Jump to content

Talk:California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

will it be okay if I add the www.stateof-california.com to the external links? I have some adsense to it but if that's a problem I will be more than happy to delete. (lol - $2.00 a week is hardly an income anyway) let me know..thanks John

Your link has already been removed several times as link spam; I think the general feeling is that it provides a lot of information that is already freely available on sites like the official state site that are already linked on the page. Aranhamo 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy

"if it was a country..." is repetitive. I'm deleting it

- SeanMcG

New article

Because there are elcology, geography, history, government and education articles, I created an Economy of California article.

It would be great is someone could expand the housing bubble section.

--Rachel 18:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

questions about the GPD sources

I'm skeptical about the claim that CA has the 6th largest economy by GDP. The BEA has it's GSP (gross state product) at $1.4 trillion in 2003. By either nominal or PPP, with the numbers that appear here on Wikipedia for 2005, CA would have to have annual growth of over 12% to maintain its position. - Mu Cow

What do you mean? To stay at 6th, it only has to stay ahead of France, and France's economy is stagnant. The only economy that's really booming at the moment is China [correction: India and Brazil's economies are also booming quite well], and everyone agrees that China's economy is far larger than California's. --Coolcaesar 07:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
France's estimated nominal GDP for 2005 is 2.2 trillion, for California, which had a GSP of 1.4 trillion in 2003, to match this would require annual growth of 25%, which is utterly impossible. Basically, from what I can find, CA was never 6th, it's more than likely 8th. - Mu Cow

Where are you getting that number? I just searched on Google. The CIA World Factbook estimates France's 2004 GDP at $1.737 trillion. On the other hand, the State Department's Bureau of Foreign Affairs is giving an estimate of $2.018 trillion for 2004. The California Legislative Analyst's office has posted an estimate of $1.5 trillion for California's GDP for 2004. So California is a little behind France, but probably not by as much as you are asserting. --Coolcaesar 05:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov) says California's GSP was $1.4 trillion in 2003, so $1.5 trillion in 2004 isn't unreasonable, but that's still not enough to make it the 6th largest economy in the world. The estimate I got for France came from the Wikipedia article List of countries by GDP (nominal), however it's for 2005. The difference in estimates you got was from the fact that the CIA uses purchasing power parity and the State Department uses nominal GDP. - Mu Cow
"California's gross product was just about to overtake that of France." - from the Economist magazine at the end of 2001

I found a proper, current [2003 data] source[1] for this statistic. It is the 6th largest. -- User:Reinyday 21:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I see there is some agreement it is the sixth largest, then why does it say fifth largest on the website. I've fixed that. Tom cruise saying it's the fifth largest economy in the world in the movie "collateral" obviously isnt a reliable source. Having said that, I doubt it's even the sixth largest. It says here it has a gross state product of 1.55 trillion USD in 2004. If we assume a 5.6% growth in 2005 this would become 1.671 trillion $. So List of countries by GDP (nominal) ranks it 7th. Though the difference with Italy is so small I dont think it makes any difference and I agree with 6th. Warniats 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another CIA 2003 data source[2] puts a $1.4 Trillion California economy as the 8th or 9th largest GDP (by purchasing power parity). Brazil and Russia are both poised to soon put moves into these highest rankings. However, with the overall US economy having posted solid 3% GDP growth every quarter since then, California's 12% population representation of the US GDP should remain healthy. CIA 2005 estimates [3] put CA (roughly 12% of the US number) at 11th largest. There is no doubt that most popular boasts are obsolete if not mostly meaningless. 29 March 2006

This issue, with multiple sources, is explored at Economy of California. — Reinyday, 22:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

political editorial

My $.02: The current section on the state ecomony seems to be a political editorial, as well as being a tad incorrect. Perhaps we should stick to the facts.
Also, the inclusion of a state ranking done by the "Small Business Survival Committee", a political lobby group, is a bit biased. --echidna

I quite agree. The section on economy is POV and cites no sources. This article would be a lot stronger if the "facts" in it were backed up by citations. Fred 00:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"non-agricultural central counties"

The Economy section includes the following sentence: "the non-agricultural central counties have some of the highest poverty rates in the U.S.". Does anyone know which counties this refers to? Tom Radulovich 23:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Miscellany

At the beginning of the Geography section, someone wrote the nonsensical and/or German statement "Das border von der morder borders?" WTF? - Ed

Thanks for pointing that out. It's fixed now. -Will Beback 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a statement in here that I question. "The vast majority of the population lives within 50 miles(80 kilometers) from the coast".

Where does this stat come from? I very well be correct as I construct a map in my mind of the population centers of California, but the term "vast majority" is is too general and vague. How about a more precise stat?

JeremyCastle

It's basic geography. Any detailed California map shows that California's largest metropolitan areas (the San Francisco Bay Area, Greater Los Angeles, and San Diego) are all within 50 miles of the coast. The inland cities (Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield) are still much smaller than the huge coastal cities. --Coolcaesar 07:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

There seems to be some major political bias in this document, particularly the information concering the Vietnam War and teachers' unions.

What is a biotope? -- corvus12


As to political bias- the events actually happened. The positions described were real, and no position is advocated, therefore it conforms to the NPOV. The characterization of teachers unions as political patronage is insulting, but accurate. They maintain one of the largest, best funded lobbying efforts in the State, and consistently oppose anything that would change the union's power or income.

A biotope is an area with distinctively different animals and plants. It's a discredited ecological term, but it is helpful to describe the regions. They really do look very different.

To whom it may concern- the stuff about mosquito-borne disease is real, and remains a real problem everywhere south of the frost line in the U.S. It was historically one of the most important reasons for the differential population growth rates between the South and the North- i.e. it's why the South was less populous and less industrialized. It's why the South lost the Civil War, despite having been settled first, and having richer land. Ray Van De Walker

"U. S. national leadership under President Richard Nixon firmly removed the U. S. from Vietnam's war." makes it sound as if Nixon were the leader in getting the US out of Vietnam. He was a proponent of the war, not an opponent. If we're going to address the war, which doesn't really seem necessary in an overview article about California history, there should be more about anti-war demonstrations. --corvus13

Richard Nixon's role in the Vietnam War was ambiguous. Nixon first escalated the war, then pulled the US out of it.

California wasn't "neutral" during the Civil War: it remained in the Union and supplied thousands of volunteers, and a large quantity of gold, to the Union war effort. I'm making the change. --Vicki Rosenzweig

This article has become a bit of a monster. I propose chopping it up a bit into smaller more digestable pieces. For example, instead of having the entire history of California on the main page, how about have a short overview of the history with a link to /History right below it? That way, one can get a good feel for the State, before having to make to decision to dive into the detailed information. maveric149

I heartily agree. I'll start on doing this... --Brion VIBBER 23:09 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

There is no Workers Compensation "tax" in CA. Insurance is required of all employers. Cost varies.

CA does not have an 8% sales tax. There is a state-wide sales tax of 7% (I think) and additional taxes in various different localities.

Well, under Demographics i'm not going to volunteer the defense for every word i changed, but there was enough subtlety (and a doubt) to my slicing and dicing that i'm gonna hit the high points:

"With a 2000 population of ...." A 2,000,000 population makes you a small state; a 2000 population makes you a small town. Ambiguity eliminated.

"... lacks a clear ethnic majority. " Probably reflects thinking of an election plurality as an "unclear majority", which it's not. (A plurality is a clear non-majority, even tho in most cases it clearly wins the election.)

"Hispanics lead ...." Some Californians may be in a population race, or concerned with winning elections, but this 'graph is not about that.

" The group with the largest birth rate...." Hispanics may be the standard ethnic group that's highest, but once you stop restricting the discussion to the 5 ethnic groups named, the largest-birth-rate group is called "women pregnant with sextuplets". I made a guess at what this was supposed to mean, concluding that Hispanics, not Catholic ones, are expected to become a majority. (Someone should edit promptly if i made a bad guess.) --Jerzy 06:59, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just heard from KQED (PBS station), The name California is in an native American language where Cali = Gold, Fornia = Would you have some? Any confirmed source for such claim?

First question is "Which native American language ?". Without that there's no way of checking. If we look at Spanish/Latin we get Cali- meaning hot and -fornia meaning furnace. So California could mean Furnace-hot land which seems reasonable given that the area was probably named by Spaniards/Mexicans. -- Derek Ross 00:21, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

California: A ficticious island, from a Spanish romance named Las Serges de Esplandian. Thats what i found so far, i was also under the impression it might be derivative or a Moorish name. Ill keep looking. GLopez 03/24/05 Im sorry i did not have an account when edited this, but now i do.

Amadis de Gaula
"The name is thought to have derived from the mythical paradise of Calafia portrayed in Amadís de Gaula, a 16th century Spanish romance by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo,"
The author of the romance, according to the information about Amadis de Gaule, was the Portuguese João de Lobeira not the Spanish Montalvo.

Flag and coat of arms background

I've changed it to gray because the flag looks really bad when the background is white. Could someone find a coat of arms that would not have a white background?

If you choose to revert it, explain why.

-User:Dagestan

San Diego

San Diego has a little over 1 million people, San Diego County has 2.8 million. Neither are even close to 10 million residents, so I moved it back. Gentgeen 07:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The way the sections are labeled, all of the cities in the second section should have less than 1,000,000, which San Diego does not. Technically it belongs in the less than 10,000,000 section. If for whatever reason someone doesn't think this is right, you can at least create a new population grouping for San Diego or change the headings to read "approximately" instead of less than. For now I'm putting it back in less than 10,000,000. --Nabber00 18:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of someone using the wrong symbol, as the LA urban area has 12-17 million residents, so it's not smaller than 10,000,000. I'll go fix this. Gentgeen 21:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

suburban

This term seems to be applied incorrectly on this page. The word specifically refers to "a residential district located on the outskirts of a city". Cities like Oakland and Berkeley are not suburbs in any way. I feel that the category should be changed. Any thoughts? Echidna

I would suggest, at least, moving Oakland and Berkeley to the appropriate categories (cities over 100,000). I was just about to comment on the same thing.--Ewk 02:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The list is of metropolitan areas, not cities. While Oakland could be moved up (and probibly into the greater than 500,000 section), Berkeley is not the center of a metropolitan or urban area, and is in fact just a large suburb. To keep things in perspective, Long Beach is larger than Oaktown, and is also listed as an important suburb, while Fremont, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara are all larger than Berkeley, and not included on the list at all. Gentgeen 02:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would dispute the classification of Berkeley as a suburb. Typically, suburbs refer to areas with relatively low population densities, particularly bedroom communities; Berkeley is quite densely populated and maintains an existence independent of the surrounding cities. In fact, one could argue that Albany is a suburb of Berkeley. Also, by your definition, Emeryville would be considered a suburb, a classification I would also dispute (as Emeryville is the locus of significant commercial and industrial activity).--Eric 02:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's nothing in your statement to distinguish Berkeley from other Bay Area suburbs. Daly City has a higher population density than Berkley (and a higher population, too), and one could argue that Pacifica is a suburb Daly City (or that Stanford is a suburb of Palo Alto, or that Dublin is a suburb of Pleasanton, or that Newark is a suburb of Fremont, ect.) That doesn't make Daly City the center of an urbanized area, nor Fremont, nor Pleasanton, nor Palo Alto. If you think Everyville is the locus of commercial and industrial activity, come look at Santa Clara or Sunnyvale, which at over 15 times the population of Emeryville, each, are definatly suburbs of San Jose. The traditional definition of "suburban" doesn't translate well to the Bay Area, but that does not make each of the scores of cities and towns the center of their own little urban areas. What I think is more important is that some urbanized areas are not on this list at all, such as Salinas, Santa Barbara, Modesto, and Eureka.
Berkeley is not the "center" of an urbanized area, but is most definitely part of the urban "core" of the East Bay. Have you travelled up San Pablo Avenue lately? Berkeley has an inner city. It may look nicer than, say, Oakland, but that does not per se make it suburban. Are we defining "suburb" as "any region or municipality not considered the center of a major metropolitan area?" If so, we should make that clear, as the definition used in Suburb does not immediately qualify Berkeley as such, and also potentially qualifies large parts of Oakland, San Francisco, et. al. as suburban. Note, also, the use of the phrases "outer elements of a conurbation," and "the density of habitation is usually lower than in an inner city area." A large part of this problem is an ambiguous definition of "suburb" and "suburban."--Eric 05:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I should clarify: Since those are urban areas, Berkeley, not being the center of a major MSA, shouldn't be included. But I don't think it's a suburb, so it should probably not be mentioned at all, unless we change "suburb" to "other cities" or something like that.--Eric 06:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Our article on suburb continues to state, Now, partly due to increased populations in many greater metropolitan areas, suburbs can be densely populated and contain apartment buildings, town homes, in addition to office complexes and light manufacturing facilities. It is not unusual for suburbs to house several hundred thousand people. It then lists, The largest suburbs in the United States, in order, based on Census 2000, are Mesa, Arizona; Virginia Beach, Virginia; Oakland, California; Arlington, Texas; Santa Ana, California; and Anaheim, California. Based on these two quotes, our article recognizes that the role of suburbs has changed as urbanization has spread. The inclusion of Oakland on that list can be disputed (in fact, I don't think Oakland is a suburb, for various reasons), but it does support that the term "suburb" can be applied to areas that don't fit the traditional definition. Gentgeen 01:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think we're agreed that Oakland is not a suburb (being an Oakland native, I take great exception to the idea that it is considered one). The dispute now seems to be centered around Berkeley. How does Berkeley qualify as a suburb, in your opinion? You raised the objection that it's not at the "center of an urbanized area;" does that make Richmond a suburb, also? I'm trying to understand how you define suburb, as I see Berkeley as definitely qualifying as Inner-City.--Eric 21:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From a Census Bureau employee: technically Berkeley and Oakland are both suburbs of San Francisco or San Jose. A suburb is any city or urban area within a metropolitan area other than the central city (or cities), regardless of size of density (e.g. Newark and, now, New Haven, are, technically, New York suburbs. Oakland is a suburb (albeit an urban suburb), but can be considered a tertiary center city (after San Francisco and San Jose) of the San Francisco metropolitan area. Berkeley is, by any definition, a suburb.

official languages

Should there not be some mention of Spanish just next to this? As a practical language? Of course, on an informal level we might also suggest it helps to be able to speak German these days. --AlainV 17:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the author is refering to Acticle 3 Sec. 6 of the California Constitution which states "(b) English as the Official Language of California. English is the official language of the State of California."

No mention is made of Spanish. I assume somewhere in the text, it is mentioned that there is a large number of immigrants from Latin America. One could infer from that, that they speak Spanish. But mentioning the fact might be useful. I am curious though why you think it is useful to speak German. The German community, in which I have taken part, is pretty small. I think it might be more useful to know a number of Asian languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Hmong, or one of the languages of the Indian subcontinent. --imars 10:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think AlainV is poking fun at the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian immigrant, is the current California governor. --Yonghokim 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

The name California

Just for the record, Let it be said:

The name California meant "Land of The Caliph" in Moorish Spain, which is the background of where "Las sergas de Espladián" originated from. I urge anyone interested to check original Moorish records to verify this.

User:Coolcaesar deleted this fact, calling it "speculation".

Of course, I understand how offending this must feel to some that the name California MAY originate from the same peoples we are at war with now.--Zereshk 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also for the record, as I've already pointed out on Zereshk's talk page, a simple Google search indicates that there are only four pages with ("land of the caliph" and "California"), of which three are non sequiturs. The fourth, where a connection was actually made between the two, happens to be a transcription of the ramblings of a homeless man.

Of course, we are all aware that there are many historical sources that have not yet been scanned in and put online. So I challenged Zereshk to cite a specific hard copy source (as in a book or academic journal) and he admitted that he had no such source.

From his replies, it appears he is attempting to infer causation (the idea that one evolved from the other) from correlation (the perceived similarity of the word to the phrase). While serendipitous discoveries often occur that way, no competent scientist, historian, linguist, or attorney would ever actually publish such ideas (in any medium, let alone a supposedly neutral one like an encyclopedia) until and unless they can reinforce their inference with extensive supporting evidence. But then, he's only an engineer.

--Coolcaesar 22:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. My claim (for now) is purely based on a linguistics and etymology.
  2. I dont know why Coolcaesar insists on mentioning Google searches as an academic source?!
  3. Id like to see the claim that "it is suggested that the word may signify a place hot as an oven", reinforced with "extensive supporting evidence". It didnt feel like an oven to me when I lived in Davis. Coolcaesar seems to be perfectly OK with this silly claim appearing on the main page of California.
  4. It is even failed to be mentioned here. Even a sentence?--Zereshk 00:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics? Etymology? Oh, that's hilarious. Have you ever actually read a book by a linguist? Have you talked to one? Do you know the names of any famous linguists (like Noam Chomsky or Benjamin Lee Whorf)?

No tenured linguist would publish unsupported speculation, let alone stubbornly claim it is true, without at least one citation to an actual physical source (that is, authentic documents from the time and place in question that illustrate the evolution at issue). Furthermore, the more recent in time, the easier it should be to get evidence. We're not exactly talking about some ancient language for which there is no direct written record (like Proto-Indo-European).

Perceiving a correlation in the sounds of two modern phrases (both of which are continuously evolving like all language components) and claiming they are related, without more, is just childish. It leads to nonsense conclusions. That's what schizophrenics like the aforementioned homeless man do all the time; in fact, it's a hallmark of the disease to make bizarre connections all over the place like that. You're not schizophrenic, are you?

Second, whether the other claims on the page as to the origin of California are valid is irrelevant to the validity of your claim. But since you insist on raising the issue, I don't know who put that idiotic "hot as a oven" claim there. Perhaps you may have a point that it is unsupported and should be deleted as well. Of course, it sounds like you've never been to Southern California, especially the vast inland desert parts, which every summer and fall are "hot as a oven."

Finally, I never contended that Google searches are an academic source. But as every competent researcher knows, Google searches are a good first step. Nearly any important bit of information nowadays is at least summarized on someone's blog or personal Web page somewhere, even if the original source document hasn't been posted yet. Google can often turn up at least a summary that can point one in the right direction to an authoritative primary source. If no one's bothered to at least summarize something for the Web, then it must be really unimportant, or really obscure or technical (so that no one thought it was worth posting because it wouldn't appeal to a general audience).

Only if Google doesn't turn up anything relevant, then it's time to delve into the so-called "deep Web" that is completely beyond the reach of search engines---the private periodical databases like LexisNexis and Infotrac, and the huge library catalogs like WorldCat---and then follow up with carefully planned visits to particular libraries and archives that may hold useful primary sources. That's how historical research (and by extension, historical linguistic research) is done. I've visited over 100 libraries (and one archive) in the course of an ongoing history project of mine, so I know full well what I'm talking about. --Coolcaesar 07:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcaesar,

  1. I dont care how many libraries youve visited, or how many books youve read. Youre not the only one who is educated here. I studied at UC Berkeley and and UC Davis and worked at LLNL and Neurological Surgery Dept in UCD Sacramento Medical Center. And I have published papers on Middle Eastern Architecture and Politics as well.
  2. Noam Chomsky is not exactly an authority on Moorish Spain.
  3. Southern California does not represent California. In fact, up around Mt Shasta and The Redwood areas, it's pretty darn chilly. Im taking out that stupid "Hot as Oven" statement unless you provide "extensive supporting evidence" for that claim. Period.--Zereshk 14:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I might intervene here, I've been following this small dispute for a few days now. Although I can't lend any extra information on California's namesake, I think we should not put anything in the entry about it until there is a definite agreed upon origin for which there is a primary source or multiple secondary sources. You both seem like very educated people so let’s do more research and come to a consensus. I'll look into this and offer my findings. oo64eva (AJ) 15:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

If we were truly educated, we wouldnt be bragging about credentials, would we now. :) --Zereshk 20:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since you keep wandering away from the core issue we've been discussing — whether you have valid linguistic evidence to back up your claim — I will point out that just because you've studied at places full of mature intellectuals doesn't mean you know how to think like one. An true intellectual stays on issue rather than swerving into ad hominem attacks, or even worse, stubbornly trying to construe every reasonable counterargument as an ad hominem attack against himself. Only children, talk radio hosts, and sleazy politicians looking for sound bites do that. I used to do that up until I was about 17 or so. I strongly recommend reading several books on critical thinking; there are also excellent magazines out there like the Skeptical Inquirer. If you were to argue like that in a court of law (or indeed in the context of any formal public debate), you would destroy your own credibility very quickly.
Getting back to the point, what I was trying to get across is that if you're going to invoke "linguistics" and "etymology" as the foundation of your claim, then you need to have at least some passing familiarity with those fields and with their leading experts, and with the work of the experts who are doing research in the specialty relevant to your particular claim.
I make no claim as to be familiar with whatever linguists are experts on the Spanish language as it evolved during the time of Moorish Spain; I simply cited Chomsky and Whorf as examples of famous linguists in general. If you insist on going around raising such an outlandish claim as fact, you should be able to point to: (1) primary sources that could reasonably support it (by showing a direct causation link where A directly was based on B); or (2) some well-established theory of linguistics that would support a reasonable inference that A evolved from B. Either way, until actually proven, your contention is only speculation and should stay out of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Interesting, perhaps, but speculation nonetheless.
Finally, although I agree with your removal of that "hot as an oven" reference, I should point out that with regard to the historical perception of California's average weather, the original province of California included the entire area from the top of the Central Valley down to the tip of what we now call Baja California. What Americans call California was once Alta California. This is taught in every California public school in the third or fourth grade (at least the ones staffed by competent teachers). If you look at any decent terrain map you'll see that the "hot" part of the original California makes up more than half of the original province. --Coolcaesar 09:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Damnant quod non intelligunt.
Absit invidia. :) --Zereshk 22:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is an old debate, but I've been asked to tell, for my Spanish 203 class, what "California" means in Spanish, and I don't have it in my three Spanish dictionaries and I can't find it here on the internet, not even at Wikipedia.

Moorish, indeed.

Leishalynn 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been to a number of different places in Brazil named California, all of which were given the name because gold was found there. Of course, it's possible that they were named in reference to California the US state, where gold was also discovered. I don't know which ones were named first. Aranhamo 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cali-Fornia

Here is the greatest argument for the origination of the name "California" being from the Spanish word cali (hot) and the Spanish word fornia (oven), Cali and Fornia are in the name of California (cali-fornia).

Constantly people look for “documented” proof for the origination of the California name and assume that California got its name from an the educated Spanish government or military officials, or that the name comes from a writer of novels and or poetry, while ignoring that fact that the majority of the California explorers, and I am talking of the average men who made up the expeditions, where not educated and had no more knowledge of these novels than the average modern California does today. It is the "common man/woman” who created and then popularized the names of many places we know today and who shapes the languages we all speak today, not novelist and not linguistic experts.

If you look at many of the place names in the Mother Load region you’ll see that the names originated in a very organic fashion by the common man and then become the official name simply through common usage.

William C. Trader Jr. 26 April 2006

That's a very cute argument from ignorance. (clap-clap-clap) Also, the correct spelling is Mother Lode. --Coolcaesar 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish word for oven is horno. The closest thing to "fornia" meaning oven that I can think of is Italian "forno," although I'm not saying that fornia isn't necessarily an archaic word for oven. I am saying, however, that as a Spanish speaker I've never heard it.

population update

The LA Times reported today, 3 May 2005, that California's population is now 36.8 million. I tried updating the information in this article, but couldn't figure out how to make the figure appear correctly in the table. Feel free to update if you know how. Thanks.

  • The precise estimate is 36,810,358 (State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2005, with 2000 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2005). I don't know how to update it either, though.

I'd suggest just entering it under the Population section; the table is generated from the {{Infobox U.S. state}} template, and modifying that template would affect all the state articles. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article's population was updated and glad we handle the issue, before the state's population would increase again by 600,000 this year. The state has a large net migration rate out of state - above 300,000 per year since 1990 and during the decade over 3 million Californians moved out of state. Many former Californians moved to nearby Western states and other regions in the U.S. for a multiplicty of reasons: lower taxes, less crime rate, better public schools and more conservative environs. But the state still grows by 500,000 or more every year and Californians are worried on overpopulation in urban centers spreading faster into suburbs and rural areas. --Mike D 26 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden State

I honestly thought that the term "golden state" referred to the wildflowers (particularly poppies) rather than the precious metal. After all, the reasoning given in the page would lead one to call it the gold state, rather than the golden state. Or maybe that only applies to "golden gate"...can someone check this?--Joel 17:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

State Nickname: "Golden State "The Golden State" has long been a popular designation for California and was made the official State Nickname in 1968. It is particularly appropriate since California's modern development can be traced back to the discovery of gold in 1848 and fields of golden poppies can be seen each spring throughout the state..."[4] Seems like it's both, it's probably just that gold is easier to explain than California poppy yadda yadda... ;) jengod 00:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed, California is the “Golden State” not the “Gold State” and the nick name is a reference to the native California grasses that turn a golden brown during the summer months. The Golden Gate is a play on the same idea where the “gate” is a reference to the two peninsulas that create the opening to the San Francisco bay, the Marin peninsula and the San Francisco peninsula, and the “golden” is a reference to the native grasses that turn a golden brown.

William of Lodi, Ca. May 29, 2005

The grasses in California that turn brown in summer are not native, they are invasive European annuals that displaced the native perennials shortly after European contact; see USDA article here [5]. "Golden State" refers to the Gold Rush according to the Secretary of State of California, see [6]. I've corrected this in the article.

RJC of San Francisco, CA August 31, 2005

RJC the brown grasses you refer to are not native grasses. The importation of cattle into California by the Spanish, Mexicans, and Americans introduced non native grasses from Europe. The native grasses of California do not turn brown in the summer, it is the non native grasses that you see on the Hayward Hills that turn brown in the summer. California does in fact have native grasses, as your own link talks about restoring, and it is these grasses that turn a golden color in the summer. To see these native grasses you need to seek out areas in California that have not been used for cattle grazing. If you ever get out to the off road areas in the Sierra Nevada foothills you’ll see these golden grasses and and how it is that California is Golden.

William of Lodi, Ca. April 24, 2006

Issue with current religions

-74% Protestant
-20% Roman Catholic
-0% Other Religions (Judaism, Buddhism, Islamism)
-2% Non-Religious

(1) Not sure this is true, and (2) the numbers don't add up to 100%. No source is listed for the info, but http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_judaism.html says 2.2% of Cali is Jewish... jengod 00:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

The American Jews article has information on notable Jewish communities in California. You should check it out. A great variety of religions thrive in Cal. but we happen to be less inclined for organized religion than most of the U.S. The largest denomination or church in Cal. are Roman Catholics followed by Baptists, Methodists and Unitarians. According to some experts, California has the most Mormons, Bahais and Druzes than anywhere in the world. --Mike D 26 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

80% or more of the people barely practice their religion, especially so in California. Perhaps a better indicator is whether they believe in Spirit/the Divine, as opposed to seriously following a religion. Things are changing fast here, as they are in Europe. Religion is giving way to non-religion or to general association with a Divine Reality. Of course, there is a solid core of religious followers, but they perhaps make up 20-30% of the population of California. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.194.65 (talk • contribs) .

If we can't find a source for the current statistics, or find a better source, I suggest that this section should be removed until we can find some sourced statistics. BlankVerse 08:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that these numbers seem odd, particularly given the apparent prevalence (I'm a native transplanted to the East Coast) of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in (Northern) CA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.33.1.40 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 July 2006.
Although Southern Baptists and some other conservative Protestant faiths disagree, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are usually lumped in with the Protestant statistics based on their self-identification. BlankVerse 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

!! The religion section's designations add up to a whopping 140% as of right now !! How the hell did that happen? Rounding errors giving between 98% to 102% total are forgiveable but 140% ?? There are two protestant labels listed: "protestant - 38%" and "other/general protestant - 23%". Perhaps some denominations listed may have been intended to be nested/included inside that first 38% protestant label?? I see that 23% general protestant + 8% Baptist + 3% Presbyterian + 2% Methodist + 2% Lutheran = the 38% Protestant total (assuming those churches all consider themselves protestant)... Anybody know if this agrees with any cited estimates?

  • Does anyone know if 7th Day Adventists (common in northern CA) fall into the 3% other christians or 23% other protestants? I wonder how many of them there are?
  • I'd assume Jehovah's Witness falls into the 3% other Christians since few of the more established Christian churches consider Jehovah's Witness a Christian Church (JW's deny Jesus IS God though they believe he really is his son or first creation and thus a reflection of God's divinity or something). JW's consider themselves the only true Christian church, so I don't know if that puts them in the Protestant or Other Christian category.

Rory77 11:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

John D. Sloat

It says in the article he sailed into San Francisco bay, but over at California Republic, it says he sailed into Monterey. Which one is true? ----UsaSatsui 20:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Source?

The state's official nickname of "The Golden State" is often thought to be a reference to California’s 1849 gold rush but is in fact reference to the native grasses that turn a golden color during the dry season. Sez who? jengod 22:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above is in fact incorrect, and has been fixed in the article. See the talk section 'Golden State' just above.

Democratic bastions...

Democratic bastions are mostly coastal and include the entire San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Salinas, Santa Barbara, and Imperial county.

Is Imperial County really a "Democratic bastion"? What about Santa Barbara? The overall county seems to be reasonably split, but I don't have data just for Santa Barbara city, but someone should check it out. Santa Cruz County would me a much better choice for the list.

Same thing with the "conservative" listing. The paragraph says "very conservative", and then lists a number of cities. Who characterizes San Diego County as "very conservative"? --Rc251 09:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

San Diego is not "very" conservative. We almost elected Donna Frye as mayor down here.--146.244.137.125 23:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that San Diego as a county has a slight conservative leaning due the burbs and rural areas, but it has a liberal core aroudn the metropolitan center, which is to be expected. --kevin in sd
The data on counties and areas' political party majority is correct. I wasn't able to find the paragraph on mostly Democrat or Republican areas. The Central Valleys used to be primarily Democrat until the 1980's, while Orange county was very Republican until recently. While the urban areas are more likely to vote Democrat, the many rural counties are more pulled to the Republicans. The suburbs of san Diego and Sacramento are conservative to a point, it's the inner cities or downtowns where it's more liberal. --Mike D 26 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Population of cities...

I still think that some work needs to be done on Cities section. For example, some of the smaller metropolitan areas were removed, yet the "List of important suburbs" remains. Now, the heading of the section is "Important cities and towns". What makes some of those suburbs more "important" than some of the smaller metropolitan areas that existed in previous revisions? It seems strange that places like Lincoln and Walnut Creek are mentioned on the main page, but Redding and Santa Barbara are not.

I think the California page should either just list the major urban centers, or everything (important suburbs as well as the smaller metropolitan areas).

The important suburbs are already mentioned in List of Urbanized Areas subpage, so maybe we should cut off the "Important Suburbs" section on the main California page and just list the main urban areas. Either that, or put back the list that existed before CoolCeaser's edit on July 7th. --Rc251 09:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point about how the current list is incoherent. Perhaps it might be better to restructure the California page to focus on large and small metro areas in general, and redirect people interested in important suburbs to the List of urbanized areas in California page. Unfortunately, I suspect that such a restructuring might offend residents of prominent suburbs like Palo Alto and Pasadena.

Another way (I believe I have seen this on some pages for smaller U.S. states) would be to do a list of important large and small metro areas, with a few important suburbs embedded as second-level list items. --Coolcaesar 17:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggested restructuring: Add a section on "Regions of California". Change the "Important cities..." section into "Metropolitan areas of California". Then move the "Important suburbs" and "25 wealthiest places in California" sections to separate articles. BlankVerse ∅ 04:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
California is among the most urbanized states, about 85% of the state's population lies in metropolitan areas. The Los Angeles and San Francisco areas spreadout in a range of 50-80 miles in radius. It seems most of the state is now a megapolis, like it became one large urban amalgation. Northern Cal. starts in Chico or Cloverdale, with Sacramento and San Jose with more people than San Francisco or Oakland, and ends in Salinas or Auburn or Turlock. Southern Cal. is from Santa Maria to San Diego, Mojave to Indio, and might include Bakersfield and Barstow. The short span of suburban sprawl in Cal. is one of the most troubling issues here, due to automobile commutes and housing prices has made house construction rates to increase since the late 1980's. Rapid growing areas are becoming more crowded, urban blight entered the townspeople's lives and lack of jobs/recreation is a typical problem in most of suburban Cal. I know this happens everywhere in America, but Cal. is an example of how humongous the issue on suburban sprawl has been. --Mike D 26 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood as an "important city or town"

So one editor (Coolcaesar) is removing the image reference to Hollywood under "important cities and towns," with the reasonable edit summary that Hollywood is not a city or town, it's a neighborhood; and another editor (Imdaking) is restoring the image without explanation. Rather than switch back and forth, perhaps we discuss, yes?

Coolcaesar is of course completely right that Hollywood is (today) just a neighborhood and not a city or town. On the other hand, "Hollywood" is certainly emblematic of California, particularly to non-US residents, in a way that let's just say San Jose or Long Beach are not. So it's important, but it's not a city or town. Could, or should, the reference to "Hollywood" be preserved by renaming this section? Or instead can we reach some sort of consensus about having Hollywood listed or not in that section?

As a separate point, if the reference is kept, it ought to be illustrated with an image other than the Hollywood sign which of course is neither in Hollywood, nor does it refer to "Hollywood" the historic home of movie production. Maybe someone has an image of the Capitol Records building or Grauman's Chinese Theatre instead. -EDM 03:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is Hollywood just a neighborhood, it's also a neighborhood within LA, which is already accounted for in the Important Cities/Towns section. I think that Hollywood deserves discussion in some other part of the main California article, but perhaps a true city should be represented in its place in this section. As for the image, the Capitol Records or Chinese Theater images are good ideas. I also suggest the famous Paramount studio gate.--Plainsong 05:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I just reverted Imdaking's edits and put the Hollywood image in the Economy section instead as a compromise (I also notified him on his talk page). After all, the Hollywood sign is often used in magazines alongside articles about the American entertainment industry as the symbol of that industry. Yes, the Hollywood sign is technically not in Hollywood, but most people outside of L.A. don't know that. --Coolcaesar 18:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The reson I added that picture was because most people know the city because of the hollywood sign, and it shouldn't matter what city it's located as long as you can see it from Hollywood (the city), it shouln't be removed. And the people that built it, chose that area ,that was out of main city limits, because it gave it the best view, just because it's based outside of the city doesnt mean you couldn't have it. The area is off-limits anyway... So I think it shouln't be removed.

Imdaking 00:44:15, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

To add in what I just explained on Imdaking's talk page: Imdaking doesn't understand that the real issue here is not the fact that the sign sits outside of the city of L.A., but the fact that Hollywood itself is not a city or a town, it's a neighborhood. The section is a brief list of important cities and towns as an introduction to the much longer lists reachable through the links listed.
If we start adding neighborhoods, then we will end up with a giant 200KB mess where idiots will be adding obscure neighborhoods like Los Altos in Long Beach. Just look at the craziness on the List of shopping malls page (which I last cleaned up in April), where people keep adding obscure malls in Malaysia and Brazil to the page.
Do we really want to see this article turn into a giant list (and gallery) of every single neighborhood in the state of California? I think not. Mentioning Hollywood once in the Economy section is enough.
Also, we have a separate problem. I just realized that Imdaking uploaded the Hollywood sign picture, but he or she apparently didn't take it. Under Wikipedia policy, it will have to go unless Imdaking can find the original photographer and get him to release the photo into the public domain (or at least under the GFDL) and promise not to sue Wikipedia.
Since Imdaking probably doesn't understand copyright law either, here's a brief lesson. Even though the sign itself is probably copyrighted and/or trademarked, it could be displayed on Wikipedia under the fair use exception for educational purposes.
The problem is that the entire "chain" of events leading to the final image has to be fair use. The derivative work (a photograph) based on the sign itself (technically a sculpture) must also be fair use or else the photographer can sue Wikipedia. Using an entire creative work (the photograph) is generally not fair use, especially where one could easily make a noninfringing work by going up there and taking a picture from a slightly different angle. The photographer has a good argument that Wikipedia is benefiting from his creative energies (the artistic decisions that went into getting right in front of the sign at the right time of day) without paying him the usual price. Therefore a court's going to say that Wikipedia's use is not fair use. Even worse, each download is usually construed as a separate copy (and a separate infringement of the owner's copyright), which means the damages can escalate really fast.
Yeah, copyright law can be a pain in the butt at times, but the big copyright owners (like Disney and Time Warner) have the money to pay all those Washington lobbyists.--Coolcaesar 02:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
And I almost forgot to mention. Copyright is a strict liability tort. Neither good faith nor ignorance of the law are valid excuses. That's why all those people getting sued by the RIAA keep settling and paying off the music companies, because even if they didn't know about copyright law, that is no excuse. The reason why the law is so harsh is because litigating the genuineness of good faith is really difficult. The copyright owners' lobbyists have convinced Congress that their right to make lots of money from creative works outweighs any interests of copyright users.

"Probably?"

I think the use of the word "probably" in the opening paragraph is not encyclopedia-worthy. It either is or is not the most demographically diverse state in the country - that can be checked. And physically? I understand the point about its physical diversity, but so are Alaska, Texas, etc. Can someone work on this? Bruxism 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I took a first crack at fixing this. With Mt. Whitney and Death Valley right next to each other there's a basis for saying the state has the greatest physical diversity in the country and I put that in the first paragraph. As for "demographic diversity," I have no idea how one would define that rigorously enough to rank one state against another, so I changed "probably" to "one of the most" and moved it down. -EDM 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

How tall is Mount Whitney, really?

Here's what I gleaned from the edit history of this page. Someone long ago converted meters (4418) to feet, and got 14,491 feet. But they mis-typed it as 14,991. Then someone else did the math, and they realized it's closer to 14,494 feet than 14,491, but they continued the same mistake, just changing the last digit, so the feet became 14,994. Then I came along, and did the math all over again, and I found that 14,994 feet is really 4570 meters. With the best of intentions, I changed the metric version of the height, so at this point it was all wrong. I realized within a few minutes that I had blundered, and reverted my own change while I gave it some more thought. Then I spotted the mistake that had been there all along -- the hundreds digit was "9" but it should have been "4". I corrected it, so now the height of Mount Whitney is reported on this page to have consistent values of 14,494 feet and 4418 meters.

Not satisfied with that, I decided to check whether these values are generally accepted in the references available on the internet. I googled for Mount Whitney height, and found a number of websites, listed by popularity here:

FeetMetersWebsite
145054421Mount Whitney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
144944418Whitney, Mount - Infoplease
14494 Equations and Inequalities - Math.com
144964418Mt. Whitney - North American Mountains
14497 Mt. Whitney History - Highpoint Adventures
144944418Whitney, Mount on Encyclopedia.com
14496 Southern California Mount Whitney - Trails.com
14494 Mount Whitney Trail to Lone Pine Lake - Trails.com
144944418Mountain Peaks in the United States Higher Than 14,000 Feet - Fact Monster
144974419SummitPost.org - Mount Whitney Climbing Information
144944418Mount Whitney - Peakware World Mountain Encyclcopedia
144954418Mount Whitney - Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia
144944418Mount Whitney@Everything2.com

So, as you can see, the majority of the references now agree with the figures presented on this page, so that's good. Oops! Wikipedia's entry disagrees with the majority. I think I'll run over there and see if there's any talk about that, and I'll check the edit history to see if there's a really good reason the height is reported as it is, and if not I'll change the numbers.

Just as a side note -- this table shows an example of why Wikipedia is way better than any other mechanism for gathering and displaying factual information. The peakware website, above, surely meant to refer to themselves as an "Encyclopedia" but they somehow got the word "Encyclcopedia" into the title of their web page. This would last a minute or two on Wiki -- OK, maybe a day -- but how much do you wanna bet the same misspelling will be there next year?

--GraemeMcRae 15:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that most interesting investigation, as well as the tedious work of digging through this page's edit history. For what it is worth, the number 14,494 is the one embedded in my own head since about the age of 7 based on almanacs, state-placed plaques, placemats at restaurants in the vicinity, etc. Obviously my head isn't an encyclopedic source but that agrees with the consensus figure you found. -EDM 16:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the best measurement to quote is not determined by majority vote, but rather by the most accurate measurements. The National Geodetic Survey constantly updates the height of mountains, both by retaking local measurements (e.g., GPS), and refining the geoid: the definition of the shape of the Earth at sea level.
The 14494 value is outdated --- it's in the NVGD 27 coordinate system (from 1927), rather than the latest coordinate system NAVD 88 (from 1988). As EDM points out, it is embedded in many hard-to-change locations (how often do they update the placemats in Independence, California anyway?). I believe that Wikipedia should use the latest, most accurate elevation, and not bow to popular misconceptions.
Wikipedians are welcome to go to the NGS web site and verify the elevation by themselves. I cannot provide a deep link directly to the data sheet (since it seems to be generated by a Perl script), but check out [7], and enter N363443 for latitude and W1181731 for longitude.
There are several slightly conflicting measurements, depending exactly on where they choose to measure: the NE corner of the house (14505), the USGS aluminum disk (14508), another aluminum disk about 2 feet below the peak (14500+2). But, none of the NAVD88 coordinates are below 14500 feet.
The Sierra Club peak bagging section chose 14505 out of these possibilities(http://www.peakbagging.com/Peak%20Lists/SPS1.htm), so I followed their lead.
Hope this helps -- hike395 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
14,494' is the old conventional measurement and we'd look silly using it. The newer "old" official measure is is what's on the current USGS topo map, which is 4416 meters. The Forest Service calls it 14,496'.[8]. There are reports of a newer survey putting it at 14,497.61 [9][10] The Whitney Portal Store prints an odd value (also to the hundredth of a foot) on their merchandise, but I can't recall if it's the same.
Regarding the Sierra Peaks Section list, the SPS does maintain a list of the 247 principal peaks in the Sierra. However the online version you've linked to is maintained/fleshed-out by an individual, Steve Eckert, and I believe that those are his elevation numbers. Eckert is a careful worker so I'd tend to trust his research in this matter and so support using 14,505' as our value. (The Sierra Nevada range is growing in that area, so some increase is to be expected. ) -Willmcw 07:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the education, hike395. I really thought I tried to get the best measurement when I went to USGS Geographic Names Information System and found the record for Feature ID (FID) 269051, with a Feature Name of Mount Whitney, and an elevation of 14494.

Now that you've told me about the NGS Datasheets, I'll certainly use that in future. Of all the datasheets, the one whose Permanent Identifier (PID) is GT1811 has the most detailed description. In the external links section of the Mount Whitney page, it would be a good idea to reference the NGS (National Geodetic Survey) Datasheets page, and point out that GT1811 was used as the measure of the mountain's height. Or, if that doesn't flow, put an entry right at the tippy top of the talk page for Mount Whitney explaining exactly how to verify the elevation.

Now, I'll go and fix it in this page.
--GraemeMcRae 09:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for everybody's contributions. We should probably summarize this information about the various elevations in a paragraph in the Mount Whitney article. 14,494' isn't the wrong number, it just isn't the right number anymore. It would is quite appropriate (and NPOV) in an encyclopedia article about a mountain to write that there have been different values given in different surveys, and to list some of the prominent ones. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I hope my comment above won't be misconstrued—I absolutely agree that the elevation figure here should be the correct one based on most recent information, not a traditional one that we grew up knowing. The number 14,494 can go to live in the same comfortable nostalgia room in our brains where the brontosaurus sleeps. But someone with more patience and bot skills than I should undertake to go through all the other pages where Mount Whitney appears and correct the elevation figures there if they're wrong. -EDM 15:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
What I lack in bot skills I make up (I hope) in patience. I see a number of other people have fixed many articles, and then I found a few more. I think I found all the bogus instances of 14,494 feet, and of 4,417 m, and set them to the correct numbers. I did this by searching for the numbers themselves, and in this way found a number of cases where the wrong number was given without reference to Mt. Whitney. (e.g. "the highest point in such-and-such geographic subdivision is 14,494 feet") And I strongly agree with Willmcw's point that a paragraph devoted to the method by which the height of Mt. Whitney is researched and reported, assuming it is done without self-reference and in a NPOV way, would be helpful to people who (as I did) might wonder why different numbers were reported, and why we should believe the 14,505 number going forward.
--GraemeMcRae 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The merits of adding metro areas that are usually included in other metro areas

It doesn't make sense to include a metro area in the table of metro areas by population unless they stand alone. Double-counting Orange county as a metro area that is usually included in the already-counted Los Angeles metro area is wrong, and should be avoided. Other opinions?--GraemeMcRaetalk 20:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I would support adding the following phrases:

To San Diego's metro area, add: (includes the Oceanside/Carlsbad/Vista tri-city area)

To San Fransisco Bay, add (includes Santa Rosa, in Sonoma County)

To LA, add (includes Orange County)
--GraemeMcRaetalk 20:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it's "wrong and should be avoided". I understand that may be your opinion, but for those living in, for instance, Orange County or the Inland Empire, many are tired of simply being amalgated into the ever-expanding "L.A. Metro". The term "usually included" could be changed to "included by some" or "at times included", because if you talk to the residents of Irvine or Newport, the majority of them do not accept the L.A. association. Many Inlanders feel the same, and as one who has resided in Ventura County for nearly 26 years and has discussed this with many other residents, it's clear that Ventura County feels the same way. Simply because outside sources such as population statisticians generally tend to include 3 distinct metro areas on the fringe of Los Angeles into the Los Angeles metro, does not mean that we should be restricted by their lack of understanding of this region. I will list these metro areas as seperate, although "sometimes included" in the L.A. Metro: -Orange County -Inland Empire -Ventura County (69.239.37.95 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

I'm not interested in the problem of people who feel disenfranchised because the place they call home is included in a metro area far from their home. My interest is in accuracy. My interest is in not double-counting people who live in places like Orange County. The problem is that if the LA metro area includes all of LA and Orange counties, for example, and its population is listed as x, and Orange county is also listed with a population of y, then the total of x and y exceeds the total population of these two metro areas, because some people have been counted twice.—GraemeMcRaetalk 03:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I concur. There are logical reasons for adding those metro areas together into Los Angeles. The reason is that a metropolitan area is generally considered to be an area which is contiguous and within which people generally commute, shop, go to school, and do all the things which people do in cities. It is common for people in Orange County, the Inland Empire, Ventura County, and Los Angeles to commute, shop, attend school, etc. in each other's areas on a daily basis. Therefore, they operate as a single metro area. In contrast, San Francisco and Los Angeles do not --- only a ridiculously small number of celebrities, executives, lawyers and politicians can afford to live in one and commute to the other every day. --Coolcaesar 03:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
If you are so interested in accuracy, then you can check out the United Nation's list of the world's largest metro areas (the same list used right here on Wikipedia), and you will find that Ventura County, The Inland Empire (San Bernardino & Riverside Counties), and most of Orange County are NOT included into the L.A. Metro. The U.N. lists the "L.A. Metro" as Los Angeles County (11 million) and the area in and around the city limits of Santa Ana (roughly another million). If the aforementioned areas were included in the L.A. Metro, it would have a population of nearly 20 million people. Don't make the common mistake of confusing the "So-Cal Metro" with the "L.A. Metro". Accurately, they are two different things. (69.239.37.95 18:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
Perhaps you have misunderstood me, 69.239.37.95. I don't object to including any independent metro areas—i.e. those that aren't already included in other metro areas. Go ahead and make the edits necessary to include all the independent metro areas.—GraemeMcRaetalk 06:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A map of California that includes California Peninsula

The article talks about the original California but, unfortunately, its entire territory cannot be seen in the map as Hawai and Alaska are placed over the California Peninsula. That's a problem because now I cannot find a single map in wikipedia where to see the entire California region. North America is the closest one, but too far. Moving Hawai and Alaska to other corner would be good enough for me. A California Region page could be a good idea too. -- jgo2020

I disagree with using the term California Region, since no one uses it and thus it would create more confusion then it resolves. I agree with you that perhaps an article on that concept might be a good idea, but a better article title would be Historical California to indicate that the article covers California in the larger historical sense and not the more constrained modern sense. --Coolcaesar 04:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
That's the idea. I made the point about the map because, me being from Spain, the geography of the area is not something that comes inmediately to my mind. As for the name, your suggestion is fine. -- jgo2020.
I've just seen the History_of_California article, which already talks about historical California. I guess there's no need for a new article. But, again, a complete map is missing there. -- jgo2020

List of Protestantism by US State

It is POV to selectively list Protestantism and not also link, for example List of Catholicism by US State or List of Buddhism by US State.
brenneman(t)(c) 10:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Religion historically has always been a controversial subject. Therefore, any treatment of it on Wikipedia needs to be properly balanced. --Coolcaesar 05:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 64.42.0.206 on 30 Nov 2005

This user made two major edits today. First, 64.42.0.206 attempted to add Santa Rosa to the list of cities in the Bay Area under "Important cities and towns" and second, 64.42.0.206 added a HUGE section about the Lincoln Highway.

I opposed both of these edits for the following reasons:

(1) Santa Rosa is not one of the major cities in the Bay Area. Therefore, we should not be adding it in a list of Important cities and towns. It is an important suburb of the Bay Area which belongs on the suburbs list (in List of urbanized areas in California (by population)). Otherwise, residents of every other major Bay Area city will be adding their city to the list, and then we will end up with something ridiculous like San Jose/San Francisco/Oakland/Santa Rosa/Berkeley/Santa Clara/San Mateo/Hayward/Walnut Creek/Vallejo.

(2) The Lincoln Highway does not belong in the Transportation section. Its only relevance to this article is its contribution, if any, to the historical development of this state (and I suspect that Route 66 may have been just as important, if not more). The Lincoln Highway no longer exists at present (having been superseded in many areas by Interstate 80) and is therefore a subject of history. It should be mentioned in the History of California section and article. The Transportation section should be limited to a discussion of the California transportation system at present or else we will end up with massive redundancy.

I reverted all of 64.42.0.206's changes, but then user EDM then added Santa Rosa back to the Bay Area cities and put back part of the Lincoln Highway information in the Transportation section. Therefore, I felt it was necessary to raise this issue here before we get into a edit war and run into the 3RR rule. What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 23:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a revert war; you can take out what I restored if you want. But here is my rationale for what I did:
(1) Santa Rosa wasn't in as a separate city, it was tacked on to SF/San Jose/Oakland as delimiting the Bay Area. That made sense to me, since Marin and southern Sonoma are suburbs to SF and hence including Santa Rosa marks the northern edge of the Bay Area just as San Jose and Oakland mark the southern and eastern parts.
(2) I agree that the detailed driving directions on the Lincoln Highway was too much, so I took it out especially as it was just lifted verbatim from the Lincoln Highway article. But the one paragraph that remained didn't seem to me to overwhelm the article and it was useful historical information (though it might go better in some other section, like History or Economy, than in Transportation). I agree that Route 66 is at least as significant as the Lincoln Highway and ought to get a paragraph of its own.
-EDM 23:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the concept of adding in cities that delimit metro areas because that concept has no principled boundaries and would make little sense to people from other parts of the world. The point of Important cities and towns is to let people know about important cities, not "what cities help bound important metro areas." If they are really interested in that info, they can look up San Francisco Bay Area.
The reason SF, SJ, and Oakland are traditionally grouped together is because they are the three major cities in the Bay Area (that is, they are central or polar cities which the suburbs revolve around), not because they delimit the bounds of the Bay Area. For example, all Bay Area newscasts always list those three cities together in their opening graphics, but they do not include Santa Rosa in the same list.
Furthermore, to stretch your concept to its breaking point, it would make little sense in the context of Southern California. For example, we could have a metro area under your principle defined as Ventura/San Bernardino/Long Beach/Los Angeles/Santa Clarita/San Clemente, which correctly describes the major cities at the "corners" of the Southland metro sprawl, but would make little sense to people not from California. Most people reading Wikipedia are not from California and are interested in the major cities they have heard of, like LA and SF.
However, I think that we can agree on the Lincoln Highway/Route 66 issue. I will deal with that right now. --Coolcaesar 18:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:California/Archive_1&oldid=1164036960"