Talk:2003 California gubernatorial recall election

message: Just for reference: R, W, Q, O, J, M, V, A, H, B, S, G, Z, X, N, T, C, I, E, K, U, P, D, Y, F, L. . Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recall alphabet

message: Given the length of the respective pages, I think that the suggested merge is impractical.  Since it has been proposed for months without comment, I am boldly removing the tags.  Eluchil404 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger of Results into main page

message: One major issue that I recall from the recall campaign was the so-called "car tax", which isn't mentioned in this article.  California has a vehicle license fee (VLF) which is charged annually to every owner of a California-registered motor vehicle.  As of 2003, this fee was by law equal to 2% of the vehicle's market value (according to a statutory depreciation scale), but legislative action since 1998 had gradually reduced the rate to 0.65%, one-third of its original amount.  I believe it was described as a "temporary" but indefinite reduction.  In 2003, with the budget now very tight, Governor Davis, by executive order, reinstated the 2% rate, effectively tripling the "car tax", as it started to be called by opponents.  This was not only an unpopular move but also one of controversial legality, in light of California's constitutional requirement that tax increases be approved by a 2/3 vote of the legislature.  There was some question as to whether this applied to ending the "temporary" reduction, or whether the VLF should be considered a tax.  In any event, much was made of this move by Governor Davis's opponents in the recall campaign, and it may have significantly contributed to the success of the recall.  In fact, upon assuming office, one of Governor Schwarzenegger's first moves was to cancel the VLF increase and order refunds issued to those who had paid the higher rate. 132.239.145.181 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of "Car Tax"

message: :Image:Davis recall petition.pdf is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Davis recall petition.pdf

message: :Image:Davis-recall-petition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Davis-recall-petition.jpg

message: This is really a pretty minor point in the grand scheme of things, but me and Blindman shady seem to disagree on the grammar of the sentence: 
"California is one of only 15 states that allow[s] recalls."
To wit, whether the "s" should be there or not. Blindman shady argues that the verb "allows" should agree with "California" (so be singular), whereas I believe the verb should agree with "15 states," and so be plural. Now, "that allow[s] recalls" is a restrictive clause which could in principle modify either "California" or "15 states"; the sentence is grammatically correct either way, although the placement of the clause makes it more natural, to my mind, to read it as modifying "15 states." More significantly, though, the different constructions have different meanings. If the clause modifies "California," the sentence would be equivalent to "There are only 15 states, and California is one that allows recalls." This doesn't seem right to me, because this sentence doesn't explain the relevance of the 15 states. Hence my preference for my version (without the "s"), which is equivalent to "There are only 15 states that allow recalls, and California is one." I'd be interested in people's thoughts on this.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: but me and Blindman shady seem
Blindman shady and I*... had to do it XDBlindman shady 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The one without the "s" is grammatically correct. Restrictive clauses always follow the noun they modify in order to be clear. Thus, the way the sentence is currently written, the clause modifies "states" and must take the plural form of the verb for number agreement. In order for the clause to modify "California," the sentence would have to be recast as follows: "California, which allows recalls, is one of only 15 states to do so." --CrazyLegsKC 14:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar pedantry

message: A write-in candidate is a candidate whose name is not on the ballot. On the table of final results, there are five names listed as write-ins with zero votes. If they were not on the ballot and nobody voted for them, then why are they listed? In fact, why do we bother listing 170 people in the table when only four of them even got one percent of the vote and only 12 with one-tenth of one percent? Yes, Wikipedia is to be comprehensive, but there is a link to the complete by-county results if someone wants to know that. Reywas92Talk 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that write-in candidates had to register as such. Why someone would bother to register as a write-in candidate and then not bother to ask anyone to vote for him or her, or even vote himself or herself, is a good question, however. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: California requires write-in candidates to register, so the write-in candidates who got no votes appear in the official election results (see note 8). VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Write-in candidates with zero votes

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 21:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I have edited the results table at the end of this article to only include candidates who received 1.00% or greater of the popular vote. I did this because, with well over 100 candidates included, the table was bulky and incomprehensible. While we should aspire to be as comprehensive as possible, listing over 100 names who received a minimal portion of the popular vote (many of the candidates did not even win a tenth of a percent, and at least half a dozen received only one vote, presumably their own) seems a bit overkill. As such, I have reduced the table to include only the five candidates who won at least 1.00% of the vote, and condensed the remainder into a single "other" row. 
If anyone has a reason to include a greater number of candidates, please let me know. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an online encyclopedia that should preserve data. Room on a piece of paper is not an issue. Perhaps we can "condense" by having a table with a hide/show option. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2003 California gubernatorial recall election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080108055900/http://www.igs.berkeley.edu:80/library/htRecall2003.html to http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htRecall2003.html#Topic1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the lede to the article, it says: "Davis was ineligible to run for a third term due to term limits after the recall election." But then in the first section, it says: "As Davis's recall transpired before he had served half of his term as Governor, he remains eligible to serve another term, should he win a future election for the California Governor post." Neither is cited. Which is correct? Alternately, both sentences could be removed, as Davis's political career was destroyed by the recall and the chance of him running again is remote. --Jfruh (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article: can Davis run again? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2003 California gubernatorial recall election. 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/20110708001052/http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16581 to http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16581
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012031100/http://vote2003.sos.ca.gov/Returns/summary.html to http://vote2003.sos.ca.gov/Returns/summary.html
*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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If a gubernatorial candidate is also a Wikipedia editor can their name be linked to their user page? If so, what is the best way to do that? Jasonagastrich (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User pages are not encyclopedic articles, and this would confuse readers, and cross the user pages with the encyclopedic articles. So, from my judgement, I'd give a firm "no". SecretName101 (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Wikipedia User Page? 

message: The two successive "background" sections seem to duplicate each other. The petition and candidates are introduced, then introduced again in a successive section. Possibly (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: A mess