Talk:1994 California Proposition 187

message: can someone better explain how this law died? Kingturtle 03:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [No heading given: Query]

message: The final sentence of the article reads:
::"For illegal immigrant children in inner-city slums who saw people committing "187's" around them, and then learned that another law called "187" was about to be used to deny them access to government services, the number came to have a doubly unpleasant connotation."
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)
thread_title:  Final Sentence should be Removed?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Projected State Budget Savings? 

message: "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) 
:It said "liberals" until this afternoon, when someone changed it to "libertarians". Let's just revert it back to what it was earlier today. -Will Beback 04:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wish to challeng the objectivity of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Templates due to inadequate documentation, lack of source citations

message: 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)
replies: text: If the original research in this article were to be deleted, there would be nothing left, and I frankly question whether the original research is even accurate.  Right now, this article is the raw opinion of whoever drafted it.  The  tags are preferable to simply stubbing the article, but I'll stub the article if you prefer.  THF (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Going overboard with "citation needed"

message: 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)
thread_title:  factual mess 

message: 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. I'm not familiar with the other person. Dlabtot (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should find sources first, then summarize what they say. Adding something and then noting that no sources can be found for it is putting the cart before the horse. Regarding the comment above, Beilenson was a proponent of immigration reform, but it's not clear that his support was an outcome of Prop. 187. That's why we need sources, not speculation.   Will Beback  talk   20:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a claim that you yourself dispute. 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was opposed by a small margin majority of Mexican Americans out of fear it will return the state to the pre-civil rights era, when ethnic or racial discrimination was legal and tolerated. For a state public service to ask a Hispanic/Latino to prove their citizenship is like to ask a Jewish person if they're "Jews"...or say to a black person "we don't serve your kind here". Opponents even compared Prop. 187 to measures taken against California's Asian Americans (notably laws excluded the Chinese from  citizenship in the 1880s and acts to put the Japanese into military internment camps during WWII) that indeed violated their civil rights. Prop. 187 would been abused by racists, nativists or xenophobes who don't like Mexicans/Hispanics and may sour the US' diplomatic relations with Mexico or Latin America, where the source of immigration was caused by economic problems and how the American people reacts to ones' suffering. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like more background information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  plyer v Doe 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520052453/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520052453/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: As to his/her quotations: Associated Press focuses more on the term 'illegal' than on the term 'alien' and the combination 'illegal alien' is only used once (it is not to be used except in direct quotations). The New York Times handles two issues: the use of 'illegal' as a noun instead of as an adjective (which does not apply in this case) and the use of '(illegal) alien'. On that, it is cited "I checked the NYT style book, and found the guidance not terribly helpful. The entry is not explicit on “illegals.” It says only this: “Illegal immigrant is the preferred term, rather than the sinister-sounding illegal alien. Do not use the euphemism undocumented.”" and quoted that "our practice is to avoid “illegals” as well as “illegal aliens,” and on the other hand, to also steer clear of the euphemistic “undocumented workers.”" So yes, they try to avoid the term (they do not prohibit it) but they also say that using 'undocumented' is not the way to do so. As for PolitiFact: "We recognize, though, that "illegal alien" persists. The term showed up 80 times in our May 2018 Google search of the PolitiFact website with "illegal aliens" popping up 5,620 times." Aside from the fact that we don't have to follow internal guidelines from press agencies and the like, deducing from the given pages that they 'prohibit use of the term' is, in my opinion, wishful reading. Richard 08:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

text: *When first added, the quote used "illegal aliens". This appears to be correct. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * Quote should certainly always be exact. I've fixed it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: * I checked one source at random: the 2006 APSR study and it does not use the term "illegal aliens". Your statement is therefore verifiably false and you should strike it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've edited my comment for clarity.  PC-speak didn't even exist when the Prop 187 was passed. Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: "Illegal aliens" vs. a synonym 

message: * Oppose - The term "illegal aliens" is a contentious label (WP:LABEL) that is widely considered by reliable sources to be pejorative. The term is one of affinity to racists and far-right publications. The term is not frequently used in reliable sources, certainly not more so than the synonyms "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants". Major news org style guides prohibit use of the term, such as the Associated Press, The Washington Post and the New York Times. The term does occur in law, but according to PolitiFact, the term only occurs in "scattered mentions" and does not refer to all illegal immigrants (in other words, the legal term "illegal alien" is different from conventional use). This is the summary of the PolitiFact piece on the term: "The term appears--yet scarcely--in federal law. Best we can tell, though, no law defines the term as referring to all individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Where the term does appear, it’s undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies." I do not see why Wikipedia should use a contentious value-laden term that reliable sources characterize as pejorative when there are readily available synonyms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As to his/her quotations: Associated Press focuses more on the term 'illegal' than on the term 'alien' and the combination 'illegal alien' is only used once (it is not to be used except in direct quotations). The New York Times handles two issues: the use of 'illegal' as a noun instead of as an adjective (which does not apply in this case) and the use of '(illegal) alien'. On that, it is cited "I checked the NYT style book, and found the guidance not terribly helpful. The entry is not explicit on “illegals.” It says only this: “Illegal immigrant is the preferred term, rather than the sinister-sounding illegal alien. Do not use the euphemism undocumented.”" and quoted that "our practice is to avoid “illegals” as well as “illegal aliens,” and on the other hand, to also steer clear of the euphemistic “undocumented workers.”" So yes, they try to avoid the term (they do not prohibit it) but they also say that using 'undocumented' is not the way to do so. As for PolitiFact: "We recognize, though, that "illegal alien" persists. The term showed up 80 times in our May 2018 Google search of the PolitiFact website with "illegal aliens" popping up 5,620 times." Aside from the fact that we don't have to follow internal guidelines from press agencies and the like, deducing from the given pages that they 'prohibit use of the term' is, in my opinion, wishful reading. Richard 08:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

text: *When first added, the quote used "illegal aliens". This appears to be correct. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * Quote should certainly always be exact. I've fixed it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: * I checked one source at random: the 2006 APSR study and it does not use the term "illegal aliens". Your statement is therefore verifiably false and you should strike it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've edited my comment for clarity.  PC-speak didn't even exist when the Prop 187 was passed. Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: Greetings, Dlabtot. It should not surprise you that I find your description of how the RfC was closed to be misleading and incorrect. If, in any case, you feel the closure is somehow wrong, you are encouraged to take it up on appeal. Look up WP:ACD. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simply stating that something is incorrect, obviously is not an example of engaging in discussion.  Please do take this opportunity to talk to me. If you feel your position is so weak that your only defense is an administrative one, I will eventually engage in that long, boring process. As an alternative, I suggest we work together as allies to make this encyclopedia article the best that it can be. Are you open to a collaborative discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I mean, seriously, I am someone who lived in California at the time, I voted against the proposition, I have no axe to grind, I simply believe that the article should accurately reflect the reality of the proposition and how the sources described it. Dlabtot (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

text:  Also, pretending that any essay, which by definition is the opinion of one person, is in some way the same as a consensus is a self-refuting argument. Dlabtot (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the closure might have been erroneous, even though I stand by it, but your objection to it amounts to broad-brush coloring and nothing more. I provided a rather extended explanation and presented in detail the reasoning behind the closure, a reasoning founded on the quality of the arguments presented and Wikipedia's rules; and not based on "my opinion." I find no evidence that could support your characterization (i.e. the closer "just took it upon his or herself to simply decide that their opinion was correct"). I have no idea how to address this except to invite you to re-read the text of the closure. And invite other editors to comment here, as well, if they feel like doing so. Going back and forth on the basis of "I like it", "Well  I don't like it" is a dead end. Better let others chime in, at this point. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

text: [EDIT CONFLICT] I posted the above in response to the first of the three messages preceding it. I now see you added an objection about using essays as the basis for the closure (or for  any other decision in Wikipedia, I take it). Again, I fail to see the relevance. Checking back on the text, you will see that all the cited rules are policies or guidelines: WP:MOSLEAD, WP:RS WP:VULGAR are guidelines; and WP:NPOV is a policy. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I regret your unwillingness to engage in an honest and frank discussion. But since you are unwilling to do so, I will, in due course, invoke the tedious and very not-enjoyable administrative procedures that Wikipedia has in place for resolving disputes when editors are not interested in reaching a good faith consensus. As they said in The Village, 'be seing you'. Dlabtot (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel that my responses have not been "honest and frank," Dlabtot. You asked me to "work together as allies to make this encyclopedia article the best that it can be" and if I'm "open to a collaborative discussion." But it takes specifics to have a discussion. It should be clear that I responded to the only specific point you made, i.e. that I used a Wikipedia essay as the basis of the decision. Apart from that, I fail to see any other specific point you made to which I could reasonably respond.  Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have the energy for a WP:BATTLE.  It really is wrong to replace the original language as reflected in the sources with pc-speak from decades later, but so be it, you win.  Unwatching.  Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper and premature closure of RfC: "Illegal aliens" vs. a synonym 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of Reaction from Minority Groups 

message: — Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS