text:
Talk:1994 California Proposition 187

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SeyeongMin, Caroline Siegel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

THis statement is unclear
"On October 15, 1994, one week after Proposition 187 was passed, more than 70,000 people marched in downtown Los Angeles against the measure, one of the largest protests in memory." Exactly how long is "in memory"? The source cited for this is also a 404 error. --76.85.173.34 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the phrase ", one of the largest protests in memory".
 * http://www.transad.pop.upenn.edu/downloads/ADS%20Rumbaut%20commentary.pdf, does not, in fact, generate a 404. Dlabtot (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

[No heading given: Query]
can someone better explain how this law died? Kingturtle 03:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, he gave up fighting it.

Error on the page. Fixed it.
Whites, Asians and blacks overwhelmingly supported Prop. 187, contrary to the view put forth by the person who wrote the article.

Prop. 187 was killed by Governor Grey Davis, who entered into a bogus "arbitration" to prevent the matter from going before the Supreme Court. As this would have likely caused the unconstitutional decision that Texas must provide free educations to the children of illegals to be overturned, pro-Illegal Davis wanted anything but. Sixpackshakur 02:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * According to this site:
 * The Los Angeles Times reported that 70% of whites voted for Proposition 187, while 78% of Latinos, 56% of African Americans and 54% of Asians voted against it.
 * The Field Poll (actually an average of the Times poll and another poll) found the Blacks and Asians to be split:
 * White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage point margin, and white men supported it by 38 points. On the other hand, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin. Blacks and Asians were about evenly divided, with 52% of each group voting Yes and 48% voting No.
 * Since the sources are equivocal, I think the assertion should be removed until we can calrify the matter. -Willmcw 06:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Since all sources point to the fact that the initiative won with the overwhelming approval of the voters in California, I believe this should be put into the summary. --Nomad spirit 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree and have added a sentence to the introduction to state that it passed w/ 59% but was overturned. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

so when you say it died, it means that it no longer has effect in california legislation. correct? meaning, it's as if it never happened? how does this relate to prop 227?

 * It was overturned by a judge and the decision was never appealed. -Willmcw 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Final Sentence should be Removed?
The final sentence of the article reads:
 * "For illegal immigrant children in inner-city slums who saw people committing "187's" around them, and then learned that another law called "187" was about to be used to deny them access to government services, the number came to have a doubly unpleasant connotation."

These seems NNPOV and irrelevant as a subjective view that may or may not have existed. If anyone has any thoughts on why this should be here, toss it up here. Otherwise, I'd think about removing it in a week or so. James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Projected State Budget Savings?
Curious if anyone had the numbers on what was to be the projected cost-benefits to the State of California as a result of this law, had it been upheld? I remember the numbers being pretty considerable and worth noting in the article. James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC) I don't have data from the time, but this article, authored by anti-immigrant advocacy group FAIR from 12/2004 puts the cost of illegal immigration in California at $10.5 billion per year. Very hefty numbers indeed, but hardly credible considering the politicized source.

I wish to challeng the objectivity of this article
"While its prominent advocates were political conservatives, some libertarians (such as Los Angeles-based radio talk-show host Tom Leykis) also favored it, on the grounds that making life more difficult for illegal immigrants might result in fewer of them entering the state, creating labor shortages which could drive up wages for the lowest-paid workers."

No 'libertarians' support this type of legislation. Tom Leykis is NOT libertarian. (Many people seem to think they are libertarian and have authoritarian ideas such as this--the libertarian position is that the entitlements illegal immigrants are "stealing" should not exist.)

Thus, I am editing the absurd statement to remove the allegations that "libertarians" support this type of legislation. I encourage you to support this removal in the name of objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.31.221 (talk • contribs)

 * It said "liberals" until this afternoon, when someone changed it to "libertarians". Let's just revert it back to what it was earlier today. -Will Beback 04:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, he does describe himself as a "liberal libertarian", for what it's worth. And the anon is wrong -- at least some people who describe themselves as libertarian supported 187. Big-L Libertarians, even. Always struck me as somewhat inconsistant with what I understood of libertarian philosophy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not Rush Limbaugh, but he sure doesn't fall under the "liberal" category. Can we get a better example of a "liberal" than Tom Leykis. Downchuck 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates due to inadequate documentation, lack of source citations
Improper formatting; began a clean up--needs further work by other editors--see top templates added to this talk page as well for guidance re: WP:CITE and WP:NOR and other related WP and guidelines. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Going overboard with "citation needed"
Yeah, this is stupid. All you've done is add "citation needed" after practically every sentence and put so many banners to that effect in every section that it's cluttered the whole article up almost to the point of being unreadable. Certain Wikipedia pages seem to get that way - usually the ones concerning controversial subjects - and mostly, it seems to be a tool that people use to vent their frustration about something that didn't work out the way they wanted to. I have no idea why people think they're actually doing a service or improving the quality of the article whatsoever.

Therefore, as someone who lived through this and can see that the article is generally accurate and factual, I am removing the excess "citation needed" tags. ALL of them. This should improve the general usefulness of the article. Facts are facts, regardless of whether they are provided along with a convenient link to some other source on the Internet. In fact, for events like this one that happened around the time the Internet was still getting off the ground and have since faded into relative obscurity, expecting such an abundance of links is pretty absurd.

Disputing the neutrality if you don't like the subject? Fine. Please don't junk up the whole article by calling every single fact into question needlessly. --User:bradrules 9:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 * If the original research in this article were to be deleted, there would be nothing left, and I frankly question whether the original research is even accurate. Right now, this article is the raw opinion of whoever drafted it.  The fact tags are preferable to simply stubbing the article, but I'll stub the article if you prefer.  THF (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

factual mess
Federal courts do not "rescind" state propositions. Governor Davis colluded with an anti-187 set of organizations to avoid litigating the constitutionality of a measure he opposed. Article needs a complete rewrite. THF (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a claim that you yourself dispute.
I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't it make more sense to do the research first, find the source that verifies this statement, or satisfy yourself that it is not verifiable? It seems a rather extraordinary claim, at least in reference to Feinstein. I'm not familiar with the other person. Dlabtot (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should find sources first, then summarize what they say. Adding something and then noting that no sources can be found for it is putting the cart before the horse. Regarding the comment above, Beilenson was a proponent of immigration reform, but it's not clear that his support was an outcome of Prop. 187. That's why we need sources, not speculation.   Will Beback    talk    20:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like more background information
I would like to know the background of 187 and why they felt it needed to be put into effect (besides just being plain racsist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.235.129 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * It was opposed by a small margin majority of Mexican Americans out of fear it will return the state to the pre-civil rights era, when ethnic or racial discrimination was legal and tolerated. For a state public service to ask a Hispanic/Latino to prove their citizenship is like to ask a Jewish person if they're "Jews"...or say to a black person "we don't serve your kind here". Opponents even compared Prop. 187 to measures taken against California's Asian Americans (notably laws excluded the Chinese from citizenship in the 1880s and acts to put the Japanese into military internment camps during WWII) that indeed violated their civil rights. Prop. 187 would been abused by racists, nativists or xenophobes who don't like Mexicans/Hispanics and may sour the US' diplomatic relations with Mexico or Latin America, where the source of immigration was caused by economic problems and how the American people reacts to ones' suffering. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Why California voters and leadership felt it needed to be put into effect The climate surrounding Prop 187 was largely guided by the immigration debates of the later 1980's, including that around the restrictive Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The text of Prop 187 itself justifies the law by first explaining that the people of California find illegal immigrations as the cause of "economic hardship," "personal injury and damage." Thus, according to the law, because California citizens "have a right a to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully," a state-run system that would verify the legal status of all people seeking public benefits is necessary. Governor Pete Wilson advocated for the law as a measure that would both deter illegal immigrants from entering the state, and motivate them to leave. --Kennethphsu (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

When you look for a 'reason' for something while simultaneously declaring that you won't consider the most commonly accepted 'reason', you are setting yourself up for failure. Otoh I reject the commonly held notion that everything has to have a 'reason'. Dlabtot (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

illegal vs undocumented
They don't really mean the same thing. For example I was born in NYC and I am a US citizen, but I don't at this time have any valid form of identification. Therefore I am 'undocumented' although there is nothing illegal about my residency.

Prop 187 had absolutely nothing to do with people like me who were simply 'undocumented' - it was about people who were illegally residing in the United States.

Hopefully we won't have an edit war about this. Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with Dlabtot. All of the sources cited by the article say "illegal."  An editor changing this to "undocumented" is inserting his or her own personal POV, misrepresenting the sources, and making the article inaccurate.  There's nothing "racist" about calling something illegal "illegal." THF (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In years past there were big fights over the terms. It's quieted down. Dlabtot is arguing from logic which, while often valid, is best avoided on Wikipedia. Instead, we should be arguing from authorities. The sentence in question:
 *  Others expressed fear that the costs of a state-run citizenship screening system and the potential loss of federal funds would off-set any savings of denying public benefits to undocumented immigrants.
 * Refers to a specific view. In the context of this sentence, we should use whichever term the source uses. I don't feel like spending $12 to see what that is. Does anyone have free access?   Will Beback    talk    10:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This isn't a forum, so it's inappropriate for me to engage in a discussion just for the sake of it. That said, the law did require everyone to provide proof of citizenship before receiving public services. See element #4. Theoretically, an undocumented U.S. citizen could have had more trouble getting services than a non-citizen with forged documents, and even citizens with documents could have urgent services delayed while finding their documents. While "undocumented" is used as a euphemism in some contexts, it's actually appropriate here because the law required documentation.    Will Beback    talk    10:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the language of the source. The text of the proposition said it was aimed at "illegal aliens." Every source I've double-checked so far--including the most stodgy law review articles opposed to the proposition--used the term "illegal immigration" or "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien." The fringe claim that there is something "racist" about the phrase and that it must be replaced with "undocumented immigrant" (which is an inaccurate description, since that phrase includes legal immigrants who have lost their papers) is a very recent development. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times used the adjective "illegal" in headlines years after the proposition passed. THF (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fringe claim" according to whom? I don't know how common the "racist" epithet was. However, think a moment on how such a law would be administered in practice. If I was a harried admitting nurse in a community that's 95% white and 5% latino, who would I ask for proof of citizenship? Everybody? Or only those who seem less likely to be citizens, perhaps just because of their skin color? Anyway, we're not here to refight a 16-year old battle. We agree that the content should follow the sources. So far as this sentence, I don't care which term is used until we establish which is used by the source.   Will Beback    talk    11:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Again, Prop 187 explicitly applied to "illegal aliens", so you have your answer. Wikipedia has an article called illegal immigration. I disagree with your "think a moment" argument, but WP:NOT and it would be inappropriate to have that discussion irrelevant to the article, since neither my personal opinion nor your personal opinion matters. Please strike the argument that is about the topic and not about the article (and feel free to strike these last two sentences when you do). THF (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposition may use "alien", but this thread is about a sentence concerning a particular article, so that's what matters in this context.   Will Beback    talk    19:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? This thread is about a new editor insisting on taking out every instance of the word "illegal," though the problem seems to be moot now, unless you also want to buck the stable version of the article. The article itself is about a proposition that explicitly applies to illegal aliens, so I don't understand why you objected to my citation to the proposition that the article is about. I don't know what you're proposing now. THF (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about this edit, and the author in question is Suàrez-Orozco.   Will Beback    talk    20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the author of the article that uses the term "illegal aliens" on the ungated front page? Hence my confusion. THF (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that author. The only place I see "aliens" on that page is in a quotation from the proposition.   Will Beback    talk    23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. This article is about California Proposition 187, which concerned illegal aliens. The PC-speak euphemism 'undocumented aliens' wasn't even in usage back in 1994, afaik. Will Beback, are you proposing some edit to the current text? If so, what edit are you proposing? If not, I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Dlabtot (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing, for this sentence, that we use whichever term the author uses most commonly. Until we discover that, I don't care which term we use.   Will Beback    talk    00:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

New discussion on the subject
Per this discussion, I am restoring the term "undocumented immigrant", which is by far the more commonly used term. Wikipedia guidelines favor word choices according to the language of today, not the language as of the time of the sources. For example, we do not refer to women as "the fairer sex", African Americans as "negroes", etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion is close to eight years (c)old and did not arrive to the conclusion you're drawing now. Richard 08:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, so either the discussion is stale and the terminology should reflect modern usage, or the discussion is not stale and it endorses modern usage. Either way we should not continue to use an outdated term that, to state the obvious, is not neutral and is racially charged. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ilegal alien" is widely described as a pejorative term in RS. It's racially incendiary and dehumanizing. If bills and laws use terms such as the n-word, mongrel, wetbacks etc., Wikipedia should not use those terms in Wiki-voice. You're seriously edit-warring to introduce this pejorative term to the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, 'alien' is a legal term that is in current use. Richard 10:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? Should we also refer to "immigrants" as "wetbacks" in the Operation Wetback article and "greasers" in the Greaser Act article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike 'greaser' and 'wetback', I don't perceive 'alien' as offensive. You obviously do, but that is your point of view. Or is it the term 'illegal' that bothers you? 'Alien' is neither racist nor dehumanizing. Sting sang a song about a legal alien and an American citizen residing in another country could be referred to as an alien as well. Race has nothing to do with it. Richard 11:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple style guides refer to "illegal alien" as a pejorative. The term is commonly used by racists and far-right publications precisely because it's a racially charged dehumanizing pejorative. Why are you so attracted to this term? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Who says I'm attracted to the term? It's the term used in the proposal and I see no reason not to use it. Richard 11:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're edit-warring to keep this term, for which far more common synonyms without pejorative attachments exist, in the article. A fringe term which is overwhelmingly used by racists and far-right figures and publications. Why, I do not know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That racists use a term, and that others use a different term to distantiate themselves from those racists, does not make the term racist. Richard 14:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: as for 'greasers': the article on that act is called 'Greaser Act' and not 'Anti-Vagrancy Act'. That last name is not even used for a redirect page. Richard
 * I have no idea what you're trying to say. Should we refer to immigrants as "greasers" in the Wikipedia article in question? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. It only shows that the term is used in the description and in the page title. Richard 11:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 * This was brought up in July 2017 by Snoogans here at WP:NPOVN and closed in October 2017. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where the 'rough consensus' was to not ban the term. Richard 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, the argument was it was a derogatory term and should be banned. Consensus found that was not the case, I brought it up since the argument was made here that it was a pejorative term. PackMecEng (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Richard 14:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to start a RfC on whether we should use the term "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There was not a consensus that the term was not derogatory. There was a rough consensus on not issuing a blanket ban on the term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment I have introduced a new subheading for this renewed discussion. And I just want to caution you all: this change has been introduced into the article three times and reverted three times. You all know better than to edit war like that. Per BRD, the change was introduced; it was reverted; it's time for discussion. (I have no opinion or comment on the substance of this discussion.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Richard, it's a legal term. We should not be using euphemisms. – Lionel(talk) 00:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

plyer v Doe
Plyer v Doe is referenced under legal challenges.:

"In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration, similar to the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.[20]"

While it might be relavent to Prop 187, Plyer v Doe rests on the 14th amendment. and not the supremacy clause. Also, citation 20 refers to a Los Angeles Times article that does not refer in any way to Plyer v Doe. I will remove the reference to Plyer v Doe if no one objects. I would be interested in a reference to the injunction itself, which would clarify any connection between the Pfaelzer ruling and Plyer v Doe.

99.90.121.151 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

fixed. 173.196.196.93 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

– California Proposition 187 redirects here and California Proposition 209 redirects there. In both circumstances the disambiguator is incorrect as there aren't other 187 and 209 proposals. Unless there is something to disambiguate the disambiguator is not helpful, per WP:PRECISION, WP:NATURAL or DAB, because there is no ambiguity. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  23:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * California Proposition 187 (1994) → California Proposition 187
 * California Proposition 209 (1996) → California Proposition 209
 * Support. The title should be the common name of the subject and nothing more, whenever that is technically possible. RevoltingHomoBoy (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subsequent developments: Eagle Forum
In the Subsequent developments section, I'm having trouble integrating Eagle Forum's opinion with the NPOV tone of the article. Cutting closer to the source's own words (immigrants "want bigger government") would clarify how Eagle Forum defines American liberalism, but those words also entail a heavy conservative POV. Maybe Eagle Forum isn't the best source to be using? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected section title. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on California Proposition 187. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520052453/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520052453/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: "Illegal aliens" vs. a synonym
Should this article use the term "illegal aliens" in Wiki voice rather than synonyms such as "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose - The term "illegal aliens" is a contentious label (WP:LABEL) that is widely considered by reliable sources to be pejorative. The term is one of affinity to racists and far-right publications. The term is not frequently used in reliable sources, certainly not more so than the synonyms "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants". Major news org style guides prohibit use of the term, such as the Associated Press, The Washington Post and the New York Times. The term does occur in law, but according to PolitiFact, the term only occurs in "scattered mentions" and does not refer to all illegal immigrants (in other words, the legal term "illegal alien" is different from conventional use). This is the summary of the PolitiFact piece on the term: "The term appears--yet scarcely--in federal law. Best we can tell, though, no law defines the term as referring to all individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Where the term does appear, it’s undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies." I do not see why Wikipedia should use a contentious value-laden term that reliable sources characterize as pejorative when there are readily available synonyms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Snooganssnoogans. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is no reason not to. Snooganssnoogans obviously has a problem with this terminology; s/he has tried to get a blanket ban on its use, that did not work out and now s/he is trying to get rid of it another way. However:
 * "Illegal alien" is the term used in California Proposition 187;
 * "Alien" is a legal term in use today;
 * and, as I said earlier, that racists use a term, and that others use a different term to distantiate themselves from those racists, does not make the term racist. The term can apply to people of all colors and ethnical backgrounds.
 * As to his/her quotations: Associated Press focuses more on the term 'illegal' than on the term 'alien' and the combination 'illegal alien' is only used once (it is not to be used except in direct quotations). The New York Times handles two issues: the use of 'illegal' as a noun instead of as an adjective (which does not apply in this case) and the use of '(illegal) alien'. On that, it is cited "I checked the NYT style book, and found the guidance not terribly helpful. The entry is not explicit on “illegals.” It says only this: “Illegal immigrant is the preferred term, rather than the sinister-sounding illegal alien. Do not use the euphemism undocumented.”" and quoted that "our practice is to avoid “illegals” as well as “illegal aliens,” and on the other hand, to also steer clear of the euphemistic “undocumented workers.”" So yes, they try to avoid the term (they do not prohibit it) but they also say that using 'undocumented' is not the way to do so. As for PolitiFact: "We recognize, though, that "illegal alien" persists. The term showed up 80 times in our May 2018 Google search of the PolitiFact website with "illegal aliens" popping up 5,620 times." Aside from the fact that we don't have to follow internal guidelines from press agencies and the like, deducing from the given pages that they 'prohibit use of the term' is, in my opinion, wishful reading. Richard 08:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Comment: Illegal immigrants is the more commonly understood term globally, so I would be happier if that were used in the article. However, there could be a bigger problem here. The article quotes the proposition as stating "That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state", but Wikisource has that as "That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state". Which is correct? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When first added, the quote used "illegal aliens". This appears to be correct. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Quote should certainly always be exact. I've fixed it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes. Illegal alien is a proper legal term. It might sound (E.T.) odd (on the other hand - red state California (pre-92) is funky as well) - but this is the proper lingo. We don't replace legal terms and the language used in a proposition due to terminological preferences - and news org style guides (as evident in the NPOV/n discussion a while back) differ on usage here.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. per Icewhiz. Illegal alien IS a legal term (See the 14th amendment), and though I agree that it can be contentious, it isn't Wikipedia's place to appeal to every single group. We should strive to meet the standard whenever possible. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk)
 * Yes Not only the text of the proposition, but every contemporaneous source used in the article uses the term illegal alien. It's not our job to rewrite history. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked one source at random: the 2006 APSR study and it does not use the term "illegal aliens". Your statement is therefore verifiably false and you should strike it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited my comment for clarity. PC-speak didn't even exist when the Prop 187 was passed. Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes - Summoned by bot. "Illegal alien" is the legal term used in the proposition. Meatsgains (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use illegal immigrant, illegal alien only with intext attribution based on my reading of WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Also it seems to be the term of consensus at the much larger pages Illegal immigration and Illegal immigration to the United States. I find the "yes" comments above unconvincing: the article Martin Luther King Jr. doesn't describe him as a Negro (despite contemporaneous sources describing him as such); no one cried that we rewrote history. Language changes. Just because contemporaneous sources used one particular term doesn't mean we are locked into it for all time, especially when current writing style disfavors it. And that current writing style dispreffers "illegal aliens" is clear. Our article on the concept, linked in the lead of this article, is entitled Illegal immigration to the United States; the page Illegal aliens redirects to Illegal immigration; as linked above, contemporary style manuals obviously disfavor if not outright prohibit use of "illegal alien"; its use in the federal code is not-uniform; the Library of Congress began to remove it from subject headings in 2016; California Governor Jerry Brown in 2015 removed the term from the state labor code; I doubt anyone would sincerely say that in the United States "illegal alien" is not a "value-laden label" per WP:LABEL so there is even reason to believe our own style manual disprefers it (just because something is a legal term doesn't mean it is value-neutral, the New York Times literally described "illegal" in this context as "value-laden"). The yes comments above entirely fail to take into account wider consensus on this issue, both on Wikipedia and in external style guides (consider WP:MOS: "Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with modern editions of other guides to style and usage, which may cover details not included here."). Now obviously "illegal alien" is used in the text of the proposition and in sources of that same period: in quoting them and describing them we should follow WP:LABEL and attribute where that language comes from. But in generally talking about the concept of unauthorized immigration into the United States outside of in-text-attributed quotations and attributed historic descriptions, we should follow prevailing practice in dispreferring "illegal alien".While my preferred choice is "unauthorized immigrant" or better "people who illegally immigrated", given the article titles and usage in Illegal immigration and Illegal immigration to the United States I think "illegal immigrant" is the consensus on Wikipedia. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Illegal immigrant per Snooganssnoogans and Wugapodes. That illegal alien is an official term should have no bearing - wikipedia does not strive to use the "official" term, but the term used by high quality sources and that most comports with WP:NPOV - which is clearly "illegal immigrants" per a simple google scholar search, which finds that (addendum: academic) sources clearly use "illegal immigrant". That news style guides are against the use of "illegal aliens" bolsters the case for "illegal immigrant" per WP:LABEL Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This RFC was closed 31 July 2018. Richard 11:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RFC are like any other discussion - they don't automatically stop thirty days after they start, rather one can comment until someone closes them, which I don't see has happened. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I thought this edit was about that, but I'm probably mistaken. Richard 12:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Immigrant, not alien There's a reason why every Wikipedia article on illegal immigration refers to it as immigration and those that immigrate as immigrants. "Alien" quite easily fails WP:LABEL. Immigrant is the more commonly used term both worldwide, in the US, and in sources. This isn't even a question. It's not contentious to use the word immigrant. Anyone can think what they want about illegal immigrants, but they'll still use the term "illegal immigrants" regardless of their thoughts on the matter, which is kind of the point of WP:NPOV. Brendon the Wizard  ✉ ✨ 15:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Improper and premature closure of RfC: "Illegal aliens" vs. a synonym
There was clearly no consensus prior to the closure of this RFC. The non-admin closure by User:The_Gnome is prefaced: The responses in this RfC are numerically tied but a decision can be taken on the basis of the strength of each side's arguments and on Wikipedia policy. In other words this user just took it upon his or herself to simply decide that their opinion was correct rather than wait for consensus. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Dlabtot (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Dlabtot. It should not surprise you that I find your description of how the RfC was closed to be misleading and incorrect. If, in any case, you feel the closure is somehow wrong, you are encouraged to take it up on appeal. Look up WP:ACD. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply stating that something is incorrect, obviously is not an example of engaging in discussion. Please do take this opportunity to talk to me. If you feel your position is so weak that your only defense is an administrative one, I will eventually engage in that long, boring process. As an alternative, I suggest we work together as allies to make this encyclopedia article the best that it can be. Are you open to a collaborative discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, seriously, I am someone who lived in California at the time, I voted against the proposition, I have no axe to grind, I simply believe that the article should accurately reflect the reality of the proposition and how the sources described it. Dlabtot (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, pretending that any essay, which by definition is the opinion of one person, is in some way the same as a consensus is a self-refuting argument. Dlabtot (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the closure might have been erroneous, even though I stand by it, but your objection to it amounts to broad-brush coloring and nothing more. I provided a rather extended explanation and presented in detail the reasoning behind the closure, a reasoning founded on the quality of the arguments presented and Wikipedia's rules; and not based on "my opinion." I find no evidence that could support your characterization (i.e. the closer "just took it upon his or herself to simply decide that their opinion was correct"). I have no idea how to address this except to invite you to re-read the text of the closure. And invite other editors to comment here, as well, if they feel like doing so. Going back and forth on the basis of "I like it", "Well I don't like it" is a dead end. Better let others chime in, at this point. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * [EDIT CONFLICT] I posted the above in response to the first of the three messages preceding it. I now see you added an objection about using essays as the basis for the closure (or for any other decision in Wikipedia, I take it). Again, I fail to see the relevance. Checking back on the text, you will see that all the cited rules are policies or guidelines: WP:MOSLEAD, WP:RS WP:VULGAR are guidelines; and WP:NPOV is a policy. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I regret your unwillingness to engage in an honest and frank discussion. But since you are unwilling to do so, I will, in due course, invoke the tedious and very not-enjoyable administrative procedures that Wikipedia has in place for resolving disputes when editors are not interested in reaching a good faith consensus. As they said in The Village, 'be seing you'. Dlabtot (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that my responses have not been "honest and frank," Dlabtot. You asked me to "work together as allies to make this encyclopedia article the best that it can be" and if I'm "open to a collaborative discussion." But it takes specifics to have a discussion. It should be clear that I responded to the only specific point you made, i.e. that I used a Wikipedia essay as the basis of the decision. Apart from that, I fail to see any other specific point you made to which I could reasonably respond. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the energy for a WP:BATTLE. It really is wrong to replace the original language as reflected in the sources with pc-speak from decades later, but so be it, you win.  Unwatching.  Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Obviously I'm biased having articulated a position in line with the closure, but The Gnome's closure is quite obviously a good one. Firstly, the RfC was opened in July and closed two months later in September. RfCs typically run for 30 days, so saying a closure after 60 days is "premature" is quite ludicrous. Secondly, per the 3rd point at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, RfCs can be closed by any uninvolved editor in good standing, not just administrators, so pointing out that it's a "non-admin closure" has nothing to do with the quality of a close. Thirdly, in claiming the closer ignored the numerical tally, you seem to forget the literal first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote". Discussions are closed based upon the weight of policy based rationales offered in support of positions, not how many people voted one way or the other. If you genuinely think the close was bad, request a review of the close at WP:AN, but The Gnome is correct in stating that you've given nothing to discuss so far. Your objections so far just show an ignorance of how discussions are run and closed, and I don't blame them for not engaging further here. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Reaction from Minority Groups
I feel that adding reactions from different minority ethnic groups from California could be useful to note the different responses from this time. Not every Latino, Asian or African American individual reacted in uniform, with interest groups rising together and formalizing coalitions in response against prop 187. There are many unique responses from various Eastern Asian groups that I will be contributing to in particular. I believe that including the narrative of these groups and how they came together can be one venue that explains California's shift to blue. SeyeongMin (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:1994 California Proposition 187


text:
Talk:Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

For what it's worth, this content (in Malay, according to Fiveless) was pasted into Jonathan_Strange_&_Mr_Norrell. That will be turned into a redirect, but if anyone can read Malay, there may be something useful here. Or something worth putting in the Malay Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:00, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

JONATHAN STRANGE & Mr NORRELL

Penulis: Susanna Clarke Penerbit: Bloomsburry

Buku ini betul-betul tentang magic dan magicians. Dengan baca buku ini, kita serasa jadi tahu bagaimana magicians sebenarnya, as human beings, gitu deh. Settingnya di Inggris pada abad 19. Tokoh utamanya ada dua: Mr Norrell dan Jonathan Strange. Karakter mereka menarik. Misalnya Mr Norrell: biarpun dia jago sihir, tapi penampilannya biasa saja, orangnya juga penggugup. Orang-orang sampai sering salah kira dia dengan pembantunya yang memang berpenampilan sesuai gambaran awam tentang magician: tall, dark, and handsome.

Nah, ceritanya sihir sudah dua ratus tahun lenyap dari Inggris. Mr Norrell prihatin banget, makanya dia mau mengangkat Jonathan Strange jadi muridnya. Oya, menurut buku ini, magician sejenis occupation yang bisa dipelajari, istilahnya scholar magician. Dari sini, barulah ada perkembangan: kalau orang itu memang berbakat, dia akan punya kekuatan untuk membuat spells dia ampuh. Kalau nggak, dia terbatas jadi scholar magician biasa.

Strange sendiri digambarkan manusiawi juga. Dia takut mikirin reaksi pacarnya kalau tahu dia mau jadi penyihir saja, bukan pekerjaan lain yang lebih menguntungkan, businessman, misalnya. Terus, dia juga bisa kesal pada Mr Norrell yang gak mau meminjami dia buku-buku di perpustakaannya yang super komplet. Selain itu, buku ini juga lucu. Waktu Norrell mau membantu Inggris berperang melawan Prancis, dia menyihir patung di kapal Prancis yg ditangkap Inggris supaya bisa bicara tentang posisi kapal-kapal Prancis lain. Tapi ternyata karena hidup di antara pelaut, patung itu waktu bisa ngomong malah cuma memaki-maki ala pelaut.

Strange membantu Inggris berperang di Portugal dengan menurunkan hujan deras, membuat jalan sehingga bisa dilalui tentara Inggris, bahkan menghidupkan mayat! Selain itu, dia bisa juga memindahkan kota. Tapi belakangan Portugal komplain: kalau terus dipindah-pindah, lama-lama peta wilayah negara mereka jadi tidak keruan dong! Oya, dengan baca buku ini kita juga jadi tahu soal fairy. Di sini fairy digambarkan sebagai makhluk yang licik. Waktu Mr Norrell diminta menghidupkan wanita bangsawan yang meninggal karena sakit, ia minta bantuan fairy. Fairy itu menyanggupi, tapi dengan syarat setengah umur wanita itu harus diserahkan padanya. Mr Norrell mengira setengah umur itu diambil belakangan, tapi ternyata si fairy tiap malam menculik wanita itu ke kerajaannya. Akibatnya, wanita itu cuma “hidup” di siang hari. Kalau malam, dia tampak duduk bengong saja, karena sebetulnya jiwanya berada di kerajaan fairy.

"Tantangan" buku ini: tebal halamannya yang dahsyat, 800 halaman, dengan huruf yang kecil-kecil pula. Terus, bahasa Inggris-nya kelas kakap. Membaca buku ini serasa membaca novel klasik kayak karya Bronte. Juga, buku ini di awal agak lambat, tapi cuma sebentar kok. Begitu sudah bisa "masuk" ke jiwa buku ini, langsung terasa seru, unputdownable. Yang seru juga: buku ini diterbitkan dalam dua versi: hitam dan putih.

Criticism
I found it surprising that the novel has been accused of chauvinism, which I assume "male chauvinism" is meant. While none of the women in the novel are central characters, the principal men are shown to be blind, arrogant, fearful, and foolish. If Jonathan Strange is the protagonist, he is hardly the hero. In many ways, the novel is a work of feminism: showing dramatically the suffering of women who are unempowered, segregated, and frequently treated as if they were ill. -Acjelen 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

criticism: length
 First and foremost, the story could have easily been told in half as many pages. Amusing :) The page count could have been halved merely by using single-spacing rather than double, at least in the UK paperback. -- Jon Dowland 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Name
Given that the book is actually titled "... Mr Norrell" rather than "... Mr. Norrell" (note the lack of the period) in all editions, wouldn't it make more sense to have the article at "... Mr Norrell" and the redirect to the other form? If no one objects, I'll make this change soon. Brendan 06:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made the change, and fixed all the links on other pages so that they point directly there. I also moved everything on this talk page to that on the new location. Brendan 01:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell


text:
Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board/2008

Chinese name or Korean name?
The proper article name needs to be determined, for geographic features on the Chinese - North Korean border. Based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:NC, it appears that the most common name should be used. But there is argument as to which is more popular. --Endroit 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Chonji or Tianchi? See Talk:Chonji
 * Baekdu Mountain or Changbai Mountain? See Talk:Baekdu Mountain

DYK
The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

China, PRC, Mainland China, and Hong Kong categorisation
I posted a note some time ago about categorisation relating to Hong Kong (and on the same basis, Macau) at the categorisation project page. I invite anyone interested in such matters to participate, either there on in some other centralised location. Similar issues seem to arise at any number of CFD and SFD debates, it would be good to have an agreed approach to the subject in general, rather than tackling them on a one-off basis every time. Alai 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Gojoseon
Recent edits made to Gojoseon (古朝鮮) suggest that Gojoseon covered all of Manchuria as far north as the Amur and Argun rivers and as far inland as the Greater Khingan Range. This appears to be a Breathejustice-like POV-push to me. If anyone's interested, can you take a look to see how legitimate the edits are? -- ran (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism likely in the next few months
The Academic Decathlon is a national high school academic competition. Each year a different topic is chosen. Last year's was the Renaissance in Europe; this year's is China. Most students use Wikipedia extensively. Last year there was some vandalism in the Renaissance pages by AD competitors. There is likely to be more this year in the China pages.

Just a heads-up.

LY --68.36.211.222 19:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Acadec sucks. -- Миборо в ский 00:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mandarin Emperor style dildo
Can some veterans who know some Chinese take a look at the sources of thise article and verify their contents? - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vernacular scripts
vote on the use of scripts--D-Boy 01:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nathu La Peer Review
Hi all,

I have started a Peer Review of Nathu La article. The article is very intimately linked to China. Since most of the editors to the article till now have been Indians, there is a chance that inadvertently pro-India POV may have crept in the article. I request the editors to provide inputs if they feel that the article presents the topic in non-neutral light. Of course, general comments on the article are also welcome. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Warlord era
Hello,

Though the Warlord era is definitely an important subject, I feel that this template is simply too large as it currently exists. I believe that it should be split into four parts, and have created sample templates that show this idea. They can be viewed by going to User:Danaman5/Workshop and clicking on the four "Warlord era"" links. Please leave any comments on my user talk page.

Thanks, --Danaman5 06:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

garbage
ladies and gentlemen, the Chinese language article is officially garbage.
 * "Both Guanhua and Putonghua are called Mandarin Chinese in the West but they are indeed different languages."

 * "China has had only two official languages in its entire history. 满语 Manyu, the Manchu language, was the first official language of China, from 1644 till 1912. 普通话 Putonghua has been the official language of China since 1958. Before 1958, no form of Chinese was ever the official language of China." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.14 (talk • contribs)

 * One garbage section does not mean that the entire article is garbage. The garbage section is now removed however, thanks for putting the notice :)! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * "Guandonghua and Putonghua are only spoken. The writing is the same so there no differences in an article."
 * Not entirely true, as there are many idioms from one, which when put in writing, are not understood to speakers of the latter. However, your assertion is true enough in a broad sense. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios on Chinese articles
I found copyright violations on the following pages:
 * Chinese architecture
 * Chinese pagodas
 * Imperial roof decoration
 * Lingnan culture

It's also possible that the following page violates copyright, at least in part:
 * Walled villages of Hong Kong -- the original's here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Élan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

 * These are NOT copyright violations. The referenced pages at www.iblio.org each contain text and images lifted from Wikipedia articles on or somewhat after 26 April 2006. Previous histories show the building of the articles from many contributions over a period of time. See in particular Imperial roof decoration and its talk page, (I contributed both of the images and most of the text associated with the article claimed to be the violated source). I have removed the tags that were posted by Elan (note that posting of copyvio tags has been the only contribution to WP by Elan). -Leonard G. 04:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The website operator has responded to my notification of this matter and I have informed him of various options concerning licensing and display of text and images. This was due to an error in source verification of the work contributed by an intern and has been largely corrected, with some continuing effort required on his part to properly accredit images, or on my part, to release images contributed by myself under cc-sa to the public domain, which I have offered. - Leonard G. 00:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Octopus Card Featured Article Review
Octopus card has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Ch e  z  ( Discuss  /  Email  ) 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SummerThunder
This user is currently pushing POV into the articles Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China and Chinese Wikipedia. The same user has already been permanently banned in the Chinese Wikipedia for aggressive POV-pushing and personal attacks.

Please come take a look if you're interested. -- ran (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

wikiproject china
Its now up on hindi wikipedia at विकिपीडिया:विकिपरियोजना चीन.  Kingrom  23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Awesome. I wonder if there are any Hindi-speaking Chinese. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can some sysop protect this page South Tibet
Blocking the page from editing [],someone keep up deleting the materials and making some funny reasons to the deletion such as my poor english or the chinese pinyin Zangnan didn't mean South Tibet. --Ksyrie 10:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * This "someone" is me. Your English is fine, and I'm not a native speaker either. Ksyrie, don't distort the facts. I've only been removing unsourced material and unsuitable links. I was just going to ask for help from other editors with that article and I'd actually be very grateful for more different voices in the discussion on South Tibet. —Babelfisch 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese
I noticed that for some of the Chinese history articles names of emperors, places, or other things would be written in only simplified Chinese or traditional Chinese. I feel that perhaps both versions of the name should be included since both names would still be used to describe the object, place, or person. Also, I feel that some of the romanizations for the names of people, places, or things might be off. For example, I noted that Huang Taiji, the first Qing emperor, was repeatedly referred to as Hung Taiji, which is very inaccurate in that "Hung" does not refer to any known Chinese character in the official Chinese dialect of Mandarin. AkrobaticMonkey 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is to be a default character set, I believe the trad chinese character set should prevail as it is more universal - many people outside China can only read trad chinese while all simp readers will know the trad characters. Personally, I believe that having too many characters and transliterations detracts from a given article, and may put people off reading it. It can stop people dead in ther tracks right at the beginning of an article, and so should be used with restraint. I have seen otherwise well written articles littered with both character sets, for example Jingkang Incident, which I have since ejected to a section below. My preference is that these are best kept within the chinese language template Chinese or somesuch, such as for Yue Fei, leaving the body of article free of these. The Genghis Khan and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 articles also have that problem, as the name is in more languages and or alternatives, and editors have chosen, wisely in my view, to take that out of the lead section to a section below. Where another Chinese name which appears in a given article is already linked to anothe wiki article, the link should obviate the need to include its Chinese name. Ohconfucius 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement above that "all simp readers will know the trad characters" is untrue. On Monday evening my local restaurant in Shenzhen allocated tables to specific captains, putting a plate with their name on the table. I pointed out to the captain of my table that the second part of her surname was "east" [dong] written as a traditional character, and so it was easy for me to remember. She denied this and wrote a simplified "east". We discussed the matter with most people firm one way or the other, until a mahjong set was produced, and I was awarded the point. Other common characters that are mutually incomprehensible are "gate" [men] and "guang" as in the provinces. I think that the statement that "all trad readers will know the simp characters (either now or very soon in wiki terms)" is closer to the truth, and so would strongly support the use of simplified on all articles concerning China. I agree that they should be kept to a bare minimum.

BTW - The article on Shenzhen makes we weep.

Mikecc46 (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mikecc46. Many young chinese in China as well as Chinese diaspora in other territories such as Singapore/Malaysia are being taught simplified chinese in their education systems, so the future generations within these areas will not be familiar with traditional chinese words. It will be unfair for them to try and recognise traditional characters. In the future, when most Chinese in China are educated in the simplified form and the older generation are dead and gone, whose to say the majority of chinese recognise the traditional character sets then? I think to be fair, both sets should be used.Mineowyn (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Qingnian Wenzhai
The article for the magazine Qingnian Wenzhai ( has been proposed for deletion; perhaps someone here can find additional material that would support its importance--or confirm that it isnt, as the case may be. DGG (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid
A newly created article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited on Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Humiliation of Jingkang
Hi all, I am a newbie and it's great to be here to work with you all. I am currently working on The Humiliation of Jingkang in the Chinese History. I welcome all reviews, feel free edit or let me know what I am missing. TheAsianGURU 05:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have completed the article. Please feel free to visit and share your ideas on the article. Thank you. TheAsianGURU 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Seeking input in resolving dispute about Falun Gong attempts to dismiss as hoax. Kent Wang 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. TheAsianGURU 07:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolved. Thanks everyone! Kent Wang 12:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
Hi,

Is there a reason the "collaboration of the week" has been defunct for several years now? Can it be started back up (or at least institute some sort of regular article improvement drive)? Thanks. --Malachirality 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll join in. Which article? Hadoooookin (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * We need to gather enough people before we can start that project again. Aquarius • talk 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that the whole idea of "collaboration of the week" is wrong. Since everybody's schedule is different. We should keep updating the "To Do List" and people can work on the items on their free time. Just my 20cents, that's all. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed please
Please could someone have a look at The Aowei Church of Holy Rosary ?

This short article is currently an odd mix of English and Chinese characters. thisisace (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like it will need some translation work done. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please expand Linfen
Hello, Linfen has only 8 lines on a 4 million inhabitant city. That's one of the most severe cases of I have encountered so far. Can someone who knows about the subject expand it? Thanks! --Gerrit CUTEDH 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, any medium size city in China will have millions of people. I just checked the Chinese section of the wiki page, I was hoping I could translate some of the stuff over. Unfortunately, it also has only 3 lines of words. TheAsianGURU (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lord Mengchang of Qi
Hi all, I have started a new project. Please feel free to visit, edit and let me know what I am missing or where I can improve. Thank you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pīnyīn transcription
Most Wiki articles that use the pīnyīn transcription system do not include tone marks. Should this not be added to include as much phonetic information into the transcription as possible? Daofeishi 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if most of the people want to add tone marks, not that many people know how. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help to update article
Hey everyone! I was hoping to find one or two people who wouldn't mind looking at an article that needs revision and possible merging. The article titled Luzon Empire is has been flagged as not meeting quality standards. If you have a moment to take a look, please do so and leave any comments or suggestions on the discussion page. If you can work on it, feel free. Thank you all very much! :o) Rwking2 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

China and PRC articles request to be renamed
User:SmuckyTheCat is requesting that China be renamed, and replaced by the People's Republic of China article at "China". 70.55.88.176 (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community
Hello folks,

The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit also to be held in Cebu, and which the Philippine Wikipedia Community is a Implementing Partner in. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to network with leaders from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. To register for the Open Source Summit, please contact CEDF-IT. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community WP:PINOY

Neolithic signs in China
I am new comer.please help to vote this good one.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of national shooting records surpassing the world records
I have been working on this list, but many countries are yet unchecked, some because there are no official record lists published online and others because my language skills have not (despite Google Translate) allowed me to check if there are. Of the latter, China (PRC) is by far the most glaring omission, being the currently most successful country in sport shooting. If someone who is able to read http://shooting.sport.org.cn/ could take a quick look and tell me if it includes a list of Chinese records, I would be very grateful, all in the spirit of WP:CSB. -- Jao (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Found it! -- Jao (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
RTML

RTML is a proprietary programming language used exclusively by Yahoo!'s '''Yahoo! Store and Yahoo! Site''' web hosting services.

History
The language originated at Viaweb, a company founded in 1995 by Paul Graham and Robert T. Morris, as the template language for their e-commerce platform. RTML stands for "Robert T. Morris Language". The RTML editor was offered as an option for customers (usually small businesses) who wanted to customize their online stores more than the built-in templates allowed. The built-in templates were also written in RTML, and provided the starting point for most people who used the language.

In 1998, Yahoo! bought Viaweb for $49.6 million and renamed the service '''Yahoo! Store'''. Yahoo! later offered the RTML-based content management system in a hosting platform without a shopping cart, under the name '''Yahoo! Site'''.

In 2003, Yahoo! renamed the '''Yahoo! Store service ''Yahoo! Merchant Solutions (part of Yahoo! Small Business'), and at the same time began offering new customers the choice of a more standard PHP/MySQL web hosting environment instead of the RTML-based Store Editor. , many new Yahoo! Merchant Solutions sites and legacy Yahoo! Stores continue to be built using the Store Editor and RTML.

Language
Although Yahoo!'s documentation does not mention it, RTML is actually implemented on top of a Lisp-based system. The language is somewhat unusual in that the programmer cannot edit the source code directly as text. Instead, keywords are presented as hyperlinks in a browser-based HTML interface. Clicking on a keyword selects it, and its attributes can be edited. Blocks of code can be pushed and popped from a clipboard, using the stack metaphor. The editor maintains the code's s-expression structure automatically, and visually represents it in the web interface using indentation instead of Lisp's parentheses. Most of the keywords correspond to HTML elements, but there are also conditionals, recursion, and other control flow features that make it a "real" programming language.

RTML templates are evaluated dynamically for each pageview during editing, but for the live site a "publish" process generates static HTML files from them.

Abbreviation
Yahoo!'s documentation used to say that RTML was an acronym for "Real Time Markup Language", but Graham admitted that "we made up various explanations for what RTML was supposed to stand for, but actually I named it after Robert Morris, the other founder of Viaweb, whose username is rtm."

title: RTML


text: Category:Lighting designers

title: Category:Lighting designers


text:
Lake Bogoria

Lake Bogoria (formerly Lake Hannington) is a saline, alkaline lake that lies in a volcanic region in a half-graben basin south of Lake Baringo, Kenya, a little north of the equator. Lake Bogoria, like Lake Nakuru, Lake Elementeita, and Lake Magadi further south in the Rift Valley, and Lake Logipi to the north, is periodically home to one of the world's largest populations of lesser flamingos. The lake is a Ramsar site and Lake Bogoria National Reserve has been a protected National Reserve since November 29, 1973.

History
The lake was formerly named after Bishop James Hannington who visited in 1885.

Description
Lake Bogoria is located in Baringo County, about 120 km north of Nakuru city and 240 km north of Nairobi. It is in the Gregorian Rift Valley.

It was once part of a larger freshwater lake, joined with the current Lake Baringo.

As shown on the satellite picture at the top of this page, it is divided in three lobes: a large center one and two smaller ones at the north and south extremities. The two narrower areas separating these lobes are shallow, tectonically controlled sills at Nyalibuch and Mwanassis.

There are contradictions regarding its altitude. Unesco's Ramsar gives 963 m. More precise — and more prudent —, give c. 990 m as of August 1977, but also indicate that the lake's level fluctuates seasonally by 50 to 100 cm; and that it can vary by several meters for short periods, having fluctuated between c. 988 and c. 996 m during the 20th century. Lake-shore terraces around the shoreline, made of coarse angular gravel and angular orthoconglomerates, mark higher lake levels from the Pleistocene and Holocene. They are visible on 45% of the present level, and some are about 9 m above the present shoreline.

In 1991 the maximum length is 17.6 km and its width ranges from 0.5 km to 3.6 km.

The drainage basin is 700 km2. The lowest point of the drainage divide is at 999 m near Loboi village; when the level of the lake reaches that altitude, its waters flow northward in lake Baringo drainage basin.

In 1978 its maximum depth was recorded as 12 m or 11.5 m, and precise that this was in the largest sub-basin or lobe; and that the two smaller parts at the north and south extremities were 5.5 m deep at that time. In 2003 its maximum depth is just over 10 m in an area of 3000 ha. This is relatively shallow, but nevertheless deeper — and therefore hydrologically more stable — than the other endorheic lakes in Kenya. The Rift Valley lakes undergo regular (and cyclic) changes in water levels mostly in response to precipitation, which is unreliable and unpredictable. In this region, lake Bogoria is the only alkaline lake that has minimal lake water fluctuations, and is used as a refuge for flamigos and other animals when other relatively shallow lakes dry out.

Its surface is generally 3300 ha but this fluctuates, essentially according to the amount of rainfall. Most of the rain falls between April and November, and precipitation ranges average about 700 mm on the Loboi plain and 1200 mm on the adjacent highlands. But El Nino years bring increased rainfall and ﬂooding of the lake shores. For example, in 2020 its area increased to about 4690 ha: 2020 was one of the hottest years on record, but despite depressed rainfall in the short-rains season (October to December, or OND) it also saw a wetter than normal January and February because of the strong positive Indian Ocean Dipole index during that period, and enhanced rainfall during the long-rains season (March to May, or MAM) (that year, Lake Victoria rose to a new record level).

However, evaporation rate is above 2500 mm, thus inducing a water deﬁcit and creating semi-arid conditions over most of the lower parts of the Bogoria basin.

Wetlands
Although the lake is in a semi-arid part of Kenya Rift Valley, it is surrounded by numerous and varied wetlands along its shorelines, along faults where hot, warm and cold springs have developed, and along rivers that run across the rift ﬂoor.

Types of wetlands
Six major types of wetland have been defined around lake Bogoria: the graminoid vegetation is interspersed with cyanobacterial and algal mats. Water from the blister mounds, and other seeps and springs, support wet meadows and Typha swamps. The blister mounds and Typha swamps have a more or less neutral pH, low conductivities and total alkalinity.
 * proximal hot springs, with small streamlets, exposed ground (carbonate and/or siliciclastics), high water temperatures over 40 ◦C that reach up to 99 ◦C at vents, and microbial mats of bacteria and less common diatoms; These are associated with:
 * hot spring marshes, found downstream of the proximal hot springs and adjacent to spring streamlets, and dominated by thick clusters of short reeds, mainly Cyperus laevigatus, that stand through a water layer 2 cm high or less and with temperatures ranging between 30–40 ◦C;
 * artesian blister wetlands associated with cool springs (30–33 ◦C). The circular blister mounds are about 15 m diameter and 1 to 2 m high. They are formed by cool artesian springs that emerge at the surface, creating a sort of water blister of about 1m3. They are capped with an arched semi-permeable cover of short graminoids (mostly less than 10 cm high) such as Cyperus laevigatus, Pycreus mundtii and Leersia hexandra. The edges of these ‘blister mounds’ are dominated by Leersia hexandra mixed with other grasses and sedges. Further around are some Sporobolus spicatus, and downslope of these mounds and of other water seeps are often found small patches of Typha and wet meadows plants.
 * Typha and Cyperus papyrus swamps, fed by a mix of surface streams, groundwater seeps or warm springs (25°C to 30◦C). Where water is shallow and ephemeral, these are dominated by tall Typha domingensis (2 m tall or taller); where water is permanent — usually in broad depressions —, the dominant vegetation is ﬂoating Cyperus papyrus;
 * floodplain marshes, with seasonal ﬂooding and populated by short grasses;
 * hypersaline lake littoral wetlands, found on the lake shores: they are ﬂooded (by more than 10 cm of water), gently sloping, siliciclastic delta margins, often modiﬁed by ﬂamingo nesting. Their pH is around 10, with an alkalinity ca. 1000 meq l−1. Hot springs may also feed into some of these sites. There are no macrophytes and few diatoms: cyanobacteria dominate (mainly Spirulina platensis);
 * freshwater lake littoral wetlands, forming narrow to extensive fringes around the relatively fresh water Lake Baringo (pH ∼8.9, alkalinity ca. 13 meq l−1), dominated by a variety of wetland vegetation.

Wetlands areas
The marshes to the north of the lake do not feed any river outlet. They are linked to both Lake Bogoria and adjacent Lake Baringo; both lakes are fed by the Waseges river (or Sandai river), the latter bringing a small permanent flow of the diverted Loboi river. These wetlands are fed by ephemeral or perennial streams, and by springs. In the south, two freshwater springs supply permanent streams. All three (the Wasenge river and the two streams) are used extrensively for drinking, as well as the water from some hot springs streams — some of these being substantially less salty than the lake water. Other streams, such as the Emsos to the south and the Parkirichai to the west, are ephemeral: they ﬂow only after heavy rains.

 * The Loboi Swamp

This swamp is to the north of the lake. It hugs the base of a horst block (raised fault block bounded by normal faults) oriented north-south. According to radiocarbon datation, it was created only 700 years ago in a former ﬂoodplain environment — possibly as a consequence of faulting. In 1969, it spread over 6 km in length; but water was diverted from the Waseges river and by 2001 it was only 3.5 km long and about 0.5 km wide. At least three warm springs, and groundwater inputs, feed it. The Loboi river also contributes to it but that river periodically shifts its bed (avulsions) and that modifies its relative role regarding the swamp. This river is cool and only slightly alkaline. The springs have a similar chemistry but they are warmer, have a higher nitrate content, and are slightly acidic. The resulting waters of the Loboi Swamp are also slightly alkaline, and generally reﬂect the mixing of ﬂuvial, spring and groundwater inﬂows. Its areas of semi-permanent or seasonal standing water are dominated by Typha domingensis and also have some Leersia hexandra, Ipomoea aquatica, and other taxa. These areas surround a wetter area populated by near pure stands of Cyperus papyrus that are rooted or ﬂoating in water up to 1.5 m deep. Acacia scrub occurs on an adjacent horst block to the west, with grasses such as Sporobolus spicata on adjacent plains.

 * The Kesubo floodplain marshes

These are also to the north of the lake, east of the Loboi swamp. They rest at the southern end of an extensive alluvial fan formed by the Sandai river. The Kesubo Floodplain Marshes are seasonally ﬂooded and lie between the rift valley boundary faults, to the east, and a small horst block, to the west. The river waters are slightly alkaline, cool, and have a low total alkalinity. The marshes are similar in their general water chemistry, but are slightly acidic and have a distinctly lower NO3 content. Short grasses are the dominant vegetation type and cattle graze the area.

 * The Campground Wetlands

These lie near the Lake Bogoria National Reserve entrance, to the south of the Loboi swamp, and at the limit dividing faulted volcanic uplands and colluvial-alluvial sediments. They contain several types of habitats. defined them as an 'Artesian Blister Wetland' (see Types of wetlands above), and that wetland also includes slightly acidic, nitrate enriched, warm springs.

 * The Loburu Delta

This is on the western shore of Lake Bogoria. It is composed of silts and gravels, and shows a variety of ﬂuvial, deltaic, and beach settings. It has active hot springs that feed a series of marshes dominated by Cyperus laevigatus. The springs are alkaline, of the Na-HCO3 type, contain a lot of silica and nitrate, and the temperature near the vents is extremely hot (more than 96◦C). The areas immediately adjacent to the vents and in nearby streamlets commonly include microbial mats of Phormidium, Pseudanabaena, Spirulina, Synechococcus and Calothrix, but are devoid of macrophytes. the Cyperus marshes, which have similar water chemistries, are dominated by short reeds less than 20 cm high. Temperatures range from about 32◦C to about 60◦C near the hot spring streamlets that cross the marshes. There are also algal and cyanobacterial mats. The lake shoreline at Loburu (and other shorelines) does not present many aquatic macrophytes. The lake brine is of Na-CO3-HCO3-Cl composition, with a pH range of 9.3–10.6. Some shallow marginal lagoons have salinities exceeding 100 g l−1. Temperature at the time of sampling ranged between 28 and 33 ◦C, but exceed 60 ◦C at sublacustrine hot spring vents. However, cyanobacteria — mainly Spirulina platensis — are abundant and support up to 2 million ﬂamingoes.

Geysers and hot springs
Lake Bogoria is in a geothermally active part of the Kenya Rift Valley, and is famous for geysers and hot springs along the bank of the lake and in the lake. There are about 200 hot springs, most of which are distributed along the shoreline. In four locations around the lake can be observed at least 10 geysers, which erupt up to 5 m high. Geyser activity is affected by the fluctuations of lake level, which may inundate or expose some geysers.

Geology
Lake Bogoria occupies an asymmetric basin approximately 20 km long and 10 km wide, bordered by faults. The east and south borders are marked by a major fault, with steep slopes that prevent wetland development (the Siracho Escarpment, to the east ). To the west, trachyphonolites (uncommon extrusive igneous rock) are cut through by numerous gently sloping tilt-blocks; rivers oriented north-south feed delta lobes, where spring-fed wetlands have developed. The north opens on a basin with Quaternary silts, sands and gravels; there, the gently sloping Sandai and Loboi plains gradually rise to a drainage divide that separates lake Bogoria and lake Baringo.

The faults control over 200 hot and cold springs and seeps, which bring a significant water input.

Core analysis of the lake floor has revealed two types of sedimentation: a shallow fan–deltaic clastic zone; and a deeper zone where Organic matters alternate with evaporites. The organic muds were formed during periods of relatively high lake level and high microbial productivity; whereas the evaporites were formed during drier periods. The cores attest of many environmental fluctuations during the past 30 000 years, linked to regional climatic changes and to local tectonic and hydrological conditions.

Chemistry, hydrology
Lake Bogoria is a soda lake: it has no surface outlet, its waters are strongly alkaline (pH:10.5). High salt concentrations are also given (40‰) and this increases when the total amount of water decreases (evapoconcentration). Thus, following an extreme draught from March to October 2009, salt saturation reached 48‰. Soda lakes are highly productive ecosystems.

Its waters contain large concentrations of Na+, HCO3−, CO32− et Cl− ions. They originate from inflow from the Sandai and Emsos rivers, and from about 200 alkaline hot springs that are present at three onshore sites: Loburu, Chemurkeu, and a southern group (Ng'wasis, Koibobei, Losaramat). Other springs discharge directly from the lake floor. Lake Bogoria also contains the highest concentration of true geysers in Africa (at least 18 have been active in the 35 years before 2008).

The lake is meromictic (stratified) with less dense surface waters lying on a denser more saline bottom waters.

The lake has not always been saline. Sediment cores from the lake floor have shown that freshwater conditions existed for several periods during the past 10,000 years.

Of the ca. 60 hot springs that discharge on Loburu delta plain on the western margin of the lake, travertine appears at 20% of them. Carbonate is actively precipitating at several of these, as shown by calcite-encrusted artefacts. This is unusual, in that this precipitation most probably occurs at temperatures over 80°C.

The geysers are believed by some to have medicinal value.

Ecology
The terrestrial vegetation that immediately surrounds the lake is mainly a thorny bushland dominated by Acacia, Salvadora, Balanites and Commiphora species. There are also patches of riverine woodland with Ficus capensis, Acacia xanthophloea and Acacia tortilis.

Phytoplankton
One species dominates the phytoplankton: Arthrospira fusiformis, a cyanobacterium spirulina. But all these wetlands see the occurrence of diatoms in at least parts of them; these diatoms vary in diversity, abundance and species composition. The main factors directing these variables are pH, temperature, and speciﬁc conductivity; secondary factors are Si and nitrate. Hot springs generally have a low diversity of diatoms, with variable abundance; they commonly include Anomoeoneis sphaerophora var. guntheri, Navicula tenella, Navicula cuspidata, and Nitzschia invisitata. In other wetland types, distinctive diatom ﬂoras variously include Fragilaria brevistriata, Gomphonema parvulum, Navicula tenelloides, Nitzschia communis, N. latens, N. sigma, Rhopalodia gibberula, and Stauroneis anceps.

The flamingoes feed on Arthrospira fusiformis. The monogonont rotifer species Brachionus sp. Austria (belonging to the Brachionus plicatilis cryptic species complex) is found in high densities.

A new alkaliphilic purple nonsulfur bacterium was discovered in lake Bogoria; it has been named Rhodobaca bogoriensis.

Birds
The lake supports more than 300 waterbird species. It is an important stopover site for a population of up to 1.5 million migratory birds, notably for the lesser flamingo (Phoeniconaias minor).

In the 1990s, two episodes of mass deaths occurred among flamingos, all starting from Lake Bogoria. The first episode, in 1993-1995, saw about 35,000 flamingos dying between August and November 1993 and about 15,000 dying in August 1995. The second episode occurred in 1999-2000; the number of deaths for 2000 was estimated at around 100,000. In both cases, flamingos were the only water bird species falling victim to this unknown phenomenon. The studies on these events were not conclusive as to the main cause of death. Heavy metal poisoning was suggested but such poisoning does not have a periodic effect: its effect are continuous, and in these cases not compatible with the periodic dying; nor was it coherent with that birds of all ages were concerned, whereas such poisoning affects older individuals more than younger ones (ther older ones have had more time to accumulate poison in their bodies). Food poisoning has also been cited. the main food for lesser flamingo is Spirulina platensis, which is abundantly produced in the lakes of that region; but around the years that saw this heavy mortality toll, there had been an important increase of toxic cyanobacteria, especially during periods of algal blooms; and the symptoms of dying flamingos were similar to those of algal toxicity.

Other animals
Its immediate surroundings are a critical habitat for vulnerable species such as the common hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) and African lion (Panthera leo); another important species is the greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros). The lake’s stable water level makes it doubly important during periods of drought, when water levels in other East African lakes drop.

Nature protection
The Site is a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2011 and an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA). The Ramsar site, designated on August 27, 2001, covers the entire National Reserve, with an area of 10700 ha, shared between the 3,300 ha lake and 7,400 ha of riparian and terrestrial habitats.

Human rights: the Endorois people
The lake area was the traditional home of the Endorois people, who were forced to leave the area in the 1970s and are now challenging their removal at the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. In 2009 the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) made a landmark ruling, ordering the Kenyan government to restore the Endorois to their historic land, compensate them from losses and sharing with them the profits from the Lake Bogoria game reserve. But in 2022, Minority Rights Group reported that that decision had not yet been implemented and has many Endorois were still consigned to 'severe poverty, illiteracy, poor health and a life of destitution.' In 2024 the Endorois allied with the Ogiek people — who have themselves been initially evicted in 1920 from their ancestral grounds in the Mau Forest (south-west Kenya) by the British colonial government. In 2017 the Ogiek also won a court case against the Kenian government, whereby the latter was supposed to restitute the Ogiek ancestral land and pay a compensation of 157,000 Kenyan shillings ($1,026) per person. As of 2024, not only the government has so far failed to implement the court's orders as in the case of the Endorois, but has persisted in further evictions imposed in November 2023 by the Kenyan authorities during the visit of Britain's King Charles III. On 6 February 2024, both ethnies demonstrated together in Nairobi with the support of the International Network for Economic, social and cultural rights to demand the government implement the rulings.

The area is inhabited by Tugen and Jemps pastoralists, and livestock grazing is the main land use in the area.

Tourism
The lake and its surroundings attract 200,000 tourists per year, due to the wildlife, the hot springs, the spectacular cliffs and escarpments and the rich indigenous culture.

Hotel accommodation is available near Loboi village at the north end of the lake. Camping is permitted at the southern end of the lake.

Related articles

 * Rift Valley Lakes
 * East African Rift
 * Rivers of Kenya
 * History of the Kalenjin people
 * Nilotic settlement in East Africa

title: Lake Bogoria