Talk:California/Archive 2

Peer Review

Any comments --Chazz88 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

comment: why not add something about Californian prehistory as it doesnt seem to be anywhere else. (if it does, please point me there if you dont mind). peace – ishwar  (speak) 09:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

this article is lacking demographics information. Someone please add. Civil Engineer III 13:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article have no introduction?

If other parts of the article are too long they need to be cut down, but we need a better overview than "California is a state located on the west coast" before launching into the geography subsection.

Update: Alright, I've changed it, modelling it after the Texas intro. I do not think it is inordinately long at all. Pls discuss here for issues. 18.251.5.83 03:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the page history to see what happened. It appears that the States of the United States Project people have been cutting down introductions left and right in state articles to make them less rambling and more mutually consistent with each other. I personally agree with their position; the old introduction was a huge mess. --Coolcaesar 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, anybody who wished to make this an FA will be in conflict with the WikiProject's position because any candidate would require a good lead section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why has it been reverted again? Please discuss issue here. 18.251.5.83 07:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the US state pages, about 1/2 of the states have the skeletal 'intro' while about 1/2 of the states do not. Whatever happens, a similiar standard needs to be used for all 50 articles (and preferably it includes more than 1 line). That should be obvious. 18.251.5.83 07:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of stamp

There was an image of a stamp on this page; I removed it because there has to be a good valid reason for "fair use" of this stamp, not just because it shows California on it. See Template:Stamp. --Geopgeop 09:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I'll have to concur. The stamp is a great illustration but you're right, it can't be used here. --Coolcaesar 20:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish missions responsible for the decimation of Native Americans?

If the Spanish are responsible for the decimation of Native Armericans in California, then, why is it that most Native Americans or Mestizos (of Native American and European origin) have survived and live in Spanish America or come from Spanish America. The Native American and Mestizo population in Mexico is 89%, being the white population only 9%. Roughly the same can be said of Central America and many other countries like Peru, Bolivia etc.

On the other hand, what happened to the Native American population in the whole of the US?. Why is it that Native Americans were virtually eliminated in the US.

I agree, that is a questionable assertion. Most modern histories blame the decimation on the Yankee miners rather than the Spanish missionaries. -Will Beback 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Climate

But because of the extreme variances of weather caused by el nino and la nina conditions, the weather can vary from year to year which is problematic for a very delicate climatic region like California. They depend on consistent weather to avoid issues like wildfires, floods and landslides. One example of this extreme variation can be seen from the contrasts of 2005 and 2006. In the community of Anaheim Hills, an unusually wet winter lead to two landslides, (one major and one minor) resulting in 2 mansions sliding from the unstable hillside due to all the precipitation in February of 2005. Yet the very next February in 2006, a very premature wildfire broke out in the Anaheim Hills area which threatened hundreds of homes, and was a direct effect of the hot conditions and dry weather that had been experienced that winter.

It is my contention that everywhere on Earth depends on some climate consistency for the same reasons. Also, this paragraph seems to concentrate its focus on one small area of California and would therefore be better suited on the Anaheim Hills page. I don't think the paragraph is necessary here at all. Any objections to its deletion? Soltras 15:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Public perception section?

Hi, I was reading the article, and I was thinking... we should have a link up to the public perception of california... e.g., if there are celebrities everywhere, everyone surfs, and everyone (in San Francisco) is gay. Or at least about hollywood, earthquakes, and that there really are not that many crazy NATIVE califonians (e.g. cult leaders- Jim Jones and Charlie Manson should be discussed as having moved to california, but specifically NOT native Californians). Anyway, I don't have enough good factual information or idea on how to arrange the section, but I do know a lot of people that hold those perceptions of California. Anyway, thanks fellow wikipedians.

That's just it...a perception. Do we have sections in Texas and New York and Florida that perpetuate stereotypes and myths? As a native Californian it bothers me that odd people from somewhere else make the rest of us look like we're nuts. With 36 million people in the state there are bound to be some kooks. How about a section that DEBUNKS the myth?Schmiteye 20:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Perceptions" are not verifiable unless someone has conducted a public-opinion poll. -Will Beback 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cults

Oh, additionally: the cult thing SHOULD be mentioned in the californian religions clause. A big part of Californian religion is starting cults, part of the "make your own way ethos". Oh, and sorry, the last post was mine, forgot to sign it. Sorry. FactoidFreak

• Are you kidding? Just because someone makes their own beliefs doesn't mean they're in a cult. Jesus christ. --Mboverload 20:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all of us Californians start cults -it's simply our way of life. My parents started one revolving around the worship of the Kool-Aid guy (thing) and I'm thinking of starting one based on the neverending glory of pants.Cikoykip 10:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from cults, California has seen a number of new religions founded or popularized here, even within the Christian tradition, including the Azusa Street revival which jumpstarted the Pentecostal movement, Fundamentalism, the Worldwide Church of God, the Metropolitan Community Church, etc. Los Angeles, California#Religion lists many, and I'm sure there are others as well. We should try to give a better picture of the rich religious life of California, which isn't covered by the standard statistics. -Will Beback 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of multiple sections (geography, climate

This vandalism was not properly reverted (only the text the vandal added was removed). I've attempted to merge in the lost content with the current article (kudos to JeremyCastle (talk · contribs) for catching it). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What does this refer to?

"The state also voted as well as denial of social services to illegal immigrants living in the state (although this initiative was essentially blocked by the vote of one judge)."

I am very confused over how to correct this sentence without taking away its meaning, which I do not know yet. Cikoykip 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Californias in Australia;) :)

Ai my my name is alex;)i live in Aus. i am doing an assignment on calfornia and i am wondering if you can tell me how many californian people live in Australia could you you please let me now on thos site as soon as you see my post thanks:)

Err, sorry, "Alex," you shouldn't come to Wikipedia to ask the Wikipedians about information for a school assignment. Instead, try looking it up on a Wikipedia article, and if that fails, look it up on a search engine. Also, I consider just asking someone for information on a school assignment to only get you a good grade cheating (there are many exceptions, though, like an interview about a person). Just wanting to let you know, cheers! •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to get rid of the National Parks section

The National Parks section is growing out of control and includes far too many sites of debatable relevance to a general overview article like this one. Please keep in mind that all Wikipedia content needs to assume an international audience. A general overview of an entire state should relegate the in-depth stuff to other articles.

The importance of most of these sites is not clear to most international users, who would be unaware that Eugene O'Neill is the only American playwright to win a Nobel Prize, that Rosie the Riveter was a fictional figure used to motivate female workers in war industries during WWII, that Lava Beds National Monument hosted a famous Indian battle, etc. Yes, I know of the importance of all these sites because I grew up in this state and I have visited almost of all of them, but the truth is that the vast majority of Wikipedia users have not. And if we bothered to explain the importance of every single one of these sites in the main California article, it would be more than 160K long, which is just too much information and would violate numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Plus such explanations would duplicate the information in the articles on those respective sites themselves!

Furthermore, we already have too many lists of NPS sites on Wikipedia. See List of areas in the National Park System of the United States, List of United States national parks by state, List of National Monuments of the United States, and so on. We do not need a fourth list here. Keep in mind that the current situation implies that any further NPS additions or deletions in California will have to be updated on at least three separate lists. What a mess. What we really need is a brief discussion to the effect that California has many major national parks and monuments, of which Sequoia-Kings Canyon and Yosemite are by far the most well-known internationally, and then we can have links to the three existing lists for interested users. If no one objects, I'll take care of this in two weeks or so. --Coolcaesar 05:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has defended the giant list. I'm dealing with this mess. --Coolcaesar 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Coolcaesar 22:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is tax information doing under Economy?

Some idiot added some poorly written garbage on California's tax system to the article a while back. While I agree that tax law is an important issue in California politics that should be addressed, it should be discussed under the Government section. What does everyone think?--Coolcaesar 09:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the articles of a couple of other states, and they all had tax information under Economy, rather than Government. Aranhamo 15:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede that since taxation does have significant economic effects it can be treated under Economy. But the section is still a mess. I don't have the time to research all its questionable assertions ($28 billion in sales tax?) or fix the juvenile spelling and grammar; I am not a tax lawyer, in case you were wondering. I've never heard of a property tax postponement program or renter assistance program (and I have extensive pro bono experience). I'd rather just kill the section now for lack of citations. Then if anyone really cares about the topic of California taxation, they can do the research backed by proper citations (at the very least, links to appropriate statutes and California government Web sites) and put it back in. --Coolcaesar 17:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Long link

I just fixed a long link which was messing up the layout. The views in the link may need additional citation, as racial appearances may not be definitive. It is well known in anthropology that facial variation within a race is greater than among races. --Ancheta Wis 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC) -- I recall from an old History of California that the settlers encountered 3 distinct types of Indians dwelling in California, so the sentence is at best incomplete.

Education

Might it be useful to mention that tuition to the University of California was free, from the founding to the 1960's? --Ancheta Wis 16:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would belong in an article about the UC system. Aranhamo 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)