Talk:Baja California peninsula
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baja California peninsula article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
According to the article, the split into Alta and Baja took place in both 1773 and 1804. Can't be both. –Hajor 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's true, i did not notice it until now, i would like to check that... the reason that i put down that date was because that is the year that appears in the inscription on the marker..., i was down there this last weekend, i will investigate and make any correction necesary... of course that correction on the inscription will be a little more difficult. =) By the way... where did you get the 1804 info?
Sorry if i did anything wrong in my last answer to you... im quite new to all of this and not much of a computer expert... like i mentioned before i appreciate your comments and will look into them... i think i should have a reasonable answer in a couple of days...EjidoMike 05:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I found the following information on the bajaquest.com website... it quotes the same Sociedad de Historia De rosarito A.C. as the source for the info - the same society that erected the marker - :
"In 1767 the Jesuits were expelled from Mexico in a political-religious decision, the Franciscans were asked to take over the administration of the missions. In 1772, a concordat (agreement) was signed between the King of Spain -with the support of the Viceroy of New Spain (Mexico) and the Pope- and the leaders of the Dominican and Franciscan monks resulting in the division of California in 1773, using the local mountain range that meet the sea at Calafia. The Palou Frontier was establish as the dividing line between Nueva (new) or Alta (upper) California and Antigua (old) of Baja (lower) California."
I also found many websites that indicate 1804 as the year the partition took place... i will keep looking into this. EjidoMike 05:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Im looking into this with a friend of mine... i think we should come up with some convincing theory... i'll keep you posted. (and see!!! i worked out how to reply correctly!!!!) EjidoMike 04:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- I think we got this figured out now... i'll be posting our research and sources soon EjidoMike 03:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'll keep you posted when I find out more (220.127.116.11 16:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
Could someone please edit this article to include some links to some points of interest.
>>>I have repeatedly but JOHN HARDER deletes my links and discredits my BAJA site as SPAM
Is "Baja California Peninsula" an official name? Otherwise for the sake of consistency (and easier wikilinking) I propose the article is renamed "Baja California peninsula". Thanks for any insights, David Kernow 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"Baja California Norte"
Since Baja California became a state, its official designation is no longer Baja California Norte. Baja California is the political designation for the northern state. Nonetheless, "Baja California Norte" continues to be commonly used as an informal designation, to distinguish it from the peninsula as a whole (which is also commonly referred to simply as "Baja California"). Yes, "Baja California Norte" is merely an informal designation. No, it is NOT incorrect! RhymeNotStutter 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "Baja California Norte" is merely an informal designation, informal but also INCORRECT!. The official state name is Baja California. When the North Territory of Baja California became a state the term "NORTH" didnt form part of the official name. There is a Baja California Sur but not a Baja California Norte because it doesn't exist. I live in Baja California and it is a little annoying to hear about BCN, imagine to read it in a global SOURCE of information. It's a common error, even to many mexicans, but Baja California Norte is a WRONG desiganation. JC 15:20, 18 January 2007 (PST)
- You misunderstand what it means for a geographical designation to be "wrong" or "incorrect". If someone says that Ensenada is the capital of Baja California, that's factually wrong. If someone says that Eugenio Elorduy Walther is the governor of Baja California Norte, that's wrong, because "Baja California Norte" isn't the name of the political entity of which he's governor. If someone says that Ensenada is located in the Great Basin, that's wrong, because it's contrary to the accepted understanding of what the "Great Basin" means geographically. "Baja California Norte" is a well-established geographical (not political) term for the northern half of the Baja California peninsula. It isn't the official designation for the state in that region, so it's use should be labelled as informal, but it certainly is not wrong. Google Search shows approximately 942,000 hits for "Baja California Norte", so it's a well-established established usage. As a personal perference, you may not care for it, and you may wish it would stop. As a matter of fact, I never use "Baja California Norte" myself. Nonetheless, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform its readers of facts, not to dictate to them your personal preferences or mine. Please don't label as "inaccurate" or "wrong" an accepted geographical usage that you don't happen to like. RhymeNotStutter 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Geographically there is a single region, the Baja California Peninsula, politically divided into 2 states. We normal use the name of the states to specify a region of the peninsula. The former Territory of Baja California was divide into 2 territories:
- 1) the North(northern) Territory of Baja California, now the state of Baja California.
- 2) the South(southern) Territory of Baja California, now the state of Baja California Sur.
- You want facts, read this: http://www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/portal/nuestro_estado/historia/transformacion.jsp and http://www.bcs.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=330&Itemid=73 You will find that Baja Califoria Norte has never been existed, geographically or politically talking.
- The usage of the term could be very popular, but it's usage is not just innacurate, it is incorrect. It doesn't matter how many hits can google find, or if it is a well-established usage, this doesn't make it right.
- I'm not asking to erase the term, just to inform that it use is not just informal, it is also inaccurate and sometimes incorrect.
- JC 17:16, 19 January 2007 (PST)
Jcmenal: please stop trying to assert your personal preference in geographical terms as "fact". As you are aware, "Baja California Norte" has been used extensively, including in publications issued by the Mexican government, including the titles of books by at least two Mexican Presidents (Adolfo Ruiz Cortines and José López Portillo). No, it is not an official political designation. Neither is the regional term "Southern California," which has no political status, but it's usage is still perfectly correct. It is not appropriate to try to use Wikipedia as a medium to foist your personal preferences on readers as "fact" or to dismiss established a well-established usage as "incorrect" because you do not like it. RhymeNotStutter 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Personal references??, you edited the note and you added the official designation, do you have an official source of this?, I fixed your edit. The confusion here is that the northern part was never called Baja California Norte, however it was officially called Territorio Norte de la Baja California or Distrito Norte de la Baja California, also there is just one sourced region the Baja California Peninsula; to talk about the northern part we use "en el norte de la peninsula" never Baja California Norte. Please read the current and past Mexican costitutions, and Baja California constitution, you wont find an official "Baja California Norte" designation. Many Mexicans believes that Baja California Norte existed and/or is the real name of the current state right now, including former presidents; even legal institutions like banks or enterprises have used or uses Baja California Norte, but it is incorrect. JC 22:25, 15 March 2007 (PST)
- One final point of interest: in Mexico, are "regions" officially designated entities? In the United States, they are not. "Regions" in the U.S. are informal geographical designations, established by conventional usage and not by legislation. So saying that a term for a region is not "official" would make no sense, at least in the U.S. If "regions" in Mexico are officially designated, then is "Baja California Peninsula" an officially established designation, or is its use also "incorrect", according to what you're saying? If "regions" are official in Mexico, then what term would you use for a category like "el norte de la peninsula" or, probably, "Baja California Peninsula"? Wouldn't "Baja California Norte" fall into that same class: a geographical term that "we use", as you wrote (but "we" in this case would mean Mexican presidents, banks, publishers, and many, many other people, although not you or me as individuals)? RhymeNotStutter 14:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- No they aren't in the current constitution, in past constitution the entities were also called "provinces". Regions in Mexico, as in the US are informal geographical designations, established by conventional usage and not by legislation. "Baja California Peninsula" is a geographical region of course inside a semi-official region called "Northwest" (used by government statistical dependencies). I tried to explain to you, "Baja California Norte" is always used to be refer to the state not to the northern part of the region thats why its usage is incorrect. I'm not pointing to you, as I siad, sadly most of the Mexicans believes that "Baja California Norte" is the official name of the state (including former presidents, banks and specially publishers), even the US embassy uses "Baja California Norte" as the official state name. JC 8:20, 16 March 2007 (PST)
It's not actually highlighted, its a topographic map. 18.104.22.168 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Annex by US
Wasn't there an offer to annex/sell Baja California to the US during WW2 ? I have heard the story, but seen no references, that it was offered to Franklin Roosevelt around the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. - Bill 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says: " It is considered territory of Northern America. "
This is at odds with the Wikipedia page "Northern America".
I've no idea which is correct, but one of the two pages needs to be changed.
Ordinary Person 08:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's North America. We cross into South America when we pass Panama. (Nurse Hilditch 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
5% Asian (Most of them Filipinos)???, where you found this information, most of the Asian population here is Chinese. JC February 27 2007, 22:50 (PST)
Where are these demographic statistics coming from? I have never seen such a detailed survey for Baja California. 10% Asian seems to be a bit high; from sight I would say 4% max. As far as the other statistics, its hard telling. I have been in parts where there is a significant European component, but where are the official numbers? Libertythor 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph speculating that the Baja will continue to grow and turn parts of the State of California with it into a large island is written poorly and without citation, leading me, a normal person, to believe, from the wording use, that this will happen very soon, instead of millions or billions of years into the future. I suggest somebody, with extensive geologic knowledge re-write this portion of the article. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Chopped that along with more of the redundant to irrelevant stuff. Vsmith (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Rewrite for a less Euro-centric bias?
This article could stand to be expanded. The current state doesn't match Wikipedia quality standards I've come to expect. Both its history section and timeline begin with arrival European explorers. I suggest more detail, significance, and at least a passing mention of indigenous peoples and cultures. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)