Talk:2021 California gubernatorial recall election/Archive 1

New page for potential recall
It seemed to me that there should be a draft page for the possibility of an upcoming recall election. If it does happen, the page is ready; if it doesn't, we can scrap it and not have really wasted much time. It is important to remember how contentious this page is, and to try to maintain neutrality, especially because operatives from both sides will likely try to impact this draft. I am currently writing the page as though it is an upcoming election, as hypothetical terms are only useful for a hypothetical page. Thank you to all who contribute, and let's try to avoid political arguing on the page itself or here in the Talk page. PickleG13 (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

When should we publish this page
So it looks like the recall certification is gaining steam (and I personally predict that it will come to pass if trends continue). So if I may ask, at what point do we think that this page could be published for real? Are we planning to publish once the California Secretary of State's office officially releases the notification that the 1,495,709 signature threshold has been released? When news outlets officially announce that threshold being met and is projecting a recall? After the 30 days after the signature withdrawal period? Just trying to figure out when Wikipedia should pretty much consider this de facto official and 100% happening. JadeEditor (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Already published. --Wow (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner edit war
Can we please reach an agreement on this before the page gets protected and the IP editors of this page get shut out of editing this page? Please state your position and rationale below.

Q. Should Jenner be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.193.156.16 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's important to note that this argument that Jenner has declined in the past is not a reason to exclude Jenner as a potential candidate. A credible reference exists saying she is contemplating running. Banana Republic (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you insist, but others will probably keep reverting you. in 2003 there were over a hundred candidates, that is probably the next thing this page will have to contend with, as we could probably expect that many again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:b017:d97c:cd88:ea1b:6817:8ce5 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * you know what, this election hasnt even been officially declared yet, so all of those "declared" candidates are still not official candidates, so i am on your side now. it's all technically up in the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:b017:d97c:cd88:ea1b:6817:8ce5 (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Once the candidate expresses an interest, they get listed. If they don't end up running, they get moved to the "declined" category. This reference makes it pretty clear that she has expressed interest. Banana Republic (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

References/bundling
Does anyone else see a point in removing so-called "redundant references" to differing government records accounting of the recall process? There is no harm and the so-called "redundancy" may preserve the record where links may be dropped. Moreover, we should be referring to multiple authorities. Differing sources, authorities, have different accounting of the facts; especially important with a politically charged topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.236.142 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the exact same info; there's no point in redundancy; see WP:OVERKILL. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If you believe an additional citation has made an article absolutely unreadable, feel free to bundle citations, or expand the text stub to spread out and distinguish the citations, but don't delete. As for the case at hand, those are two important and disparate primary sources, and while overlapping, do add additional facts, from two different parties which were in conflict. The article is also under active construction and there is a lot to be unpacked here with the legal fight over moving the statutory deadline—a story in and of itself. Also, the political context and scrutiny that follows here is tremendous; Padilla is now a senator who filled the VP's old seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.236.142 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

"Monkey Butt Beer Party" founder backs Newsom
Does anyone else object to including mention of a major anti-recall campaign donor who founded the frivolous "Butt Monkey Beer Party" for the 2003 recall? This connection is the epitome of a modern California recall whose rules allow if not define it as a free-for-all carnival of attention seeking and self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.236.142 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Candidates to keep an eye out for coverage on
The following individuals appear to be candidates, but do not seem to have enough verifiable media coverage to warrant inclusion in the article. Once/if they do, they can be added (where appropriate) to the list of candidates:
 * Luis Huang, candidate in the 2020 Irvine mayoral election
 * Daniel Mercuri, candidate in the 2020 California's 25th congressional district special election (Republican)
 * Major Williams

SecretName101 (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Daniel Mercuri definitely seems to be a candidate (he even has a website). But again, he currently lacks enough verifiable media coverage to warrant inclusion as a contender. A website alone is not verifiable enough, as any third party could hypothetically have created a fake campaign website for a non-candidate. Additionally, we are only listing "notable candidates" currently. Hard to argue that someone who lacks a single verifiable media mention of their campaign is a "notable candidate". SecretName101 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update is that Mercuri and Williams now have sources and are added. New candidate I have come across, though, to keep an eye for verifiable media coverage of:
 * Nickolas Wildstar, 2014 and 2018 gubernatorial candidate, 2018 Fullerton City Council candidate, 2020 Fresno mayoral candidate (Libertarian)
 * SecretName101 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There will likely be over 100 candidates running. Once the list of candidates is certified (probably 90 days before the election), all certified candidates will be listed (and ultimately all will be shown with a vote count). In the meantime, only candidates who actually opened a campaign committee should be listed. Banana Republic (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability and inclusion, there are very different standards for inclusion in a simple list and inclusion as a subject of discussion. For inclusion in a panel with additional information, a candidate ought to be sufficiently notable, but in a stand-alone list all official candidates ought to be included. Dhalsim2 (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Update. Huang has been added with a media source. Now look out for: SecretName101 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Michael Loebs (California National Party)

Candidate Declarations
There seems to be a great deal of confusion over who has declared a candidacy for the recall election. I checked many of the references posted for candidates and a lot of the declarations are for the 2022 California gubernatorial election, not this recall election. I'm going to go ahead and remove candidates that have erroneously been added to this page. The authoritative source for candidates that have declared their candidacies in this election is: The authoritative source for candidates for the 2022 election is: Dhalsim2 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Candidates/List.aspx?view=intention&sort=NAME&electid=172&electNav=172
 * https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Candidates/List.aspx?view=intention&sort=RACE&electid=122
 * thank you for your change clarifying what constitutes a declaration. Your change removes some subjectivity over who ought to be included and should make inclusion quite cut-and-dried. The one point of confusion for me, is why you moved some potential candidates back to the declared section when they haven't filed a statement of intent. Can you please clarify? Dhalsim2 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Candidate Citation
There is an official listing of candidates linked to in the references section and cited in the Candidates-Declared subsection right below the title. Due to this there should be no need for a citation proving this for every candidate's name on the list. Rybkovich (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if you make that demand for one candidate you should make it for each of the candidates without such citation. Not doing this makes it appear like there is bias against a specific candidate. Rybkovich (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I missed that there was a single list for all candidates. Thanks for the heads up. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem, I will take out the citation for the official listing from Dan Kapelovitz. Rybkovich (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Newsom will NOT be opening up the state on June 15th as he promised
Governor Newsom today on June 4th stated he would not be opening the state like he promised, which will definitely fuel the Recall effort. This information should be added to the article but I'm not sure what section it would best fit so if someone can correctly add and source the information correctly. Lostfan333 (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your editing is becoming a problem. This statement of what will "definitely" happen is WP:OR based on your own political biases. You present no sources here, and I had to clarify what you're talking about myself. According to sources, many of the restrictions will indeed end, but he won't end the "state of emergency". I don't think any state has ended the "state of emergency" declaration yet. I don't think you're cut out for editing in American politics, and unless you demonstrate some improved judgment, I may look into editing restrictions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. I will use "might" instead of "definitely" from now on. Also, I didn't source a source because I figured it might end up getting deleted anyways and I wanted other opinions. I try to keep my own political views from guiding my words here on Wikipedia. Also, I have realized most of my edits get deleted anyways which is why I'm using the Talk page for major edits that require sources. Thank you for your time. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Falconer endorsements
None have third party sourcing. SecretName101 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Are party labels really necessary?
Party labels don't seem to be necessary since the California Democratic Party opposes the recall, and the California Republican Party supports the recall, and all people with party labels who have endorsed the recall are Republicans, and vice versa, except Bernie Sanders, who is an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not know that it will continue to strictly fall on party lines what side political figures endorse on that question, nor do I think there is a superior way to illustrate the party alignment of endorsements than noting the party of the figures listed SecretName101 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Wildfire cleaning
Hello, I made an addition that was reverted, and I had a question. I'm aware that you're not supposed to add content to an article if the source doesn't mention the subject of the article. For that particular wildfire story source (https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2021/06/gavin-newsom-wildfire-prevention/) it does mention the recall. However, the main sources/scoops (NPR/CapRadio) don't, which is why I did feel like it was a weak addition to begin with, and belonged perhaps on the page for the governor, not here. I think it has some relevance but would appreciate input before I attempt to add an amended version back to the page (if I don't receive input I won't, since my edit was reverted, not amended). This recall page already mentions the bureaucratic levers that have made an earlier recall while mentioning wildfires, so I think an argument could be made that the story shouldn't be here. But the rationale for the reversion was that it was speculation, which at the time of publishing was true, but it's been officially scheduled for September (they bypassed the review of election costs) so if it was speculation, it is speculation that turned out to actually happen....2600:1012:B022:EC15:C8F6:A496:E39D:B6F1 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Images
Just so we have them readily available for if we need them for the infobox after the election is held, I'm compiling a list of the best images for candidates. I will not be able to list all candidates, since not all candidates have public-domain images available.

Right now here are the best, currently-available, images I could find for the following candidates and prospective candidates:

SecretName101 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * John Cox: File:John H. Cox.jpg
 * Kevin Faulconer: File:Kevin Faulconer (cropped) (1).png
 * Caitlyn Jenner: File:Caitlyn Jenner (1).jpeg
 * Doug Ose: File:Dougose (1).jpg or File:Congressional Portrait of Doug Ose (1).jpg
 * Kevin Paffrath: File:Kevin Paffrath (cropped).jpg
 * Joel A. Ventresca: File:Joel Ventresca 2019 (1).png
 * James G. Hanink: File:James G Hanink (1).jpg
 * Mary Carey: File:Mary Carey 2011 (1).jpg or File:Mary Carey AVN 2011 2 (1).jpg
 * Mike Cernovich: File:Mike Cernovich (42451724670) (cropped)1 (1).jpg
 * Richard Grennell: File:Richard Grenell official portrait (2).jpg
 * Randy Quaid: File:Randy Quaid in 2017 (1).jpg or File:Randy Quaid (1).jpg
 * John Moorlach: File:John Moorlach (1).jpg
 * Antonio Villaraigosa: File:AntonioVillaraigosaHWOFMay2013 (1).jpg
 * Nickolas Wildstar: File:Nickolas Wildstar at 2018 California Libertarian Party state convention (01) (a).png
 * SecretName101 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Daniel Mercuri: File:Daniel Mercuri at 25th Congressional District Forum at CSUN (01) (1).png
 * SecretName101 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Jeff Hewitt: File:Jeff Hewitt at 2018 California Libertarian state convention (01) (a).png
 * SecretName101 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Marc A. Roth: File:Marc A. Roth The Learning Shelter 03 (cropped).jpg SecretName101 (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Larry Elder: File:Larry Elder at Camp Pendleton in 2013 (1).jpg SecretName101 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ted Gaines: File:Ted Gaines (1).jpg SecretName101 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes CA debates (from archive)
I added information about the series of gubernatorial debates hosted by Yes California. I figured that people coming to this wiki page seek information and coverage about the candidates, and thought that these debates are comparable to the Free & Equal Debates of the 2020 presidential elections (though admittedly at a smaller scale due to it being a gubernatorial election, rather than a presidential election). Yes California, meets Wikipedia notability requirements and has it's own article. Would it not be appropriate to include these debates in the content of this recall election article? Start The Game Already felt otherwise, removed my contribution, and requested that I discuss it in this talk page first. The request to discuss here seems reasonable, though I disagree with the reasoning for removal. What is the consensus here? Dhalsim2 (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At first I was unsure if YouTube videos qualified and if a more reliable source would be needed, but then I read though the stance on Wikipedia and it sounds reasonable in this case from my understanding. As for YesCA I'm maybe a bit wary on them in general, but it seems they are merely the host for the debates, so I don't think that has a huge impact considering it does provide additional information on participating candidates that isn't currently better provided by other debates. Maybe if more debates are held later the YesCA debates could even be replaced if not simply added to, but that's an issue for later and currently I think it's better left in than out. Kensai97 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the most glaring issue with your addition was the complete lack of third party coverage and the fact that it was self-published (being on YouTube isn't an issue on its own, but it usually means it is self-published, which can be an issue). This page seems to get many views and is seen by administrators, it seems, so if it is as problematic as I claim it is, I expect it should get fixed quickly.
 * See: Video links Identifying and using self-published works.Start The Game Already (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that the debates themselves don't currently meet a threshold of notability for their own sake. However, I believe that they should be included, at least for now potentially until more notable debates occur, not because of coverage of the debates but because of the coverage of the candidates. Dhalsim2 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If these debates are not notable, which you have admitted, then they do not warrant inclusion. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I maintain my stance that those debates are not appropriate for the article and should be removed, but it seems that your claim is not supported by protocol: Notability I think this is just common sense...the organization seems to be run until recently by some sort of Snowden-like dissident turned foreign agent. If it's not deliberate interference, it's exceedingly irrelevant. I don't think anyone who was in Eastern Europe/West Asia in 2020 has the credentials to host a forum to review Newsom's covid policies and how his lockdowns impacted their community.Start The Game Already (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are correct that notability only applies to articles, not specific content. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is the relevant policy here. ― Tartan357  Talk 06:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the debates are notable enough for inclusion. And it almost seems like undue weight is being given to the California independence movement when we keep mentioning Yes California so much. Sucession is not a mainstream issue for this recall election. Prcc27 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I deleted the section again since the majority of posters (who have posted an opinion) here seem to have an issue with it remaining in the article.Start The Game Already (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that I am open to being reverted, since I have become aware that the logic of being "bold" on a second reversion can be considered somewhat dubious...Dhalsim2 restored the edit while staying a desire for a "wider consensus"; I acted on what I thought was a wider consensus...Start The Game Already (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I respect the arguments that have been presented regarding the debates, but I feel that my argument has been misunderstood. Clearly, Yes California is not notable enough for any content on this page to be about them; that was never part of my argument. I contend that the reason for inclusion is because of the content is about the candidates.  This article is extremely sparse on any meaningful information about the positions of the candidates and these debates cover a lot of information about a wide range of candidates.  Just as a presidential election article has a debates section, not to cover the  debate organizations themselves (CPD or LWV before them), but to cover the candidates, these California recall debates offer some insight into candidate platforms.  If you feel that the former Debate section takes up too much of the page, a reasonable argument can be made to support that perspective, and that concern can be addressed by shrinking the section (perhaps by compressing the multiple tables into a single table), but to remove all links to one of the few sources of candidate comparison seems like a significant loss of content.  Dhalsim2 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is tricky. There is very little precedent because it's one of a handful of recall elections. The precedent in the state of California is no recall debates. No debate was held in 2003. And why should we treat this like a normal election? If someone in a traditional workplace was given a performance improvement plan (PIP), does that come with all the traditional niceties like a new job interview (to replace your old first impressions), re-introducing yourself to colleagues, and your bosses re-contacting your references? Likely not. You're fighting for your job while they (likely) seek a replacement.
 * If we want to expand the article to include "the issues", then I think some good places to start would be (some of these are ready in the article): 1. Newsom's covid policies, with candidate statements in support or opposition, and objective assessment (economic damage, lives saved vs. lockdown intensity, polling). Some sub-topics here include: School shutdowns, his dealings with teacher unions, public/parent polling, objective comprison to other states, rationale, etc; Newsom's spending proposals, which some candidates say are irresponsible and political and which others say will help the state and impacted residents recover; Newsom's emergency powers which he has yet to relinquish (unlike every other governor apparently), which opponents say is an abuse of power while supporters say it isn't over yet (since some areas around the world are returning to lockdowns and with the delta variant emerging...etc., this is probably too dynamic to cover completely at the moment, but it is a fact that he is currently the only governor who has retained his emergency powers). 2. Pre-pandemic issues: California politics has been defined by debate over the cost of living and polices that harm free enterprise since the dawn of time. This is already mentioned once here; I'm not sure if it should go beyond that. We don't need to give airtime to an irrelevant Putin-linked group to do any of this.Start The Game Already (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Caitlyn...a "transgender activist"?
On Caitlyn's page, which seems to have dealt with whether to assign her the label of "transgender activist", it appears editors deliberately omitted the label from the lede, as it appears the label is contentious since caitlyn has also been criticized by trans activists.

The article weakly assigns the label in passive voice by saying jenner "has been described" as a trans activist in the following paragraphs, and then contradicts the supposed contentiousness of the label by saying criticism comes from "other trans activists". (keyword: other)

I support including the label on here and on caitlyn's page. activists can disagree. some activists may be more passionate about the cause than others. activists can change their views and positions. for example, caitlyn initially supported trump, thinking his administration would be more trans friendly than it supposedly turned out to be, and then withdrew that support. that could be considered activism, since jenner is a self described conservative, and some would consider this anomaly trend-setting and historical. changing her mind and voicing that publicly is also activism. if jenner decided to come out as trans so publicly, in order to increase the visibility of the trans community, that is activism too.

there aren't really any sources that say Jenner ISNT a trans activist according to my research or absurdly, has intent to advocate in opposition to what she would consider trans interests. i think it would be optimal to have a generously low threshold to apply the "activist" label here, on this page (and on the other one, i suppose). omitting the label is really just a convenient way to avoid solving the question, but it also creates new problems by introducing doubt and suggesting the "activist" label is only earned by people with certain views. just call her an activist. the subject matter is practically irrelevant; nambla does activism, and so did MLK. etc. etc. people can form their opinions from the facts that follow in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:b462:3806:9de:e087:cba0:51c (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I deleted it (diff). Caitlyn Jenner is not a "transgender rights activist". Otherwise, she wouldn't be doing things like this. One line in one WaPo article about her campaign announcement is not enough to use that phrase. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit like it's questionably SYNTH to just say that, since she has a stance that even within the trans community she isn't alone in, she is unable to be referred to as a trans activist as she is described in other sources as well. All it means is that in the instance of sports in which competitors are in different leagues based on sex, the overall trans community is not a complete monolith and Jenner happens to fall in one camp that not all agree with, but that doesn't negate how much work she has put in for stances which are more uniformly accepted as major issues faced by trans individuals. That said, it's not exactly the sort of thing where sources will come up specifically referring to her as "not a trans activist" for example, so despite the sourced material (and there are others besides just the one WaPo article) perhaps some evidence, on the talk page at least, demonstrating that it is the dominant thought that "you can't be a trans activist unless you support this" would be helpful. Anyway, I don't think I'll be reverting it myself, but it would probably good if others weigh in on the matter. Kensai97 (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reconsidered whether to revert. I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but I looked into Caitlyn Jenner's main page to see what, if anything, was said on the issue there. Apparently there was overwhelming consensus to include this information in her lede with no further discussion on the issue since May when most of the discussion occurred since it only seemed to become debatable at the end of April after the mentioned NBC article was published. Ultimately, between the multiple sources describing her as such specifically in reference to her candidacy and it being a notable enough aspect to be included in her main page's lede, it warrants being included in her candidate description here. Kensai97 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit war over changes in election law section
Regarding this edit, the only thing that I see in this section that already exists elsewhere in the article is the fact that 43 voters requested to have their names removed from the recall petition. While we can debate whether that fact is worth repeating (I think it is), that is not an excuse to remove the entire section. Banana Republic (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See the message I left on the original reverter's talk page. I'm not going to edit war over this anymore, but you're incorrect about that being the "only thing". The addition (and the new addition) were already heavily covered. Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page. The additions need to be heavily changed at the very least in my opinion. See here: User talk:JPxG/Archive8 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote at JPxG's talk page. I don't think what you presented is repetition. I think the information in the section in question (about election law) gives background to the paragraph you cited, not repetition. Banana Republic (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can agree with that. There is still room for improvement. For example, the $215 million and $250 million figures conflict. How much was actually allocated by bill # 152? We need to fix this.2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the reference used in the background section, SB152 allocated $250 million. After SB152 was signed into law, the Dept of Finance approximated the cost at $276 million. At this point, it's not clear where the extra $26 million will come from. Banana Republic (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok so $215 million was the original estimate by county election officials for a November election, $250 million was allocated by the state, then (probably due to bumping up the election date to September AFTER the county officials' $215 million estimate was made) the estimate was bumped up to $276 million? This is important to cover correctly, because there have been many complaints about the recall election's cost ironically coming from people who seem to have made it more expensive... 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia has "room for improvement". Happy editing. Banana Republic (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Results section
Not all candidates are in the results section. Prcc27 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Who is missing? Capisred (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably the 4 that were certified after the judge threw out the tax return requirement. But it doesn't matter. The 4 missing candidates will appear once the results of the election are in. For now, the table is just a template. Banana Republic (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be hidden right now then of it's just a template? I don't see the point if having an empty, incomplete results table. Prcc27 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguments can be made to both keeping it, and to hiding it.
 * Argument to keep: it tells the reader that the table exists and ready to be populated once results come in.
 * Argument to hide: the table contains no information other than the information in the argument to keep.
 * Since the table will eventually get unhidden once the results come in, it doesn't really matter if it's hidden or shown. Banana Republic (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see a results table on the 2020 presidential election page two months prior to the election:  It seems redundant, given the list of candidates. Alternatively, we could remove the list of candidates in favor of a results table (I personally would prefer a table format given the volume of information). The endorsements section (tables) looks much neater than the candidate list in my opinion. Or perhaps we could have one big table with candidates, labels, endorsements, and result? That would have the potential to be the best possible way to display this information if properly done, I think. I have no idea how to make such a table so my contribution to the group project probably ends here. 2600:1012:B04B:5F9:A9A9:9A4A:7A54:E345 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The list gives a little more information about each candidate (when applicable). At the moment, the table gives nothing, but it will ultimately only give the number of votes each candidate received. Note that when it's all said and done, we're going to add a handful of write-in candidates who will surely join this circus. There were over 20 write-ins in the 2003 recall. Banana Republic (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Speaking as a signatory of the recall petition, I do acknowledge there are certainly "circus"-like aspects of this race, given the low barrier to entry. However, I think there are also very serious issues at play, including things that still need coverage on this page, like emergency powers and mail-in ballots. That said, I guess it must mean we have a decent page here, if it's been written and largely sustained by editors with varying views. 2600:1012:B04B:5F9:A9A9:9A4A:7A54:E345 (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried hiding the list, but my edit was reverted. I added a template since the list is incomplete. Prcc27 (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What I saw was delete the list, and I put it back as a hidden list. I think my reasoning for later un-hiding the list is that I didn't want editors to delete what appears to be an empty section.
 * We clearly don't want to delete the table, since it will come in handy after September 14 as results start to pour in. Banana Republic (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than putting an template, just add the 4 missing names. Banana Republic (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have again deleted the list. There's no sense in having a results section for an election that hasn't happened yet. Feel free to keep it in a sandbox or user space until the election completes. A draft-space article might also be a good way to prepare material before it's appropriate to add here. Please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion is absolutely inappropriate. This is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. By September 14 there will be results. We shouldn't have to search through the history of the page to look for the table template. Banana Republic (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm open to a draft-space. But honestly, what's wrong with just having the results section hidden? I concur with Banana Republic that this isn't a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Prcc27 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Fundraising table
Should we turn the fundraising section into a table or tables? 2600:1012:B021:43EE:DC6C:333C:3484:D962 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good idea. Banana Republic (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Louis J. Marinelli former anti same-sex marriage activist

 * I added "former anti same-sex marriage activist" in Louis J. Marinelli's candidate description on the article, but it looks like it has been removed. Can we please restore it? Prcc27 (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I went through the edit history, and it looks like someone made Marinelli's description verbose by adding that he now supports same-sex marriage. Another user removed the same-sex marriage description entirely saying "sorta autistic to include this". Given this is an appalling edit summary to give as a reason, I've decided to restore my edit for the time being. Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that says 2021 recall candidate Marinelli is a former marriage activist, add it. You need your source to mention the 2021 recall before it can be a source on here. If it doesn't say anything about the recall, it doesn't belong here. Every name and label on that list should be cited properly now; it may still need to be double-checked. You added information that was not properly cited, so it was deleted. 2600:1012:B005:1145:F9D4:EA9D:1C61:D364 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does the source describing a candidate need to cite the recall? It's as if sources written prior to the recall don't count. Banana Republic (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question, seems like an arbitrary rule. Prcc27 (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that rule #1 was that if a source does not mention the topic of the article, it cannot be a source, because otherwise it is original research / synth. WP: OR WP: SYNTH. Is there an exception for something like this? I thought this was like a holy grail rule on Wikipedia, not an excessively bureaucratic rule that is rarely followed. 174.193.195.63 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A reference does not have to mention everything. Here is what WP:SYNTH says:  Banana Republic (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your recent "alt-right" edit re: cernovich isn't cited--the source doesn't include the label "alt-right". I am not aware of a source that mentions the 2021 recall and "alt right" activist cernovich, and if there was one, I would add it so we could retain the label...On WP:OR it says "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." So we need a source that is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to the 2021 recall. Then, we must use whatever label is in the source, verbatim, here. So I don't think we can say "alt right" here...if I am wrong, then I have fundamentally misunderstood two of the central maxims of wikipedia for quite some time... 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The "alt-right" description is used in the first sentence in Mr. Cernovich's article. Banana Republic (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that, but is Wikipedia a reliable source on Wikipedia? See: Reliable source examples 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The link is provided to the the article. The idea is to summarize the article with only a few words. Using the first sentence from the article therefore seems like a good choice. If you think the "alt-right" description is problematic, take it up at the biographical article talk page. Banana Republic (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I decided to go the easy route by finding a proper source, see my recent edit. 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although you did a good job of finding references that say exactly what you put, an anonymous editor from Plymouth (in the UK) keeps removing the descriptions (here and here). I put a note on their talk page, so hopefully they'll stop removing it. Banana Republic (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. From the UK? Interesting. Maybe someone is interested in this because Meghan can vote in it and wants to appropriate the idea for the UK by holding an election to vote out their own local monarch? Who knows; the world is a big and strange place. 2600:1010:B012:3343:50E3:18B0:DB95:4D33 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to consider registering. The way Wikipedia works, unregistered users have less privacy than registered users. I can tell that you are connecting using a AT&T Wireless based out of San Leandro, California. Banana Republic (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An unregistered user from Russia changed Marinelli's description before, which is sus, given his ties to Russia. Prcc27 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe add an horizonal line to the recall question poll graph marking the 50% threshold?
Just a thought. 50% is the important threshold, since a majority of the vote voting "yes on recall" is needed for the recall to succeed. SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * by this, I mean a thicker line than the one used for other percentage marks. SecretName101 (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That would actually be a good idea. But rather than putting in the legend what the thicker line means, since it's not a graph, just a visual aid, I would suggest annotating the plot to say that the thicker line is the "recall threshold". Banana Republic (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , my whole point in reverting was that the ballot has no undecided. Having this line on the polling graph, where the polls do have an undecided, is misleading. 50% of the yes/no vote is needed, not 50% of yes/no/undecided. Say, for instance, the polling is 45% yes, 40% no, 15% undecided. If that holds on election day, yes will get >50%. But the polling line will be below that 50% line. You're talking about 50% of two different, incomparable things. And since there's just the two options on the ballot, the one with more votes will necessarily have >50%, which makes this threshold line also unnecessary. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll let others chime in (especially since I'm not the one who brought up the idea), but I don't think it's misleading nor confusing. The undecided will either not vote, or break one way or the other, either adding to the "yes" or to the "no". The purpose of the line is to show which side is closer to this threshold of 50%, or can even beat the threshold even with some undecided. Bottom line: I don't think the fact that polls also give respondents the option to answer "undecided" makes the line any less useful nor confusing. Banana Republic (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , if the purpose of the line is to show which side is closer to this threshold of 50%, then that same purpose is served by whichever polling line is currently on top. There's zero value added by the line towards that purpose. It just adds confusion, because 50% on the polling graph is a higher threshold than 50% in the election. You're comparing apples to oranges. ― Tartan357  Talk 22:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which curve is on top only tells the reader which side is ahead. It does not tell the reader which side is closer to victory. That's what the horizontal line is for. If one side is very close to the horizontal line (or even above the horizontal line) then it's game over. Banana Republic (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, that's not how it works at all. Whichever curve is on top is above 50% of the expected vote. That's the way it works when there are only two choices. 50% of the polling number is different than 50% of the vote, because the polling number has three options, not just the two that will be on the ballot. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are saying would only be true if the undecided broke half to each side, but that's never the case. For example, if one side is 42%, and the other side is 40% with 18% undecided, the 42% side is far from assured a victory. On the other hand, if one side is 49% and the other side is 45%, the 49% side is pretty much assured a victory. Banana Republic (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're saying now. You're working with the assumption that the people who responded "undecided" to the poll will vote, which I suppose is a fine assumption to make. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Polls show a snapshot of support. It is also an assumption to say that people who responded siding in support or opposition of the recall will show up at the polls. Furthermore, the sample on a large portion of the polls charted actually have been identified as solely consisting of individuals identified as "likely voters".SecretName101 (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I am confused at the premise of your argument that undecided voters somehow not showing up at the polls would change this? If one choices is above the 50% threshold when undecided voters are included, then it'd be even further above that threshold if the undecided voters are excluded from the sample. Having the threshold line helps illustrate which polls show enough support for an option that, if the poll proves accurate in predicting the vote, that option would carry the election. Any poll where an option registers above 50% demonstrates such a level of support for a ballot option. However, any poll where neither option exceeds 50%, shows a snapshot in which, factoring in the undecided vote, the result is indeterminate even if it accurately reflects the decided electorate's ultimate votes on election day. SecretName101 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Bloat in the section on campaign history
The Campaign-History section of this article seems bloated with several entries that are only very tangentially related to the subject of the California gubernatorial recall election. I am inclined to edit this section to remove these excessive, largely irrelevant materials. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia editing so I wanted to put this out here and hear what people think before I made any such edits. It seems to me that this is supposed to be an article about the recall campaign. The "history" section should be a history of the recall, not just a place to dump factoids about political controversies involving Gavin Newsom or COVID-19 that happened to have occurred during the recall campaign. For example, the second paragraph about his "Zoom" comments controversy has no direct relationship to the recall election, other than the fact that Newsom is a politician in a recall election and this is a controversy about Newsom. The events in this section are also sometimes framed with an unduly negative slant. For instance, the paragraph about Newsom's decision not to immediately implement the CDC's May 2021 mask guidance quotes an expert criticizing his decision, without noting that the CDC's May 2021 guidance was and remains very controversial and numerous experts did not support implementing it. But more to the point, this episode is not particularly informative to someone interested in the history of the recall campaign, and would more appropriately go in an article about Gavin Newsom or COVID-19. One could of course edit these items to add more information and balance, but where would it end? It seems like the better course is to remove the bloat and limit this section to events that bear a clear and direct relationship to the history of the recall campaign. I would be interested in hearing reasoned responses from others who would agree or disagree with substantially trimming the fat from this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejaype (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, anything that Newsom does that is considered controversial (i.e. used against him during the recall) can and should be listed. Of course, it has to be listed in the right proportion per WP:DUE. Banana Republic (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLOAT and WP:FRINGE. I completely disagree with your statement that the Biden CDC's guidance was "very controversial"...it was based on overwhelming scientific consensus that said vaccines were highly effective at stopping death and severe illness as well as transmission. Mask mandates are not harmless. Neither is a year of virtual school with minimal in-person interaction. Newsom made policy choices that affected many millions of peoples' lives, who now have an opportunity to vote him out, and who may be reading this page. Are you telling me the information in that section is not of value to a reader who dislikes masks and wonders why they were forced to wear one for a whole month while residents of every other state largely shed them? Are you telling me Newsom's "Zoom school" comment is irrelevant to a parent who might be reading this page whose child flunked their year of "Zoom school"? Every piece of information in that section is sourced with high quality sources and relates to the recall. If you think it puts an undue microscope on one guy...well, he's had "emergency powers" for well over a year, and while wielding them, millions of people decided they wanted him out, what else would belong there?


 * You need to outline specific things you would change first, which you haven't done--you said you would like to go straight to "cutting the fat". That isn't how things are done here; many discerning editors have reviewed what is currently there many times, and removing sourced information that has existed in an article for a long time is not appropriate. Unless you give specific proposals, I'm not sure you've stated a case to make any changes to this article as it currently exists. Having an opinion is fine, but Wikipedia is merely a reflection of the broad and influential public record, and those are some pretty authoritative sources in that section...what you read here is what they were pumping out over the past year. It may be unduly harsh but it also might just be accurately covering someone's bad actions, which is the role Wikipedia plays sometimes. 174.193.206.248 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add--the "Zoom School" remark wasn't tangentially related--it was in the context of a public outreach effort when it was obvious the recall would occur, in March 2021. He referenced his "Zoom school" struggles at the "State of the State" at Dodger Stadium, widely described as a response to the recall. I don't see how anyone can provide any sort of good faith argument that his comments are irrelevant to the recall if they know their context. By the way, I made the prior comment--my IP address changes whenever my phone switches interweb towers. 2600:1012:B046:D880:7C3E:D7DF:E3CB:2C5B (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I added a sentence which links the "zoom school" statement to the recall. It was literally part of his first public outreach effort when the recall was certain, so unless you still think it's not relevant, I just see you have an issue with the CDC mask interpretation. That part includes a quote by Newsom's health guy, Ghaly, and one from a highly cited expert on mask wearing and infectious disease. I'm not sure how we can add "balance" to this to improve the article. It's just facts and quotes of relevant people, mostly Norcal academics. Just for a bit of perspective, the archetypal request for more "balance" in a situation like this is someone who wants a Tucker or Hannity quote thrown in (I think)...we're sort of at the end of a road here, I am sorry if you think it paints a picture that is too ugly to be here, but I think that is way too relevant to exclude, and I do think it is ugly... 2600:1012:B046:D880:7C3E:D7DF:E3CB:2C5B (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't even include anything about the current drought, which is as bad as or worse than prior droughts, and the state would have already had mandatory restrictions at this point. Like literally, there is likely ongoing drought mismanagement for political purposes, to not upset voters, because of the recall. If anything, I think this article is missing critical information. I'll wait for more input before I make any drought additions though. 2600:1012:B046:D880:7C3E:D7DF:E3CB:2C5B (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there are reliable sources that mention the drought being a recall issue, I don't think it should he included. Prcc27 (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The main question I was raising was what is the test of relevance to the topic of campaign history. According to one commenter above, "anything that Newsom does that is considered controversial (i.e. used against him during the recall) can and should be listed". That seems to me a rather broad statement of how we should test relevance to the history of the recall campaign (and hopefully in any case would not only encompass those facts that could be "used against" Newsom). I am reluctant to make deletions for the good reasons some have stated here, and can roll with the idea that the test of relevance for this subject heading encompasses all political controversies relevant to the recall. Another question one of the commenters above raised was what I would change to add balance, and expressed incredulity that I would assert the CDC May 2021 guidance was and is controversial. As regards this example, I am not here to debate COVID-19, or the virtues and drawbacks of masking. I do however think it is pretty obvious the CDC guidance change in May was and is controversial. It took me very little searching to find articles discussing how public health experts were divided on this at the time. More recently, the Trump Administration's surgeon own general publicly called the May CDC guidance a big mistake. Again, not here to debate the mask mandate, but to point out that it was controversial among experts and that a balanced treatment would acknowledge the controversy, including by quoting at least one public health expert expressing skepticism or opposition to the CDC's move, to balance the quotation to the contrary from health expert Monica Ghandi. So I merely point out that on a controversial issue of the time, a lot is said to criticize Newsom as being out of step with the science, politically motivated, etc, but there doesn't appear to be much balance in noting that the CDC's move was controversial and widely considered a big and startling change by many experts. I also note that quoting Ghaly, who is an appointed member of the administration, does not provide such balance, since a reader would view him as a voice of the administration rather than an outside expert, nor does his quotation hint at the issues I just noted as to the debates occurring at the time. Deejaype (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ghaly has an MD and is a credentialed public health expert. He isn't a quack stooge recruited from an online herbal medicine diploma mill in the Pitcairn Islands to say what Newsom tells him to say. Both he and Dr. Gandhi put their reputations on the line with their statements, and this article presents both of them dispassionately as far as I can tell. If you can find a more nuanced defense from Ghaly, I think that would be a welcome addition, but adding the opinion of another expert risks making it imbalanced, with two experts defending California's mask deviation. I think everyone knows the purpose of mask mandates, but not having mask mandates is also a defensible position, as "do no harm" must factor into public health/medicine ethics, and I would imagine readers are less familiar with legitimate public health arguments made against mask wearing, since the events over the past year may lead some to conclude that the field of public health is myopically focused on managing vectors. That is part of it, but social/behavioral aspects of public health are just as important of a consideration, and it isn't just placating people who dislike masks, it's implementing the least harmful policy. I think you may think it is imbalanced because of the irony of the social/behavioral side of the public health establishment aligning with the right-leaning mask-hesitant, if that is so, I don't blame you, because I think that is a very weird alignment. 2600:1012:B055:FC5F:3D14:E700:6FCE:4D29 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC) TL;DR Dr. Ghaly is also an expert and what we have now are two experts' statements on either side of a public health/medical issue, which seems balanced to me. 2600:1012:B055:FC5F:3D14:E700:6FCE:4D29 (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted Deejayp's good faith addition so we can get additional input, please see recent diffs. 2600:1012:B021:43EE:DC6C:333C:3484:D962 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Deejaype, this page: WP:BRD might be helpful...your comments here are most certainly welcome. 174.193.152.210 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your decision to revert this addition of an accurate, factual quotation by an independent expert balancing the opinion of the quoted Monica Gahndi. Gahndi's quotation, standing alone, misleadingly implies that the decision not to immediately implement the CDC guidance at that time flew in the face of expert opinion, when in fact the whole issue was the subject of much debate at the time among independent experts, and the administration's decision occurred in that context. Ghaly's quotation does not provide that context, and he is not an independent expert, he is an administration spokesperson. Whether he has credentials of his own or not is irrelevant. Your removal of factual information makes the article less informative, and misleadingly simplifies the context of the administration's decision with the result of casting it in a simplistic, overly negative light. I think you've explained your thinking here at length but I just disagree. Let's consider though another example, the Kaiser Health News story about the funding of public health agencies. I believe you reverted an edit of mine there again, if I'm not mistaken? Not clear why. Deejaype (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would help if you put links to the reverts. With links, it would help uninvolved editors (such as msyelf) better understand which reverts you are referring to. Banana Republic (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I restored Deejaype's Ghaly/Gandhi-relevant contribution (while deleting Ghaly's quote) and I think it was a reasonable compromise which considered both of our concerns. I didn't restore the other contribution (concerning the 2022 public health funding newsom didn't even originally propose) because it seems hardly relevant to the recall. The story this contribution had followed concerns contractors contributing to Newsom's campaigns, including the recall. It seems like important information given some $13 billion was spent by the state on the COVID crisis (per calmatters or LA times, I think) for readers/voters, who used "MyTurn", testing, and other services provided by the state, and the governor gave no-bid contracts to these private entities, who now fund his campaign. I'm not even sure if this is universally considered "negative" information; there are probably plenty of people out there who would prefer the private sector over the public sector for those things, and government unions (both before and after Janus) donate to politicians all the time, which in the abstract is an identitical monopolistic (cough, corrupt) patronage arrangement. Regardless, it's all presented there, and readers can decide how they feel about the information they read on their own. 2600:1010:B012:3343:50E3:18B0:DB95:4D33 (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that compromise re Gahndi/Ghaly. Re the presentation of the Kaiser Health News article about outsourcing, I still maintain it is unbalanced. I agree that readers should make up their own minds whether outsourcing is in itself positive or negative, but here the only information provided as to its impacts was that it involved campaign contributors and was associated with "denying local public health departments' requests for funding." So if, as you now assert, the levels of public health funding are irrelevant to this entry, then I'd suggest shortening the quotation to remove the phrase: "while denying local public health departments' requests for funding." Alternatively, if denying these agencies funding is somehow relevant to the recall campaign, then it would be hard to imagine how subsequently giving them additional funding is not similarly relevant. BTW to the commenter who requested a link to the reverts, I would be happy to do so but am sorry to admit I don't know how. If someone would care to provide a resource on that, I'd appreciate it, the Wikipedia article on reverts doesn't seem to directly tackle that. Cheers. Deejaype (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Deejaype has few contributions so you can find those edits in said user's history. I am removing the public health funding per your concern 2600:1012:B00B:A1E0:2C47:F84D:84E5:D544 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Same Link
Greetings! I have just made a rather large edit where I used this link to get some sort of bio/occupation for every candidate, and I realize I have made a big mistake! Normally, when you put the same link in an endorsements box, it puts the same number citation for that link, but I am now realizing that this was not the case here. I am very sorry and will try and fix this mishap if nobody does it sooner! Keep up the great work, all of you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capisred (talk • contribs)
 * Great addition, and looks like it was a lot of work--kudos. 2600:1012:B04B:5F9:A9A9:9A4A:7A54:E345 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

duplicate endorsements do not automatically consolidate. See wp:REFNAME to learn how to consolidate them. SecretName101 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also see Help:Footnotes SecretName101 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Tax Return Disclosure text
I propose to edit the following: "A requirement that gubernatorial candidates disclose their recent tax returns was added in 2019 (alongside a tax return disclosure requirement in presidential primary elections aimed at stopping the re-election of Donald Trump, which was struck down in court) after Newsom signed Senate Bill 27 into law." I propose to delete the parenthetical about presidential tax returns and Donald Trump, as it is not relevant to the recall election, and also makes the sentence needlessly wordy. In addition, I don't think it is accurate to describe SB 27 as "aimed at stopping the re-election of Donald Trump." This piece of legislation was "aimed" at disclosure of tax returns. While its proponents probably were against Trump, it would be literally impossible for SB 27 or any other enactment of the California State Legislature to "stop" Trump's re-election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejaype (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the words "aimed at stopping the re-election of Donald Trump" need to be rewritten, as it is inaccurate. But there is no doubt that Trump was the main target of the law. Banana Republic (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I shifted the parenthetic statement to a footnote. Banana Republic (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Link to Stop Recall Site?
Should we not link to https://stoptherepublicanrecall.com/ if we are linking to every candidate website. Mpen320 (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, but don't put that in the same section as all the replacement candidates. Banana Republic (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Campaign directory
I have again removed the link farm of campaign websites from this article. Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, "if the subject of the article has more than one official website", we consider including a few. The subject of this article is the election itself, not the individual candidates or their campaigns. An EL to the California State website is already given, with a candidate list; and other information is also linked at the state websites. That's quite adequate. Campaign website links belong on the web pages of the individual candidates. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We already have a candidate list in the article. Official campaign websites are some of the most relevant external links we can have for an election article, and they're not in the official candidate list. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL allows for multiple official websites if they're distinct in content. The only reason you're calling it a link farm is that there are a lot of websites, but that's because there are a lot of candidates. Our guidelines against excessive external links and "link farms" are designed to prevent spam, not legitimately helpful links. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The individual campaigns are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL allows the links to the different campaigns in the statement More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites.. Certainly, each campaign website is a uniquely different, and naturally the different campaign websites do not link to each other. Banana Republic (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're ignoring "... are not prominently linked from other official websites". There are many directories for this information; those should be linked instead. The guideline also explains that WP is not a directory, and the official sites should be about the subject of the article -- that's the election itself, not the individual candidates and their opinions or donation requests. Please don't put words in my mouth: I'm calling the section a link farm because it's a list of links that are better maintained elsewhere. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can find a website that provides easy links to all the campaign websites currently listed then by all means we ought to replace the list that we maintain here with a link to an existing site that links to all the individual campaign web sites. You did not give an example of such a site, so I cannot evaluate whether the site would be a good substitute to the list that we currently maintain.
 * The election is the sum of all the individual campaigns. Therefore, it is absolutely legitimate to link to campaign websites.
 * Please note that most of those campaign websites will disappear within a year. At that point, we can remove them. Unlike references, non-working external links can get deleted.
 * Banana Republic (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The Orrin Heatlie endorsement of Kevin Kiley
Per WP:ENDORSE, "For a political endorsement to be included on a list of endorsements; the endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one." While it is doubtful that Mr. Heatlie is entitled to an article, since he is notable for only one thing, the recall, and this is the article for the recall, I do think that within this article his endorsement is notable. WP:ENDORSE also says that "whether or not it is necessary for the person to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level." I hereby support the inclusion of the Orrin Heatlie endorsement of Kevin Kiley as was done in this edit, but I did clarify his role in this recall election. Banana Republic (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems he has been deleted again. I have actually changed my mind here--it's a slippery slope with including endorsers who lack an article here. There's speculation that he may become a political "player" by playing a more prominent role in politics and so he may get his own wiki article then. Even if that comes after the election, it can be added then to provide encyclopedic value to this page (assuming political pages get attention after it's all done lol). I just deleted a bunch of other "non notables" from the endorsement list. Let's just keep it simple and avoid disagreements over trivialities by adhering to whatever wikipedia policy page you cited? Time flies and this will be over in a few weeks. 2600:1012:B01E:C863:E119:D565:2395:451 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone keeps reverting my changes; since it was WP:BOLD anyway, I won't revert again, but I think the changes I made should be considered. The endorsement section has many issues. 2600:1012:B011:FB2D:E175:9FEF:F025:E2F9 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Picture for James G. Hanink
Greetings! I love the images with captions above the notable candidates under each party section, it looks fantastic. I noticed that somebody put a photo and caption of James G. Hanink in the no party preference section. I recently spent hours created a draft for Joel Ventresca that was denied, and I was hoping that if the article was created, I could put his photo in the Democrat section, but I belive the criteria to have the photo and caption is that you must have your own wikipedia page. What are the rules for this sort of thing? Capisred (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Edit was made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SecretName101 - Added Ventresca, Mercuri, Wildstar, and Hanink

Predictions
There are currently 2 predictions in the article that are for the 2022 gubernatorial election– not the 2021 recall. They should be excluded. Prcc27 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely delete anything not relevant to the recall. 2600:1012:B008:994A:9D43:1F06:925C:E2D4 (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Cook and Sabato both released articles relevant to the recall and said that their predictions apply to the recall. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , then cite those, not the predictions that say 2022. ― Tartan357  Talk 18:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability issues with endorsements and photographs (and COI too)
This page is becoming a place for self-promotion, with what appear to be editors with clear conflicts of interest attempting to put their likeness etc. on here. I'd like to advocate for a slimming down of the candidate and endorsements section, some of which is repeating what I wrote above:


 * Endorsements should adhere to what is clear policy here-we need explicit endorsements, covered by secondary sources. This means neither a tweet from the endorser nor a website of the endorser should suffice for inclusion on here. Moreover, the endorser must have their/its own wikipedia article to be notable enough to be on here. This is ideal, I think, and it is such a slippery slope if you deviate from that.


 * Candidate pictures should only be here if the subject is notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. I am not citing any specific policy here (above, I am most certainly...WP:ENDORSE), but it seems to be in the spirit of notability requirements here and elsewhere. 2600:1012:B011:FB2D:E175:9FEF:F025:E2F9 (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am removing all photos per 1-2-0 (for/neutral/against) consensus reached here. 2600:1012:B008:994A:9D43:1F06:925C:E2D4 (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe tweets from a person with a Wikipedia article should count. For example, Tim Dillon has talked about his support for Jenner on his show many times, and his tweet stating his endorsement in plain and simple terms should count as a valid source, since he is notable and has a verified account with many followers. Capisred (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ENDORSE is quite clear that that is improper, and what is on that WP page was not decided by a few editors on a whim: Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_164%23RfC_on_inclusion_criteria_for_lists_of_political_endorsements I think you need to consider the notability of the endorsement, not the endorser. They need not be lumped together. I am going to attempt to properly source that section, and if a secondary source is unavailable, I'll omit the name. 2600:1012:B011:FB2D:E175:9FEF:F025:E2F9 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I tagged endorsers with problematic sources. We need to remove those if reliable secondary sources can't be found per WP:ENDORSE. 2600:1012:B011:FB2D:1CB9:55D9:CE3:9C45 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We should not be weighting candidates in the section dedicated to listing each candidates names. If we are including photographs, include photographs of each candidate with an image that has a public-domain/compatible creative commons license. Otherwise, exclude the images altogether. SecretName101 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am all for removing all photos. A picture is worth a thousand words and this article is long enough already. 2600:1012:B011:FB2D:1CB9:55D9:CE3:9C45 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't object to removing all the photos. Prcc27 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree, given that other articles have the similar picture format, and for the average person, a face is more recognizable than a name. It makes the article more aesthetically pleasing to the average reader. Perhaps using a format like 2022 Florida's 20th congressional district special election would work??Capisred (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My biggest concerns were having it dominate the page (and you do have a point, that can be mitigated with smaller formats) as well as uncalled for favoritism. I'd support photographs if everyone was included and if it was discrete and "aesthetically pleasing" as you say (show it here BEFORE it goes live on the page...so everyone can review it). And make sure every photograph is properly sourced with copyrights and all that. It seems like the consensus now is 2 in favor of photographs for all or none, one seemingly neutral, and you in favor of including photographs. So including photos is appropriate, as long as everyone has one. Happy open source photo hunting... 2600:1012:B059:31AD:2D86:C28B:90F5:D5AC (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the format from 2022 Florida's 20th congressional district special election would be better than nothing in my opinion, basically only having photos from candidates notable enough to have a wiki article (I understand it might be favoritism in a way, but normally having a wikipedia article and a creative commons photo on the internet parallel how notable you are). Is there a way to make a collapsable insert that won't take up too much space on the page, but could still be easily accessable? That might work? I want to find some sort of compromise, I think having photos on the page is a net positive. I'm a newer user, is it possible to have a collapsible gallery? Cheers. Capisred (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. Plenty of nobodies have creative commons images of them on the internet. And I do not think we should be elevating certain candidates over others in a race where the dynamics are such that there is hardly a "top tier" of candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that not all election candidates are having their photos. The photos are easily available from the candidate's official campaign websites.

Secondary sources for endorsements
I'm not sure I fully agree with this edit (which was done in good faith) requiring sources independent of the campaign to list endorsements. While WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred, WP:PRIMARY are not strictly prohibited. I would also not categorize the endorsements listed in the campaign website as a strictly WP:PRIMARY reference, because the campaign website is a secondary reference as far as the person (or entity) making the endorsement is concerned. If a campaign were to falsely claim an endorsement that would generate lots of news, and under such a scenario, we could list the endorsement as "disputed". Banana Republic (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the endorsements section is inherently problematic because third party coverage is sparse and not really a reflection of what is notable. You might get an endorsement written about here and there, and some notable ones might not even be covered by third parties. And when you begin to accept primary sources, given anyone can make a website and write up an endorsement, it all goes downhill from there. Perhaps we should search similar election pages for endorsement lists to see if this even is the norm. It seems voter catalog-y or ballotpedia-y to include endorsements and Wikipedia isn't a voter information guide. My prediction is that most pages on here don't have an endorsements list, and that the entire section should disappear. It also might create huge biases in favor of some candidates (who already are given increased exposure on here with their own pages) who get huge swathes of article space to list every single endorsement while other candidates get none. I'm in favor of wiping out the whole section, unless I go on to discover endorsement tables are a common thing on here. 174.193.152.210 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorsements and Political endorsements are pretty explicit that "reliable and independent sources" are required . A campaign website for the candidate in question cannot be called an "independent source". SecretName101 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Side note, some primary sources ARE allowed. For instance, a notable organization's own website can be cited as a reference for its endorsement of a candidate. SecretName101 (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Political endorsements, Endorsements by individuals must be referenced to one or more sources that are both reliable and independent of the endorser. The campaign website is certainly independent of the endorser (with the exception of the candidate or their family members endorsing the candidate), and should be considered reliable about the campaign. Banana Republic (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A primary source about a campaign (its own campaign website) is most certainly NOT a reliable source about a campaign on matters such as this. SecretName101 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A campaign is the most reliable source for its own endorsements. All secondary references would have to rely on the campaign to report on the endorsements (unless the endorsers are interviewed separately by the secondary reference). As for the validity of the endorsements for this election, endorsements are valid until election day unless withdrawn prior to election day. Therefore, all announced endorsements for the 2022 election would still be valid for this recall since it's for the same office and the same candidate, unless the endorsers has pulled the endorsement. Banana Republic (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No it is not. No organization would have greater incentive to fabricate endorsements for a candidate than a candidates own campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fabricating an endorsement is too big of a risk that is rarely taken. Most often, an endorsement would be listed by mistake due to a misunderstanding rather than fabrication. There is little to gain from the fabricated endorsement, and lots to lose if the endorsers come out saying that they did not endorse the candidate.
 * Specifically in the case we are discussing, The Orange County Register (as reprinted in the Pasadena Star News) explicitly published the names of two endorsers (Pat Bates and Janet Nguyen who represent Orange County) along with the phrase he’s drawn endorsements from most GOP state lawmakers. This pretty much confirms the press release in the campaign website, and the story is from June 10, when it was already clear that a recall will be happening. Banana Republic (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because you assume it is a "big risk that is rarely taken" does not make it good practice to assume campaigns are reliable when reporting endorsements. Just a few examples of politicians (big and small) fabricating endorsements:
 * Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign released a list of endorsements of his "Douglas Plan", with many on that list coming forward subsequently to refute the campaign's claims that they had endorsed the plan
 * Republicans faking endorsements from Trump
 * Bernie Sanders running ads falsely claiming news endorsements
 * Bernie Sanders claiming the endorsement of Brenda Romero (a Hillary Clinton supporter) in 2016
 * Essex County, NJ sheriff candidate faking endorsement from Newark mayor
 * Corey Stewart publishing a fabricated endorsement list of 130 "faith leaders" during his Virginia gubernatorial campaign
 * Fake endorsements used for Sadiq Kahn's anti-knife campaign
 * Brooklyn city councilman faking endorsements in campaign literature for his reelection
 * Seemingly fake endorsement touted by leading candidate for Democratic nomination in 2017 Minnesota gubernatorial election
 * City council candidate in Sandy Springs faking endorsement quote
 * Texas U.S. Senate candidate fabricating endorsements
 * Oklahoma State House candidate distributing mailer with made-up endorsement quote
 * SCCOE Board candidate faking endorsement
 * Local Florida candidate fabricating letter of support from Obama
 * Alabama mayoral candidate faking endorsement from a college football coach
 * SecretName101 (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I got to hand it to you. You did a very nice job of researching all those false endorsements. I don't want to spend the time to look at each and every one of those cases, but I did look into the Bernie Sanders case, and as I expected, the reference itself said that the campaign's use of the words "endorsed by" was a mistake that was swiftly corrected.
 * Getting back to the topic at hand, the Kevin Faulconer endorsements, while I'm not saying that it's impossible to fabricate endorsements, the fact that the endorsements were announced back in February (when he first announced his campaign) and nobody has come forward to refute those endorsements means that it is highly unlikely that they were fabricated.
 * We don't know how well the reporter who wrote article that I referenced did her research. Therefore, even though she explicitly named two of the endorsements and lumped the rest with the single phrase "he’s drawn endorsements from most GOP state lawmakers" does not necessarily ensure that there were no errors (I, for one, seriously doubt she called the 15 lawmakers, or even just the two lawmakers that she did explicitly name, to check that they endorsed Faulconer). Mistakes sometimes happen. The candidate may have honestly believed that he had the endorsement of someone when that was not the case, and someone may have given an endorsement without fully realizing that's what they did. That's just how life is. We don't live in a perfect world.
 * When we edit Wikipedia, we have to follow the guidelines set by the community, and I'm not aware of a guideline saying that campaigns cannot be used as references for listing endorsements. The guideline that you referenced only says that the source has to be independent of the endorser, not of the campaign. Banana Republic (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RELIABLE sources are explicitly required. Campaigns are not entirely reliable sources. And you think the Sanders campaign would have corrected that "mistake" had they not been caught? The point is that the campaign, indeed, produced official campaign material touting an endorsement that they did not have. SecretName101 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "highly unlikely that they were fabricated" is also making a shit ton of flimsy assumptions. Are you entirely are supposing that, if they were fabricated, the individuals named would have heard about the endorsement press release? The very one the received just about no media coverage? SecretName101 (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and the phrase "he’s drawn endorsements from most GOP state lawmakers" is neither correct (perhaps they meant to say "the most" rather than "most"), nor is it true that that statement, "pretty much confirms the press release". It does not specifically confirm the individual endorsements not listed in the article. SecretName101 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Campaigns are reliable about themselves. They are considered WP:PRIMARY references. Hence, WP:SECONDARY references are preferred, but that does not mean that primary references are excluded.
 * As for the statement "he’s drawn endorsements from most GOP state lawmakers", it is a correct statement. There are 29 GOP state lawmakers: 19 in the Assembly and 10 in the State Senate. Therefore, by getting the endorsements from 15 of them, he has more than 50%, which would make the statement accurate. Banana Republic (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Campaigns are reliable about themselves". You say that based on......what? Political campaigns are notorious culprits of misleading spin. Campaigns themselves are pretty problematic sources. You can use them as a source if you are writing about what the stated campaign platform (issues staked-out by a candidate) are, and that's pretty much it. Few have more incentive to make grand and unsubstantiated claims about a political campaign than a campaign itself. SecretName101 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Certain things cannot be spun. Campaigns are responsible for reporting money raised and money spent. Intentional falsification is a criminal offense. Likewise, campaigns report their public events. Campaigns also boast the candidates' biographies and endorsements. While biographies can be spun (such as claiming attendance at Harvard when you just took extension classes from Harvard), it's a little difficult to spin endorsements. You either have the endorsement or you don't. Lots of times campaigns will show images of the candidate with certain officials to make it seem like they have an endorsement, but there is no spin when the campaign outright says that it has an endorsement.
 * Trust me -- just like you and I know that Faulconer claims the endorsement from 15 state legislators, so do those state legislators who deeply care how their names are being publicly used. So if those 15 state legislators (including the two explicitly named in the OC Register) wanted to put a statement that the Faulconer campaign is falsely saying that it has their endorsement, they would certainly let the world know about it, and it would be quickly picked up by the media, since that would be a very juicy story. Banana Republic (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. Banana Republic (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have shown with multiple examples, endorsements are something that can be spun/falsified. And you are making a mighty assumption that these politicians know something that has not really received any media coverage. If he is lying, HOW would the know about him claiming their endorsements? It is not even something that will pop-up in a google search of their names. It's stupid bad practice to fake an endorsement, and can generate embarrassing headlines if found out, but that does not mean it does not happen. The fact that something is a stupid bad practice that risks embarrassment is (time and time again) not enough to stop politicians from still doing it. For instance, everyone knows it is a stupid bad practice for politicians to have staffers make questionable edits on Wikipedia to improve their coverage, but that still has happened countless times. SecretName101 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine to include the one's specifically named in that article as endorsements. But those not named have no outside sources to support their endorsement. SecretName101 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The legislators have paid staffers that help them monitor what's happening. As soon as a major candidate puts out endorsements, everybody in the political world knows about it because word gets around. A Google search definitely yields the press release that the campaign put about the endorsements (how do you think I found the press release)? But if you're so concerned that the legislators are not aware that Faulconer is using their names improperly then the best way to deal with it is to leave it on the page, and then it will be even easier for them to find it. If and when a legislator comes out to say that the name is used improperly as an endorser, then we can easily remove it. Until then, we should leave the names in, as the OC Register story is a WP:SECONDARY source for the quantity of endorsers that Faulconer claims, if not the individual names. Banana Republic (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * you are making mighty mighty big assumptions that the alleged endorsers would know about the endorsements if they were fake. If everyone in the political world knew about it and word was travelling, then wouldn't a single publication of the political trade (such as Politico) have covered it? And no, a google search of the individual endorsers does NOT yield that press release. The alleged endorsers and their staffers would be googling the alleged endorsers by name, not anything that would actually lead them to the press release (why would a staffer or individual be randomly searching "Kevin Faulconer endorsements" or a similar query that would wield the press release?) Just because a google search can yield that press release, does not mean that a google search that would be reasonable to assume the alleged endorsers would actually have searched would yield it. You are making bold assumptions that they would know about this if it was fake. That's seriously wrong practice. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not taking leaps of faith. We would never allow editors take the same practice of publishing unverified information on an individuals on their BLP article. The justification, "well, we should just assume they'd publicly correct it if it is wrong" would never fly for publishing claims on a BLP that lack reliable verifiability. And the fact that the article does not mention the individual names is exactly why it cannot be used as a source for those who are not named. You are taking a leap of faith in believing that they are indeed among those not named, since there are zero reliable sources that say they are. SecretName101 (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am making zero assumptions. I am just saying that we have a WP:PRIMARY reference for the endorsements, which is admittedly not as preferable as a WP:SECONDARY reference. But WP:PRIMARY references are not automatically prohibited. I have already quoted WP:SELFPUB saying that the campaign's website can be taken as a reliable reference about itself. Although a WP:SECONDARY is preferred, it is not necessarily any more accurate. We would like to believe that a reporter would check each and every fact that they publish, but that's not always the case. As far as I'm concerned, if one or more of the claimed endorsements comes out to say that Faulconer is falsely claiming an endorsement, it can be removed at that point. I have so far not seen any Wikipedia policy nor guideline that would prohibit displaying endorsements claimed on a campaign website.
 * If you feel so strongly about it, you can add the template next to the note, to let the reader know that the references are not the most ideal. Banana Republic (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

As for 174.193.152.210's comments, it is pretty typical on Wikipedia (particularly for contemporary gubernatorial elections) to have endorsement lists. And it is in keeping with Wikipedia's encyclopedic role, as it provides greater context to the election, who was supported by what organizations. It helps to better illustrate where notable backing came from. SecretName101 (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just made some WP:BOLD edits with strict interpretation of: "Endorsements by individuals must be referenced to one or more sources that are both reliable and independent of the endorser." It probably needs some more culling. 2600:1012:B01E:C863:E119:D565:2395:451 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your August 10 edits show that you clearly missed the part in WP:Endorsements that blatantly states that reliable sources for an organization's endorsements, "may include the organization's own website or official social media accounts." SecretName101 (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for catching that. I had read the "in a nutshell" and the consensus, and glossed over the "organizations" guidelines. Prior to that edit, I did tag those endorsements, and nobody pointed out my error, FYI. 2600:1012:B066:507:142B:C5BB:22C6:7AC5 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Endorsement run by Southern California News Group
The Southern California News Group had all 11 of its newspapers run identical endorsements supporting votes for "yes" on the recall and Elder. From what I have seen, in each paper I have seen them run, they were misleadingly labeled as being independently written that paper's editorial boards. I have reached the conclusion that we cannot accurately or honestly list this as the independent endorsement of each of the eleven editorial boards, but rather as the collective endorsement of Southern California News Group (conservative newspaper The Washington Times has characterized it as such in its reporting).

This appears to follow a pattern of certain news conglomerates creating "must run" stories/editorials for their local outlets to run while creating the illusion that these stories are coming from "your friendly local news source" and not their parent companies. Listing these as eleven independent endorsements, instead of as a collective endorsement, despite the fact that each endorsement is identical and mass-run, would be aiding the conglomerate in effectively gaming the system with little effort, creating the false impression that eleven separate newspapers independently made endorsements of their own. SecretName101 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that an endorsement crafted by the Southern California News Group and run in all 11 of their newspapers should count as one endorsement, and it would be misleading for us to suggest otherwise. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I will also note, that I already took a similar approach for a duplicated anti-recall endorsement that was published in both the The Mercury News and East Bay Times (which are both owned by Bay Area News Group). Instead of listing this as two separate endorsements, when I added it to this article I listed it as a single endorsement by "The Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards". However, in that case, the newspapers were honest, and credited it to the byline of "Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board", rather than trying to create the impression that the endorsement was solely authored by each respective newspaper's editorial board independent of anyone else. SecretName101 (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with what's been said here and the separation of the LAT and SDT endorsements, but by this logic, if the common owner of a bunch of newspapers altered each endorsement like a plagiarizing college student conspiring to bypass a Turnitun screen, would we have to list each newspaper separately? FYI the mercury and east bay papers have the same owners as socal news group, curiously. I think we need to acknowledge that editorial board independence when a common owner is involved has the potential to be very murky. 174.193.199.40 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, those two papers issued two separate recommendations. On question 2, LAT endorsed Faulconer, whilst SDT urged voters to vote their conscience. Secondly, the editorials are both unique in their writing. Third, both newspapers are very much known to have separate and active editorial boards. This is very different from a completely identical editorial piece being published by both papers. There is nothing here to tell use that these two papers did not have their own editorial boards issue their endorsements independent of one another. In this case, there is no evident dishonesty in characterization these as endorsements by two separate editorial boards. It does not matter that Tribune owns them both. SecretName101 (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When the writing for an endorsement is not even authored by that paper’s editorial board, it is dishonest for us to characterize the endorsement as coming from that board. That is the crux of the issue with Southern California News Group. SecretName101 (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * and, looking into it, it is a reported fact that Southern California News Group has a single central editorial team, rather than independent editorial teams at each paper. . The LA Daily News even even makes that somewhat apparent on its website as does the website of the OC Register and other websites for the group’s papers. SecretName101 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we could add a note or list the papers (which are notable enough for their own articles) for socal news group, to describe which papers it covers? Readers are far more likely to be familiar with "oc register" or "la daily news", and even though the endorsement was redundant, we are ultimately writing this article for the exhalted but possibly provincial readers. 2600:1012:B017:E2FA:1182:5589:E812:9DFD (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From the socal news group page: "The combined readership of SCNG newspapers is 3.8 million, which if combined would make it the third largest newspaper group in the country." This isn't trivial, it would seem. 2600:1012:B017:E2FA:1182:5589:E812:9DFD (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Point is that the endorsement was not authored by any individual newspapers editorial board, but a central endorsement board for the combined news group. SecretName101 (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My worry is that this article's readers (almost a million total last I checked since the article's creation) may be wondering who their paper endorses, and only some will be able to easily answer that question, because we overcorrected what could have been a sly or an efficient decision (or both) by the newspaper group to have a redundant endorsement across its newspapers by just listing its parent organization. I had not heard of "socal news group" until this came up; I've known about its constituent papers for many, many years...we could possibly add a note, which would not take up much space at all... 2600:1012:B02C:BB0C:F47D:E856:9F26:EA3D (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why can't we put in a footnote a list of all the papers that would be included in the one endorsement? Banana Republic (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

They can literally click on the link to the page for the article about the news group if they want to know what newspapers it owns SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Anglyne.png

And here I was trying desperately to get the only existing picture of the handsome John R. Drake into this article. Good thing I didn't waste my time. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I got finessed because Billboards are copyrighted or something like that.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenny-Rae-GOV 106-scaled (cropped).jpg


 * On the photo's discussion page - "This photo comes from the Jenny Rae campaign, not the "Talon Marks" website. The Talon Marks website article has less than 200 views, and it says in the article "Photo credit: Courtesy of Jenny Rae Le Roux campaign". It should clearly stay since it was uploaded and released to creative commons by the campaign. Capisred (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)"

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * AnthonyTrimino (cropped).jpg
 * Sam Gallucci (cropped).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenny-Rae-GOV 106-scaled (cropped).jpg

Should We Add "Residence" as one of the boxes for replacement candidates?
I remember it being included in the old replacement candidates gallery section. Capisred (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorting articles by funds
Why are we listing them like this? I have never seen this done on any Wikipedia article. A seperate table for campaign finances, I have seen before. But the only section listing the candidates ordering them by their funds, I have never seen. SecretName101 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you being bold. But, unless there is consensus, would you mind making your table of finances separate from the overall listing of candidates. Such a giant break from Wikipedia convention should probably be discussed. SecretName101 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, actually...a better $$ table idea would include candidates by money raised, their biggest donors, and what % came from small donations, or something like that, and would belong in the fundraising section. Also, there are far fewer photos than I had imagined there would be. But at least there is empty space for candidates without photos, which implies someone hasn't added one yet, not that they were snubbed by nonexistent "notability guidelines" or favoritism from wikipedia editors. 2600:1012:B006:A614:2467:EB73:72C:E4CC (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern and am very open to alternatives. My intention wasn't necessarily to highlight the financial aspects of the candidates but to provide the list of them in an order sorted by rough degree of notability. Such an ordering is commonplace in election articles, particularly presidential elections; the difference is that in presidential elections, candidates are listed ordered by access to to electoral votes, as a proxy to notability. As this gubernatorial election doesn't have the same concept of electoral votes, I sought some other objective proxy and thought that fund-raising capability might be the closest comparison. It certainly isn't perfect, but it's much better than the previous ordering: first by party, and secondarily by last name alphabetically. That previous ordering had the effect of burying the most notable candidates within the list. If financing should be de-emphasized in the presentation of the list, that is reasonable. Let's remove the expenditures and cash on hand columns and augment the table with other information, such as debate appearances. But let's move forward with nicely sorted table instead of backwards with a poorly sorted list. ...just my $0.02.  Dhalsim2 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Some alternative proxy to candidate finances would be totally fine, if anyone can come up with one. It should be completely objective and easily applicable across the range of candidates though. Dhalsim2 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If someone would like to make a table of the top donors, the information is readily available here: https://powersearch.sos.ca.gov/advanced.php Under "ballot measures", select the sept 14 2021 recall election. It is a very insightful roadmap of the interests purportedly at stake in this election. Given that Newsom's hauls dwarf that of everyone else, it's sort of imperative that we report this. The top 100 donors are almost all for Newsom, and the top 100 donors are all well into the six figures. Perhaps we could build a multifaceted expandable table featuring the top 10 donors for each candidate or something, over a certain amount. Or all notable donors with wikipedia articles. Or a list of every donor who contributed the maximum for each candidate. It's much more insightful than the current table, which has Cox at the top (that is mostly his money, so it's sort of misleading to imply he has "raised" the most money), omits Newsom (who has raised a fortune), and gives little insight into who donated what. 2600:1012:B066:4918:DD3B:27DE:871F:D2E6 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

What should the lede include?
Currently, it needs some more information, but not so much that it is just going through past elections. It needs something about the petition and signature gathering, the timeline, and that there were 5 other recall campaigns that didn't qualify (as well as the fact that most governors face some sort of recall campaign)... UserTwoSix (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am happy to see you on the talk page. I don't think it "needs" anything else, nor do I think it would be negatively impacted with additional information, assuming it summarizes the main article and is relevant. Prior to our changes today, it had a list of stats, which now reside in the background section, which is fine. I think lede content only becomes an issue when petty POV pushers aim to get airtime. I don't think the page has had any lede-obsessed editors, though. If someone only has the attention span to read the lede, maybe it's not worth getting their attention? I don't think your proposed changes are necessary but nor would I object if they were done well. 2600:1012:B061:AEE:E54E:E593:E178:5C81 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Candidate table
Why are the names in the candidate table out of order..? Prcc27 (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Qualified candidates, there's a note there that indicates it's sorted by "funds reported." David O. Johnson (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense for it to be in alphabetical order. Prcc27 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. IMHO, it makes the most sense to list by credibility of candidacy. There is no better way to demonstrate credibility than by raising money. Banana Republic (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not have a separate section for major candidates and minor candidates? Alphabetical order is more accessible. Prcc27 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The table can be easily resorted with the click of a button. Why get ourselves into trouble with WP:OR of which candidate is "major" and which candidate is "minor". Banana Republic (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed entirely with Banana Republic. Some ordering based on notability is better than alphabetical, and funds raised is objective. Having said that, it is a legitimate criticism that "funds raised" can be a bit deceptive for candidates who have been the primary financial source for their campaigns, like Cox and Zacky. Not sure how that can be avoided though.  Dhalsim2 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Woodland Hills voters issues
When voters in Woodland Hills tried to check-in at the voting site, they were told that they have already voted. Problem with the voting system. (Source:Woodland Hills Voters Experience Glitch at Check-In Just Days Ahead of Election Day (September 12, 2021)) SWP13 (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article called it a "glitch"...however unfortunate and disconcerting it may be, glitches do happen (yes, they better damn well be fixed in instances like this)...while it's certainly newsworthy, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion here, assuming it's just a glitch, is fixed, and that's it. WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. I signed the recall petition and after seeing the vast majority of signatures approved by the Secretary of State and how only 43 were retracted (and despite the whole SB27 debacle by the SOS), have confidence in the integrity of the sacrosanct aspects of the electoral process, as do "federal authorities" (per the linked Dominion story in this article); I also don't think Wikipedia should include this, since it has the potential to be needlessly inflammatory at the wrong time. Mary Samsonite (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bolding results
When should we bold the winner in the results section(s), infobox, etc.? I feel like if only one news station makes a projection, it may be significant enough to mention in the article, but would be WP:UNDUE to bold the results based on only one or two news stations' projections. I feel like we should either wait until certification, or at the very least, until all (or most?) major news organizations make the projection. Prcc27 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * We definitely do not need to wait until certification. That can take a really long time and often is a formality. If there WP:RS call a winner, then that should be the view of the article. I think we should mention it in the article if a notable source calls the election. I don't know the threshold for when Wikipedia itself should call it though. Gust Justice (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This page and google search results
I have become perplexed at why this page appears on the third page of google's search results (if you search "Newsom recall") despite being painstakingly verified and checked for errors by many editors with many viewpoints. I made many contributions here under my dynamic IP as someone who probably holds the most critical views of Newsom amongst contributors to this page, which probably influenced the article in its current form to a degree, and I can't help but wonder. For the vast majority of google searches on a particular subject or topic, Wikipedia will be on the first page or will even have an entire box on the right dedicated to the Wikipedia article. Though I have my own suspicions, I don't intend to make an allegation of censorship here, as that would be unproductive, and oftentimes there is an innocuous explanation...is there a reason this page might be poorly indexing (is the trade name "SEO"?) and if so, is there a way to remedy it? 2600:1012:B004:B840:F88F:95CA:EA50:1212 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It comes up for me in Google's "knowledge panel" when searching "California recall". Given that "Newsom recall" isn't in the article title, that could be part of the reason why. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Odd also is that California recall results in the 2003 election Wikipedia article coming before this one. Odd, but that’s it. SecretName101 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Why semi-protection is required
This is why these types of articles should be semi-protected on election day. Somebody removed the 2022 California gubernatorial election from the infobox, which they shouldn't have. Also, somebody deleted Newsom as the governor after the recall election, which they shouldn't have. For the correct usage on the former (see 2003 California gubernatorial recall election's infobox) & for the latter? Newsom wasn't re-elected, but merely remains as governor. GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that's really necessary - the edits were reverted quickly. The amount of edits didn't seem excessive to me anyways. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Info box situation
Meant to address this scenario sometime before the election, but never did. I think, since the recall failed, candidate images and share of vote on question 2 should be displayed AFTER the question 1 results, since it was rendered irrelevant by question 1. SecretName101 (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to me like a good compromise. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was gonna say follow the 2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election example. But, that was a slightly different situation. In Wisconsin it was actually a special election. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, only a single question on that recall election’s general election ballot. This one had two. SecretName101 (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. I'm considering working on creating a custom infobox to avoid having three here - integrating the referendum data into the initial election infobox - but this ordering is good for now. The election everyone was paying attention to was the yes/no vote. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I messed about in preview to see if we could try using the module parameter in the first infobox to include the referendum, but unfortunately the referendum infobox doesn't seem to support the "embed" parameter, meaning that it looked really odd. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed added that functionality, so thanks :) I also standardized the look of the "reporting" bar between that template and Infobox election, so I think everything looks decent now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Completely unaware of this conversation, but looked at the article after seeing the BBC News and thought it might be a good idea to combine them. Happy to have helped :) Number   5  7  16:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Would you be able to do the same thing for the 2003 California recall article? Prcc27 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

'Invalid vote' figures in results
So "invalid or blank votes" has now been zeroed out in both the infobox and the results section. I'm not sure what the reasoning is there (or what the original source was for that number) but surly it's better to just remove the entire row rather than zeroing it. Omitting the info is better than giving an incorrect figure (ie: zero). 2601:14C:8381:1200:1067:1B5F:DC27:8CF5 (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

74% reporting 41% turnout
Where does the 74% reporting figure come from? If that is anything like correct, then it seems dubious to be saying turnout was 41.6% (based on 9263554 votes of 22057610 registered voters if votes could be in the region of 9263554 / 0.74 = 12.5m votes.) C-randles (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the reporting figure comes from news websites like the New York Times which are used for partial results. Turnout is still an estimate as we don't know exactly how many votes have been cast (since they can arrive up to a week after election day). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a very poor estimate, we should be labelling it votes counted so far as proportion of registered voters at least until the votes counted are in the high 90% and not as turnout. C-randles (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Blank second question
I believe the results should be somehow reflective of this. Jmj713 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can add a sentence or a few sentences before the results table that gets across (1) that "No" beat "Yes", (2) the leaders among the replacement candidates, and (3) the number of ballots where the replacement question was left blank. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- while "Blank" wasn't a candidate, it's important to the context of 2nd ballot question. Right now it gives the impression that Larry Elder won 47% of the vote from all ballots cast, which isn't true. Grngu (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When all is done, the infobox will show that the turnout for the second question was substantially lower than the turnout for the first question and overall election turnout. But, right now, we cannot list that, since we do not know what any of the three turnout statistics were. SecretName101 (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox note
I feel like the infobox should have a note that says that Gavin Newsom being the governor after the election is according to media projections, pending official certification of the election. But I was reverted. Regarding PaKYr's concerns, actually, the 2020 presidential election article infobox mentioned projections and official certification before the results were official. Idk what concessions have to do with anything, given they have no legal weight whereas official certification definitely does. Prcc27 (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The margin is so large, that it is statistically impossible for the results to change (also mathematically impossible since there are only 2.4 millions votes left to count, and the No side is ahead by a little under 3 million votes). Banana Republic (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what a projection means: statistical improbability Newsom will lose. So what's wrong with including that information in the infobox..? If my wording didn't already make that clear, I'm open to suggestions.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * saying "pending official certification" is contrary to the sources which say that he will remain governor - no caveats. It lends credence to the remote idea that Newsom could not win the election, which at this point, is impossible. The neutral thing, per the sources, is to report in the infobox that he won, since he did. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Journalists may prefer to say a projected winner won, even though the election hasn't been certified. But it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to say that. A footnote does not lend credence to Newsom maybe not winning. In fact, we had similar information for the presidential election infobox... It's a fact that he's the projected winner, but will not officially win in the eyes of the law until the results have been certified. Prcc27 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is pedantry. The recall was defeated in a landslide as reported by every single reliable source and everyone knows it. Newsom will serve out his term. Wikipedia articles about elections routinely report on winners and losers when reliable sources make consistent projections, long before official certification. This case is no different. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding a note doesn't negate the wide margin, or that Newsom will win. But for whatever reason, you all seem to keep insinuating that it does. It clarifies that the results have not been certified yet, same as what we did for the 2020 presidential election. Prcc27 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Turnout for question 2
Turnout for question 2 excludes anyone who did not cast a vote on question 2.

If someone voted in the 2018 midterms in California, but left the gubernatorial question blank, they would not have been counted towards the turnout in the 2018 gubernatorial election. Similarly, anyone who left blank question 2, is not counted towards the turnout for question 2.

The turnout for the whole election, the turnout for question 1, and the turnout for question 2 are three different statistics. In the 2003 gubernatorial election (I checked), they were roughly the same, because people did not tend to leave either question blank. But this year, it is evident that there is a substantial difference in the turnout of question 1 and question 2. SecretName101 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of turnout being different for different issues on the same ballot. I have always heard of turnout being a constant for the entire election in which you divide the number of ballots cast by the number of eligible voters who could cast a ballot. Voters can turn in either a blank ballot, or an invalid ballot (with more votes than are allowed), but the ballot still counts for turnout purpose. Banana Republic (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Only a valid vote counts towards turnou, blanks are excluded. Ballots have different questions and races with different turnouts. There is an overall turnout (number of valid ballots cast), but there is also the turnout for individual questions/races. The recall question itself had a different turnout from the replacement race. SecretName101 (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Turnout means how many people turned out to cast a ballot. This is a unique number and does not vary for the different races on the ballot. Banana Republic (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Turnout for an overall election means how many people cast a ballot. Turnout for a particular race means how many people cast a vote in that race. The infobox for question 2 only pertains to the votes for the replacement question. That is a separate turnout. SecretName101 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And those who left a question blank did not "cast a ballot" for those races. Blank votes are not counted for turnout. SecretName101 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blank votes ARE counted towards turnout. They are not counted for percentages that candidates received. Banana Republic (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not towards turnouts in races. For instance, anyone who cast a ballot for the congressional general election in California in 2018, but left their ballot blank on the gubernatorial election, is not counted towards the 2018 gubernatorial turnout. SecretName101 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong though. SecretName101 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Although the results are not final, the trend is clear with 85% of the votes counted. About 10.5 million votes were cast as I write, and about 5.9 million votes were cast for a replacement. That means that about 4.6 million voters declined to pick an alternative and these must have overwhelmingly been Newsom supporters. The fact that far more voters declined to pick an alternative than voted for Elder, the leading Republican candidate who got about 2.8 million votes, is strong evidence for the repudiation of this recall effort by the voters. Of course, we would need to cite a reliable source to add anything like that to the article, but the numbers are stark. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * this might be good: (source looks reliable-ish, looking at Media in San Diego which lists it) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , good find. That article makes the exact point that I was trying to make above. Looks usable to me. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This article documents a current election
Oh? Dumb guy over here. Please exclaim. El_C 06:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumb guy removes (diff). El_C 13:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Stanislaus votes removed
Most of Stanislaus's votes on question 2 were removed, how should we proceed..? Prcc27 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * added a note to the county results for the replacement question noting . The recent secretary of state update for Stanislaus County notes 51 votes for Nickolas Wildstar, 241 votes for Leo S. Zacky, and no votes for any other candidate. This is an obvious data error that will be corrected at some point and in my opinion is not worthy of note in this article. According to the only other person I can find who noticed this, this is a data error. Obviously hasn't been picked up in RS because well, it's a routine data error a few weeks after the election was decided. I tried to think of how to re-word the note to mention that it's an error, instead of implying our map is out of date - but I could not think of anything satisfactory due to the total lack of coverage. Therefore, I think the note should be removed entirely, as it gives the impression that our map is inaccurate, when in reality the SOS results as of now are inaccurate.


 * Given this, I reverted, but Prcc27 reinstated their edit claiming that my removal was original research. I don't consider this to be in violation of WP:OR, or well, it may be, but we're allowed to use common sense, even when it would violate other policies - and I think common sense shows that this is a data error and not the actual results of the election in Stanislaus County. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You cite WP:COMMONSENSE, which is actually a supplement article (not a policy) of the actual Wikipedia policy WP:IAR. If we are going to ignore a rule, you could add a sentence to the note that says it is possibly or likely an error. To me, this is preferable to ignoring a rule and not providing any information on the Stanislaus update. Prcc27 (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the recent update is noteworthy in the slightest, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)