Talk:Partition and secession in California

Image placement

I moved the six California image up because it was halfway into the following section. I don't think it looks any better now with all the extra white space at the top, and I've seen plenty of articles with images placed at the top of the section for content not at the very top of that section. I thought it looked cleaner with both images there, and I'm pretty sure there's no image placement guideline at issue. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It just seemed a little confusing with the South California map not starting next to its text. I have left align the S.CA map and move up the Six CA map to start with the last Jefferson state proposal as 6 Califorinas as it includes a Jefferson proposal. This reduces the white space below. If you don't like the white space at all perhaps we might remove the color key. After all readers can go through to the Sic California article and see a fully keyed map. Spshu (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge of New California

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merged. TJRC (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

---

User:Dashiellx proposed merging the newly-created New California article here. I don't see the discussion started, so I'm starting it. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. There have been numerous proposals to partition the state, and New California is just the latest. The New California article is very small, and really can't be properly understood without the context of this larger article anyway. A merge would be appropriate unless and until this latest movement rises to the level of sufficient attention that there is enough to support a standalone article.

I'm not saying it can never be an article on it's own, but certainly not yet. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. There would seem to be a close relationship to the 2009 proposal to split off "Western California", so I'm not sure a page just for this proposal gives the best background. However, this article is getting large and will probably need a split soon, which I think might be to separate partition proposals from secession proposals. Wnt (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Not support. I've added some information which I have found on CBS news, and the splitting off of New California seems to be a fairly serious proposal. Also, I don't think this recent split should just be archived in some remote spot at the bottom of another article. For these reasons, I think we should keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfieCity (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The background, much of which is what you added [1] (how many people live in California, how many Senators it has) actually argues for merging since it is relevant to all the other proposals. Wnt (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication this is any more serious than any other secession attempt. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Merge it. This is just the last in a long line of proposals. Don't see why it needs special treatment. Chisme (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously support No different than any others. Not a serious proposal. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is a significant current news story. Perhaps it should get one of those tags identifying it as a breaking story, subject to change, etc. It is efficient and appropriate to allow the article to develop as the news stories go on, rather than fighting to shoehorn all new developments into a pre-judged slant that this is nonsense and only fits into a boring history of past secession/split efforts. It may well turn out to be nonsense, not to have legs. If and when the proposal dies, then a merger could be contemplated, but it is inefficient and inappropriate to squelch it beforehand, based solely on a few editors' biases/skepticism. Not saying they're wrong to be skeptical about the actual prospects of success of the proposal, but they're prejudging news stories that have yet to appear, and they're ignoring potential for this to be important in different ways/outcomes besides a successful full split. For example this could fit into Trumpian/anti-Trumpian conflict or some other narrative or connect in some other ways into the next Congressional election cycle, I am just speculating. This obviously meets wp:GNG from the variety of reliable source coverage already. For Wikipedia readers, there is no reason to force them to wade through largely irrelevant past stuff when most just want to understand what's going on with the current proposal now. --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Doncram. The other proposals have separate articles I see no rush to merge this one. We want to avoid undue. It will gain traction or peter out but it's getting substantial coverage at the moment. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • By no means do "the other proposals have separate articles." SOME of the other proposals have second articles. In fact, very few have separate articles. Again I ask, what makes this one so special it deserves a separate article? Chisme (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. There just doesn't yet seem to be sufficient coverage on this issue alone. Los Angeles Times calls it "one in a long string of efforts for California to secede from the U.S. or be split into multiple states.", before devoting a few short paragraphs to the issue. KRON gives scant coverage, as does CBS News. USA Today seems to rehash CBS. Newsweek gives a more in-depth look, but in the broad picture, this issue doesn't seem any more noteworthy than say, previous congressional votes to partition. Beyond endless op-eds and punditry, there's not much more factually relevant material that can fairly be added to New California without turning it into a publicity campaign for the movement. This issue can be succinctly and neutrally described in one or two paragraphs in this article. The impulse for recentism should be checked, and the subject should be merged until the point when the level of coverage in reliable, secondary sources necessitates a split. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:109PAPERS, mere verifiability doesn't guarantee an article. The article in the British Independent is virtually identical to the blurbs in CBS and USA Today. Until this gets sustained coverage beyond the level given to "stupid criminal" or "horse stuck in well" stories, a devoted article is unwarranted. And @Doncram:, we do not keep or reject articles to "fit" into any narratives, Trumpian or otherwise, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Issues may or may not become notable, speculation may or may not come true. The opinions of editors about any issues is largely irrelevant. What matters is the depth of coverage in reliable, secondary sources (note many sources currently merely echo each other), and the inability of existing articles to proportionally cover topics. If New California receives sustained coverage in the future, then it probably would merit its own article, and if it becomes the 51st state, you can bet we'll have an article on it, but Wikipedia should not be ahead of the wave. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support merger, for the same reasons everyone else is saying. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support merge. Agree with Animalparty about significant coverage. This is also just a variant of the Coastal/Western California split proposed in 2009 with the only different name, some reason why and leadership/group pushing the proposal. Spshu (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Merge for now. Just another in a long line of proposals, so unless there is substantial progress by this group, WP:NOTNEWS. Knowing a little bit about California politics, I'm skeptical about this proposal. It is now 2018, not 2009 when that Coastal/Western California split plan was made. I personally do not understand why they also want Contra Costa County when that suburban county is so integrated with the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area, and is also now a Democratic/liberal stronghold. Likewise, it is also puzzling to me that they also want the North Coast areas of Humboldt County and Mendocino County when, although they are generally rural, are now also very Democratic/liberal (for example, the large marijuana industry in the Emerald Triangle region might not have the same support without LA and San Francisco). Those things alone makes me doubt that the heavily Democratic California state legislature is going to go along with it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support merge. I heard about the proposal via Slashdot, tried to learn more, and found an amateurish proposal with a bad website and an embarrassing "Declaration of Independence" apparently composed by a 5-year old via copy and paste from Jefferson and Madison. I don't think this has the legs to become relevant two years down. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have completed the merge, anyone else is welcome to add information to this article but there wasn't much else worth keeping. Reywas92^Talk 01:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three Californias

Tim Draper just got enough signatures to qualify a new "Three Californias" referendum for the November 2018 ballot. information at Ballotpedia. -- SpareSimian (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Support of Marinelli by Russia is not supported by footnote 50 in the current version of this article.

The last sentence of the article currently reads: "Yes California" was founded by Louis J. Marinelli, a New Yorker who moved to Russia, and was supported by the Russian government.[50]

But footnote 50, to a 4 November 2017 BBC article, does not state that Marinelli was supported by the Russian government.

What it does do is quote a blogger, Casey Michel (ThinkProgress) that a conference in Russia which Marinelli attended, received money from the Russian government. But it also quotes Marinelli denying any link to the Russian government or receiving money from it. The author of the article does not seem to reach any conclusion on the matter.

So the phrase and was supported by the Russian government should be deleted, or at least provided with a source, reliable in the sense of Wikipedia, that states this as a fact.

Son of eugene (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Two articles?

Should this article be partitioned into Partition of California and Secession in California? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

San Bernardino

San Bernardino wants to secede in 2022 and got their proposal approved for a vote in the 2022 election, to make a new state of "Empire". Since it's mostly Democratic and Jefferson is mostly Republican, hypothetically Jefferson and Empire entering the Union at the same time could be possible.71.191.159.69 (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)