were options. The changes that were made to put verbs in the past tense, took the articles at face value. I'm not sure if they went through the process of the talk page. Even though my research is not publishable, it does lend credence to articles.

However, I believe this brings up a point as to whether this article should pertain to the "initiative" and possible "Proposition," or cover the "movement" toward 6 California's? It would seem a shame to stop the progress all ready made. Presently, it is possible to resurrect this article in 2016. Rwmmiller (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Article shows bias

The Wikipedia article falls short of being unbiased representation of the Six California initiative:

• The opening section (Six California’s) assumes this article is about the initiative and states it failed to qualify for the 2016 ballot. • Rather than reference or state the initiatives reasons in print, the article paraphrases statements made by Mr. Draper. • The opening paragraph includes subjective arguments from the opposition to the initiative • The complete Section is written in the past tense.

In the Ballot qualification process section is also biased:

• While citing two separate articles, a parenthetical addition was made stating “(since the deadline to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 2014 ballot was in June 2014).” In reviewing the cites, it is found that no such reference was made by Mr. Draper. • After the details of the process and finding that the initiative failed the State Department’s requirements, the section continues with an allegation by the opposition that signatures were obtained fraudulently. This would be relevant in a case were the initiative were still “alive.” Regardless, this paragraph is not relevant to the Ballot qualification process section, but would be in the Opposition

The Measure details section does not include measure details. However, if the initiative were included in this section, it would provide a reference to answer questions that arise, especially for those in opposition.

If the Initiative were printed the section called Proposed states would not be needed.

This is also the situation with the section called State-splitting process and other procedures.

The most egregious section is the Analysis:

• The only independent analysis available at this time is from the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO). This 16-page analysis has been condensed to two sentences. These sentences include words like “impact,” “disparity,” “highest,” and “lowest.” It goes on in a later paragraph to say the LAO, “specifically named several other 'major issues.' It should be noted there are no quotes when referring to the LAO analysis. • The section goes on to use the Huffington Post analysis of the measure creating “separate rich and poor states.” I doubt anyone would consider the Huffington post being unbiased. • The analysis of Vikram Amar has a paragraph in the analysis regarding the constitutional and legal issues. The initiative addresses these issues as well, but no mentioning in this section. • The Analysis continues with a completely unsupported paragraph regarding political ramifications quoting Amar suggesting there would be four of the six states leaning Republican. However the L.A. Times states a new study says all new states lean Democratic. The Times is not exactly a right leaning paper.

This section would be much better off including the 16-page report. Otherwise most of it should be in the opposition section. To call this section Analysis is close to fraud.

Even the Support section is lacking. This section should be blank until someone edits it to include citable references to those publications that support the six California’s. Presently it is nothing more than regurgitation of Mr. Draper’s views.

Things liven up when we get to the Opposition section. An official committee has been formed called OneCalifornia. This is good, in that there is a focal point by the opposition, wherein they can form a centralized united front. Sadly, they do not have a web site, and depend on separate articles. One would imagine they do not see a necessity to spend money on an issue they perceive to be dead.

To summarize, as a result of the biased content, the following actions should take place:

• Is this article for a movement of an initiative? This will determine the necessary sections needed. • Regardless, we must recognize this article would be in phases. The first phase of constructing the initiative has past. We have entered the first part of the debating stage as to whether it should be on the ballot. Until those who are leading the movement decide their next action, we are in a holding stage. • If they are to continue or not must be decided and included in the article. • If they decide to continue, the debate will be re-energized. • Assuming the initiative will go on the ballot, this site will become very important to the supporters and opposition in debating their case. • If the initiative is passed, it will be necessary to continue updating the status. And, I’m sure, the debate will continue on the individual issues covered by the Commission if this became a passed Proposition. Regardless of this decision the article must have both the initiative and the LAO analysis shown in as much detail as possible. These two documents will be the basis for the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwmmiller (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to address this whole wall of text at the moment. Let me address a few quick points.

• I don't see any bias in having an encyclopedia article about an initiative. This article has been about that initiative since it was started.
• The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article below; it should not have extensive quotes.
• No, we should not put an entire 16 page report into the article. This is an encyclopedia, we are here to summarize.
• "We have entered the first part of the debating stage as to whether it should be on the ballot."??? The initiative is not on the ballot. We have gotten past he first stage, the public chose not to give enough signatures.
• Predicting the effect if these "leaders" choose to continue is pointless. They may choose to continue and find that no one cares any more, that the debate is not energized.
• If another ballot initiative is proposed to split apart California, it might not best be covered in this article. There have been plenty of proposals to divide California in the past; they are not all one thing. Any future proposal, even from some of the same people, may look very different. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no bias in having an article on an initiative, but there is bias in the article that you will find as you have time to address this "whole wall." You agree the introduction should be about the initiative? If so, would this suffice: "The stated purpose of the initiative is to establish six states, with a procedure for county voters to change states before the new state formation. It also provides for the procedure of how to transform from a single state to six states. It accomplishes this through legislative consent for the six states as required by the US Constitution, and the people acting as the legislative body. Finally, it empowers local government and promotes regional cooperation in recognition of the new states." This is what is stated in the "Purpose" for the initiative. It clearly shows the initive is to set up a "process" to get from approval to the actual set-up of the new states. Unlike most initiatives that are passed, the outcome is unknow at this point. To me that necessitates a provision for modifications as it would go from initiative to final submittal to the US Congress.

It appears you do not disagree the LAO report is appropriate for the article. However, the article, "cherry picks" and includes only a few sentences pertaining to their analysis, while quoting far more analysis by what I would conclude as biased sources. If you could provide me with your idea as to how much space should be given to the 16 page analysis. I will present what I believe would be a good summary.

You are saying the initiative is dead, and that is not so. As I posted earlier the Sacramento Bee says it is still being considered, and can be resubmitted in it's exact form. Your comment to about choosing to continue, seems to be biased, since the decision is left to the parties that came up with the initiative in the beginning. The article does not address the other attempts to split California in the past. It is specifically about six California's as the title indicates. You conclude by your suggestiing the next step would possibly include something very different, however the Bee states those behind the initiative are first considering asking for a total count of the ballots.

Regardless, if the community agrees with your assessment, I will respectfully concede. Otherwise, I will submit my proposed revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwmmiller (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tackling a few more items in the time I have available:

• No, we should not include the full text of the initiative, for the same reason we do not include the full text of the analysis. The initiative is 5 pages long.
• Focusing the lede on the "stated purpose" of the proposed initiative would be a form of bias, as that stated purpose is written into the initiative by those advocating the initiative as a way of promoting the initiative. It is not an actual measure of what the initiative is or does. This is not to say that the stated purpose cannot be discussed in the article, of course.
• The best way to figure out what aspects of the LAO should be included in our summary is to see what other, reliable sources choose to include in their summaries of it.
• That one man is considering putting more of his money and effort to this does not mean that we treat this as something that is actually in play at this point. When someone loses a race for Congress, we say that she "was" a candidate, even if after the loss she is saying that she might run again, or might challenge the officially-declared results in court. As pointed out before, reliable sources are clearly talking about this in the past tense.
• Having found the Sacramento Bee article that you mention, it does not meet your description of it. You said "the Sacramento Bee says it is still being considered, and can be resubmitted in it's exact form"; I see nothing in it that says that it can be resubmitted in an exact form. The closest it comes is "Draper has hinted he may go to court to force a full count of the signatures, or possibly start over with a new proposal for 2016." One person hinting that he might do something does not mean that it is actually in play, and "a new proposal" would be just that, a new proposal. And, significantly, even this article talks about it in the past tense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am confused, is this article about the initiative, or not? There is no citation of the initiative anywhere in the article. If it is about the initiative, do you not have to say what the initiative is? Good or bad, the initiative is what it is. In my condensed version, I stated the initiative's purpose, how else do you propose to say what the initiative covers? The author of the first paragraph states "Draper's stated reasoning" yet does not provide a citation. Draper's reasoning would best be placed under "support" just as the critiques should be under "opposition." The opening of the article does say that had the "measure" passed, it would not immediately split California. Now we talk about a "measure", and not solely the "initiative. But, why is that part of the measure that does take effect upon passage not be mentioned. Nor, is the 24 Commissioners mentioned, which is a key part to the initiative/measure. Regarding the death of the initiative, do you think it might be appropriate to research, and see if it is dead or not, based on the Bee report? I challenge your reliable sources. What they are saying is they do not intend to pursue this initiative any further. If, Mr. Draper appeals the state department conclusion, I doubt the "reliable sources" will consider it a dead issue, and will once again become vocal. Interestingly, the LAO analysis and the initiative will not need amending. Rwmmiller (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I cited the wrong Bee article. The correct one is <http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/16/6709538/editorial-six-californias-campaign.html> which, in part, says, "Draper's team is challenging . . . " This might be confirmed by The California State web site<http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1364352&view=late1> which indicates Draper added $90,000 into the campaign on Sept 23, 2014. 96.229.120.83 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Forward Observation ref article is not clear regarding what will happen if initiative is passed. In the Executive section it says "could" in the body it says "would". The article does refer to the LAO analysis. That analysis is clear that it is a "could" I wil go on to why they say it is a "could." In the last paragraph of the analysis, it references Amar's article. Amar's article only covers the last sentence of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph appears to use other Wikipedia articles to establish an arguement. I will be deleting all but the last paragraph and add more of Amar's analysis. Rwmmiller (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am expecting an announcement from the State department that they are going ahead with a full count of the initiative signatures. I'll later explain why or why not.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwmmiller (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Ballot Process section, the (8) and (9) cites also include that the 2016 date would be beneficial in that it would allow more time to educate the public on the initiative. The parenthetical statement was not in either article and will be deleted. Rwmmiller (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The USA Today article that says that it may have qualified for the ballot

Several editors have been apparently confused by a USA Today article that for some reason has been circulating on social media over the last couple days. The USA Today piece is from last year and is out-of-date. As other sources already in our article indicate (and as even this later USA Today article will show), the signature count has already taken place and the proposal failed to qualify for the 2016 ballot. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Three Californias

Should this new petition by the same guy have a category here?

I've added a section on it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)