Jump to content

Talk:California

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.241.72.141 (talk) at 18:28, 9 July 2014 (→‎Incorrect Demographic information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeCalifornia was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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)[reply]

Wyoming

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe the definition of "White " has changed. What does it mean? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why would those publishing the census results want to do that? HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California&oldid=616260059"