Talk:2004 California Proposition 63

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

California Low‑importance

	California portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

unsourced claim removed edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the following: "Proposition 63 garnered much of its opposition from Scientologists." Such a claim needs to be backed up by a reliable source before being reinstated. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merging? edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do we really need a "California Mental Health Services Act" and a "California Proposition 63 (2004)" article? No one is keeping either page up to date. The most recent reference from either article is from 2011. This is an ongoing California program receiving/spending multiple billions yearly. The resulting commission responsible has multiple meeting per month. The way it is now, timely information would have to be posted in two places. To avoid duplication, at minimum, the “California Proposition 63 (2004)” article should only give brief mentions (with links) to underlying law and its resulting organizations.

In addition, both pages read like brochures for the California MHSA law. This law has become controversial after receiving over $15 billion since 2004. As I already mention on one Talk page, both articles list all the positives with little of the criticisms or controversies, such as an negative investigation by the California State Auditor, extremely critical Little Hoover Commission report, or statements by Rose King who helped author the original bill (who isn’t even mentioned in either article). These are only a few of the controversies. --Beck8888 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic