Talk:Government of California
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
Archived material from California article NorCalHistory 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] California Current Events?
Where do I look up information on California current events, such as more information on Propositions 74,75,76,77 ?
[edit] NPOV
The last paragraph in the Bi-partisan gerrymandering section reads very much like an irate Op-Ed and less like a encyclopedia.
I quote “The redistricting was completely successful in accomplishing its goal of the total disenfranchisement of the voters for the offices involved. There was no change of political party in any of the district elected offices at either the State or Federal level - no member of the State Assembly, State Senator, or U. S. Representative was not of the same party as their predecessor.”
I do not think a goal of “total disenfranchisement” can really be shown. While one could argue that maintaining the status quo could be seen as such, I think simply stating something like “The redistricting was successful in accomplishing its goal of maintaining the status quo.” would be a more neutral way of saying this. In other words, let the reader draw their own conclusions as to whether that is right or wrong.
However, I wanted to see if anyone had thoughts on this before making a change, so pipe up! -Falcorian 23:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with your analysis. The current treatment of the gerrymandering issue needs to be more neutral. While I agree that the extent of gerrymandering in California is quite troubling, Wikipedia is not the place for emotional rants. --Coolcaesar 03:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Split
Why isn't this article California government and Politics of California? There is more than enough material available on each subject to create entirely separate articles, not to mention they are distinctly separate (though related) topics if you read the way the table of contents reads. --Schrei 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Usually I oppose page splits, but on this issue you probably have a point. This article is becoming way too large and unwieldy. --Coolcaesar 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Exactly. If we split this, once the links to it are fixed, I'd like to add more info about the way the legislature has to have a 2/3 vote and how much controversy this has caused (for the politics). There are also issues we could cover (for the government page) about the various state agencies and procedures unique to California. --Schrei 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Although, to be consistent with most other country sub-articles (like Federal government of the United States), I think it should be Government of California and Politics of California. --Coolcaesar 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
As this issue seems to have been forgotten, I split the article myself. The two articles can be expanded so that this one covers changes to the structure of the government over time and the other covers current issues (with links to main articles of course). Does California have an infobox template? --Vedek Dukat Talk 22:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My edits today
I did some massive edits to the Bi-partisan gerrymandering section. What was here was a heck of alot of opinion. We have to be neutral. Period. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Much better. Thanks. --Coolcaesar 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second state to codify its laws?
The article says that "California was one of the earliest American states (the first was New York), to codify its statutes into named codes." And later implies that California and New York were leaders of a movement around the country to have codified laws. It would be good if we can say specifically how early California was with respect to the other states. (Based on the article, it seems to me that California was probably second.) It would be even better if we can find references for the claim that New York and California directly influenced other states to take a similar approach to lawmaking. btm talk 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Voter ratification of judges
I find the rule requiring supreme court and court of appeal judges to be ratified by voters an interesting one - have the voters ever not ratified an appointee? Padraic 12:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, see Rose Bird. There are others, but she's the most famous. Gentgeen 06:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jreferee is inserting the names of agencies that DON'T EXIST!
User:Jreferee did some extremely bizarre edits back in November 2006, but I have been so busy with attending depositions and drafting motions that I didn't catch them until now. The particular edit I am contesting is this one[1]. Jreferee expanded the section titled "The government proper" and inserted a list of eight agencies that don't exist.
The agency titles appear to be drawn from links on the former CA.gov Web page, which can be seen at the Internet Archive: [2]
However, if one looks at the official State Agencies Directory [3], it is immediately apparent that none of these purported agencies exist. There are several possibilities here. First, Jreferee may be engaging in outright vandalism or some kind of more subtle "punk'd" strategy in violation of WP:POINT. But if we assume good faith, then my next suspicion is that Jreferee is not a California resident, a Web designer, an experienced Web user, or an attorney, and therefore he/she does not understand that the navigation links on government Web sites rarely correspond to the actual organizational structure of the underlying government entities.
Either way, the result is that we have an entire section of the article that is laughably inaccurate and completely wrong, and we also have eight nonsense articles covering eight agencies that don't exist. I recommend that we revert the "the government proper" section back to how it looked prior to November 2006, and then someone needs to get the attention of an admin (I'm not one) so they can speedy-delete the eight nonsense articles. Do we have agreement on this? Any objections? --Coolcaesar 09:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was drawn here by your note on another page. I know far more about the government of New York than of California, but when there is a consensus on what actions need to be taken, feel free to let me know if you need any administrator assistance. Newyorkbrad 12:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I first saw your post on my RfA and responded there. I then saw a post on my talk page from Newyorkbrad that directed me here. My change to the article was meant to help move the article forward. In November 2006, the official state website arranged many of the 500+ agencies, departments, and commissions into eight categories.[4] I apologize for not clarifying that in the article back in November 2006. The official state website subsequently was revised in or before March 2007 to remove these eight categories.[5] Given the publicized nature of even the categorizing the 500+ agencies, departments, and commissions in California, this seems relevant to the article. After seeing your post here, I spent the next ten minutes revising my California state government posts from that time. I believe that the recent changes I made to the government proper section of article have clarified the official state website's involvement in categorizing the agencies, departments, and commissions. If you think other modifications are necessary, please feel free to contact me or make the changes. I am fine with how you choose to proceed.-- Jreferee 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm going to purge the reference to the Web site altogether from the text of the article within the next week. As a former Web designer myself (for several Silicon Valley companies), I can say that the vast majority of corporate and governmental Web sites offer only a very superficial view of the innards of the organizations they purport to represent. This is because most Web sites are essentially the online version of glossy pamphlets and/or catalogs; they're run by public relations departments or outside ad agencies. Of course, a few daring cutting-edge corporations like Microsoft do allow their employees to run blogs (in which their employer affiliation is openly disclosed) which offer a bit more candid look under the covers, but no sensible government agency would do that (the potential for liability is just too big).
- The point is that to understand California's government, you need to read the actual codes, regulations, directives, general orders, letters, and judicial decisions which together describe the structure of the government, along with the various magazine and newspaper exposes and several books on the history of California. The CA.gov Web site (like most state goverment Web sites) is just too superficial a source because it is targeted to the vast majority of users who need information on a particular question (how do I get a California driver's license? how do I file a California income tax return?) as opposed to people who are interested in how the state government is structured. The goal of the Web site designer is to make information easy to access, which is not always consistent with accurately representing the innards of an organization.
- Anyway, Jreferee, I'm pleased that you had the integrity to admit your mistake in a mature and professional manner. I'm changing my vote on your request for adminship to neutral. I also see that User:Dina, an admin, has already deleted the articles you created, so that's one less thing to worry about. --Coolcaesar 06:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had {{db}} templated the eight articles. I first considered combining them into one article, but that would only have provided Wikipedia raw data to support a simple fact (e.g., the state website stated something at a particular moment in time) that needed no additional support. That deleted data would be useful for someone to analyze, but since there is no WP:RS that actually did such an analysis, the data did not have a place on Wikipedia. There was not too much participation in this particular article, so I felt that WP:BOLD was appropriate. My interest in this article was merely in passing when I was relatively new to Wikipedia. Since you are a lawyer with an interest in California, you are in a position to provide good contributions to this article. Best of luck. -- Jreferee 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
