Talk:2010 California Proposition 19

Health Effects

This section is poorly sourced and can be better described as an advice column. This should most entire section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.138.171 (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Title

The About section of the Tax Cannabis 2010 website (under the "read the initiative" heading) uses the title "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010". We will just need to find out what the official title is so that the article is correct. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. This submission to the attorney general calls it the "Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010." I guess somewhere they changed their mind between the submission and the campaign branding, and I suppose we ought to verify what the latest submitted version says. This one is July 2009. Blue Rasberry 14:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the title. It's temporary. As soon as the initiative receives a number, the article's title will be California Proposition X (2010). All we know now is that X>17. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

True. Thanks for the reminder. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Name for opinion section

I made a section called "Stance on initiative" because I see that there are lots of organizations getting media attention for either supporting or opposing this initiative. I see potential to make this a big, well-referenced section with subsections detailing the players on both sides of the campaign. I am not sure what the title of this section could be. What is the precedent in other election articles? This article has a lot of potential for growth. After what should it be modeled? Blue Rasberry 04:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article about a piece of marijuana legislation, if it helps: Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. The following law-related Featured Articles might also help a bit as for as quality and organization go: Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, Bricker Amendment, Roe v. Wade. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Added info from Legislative Analysis office of the bill

A per Election law the state is required to review all proposed bill. I have factored that report into the article as basically this is the states take on the matter after careful review. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposition number?

What proposition number (or whatever) is this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble locating the prop. number, but this might have some additional information (or, I should say, the sources might) to find the prop. number or help expand the Wikipedia article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it will be assigned a number or letter until after the June elections. Yonskii (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Age ambiguity?

• Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 21 results in them being banned from owning, operating, or being employed by a licensed marijuana establishment for one year.
• Any person who is 21 or older who sells or gives away marijuana to someone older the age of 18 but younger than 21, shall be imprisoned in county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.
• Any person who is 18 or older, who sells or gives away marijuana to someone 14 years of age or older, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

what happens to those who knowingly sell or give away marijuana to someone older than the age of 14 but younger than 18? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.189.16 (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The "younger than 14" was mistaken. the language of the prop is "... to a minor 14 years of age or older...."

nice catch :) fixed thanks! -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where the the talk about licensed, permitted and authorized came from. The language in the proposition is very clear. EVERY person 21 and over, and 18 and over respectively. There is no age ambiguity, at least not in the final draft.

Link to Text

Given the numerous sources, official and unofficial, available for the text of the proposition, is it appropriate to use "Yes on 19" as the source for the full text? Why not link to the balletopedia or the CA Secretary of State website? I'm all for including a link to Yes on 19 or any other site involved in this, but including at as the text of the prop seems sleazy. 24.6.250.222 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the official text of the initiative on the official website. It is certainly not "sleazy".Yonskii (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the text of the initiative, but is not the 'official source'. It neither an official (read: legal) document nor from an unbiased source. Other Wikipedia articles on propositions link to the state attorney general or voter information guide (etc.) - both of which have the text of the bill and legal documents related to the bill available, along with the current, albeit non-substantive, changes and other, non-biased but relevant information. Other Wikipedia articles do not link to associated campaigns as the "official source". Arbitrary claims about a subjective opinion aren't really that convincing, so, sorry, but it still seems sleazy to me. 24.6.250.222 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if its from a government website or not, Tax Cannabis 2010 is the official group that started the initiative. The text on the website is word for word what has been submitted to Secretary of State Deborah Bowen. Other Wikipedia articles certainly do link to official advocacy groups websites and other related sites. External links dont have to be governmental or NPOV, only relevant. There is also a link to Public Safety First in the ELs, which are against the initiative. It being "sleazy" is simply your opinion.Yonskii (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What counts as passing?

What kind of majority does this measure need to pass? Is it a simple majority (50% + 1), or because of the tax implications and other things does it need two-thirds, or something else. I have been discussing this with some friends, and we don't know. I think that this information would be helpful in the article. Thanks. 98.185.232.4 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe all propositions require a simple majority to pass. Yonskii (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that requires 2/3 is certain bills in congress. with voter initiative to the best of my knowledge its always 50% +1 vote.-Tracer9999 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Peron

This individual has gone on record many times in clear opposition to prop. 19, as I have demonstrated with a citation. I see no evidence that he has changed his mind. Petergkeyes (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose: is this list in any particular order?

I want to know if this list is in any particular order? The most significant supporters and non-supporters are higher at the top? Or are those who donated the greatest amount of money to support or oppose higher at the top? If Meg Whitman is at the top of those who oppose, then it's obvious that she has the most money to spend on campaigns like this.
Native94080 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've generally have been keeping individual persons listed first by notability and what level of govt they are in (federal, state then local). Then after them we list groups and organizations, also listed by notability. Government affiliated officials and organizations are also listed first before private. Yonskii (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The list is getting pretty long, which is certainly not a bad thing, but it might be worth considering separating individuals and organizations/groups for organizational purposes. Not necessarily subsections, but maybe just two columns or text bolding for separation. See this list for ideas and examples. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Other possibilities (using the section Supporters as an example):

1. Sorting by last name for individuals and name of organization/group (mixed):

• ACLU
• John Dennis
• Drug Policy Alliance
• Mark Leno

etc.

OR

2. Separating individuals and organizations/groups, then sorting alphabetically:

Individuals

• John Dennis
• Mark Leno

Organizations

• ACLU
• Drug Policy Alliance

etc.

Thoughts? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

10th Amendment Nullifies Federal Laws

In the intro section, there is a sentence "As of September 2010, even if the proposition is passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act.". Can we add a sentence after that stating something like "Even though the Federal Government maintains that certain substances are controlled, and illegal, that position can be nullified by each State using the 10th Amendment of the US Constition."Nly8nchz (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If unsourced, that statement would be analysis or original research, which shouldn't be done in articles per WP:NOR. Do you have a thrid-party reliable source that can be used for that statement? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, just leaving it as it is gives the wrong impression if you are a US constitution whiz. When I first read it it seemed like the proposition had no chance to be put into law, which obviously isn't true.Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg and Tommy Chong

These 2 individuals have gone on record in the media as supporters of CA Prop 19. They are most certainly noteworthy individuals. A colleague suggested that they are inappropriate for inclusion as supporters for 2 reasons:

1. They are likely to support "marijuana legalization" anywhere, anytime.

2. They do not have enough "political influence" to merit inclusion.

California's Proposition 19 is a controversial ballot measure that is not universally supported by all cannabis enthusiasts. One editor's opinion on whether or not Calvin Broadus (Snoop) or Tommy Chong would support other ballot measures is irrelevant to their worthiness for inclusion in this list in this article. Their relative political influence, or lack thereof, also has no bearing on their noteworthiness. They said they support the measure in verifiable media, and they are both very well known individuals with Wikipedia pages. Both of these men should be included on the list of supporters of CA prop 19. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see we already list alot of supporters.. the fact is the addition on snoop doggy dogg and tommy chong are unnecessary.. we cannot list every single persons opinion on wether they are for or against this act.

1) the fact is, if you look at the list off supporters and opposition, the are political establishment (who makes the laws), law enforcement who enforces the laws and have in inside glimpse into the effects on society, and organizations representing large portions of society affected by the law.

2) Snoop Doggy Dogg is not even the individuals real name, so the supporter would actually be whatever his real name is if anything. The only purpose of including some rap star like SNOOP serves is to slant the article with a ..hey look people like SNOOP DOGGY DOGG support this.. to attempt to slant POV of the effects of the law. His support is meaning less, we could just poll hollywood, and get a for or against from every actor actress (who's opinion really matters no more then you or I) and make this article 10 MB long and one big list. What Snoop supports makes no difference whatsoever. as for tommy chong he is a star from like the 70' or 80's..again.. makes no difference what his opinion on the matter is. This article is not a who likes pot and who does not article. its an article on the legal changes the law will bring, and the effects, The opinion of individual people make no difference, what is important is the opinion of the people who enforce and create the laws and or had a hand in creating and enforcing previous law or are financially support the proponents or the opposition to a large degree. What say miley cyrus thinks is really irellevant in the nature of this artice as it is not the gossip column. -Tracer9999 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When would it take effect

I have read that propositions tend to go into effect at the beginning of the next year, but I have also read that Prop 215 went into effect the next day. When would this one go into effect? --Jlange (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the State constitution, it appears that it would take effect the day after the election because there is nothing in the initiative that states otherwise. So I have added this to the article.

--Jlange (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How to keep the article Neutral

User:Yonskii just removed a bunch of information and reorganized others, arguing it made the article non-neutral. While I agree with part of the change, I don't agree with all of it. First, xe move the Fiscal impact from the "Arguments for" to a neutral Fiscal impact subsection--I wholly agree with that move because, as Yonskii stated, that's a neutral review done by a third party neither supporting nor opposing the proposition. Second, Yonskii removed all of the rest of the arguments for and against. This removal I disagree with, although I'd rather see what others think before reverting. The reason I disagree is that being neutral does not mean not presenting opinions--it just means we need to properly source and attribute those opinions. I don't see any WP:NPOV violation in including both for and against arguments, so long as we include those arguments that have enough WP:WEIGHT; we provide clear, appropriate, reliable sources; and we properly attribute those opinions to the sources (i.e., we don't put them in "Wikipedia's voice). I'd like to hear other thoughts and/or policy on this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with alot of the arguments removed are they are crystal ball type arguments, speculation and scare mongering. Stating this could/might happen if this happens and someone does that. Or weasle words, like some think / are afraid this or that could happen. The problem with initiatives like this, Where anything currently illegal becomes lawful, people have a tendency to exaggerate, generally on both sides, with the hope that if they make enough rediculous statements some will stick. and the rest that is not exaggeration is common sense. This article does a good job in explaining what the changes are to the law, minus agenda's other organizations are trying to propogate for thier own orginizations needs. like the alchohol industries donations against the bill for one thing.. the fiscal effects section seems to cover alot of the arguments from a neutral niether camp point of view. This article as it stands gives the facts and lets the readers decide. i think its fine as it is. -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a tough issue. On the one hand, it's hard to argue that speculation from those with a stated position on the measure belongs in a neutral wikipedia article. But a major problem with the article as it stands now is that the "fiscal impact" section is hard not to interpret as a for/against list. And the only argument it contains against the measure (i.e. an increased cost) is the potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs. In other words, those not familiar with the issues could well read the article as an endorsement of the measure. I added a for/against summary to the introduction to address these concerns. - 173.126.250.133 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.153.131 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracer9999's reasoning is pretty much what i used when I decided to remove those sections. The "Fiscal Impact" section may be perceived by some as seemingly in favor of the initiative, but you have to remember that those figures come from the nonpartisan State Legislative Analyst, whom I dont believe have anything to gain specifically from Prop 19 passing or not. I think it would be most appropriate to just leave it listing the bare facts of the initiative. I think most people can make up their own mind from about Prop 19 from whats already in this article. Yonskii (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Both Tracer9999 and Yonskii's arguments are actually exactly what I was worried about--they focus on the issue of "letting people make up their own minds". But that has very little, if anything, with determining what should or shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. The question is, what is verifiable, and what has enough (WP:DUE) weight to be included. We're not here to inform people so that they can make a political decision, we're here to document a particular piece of California legislative history.

On the other hand, perhaps this will be moot after the election. If I'm thinking long-term, perhaps ten years from now there is no reason to have documented the arguments for/against a ballot initiative after it's past. I'll try to look at other similar articles later for precedent. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Informing people of what this initiative is about, without it being tainted by bias from EITHER side, is EXACTLY what the purpose of this article is. Yonskii (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? That's not what WP:NPOV says, nor is it how we commonly treat disputed topics. We regularly go to great efforts, in fact, to include not just factual summaries of topics, but also the perspective of various people/groups, reviews, analysis, etc. Are you saying that on, say, a movie or video game, we should not provide information about critical reviews (i.e., biased opinions) about the items? Or that we shouldn't show the opinions of various sides on contemporary events? That doesn't seem to match what I see around the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

I'm an advocate for article beautification and visual appeal. I am sure this article will include a map of voting results once the election has been held. What other relevant images could be added to the article? Perhaps images of some prominent supporters and opponents of the proposition? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have there been any rallies for or against? We could add pics of those if there have been. There are signs for "Yes on 19" that might be appropriate, if they don't violate neutrality. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Neutrality certainly would not be an issue if we displayed one showing support and one showing opposition. This category contains all of the cannabis-related images that have been marked with the WikiProject Cannabis template. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about random images of supporters/detractors. The article on the medical marijuana proposition has a guy with a card specific to the program. An image like File:World-cannabis-laws.png could be relevant. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No images are needed, I don't think. I have no problem with adding images but lets not just add images to add them. No particular supporter or opponent (except debatably the guy who started the inititive as he actually played a part in getting it added to the ballot) is important enough to add a photo of as the article is about the initiative, not any particular supporter. Showing a picture of one supporter or detractor out of millions would be undo wieght in my opinion. Plus the page loads faster without images. map of the voting results sounds good.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case, an image of Richard Lee seems appropriate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

SB 1449

I thought is was 18 plus as well. but looking at the signing statement and the amended text it appears to me to only differentiate in age as it pertains to on school grounds. Maybe there is another law thats applicable to minors? anyone have any idea.. here is the pertainant text..

"SECTION 1. Section 11357 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

11357. (a) Except as authorized by law, every person who

possesses any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment, or shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

(b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not

more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100) .

(c) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses more

than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(d) Except as authorized by law, every person 18 years of age or

over who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the school is open for classes or school-related programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 10 days, or both.

(e) Except as authorized by law, every person under the age of 18

who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the school is open for classes or school-related programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the following dispositions:

(1) A fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), upon

a finding that a first offense has been committed.

(2) A fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or

commitment to a juvenile hall, ranch, camp, forestry camp, or secure juvenile home for a period of not more than 10 days, or both, upon a finding that a second or subsequent offense has been committed." -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Most articles I could find stated that SB 1449 "amended adult marijuana laws"... without mention of laws pertaining to minors. Yonskii (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest Poll from Rasmussen

I have been searching for a day now and have not found any information corroborating the poll from Rasmussen that show Yes on Prop 19 in the majority, or even a poll from Rasmussen on Prop 19 this month. This fact coupled with the fact that there is no date for the link to the poll and that the poll cannot be verified online makes it suspicious. I thought I'd mention this to the higher powers (pun unintended) before editing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfaqtor (talk • contribs) 10:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also it is statistically wrong to say the margin of error is 3% with a sample size of 448. It is also strange that the sample size is precisely the same as the poll listed before it, which does have a valid link. I will be deleting this poll when shortly unless it can be verified. Jlange (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sad but true. The entry is fake. I deleted it after browsing the Rasmussen website. The latest marijuana-related poll was on July, and it was not related to proposition 19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.35 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the unverified poll for hopefully the final time. The person who originally posted the poll also vandalized the page at the same time, meaning the chances that it is fake are astronomically high. Arkane2 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am deleting the most recent Ipsos poll since: 1.) sample size for the actual survey, according to the link was 600, not 448; and 2.) After checking the Ipsos website, there is no proof that the poll was ever done. The site has no record of it, and based on the polling trends for the past 6 months it seems highly unlikely there would a poll this out of whack this late in the electoral season, just letting the powers that be know. (some anonymous guy)

I too would like the latest Ipsos poll to be fake, but wishing it so doesn't make it so. Here's the link to the actual research on the Ipsos website: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4983 and here is the link to the actual poll in PDF format: http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10037

I'll let somebody else add it back into the actual page. Alexkreuz (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see what's going on here. Yes, the "Rasmussen" poll is real. Except for the fact that its not a Rasmussen poll at all, but an Ipsos poll. The poll is real, but the label "Rasmussen" is wrong. Alexkreuz (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. There used to be both an ipsos and Rasmussen poll on the page. The Rasmussen poll could not be verified so it was deleted. The Ipsos poll can be verified and should be replaced. I will do that. The Ipsos poll has 448 subjects for ballot measures, 600 for other election races. Thus the Ipsos poll was accurately reported on the table.Jlange (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is, the Rasmussen poll also had 448 subjects with results of 44% to 53%. That leads me to believe that the Rasmussen poll is in fact the Ipsos poll, simply mislabeled. 76.167.246.10 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)\

What is happening is vandals keep deleting the Ipsos poll and adding a fake Rasmussen poll which show the opposite findings.Yonskii (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Somebody is erasing a USA Survey poll that found a majority for prop19. the poll was listed and then erased, and then i wrote a comment about it and it was erased. here's the link to the poll (where are the pro prop19 wikis who can protect this info?) http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2010/10/08/in-ca-democrats-cling-to-ever-so-slight-advantages-in-governor-senator-lt-gov-contests-yes-7-puffs-ahead-of-no-on-marijuana/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.127.74 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That poll is in there. It's the SurveyUSA poll completed October 3rd -- one day before the Ipsos poll, and therefor listed right before it. I discovered this by looking at the link you just gave and following its link to the actual poll results/summary. ;) Prop 19 --MQDuck (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Yes on 19 campaign has released the results from an Internal Poll they conducted .. If anyone feels it should be added, here's the link: http://yeson19.com/internalpoll 76.167.246.10 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

where it was conducted for and paid for by the yes on 19 crew I don't think it neutral enough anymore then a poll from the no on 19 campaign would be. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

maybe not, but the results were fairly similar to the rest of the polls .. live responses were slightly against prop 19, whereas automated responses were significantly for 76.167.246.10 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

InTrade

Ballotpedia mentions them, so I thought it may be relevant here as well. Intrade is predicting a 69% probability of Prop 19 passing: http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com&contractId=702407 Alexkreuz (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Intrade has been added Arkane2 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would advise to not add such speculations, for neutrality's sake.Yonskii (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what intrade has to do with a lack of neutrality .. its just a unbiased casino .. besides, its at 35.3% now .. 76.167.246.10 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is just gambling that also includes non california residents so is irrelevant in relation to this "california" ballot initiative. We already have polling numbers from california residents. also, We don't list a bookies point spread on the page of football teams either when they are playing a game. -05:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why californian residents are better at guessing whether the prop. will pass than non-californians. Remember, this is not saying that it should pass, simply how likely that is. The catagorization of Intrade as gambling is inaccurate as it attempts to predict realworld event. The outcome of these events is not random. Intrade has proven itself as an accurate indicator of what all knowledge available at a given time suggests will happen, so i think it is relevant.Olyus (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

because we don't do "guesses" first and foremost. Polls are slightly different because at least they poll voters in the state thats applicable and will be effected by the resolution and have a say in its passing or failing. You have a different mindset in say florida or texas then you do in massachusetts and california. And regardless of wether its called the "predictions" market its still gambling. The way to make the most money would be to buy low as possible and sell high.. so you hope for an upset.. no point buying in at 93 and being proven right..lastly, we are not an advertising service / legitimizer for a for profit gambling business. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Official advocacy group

The article describes Yes on 19 as the "official advocacy group" for the initiative. What does that mean? The link is to a general article about advocacy groups, not to anything that would explain what formal role a designated advocacy group has in the California initiative process. The article on California ballot measures is not much past the stub stage, and a quick search isn't turning up an answer elsewhere. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes on 19 is the official campaign group. Yonskii (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference to the California Secretary of State's Voting Guide (where it states "Yes on 19" as the advocacy group) as well as added the 'official' opposition group. Arkane2 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection?

This article is being targeted with a large amount of vandalism, which may only increase as we approach the election. Should some sort of protection be applied to the article? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this. I expect even more frequent vandalism as it gets closer to election day.Yonskii (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Jlange (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be some agreement, then. I will be away from a computer for a while, but I will try to remember how to request protection unless someone else beats me to it. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put in the request Jlange (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears our request was denied. Unfortunate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CNN source

In case this can be used to improve the article: CNN link. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

For someone such as myself who is curious about the outcome of this i am having trouble discovering certain things on this article, For example its states a simple majority to pass. A simple majority by who ? Who exactly votes on this?.. Do the people vote like they would "Physically" in an election? Are Senators/Congressman voting on it? If so who are some of the Key supporters ? Who Oppose? I understand that perhaps a prop bill article probably should not explain such things as how a prop becomes law and the whole voting process but where are the links to explain such things? anyone care to explain it to me ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.59.82 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

uhm, its a ballot initiative.. so it would be on the ballot on the "November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot".. which means the people would vote. a simple majority is just that.. 1 vote over 50% of all votes cast and there is a long list of supporters and opponents on the page. did you read even the article? Im not sure what your question actually is as it all seems to be explained quite clearly in the article -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your sarcastic yet timley response you helped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.59.82 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tracer, it's only clear if you are familiar with the ballot initiative system. In fact, only 24 U.S. states have initiatives, and only a small handful of non-U.S. countries have them. For example, the other day I tried to explain this proposition to someone in Japan, and then I had to backtrack and explain the whole ballot initiative system. They actually found the initiative process as strange as the idea of making marijuana legal. So, if the IP is from some place where they don't have initiatives, I can understand why it sounds strange. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No im from jersey i just wasnt sure about the whole STATEWIDE BALLOT thing which i obviously was unfamiliar with ,, But i thank you both —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.59.82 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

to be honest. I was not aware only 24 states had an initiative system.. prob because both states that I live in do. I assumed it was a national deal. So, in other states you just have to count on the politicians without any of the failsafes provided by the initiative process? wow.. I wonder how that works out for them. You learn something new every day. -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

538 Article

I asked Nate Silver to write an article about prop 19. He does statistical analysis of the various house, senate and gubernatorial races across the country. Here's the article in his NY Times blog:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/is-proposition-19-going-up-in-smoke/

From his meta-analysis of the polling, he thinks it has an even chance of passing. You guys should be able to use it as a source. --71.194.190.179 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Prop 19 was defeated

{{edit semi-protected}} All major outlets are reporting that prop 19 was defeated.

Done I added a sentence in the lead. Someone want to clean up this article properly? Lots of outdated info now. ☢Pufferfish¹⁰¹⑨ 05:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little past-tensing, but yeah, the page really needs some cleanup/shrinking/splitting.  — SheeEttin {T/C} 05:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Choice Votes %
Yes 1,188,340 43.9%
No 1,518,023 56.1%

22% of precincts reporting; updated 11/02 10:23PM

how do you call the race when only 22% of the precincts have reported?... http://www.sfgate.com/election-results/2010/11/02/CA/c/i_proposition/i_19_seat_19/b_ballot_issue/c/california.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.186.163 (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Those sources SPECIFICALLY say that only 22 percent of the precincts have reported in. It is probably gonna lose, but wait until the election results come in.207.224.134.77 (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• All major news outlets have reported that the measure failed - they use statistical models, exit polls, and whatnot. And the news outlets don't call a result until they're pretty much 100% sure that they are correct. This is not an uncommon practice - we've had senate races called today with less than 10% of the vote. The proposition isn't passing - it's not happening. The article quoted is unequivocal. ☢Pufferfish¹⁰¹⑨ 06:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance of the American political process but don't you actually have returning officers that report the official vote? Are all the news reports secondary sources to the actual declared result? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Wikipaedia guidelines recommend Secondary Sources over Primary Sources. Yeah ... I think that's a nonsense policy, too. 219.89.249.161 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the policy only applied to when a Primary source could be showing bias, not when it's plainly reporting facts. I thought the news sources were put in because they came first.--occono (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons why primary sources are avoided including the possibility of giving undue weight and that they usually require far more interpretation. By and large these don't apply here but secondary sources in addition to primary sources would be ideal here. Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Um reading the current version [1] it makes it sound like it failed, but doesn't actually say it did (unless I missed it somewhere). This is clearly a rather silly state of affairs. If people aren't happy with the current sourcing and aren't willing to mention it failed, fine but don't strongly imply it failed without actually saying it did. That's clearly a silly thing to do. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. It is time the article was edited. Or unlocked, since there are plenty of people willing to make the changes which are overdue. Tom (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it did fail, but you should have waited until it was "official" before choosing to edit the results solely so you could "rub it in" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.186.163 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• You're acting as if we all wanted it to fail (not the case at all). No one's trying to rub anything in. Don't shoot the messengers. ☢Pufferfish¹⁰¹⑨ 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't live in the US so frankly I don't really care about this proposition. However for better or worse, waiting for something to be 'official' isn't the norm on wikipedia, and our sourcing requirements generally mean if something is supported by an overwhelming number of sources with no real sources, we go by the sources. This would often include US presidential elections where if I'm not mistaken one party may have conceeded and the other party may be giving their victory speech before the results are 'official'. Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The results on the page are incorrect. The secretary of state for California lists the results as being 59.5% no to 40.5% yes. This change should be made --71.108.35.11 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

This article reads like it was written by Yes On 19 itself. Other than one sentence in the first paragraph and another in “Stance” (which was undermined by the very next sentence), it seems like nothing but a list of reasons to have legalized. I do believe the lack of neutrality can be resolved, but at least SOME time needs to be given to the reasons for opposition (at least a section).97.120.230.36 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

While I think its extremely important that we are neutral on this subject I cant really see where it isn't neutral, its quite a dry article really and doesn't read like an ad for pro Prop19 people. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This article merely lists the effects of the bill, directly from the initiative's official text from CA's Secretary of State, and the fiscal analysis provided by the neutral, non-partisan State Legislative Analyst's office. Then it simply has a brief history of the bill, polls, and a list of supporters and opposers. Thats pretty much it. Plus, its post-election, the bill has already failed. Its not like its going to sway anyone's vote now. The only way I can ever see someone thinking this is "biased", is if that person just opposes cannabis legalization and/or use altogether and would get their feathers ruffled just because someone suggested such a thing.Yonskii (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I favor legalizaion- But all it lists are the positives of legalization (specifically the tax issues). No mention of the casue of opposition is made anywhere; There is a list fo opponents, but not their reason. Might have well have been written by Mr LEE as a propoganda peince- Becasue that's STILL all it is. This article will now be refrenced by future legalizaion advocates (there are ALWAYS legalizaion advocates, always), making it relevent. The article, therefore, can not be called fair and unbiased.97.120.230.36 (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

If you would take the time to check the citations, you would see that the information presented in this article comes directly from the California Secretary of State and Attorney General's offices, as well as the State Legislative Analyst. These are government officials, not affiliated with Richard Lee or Yes on 19 in any way. The article doesnt list the supporters reasons for supporting, either.Yonskii (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article only lists the facts surrounding the bill: What effect it would have, who supports it, who doesn't and why, and finally who voted for it. The facts are, by definition neutral. I'm sorry you don't agree with the subject matter. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT, has never been a reason to delete or remove anything. If there is something in paticular you would like to add to the article, feel free (with a reputable source of course)--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Napa

Resolved

The stats says this passed in Napa but the map shows Napa as red. Not sure which is correct. Tentoila (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Prop 19 passed in Napa. Yes 50.01, No 49.99. 13 votes separated the ayes from the nays. --Rbyrne6722 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So why is it red on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.234.69 (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it is wrong.

So, I've asked someone to please fix it: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map_workshop#California Proposition 19 (2010).  Chzz  ►  09:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed with File:2010 CA 19 corrected.svg see [2]  Chzz  ►  01:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

References

County Economic Interests

Results are presented by Major Counties. 2 counties not presented in the table are significant in that they play a major role in the cultivation of marijuana. I believe Humboldt and Mendocino Counties should be included in the table.

11/2/10 election results from Humboldt and Mendocino Counties show that the proposition failed by roughly 47% Yes to 53% No.

Passing Proposition 19 would have impacted revenues of outlaws. By voting against the proposition they were protecting their economic interests.

Humboldt and Mendocino may be minor counties, but as major cultivators of an illegal crop their election results are significant and should be included in the table.

--71.135.116.95 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC) --Rbyrne6722 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Contra Costa County should also be included. It has well over 1M people--more than most other Bay Area Counties. Major cities: Richmond, Walnut Creek, Concord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.234.69 (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, why bother trying to define what counts as an important county? Why not just list them all, and if it's necessary, include the raw vote numbers beside them so people have a sense of how many actual voters there were? Is it really helpful to exclude smaller counties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.234.69 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to just list all of them. I also notice that a) the reference does not work, b) I found a table on the same website [3] but the figures do not match. So, it does seem to need fixing.  Chzz  ►  09:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Proposal to Merge in New Content

Hi all,

As part of the WikiProject United States Public Policy initiative, we would like to propose adding content to the California Proposition 19 (2010) page and rearranging the order of the content as listed below.

The additional content we have developed can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorink/Sandbox

~Abond112

Proposed outline for Prop 19 article post-merger

Existing Lede 1. History [Add our history section content to existing article's history section]

2. Effects of the Bill

3. Main Arguments

3a. For

3b. Against

4. Fiscal Impact

4a. Benefits

4b. Costs

5. Main Support/Opposition Groups and External Influence [merge externals into Main Support/Opposition]

6. Polling breakdown and history

7. Outcome and Results by major county [Merge the existing and new sections]

8. Effects on the Prop 19 debate

9. See Also

10. References

11. External Links

I strongly recommend the inclusion of the above into the main article. If there are no objections I will ask an admin to come and merge the articles. Basket of Puppies 21:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Will this change involve the removal of any information? The order of section listed above seems fair, and I certainly have no problem with the inclusion of additional information. (Also, I went ahead and added the WP US Public Policy Initiative assessment template to the talk page if this article is associated with the project.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Only addition of new sections and information, not deleting anything. Basket of Puppies 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not advise adding any kind of speculative analysis or opinions relating to why this bill or another like it may have passed or not. The article must remain as neutral as possible - only the specifics and concrete details.Yonskii (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the students have been eminently educated about WP:NPOV. Basket of Puppies 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

In adding new content to this article, we've made every attempt to adhere to WP:NPOV. For example, the Main Arguments section does not represent advocacy of either perspective on the debate, but instead presents a record of the arguments that were used in the debate. Additionally, the Analysis of Failure section presents existing theories on the reasons for the measure having failed to pass -- it does not claim to actually contain a definitive answer. The new content consists of the concrete specifics and details of the actual Prop 19 discussion, and all of these are referenced according to Wikipedia standards.

We believe the new content fills in critical missing components of the public policy debate surrounding Proposition 19 and provides greater context for readers, and as such is an important and valuable addition to the article.Lorink (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

By way of backround, the neutrality issue began when Yonskii removed the history and arguments section, without comment. I restored this section with an edit summary of this section is NPOV and referenced with many RSs. unsure how it can be considered POV. reverting and hoping to discuss on talk page. Some time later Yonskii removed the sections again with the edit summary of sections are POV because they present the opinions (overwhelmingly against) of individuals. this articles main purpose is to present the facts of the bill.. From this he seemed to indicate that there is a lack of balance in the two opinions, which would seemingly be remedied by equalizing the number of pro and con opinions in the article. Two minutes later Yonskii did a partial restore with the edit summary of a section such as this may be appropriate, although i feel it needs to be rewritten to be more balanced. the against section is 3 times the size of the in favor.

The issue at hand seems to be the concern that Yonskii presents that there is an imbalance in the pro and con sections. Yonskii, if the two sections are equalized in size and number of opinions would you be agreeable to keeping these sections in the articles? Basket of Puppies 18:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. My main concern is not presenting opinions/analysis in a fashion which may sway voters in any direction (Yes/No), in regards to future legislation, particularly bills that may be similar to Prop 19.Yonskii (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yonskii, were there any particular statements in the removed sections that you felt were POV? If so let's identify them so that we can neutralize them. Basket of Puppies 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned that references cited to NORMAL were discounted as a non neutral source. The criteria is whether the publication is independent of the subject, and considered a reliable source. Not liking or agreeing with the content is not the same as discrediting them as a reliable source. Can it be shown that editorially NORMAL is not reliable? My76Strat (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

NORML is a pro-cannabis legalization organization. Every article they write is admittedly biased towards their goal. Additionally, analysis of the bill from non-neutral parties are inappropriate because there will always be a bias factor. This is why only the analysis from the non-partisan, entirely neutral State Legislative Analyst's office is included.Yonskii (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A few suggestions

First: lovely article and very interesting; well done youze!

I found the 'support' and 'oppose' lists a bit clunky to go through (and I'm a Brit, so I have no idea who any of these people are and which side / area of the political spectrum they come from, and my knowledge of Californian geography is limited, to say the least!)

Sooooooo .... can the support / oppose lists be alphabetized? I think if people are looking for the view of their 'own' (or indeed any individual) person, they'll find it more easily if the lists are in alphabetical order. And - would it be possible to make the supports / opposes into a table, with the supports on (for example) the left, and the opposes on the right? It would make for less scrolling about to get through the lists, and be more 'reader-friendly', I think.

Next: how about a breakdown of support / oppose by political stance? (maybe pie charts or something). It might make it easier for readers to see if there's a 'party swing' in favour or against, more easily than readers trying to work it out for themselves by trawling through the lists.

Next: I noticed from the map that there's an obvious 'oppose movement' line right down the centre of the map, with the 'support people' off on the edges. Have any social commentators picked up on this geographical distribution? If so, what did they say about it? Can you find anything on this - it could be very interesting reading.

And how about any commentary - if there was any - from outside California? What were peole saying (if asked) outside the USA, too? Did the rest of the world even notice what was going on? Any mention in non-US papers, anywhere? Pesky (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am leaning towards the opinion that the list of supporters and those who oppose is slightly misleading encroaching irrelevant. If anything it might better serve Wikipedia for these to be list class articles on their own merit. It adds nothing to understanding the proposition simply by knowing this notable person supported it while this notable person opposed it. My76Strat (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, Strat. :o) I still quite like the idea of playing around with the 'by party' statistics, which might be more relevant; how about porting the information into Excel (or similar), getting it to do the pie-charts (you can tell it what colours to use for which, I think, to make the 'visual-input' thing as intuitive as possible), and then (having zoomed in! Important or the resolution will be lousy!) screen-dump the nicely labelled pie-charts and then upload those images. Pesky (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find the "support" and "oppose" sections quite easy to read and understand. A chart would be fine, but unnecessary IMO. Also, the lists themselves are hardly irrelevant, even if the election has already passed. Announcements of support and opposition for the bill were news stories in themselves, and the list I believe helps clarify to people exactly what kind of cannabis-related bill a politician may oppose or support. Lets remember that this article WILL be referenced back many times leading up to 2012 and the inevitable new legalization initiative, so much of the information here is HIGHLY relevant.Yonskii (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct this is an important article, I am glad you are on board to collaborate in the encyclopedic telling of this important entry. That is also why we are here; And that is why in the end, I anticipate, with expectation, we will succeed. My76Strat (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Pesky - as a British based individual, I think some international contextualisation would be great. Anything from overseas media? Or, were any other overseas governments watching this vote with interest? What about international pro/anti lobby groups? Surely they would have been viewing/commentating on this campaign and considering the implication of the results ...I'm no expert on the topic but that kind of stuff might help me see the broader issues thrown up by a contentious bill. I also found the support/oppose lists long and (even if they are really necessary) wonder could they be placed elsewhere or reorganised,as others have suggested, to help the flow of the article.... Rightly or wrongly, article is long on text and short on images(that's already been discussed elsewhere) but I feel length and structure of these lists doesn't aid ease of use. Just an opinion. Hope its constructive. Good luck! Lisaseventyfive (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Headers: Per the manual of style, only the first letter of the first word in a section header should be capitalized. The rest should be in lowercase unless the word is a proper noun. For example: Legalization of Personal Cannabis-related Activities should be Legalization of personal cannabis-related activities. This applies to all section headers.
• Type of phone: In the Polling differences by poll types section, can the phrase type of phone be changed to something better-sounding? IMO, type of phone sounds more like type of phone brands.
• In 2008, California police made 78,500 arrests related to marijuana.[41] is too short for a stand-alone "paragraph". Maybe that can be expanded? What other stats are available?

Bejinhan talks 11:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from DeltaQuad

(copied here from [4] by  Chzz  ►  12:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

Ths article is a list. Except for section 3 & 4 it's a list. I would recommend making 1 & 2 into paragraphs. Section 5, if it's going to be on wiki, needs to be a seperate list. It's way to big for the article. The colours and bolding confuse me in section six, I don't know what they are/why they are highlighted. Section 7, you have a template, then no template for yes/no. I would say try to stay consistant. 7.1 - What are these results for...what was voted on. Looks really well sourced and keep up the good work. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Many articles on Wikipedia are lists or at least resemble lists. What is your point? They dont need to be in paragraphs. IMO, that would make it harder to read. As it states, the colors in section six indicate the poll that was decided by a simple majority. The bolded number is obviously the greater number. I dont see why this would be confusing. And section 7 shows the results for Proposition 19 obviously, considering thats what the entire article is about.Yonskii (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's do this, people! Stoners unite!

LEGALIZE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunk Stoner (talk • contribs) 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on California Proposition 19 (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101024205537/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/local/la-mew-prop19-poll-20101023,0,2940971.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop19-poll-20101023,0,2940971.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on California Proposition 19 (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121105202123/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/07/12/state/n170342D09.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/07/12/state/n170342D09.DTL

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California Proposition 19 (2010). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008203818/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop19-poll-20101023%2C0%2C2940971.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106225951/http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/ to http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106225951/http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/ to http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)