Talk:California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
California was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 16, 2007
Peer review California has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments). It is in the category Geography.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] California and Water

Seems to me that, way more important than recreational drugs, or even petroleum in CA, is the glaring omission of the importance of water in California. All native-born Californians and immigrants who have lived here for a long time are obsessed with water-- conserving it, distributing it and so on. We have drained the Colorado River mercilessly and the Sea of Cortez is suffering. The movie industry may be centered in L.A. today, but that would not have been possible were it not for the engineering marvel we call the California Aqueduct. The Aqueduct transformed the migration patterns of California, allowing the settlement and agricultural development of the entire southern part of the state. It has also led to huge political fights and fragmentation of the state. Norcals resent the environmental degradation caused by Socals. Mono Lake, Sacramento River, Tuolomne, and other major water sources suffer animal and plant extinctions and near extinctions because of this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.244.217 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legalized Marijuana

Few states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use and I would think this would be significant enough to mention on the page in my opinion. I bet many people have misconceptions or entirely false information on how the state government regulates it.


[edit] War in California

In reference to the "citation needed" note during the outset of the Mexican American war, relative to the Mexican government officials abandoning the state after US Navy Commodore Sloat established US presence in San Francisco, I site the published account of these activities from Bancroft, Hubert Howe (1882). The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft. San Francisco: A.L. Bancroft & Co. ISBN 2539133. I therefor request the removal of the citation needed note. DonDeigo 18:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] As long as we're cleaning up, how about archiving out-dated Discussion topics?

As long as we're cleaning up, how about archiving out-dated Discussion threads? Anyone want to/object to creating an archive for all Discussion topics from, say, Dec. 2005, and earlier? NorCalHistory 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination for California Gold Rush

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush.NorCalHistory 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate, unsourced population claim

The graph of CA population history by year shows a "2006 est" as 37,127,000, which is "9.7%" gain since 2000. I replaced this BS with the 2005 census estimate http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html which shows its 6.7% growth between 00-05. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.88.22 (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Results of major clean-up

While additional work can still be done, we have concluded a major clean-up - material has been moved to daughter articles, OR, NPOV and (some) un-sourced material has been removed, images adjusted, etc. I am therefore removing the clean-up tag. If you feel that additional clean-up is needed, please feel free to do so, or to re-post the clean-up tag, with specific comments here.

In addition, as a result of the major slimming-down that we've accomplished (from 79 kb when too long tag posted to 48 kb today), I am removing the too long tag. At 48 kb in length, this state's article is shorter than other comparable states' articles (Florida = 68 kb, New Jersey = 102 kb, Texas = 75 kb, New York and Massachusetts = 52 kb), and about the same length as other states (Pennsylvania = 48 kb).

Still to do - citations needed for much of the material. This material may have been posted during a less strict era, and now will benefit from citations. Also, with a wealth of daughter articles, please consider posting detailed or controversial material in the daughter articles, and limiting this article to basic, overview, non-controversial material.

Finally, with this clean-up (and any further clean-up by the end of the year), I hope that this article can regain its GA status. I would suggest re-nomination in another few weeks. NorCalHistory 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mt. Whitney height

I know that there are more accurate official heights of mountains out there, and Whitney's height has just been changed in the text of the article. Can anyone confirm the new height in the text? and if it's the correct height, then the height listed in the infobox (top right of this article) needs to be corrected/conformed as well. Anyone lend a hand on this? NorCalHistory 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article, Mt. Whitney, from the state parks services states, The elevation at the summit is 14,491' (4417 meters). This was back in 2005. I bet the 14,495' allows for a couple of earthquakes. Number looks good to me. Ronbo76 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed at length before. Archived discussion. Mikemill 08:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for all the edits. . .

. . .but my rv key did not seem to work and then I hovered over the wrong version and Murphy's Law showed up. I reverted to the last best version by BlankVerse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs)


[edit] Placement of former flag in infobox

While I am a fan of the Bear Flag Revolt, the placement of its flag throws off the infobox. I recommend deleting this item. Ronbo76 13:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to note that California was NEVER controlled by the supposed Bear Flag revolt. While they managed to occupy Sonoma, they never held sway in the south and did not organize a government. Fremont and his men were a small army that called themselves the Bear Flag Republic, nothing more. Attributing California as having ever been a Republic titled the Bear Flag Republic is ignorant, illinformed and typical of wiki-would-be-historians.

True True


Depends on your viewpoint. However, since the California flag was derived from the Bear Flag and incorporated the word Republic, it definitely had sway. Oh, by the way, California like Texas is one of the few states ever to have been a Republic before they became states. Ronbo76 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bear Flaggers

I have to say, comparing the Texas organization of revolt and personnel involved with the Bear Flag revolt simply is no comparison...you're talking 30 or so immigrants with no education, having left their US territories with zero assets, immigrating into a society that was soveregn and taking advantage of the Mexican's good nature and kindness, and laying claim to something that was not theirs to begin with.....and laying claim to California? preposterious...no more than a drunken gang of rabble, raising hell like most of the Americans of that era....and Freemont was not much better....anyways, those drunken morons got their butts kicked in the battles in southern California....from my accounts, the so called Bear Flaggers were most of the US casualties and desertions...DonDeigo 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phonetic Notation for "California"

I'm wondering about the phonetic notation for the state's name, specifically the ɔ. Research on the topic shows, as does the Wikipedia article on the Great Vowel Shift, that the vowel ɔ has largely been deleted from English usage, particularly on the West Coast of the U.S. Thus, native Californians would not pronounce their state name as [kæ.lɪ.ˈfɔɹ.njə], but rather as [kæ.lɪ.ˈfoɹ.njə], or perhaps [kæ.lɪ.ˈfoʊɹ.njə], depending on how narrow a transcription you'd like. I suggest that the phonetic transcription at the beginning of the article be modified to one of these alternate forms.--Imagineertobe 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

= So this isn't about the phonetic notation, it's about the name. I know there are discussions of this in the archive, but they don't cover this: even if the word "fornalla" might at one time have been real, it would go before "caliente" to achieve that meaning.

The whole mythical racial story sounds pretty ridiculous, I think it's more likely that it was related to caliphates, seeing as the desert or mountain areas might have seemed similar to North Africa (especially since the moors were driven from Spain right about the time explorers started heading over). [Argentina Dan]

[edit] GA Failed: Much referencing needed

This is an excellently broad and well written article, and meets almost all requirements as spelled out in WP:WIAGA. Unfortunately, the referencing of the article is woefully lacking for a good article. If it were a small problem, I would consider a 1-week hold, but I am doubtful the work to bring this article up to the standards spelled out in WP:ATT, WP:CITE and WP:WIAGA could be completed in that time. To summarize the standard of referencing that is spelled out in those policies and guidelines, each assertion of fact should be referenced directly to the webpage or print media where it appears. The pages I have mentioned above talk about several methods of doing this, including the use of "inline" references via footnotes, Harvard references, or a hybrid thereof, as shown well by articles such as Cricket World Cup, a recent Main Page featured article. When the referencing can be brought up to snuff, please feel free to renominate this article for Good status. If it passes Good Article review, it should be ready then for a Featured nomination as well. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing the necessary improvements. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gentle reminder - this is a talkpage for improvement - not a chat forum

Comments should be directed towards improving this article and the basis for today's revert. Ronbo76 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exports

Hey just a notice that I came here to get info about califonias agricutural exports and all i really found out was that its a large industry that includes fruits and vegetables. So which fruits and vegetables are they? seems like a good thing to include. thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olsdude (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

There's always more to add. If we had that level of specificity it would probably be best located in Economy of California. If you'd like to do the research and summarize the material here's a link to the California Agricultural Resource Directory [1]. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 07:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of exports...

Are we really not going to have any mention of Cali being the number one producer of porn in the world? I know it wouldn't be appropriate to have it front-and-center, but I really think there needs to be something about it. 68.221.205.105 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What about marijuana as the number one cash crop? Hank chapot 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Give us sources for this info and we can include both. -Will Beback · † · 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Must We Put All The School Pictures in the Education Gallery Section?

I understand many editors here are students and have their School's prides. But must we really have to include all the school's pictures in the education section? The thing is it occupies a lot of space and It does not really add anything. Next thing you know there will be 100 of school pictures there. Here are my suggestions: Take off the gallery altogether or keep and limit the gallery to the original 4 prominent Universities in California (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.96.148 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I concur. This happened before about a year ago and I had to trim the gallery down to four. Unless someone objects soon, I'm going to trim it again! --Coolcaesar 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Trimmed it to five. —Kyриx 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Blueman102 countermanded your edit hours ago. I just countermanded his edit and trimmed to four, which is more elegant. Obviously Blueman102 was unable to attend any of those four; I attended two of them and you can guess at least one if you look very carefully at the pattern of links on my user page. --Coolcaesar 08:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The education gallery already included all those school pictures I was just fixing a link to one of them. Some one apparently added a picture to replace another one but included the wrong link. Honestly, five doesn't quite look right on the gallery so I agree there should be at least 4 or 8 . Or we coud just take off the entire gallery to be fair as you suggested. I did attend one of them but that is besides the point.- Blueman102 13:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Just remove the pictures altogether. California has so many prominent schools that it would be near impossible to trim it down to 4 or 8 schools. Mikemill 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

The south-central desert is called the Mojave; to the northeast of the Mojave lies Death Valley - that part of sentence appears wrong. Death Valley is a part of Mojave desert and lies in northwest part of Mojave. --Tigga en 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Size of California

I am having a bit of a problem with the recent changes to the economic size of Calilfornia. I am going to revert it back to the previous which read: "If California were a country, its economy would rank among the ten largest in the world" The first edit was to change it to: "If California were a country, its economy would rank among the fifth largest in the world" was followed by a second edit to change it to: "If California were a country, its economy would rank among the eighth largest in the world, after US, Japan, Germany, China, UK, France, and Italy in that order. <ref> There are a variety of ways to measure the size of national and state economies. For further information, see Economy of California. </ref> In both cases the reference was left unaltered and to quote the reference source: "if California were an independent nation, it would have had the tenth largest economy in the world in 2005" So unless a new reference can be provided to support the altered "facts" the article must be reverted back to its previous reading. Dbiel 09:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: the change indicating that California is the eighth largest economic does seem to be supportable by the following reference: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2006/cal_facts/2006_calfacts_econ.htm but the wording "among the eighth" is not acceptable. Additionally the referenced page, Economy of California, should be updated first; from the 2005 to the 2006 values, after which this page could be reverted, if desired, to read
"If California were a country, its economy would rank among the eight largest in the world, after US, Japan, Germany, China, UK, France, and Italy in that order." or reworded as "would rank as the eighth....."
But I personally would perfer leaving it as it currently reads "rank among the ten largest" Dbiel 09:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial and ancestral makeup

The most recent edit changing the California Black population from 2MM to 6MM is not supported by the reference indicated. The following is a direct quote from the listed reference:

They now constitute 57% of the state's population, including 13.1 million Latinos, 5 million Asians, 2.7 million blacks and 689,000 Native Americans and Alaska Natives, according to population estimates taken between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006."

As such, I have reverted to previous version.Dbiel 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the percentages are correct. They differ markedly from the ones available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html. They appear to have been taken from http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/california.htm.Erik-the-red 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Mexico?

Why is there a link to WikiProject Mexico on top of the talk page? (said User:Calamarain 06:18, May 23, 2007)

Because Alta California was part of Mexico from 1821 to 19461846, and of Spain before that.--Hjal 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you use you don't mean 1846? Mikemill 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What's a hundred years here and there?--Hjal 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it either, especially after reading Hjal's comment :) Calamarain 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quarter image use in Economy Section

The 50px image of the California Quarter used to start the Economy Section seems too small, especially if viewed on a smaller monitor. (Note I am using a 19" LCD (1024/700) and it seemed small to me.) I tested several different sizes and the one that seemed best to me was 90px. Realizing that this is very subjective, I have included samples here in a range of px sizes. I did increase the size in the article to 90px, but if that seems too big, there is no reason a smaller size can not be used instead.

"50 pix"
"50 pix"
"55 pix"
"55 pix"
"60 pix"
"60 pix"
"65 pix"
"65 pix"
"70 pix"
"70 pix"
"75 pix"
"75 pix"
"80 pix"
"80 pix"
"85 pix"
"85 pix"
"90 pix"
"90 pix"

Sorry about the formating, could not get them on the same row. --Dbiel 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)



[edit] California and Oil

I don't have the expertise ... but someone should write something to discuss the history of oil in California. I just added something about oil here, Economy of California#Industries. This could include La Brea, Long Beach, the oil wells off the coast, oiltown and bakersfield. Just a thought. --evrik (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image updates!

The images on this page are very small low resolution pictures that can be updated. Let's take some time to do so. I have added two images I believe help fill in two sections in need of images. However the Mojave Mountain Range image is very sad. If someone has any images such as that one or Yosemite that are high quality and high resolution please update this and others.--Amadscientist 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fresno and National Parks?

Why is Fresno mentioned in the National Park section? And it is not clear which park it is closest to or if it is the closest city to all of them. Lonjers 09:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yosemite National Park is less than an hour away as is Sequoia National Park.--Amadscientist 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Fresno/Clovis is also the location of Fresno Yosemite International Airport, which services a great deal of the region's tourists, especially summertime visitors to Yosemite. Eganio 22:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of California

After seeing the article on the Canadian province of Saskatchewan and its nice table of the economic sectors that contribute to its GDP, I was rather surprised (and disappointed) to see the California article doesn't have one. It's especially odd that this article doesn't have one when there is a very large one for sports teams in California. Perhaps one could be added to this article or to the Economy of California article (or both). RobertM525 08:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] californian

dynomyn should be added, californian--Olavid 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per capita income

"Per capita personal income was $48,460 as of 2005, ranking 13th in the nation. "

This figure is highly doubtful. First of all, it is incredibly high. How can California have per capita income of $48k if Los Angeles has per capita income of $21k, San Diego has per capita income of $24k, and even well-off San Jose has per capita income of only $27k?

Second of all, it is not compatible with $33,403 estimate (as of 2003) from Economy of California, and they both contradict 1999 Census figure of $22,711. --Itinerant1 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. The new figure can be found here. Chris! ct 21:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] California size (area)

Inaccurate Claim
Apparently, somebody was not thinking when they said that California has a larger population than Japan, Germany, or Italy. Italy is home to close to 60 million people, while Germany and Japan have a population of at least 80 million and 120 million respectively. Do the math- 34 million is less than 60 million, not to mention 80 or 120 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.166.154 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No where on the article says California has larger population than Japan, Germany, or Italy. You must have misread. The article, however, did say that California has larger area than Japan, Germany, or Italy. Chris! ct 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it American to compare the state's size to whole countries? I think it's nonsense and unnecessairy. Mallerd 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is your POV. Chris! ct 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, instead of saying that, why don't you give arguments why it should be mentioned like this? Just give the km² area and that's it. Mallerd 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why it shouldn't be mention like this? That is a perfectly fine sentence making a correct comparison. Why change it? Chris! ct 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Because it is POV, in many other articles the size of a state or area is just given in km² or m². Why should this article be different? I can understand that many people, including myself, think it is unnecessairy (maybe annoying even) to mention that is bigger than other countries. Because when you are reading that, you think: how many km² is Germany, Italy or Japan then? Just like I believe the Indonesia article, it states that Indonesia roughly has the size of 3 times Texas. Not all readers live in the US. Mallerd 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
How is making a valid area comparison POV? I don't understand. Let me tell you, making a size comparison is completely valid. And it is not POV either (please read about our NPOV policy if you don't understand) because the sentence is not presenting a biased opinion, but presenting a fact. It is a fact that California is larger than Germany in terms of area. And you said that many people think it is unnecessary. As far I can see, you are the only editor who raise this issue. Chris! ct 23:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think comparing it to other countries gives a better point of reference than using square miles or kilometers. I do not see it as POV. Alanraywiki 23:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean POV in the sense of a biased opinion, but to understand the size of California, says this article you must know the size of other countries. It seems to me, and again I'm not surprised if other people feel the same, it is a detour if you must look up those countries. So only if you already know the size of those countries you have a good point of view to work with. Perhaps POV is not good chosen by me. I do not care about the fact whether California is bigger than Germany, Italy, Japan or not (no discussion needed), but as I said before, if countries are compared to American states (3 times Texas) it is easy to understand for somebody from that state since he or she can probably estimate his or her own area. But I do not know the size of an American state without clicking on the link to that state. In this article it is basically the same, do you understand that? So my point here is not whether the area is correct or not, only whether it is "fair" to a reader or not. Mallerd 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between comparing against a US state and a country. I would hope that most informed readers would have a general idea of the size of major countries but I wouldn't expect that they'd know the size of US states (though I wouldn't be surprised if they knew that Texas was a large state). The point of the comparison is simiply to give some perspective on the numeric data. Telling the reader that it would be the 59th largest doesn't give any impression on what it really means. 59th doesn't sound that impressive until you compare it against the size of some major countries. Mikemill 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
But that is exactly what I mean, you say that readers know that Texas is a big state. But if you don't live in the US or in the area of the US, you don't think it is that big. The same for Germany etc. I guess this is not really going anywhere, the only way to really know about the readers here is to have a poll. But that's not possible. Mallerd 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you look more closely at the article, the size of California (in km2 and mi2) is located in the infobox. A reader who is unfamiliar about the state's size can always look at it. So I don't think that this is unfair to non American readers. Chris! ct 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
ok Mallerd 11:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing that appeared POV about earlier versions was that countries were chosen for comparison in a manner that can not be shown to be NPOV without extended discussion. The choice of Germany, Italy, and Japan makes sense from a North American or European or Japanese perspective, perhaps, but it also looks like the choices could have been based on a desire to make California look more important than it is. I modified the comparison to use the immediately adjacent countries, which have the (inadvertant) benefit of being in different parts of the world. OTOH, it appears that California moved up in the rankings of most populous hypothetical countries in 2007, to 34th. Go 49ers!--Hjal 04:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Removing the comparison is like hiding facts from readers. And how is comparing country sizes making California look more important? Please explain before such removal. Chris! ct 06:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not remove the comparison--I changed it to the natural comparison with the countries most similar in size. Listing the "best known" or most populated countries that happen to be smaller is, I think, relatively arbitrary. What other reason is there for mentioning Japan, rather than Zimbabwe? And why identify a few of the countries that are in the next twenty in size rather than a few that are bigger? ("If California were a nation is would be 59th in size, slightly smaller than Spain, Sweden, and Cameroon," has the same information value.) Conveniently, the country that's just larger than California is Iraq, which many people around the world have probably heard of, even if Paraguay is a complete mystery to them. And if you think that dropping the specific information that California is bigger than Italy is "hiding facts from readers," then why didn't you list every other country smaller than us? Finally, I do actually think that this bit of infomation is of very little value. 59th in size? Mentioning it is a kind of wowser thing to do in almost any context that I can think of. The article is bloated and will have to be cut. This bit will probably be dropped, although it should fit into a separate Geography of California article. Same thing with the international population ranking of 34th. Only our ranking as a hypothetical independent economy (where we would be in the top 10) is a big enough deal to make it into the main article, and it's not even there--probably because there is no consensus on where in the top ten we would be.--Hjal 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Conveniently, the country that's just larger than California is Iraq, which many people around the world have probably heard of, even if Paraguay is a complete mystery to them.

Indeed, although I am convinced that comparison with other countries is wrong, the most neutral way is km², since countries' sizes speak to people's imagination until they actually see the numbers or perhaps the world map. But the numbers are mentioned in this article, so, perhaps it should be deleted. Mallerd 15:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see what the problem is. It's just a point of reference as most people can't really picture what 158,000 square miles is, but they can understand that something is roughly the size of Germany or Japan. I really don't see how the comparison to better known countries invites POV, either. It's not an attempt to "make California look more important than it is" but rather it's simply that most people know how large Germany or Japan are but would have no idea the size of Paraguay.
Also, it should be noted that U.S. geographic areas are always listed in square miles (with square km in parenthesis) --Loonymonkey 17:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I know, so in that case the comparison should be deleted because it is unnecessary. Mallerd 12:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!!! Sounds like a pissing contest to me. Is that what people are all worried about? Why is this the thickest and longest section of the talk page? Reminds me of the various maps that humor company puts out. I saw the one for NYC. Manhattan was huge, then going out from that center, everything got smaller. Mexico was smaller than the Village and France was like a dot beyond the Statue of Liberty. You folks would love them - if you had a sense of humor, that is!

By the by, foreigners, comparing states to countries IS VALID. We are states, not provinces or prefectures. We are united but not that much. If we were invaded and say, some Ayatollah coup-d'etat'ed say 20 states, the other 30 would carry on and we would not be decapitated, and we would not surrender. In fact, we would regroup and kick the crap out of him. We are 50 self-sufficient governments and peoples who are more cohesive than an alliance, but there is still a lot of competition and antagonism between states. California has been pushing around Zonies (Arizonans) for years over water rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.244.217 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bear Flag Museum

An editor had posted a link to the Bear Flag Museum. It was removed as spam, but when I reviewed the site it looked like something that should be discussed on the talk page for possibly including as an external link. It has some good history on the California flag that adds to the knowledge of California without bloating this already large article. I'd be interested in hearing from others about adding the link. Alanraywiki 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the link? I don't see it. Chris! ct 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It had been removed. Here it is again: http://www.bearflagmuseum.org/ The Bear Flag Museum Alanraywiki 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I read the site. I think it is a good site. I will add it back. Thanks for showing me the link. Chris! ct 00:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial and ancestral makeup

I feel like I should explain myself here after being reverted. I removed the lists of racial makeup because it is redundant to the text immediately below. The text right below the list already show the same info. Also it is not sourced. User:Hjal wrote in his editing summary that it is sourced. But where is it sourced. If there is one, please show here. Chris! ct 06:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The first line of the block that you deleted says, "According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the largest ancestry groups in California are." Do you need a linked reference or a footnote? For each datum? Or just the Bulgarian one? Most of the U.S. geo articles have a block of text extracted from the 2000 census; I assume that California's does not because the article predates the bot that upladed all of the census details. The block that you deleted is not redundant--it has much more extensive information and it's for a different year. It might be a better parallel to other state articles, since the 2000 data is avaialble for every state, while the 2005 reference is to a California source (I haven't checked to see if the Census Bureau posts such extensive 2005 data for every state). The 2000 and 2005 data can not be merged, since the Hispanic percentage grew so much (it would be analysis or OR on our part to do that anyway). However, the article is way too long and needs work to be improved. With or without this information, the Demographics section is too long and is poorly written. Perhaps, instead of deleting this bit, you could move it and some other content to the main article, Demographics of California, thus improving both. I'm going to go do my part by deleting some unsourced material that looks like OR.--Hjal 16:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to see a linked reference for each line. But have at least one in the end of the block. That is not too much to ask for, don't you think? If you can improve the section, then I can't see why I should object. Chris! ct 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image gallery in the "Cities, towns and counties" section

For now, I have removed the image gallery in the "Cities, towns and counties" section because it started to suffer from the problem described in the Must We Put All The School Pictures in the Education Gallery Section? discussion. Users have started to put Monterey, Fresno, and San Bernardino on there, and the next thing you know there will be 50 pictures... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for putting the Fresno picture in the gallery. I just feel like adding pictures. But you are right, some ips will start to put all sorts of pictures if we keep the gallery. Chris! ct 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, San Bernadino and Monterey were the only two cities shown that are not in the top 10 by population (Santa Ana was missing). However, I don't think that this gallery belonged here in any case. The article is way too long--this was a good place to cut, as was the newspaper section. The model outline at the US State Wikiproject calls this section "Important cities and towns," and the presumed content would be a brief text discussion of those places, with a picture if appropriate. If that was to be done, I suggest LA, San Diego, San Jose, SF, and Sacramento, which would parallel the short list in the opening. Alternatively, the four top metros could be described here. The stuff about city governance should be moved up to the State government section.--Hjal 06:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of state relative to neighboring states

Not that it is a big deal, but the first part of the article states that Nevada is to the northwest of CA and that Arizona is to the southwest of CA. They are northEAST and southEAST, respectively

[edit] Genocide of Native Indians

PBS had a documentary years ago that stated in the 1870's that a bounty of 100 dollars/head for indians was offered at the local county seat level, and those expenses were reinbursed by the state. This included men, women, and children. Also mentioned in the documentary was that a law was passed that allowed indian children to be used as slaves to mine gold.

I would like to know the name of that PBS documentary, and see a list of califorinia govenors and other leaders of the state during that era. Who stood to gain from this genocide, and at whose orders was it done.

71.114.163.55 —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] professional sports teams

Considering the length of this article: in the sports section is there any good reason to keep the list of professional sports teams here instead of moving it to the subarticle named List of professional sports teams in California? Hmains 05:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would improve this page and Sports in California to move it there. The longer List of professional sports teams in California, with major and minor league teams, should stay separate. It could also include links to historic teams, like the Seals.--Hjal 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should decide on what sport teams get to stay in this article. I say we only keep teams of the four major sport leagues. Editors are going to put all sorts of minor teams here. Chris! ct 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education list of prominent universities

This article has a list of notable universities in California, some private and some public. Determining what is notable can get out of hand as everyone wants their own school or alma mater on the list. Already some editing has taken place to remove one school and replace it with another. Can we decide on this talk page what schools should be listed, if any, in this one paragraph on higher education? Alanraywiki 17:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should only keep 2 private (could be Stanford and USC) and 2 public universities (could be UC Berkeley and UCLA) in the section. Chris! ct 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only 2 private universities and 2 public universities shuld be in a picture gallery. I consent with Standford, USC, UC Berkeley and UCLA.75.62.146.6 (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden State

Was California dubbed the golden state due to the gold rush, the sun (although that'd make it too similar in nature to florida's nickname) or something else? Yonatan talk 23:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory population make-up section

The first line reads "According to the 2005 ACS Estimates, California's population is 60.9% White American", then further down, it says "According to estimates from 2006, California has the largest minority population in the United States, making up 57% of the state population. "

100% - 60.9% white = 39.1% minority

OR

100% - 57% minority = 43% white

So which is it? I'm guessing the latter. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be because of how the census differentiates between race and ethnic group. Hispanics are considered in the census as both white under race but a minority under ethnic groups. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California no longer has a strict "closed primary" system

The State politics and government section states that "California follows a closed primary system", but this is no longer true as of 2001. California now follows a modified closed primary system in which voters who declined to name a party affiliation during registration can request a ballot of a particular political party http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm. Jfrautschi (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New California Flag Graphic

New version - updated bear, official colors
New version - updated bear, official colors
Current version
Current version

Good morning. I recently updated the SVG for the Flag of California. The new version is designed to better reflect the colors of the bear as well as give a more accurate depiction of how it rendered on the flag. In particular, I attempted to get the textures and shapes as accurate as possible. I used an actual California Flag as a reference (I scanned it into my computer for tracing). Anyway, I would like to hear your opinions on the changes ... and if we should revert to the other version or keep this one. I wouldn't mind changing the colors of the bear to be more "vibrant" (match the current version). When this is complete, perhaps someone could replace the existing file on Wikimedia Commons (I created an account, but it is far too new). I also added this topic to the California Project discussion. Thanks for your time. -DevinCook (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Your version is much clearer than the previous (which had too much of a vectorized "Flash" kind of look). I'm in favor of keeping this new version. I agree with your comment about changing the colors as well. The previous version was a little more accurate in that regard, especially in the browns (more saturation overall and a richer brown on the bear). Thanks for putting the work into it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I created another version that uses the official colors. I haven't uploaded it yet, though. The red is a tad darker, and the dark brown is a tad lighter. I've noticed that the printed flags tend to only marginally follow the official colors. For instance, the reds tend to be a tad brighter than "Old Glory Red" and the browns of the bear seem to follow no discernible rules! :-) Should we go for accuracy or how the flag is implemented? -DevinCook (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If there are official colors, we should use those (regardless of whether flag manufacturers do). Again, thanks for your effort on this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I updated the graphic to contain the official colors. The thumbnails take a while to update I've noticed. The thumbnail above is current. I'm glad that I could help better represent California on the Internet. :) There are so many horrible graphics of the flag floating around - it's amazing. Anyway, I plan to do some work on the Bear Flag Revolt flags. -DevinCook (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California Barnstar

California Barnstar
California Barnstar

Hey everyone. I just created a California Barnstar. Let me know what you think. I also put some Barnstar template information on my main page.-DevinCook (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, one already exists (see California Barnstar at Wikiproject California). But perhaps folks will like your version better than the existing one .... NorCalHistory (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I saw that graphic, but only saw it used in reference to California Portal Templates. I will begin a discussion there. -DevinCook (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It will be interesting to see people's reactions - nice job. NorCalHistory (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] domestic partnership

a domestic partnership is not just for gay men and women - ALL HETEROSEXUALS CAN HAVE A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP AS WELL AS MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.122.220 (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California"
Personal tools