Jump to content

Talk:2021 California gubernatorial recall election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1012:b060:bdfc:2c0a:91b3:6f47:8e46 (talk) at 18:49, 19 July 2021 (→Louis J. Marinelli former anti same-sex marriage activist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Already published. --Wow (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Update. Huang has been added with a media source. Now look out for:

  • Michael Loebs (California National Party)

SecretName101 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@SecretName101: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SecretName101 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SecretName101 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SecretName101 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Citation

@David O. Johnson: 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kevin Falconer endorsements

None have third party sourcing. SecretName101 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes California Debates

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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: Wikipedia:Video links Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works.Start The Game Already (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
If these debates are not notable, which you have admitted, then they do not warrant inclusion. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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: Wikipedia: Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists 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)[reply]
Start The Game Already, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

by this, I mean a thicker line than the one used for other percentage marks. SecretName101 (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A reference does not have to mention everything. Here is what WP:SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Banana Republic (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The "alt-right" description is used in the first sentence in Mr. Cernovich's article. Banana Republic (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, but is Wikipedia a reliable source on Wikipedia? See: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are wikis reliable sources? 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Reason for deletion 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_California_gubernatorial_recall_election&oldid=1034416602"