Talk:Yes California

Texas Vs. White

This Wikipedia article cited a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/california-today-secession-trump.html?_r=0) which states: "California cannot, of course, just pick up and leave. Even if the state wanted to, an exit would require two-thirds approval of both the House and Senate in Washington, along with the blessing of 38 state legislatures — a feat analysts say is implausible."

But I don't believe this NY Times article is 100% accurate (big commercial media has a tendency to embellish). Section 6 of the 19th century SCOTUS case known as "Texas vs. White" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700) reads: "When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

In other words, while the Constitution doesn't allow for California to secede from the Union unilaterally (as in, though actions it takes all by itself), the state can secede by getting permission from the other 49 States first.

There is conceivably a potential shortfall as the Constitution might allow the Federal Government to claim California as a territory immediately after it secedes from the Union as a State; but that's a story for another day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.136.90 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's too bad that this article presents Texas vs. White as a simple fact - "a state cannot secede without two-thirds approval of House and Senate..." Why should an article like this contain a category mistake? That is the way to secede within the Constitution of the United States. But the other way to secede is just to do it, and ignore the Constitution. Assuming the US doesn't send troops and force the new country back into the Union, and I personally doubt they would, the secession is successful. That's how the Colonies seceded in the first place from England, that's how the former Soviet Union lost all its satellites, and it works just fine. MikeR613 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Article Structure and previous edits

Currently, the paragraph under Campaign heading:

The campaign president is Louis J. Marinelli, who has served as interim chair of the secessionist California National Party.[4] The vice president is Marcus Ruiz Evans.[8] California has the sixth largest economy in the world and a population larger than Poland.[9] The campaign argues that California suffers under federal overregulation, that..

doesn't read well or make sense. I restructured it yesterday. I also added small sections about the topic of secession within the US and in California, and about 2016 elections with links to the appropriate Wikipedia pages to avoid repetition and honor other people's work there. There were mistakes especially since I use simple citation provided by the visual editor and being somewhat new to Wikipedia editing.

However, the negative attitude of the previous author, as expressed via his/her editing comments and then a full reversion of my entire work, makes me hesitant to an extreme point in contributing anything ever again. Maybe that was the goal. I honestly hope that someone here can tell me that I'm wrong on this one and that I shouldn't take this as my first Wikipedia Members Common Interaction lesson. I don't have an ego of a size that would prevent me from admitting my own mistakes. I have many. sandnerd (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There were numerous problems with your edits, as I stated in my edit comments:

• cited text was removed
• cites were removed from the text they had cited
• citations were swapped out with others with no reason stated
• there was unsourced text (violating WP:V)
• there was text cited to sources that had nothing to do with Yes California (violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
• the text was broken into numerous one-sentence paragraphs and far too many sections and subsections for the amount of text.

I first tried to fix things, but there were so many problems that in the end I reverted and then went through your edits to find what I could salvage. If you're new to editing, it's a good idea to make a bunch of smaller edits rather than the massive ones you made—this makes it easier to deal with problems that arise. It's not a good idea to accuse people of ulterior motives ("Maybe that was the goal."). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Analysis

Only 20 counties in Northern CA (all within the 150 mile radius of San Francisco, including the state capital of Sacramento) are thought to have the most likely position on secession from the US. This area may include Yuba City-Marysville, Modesto and Salinas-Monterey. This means the remainder of California north of the 40th latitude and the Central/Southern half are 2 new states. These areas attempted state secession from Sacramento in the past, the most recent in 1991 ("state of Jefferson") in Redding, Chico and Eureka. And in 2011, South California based in Riverside covers the area with the cities Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Bakersfield and Fresno. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Slanderous changes

Why, oh Wikipedia, do you allow changes to be made,without any references, after the falsehoods have been removed, why would you continue to allow slander to occur on your site? Have you no integrity? YesCA rep (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have made several changes over the last few days and see that the falsehoods keep getting re-added. So, I ask wiki editors, where is your integrity? WHERE?!? YesCA rep (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Using false news stories making outrageous claims, is not integrity. There has been no financial support, or any support other than vocal/ moral support, from ANY nation. This INCLUDES Russia. No governments or nations, or leaders of any nations or governments, have funded this organization. Stick to truth, or stop pretending to be an "editor". YesCA rep (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@YesCA rep: I can see taking Pravda with a grain of salt, but if you're going to allege that Bloomberg and and the Mercury News are publishing "false news stories", you're going to need some reliable sources to back that claim up. Further, since your username indicates you have a connection to Yes California, you should really be citing independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Beware of COI edits

Beware of conflict of interest edits. User:YesCA rep was indefinitely blocked on 30 December 2016. And on its website, the Yes California campaign has accused its disgruntled former staffers from adding "revisionist history, inaccurate or misleading content" here.[1] This page is currently semi-protected until 30 March, but could be extended longer. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

New poll

There seems to be a new poll out with 32% supporting, but unfortunately I cannot find any raw data other than the margin of error, sample size, and percent supporting. MB298 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would love to cite this, but I do not think this is a WP:RS

I stumbled across this essay. Apparently this author lists all the problems with the Calexit initiative (from possible court challenges, to possible UN reaction, to trying to meet the 50 percent registered voter turnout in 2019), and shared it with Marinelli and Evans (but they were not that totally receptive, because they had already submitted their initiative to the CA Sec of State). However, medium.com looks like a WP:USERGENERATED, and thus not a WP:RS. I'm thus looking for alternatives. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Some Conservatives' proposed split (...for usually likely 2 more GOP US Senators) also using term 'Calexit'

"'Latest CalExit Gamble': ... The UK Sun reports that (Nigel) Farage and (Arron) Banks were recruited by political strategist Gerry Gunster and Republican Congressional candidate Scott Baugh." link--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

include Conch_Republic in background?

Does the ha-ha-serious Conch Republic movement count as a secession? They of course did not take all of Florida with them, and they continue to be fully compliant with US and Florida tax laws and stuff, but they have flags and are apparently recognized by the Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.58.196 (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)