Talk:California/Archive 5

"famous for earthquakes"

"California is famous for earthquakes" sounds kind of weird to me -- as if that's something to be celebrated. 81.129.128.129 (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

I tweaked it to talk about the Pacific Ring of Fire, saying "It sees numerous earthquakes due to several faults, in particular the San Andreas Fault." in the second line. Does that sound better? -Optigan13 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexican period. Starts in 1910, not in 1821.

for some reason, the U.S. or Wikipedia considers Mexico as a country since 1821. That is a totally different point of view to the Mexicans which is a little disrespectful. Mexico will celebrate it's bicentenary in 2010. For Mexicans, Mexico is a country since 1910. The 100 year anniversary was in 1910. 2010 is the year of the big bicentennial celebrations. Wikipedia has to change their wrong and disrespectful point of view. In 1821 the Spaniards finally gave up and signed, but for Mexicans, this doesn't mean that they were not a country since 1910. This is true not only for Mexico, but for many other countries in Latin America, and if you have any doubt of it, Spain is going to be present in the bicentennial of all these Latin American countries. Spain also acknowledges 1910 as the big date. Why the U.S. doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.93.16 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fact check: the article says Mexico has ruled California since 1777. The fact is there was no such thing as Mexico until 1821 at the earliest. As for the 1910 deal. It sounds like a dispute over what government is being recognized. In 1910 there was "Mexican Revolution" in which Mexicans were rebelling against Mexicans. This was not a fight for independence, but rather a fight for power. It was not about independence but about which aristocratic class would get to rule Mexico with an iron fist for the next 100 years. Saying that 1910 was the year Mexico became independent would be like saying that 1865 is the year the US became independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.41.229 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

bicentennial means 200 years

75.61.69.42 (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Dakota

State Symbols needs State motto (and more)

Someone with editorial power needs to add the State Motto: "Eureka!" In fact, probably the whole table needs to be checked for the various other symbols like the Banana Slug, etc. 198.123.50.21 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The state motto is in the main infobox below the flag and seal. It is entered in the code for the state symbols box, but is not displayed presumably to avoid duplication. AFAIK the Banana Slug is not a state symbol. Official symbols are listed in California Code 420-429.8. --skew-t (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the banana slug. Several years there was an effort to name it as a state resource. However, the effort became quite controversial. At one time, it had been listed at History and Culture - State Symbols www.library.ca.gov but got promptly removed because issue never made it out of legislative committee(s). --Morenooso (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Keith20988, 19 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

california sinks 1 inch a year 

Keith20988 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An assertion like that should have a reliable sources. Offhand, I'd guess that it is over-general. I've heard that parts of the Sierra Nevada are rising, for example. With its many faults, I'd guess that California is moving in many directions at once: up, down, and sideways.   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Property Taxes and Proposition 13

Please note that in the 'Economy' section, 8th paragraph, there is a statement regarding property taxes that states "This tax does not increase based on a rise in real property values.." and refers to Prop 13. The statement is incorrect and the referred article describes accurately how property taxes can (and do) increase. The increases are simply capped at 2% per year. Also all properties are reassessed in certain circumstances. For example when a property is sold it is reassessed for tax value and the new owner is responsible for taxes based upon the reassessed value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uw1981 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The article states that property taxes do not increase based on the rise in real property values, which is true. Increases under one owner are based on inflation, not property values, and as you say are capped at 2%. I'll see about adding something to make that more clear. The sentence before the quoted statement mentions that the tax valuation is based on the fair market value at the time of purchase, which is when reassessment generally occurs. --skew-t (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigration?

"In 2010, illegal immigrants constituted an estimated 7.3% of the population. This was the third highest percentage of any state in the country."

What the heck is this doing in an article about California?

If anything this type of information belongs in the Wikipedia article illegal immigration.

--Grandmasterfc (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is properly sourced and is a valid topic to be included in this article. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This topic is important to the understanding of California. In addition, not only is The Washington Post a reliable source, but the source of the information is on page 40 of [this report] from the Pew Hispanic Center. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree; if the Washington Post is an unreliable source, I'm not sure what would constitute a reliable source. I could see the issue if there was a massive, sprawling section on the topic, but one well-sourced sentence stating that nearly 1 out of 12 people in the state are there illegally isn't really off-topic on a general article discussing California. AlexiusHoratius 15:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

White

"Demographics" is wrong as according to the U.S. Census Bureau 76.6% of the population in California is White.

So the article should say:

White.................76.6%

That´s the official data from the U.S. Census.--79.147.235.226 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As the article states, the 42.3% is "White (not including White Hispanic)"; not all Whites. See [1], "White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 ... 42.3%" TJRC (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It should say: White....76.6% Black Native American Asian

And after that, and not as a race: Hispanics.....

Even if it is true a majority of Hispanics in California are "mestizo", and that means "Multiracial". --88.26.56.217 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Yolanda94705, 24 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} California has the highest number of individuals incaracerated of all 50 states. California’s prison system, the nation’s largest, with 170,000 inmates, also had the highest number of prisoners with life sentences, 34,164, or triple the number in 1992, the report from the Sentencing Project found. The California prison system is in federal receivership for overcrowding and failing to provide adequate medical care to prisoners, many of whom are elderly and serving life terms. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/23sentence.html The 170,000 number does not include only those in state prison and does not count those in custody in county jails. California, with 34.9 million population has more people in state prison than the country of France. France only has 56,950 people in jail while it has a larger population than California. [France had an estimated population of 65.4 million people (as of 1 Jan. 2010) - wikipedia] There are more prisons than state colleges and universities together. And California's prison system will cost the state almost $9 billion dollars a year, more than what the state spends on public colleges. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri-crime-prisoners Yolanda94705 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Two concerns about this;

• The first part, "highest number of individuals", I cannot actually confirm from the reference - it says that it has the largest prison system, but that's not quite the same thing.

• Some of it is copied verbatim from the source, e.g. The California prison system is in federal receivership for overcrowding and failing to provide adequate medical care to prisoners, many of whom are elderly and serving life terms. - and this would form a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism and take care re. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

This request has good information, which would certainly be nice to add to the article, but these issues must be addressed first. I'll remove the {{editsemiprotected}} for now, and if anyone can work on it, and requires someone to make the edit, please use another request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  08:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

An FYI to everyone: Since there have been a numerous edit requests on this page, I requested that this page be placed under the review experiment in lieu of semi-protection. Purplebackpack89 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me while I inject a bit of "logic" into this discussion. California has the highest population of any US State, so it would not be surprising (not necessarily true, but not surprising) if it also had the largest prison system, the most inmates, the most life sentences, and the most Ferraris of any state in the US. So what? Would we expect Wyoming (population smaller than a mid-sized city) to lead in these statistics?

Prisons are very expensive to build, and prisoners are very expensive to keep. The state has a budget crisis already -- hard to ask taxpayers for more money. Whether, say, incarceration for personal recreational drug use is appropriate is a question being debated all across the US, but if I remember correctly, that and related "crimes" make up a quarter to a half of the prison population in the US. But that's a separate issue.

The comparison to France is totally illogical. Look at the diversity, melting-pot status, culture clashes, impoverished immigrants, legal and otherwise, of California, compared to a much-more-homogeneous France, which was civilized by Julius Caesar two thousand years ago, vs. California being a US State for only 160 years, formerly being part of the Spanish, then Mexican, Empires.

<facetious sarcasm> If France is truly so superior, then we needn't help them the next time the Germans invade and occupy, as we did the last two times. Such ingratitude! </facetious sarcasm> (My ancestors fought in WWII to help defeat the Nazis and liberate France.) Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than Canada

Not sure how that crept but using the list is probably not a good way to cite or compare California to Canada. Granted, it may be true but Wikipedia is not considered a WP:RS site. Gets into WP:SYNTH without a citation. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion

The religion section needs work. It is too focused on fringe groups such as the Mormons that only constitute a small % of California's population. Before I edited it, it even had outright lies...Yerba Buena wasn't founded by the Mormons, it was founded by the Spanish! Purplebackpack89 04:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It does need work. The beginning of the article breaks down groups by percentage while other parts of the article use population. For example, one million Jews should be represented as 2.7% of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.191.25 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 152.26.43.6, 9 September 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.43.6 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Presidents from California

Reagan and Nixon were not the only Californian Presidents - Herbert Hoover was born, raised, and educated in California and his "home state" during the presidency was California. (Reagan wasn't even born in California). There may even be more Californian Presidents. Please check your facts before you edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoover wasn't born in California...he was born in Iowa Purplebackpack89 00:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Decent map

Can't we have a decent map of California, on which we can find the cities, towns and major features? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added that National Atlas one that seems fairly standard on other articles (I shrank the topo map and enlarged the other one, as the sizes looked really off before). AlexiusHoratius 01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Typo fix request from 189.227.50.129, 26 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change:

THe upper Sonoran zone

to:

The upper Sonoran zone

189.227.50.129 (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 01:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Shawnarchy, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} change "Like most populated states" to "Like many populous states"

since the first phrasing is redundant: ALL states are populated ;^)

Shawnarchy (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

California's first town

What is the first town in California. 71.177.163.37 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Tyler

Article is flawed

The article says,"The seat of government for California under MEXICAN RULE was located at Monterey from 1777 until 1835, when Mexican authorities abandoned California, leaving their missions and military forts behind." The article is inacurrate in that it also states that the Mexican Government having taken over in 1821. This is misleading because the "Mexican Government" was not in power in California in 1777 and therefore could not have had a Capitol recognized. It would by more accurate to say that the regions capitol was under Spanish Control until 1821 and not Mexican. The article gives more credit to the influence of Mexico than was actually the case. Please be more accurate with the historical evidence and leave out revisions. --Wingtguru (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made a minor change to the wording; it currently reads "The seat of government for California under Spanish and later Mexican rule was located at Monterey from 1777 until 1835, when Mexican authorities abandoned California, leaving their missions and military forts behind". I think this works for now, as the specifics of Mexican independence are already dealt with earlier in the section. AlexiusHoratius 15:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

76% OF CALIFONIAN POPULATION IS WHITE

According to the U.S. Census Bureau 76% of Californian population is white, and that number is not included. The % of White is 76% according to the U.S. Census. "Hispanics" are not a racial group, even if a great part of "Latinos" in California could be considered Native Americans...--83.53.111.115 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

California's largest cities

Fresno, not Long Beach, is California's fifth largest city.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/2009-10/

Disco haze (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Change will be added. Arcimpulse (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Revised introduction section

Hi everyone, I've taken it upon myself to revise the introduction section, using the Virginia and Oklahoma featured articles as a rough guide. You can check out the progress using the sandbox link on my profile page. Suggestions are welcome. Arcimpulse (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

New lead section is up! Arcimpulse (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I like your work, but numbers lower than ten are usually spelled out, per WP:ORDINAL. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

#Flora and fauna

{{editsemiprotected}}

It would be nice if all the names of the plants and animals were actually wikilinked, rather than the sea of black this section is now. 86.6.193.43 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I linked a lot, there is still a lot more though. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done I think I got them all; any missing? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Uteman10, 5 April 2011

Nickname(s): Cali, cal

Uteman10 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Can you cite any reliable sources (see WP:RS) that corroborate this claim that these abbreviations are notable for inclusion? If so, please re-open this request by changing the "answered=yes" to "answered=no" in the template, above. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I found a source that appears to use "Cali" to mean California, it's at [2]. Don't know if it complies with WP:RS though. If anyone wants to re-open this request, this is a possibility. 69.91.177.60 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know if it's worth it (and I really don't feel strongly either way). After you posted this, I did some searches and found Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction, the Cali drug cartel (I'd forgotten about them), a misspelled (I believe) Indian goddess, two schools and a burrito joint. Personally, I think the CA too easily confuses California and Canada, I don't know how common other abbreviations actually are. I have to remind myself: we're here to inform and educate, not confuse. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If this helps, in terms of common usage, Cali is typically used by non-locals, while Calif is used primarily in media. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Maipuense, 2 May 2011

History

In 1816 on pirate Argentine Hipólito Bouchard took a few weeks the main ports of the Alta California. The November 20 of 1818 the lookout for Point of Pines, located at one end of Monterey Bay, saw the two Argentine vessels. At dawn on November 24, Bouchard ordered his men to be put in charge of the boats. On ships, led by Bouchard, were 200 men, 130 guns and 70 armed with lances. They landed about a league from the fort, in a cache hidden on the heights. Strong resistance was very weak, and after an hour's fight was hoisted the flag of Argentina. The Argentines took the city for six days, in which cattle were seized and burned the fort, the artillery barracks, the governor's residence and the houses of the Spanish with their orchards and gardens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maipuense (talk • contribs) 2 May 2011

The suggested text is poorly written English: "strong resistance was weak". The story about the pirate was all of six days long, in one city, and did not have a long-term effect worthy of notice. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an important part in the history of California. This marked a before and after the Spanish control in the area and gave way to Mexican control. With respect to poor English, those who claim to work both on Wikipedia, could accommodate (accommodate, but not clear) ... Or is it that bothers you on the ground that today makes up the "great nation " flew the flag of a South American country?--Maipuense (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done, until concerns are addressed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Elevation?

It says that the difference from the lowest point of Death Valley and the peak of Mount Whitney is less than about 200 km. However, I believe thats a bit too broad a claim. The page should be edited to say that the difference is less than about 6 km, which is closer to the actual distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.249.83 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The horizontal distance between these two points is less than 90 miles (140 km). The difference in altitude is 14,776 feet (4.504 km). Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Language

The current language information is misleading. Since the Census data cited uses English Only as a category, bilingual speakers of Spanish and English are automatically lumped into the Spanish category. The same goes for the other minority languages of Californians. The article makes it seem as though over 40 percent of Californians don't speak English, when clearly this isn't the case. I wonder if there is a better source that counts the total number of speakers--including bilingual speakers--of each language. Subsurd (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

state fish - two not one.

The list of state insignia is not complete. I was struck by the absence of the state marine fish (the Garibaldi) but a number of other official state whatsits (bands, both ghost towns, folk dance, and others) seems desirable and easy. But I'm new to this so opted to comment rather than edit directly.204.47.199.132 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

out of date demographic data

The (deleted) USAToday citation did not give racial makeup of the demographics. The breakdown seen comes from 2005-2007 Factfinder data, but a more recent (2007-2009) version is available. See: [3]. A more enterprising editor (than I) needs to plug in this data. --S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Country vs. State

There is this sentence in the introduction that reads "If California were a country, it would be the eighth-largest economy in the world and the 35th most populous nation." I think this sentence, while intelligible and in accordance to a common, popular use of the word "country" among Americans, would be much more accurate and appropriate if it read "If California were an independent state". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.7.69 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Stikes me as a bit nit-picking. 'Country' genrally does mean 'Sovereign state' in English usage. Nobody would find it ambiguous. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should say "sovereign state". The term "country" refers to a geographical area - which a state defines. But country is also used for, in California, such as "valley country", "Sierra country", etc.... It makes sense to use a political term. -DevinCook (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

lack of substance in artice

Firstly, I couldn't find the miles of coastline in California, in this stub. I haven't had time to read the entire article. But, after glancing over it, it appeared to be one sided and imbalanced. I'm not highly familiar with the article, nor any of the US states articles. But, maybe someone whom is, should make a checklist of California facts, and fill in the blanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickWSV (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, writing as a California native who has made about 25k edits on WP, I would say the article is balanced. In fact, I cant imagine how an article on a major state could be imbalanced. too many notes, perchance? Miles of coastline may not be considered the most notable fact, but if added, it would probably stay. Why not research the fact and add it, which would bring your contributing edits to 1?(mercurywoodrose)75.61.129.100 (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Immigrants Rights" vs. "Illegal Aliens Rights"

The caption for the photo of the immigrants rights rally in LA states "illegal aliens rights march" rather than "Immigrants' rights march". "Illegal aliens rights" is a dehumanizing, offensive term, and should be replaced with "Immigrants' rights". Also, under the "Population" section, it states "illegal aliens constituted an estimated...". This should be replaced with "..undocumented immigrants constituted an estimated..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrazee (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Demographics Chart is Wildly Inaccurate

The demographics chart is wildly inaccurate, and only takes into account the population of the United States settlers. In 1850 California was home to some 150,000 indigenous peoples, whose population declined to 15,000 in 1900, largely as a result of the incoming settlers killing or starving them. These indigenous people certainly count as population/inhabitants, or am I mistaken to count them as human beings? I added a disclaimer at the bottom of the chart to make it more accurate. I hope this makes sense to everyone. --Yo lenin1 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to chill a bit with the sarcastic comments about "count them as human beings", at least until you come up with a feasible method by which large numbers of hostile and peripatetic groups could have been accurately counted without further reducing their numbers in the process. That aside, your point seems to have some validity but the footnote confuses and misleads as much as it enlightens. The chart begins in 1850, so the phrase "Chart does not include Indigenous population figures prior to the arrival of the United States" has no apparent meaning. Estimates of native populations throughout the Americas vary widely, though I'm more inclined to trust an estimate for 1850 than one for 1490. There is no indication of how long a significant undercount continued; from at least 1860, the census included "civilized Indians", so at least some of the native population is likely to have been included. By 1900, it seems probable that the Indian figures would be comparable in accuracy to those for poor immigrant populations in urban slums. Some comment/disclaimer may be appropriate, but it needs to be reworked significantly. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting points about census information. Nevertheless, the Native population was estimated at 150,000 in 1848, the year of the gold rush. I dont think its genuine to put a chart up saying that the population for California in 1850 was 92,000. I think it is actually quite irresponsible, since it gives the impression that there was no one in the state before american immigrants started coming, hence my comment (which you took as sarcastic) above. The number of 92,000 in fact, treats the indigenous population as if they were not human, which is exactly how the new immigrants saw them, which is why they did not count them in the census. This stems from a clear bias, and is obviously inaccurate. The figures I am citing are the estimates that are cited by every credible historian, whether or not they include 'civilized indians' etc. I cannot say. But those same figure appear in pretty much every publication I have seen (both on and off the internet), so I think they are solid. And you are right about the 'prior to US arrival,' I will take that out.--Yo lenin1 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding the History of Indigenous Population

I am rather surprised to find no mention of what happened to the Native population of California in the 19th century in this article. I add a very small paragraph detailing what happened, all of the info is sourced, and none of it is my personal opinion. People have written books on the subject. I am merely stating what they do. You are going to have to explain why the paragraph cannot stay, or why it is in your opinion an opinionated paragraph. If you think the wording is a bit strong, that is one thing, but the facts are the facts. And as for the use of the word genocide, a number of different scholars, including Edward D. Castillo, and most recently Benjamin Madley, have used it in discussing what happened in California. Again, not my choice of words, someone else's.--Yo lenin1 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the subject or its notability to this article, the paragraph that was removed wasn't written from a neutral point of view. In its current form, it came across more like an editorial. If these are someone else's words, not your own, then it needs to be treated as a quote and attributed (so the notability/reliability of the person making the quote can be assessed). --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the history itself is quite controversial, of course. I have tried to make the paragraph more neutral. If the paragraph still needs some re-wording feel free to re-work it.--Yo lenin1 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not terribly involved in this at the moment, but just a heads up that if you add material which is not neutral, it's likely to simply be removed, not corrected. It's up to you to make it neutral before adding it, not other editors to fix your work. Your edits still contain numerous problems and will probably be removed again. When that happens, you should discuss here before attempting to add again. I'm sure that neutral language can be worked out, but right now it reads like a diatribe. Also, see WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's up to you to get consensus for these edits and work out the language on the talk page. By simply reverting repeatedly, you're starting down the path of unilateral edit-war which never ends well for editors who engage in that. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, to anyone who still finds the language objectionable, objectionable enough to remove the post, then please specifically point out the places that are not neutral. At the moment I am a bit amiss as to that. From my view its well-sourced, and I am quoting Ed Castillo and the first governor of California for the most controversial language. Everything else is pretty much cut and dry as far as I can tell. Perhaps this paragraph needs to be placed in a separate section?--Yo lenin1 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor article quality, link needed to answer a simple basic question

The equality of this article has gone down. It would have almost been quicker to consult a paper almanac (which would a pretty poor excuse).

The "See Also" section needs the link:

List of California state symbols

This raises other kinds of similar issues which this article are possibly lacking which a good editor. 171.66.173.49 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The blue bar below the infobox includes a list of the major symbols and a link (via the title) to List of California state symbols. Usually the "See also" section shouldn't contain stuff that is already mentioned in the article, but I don't think many would complain if the list was linked there as well. Per WP:Summary style, though, the more obscure stuff (it looks like California has an official state fife and drum corps...) should be left to the list instead of a general article about the state. AlexiusHoratius 20:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Time flow problem in the history section

The paragraph about US trappers moving into California in the 1820's is followed by a paragraph which begins with the Spanish beginning to set up missions. Considering that the missions were set up decades before the trappers, et al arrived, this should be reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.17.94 (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

california independence

it is stated in the article on independence from Mexico under section 3 (History) that "Following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war, the region was divided between Mexico and the U.S.; the western territory of Alta California, was to become the U.S. state of California, and Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah became U.S. Territories, while the lower region of California, the Baja Peninsula, remained in the possession of Mexico." I live in Santa Fe, New Mexico and believe you left us out as do so many people. "Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado & Utah became U.S. Territories" would be more accurate, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.52.129 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Balance in Demographics section

The section contains two images, one stating the liberal leanings of San Francisco, and the other labelled "Immigration Reform", additionally it has a large section regarding LGBT rights. Although those have a place in the article, having only left-leaning content creates an undue weight only towards left leaning topics. No mention is made of the 30+% that is right leaning. Perhaps an image of Orange County should be included, or a counter image of a tea party rally should be included to provide balance.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is in the article layout. The left-right/statist-libertarian/gay-straight/etc.-et seq. schemes really don't fit into the description of demographics. Since WikiProject:States does not have article layout guidelines, I suggest we look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline as an example and move some of these weighted images/commentary into their own sections. E.g., culture, politics, etc.--S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the section needs to be depoliticized and such things should be moved into their appropriate sections.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

GDP comparisons Are not correct

Through the wikipedia link itself the GDP comparison would put it slightly under Canada at eleventh or 12th place not 9th for 2011.

---

Italy's nominal gdp is 2.3 trillion. Canada's is 1.5 trillion. the difference would have to made up by a gdp per capita much higher than Canada's since according to population projections Canada and California only differ by about 2.5 million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita USA gdp per capita 46,858 Canada gdp per capita 45,428

California nominal gdp would be about 1.7 trillion more similar to Russia (in 2009 Russia's gdp falls a lot though).

Additionally, the idea that California's GDP is larger than all other US states combine is ridiculous. Texas and New York (the next two largest) are in the neighborhood of $2.45 trillion, as opposed to California's $1.94 trillion. Hardly larger than all other US states combined.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitae drinker (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 December 2012

Additionally the claim that California has a larger GDP (PPP) than India and Russia is verifiably untrue - in fact it's less than half of India's GDP at purchasing power parity, please correct these — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicdb (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 May 2013

Are there reliable sources that can verify the statement above?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

World Stage

I think there could be more detail on California's international diplomacy efforts and other efforts to influence the world (such as through the recent California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)). California's international efforts go back at least to 1998, and a good article that summaarizes the history of these efforts through 1998 is Dave Lesher (January 8, 1998). "Golden and Global California". Los Angeles Times. p. 1. Retrieved October 28, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX, if anything is added it needs to be balanced including criticism of the legislation. Moreover, it already has its own article, and need not be included in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

California is a leader in certain ways, but it is a sub-unit of the USA and not its own country with a diplomatic corps or ambassadors. Instead, the California governor or similar high-ranking person may choose to promote the state "diplomatically" on the world stage, or to promote ideas that reflect well upon the state, being that the state has some expertise to offer in that enterprise.

In general, I think such a section would be too easily made into a pep rally promoting California rather than an encyclopedic analysis of the success or failure of such endeavors. I don't think it is necessary to bring such a section into this article. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

True, and don't forget that such promotion and other diplomatic efforts by state governors both inside (e.g. Chris Christie visiting Israel) and outside[4] the US is not unique. There's nothing particularly notable about California's manifestation of it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013

In the Immigration part of the Demographics section, the article refers to immigrants coming from "Mexican Countries". This seems to be lumping in all of Latin America to Mexico. I suggest that this is changed to "Latin American Countries". JaimzCC (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Now changed. Thank you for pointing that out. AlexiusHoratius 00:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mexico as a bordering country

The introduction mentions Oregon, Nevada and Arizona as bordering states, but completely ignores the border to Mexico. I think that should be changed 2001:630:12:242C:89D8:6C09:5D33:F6D5 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Mo

It certainly should. A model to draw on is Texas, which says "Texas shares an international border with the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas to the south, and borders the U.S. states of New Mexico to the west, Oklahoma to the north, Arkansas to the northeast and Louisiana to the east." Suitably Wikilinked, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling correction

in the article San Francisco is listed as having the "21th" largest airport. Please change this to 21st. Thanks Zeppelincheetah (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting that. AlexiusHoratius 13:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit needed

There is an edit needed in the Politics section. The number of total registered voters is the same as the Democratic voters. The total registered voters should read 18,245,970 according to the existing reference link. Mswan57 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Almonds are chief exports

I would like to add a bit about how California exports a LOT of almonds. It is their chief agricultural export and there is no mention in the article. Here is a video about it from the Almond Board of CA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6-upla2Fr8

Unfortunately, youtube is not often considered a reliable source in and of itself, and the Almond Board of CA isn't necessarily a reliable source, so if a reliable source can be found to state that almonds are the largest exported item from California, then we would consider it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This article here states that it's the states largest agricultural export item, and this source from the Census Bureau says that it's the 6th largest export of California, by value.

If the content is added, it should be added to the agriculture section, or to the almond article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Various sources describe California as being the world's leading almond exporter, supplying about 80%[5] to 85%[6] of Global demand in 1993, not counting the nuts eaten in California and the rest of the US. There was a big expansion period starting in the 1960s. Surprisingly, the almond industry relies to a large degree on pollination supplied by bees that are trucked around the US depending on which crop is flowering. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if we are going to include this, it should be along with the top ten other exported products of the state in the economy section. Otherwise, if we are only going to state that almonds are the state's chief agricultural export, it might be better in the sub-article Economy of California.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. A list of top ten agricultural products by cash value would be perfect in the Economy section, at the agriculture paragraph. Or if a list of aggie plus non-ag exports can be put together, such a list could be its own paragraph pertaining to exports. This list of CDFA stats could be useful. This USDA report from 2011 puts the top ten aggie products in this order by cash value: 1) milk and cream 2) shelled almonds 3) grapes 4) cattle & calves 5) nursery 6) berries and strawberries 7) hay 8) lettuce 9) walnuts 10) tomatoes. Very few reliable reports exist to gauge the relative value of marijuana growing in California, but some observers put it in the top ten. NORML puts it at the very top of the list [7] and Time magazine agreed with that assessment in 2009.[8] The official reports do not include this shadow crop. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets be consistent and not include marijuana, otherwise it could be WP:SYNTH. If there was a paragraph on the economy of illegal drugs (although marijuana is legal in California for medical purposes only), then I can see a mention of marijuana's value to the economy, but otherwise, IMHO it is out of place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the top three products from the USDA source, if we want to include the top ten, I am not opposed to it; but why only list the top ten agricultural products?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs Update

Prop 8 has now been overturned by the federal courts and gay marriages are now legal. Correct, US Supreme did not overturn prop 8, the Federal District Court did, and the US Supreme held that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked standing ... same result, gay marriages are now legal in CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.202.40 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

California's unemployment rate needs to be updated. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in California is 8.5% as of June 2013. This places California with the 11th highest unemployment rate. Here is the source: http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

174.68.68.142 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

LA KISS

The "Sports" section needs to add the newly formed arena football team, the "LA KISS." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.145.99 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

More Information for "19th century"!

In November 1818, the Franco-Argentine privateer Hipólito Bouchard including harassment for a few weeks in Alta California (The Corsair Cruiser Argentina). They landed about a league from the fort, in a cove hidden by the heights. The resistance of the fort was very weak, and after an hour of combat Argentina flag was hoisted. The Argentines took the city for six days, in which burned the fort, the barracks of the artillery, the governor's residence and other Spanish possessions. This heralded the end of Spanish colonial rule in the region. Likewise be checked more regularly whenever the arrival of British and American ships bound for Vancouver and Seattle and Portland areas respectively.

(taken from the Wikipedia's article "California" in Spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#La_colonia See also the Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolyte_de_Bouchard#California_and_Central_America) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedeelewiki (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2013

There's a typo for the no. of white people under the 'demographics' section, currently it says 22,2000,000. Maybe an extra 0 there? 110.174.154.108 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, 110.174.154.108. Acalamari 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

The San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge (often abbreviated the "Bay Bridge"), completed in 1936, transports approximately 280,000 vehicles per day on two-decks. Its two sections meet at Yerba Buena Island through the world's largest diameter transportation bore tunnel, at 76 feet (23 m) wide by 58 feet (18 m) high.[140] Please add - After the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, a replacement for the eastern span of the Bay Bridge was designed and completed in 2013. Source Baybridgeinfor.org Mateo68 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: That information is already included in the Wikipedia article on the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. I think that's too much detail to include in the brief overview in this article. --ElHef (Meep?) 22:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

LGBT section

I question the appropriateness of adding a dedicated LGBT section to this summary article especially when 1) it does not exist in other state articles as far as I know and 2) summary state articles are meant to give overviews of general aspects of the state, not specific information about small sectors of the population. I am going to be bold and remove it for now. I left in a brief overview with a wikilink but a dedicated section is generally inappropriate for a summary article such as this. Before someone goes and accuses me of being anti-LGBT, I'm not. But that really shouldn't matter when judging what level detail is appropriate for a summary article. Cadiomals (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the section for now, as LGBT issues in California have had broader impacts on the national front. There should be more discussion before a wholesale removal of the section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It was not a wholesale removal, I left the first paragraph. The current details should be condensed so that the info can fit in one paragraph. I think we should compromise by condensing the info without removing it altogether. Here is my proposal with an appropriate amount of detail for a summary state article:

California is considered generally liberal in its policies regarding the LGBT community, and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have received greater recognition since 1960 at both the state and municipal level. California is home to a number of gay villages such as the Castro District in San Francisco, Hillcrest in San Diego, and West Hollywood. Through the Domestic Partnership Act of 1999, California became the first state in the United States to recognize same-sex relationships in any legal capacity. In 2000, voters passed Proposition 22, which restricted state recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. This was struck down by the California Supreme Court in May 2008, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage; however, this was overruled later that same year when California voters passed Proposition 8. After further judicial cases, in 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the amendment unconstitutional, allowing same-sex marriages in California to resume. Cadiomals (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed change is fine with me; that's a good one-paragraph summary. I went ahead and modified it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Important information of for the population section.

Hispanics are supposed to be the largest population in California by March, 2014. Virtually next month (and that is with official figures. Unofficially everyone knows they have been long ago):

The article should include such an important change. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit needed: pronunciation

California is most certainly not pronounced /ˌkælɨˈfɔrnaɪeɪ/ as claimed in the article -- do you really say "cal-lee-FOR-nuh-yay"? That's not only a stupid and inaccurate pronunciation, it doesn't even match with the audio file supplied. This may be trolling or vandalism for all we know. Please change it to read /ˌkælɨˈfɔrnɪə/ which is the accurate "cal-lee-FOR-nee-uh". The wikisource for it is: ({{IPAc-en|audio=en-us-California.ogg|ˌ|k|æ|l|ɨ|ˈ|f|ɔr|n|ɪ|ə}}) -- 128.211.178.12 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Government section cleanup

The government section has a few problems. First, most obvious, is that it doesn't mention the government. (The cabinet or executive as its variously known.) That's probably pretty important to know what the superagencies are. Second is that it doesn't mention local government. Local government is pretty big in California, and there is no mention of special districts anywhere in the article. Third, capital punishment is given more detail than any branch of the government. That's POV pushing. Capital punishment is just one aspect of the law. If we are going to keep it, we should seriously consider adding in other criminal law aspects. But I think that's best left for the politics section or other articles. Fourth, the elections information is just plain wrong. Since Proposition 14, California only uses partisan primaries for political party officials in presidential primaries (and county central committees), which are not government officials. Int21h (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just reverted on my edits about Elections in California. When someone decides to use the material from the main articles, which clearly contradict this article, let me know. (And the other stuff mentioned above.) I will be happy to back you up, but...

At the moment there are at least three editors (User:‎Ellin_Beltz, User:‎Binksternet, User:‎Hmains) who will neither discuss the issue (they will, but only in revert messages) nor accept my edits. :( So the article is likely to stay in this poor status for a long time. Int21h (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI to properly explain it, you need about the following information:

Since Proposition 14 (2010), California uses a nonpartisan blanket primary for "voter-nominated" offices, which include:

• United States Senators,
• United States Representatives,
• State Senators,
• State Assembly members,
• the Governor,
• the Lieutenant Governor,
• the State Treasurer,
• the Secretary of State,
• and the State Attorney General.

In this system voters may vote for any candidate in the primary and the top two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the general election. Elections for President, Vice President, political party state central committees, and county central committees are "party-nominated".

But that's too much information for a small section. If anywhere it should be in politics. Notice it doesn't go into detail about what happens with presidential primaries, because that is a whole 'nother can of worms to explain. Int21h (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

On top of that, the section on the judiciary needlessly goes into how big the judiciary is, which is not really that important. It doesn't even mention the superior courts, nor how they are nominated (they are only appointed if there is a vacancy.) But, again, that's too much info. It should be short and sweet, as it is in the main article.

But, as my first edit showed, all this can be accomplished by simply incorporating the main points from the main article. Which was reverted. Int21h (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did receive replies other than in the edit summaries. You were replied to on my user page after you left a very short and rather cranky message. User:Binksternet told you why he made edits, I said that he did what I would have done. I have read and reread your points above, have made a couple of changes to the article and have the following points:

(a) You wrote "First, most obvious, is that it doesn't mention the government. (The cabinet or executive as its variously known.)" That statement appears to be incorrect unless I am missing some nuance. The article mentions the three branches of government, the main article to which the reader is referred does also and provides more information.

(b) You wrote "That's probably pretty important to know what the superagencies are". I am sorry but this part doesn't make sense to me, the superagencies are discussed on the page to which the reader is referred for more information. Every speck of info from the subpages doesn't need to be on the main page, else the subpages would be unnecessary, no?

(c) You wrote "Second is that it doesn't mention local government". I have changed that by swiping some from the article to which the reader was referred for more information. I have rewritten it slightly as it was clunky in the original.

(d) You wrote capital punishment has more information than needed. I have removed a pair of sentences from the article which should reduce the apparent "POV" you mention. If you want to put them elsewhere in the article, here's what I took out: California's "Death Row" for male inmates is in San Quentin State Prison situated north of San Francisco in Marin County and Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla for female inmates. Executions in California are currently on hold indefinitely as human rights issues are addressed. .

(e) You wrote "Fourth, the elections information is just plain wrong. Since Proposition 14,..." I read the Wikipedia page on California Proposition 14 (2010) and the last thing it mentions is the proposition is all tied up in court. Please take a couple of minutes to update that page providing source citations to verify that it is active and law. Presently, that article is written in future conditional terms and doesn't sound as if the legislation actually got out of court in one piece. Once it's confirmed by citation that Prop. 14 is actually in control of the primary process, I will be happy to support the change to the main article. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are of course three branches of California government, but the initiative process is very important, more so than in other states. The Int21h version completely left out the initiative process. I think we must emphasize the initiative process, even to the point of comparing the process to a fourth branch, as is found in this young person's guide to the state, and made explicit in the widely cited report Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California's Fourth Branch of Government published by the Center for Governmental Studies. We do not literally have to say the initiative process is like having a fourth branch of government, but we must emphasize the importance of the process. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Replying to both Ellin Beltz and Binksternet..

• Firstly, I am not attached to the wording; if the wording should be changed, I both agree and I am partial--happy--to incorporate those changes into the main article. I simply needed some wording, and I randomly chose that. I have already tried to address the issue Binksternet brought up on Ellin Beltz's talk page in the main article.
• Secondly, I agree that the initiative process should be mentioned--I kept it in the intro in the main article, but as part of the election process, I thought it best to leave it out for brevity. (I also still think the election process information should be in the politics section, but I will compromise and not oppose it if you disagree.) I understand your point, and I do not oppose it being in the section.
• Thirdly, that Proposition 14 is valid law is backed by the League of Women Voters and the Secretary of State's website references in the main article (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-nominated-offices.htm "voter-nominated" is the Proposition 14 stuff, removing partisan primaries for government offices, as described in the other reference); that you heard down the grapevine it was "tied up in court" is original research, and OR should not be able to refute any references. In any event, the last election used the Proposition 14 voting process, and that should be enough to refute your OR. I still think the election process information should be in the politics section, not in the government section. But it is valid law, and if you disagree then you should challenge the information and the references in the Elections article--not just replace the information with your own OR. (The article you mention even clearly states "an appellate court ruled that the 'Top Two' system was constitutional".) This OR business is terribly important. You can refute every single reference I have--any reference, really, even a single one-- saying "oh that's not reliable" because it will still trump your OR. I hope you understand this.
• Fourthly, if "every speck of info from the subpages doesn't need to be on the main page" then the info on capital punishment should be treated like every other political criminal law legal topic, like gun rights and abortion and privacy and gay marriage, no? I am partial to agree with that statement, but by the same token the capital punishment and prison information/sentence(s) should go. Capital punishment and prisons is less important than the superagencies; they are just one tiny part of the superagencies' functions (The superagencies issue are what I meant when I mentioned the executive/government.) And, again, if they should stay, then every other legal topic of import should be mentioned too--choosing capital punishment and prisons among them all is POV pushing. Or, at the very least, politics--I do not oppose the information being in the politics section or a new law subsection, just not government. The same also goes for "Prior to the passage of California Proposition 14 (2010), ..." information.
• Fifthly, I think the subsections for each sentence/paragraph/branch is too much--its bad design and it just doesn't look good. It should just be five or so paragraphs rolled up into one section.

I hope that addressed all the points above. Int21h (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: the capital punishment info. It's good information, just misplaced. It's not general information about California's form of government, and would be more appropriate in Capital punishment in California - but it may duplicate information that's already there. You're all doing a good job collaborating on these improvements - keep it up. WCCasey (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• The government section looks about the right length with the current edits. More detail is found in the underlying referenced articles, not in this article which is already too long and too long to load. Hmains (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doing, nor have done, any OR on Proposition 14 (2010). The Wikipedia article ends with a statement about it being in court and doesn't say what the ultimate outcome was. I'd like to see a citation for the current disposition of Proposition 14. I have heard "nothing down the grapevine" and only seek to be sure that properly citationed material is in the article. I do wish this process didn't have to be so confrontational; it's only information and we're all supposed to be working together, not chewing on fellow editors. Assume good faith. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From the main article you mentioned: "an appellate court ruled that the 'Top Two' system was constitutional". It has a reference. What is unclear about that sentence? If you want to challenge this information, please do so in those articles. Until you do, its OR to think the Constitution of California does not have force of law without any reference to the contrary. Int21h (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And contrary to the League of Women Voters reference. And contrary to the Secretary of State reference. And contrary to every reference in the California elections, November 2012 article. I don't get it, what reference do you have that says anything to the contrary, which makes your assertion anything other than OR? Int21h (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I'm asking for references, because I think its obvious you misunderstand what the California Proposition 14 (2010) article is talking about: its talking about the court fight over the fee award. But instead of you trying to argue about whether its talking about the court fight over the fee award or the Proposition, please give a reference. Its much easier for me to explain to you that your reference from 2011 saying there's a lawsuit does not mean what you think it means, rather than have you argue about what Wikipedia says to support your OR. Yes, this is confrontational, but your pushing OR into the California article against every reference on Wikipedia, and that's not a assumption of good faith, that's an assumption of good faith in original research, which is not the same thing. Int21h (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And, you may not understand this but, just because someone pays $400 for a civil lawsuit does not mean that the Constitution of California does not have the force of law. I know that's a nuanced statement, but please provide references, other than citing Wikipedia, that says otherwise. (I feel like I need to explain how the legal system in the United States works. Do I?) Int21h (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you feel the need to be so confrontational discussing changes to this article. I am not doing any OR, there's no reason to get raging upset at me. I asked you to provide a reference that clearly states what Prop. 14 is and does, you sent me to the Secretary of State's office. I had not had any time to make changes here in the last couple of days. I am not pushing any OR into the California article; I didn't write the part you had a problem with before you changed it and Binksternet changed it again. Maybe it's time for you to settle down, assume good faith and relax. Insulting me doesn't advance the project and it only makes you look foolish because you are making statements that have no basis in reality, such as your accusations of OR above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the initiative process, I assume when you say "I kept it in the intro to the main article" that you are referring to this long string of edits to the article called Government of California. In those edits you removed three instances of the word "initiative", leaving only one instance in the intro. That is not the proper way to do it: instead, the WP:LEAD guideline says that the intro is simply a summary of information contained within the article body. You have removed a bunch of detail from the article body, leaving a vestigial bit in the intro. I do not agree with your treatment of the initiative process—I think it needs more detailed examination in the Government of California article, and I think it definitely needs to be described briefly to the reader in this article about the state, as it is a standout characteristic of the state. Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Prop 14: Int21h is correct. The new primary system survived the court challenges and was used in the California elections, November 2012. WCCasey (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Etymology "The name California is the fifth oldest surviving European place-name in the US..."

This is quite unclear, and sounds dubious.

The biggest point of confusion: are we measuring from the time of the first mention of the word "California", or the time when the Pacific Coast of North America was called California? If we're measuring time from the first mention of a word, "California" can be traced back to maybe the 11th century, but certainly names like Athens, Georgia, London, Arkansas, Syracuse, New York, Rome, Georgia, and Paris, Ohio are much older European place-names in the US.

Perhaps if this listed the four European place names which are older than "California", it would help.

128.112.139.195 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The problem you found is, I think, too difficult to solve by adding arguments, so I simply removed the claim altogether. The cited book certainly did not support the statement. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Crime in California

I think there should be a "Crime" section under Demographics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

California's GDP compared to countries

The article lists California's GDP by PPP as larger than Russia's but smaller than Brazil's, which is outdated; the CIA World Factbook as of 2013 lists Russia has having a higher GDP by PPP than Brazil as of 2013, while the citation on the size of California's economy is from 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.211.26 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Portal peer review

I have submitted Portal:San Francisco Bay Area to peer review. i would welcome any comments. i believe it is fully ready for featured portal status, but i have been just about the only editor there for a while.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Fresh fruit

1. Isn't grown fruit, by definition, "fresh"?

2. Is this a factoid with signifigance to the state of California that it belongs in the introduction? That's a lot of fruit, sure, but it's *fruit.* From a little googling it looks like a $1-2 billion market, of which California may see half. That's like 1-3 percent of tourism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.190.146 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have acted on your first point, which was a good one. I'm not so sure about the second. Fruit growing has been a historically significant aspect of California, so some mention in the lead seems valid. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Are White Hispanics "minorities"?

As stated above, Hispanic is not an option for race on the census. It's an additional category for ethnicity. There are Hispanics of all races. Combining all Hispanics into one group, excluding White Hispanics from inclusion among all Whites, and then declaring them "minorities" is not only inaccurate, it is insulting and racist. Were Italians, Greeks or Jews "non-white" 100 years ago? What are they now? How are White Hispanics different, and why are they being called "non-white"? What is the agenda here? It seems some sort of distortion is being done intentionally. Based on the ACS already cited in the article it should read:

According to the 2006–2008 American Community Survey, California's population is:[41]

   * 76.4% White
   * 12.5% Asian
   * 6.7% Black or African American
   * 2.6% Multiracial
   * 1.2% Native American

   * 36.6% are Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.6.148 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 November 2010

Well, if you worry about that, soon Americans in general will not be considered white at all. Why should Californians be considered white at all, of any race, if the majority is non-White? Soon they will be themselves the victims of their own classification criteria, whose origins are of course extremely racist and arrogant. Pipo.

Pipo should go back to mexico maybe? In America we have racial classifications, your country is the racist one because you claim to be "non-racial" while discriminating against black and indian mexicans.96.241.72.141 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, another American in denial of their very mixed racial ancestry. Mexican? Never been to Mexico, though I bet it is a very beautiful place. Your racial ancestry classification comes from a very dark age. You should be ashamed. The thing is that Americans are so brainwashed that they do to realize how disgusting that protonazi custom is! Pipo.

Incorrect Demographic information

The demographic information says that 74 percent of the population is "White" which is nonsense. I know it is based on the Census.gov website but the website is simply not accurate, compare it to the actual reported racial figure of 57.6% in 2010. Notorious G.K.C. (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the definition of "White " has changed. What does it mean? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Both the 57% and the 74% figures are from the Census bureau. The census doesn't count 'Hispanic' as a race (notice that almost half of the 74% white figure is designated as Hispanic). AlexiusHoratius 02:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The 57.6% figure includes both White and White Hispanic people. The 2010 census also includes 17.0% of "some other race." The 2011 estimate does not include an estimate for "Some other race." I think that the "some other race" numbers were simply put into the White category in order to inflate the White numbers. Notorious G.K.C. (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would those publishing the census results want to do that? HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Any number of reasons. They do the same thing with crime rates: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl03.xls

I personally doubt they would do that with statistics on, say, average net wealth by race.Notorious G.K.C. (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Two months later and nothing has been done about this. The 2010 Census which lists 57.6% is the accurate one, since non-White Hispanics identified as "other race" specifically because they are not white and because their race is not included on the Census.96.241.72.141 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Nation" vs. "Country"

In the History section, under 19th Century, the first paragraph ends with "nation of Mexico". As is all too common these days, the term "nation" and "country" are used interchangeably. In fact, they are not synonymous. This is an especially egregious example of using "nation" when the more accurate term in that sentence is "country". Of course, this distinction could be applied to many articles and could lead to long-winded discussions. Nonetheless, I believe it's a could distinction to keep in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmoguel88 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Other minorities

Since there is a politics section on the LGBTQ population, with only 4% of the population. Why are there not sections of larger minority populations such as African-Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, Asian Americans (all whom make up a larger percentage of the population of the state)? To have this minority given a devoted section, without other minorities legislative history (such as baring of Asian Americans from owning land, or anti-miscegenation laws) IMHO is WP:UNDUE. While some content should be in this article, without the other content being there, it creates an unbalanced perception IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• The origins of that section was a result of an edit I made in 2012 to combine all LGBT content on the page[9] However, I originally put that as a subsection under the Demographics section. I do not know why it was moved to the Politics section. It now seems like systemic bias and recentism, which is likely the root cause of this WP:UNDUE, especially when you have detailed articles like LGBT rights in California and LGBT history in California. I doubt there are enough equivalent summary articles for all the other minorities. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, the consolidation, is reasonable, and thanks for the edits in the past. Perhaps this should go under the demographics sub-article, and the more political things can be moved to the main articles where they are concerned. If the domestic partnership, Prop 8/"gay marriage" topic were covered as a broader look at the evolution of marriage law in the State of California, it would be less bias, and more encompassing. However, I don't know if marriage law history should be in the main article of California or in a sub-article somewhere. Furthermore, LGBTQ politics are not just about marriage law, and also fall under the broader "minority" header.

At least, a see also header in an appropriate section(s) should be included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A clarification about WP:UNDUE. It is not UNDUE if there is missing material that can be added. That is, don't delete material under UNDUE, when it will be relatively simple to add material about other aspects not covered. UNDUE is when you have too much of point X, and little of point Y. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This content is better off at an article specific about LGBT in California, not on the primary article about the entire state. It would be one thing, if a brief neutrally worded sentences were added in the history section, but an entire section dedicated about LGBT politics is over weighted IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, focus on the marriage debate I think falls under WP:RECENTISM.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the entire section is unsourced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Info box name

Twice, an editor has added a Spanish version of the name of the state in the infobox. There is no consensus for this. Please stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish influence.

The Spanish influence is obvious in California and the US. Even the cowboy, made by Hollywood a symbol of the US, is of full Spanish influence, particularly of Southern Spain.

This video clip shows the famous Feria de Abril in Seville, Spain or Fair of April, with people from Southern Spain in traditional costumes, with traditional music. too. The similarities with the cowboys from the US are amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bar charts

Just for grins, the table of presidential election results in the Politics section could be somewhat easier to edit & view using Template:Data bars in a style (12) where averages are displayed and a number is revealed by pointing the cursor at a color.

Presidential elections results in California (percentage of votes)
2012 97.36 2008 97.85 2004 98.76 2000 95.1 1996 89.31 1992 78.62 1988 98.69 1984 98.78 1980 88.6 1976 96.92 1972 96.55 1968 92.56 1964 99.9 1960 99.65	94.91 Republican Democratic Average
Source: The American Presidency Project

But this is probably not a good idea, since it would lose the data on the number of votes cast, which would have to appear in a completely separate chart, shown here with scale = 0.00002.

Presidential elections results in California (number of votes)
2012 12694243 2008 13286254 2004 12255311 2000 10428632 1996 8948215 1992 8751899 1988 9757150 1984 9389528 1980 7608519 1976 7624528 1972 8077943 1968 6711982 1964 7050985 1960 6483821	9219215 Republican Democratic Average
Source: The American Presidency Project

On the other hand, shown graphically in this way, some interesting things pop out. For example, the first chart makes it easy to see how the percentage of votes cast for Republicans and Democrats combined dropped significantly in 1992 (effect of Ross Perot's third party), and the second chart shows graphically how the number of people voting for them fell in some years (e.g., 1968) despite the general upward trend due to population growth. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Misconstrued Spoken Language Statistics

In the sidebar containing quick facts about California it is reported that English is a spoken language for 57.4% of California residents.

When looking at Table 4 on page 9 of the source material "Language Use in the United States: 2007" I see where the error was made. Table 4 is a state-by-state breakdown of the responses give to the census question: "Does this person speak a language other than English at home?" if yes, "What is this language?" then "How well does this person speak English?"

The wiki article reports 57.4% of Californians speak English. The survey on the other hand reports that 42.6% of Californians speak a language other than English at home but within that group 53.2% of them speak English "Very well," 19.8% speak it "Well," 17.2% speak it "Not well," and only 9.8% speak it "Not at all."

If 53.2% of this subgroup (42.6% of the total population) speak English "Very well," shouldn't we include them in the group of English speakers?

Alternatively and more accurately, the quick fact needs an additional clause in its title if this is the source material to be used. It should read "Languages Spoken at Home."

I'm new to editing articles so I wanted to post my concerns instead of assuming my approach is correct. Thanks for any feedback you can give. B Kozz (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the reason I think for the Multilingual listing.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Update Congressional Delegation

With Gary Miller's (R) retirement and Pete Aguilar's (D) victory in California's 31st District, the delegation numbers need to be updated. It is now 39 Democrats and 14 Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.78 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Etymology of "California"

There may BE a lengthy resource input about the name "California" originating from some mythical legend, but it's probably a lot MORE correct that per <ref.> Harper Collins' Spanish Dictionary and <ref.> Cassell's Latin Dictionary the name "California" originates from the Latin word "Calidus" (which means "hot") and the Latin word, "furnus" (which means "furnace") - put together by the Mexico-ruled Spanish - IS the correct name origin of my home state of California. Per other information (I don't remember where I read it), the Spanish called this state "California" because of the very hot heat (that FELT like the inside of an oven) during summer and especially in early fall when the inland desert heat was blown out to the ocean by the Santa Ana winds.

I know of this weather pattern well, having been born in Southern California (as well as both of my parents), and with the exception of 5 1/2 years of my childhood living in West Seattle, most of my life has been spent residing in Southern California - in the Los Angeles Basin. Gail Noon, San Pedro, CA Bluffscoastlass (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The experience of having lived in California does not matter here. What matters are the sources, and a much greater emphasis is seen in the sources supporting an etymology taken directly from the novel The Adventures of Esplandián published around 1500 by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo. There will never be a final answer to the question of etymology because the author has been dead for centuries, and he never said what were the roots he used to form the fictional word "California". You will have to admit, though, that he did not describe the fictional place as hot like an oven, and he made the word up before anybody from Europe arrived in California. You can see the scholars struggle with the etymology at the article Etymology of California. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)