Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about California. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This article states that California's GDP is larger than all but eight countries. The number is actually all but seven. See Wikipedia's List of countries by GDP. I would correct it myself but the page is locked. 70.161.174.184 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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 (1682). 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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
. . .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)
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
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)
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]
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)
Comments should be directed towards improving this article and the basis for today's revert. Ronbo76 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
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).
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)
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)
The problem with that well worn "If California Were a Country" boast, is that its economic might would be diminished by having to rely on imports from the remaining neighboring states, buying water from Nevada, Lumber from Washington, etc. Not to mention the problems involved with having its own currency. I propose that California owes its economic well-being to the fact that it is a part of the United States, enjoying all the benefits associated with that; Federal funding, defense, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.45.177.49 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
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:
As such, I have reverted to previous version.Dbiel 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of Latinos are White and consider themselves White. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.49.59 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2008 (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)
Why is there a link to WikiProject Mexico on top of the talk page? (said User:Calamarain 06:18, May 23, 2007)
Well, since there is an article on Alta California that should certainly be included in WikiProject Mexico, but California as a state should not. Under this argument, the United States would have to be part of WikiProject Britain, WikiProject France, and WikiProject Spain. and just about every state should be included in several countries WikiProjects. Also WikiProject Los Angeles banner should be removed. There is a rough hierarchy to WikiProjects that is fairly bendable, but this case is extreme. Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
Sorry about the formating, could not get them on the same row. --Dbiel 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
dynomyn should be added, californian--Olavid 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The California Gold Rush started in 1849--hence the '49ers THANKS LC137 (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct - gold was first discovered at Sutter's Mill in Jan. 1848, and the very earliest prospectors were indeed also known as "forty-eighters." The term "forty-niner" came to be applied to the whole group of prospectors because 1849 was the first year of very-large scale immigration into California.NorCalHistory (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A district judge in California has ruled that home schooling is illegal, or something like that, and it has gotten conservatives and some Hollywood people upset. And is it true that California is 49th out of 50 states in public school education quality or something like that? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In any case, this has nothing to do with the article. —Kurykh 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
coast line: 840miles (1352km) record highest temperture: 134 degrees in Death valey on July 10th,1913 record lowest temperture: -45 degress at Boka, near Truckee, on Jan. 20th, 1937 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.19.124 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to emphasize that California has a state fish (golden trout) and a state marine fish (Garibaldi)? I do not believe there is anything mentioned in the article about this, and if we are going to be including "state fossils"...
The history section contains an uncited reference to Boston merchants in the context of a paragraph describing the 18th century. It is unclear which Boston (the one in England or the one in New England) is being referred to here. Both were seagoing mercantile towns, and at the time in question were probably of similar size and wealth. So I've pointed the link at the dab page; if you can cite a reference proving one or other, please disambiguate. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a break between Mexican and American, could someone remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.26.161.109 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Curious that until 1940 Australia was more populated than California but since then California´s population growth almost have doubled that of Australia and now while Australia has just 21 million people California has 36 million, almost twice more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.148.168 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Edgar Cayce mentions that "He may have been the source for the idea that California would fall into the Pacific ocean (though he never said exactly this)." I don't think that we already have an article on this idea (catastrophic subsidence of California), but I think that it's been mentioned enough times in pop culture -- by Cayce, by Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophists, in Curt Gentry's 1977 book Last Days of the Late, Great State of California -- to justify creating one. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hydroelectric could use more coverage - the ca.gov site claims 14%, so it's notable .
And more numbers in the energy section (GW's and percentage) in general would help.
This is already a large article, and there is significant room for growth of just the energy section of California (it has a larger economy than most nations); maybe it's time to create a sub-article. Blablablob (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see the Percent of non-religious citizens in the Religion section. Most other states' Wikipedia articles have this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.126.195 (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the slogan addition as the only place I've seen it is in TV commericals and even that wasn't until recently. I checked the California State web pages and couldn't find any references to it. Any have a cite showing otherwise? Mikemill (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Due to easy opportunities for vandalism, the ability to edit California should be restricted to registered Wikipedia users only. Random IP's should not ...
Some items are listed in the source code under "California state insignia" but, strangely, don't appear on the rendered page. This is, I think, beyond my Wikipedia skills so I'm hoping someone else can look into it.
Here are the missing items, along with some notes:
| Marine Fish = Garibaldi
| Rock = Serpentine -- should link to Serpentine article
| Rock = Serpentinite -- should be deleted
| Marine Mammal = Gray Whale
| FolkDance = Square dance
In addition:
| Butterfly = California Dogface Butterfly -- should be deleted; it's listed (correctly) as state insect
One can refer to http://www.library.ca.gov/history/symbols.html for verification of these items.
Dmjames (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that the flag was changed, apparently a while back and I never noticed it, the bear looks different and the red is a different shade. According to 99.9% of the stuff ive seen, the color of the flag is grossly wrong, it is not that maroonish color. I dont know if it concerns others that the the flag is unrepresentative, but it concerns me for all that's worth--so I'll try to start a dialogue.
If you look at the pictures below, every picture of the flag has it as the bright red that was featured in the flag that was in this article before:
several pictures and videos throughout the California state website feature the bright red
this is the flag that was in use before:
The flag used in the article now:
The source of the one unrepresentative flag that is currently in use:
Anyway, I dont know why somebody pasted that flickr image in place of the perfectly fine (and representative) image that was being used before...I just dont get it. I personally liked the old flag better because of the stlye of bear especially, but it seems it may be defunct or out of use so I suppose we should use the contemporary bear, but that image someone posted on flickr is not representative of most of the flags i've seen out there and I think we should change the color to the vibrant red that it is supposed to be. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe that in school, we have the flag with the maroonish red, not the bright red. --Angelstarstar (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the Sacramento wikipedia page "Sacramento is the oldest incorporated city in California, incorporated on February 27, 1850." This is confirmed on the City of Sacramento Municipal homepage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.0.28 (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
CA has one of the 10 highest human development index scores of any state in the U.S.; rivaled only by MN west of the Missippi. Surely, that's worth mentioning in the intro here. Take a look at this map from the BBC. 76.213.200.63 (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I came to find the capital city of California and could not find it listed anywhere. If it is in the article it needs to be made more prominent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.122.118 (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"It was also the first state where voters passed Proposition 8 defining that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in the California State Constitution."
What is that supposed to mean? I think it is a bit ridiculous. Of course it is the first state to pass Prop 8, since Prop 8 was a California proposition, aimed only for the State of California. And California isn't the first state to pass a measure like that. If I remember the news right, California is now with 20 or 30-something states that have similar laws. I'm going to remove it. Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to start making many improvements to this article. Well, I began a day or two ago. I think it'll be little by little, but I'd like to get this to the point where it can be nominated as a Good Article. This page has a lot of possibility, especially because there are so many sources that are about California. I think major issues with this article are that it is ill-referenced in a lot of places, and that it just needs some general reworking of the prose. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated :-) Killiondude (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 includes the phrase "Sierra Nevada Mountains." This is a no-no as the word "Sierra" means "mountains." It looks as though not just anybody can make the change. Those who have permission to edit please clean up this poor grammar. The term, "Sierra Nevada" is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.208.111 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The line: "By 2008, California had the 6th highest tax burden of any state, when measured as a percentage of GDP. [37] " should be removed. For one thing, the source of the material is the Tax Foundation originally, and should be referenced to them. Secondly, The US Government Census figures would be more appropriate to use for a number of reasons: They are more objective, they use a standardized accounting method, the Tax Foundation is an advocacy group whose figures are problematic or questionable, and the sentence following this one refers to the Census figures (so this section is not internally consistant). Mcdruid (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the recent addition of eight (8) {{morefootnotes}} tags are a bit of an overkill. Maybe just the tag at the top should stay, but the seven other ones (in my opinion) are a bit redundant. I suggest instead that {{cn}} be placed next to specific things that need to be cited. What does everyone else think? I'm sure this page is watched by many people. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the article be amended to note that sequoias are not the largest living organisms? Should a distinction be made on sequoias being the oldest trees when there are aspen colonies far older (if not individual trees?)
The article states:
"... Sequoia National Park, home to the giant sequoia trees, the largest living organisms on Earth..."
Sequoias may be the largest trees, but they are not the largest living organisms, aspen colonies are.
Also, while individual sequoias may be the oldest trees, there are aspen colonies which are far older.
"... California boasts several superlatives in its collection of flora; the largest trees, the tallest trees, and the oldest trees. ..."
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_organism
66.32.252.189 (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the etymology section ends: "... at the bequest of Hernando Cortes." I believe "behest" is what we want here rather than bequest.
I would like to propose a minor change to the ordering of the first paragraph in the Religion section. Mormonism has been listed as a Christian denomination, when it is not and is not recognized by most Christian denominations as part of Christianity. It is a separate religion and should be listed as such. It has a completely different concept of God to mainstream Christianityand is practiced in a radically different way. It is in fact a separate religion. My proposed re-order of content is as follows.
"The largest Christian denominations by number of adherents in 2000 were the Roman Catholic Church with 10,079,310; and the Southern Baptist Convention with 471,119. Jewish congregations had 994,000 adherents; and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had 529,575."doviel (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I leave it to the semi-educated "editors" to figure out, and correct, what is wrong with the following preposterous statement
"The seat of government for California under Mexican rule was located at Monterey from 1777 until 1835, when Mexican authorities abandoned California..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geocrat (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Full credit: Spain, the date, and "abandoned". And that wasn't just poor wording, it was just plain wrong. So now you're saying that you can't change anything because the sentence is referenced? That's all the more reason to correct it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.122.236 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Why does the article state that "California is the second-largest U.S. state by land area after Alaska and Texas, and preceding Maine." Maine? Since when was Maine the fourth largest U.S. state by any measure? I'm just a little confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverside04 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Liked to know more about the past and present? plans to split California into two States Northern California and Southern California. Why doesnt article on California mentuion the ';differences' pokliticaly and attiude wise between the more somber Northern California and the Laid back Southern California? Thanks! Andreisme (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi here in SoCal (Soputhern Cailfornia) suppossely a plan has been put forward for a new Statre Soputhern California Called "Coastal california" yet nothing on any web serach anyone know of this idea? ThanksTeslaguy (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Why does California always elect movie actors to the governorship??? 204.133.215.130 (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I added this, but someone erased it, claiming it was crystal balling. I disagree with the claim that it was crystal balling, because the info is about the past, not the future:
A May 3, 2009 opinion column by George Will in the Washington Post stated, "If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit..."[40]
Grundle2600 (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have add something and it should stay in. There is no longer any speculation about this, this a lager problem for California now. If the state does not cut $24 billion form the budget it may go insolvent[1]. I think a whole section should be add for this. NWH5305 03:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwh5305 (talk • contribs)
I believe this is a typo:
In 2009 the California economic crisis became severe as the stare faces insolvency
...and should read:
In 2009 the California economic crisis became severe as the state faces insolvency
Vandtekor (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It now seems appropriate to remove the description of this state as comparable to one of the largest economies in the world, which currently sits in the header to this article. Opinions? Jddriessen (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
where can i find information on the current financial crisis is it in another article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.174 (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I propose to remove the statement "By 2008, California had the 6th highest tax burden of any state, when measured as a percentage of GDP." As I said before, the citation is from a secondary source, and the primary source, the Tax Foundation, has a history of controversial calculations. Additionally, I note that the ranking appears to vary considerably from year to year (http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/June2004/6.2004.Coupal-CaliforniaTaxBurden.02.htm) and varies considerably according to different sources (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/31/MN101774.DTL and http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/2014809.html). The alternative would be to include all sources, but that seems to much emphasis to put on such a small point. Mcdruid (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The maximum income tax rate in CA is currently 10.55%, if you include the mental health surtax on incomes over $1 million, and 9.55% without the surtax. It is no longer 9.3% as stated under ECONOMY. Aanastasi (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
shamona hehe
"According to the 2006 ACS Estimates, California's population is:
* 59.8% White American including White Hispanic * 43% White non-Hispanic * 35.9% are Hispanic or Latino (of any race)[24] * 12.3% Asian American * 6.2% Black or African American * 3.3% mixed * 0.7% American Indian"
Ok, I get it... but surely there's a better way to present this? Thoughts??? Cmiych (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
" * 60.4% White American including White Hispanic
o 43.0% are White, non-Hispanic or Latino * 35.7% are Hispanic or Latino (of any race) * 12.2% Asian American * 6.3% Black or African American * 3.3% mixed * 0.7% American Indian"
When I multiply the listed population density by the state's area, I get over 38 million, higher than the 2000 number or the 2008 estimate. Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.49.229 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
lol The so called "white"(which I think is a dumb term since caucasian people aren't even white) hispanic is ridiculous. The vast majority of latinos refer to themselves as just that, hispanic or latino. Never "white" or "caucasian". The demographics(most demos period) are ridiculous.Schweinsteiger54321 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Several different images are currently being used on links to the California portal. What is your preference? Is there a consensus favorite?
Please discuss at Portal talk:California#Portal link images.
Links to the other state portals are displayed at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Less than .5% of Californians are Muslim per page 103 of this Pew study. The highest state is actually Nevada with 2%. I am removing the unsourced claim that 3.4% of Californians are Muslim. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear author,
in your article you state the highest point in the continental US is in California. I sort of disagree with that, since I've learned at school (aside from crappy written expression) that the highest mountain in the US is Mt. McKinley, AK. Isn't Alaska part of the continental US? (Don't get this question wrong, it is no criticism, I really am not sure about it, otherwise I would've tried and interfered directly!)
Oodle
--62.152.110.130 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Add Climate change in California: http://www.google.com/landing/cop15/ and http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/ per the Governor. 99.60.127.71 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In the article, it states that California is one of the only few states to continue conducting same sex marriages. That information is false due to the 2008 Proposition 8 amendment banning same sex marriage in the state. Please revise the article in ensuring that the information attains its utmost accuracy. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.47.175 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The display of lowest point data is garbled. I'd fix it myself except that I'm almost certainly not an established user yet and there are some things going on with the syntax that I don't understand. SDCHS (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you please clarify why Brazilian and U.S. states qualify as sub-national entities but Indian states do not? InArm (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe it was originally "in the western hemisphere" which is how it appears in the sao paulo article. Someone with write access should change it, since it's incorrect without that clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.171.99 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
the to "second-most populous" appears in both the article introduction and the Demographics section. While it is an apt piece of information for the Demographics section, it does not seem to me to be so important that it must be mentioned in the introduction, which currently reads as a hodgepodge of facts about California rather than a coherent intro. I suggest that someone remove this portion from the introduction section. 190.84.245.221 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In the Geography and environment section, the second paragraph contains this:
"The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta serves as a critical water supply hub for the state. Water is routed through an extensive network of canals and pumps out of the delta, that traverse nearly the length of the state, including the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project."
The second sentence here needs to be fixed, as it doesn't make much sense grammatically. Unfortunately I can't change it, as I don't know enough about what it's trying to say. Are the canals and pumps only in the Delta, and if so, exactly what traverses nearly the length of the state? Or do the canals and pumps traverse nearly the length of the state? Come to think of it, that doesn't make much sense either. The whole thing is dippy! Demeter (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention such as; If California was its own country the world bank of IMF would have to come in and rescue California from going bankrupt. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.85 (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You CAN´T say "White (not including Hispanics)" and later add Hispanics as another Race, because Hispanics are NOT a race. Whites can be of English, German, French, Italian, Russian...or Spanish ancestry.
What the U.S. Census Bureau says is White persons....76.6
Where is that percentage in your article? You shouldn´t manipulate the OFFICIAL information.
You have to write the whole percentage of White, INCLUDING White Hispanics, and after all races you can add as a cultural definition the concept of Hispancs/Latinos (and taking into account that once anybody starts speaking English as his/her mother tongue, he/she cannot be considered a "Hispanic" as it is a cultural concept)--88.24.242.30 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.