Jump to content

Talk:San Joaquin Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Betty1989. Peer reviewers: Clauzepeda1993.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement accuracy

[edit]

Several statements in the article do not seem accurate, at least in the northern San Joaquin Valley. For example:

  • The "San Joaquin" river is "mostly dry in [its] lower reaches" -- Since the 1930s, have the San Joaquin's lower reaches ever run dry?
  • "Oil derricks and pumps" "can be found in varying densities throughout the valley." -- Are there any producing oil derricks or pumps in the northern San Joaquin Valley?
  • "Landholdings are considerably larger than those in the Midwest and South, usually on the order of thousands of acres." -- Landholdings in the Midwest and Great Plains have become increasingly large. Also, this phrasing does not take into account that most land holdings are small or modest, even if a large percentage of the total acreage is in large holdings.
  • "Among well-populated areas, the San Joaquin Valley is perhaps the most conservative in California." -- During the last quarter of the twentieth century, Orange County was generally considered the most conservative well-populated area of California. The San Joaquin Valley was usually considered to be a swing area.

-- Jasper 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article lead states that "Although most of the valley is rural, it does contain MSAs (urban cities and suburbs)". This sentence is misleading, in that some of these Metropolitan Statistical Areas arbitrarily include entire counties.

-- Jasper (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information in the "Population" section of the article is impossible... the total numbers and percentages make no sense. Overall population: 4,080,509. Racial composition: White-- 2,775,074 (68.0%), Black-- 193,694 (4.7%), American Indian-- 40,911 (1.0%), Asian-- 310, 557 (7.6%) Pacific Islander-- 13,000 (0.32%) Hispanic/Latino-- 2,048,280 (50.2%)

Add these together: 5,381,516 (131.82%) ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.244.209 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okies and Arkies

[edit]

My father was born in Oklahoma and traveled to the San Joaquin Valley. Speaking with my father and grandmother gave much insight to their plight to survive.

My issue is with the terminology used to describe these proud people who survived against all odds. Many times living in squalid conditions, camped in remote locations, with only ditch water and fruit from the trees to survive.

Okie and Arkie are considered insults, much like the "N" word to black Americans.

Please consider revising.

Oklahoman and Arkansan would be acceptable.


A citation or reference is needed for the statement that the majority of cases of coccidioidomycosis occur outside the San Joaquin Valley area. Armona (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a reference to it yet after a search through e-medicine and the CDC website, so I took it out for now. I'll look through my textbooks. When I find the reference, I'll go ahead and put it back in with the reference, unless I'm wrong about it.--Beezer137 (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Sorry, I saw the template, but think there are a few statements that stood out that we should start the sourcing effort on. Ufwuct (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very poorly cited article. The "ethnic" section is almost totally un-cited, it also is written in language unacceptable for an encyclopaedia. I'm flagging it for revision/deletion. Dsh6640 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin Valley / Central Valley (California)

[edit]

There is a lot of duplication and overlap between San Joaquin Valley and Central Valley (California), which are effectively the same thing. I suggest merging. Fig (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles may be similar but the San Joaquin Valley is distinct from the Sacramento Valley in demographics and population. Hydraulically the Sacramento Valley has exponentially more water (and less domestic demand) than the San Joaquin (which is parched and overextended) which itself has a separate basin (Tulare). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Mateo (talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EPA Brought-on drought

[edit]

Should there not be a small section about the drought due to the EPA protecting the Delta Smelt? It is very important because it effects the agriculture so much that this country might experience a famine soon. --Azemocram (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Institutions

[edit]

There was some debate about educational institutions in the San Joaquin Valley. Included previously was the University of California, Davis. UCD is not int he San Joaquin Valley (generally speaking the southern portion of the Central Valley). UCD is in the Sacramento Valley as any map clearly shows. Significantly it is north of the delta, the Sacramento river and even north of the 80, the interstate linking SF and Sac. In fact UC Merced was established because the San Joaquin Valley was the last major population center in California without a UC Campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Mateo (talk • contribs) 06:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include Contra Costa County?

[edit]

Apparently, the region maps on both http://www.visitcalifornia.com/Explore/ and http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=873 include eastern Contra Costa County as part of the valley. Thoughts about mentioning it in this article too? Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on San Joaquin Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fails to answer the most basic questions

[edit]

how many square miles or acres in the place?

how many devoted to agriculture? it tells us how many acres have been lost in a 24 year timespan, but not how many acres there are

how many devoted to urban life?

how does the economy break down? how many dollars, split between agriculture and other industries

in summary, below average article for such an important part of California and the nation

2601:645:4200:99C0:FCCB:3C22:8CA3:220C (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in San Joaquin Valley

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of San Joaquin Valley's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sdsu":

  • From Chumash people: "California Indians and Their Reservations: P." SDSU Library and Information Access. Archived from the original on January 10, 2010. Retrieved July 17, 2010.
  • From Yokuts: California Indians and Their Reservations: Y. San Diego State University Library and Information Access. 2009 (retrieved 29 June 2010)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Health and the Environment in the Central Valley

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Belfurblue45, PAPRI01, Cpediav, Uali3 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Belfurblue45, Bh0217, Cpediav, VivianaOsorioDeJesus, Oscott101.

— Assignment last updated by C nguyen143 (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Geological valley or human settlement?

[edit]

I just reverted this major change by Cristiano Tomás who switched the topic from being about the geological valley to being about the region as a place of human settlement.

Geography books about the topic describe the San Joaquin Valley as the southern part of the Central Valley, the part that is served by the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. This topic should remain rooted in geology. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of schools, because this topic is not the usual metropolitan area topic. It's primarily about the geography.

I added the idea that this valley has been called a breadbasket. Hyperbolic descriptions include "breadbasket to the world", but this is promotional and wishful thinking. It's been called the breadbasket of California which is somewhat more accurate. Fruits, vegetables and nuts are the prime crops rather than the grains of a typical breadbasket region. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin Valley is far more than a purely geographical feature. It is a region in every sense of human geography. It has regional governance institutions like the San Joaquin Valley Council of Governments and the San Joaquin Valley Air District; even the San Joaquin Valley Chapter of the Federal Bar covers all 8 counties as a region. Of course it has regional agricultural trade organizations like the San Joaquin Valley Quality Cotton Growers Association, but it also has regional trade organizations outside of agriculture like the San Joaquin Valley Psychological Association. Regional chapters of national organizations like the San Joaquin Chapter of the Wildlife Society. And on and on. It is more than a geological feature, it is a human region. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a geographical feature first. The human development of the valley is certainly critically important, but you cannot change the whole foundation of the topic away from the geologic basis without a major discussion with the community here.
I'm perfectly happy to see you add the regional governance stuff. Just don't change the infobox and the topic's foundation on geology. Don't make this into a metropolitan area article. Respect the years that this topic has represented the valley as a valley. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. Many of the world's regions are based in valleys; their articles represent them as holistic regions not purely in geological terms. See Hudson Valley in New York State, Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, Aosta Valley in Italy, or even Delaware Valley in the Northeast U.S. I have no idea what you mean by "don't make this into a metropolitan area article"; a region is not equivalent to a metropolitan area. Some regions are dense and metropolitan like the Bay Area, other are more rural like San Joaquin Valley. I don't understand your concerns there. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is room in the article to describe your desired human developments without changing the infobox and adding the stuff you added to emphasize the urbanity. You added "core cities" without any reference describing the valley's core cities. After you did that, I found a book cite naming three urban centers in the valley: Stockton/Modesto, Fresno/Visalia, and Bakersfield. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the settlement infobox is appropriate and more helpful than the strictly geologically focused valley infobox; the article should cover the region as a whole from the beginnning, like the examples given before (Hudson Valley in New York, Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, Delaware Valley in the Northeast). They all use settlement infoboxes because the human geography is more relevant than a strictly geological outlook. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to what? All the information that the reader needs to see will be about both the valley's natural features and the human development of the valley. The valley infobox is perfectly suitable for this. The settlement infobox invites conflation and synthesis in the exact manner as your filling in the "core cities" parameter without a cite. The San Joaquin Valley is important because of its agriculture, not because of its "core cities". The few middling-size cities are there because of agriculture. The infobox should indicate to the reader that the area's agriculture is foremost. Photos of bountiful grape harvests, for instance. Pictures of nuts or whatever. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the infobox should be "valley" because it is listed that way in GNIS. However, like Hudson Valley, the San Joaquin Valley is referred to in reliable sources in ways other than just geographic, and the article should be expanded to reflect that, based on reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Fever vs. San Joaquin Valley Fever

[edit]

I corrected "San Joaquin Valley Fever" to "Valley Fever." As a long-time local, I have only heard it called by the latter (Valley Fever), never once by the former name. But as a long-time local who eventually moved elsewhere, I might be wrong. Any takes on this?

Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis). Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Mitch and Murray (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Health and the Environment in the Central Valley

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): E gonzales8, K gaite (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emilyk06, Rban01, Staciedelarosa36, Kdua.cee!.

— Assignment last updated by Rban01 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Joaquin_Valley&oldid=1255791658"