Talk:2012 California Proposition 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alleged Fraud (section) deletion discussion[edit]

This section appears to conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) editing etiquette and community standards for including allegations of criminal acts. Making the allegation of fraud and then noting that authorities declined to investigate seems disingenuous at best. The Department of Justice issued a statement saying they found no cause for action and declined to investigate referring the complaint to FDA for administrative action (if they determined any need for such exists).[1] This appears to be last minute dirty politics (of which I'm sure there was plenty to go around on both sides), but it begs the questions if this type allegation, dedicated to an entire section should remain on this profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CinagroErunam (talkcontribs) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

LAT describes FBI's statement as unusual, it also informs that phone calls were made and that FDA declined to comment either way. That FDA's seal was alleged to have been used isn't disputed, the dispute is whether FBI ever considered investigation. That fraudulent use is alleged is properly sourced. The section deserves to stay. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
DELETE. What does proper sourcing have to do with NPOV? Allegations aren't fact, particularly those which have been rejected by the authority responsible for investigating. "Fraud" has been claimed here, this allegation was of criminal fraud and the justice department, which is responsible for investigating and enforcing criminal laws, has rejected the allegation and declined to take action on it. In fact, the LAT story reports that the allegation that there was even an FBI investigation as claimed by those making this claim of fraud was also not true. This all appears to be one side's shady politicking in the waning days of a campaign they were losing. This type of claim has no reasonable place in this article on Prop 37 and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicReviewer (talkcontribs) 14:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yogesh - it's not "notability" it's neutrality - this presents a non-neutral point of view based on an allegation of criminality. It's just an allegation (and one dismissed by the Justice Department, so a somewhat false allegation) and allegations versus factual findings don't belong in Wikipedia (i.e., had Justice investigated AND found them guilty of the fraud then it would be factual and could be included in a neutral manner). In this case, this fails to meet the standard for NPOV (neutral point of view - not "notable") and should be removed.CinagroErunam (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The allegation wasn't dismissed, it was forwarded to the FDA for investigation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The criminal allegation (fraud) was dismissed by the only authority (Justice Dept) which can prosecute criminal fraud, and while they did refer it to FDA for their civil administrative review, FDA hasn't taken this up and no finding of fact or ruling exists. As such, it remains just an ALLEGATION by an interested part which violates NPOV standard for inclusion. There is a reason for waiting for actual findings of fact before including any allegations of wrongdoing in a profile/article on Wikipedia. At best, this merits being a footnote to the arguments section, but does not merit a distinct section or inclusion in the body of this profile. Otherwise, any allegations raised regardless of facts or findings could be included in any Wikipedia profile. CinagroErunam (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The quoted source informs that FDA won't comment on the status of investigation, if you have a source that supports your claim that "FDA hasn't taken this up..." would you kindly cite it? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Yogesh - you keep arguing semantics, but the fact is it's an allegation regardless of any real or imagined "investigation" - if you want to prove there is an investigation then please do so, but then show the results and findings of fact, otherwise this section violates the neutral point of view NPOV standards for Wikipedia and will be deleted.CinagroErunam (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • This Reuters report[1] mentions that " It later revised its statement to say that the U.S. Attorney's office had referred the matter to the FDA, which like other federal agencies has its own criminal investigations unit." ... "The FDA also set the record straight on a "No on 37" mailer that put the FDA's logo below a quote criticizing efforts like the California labeling measure as "inherently misleading." The use of the quote next to the logo made it appear that FDA had weighed in on the fight." Fraudulent use of FDA's logo is under investigation. Enough evidence I assume? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
* Yogesh appears to not understand the NPOV issue and that an allegation has no place in a profile. It doesn't matter who or if there is an investigation or not (and that's no even apparent here). This is becoming a very circular and irrelevant conversation, I will delete this section. AcademicReviewer (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry! FDA considers the use of its logo as "inherently misleading". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And, IF FDA issues a statement/ruling on this, then it can be added as a finding of fact and not just an allegation.CinagroErunam (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It is a fact that FDA considers the use of its logo as misleading voters. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry Yogesh, just because you say it's so doesn't make this allegation true or provide a valid reference for inclusion. Until FDA states that the pro-37 ALLEGATION about the logo use was somehow misleading or otherwise inappropriate, then this remains one-side's claim which is neither neutral nor factual so it simply doesn't belong. Given the source of this allegation also claimed there was an FBI investigation into this matter, which turned out to be false based on the Justice Department statement, including the thus far not confirmed (one way or the other) additional allegations by this group would not be responsible and as repeatedly stated, violates the Wikipedia community standards for inclusion of such types of claims. You clearly have no interest acknowledging the editing standards or in putting this to rest CinagroErunam (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ Statement On Proposition 37, Press Release statement of United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner, Eastern District Of California, November 2, 2012.

Both sides made allegations of impropriety[edit]

The article reads "During the campaign, both sides made allegations of campaign improprieties." Form the source cited could we have the allegations from the other side? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Yogesh, you continue to push this matter apparently seeking to allow allegations and one-side presented claims to be included in this article. The LAT Times report "Accusations fly..." which references this issue and to which is still linked in the Wikipedia article clearly shows the two sides making allegations about each other. Pro-37 made allegations of the existence of a criminal Justice Department investigation (to which the Justice Department responded that NO SUCH INVESTIGATION existed), and the Justice Department then referred the Pro-37 complaint to FDA for their determination (to which FDA has made no statement one way or the other if they are even investigating this or not). In response, the Against-37 campaign claimed the pro-37 campaigners were "stretching the truth" (a kind way of saying they were lying) in their press release and claims of an investigation and improprieties. That's "both sides" alleging improprieties by the other and the edits and inclusion by AcademicReview seem appear to be a neutral and accurate representation of the facts. Isn't it time to move on? CinagroErunam (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Why do you limit to one source, the Reuters source informs that an FDA investigation is underway into the misuse of the FDA logo. "Stretching the truth" in regards to understanding the action of FBI is not the same as fraudulent use of the FDA's logo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential Impact[edit]

This section seems biased because it only discusses the negative impacts on taxpayers. One way to fix this would be to change the title of the section to "Potential Fiscal Impact." Another option is adding the impact of providing consumers with more information about products and therefore more choices for them in purchasing food. Jelanham (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Jelanham


The "Results" section would improve if more information about GMO-labeling laws in other states was added. For example, Conneticut, Vermont and Maine have all passed GMO-labeling laws since Proposition 37 was on the ballot in California. [1] Jelanham (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Jelanham


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Proposition 37, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)