This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1994 California Proposition 187 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SeyeongMin, Caroline Siegel.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"On October 15, 1994, one week after Proposition 187 was passed, more than 70,000 people marched in downtown Los Angeles against the measure, one of the largest protests in memory." Exactly how long is "in memory"? The source cited for this is also a 404 error. -- 76.85.173.34 ( talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
can someone better explain how this law died? Kingturtle 03:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, he gave up fighting it.
Whites, Asians and blacks overwhelmingly supported Prop. 187, contrary to the view put forth by the person who wrote the article. [1]
Prop. 187 was killed by Governor Grey Davis, who entered into a bogus "arbitration" to prevent the matter from going before the Supreme Court. As this would have likely caused the unconstitutional decision that Texas must provide free educations to the children of illegals to be overturned, pro-Illegal Davis wanted anything but. Sixpackshakur 02:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Since all sources point to the fact that the initiative won with the overwhelming approval of the voters in California, I believe this should be put into the summary. -- Nomad spirit 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
so when you say it died, it means that it no longer has effect in california legislation. correct? meaning, it's as if it never happened? how does this relate to prop 227?
The final sentence of the article reads:
These seems NNPOV and irrelevant as a subjective view that may or may not have existed. If anyone has any thoughts on why this should be here, toss it up here. Otherwise, I'd think about removing it in a week or so. James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Curious if anyone had the numbers on what was to be the projected cost-benefits to the State of California as a result of this law, had it been upheld?
I remember the numbers being pretty considerable and worth noting in the article.
James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't have data from the time, but
this article, authored by anti-immigrant advocacy group
FAIR from 12/2004 puts the cost of illegal immigration in California at $10.5 billion per year. Very hefty numbers indeed, but hardly credible considering the politicized source.
"While its prominent advocates were political conservatives, some libertarians (such as Los Angeles-based radio talk-show host Tom Leykis) also favored it, on the grounds that making life more difficult for illegal immigrants might result in fewer of them entering the state, creating labor shortages which could drive up wages for the lowest-paid workers."
No 'libertarians' support this type of legislation. Tom Leykis is NOT libertarian. (Many people seem to think they are libertarian and have authoritarian ideas such as this--the libertarian position is that the entitlements illegal immigrants are "stealing" should not exist.)
Thus, I am editing the absurd statement to remove the allegations that "libertarians" support this type of legislation. I encourage you to support this removal in the name of objectivity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.31.221 ( talk • contribs)
Improper formatting; began a clean up--needs further work by other editors--see top templates added to this talk page as well for guidance re: WP:CITE and WP:NOR and other related WP and guidelines. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this is stupid. All you've done is add "citation needed" after practically every sentence and put so many banners to that effect in every section that it's cluttered the whole article up almost to the point of being unreadable. Certain Wikipedia pages seem to get that way - usually the ones concerning controversial subjects - and mostly, it seems to be a tool that people use to vent their frustration about something that didn't work out the way they wanted to. I have no idea why people think they're actually doing a service or improving the quality of the article whatsoever.
Therefore, as someone who lived through this and can see that the article is generally accurate and factual, I am removing the excess "citation needed" tags. ALL of them. This should improve the general usefulness of the article. Facts are facts, regardless of whether they are provided along with a convenient link to some other source on the Internet. In fact, for events like this one that happened around the time the Internet was still getting off the ground and have since faded into relative obscurity, expecting such an abundance of links is pretty absurd.
Disputing the neutrality if you don't like the subject? Fine. Please don't junk up the whole article by calling every single fact into question needlessly. -- User:bradrules 9:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Federal courts do not "rescind" state propositions. Governor Davis colluded with an anti-187 set of organizations to avoid litigating the constitutionality of a measure he opposed. Article needs a complete rewrite. THF ( talk) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't it make more sense to do the research first, find the source that verifies this statement, or satisfy yourself that it is not verifiable? It seems a rather extraordinary claim, at least in reference to Feinstein. [4] I'm not familiar with the other person. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know the background of 187 and why they felt it needed to be put into effect (besides just being plain racsist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.235.129 ( talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Why California voters and leadership felt it needed to be put into effect The climate surrounding Prop 187 was largely guided by the immigration debates of the later 1980's, including that around the restrictive Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The text of Prop 187 itself justifies the law by first explaining that the people of California find illegal immigrations as the cause of "economic hardship," "personal injury and damage." Thus, according to the law, because California citizens "have a right a to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully," a state-run system that would verify the legal status of all people seeking public benefits is necessary. Governor Pete Wilson advocated for the law as a measure that would both deter illegal immigrants from entering the state, and motivate them to leave. -- Kennethphsu ( talk) 05:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
When you look for a 'reason' for something while simultaneously declaring that you won't consider the most commonly accepted 'reason', you are setting yourself up for failure. Otoh I reject the commonly held notion that everything has to have a 'reason'. Dlabtot ( talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
They don't really mean the same thing. For example I was born in NYC and I am a US citizen, but I don't at this time have any valid form of identification. Therefore I am 'undocumented' although there is nothing illegal about my residency.
Prop 187 had absolutely nothing to do with people like me who were simply 'undocumented' - it was about people who were illegally residing in the United States.
Hopefully we won't have an edit war about this. Dlabtot ( talk) 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should use the language of the source. The text of the proposition said it was aimed at "illegal aliens." Every source I've double-checked so far--including the most stodgy law review articles opposed to the proposition--used the term "illegal immigration" or "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien." The fringe claim that there is something "racist" about the phrase and that it must be replaced with "undocumented immigrant" (which is an inaccurate description, since that phrase includes legal immigrants who have lost their papers) is a very recent development. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times used the adjective "illegal" in headlines years after the proposition passed. [6] [7] THF ( talk) 11:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I am restoring the term "undocumented immigrant", which is by far the more commonly used term. Wikipedia guidelines favor word choices according to the language of today, not the language as of the time of the sources. For example, we do not refer to women as "the fairer sex", African Americans as "negroes", etc. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment I have introduced a new subheading for this renewed discussion. And I just want to caution you all: this change has been introduced into the article three times and reverted three times. You all know better than to edit war like that. Per BRD, the change was introduced; it was reverted; it's time for discussion. (I have no opinion or comment on the substance of this discussion.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Plyer v Doe is referenced under legal challenges.:
"In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration, similar to the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.[20]"
While it might be relavent to Prop 187, Plyer v Doe rests on the 14th amendment. and not the supremacy clause. Also, citation 20 refers to a Los Angeles Times article that does not refer in any way to Plyer v Doe. I will remove the reference to Plyer v Doe if no one objects.
I would be interested in a reference to the injunction itself, which would clarify any connection between the Pfaelzer ruling and Plyer v Doe.
99.90.121.151 (
talk) 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
fixed.
173.196.196.93 (
talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 00:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
– California Proposition 187 redirects here and California Proposition 209 redirects there. In both circumstances the disambiguator is incorrect as there aren't other 187 and 209 proposals [10] [11]. Unless there is something to disambiguate the disambiguator is not helpful, per WP:PRECISION, WP:NATURAL or DAB, because there is no ambiguity. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
In the Subsequent developments section, I'm having trouble integrating Eagle Forum's opinion with the NPOV tone of the article. Cutting closer to the source's own words (immigrants "want bigger government") would clarify how Eagle Forum defines American liberalism, but those words also entail a heavy conservative POV. Maybe Eagle Forum isn't the best source to be using? Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 23:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on California Proposition 187. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article) and, accordingly, in the main text of the article, the language used must be of
a clear, accessible style, with a neutral point of view, [and] according to reliable, published sources. (The obligations to be neutral and use reliable sources are covered by WP:NPOV and WP:RS.) Editors' text should follow these guidelines, and reflect sources, whereby we find that the use of the term "illegal alien(s)" in almost all popular, reliable media has gradually been expunged and replaced by synonyms; not only that, but media have published their own guidelines of style in which the use of term is actively discouraged, if not prohibited. (E.g. NYT, WP, API, etc.) Therefore, the description in the lead and the text of the people whom Proposition 187 concerns should Change to the descriptions used by reliable sources, such descriptions being "undocumented immigrant" or "illegal immigrant."
Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source.
language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. WP:VULGAR, here, is at least as pertinent as WP:LABEL. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Should this article use the term "illegal aliens" in Wiki voice rather than synonyms such as "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants"? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
There was clearly no consensus prior to the closure of this RFC. The non-admin closure by User:The_Gnome is prefaced: The responses in this RfC are numerically tied but a decision can be taken on the basis of the strength of each side's arguments and on Wikipedia policy. In other words this user just took it upon his or herself to simply decide that their opinion was correct rather than wait for consensus. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Dlabtot ( talk) 06:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I feel that adding reactions from different minority ethnic groups from California could be useful to note the different responses from this time. Not every Latino, Asian or African American individual reacted in uniform, with interest groups rising together and formalizing coalitions in response against prop 187. There are many unique responses from various Eastern Asian groups that I will be contributing to in particular. I believe that including the narrative of these groups and how they came together can be one venue that explains California's shift to blue. SeyeongMin ( talk) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dkag12 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Evelynanstanford.
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher ( talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1994 California Proposition 187 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SeyeongMin, Caroline Siegel.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"On October 15, 1994, one week after Proposition 187 was passed, more than 70,000 people marched in downtown Los Angeles against the measure, one of the largest protests in memory." Exactly how long is "in memory"? The source cited for this is also a 404 error. -- 76.85.173.34 ( talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
can someone better explain how this law died? Kingturtle 03:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, he gave up fighting it.
Whites, Asians and blacks overwhelmingly supported Prop. 187, contrary to the view put forth by the person who wrote the article. [1]
Prop. 187 was killed by Governor Grey Davis, who entered into a bogus "arbitration" to prevent the matter from going before the Supreme Court. As this would have likely caused the unconstitutional decision that Texas must provide free educations to the children of illegals to be overturned, pro-Illegal Davis wanted anything but. Sixpackshakur 02:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Since all sources point to the fact that the initiative won with the overwhelming approval of the voters in California, I believe this should be put into the summary. -- Nomad spirit 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
so when you say it died, it means that it no longer has effect in california legislation. correct? meaning, it's as if it never happened? how does this relate to prop 227?
The final sentence of the article reads:
These seems NNPOV and irrelevant as a subjective view that may or may not have existed. If anyone has any thoughts on why this should be here, toss it up here. Otherwise, I'd think about removing it in a week or so. James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Curious if anyone had the numbers on what was to be the projected cost-benefits to the State of California as a result of this law, had it been upheld?
I remember the numbers being pretty considerable and worth noting in the article.
James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't have data from the time, but
this article, authored by anti-immigrant advocacy group
FAIR from 12/2004 puts the cost of illegal immigration in California at $10.5 billion per year. Very hefty numbers indeed, but hardly credible considering the politicized source.
"While its prominent advocates were political conservatives, some libertarians (such as Los Angeles-based radio talk-show host Tom Leykis) also favored it, on the grounds that making life more difficult for illegal immigrants might result in fewer of them entering the state, creating labor shortages which could drive up wages for the lowest-paid workers."
No 'libertarians' support this type of legislation. Tom Leykis is NOT libertarian. (Many people seem to think they are libertarian and have authoritarian ideas such as this--the libertarian position is that the entitlements illegal immigrants are "stealing" should not exist.)
Thus, I am editing the absurd statement to remove the allegations that "libertarians" support this type of legislation. I encourage you to support this removal in the name of objectivity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.31.221 ( talk • contribs)
Improper formatting; began a clean up--needs further work by other editors--see top templates added to this talk page as well for guidance re: WP:CITE and WP:NOR and other related WP and guidelines. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this is stupid. All you've done is add "citation needed" after practically every sentence and put so many banners to that effect in every section that it's cluttered the whole article up almost to the point of being unreadable. Certain Wikipedia pages seem to get that way - usually the ones concerning controversial subjects - and mostly, it seems to be a tool that people use to vent their frustration about something that didn't work out the way they wanted to. I have no idea why people think they're actually doing a service or improving the quality of the article whatsoever.
Therefore, as someone who lived through this and can see that the article is generally accurate and factual, I am removing the excess "citation needed" tags. ALL of them. This should improve the general usefulness of the article. Facts are facts, regardless of whether they are provided along with a convenient link to some other source on the Internet. In fact, for events like this one that happened around the time the Internet was still getting off the ground and have since faded into relative obscurity, expecting such an abundance of links is pretty absurd.
Disputing the neutrality if you don't like the subject? Fine. Please don't junk up the whole article by calling every single fact into question needlessly. -- User:bradrules 9:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Federal courts do not "rescind" state propositions. Governor Davis colluded with an anti-187 set of organizations to avoid litigating the constitutionality of a measure he opposed. Article needs a complete rewrite. THF ( talk) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't it make more sense to do the research first, find the source that verifies this statement, or satisfy yourself that it is not verifiable? It seems a rather extraordinary claim, at least in reference to Feinstein. [4] I'm not familiar with the other person. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know the background of 187 and why they felt it needed to be put into effect (besides just being plain racsist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.235.129 ( talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Why California voters and leadership felt it needed to be put into effect The climate surrounding Prop 187 was largely guided by the immigration debates of the later 1980's, including that around the restrictive Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The text of Prop 187 itself justifies the law by first explaining that the people of California find illegal immigrations as the cause of "economic hardship," "personal injury and damage." Thus, according to the law, because California citizens "have a right a to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully," a state-run system that would verify the legal status of all people seeking public benefits is necessary. Governor Pete Wilson advocated for the law as a measure that would both deter illegal immigrants from entering the state, and motivate them to leave. -- Kennethphsu ( talk) 05:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
When you look for a 'reason' for something while simultaneously declaring that you won't consider the most commonly accepted 'reason', you are setting yourself up for failure. Otoh I reject the commonly held notion that everything has to have a 'reason'. Dlabtot ( talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
They don't really mean the same thing. For example I was born in NYC and I am a US citizen, but I don't at this time have any valid form of identification. Therefore I am 'undocumented' although there is nothing illegal about my residency.
Prop 187 had absolutely nothing to do with people like me who were simply 'undocumented' - it was about people who were illegally residing in the United States.
Hopefully we won't have an edit war about this. Dlabtot ( talk) 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should use the language of the source. The text of the proposition said it was aimed at "illegal aliens." Every source I've double-checked so far--including the most stodgy law review articles opposed to the proposition--used the term "illegal immigration" or "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien." The fringe claim that there is something "racist" about the phrase and that it must be replaced with "undocumented immigrant" (which is an inaccurate description, since that phrase includes legal immigrants who have lost their papers) is a very recent development. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times used the adjective "illegal" in headlines years after the proposition passed. [6] [7] THF ( talk) 11:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I am restoring the term "undocumented immigrant", which is by far the more commonly used term. Wikipedia guidelines favor word choices according to the language of today, not the language as of the time of the sources. For example, we do not refer to women as "the fairer sex", African Americans as "negroes", etc. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment I have introduced a new subheading for this renewed discussion. And I just want to caution you all: this change has been introduced into the article three times and reverted three times. You all know better than to edit war like that. Per BRD, the change was introduced; it was reverted; it's time for discussion. (I have no opinion or comment on the substance of this discussion.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Plyer v Doe is referenced under legal challenges.:
"In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration, similar to the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.[20]"
While it might be relavent to Prop 187, Plyer v Doe rests on the 14th amendment. and not the supremacy clause. Also, citation 20 refers to a Los Angeles Times article that does not refer in any way to Plyer v Doe. I will remove the reference to Plyer v Doe if no one objects.
I would be interested in a reference to the injunction itself, which would clarify any connection between the Pfaelzer ruling and Plyer v Doe.
99.90.121.151 (
talk) 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
fixed.
173.196.196.93 (
talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 00:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
– California Proposition 187 redirects here and California Proposition 209 redirects there. In both circumstances the disambiguator is incorrect as there aren't other 187 and 209 proposals [10] [11]. Unless there is something to disambiguate the disambiguator is not helpful, per WP:PRECISION, WP:NATURAL or DAB, because there is no ambiguity. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
In the Subsequent developments section, I'm having trouble integrating Eagle Forum's opinion with the NPOV tone of the article. Cutting closer to the source's own words (immigrants "want bigger government") would clarify how Eagle Forum defines American liberalism, but those words also entail a heavy conservative POV. Maybe Eagle Forum isn't the best source to be using? Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 23:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on California Proposition 187. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article) and, accordingly, in the main text of the article, the language used must be of
a clear, accessible style, with a neutral point of view, [and] according to reliable, published sources. (The obligations to be neutral and use reliable sources are covered by WP:NPOV and WP:RS.) Editors' text should follow these guidelines, and reflect sources, whereby we find that the use of the term "illegal alien(s)" in almost all popular, reliable media has gradually been expunged and replaced by synonyms; not only that, but media have published their own guidelines of style in which the use of term is actively discouraged, if not prohibited. (E.g. NYT, WP, API, etc.) Therefore, the description in the lead and the text of the people whom Proposition 187 concerns should Change to the descriptions used by reliable sources, such descriptions being "undocumented immigrant" or "illegal immigrant."
Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source.
language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. WP:VULGAR, here, is at least as pertinent as WP:LABEL. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Should this article use the term "illegal aliens" in Wiki voice rather than synonyms such as "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants"? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
There was clearly no consensus prior to the closure of this RFC. The non-admin closure by User:The_Gnome is prefaced: The responses in this RfC are numerically tied but a decision can be taken on the basis of the strength of each side's arguments and on Wikipedia policy. In other words this user just took it upon his or herself to simply decide that their opinion was correct rather than wait for consensus. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Dlabtot ( talk) 06:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I feel that adding reactions from different minority ethnic groups from California could be useful to note the different responses from this time. Not every Latino, Asian or African American individual reacted in uniform, with interest groups rising together and formalizing coalitions in response against prop 187. There are many unique responses from various Eastern Asian groups that I will be contributing to in particular. I believe that including the narrative of these groups and how they came together can be one venue that explains California's shift to blue. SeyeongMin ( talk) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dkag12 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Evelynanstanford.
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher ( talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)