Talk:California/Archive 4

Minor Correction to GDP

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)

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)

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.

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 (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 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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your logic is a bit off, though there are benefits from being part of the United States, but those benifits are very similar to those enjoyed by the members of European Union. California pays more into the federal budget than any other state. It is actually the smaller states that receive the greater porportional benifit of national defense and issues such as currency. And as far as purchasing resources they ARE purchased from who ever owns them. In many cases it is actually foreign investors that own US resources. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Personally, I don't think it matters much that it's a part of the Mexico project because it doesn't affect the article; however, I think Grey Wanderer has a point. If alta California is what it was as a Spanish/Mexican territory, then the state of California doesn't need to be part of it. Going along the same logic, would every single province/state/region in most of Europe be under the Roman Empire project? Kman543210 (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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"

"55 pix"

"60 pix"

"65 pix"

"70 pix"

"75 pix"

"80 pix"

"85 pix"

"90 pix"

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

californian

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Gold Rush. -DevinCook (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

New California Flag Graphic

New 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)

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)

Gold Rush! -- Will somebody please change the Gold Rush dtes -- It won't let me

The California Gold Rush started in 1849--hence the '49ers THANKS LC137 (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on this reference found on the California Gold Rush article it has been verified to have started in 1848. The source provided in that article looks quite reliable.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:46, 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)

News Flash

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)

You mean appellate justice, not district judge. The opinion in the case of In re Rachel L. was authored by Justice H. Walter Croskey of the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District. Also, if you actually bother to read the opinion, it turns on the bizarre facts of the case and is unlikely to apply to the vast majority of homeschooled children whose parents actually have their paperwork and affairs in order. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this has nothing to do with the article. —Kurykh 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Climate

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)

State Fish

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"...

Reference to Boston in history

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)

Mexican-American War

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)

Evolution of Population: California - Australia

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)

Sinking of California

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)

Energy

Hydroelectric could use more coverage - the ca.gov site claims 14%, so it's notable [2].

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)

Percent of Non-Religious Citizens

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)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).... Although in this instance you will need to use {{Editsemiprotected}} to request the change as the article has recently been protected. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

slogan

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)

VANDALISM

Due to easy opportunities for vandalism, the ability to edit California should be restricted to registered Wikipedia users only. Random IP's should not ...

I see you vandalized the article to "prove" your point. Do you also throw garbage in the street in front of your house to demonstrate how awful it is you are not restrained from doing so? Antandrus (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing State Insignia

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)

The wikilink you provided for the fish redirects to Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Italian patriot, not a fish of any sort (you were looking for Garibaldi (fish)). The Folk Dance, Marine Fish and Marine Mammal entries won't show up because they are not specified fields in the template. I went ahead and removed the butterfly link, though. I didn't change the state rock, since there is a statement at the Serpentinite article that it is the state rock of California, and I'm not going to wade into that potential edit war. Horologium (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The red in state flag picture is definitely off...

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

• http://www.ca.gov/
• http://www.library.ca.gov/history/images/bearflag.jpg

this is the flag that was in use before:

• http://www.50states.com/flag/caflag.htm
• http://www.flagsexpress.com/ter_flag/california_state_flag.htm
• http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oGkiSA_hdJqkUAP1BXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=california%20flag&y=Search&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-501
• http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/thumb/8/8e/150px-California_state_flag.png

The flag used in the article now:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_California.svg

The source of the one unrepresentative flag that is currently in use:

• http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dcalifornia%2520flag%26y%3DSearch%26fr2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=500&h=333&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F3013%2F2764571947_5fa55ef140.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2F17367038%40N08%2F2764571947%2F&size=52.5kB&name=California+State+Flag&p=california+flag&type=JPG&oid=d11c40f901e99df6&fusr=kteneyck&tit=California+State+Flag&hurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2F17367038%40N08%2F&no=14&tt=57,761&sigr=11ltm8dcm&sigi=11ggda2k0&sigb=13b0k0a6h&sigh=11a14j6no

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)

The current SVG uses the official colors specified under California Law. These colors are listed on the Flag of California page. Most of the older images, that you can find on the Internet,use the wrong colors. Sadly, many flags you can buy in the store are also incorrect. Also, the "other" design bear found on Internet is completely wrong. California uses a model of a bear as a template for the design of the flag. The overall appearance of the bear has settled on the current appearance. However, this design aspect of the flag is a tad nebulous. The image you found on Flickr is a screenshot of the version I created for Wikipedia! :-) -DevinCook (talk) 12:45, 18 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)

First incorporated city in California

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)

I see what you're saying. The sentence in the article that states, "San Jose, San Diego and Benicia became California's first incorporated cities on March 27, 1850" is incorrect. They are all "tied" for second. A paragraph from the California State Library ([3]) reveals that Sacramento was indeed the first incorporated city (as the city claims). I'll change it. Killiondude (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Among top 10

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)

What is "human development index" and why is it important? Mikemill (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Human Development Index is a measure developed and used by the UN; it takes health, education and income into account and is the most comprehensive and widely respected measure of human development - i.e. how advanced a region is in socio-economic terms. That's why all country articles here on Wikipedia have a section called "HDI" in the infobox. 76.213.200.63 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Capital city

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 is in the infobox at the top of the article. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the infobox, it's in three other locations. There's a paragraph about all the capitals that California has had in the "History" section; it's in the first paragraph of the "State government" section; and it's in the "State of California" footer template at the bottom. It's trivially easy to search for "capital" and find all four locations. Perhaps our IP reader misspelled it as "capitol" in his/her search. In any event, I don't think there's any need to change its prominence in the article. Four mentions, one of which is in the very prominent infobox, seems sufficiently prominent to me. TJRC (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this??

"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)

Improvements

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)

I came across another weird part in the article. "California's own Population Bureau claims better accuracy than the federal Census Bureau statistics." California doesn't have a "Population Bureau", but a Demographic Research Unit and a State Census Data Center. I think both are operating under the California Department of Finance (I think that because of this page [4]). In any case, I can't see where either the Demographic Research Unit or the State Census Data Center claim to have "better accuracy" than the US Census Bureau. Unless somebody can substantiate that claim, I'm going to remove that phrase while updating the population that the State of California believes it has. Killiondude (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy

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 article was Semi-protected due to vandalism several weeks ago. I'll make the change. Good job catching that. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the English-language wikipedia, and we cannot expect all readers to know Spanish, the reference to the Sierra Nevada being a mountain range should remain. Besides, "Sierra" in this usage is the name of the range; "Sierra" not being used generically to mean "mountain." There is no redundancy to using both the name "Sierra Nevada" and the generic explanatory phrase "mountain range." TJRC (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tax as a percent of GDP

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)

Tagging overkill

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)

No shit Sherlock!!! of course the article has too many tags. Vectorville (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think one tag should be placed in the article itself, but others have asserted they want a tag on every section that needs help. As far as putting 'citation needed' on every asserted fact that is not documented with a footnote, that could add 50/100/? such tags. That may or or may not be desirable. How can editors be reminded that citations should really be used when writing/editing articles. Whatever you all agree upon is fine with me. Hmains (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding the refimprove tag to the top of an article is probably the best way to remind editors (and just as, or more importantly readers, the large majority) that this article needs work and might not be reliable. If one section is completely unsourced then it would be appropriate to put an unreferenced tag on that section. But if many sections only have scant references than it is much more appropriate to just put the one tag at the top of the article. To answer your question, I'd recommend putting the refimprove tag at the top of the article and then only adding the individual sentence "citation needed" tags to sentences that are really controversial and contentious. If you personally disagree with a sentence then put a "citation needed" tag, if you think it's probably true but should be sourced then put a tag either at the top of the section or the top of the article. I think that's probably a good rule of thumb. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not home to largest living organisms (Aspens vs. Sequoias)

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)

Etymology

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.

 Done TJRC (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion section head paragraph.

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)

This topic has been discussed numerous times on Wikipedia at various articles. The consensus is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination, one of the restorationist Christian churches. Some individuals may not consider them Christian, but that is just one point of view. The original wording of this article is correct. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That same argument however would make Islaam a Christian denomination, as Islaam is probably much closer to Christianity and Judaism than Mormonism and it did shoot from Judaistic and Christian roots as well as others. Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, not Christianity itself.doviel (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review what has already been discussed on Wikipedia about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Christianity, for example see #28 under Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 13. The grouping of religions in the paragraph should remain as is. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Elemental world/California history

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)

That seems to be poorly worded. The Monterey, California article states, "Monterey served as the capital of California from 1777 to 1849, under the flags of Spain and Mexico." so it seems that there is a discrepancy with the ending date between the two. I don't think it should say "abandoned"... its more like they were forced out. I'll just add a {{fact}} tag to it. Killiondude (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. The sentence is referenced... The Monterey, CA fact isn't... Killiondude (talk) 18:56, 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)

That's not what I meant. Provide a reference and a new statement and I can make the changes. Right now I don't have time to pursue it. Killiondude (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just log in, and fix it yourself? Thanks South Bay (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Maine?

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)

It was vandalism. It was intended to say Montana, and was reverted just around the time you posted your comment here. Killiondude (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok why no mention of Splitting California into two states in article?

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)

Currently, there is no such plan under serious consideration. When the "State of Jefferson movement" is mentioned in reliable sources (which is rare), it is in the context of portraying a small fringe group. They're not really notable enough for inclusion in a much larger general article about California. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ANYONE KNOW OF PLANS TO SPLIT CALIFORNIA? NORTH AND SOUTH?

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)

There have been talks of splitting the state in two for many years, and several proposals in the state legislature (though they've gone nowhere). A simple Google search for 'splitting California' or something similar will give you plenty of information. As an aside, please do not type in all caps, as it is considered rude. Best, faithless (^speak) 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of it. Any new information ?--32.177.13.17 (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actors

Why does California always elect movie actors to the governorship??? 204.133.215.130 (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is to discuss improving the article, not to discuss the topic. See WP:TALK. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Budget deficit

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)

It doesn't sound WP:CRYSTAL to me, but it doesn't sound worthy of inclusion, either. State spending increases had not been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, so the rest of it is pretty much irrelevant. It's a bit coulda-shoulda-woulda, setting out what might have been, rather than the actual facts of what was or is. Great for a George Will column, not so great for an encylopedia. TJRC (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "crystal balling", but it is speculation. There are countless bills and policies that were, or were not, passed over the past few decades which might have resulted in a different budget situation today.   Will Beback  talk  03:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "crystal balling", but it is speculation. There are countless bills and policies that were, or were not, passed over the past few decades which might have resulted in a different budget situation today. Waterjuice (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I agree entirely. ;)   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 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. 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)

Fixed, thanks. With a few more edits you should b able to edit the page (See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users). -22:58, 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)

No it isn't appropriate to change the state economy description because of the state budget. The Gross Domestic Product of all businesses in the state is not the same as the budget of the state government. Unless you have updated information showing California's GDP drastically dropping relative to the GDP of nations, there is no reason to change at this time. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

financial crisis

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)

Tax Burden

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)

Maximum Income Tax Rate

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)

I don't see any citation for this material, except for the Hispanic/Latino percentage. Who's the ACS? Perhaps we should go back to the Census Bureau data, even if it is less current.   Will Beback  talk  17:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ACS is the American Community Survey, which is a U.S. Census Bureau report. See this link. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I went to the source and corrected the data and improved the ref. I indented the "White, non-Hispanic" to better show that it's a subset of White American.   Will Beback  talk  17:31, 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"

Thank you for cleaning it up a bit. However, the numbers still don't add up. What exactly is this supposed to be communicating? Cmiych (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Portal link images

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)

Muslims in California

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)

Highest Point?

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)

I went ahead and switched the wording in the introduction to 'contiguous', as the Contiguous United States article is fairly clear on the difference. ( Also, 'contiguous' was already used in this case in the geography section). AlexiusHoratius 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, my bad! Thank you :D

--62.152.110.130 (talk) 21:57, 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.

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)

Gay Rights

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)

"It was the second state to legalize abortion and the second state to legalize marriage for gay couples (by judicial review, which was later revoked by the ballot initiative, Proposition 8)." That's what the article says. I don't think that's misleading at all. Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lowest Point

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)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it, see this edit for what was wrong. It was using the {{convert}} template to convert from feet to meters when the infobox does it already. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Second most populous sub-national entity

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)

Delta section

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)

There is a network of canals and pumps traversing much of the state. See for example California Aqueduct. --skew-t (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IMF Question

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)

Find a citation that does not involve original research. --Morenooso (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Racial ancestry makeup is WRONG

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)

English As Official Language

The ballot measure which made english the official language of California did so by amending the present state constitution. Article 3 Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California states, "(b) English as the Official Language of California. c) Enforcement. The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the State of California is preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the State of California. (d) Personal Right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of California shall have standing to sue the State of California to enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this section. " Hence all ballots and other state govt documents that are published in a language other than spanish are in direct violation of the state constitution. It also implies that any person who is a public official and acting in an official capacity may not speak in any language other than english. This however, only applies to the government and public officials, it does not apply to private citizens. Any person who is a US citizen has legal standing to sue under this section. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.41.229 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add this reference: California Department of Motor Vehicles

to the sentence in the article "However, many state, city, and local government agencies still continue to print official public documents in numerous languages."

That page comes from an official state government agency and says that it prints its "Driver License Handbook" in at least 9 languages. (Also, that state agency also publishes a web site in at least one other language -- that same reference has a link to the "DMV en Espanol" web site).

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)