|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|California has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 7, 2004, September 9, 2007, September 9, 2008, September 9, 2009, and September 9, 2010.|
|California was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 91 days may be automatically moved.|
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:
* 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) Which is 125.5%. Sense is made.
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.184.108.40.206 (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.
In the inital history paragraph it describes the original make-up of the then called California, there is no verification on the listing which normally I would understand but in this case is needed as Wyoming was never a part of that area. So a footnote ref or removal Wyoming from they listed land area would help the veracity of the article. Thanks all — Preceding unsigned comment added by BespokeFM (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 June 2011
Important information missing
A very important update, of historic importance for the demographic section, is missing in this article. Since March, 2014, Hispanics are officially the largest ethnic group in California. This piece of information is not in the article yet: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/latinos-california-biggest-demographic-politics
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)
- 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)
- 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.220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 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 18.104.22.168 (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)
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 22.214.171.124 (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)
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 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)
"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)