Talk:California: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:51, 13 May 2010

me and my mom went to california to see the beach!!! :) have you ever gone to california??? :0

         luv u buy now

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+me and my mom went to california to see the beach!!! :)
-{{skip to talk}}
+have you ever gone to california??? :0
-{{ArticleHistory
+          luv u buy now
-|action1=PR
-|action1date=20:44, 6 January 2006
-|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/California/archive1
-|action1result=reviewed
-|action1oldid=34147666
-|action2=GAN
-|action2date=16 March 2007
-|action2result=not listed
-|action2oldid=115379679
-|currentstatus=FGAN
-}}
-{{talk header|search=yes}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
-{{WikiProject California|class=B|importance=Top}}
-{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=High}}
-{{WikiProject Former countries|class=B|importance=High}}
-{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|importance=high|category=Geography}}
-}}
-{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-07-07|oldid1=4760250|date2=2007-09-09|oldid2=156655007|date3=2008-09-09|oldid3=237130785|date4=2009-09-09|oldid4=299791710}}
-{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|small=yes|age=91}}
-{{User:MiszaBot/config
-|maxarchivesize = 100K
-|counter = 4
-|minthreadsleft = 9
-|algo = old(91d)
-|archive = Talk:California/Archive %(counter)d
-}}
-== Italy gdp comparison doesn't sound right ==
-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 46,859
-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).
-== Second most populous sub-national entity ==
-Could you please clarify why Brazilian and U.S. states qualify as sub-national entities but Indian states do not? [[User:InArm|InArm]] ([[User talk:InArm|talk]]) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
-I believe it was originally "in the western hemisphere" which is how it appears in the sao paulo article. Someone with write access should change it, since it's incorrect without that clarification.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.81.171.99|64.81.171.99]] ([[User talk:64.81.171.99|talk]]) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
- the  to "second-most populous" appears in both the article introduction and the Demographics section.  While it is an apt piece of information for the Demographics section, it does not seem to me to be so important that it must be mentioned in the introduction, which currently reads as a hodgepodge of facts about California rather than a coherent intro.  I suggest that someone remove this portion from the introduction section. [[Special:Contributions/190.84.245.221|190.84.245.221]] ([[User talk:190.84.245.221|talk]]) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
-== Delta section ==
-In the Geography and environment section, the second paragraph contains this:
-"The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta serves as a critical water supply hub for the state. Water is routed through an extensive network of canals and pumps out of the delta, that traverse nearly the length of the state, including the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project."
-The second sentence here needs to be fixed, as it doesn't make much sense grammatically.  Unfortunately I can't change it, as I don't know enough about what it's trying to say.  Are the canals and pumps only in the Delta, and if so, exactly what traverses nearly the length of the state?  Or do the canals and pumps traverse nearly the length of the state?  Come to think of it, that doesn't make much sense either.  The whole thing is dippy! [[User:Demeter|Demeter]] ([[User talk:Demeter|talk]]) 03:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
-:There is a network of canals and pumps traversing much of the state. See for example [[California Aqueduct]]. --[[User:Skew-t|skew-t]] ([[User talk:Skew-t|talk]]) 03:48, 1 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?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.44.93.16|24.44.93.16]] ([[User talk:24.44.93.16|talk]]) 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.28.41.229|68.28.41.229]] ([[User talk:68.28.41.229|talk]]) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-bicentennial means 200 years
-[[Special:Contributions/75.61.69.42|75.61.69.42]] ([[User talk:75.61.69.42|talk]]) 07:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Dakota
-== English As Official Language ==
-The ballot measure which made english the official language of California did so by amending the present state constitution. Article  3 Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California states, "(b) English as the Official Language of California. c) Enforcement. The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the State of California is preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the State of California. (d) Personal Right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of California shall have standing to sue the State of California to enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this section. "
-Hence  all ballots and other state govt documents that are published in a language other than spanish are in direct violation of the state constitution. It also implies that any person who is a public official and acting in an official capacity may not speak in any language other than english. This however, only applies to the government and public officials, it does not apply to private citizens. Any person who is a US citizen has legal standing to sue under this section.
-http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.28.41.229|68.28.41.229]] ([[User talk:68.28.41.229|talk]]) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-: Please add this reference: [http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/pubs.htm California Department of Motor Vehicles]
-: to the sentence in the article "However, many state, city, and local government agencies still continue to print official public documents in numerous languages."
-: That page comes from an official state government agency and says that it prints its "Driver License Handbook" in at least 9 languages. (Also, that state agency also publishes a web site in at least one other language -- that same reference has a link to the "DMV en Espanol" web site).
-: --[[Special:Contributions/68.0.124.33|68.0.124.33]] ([[User talk:68.0.124.33|talk]]) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
-== IMF Question ==
-Perhaps a mention such as; If California was its own country the world bank of IMF would have to come in and rescue California from going bankrupt. Just a thought.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.53.157.85|206.53.157.85]] ([[User talk:206.53.157.85|talk]]) 07:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:Find a citation that does not involve [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. --[[User:Morenooso|Morenooso]] ([[User talk:Morenooso|talk]]) 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
-== Racial ancestry  makeup is WRONG ==
-You CAN´T say "White (not including Hispanics)" and later add Hispanics as another Race, because Hispanics are NOT a race. Whites can be of English, German, French, Italian, Russian...or Spanish ancestry.
-What the U.S. Census Bureau says is White persons....76.6
-Where is that percentage in your article? You shouldn´t manipulate the OFFICIAL information.
-You have to write the whole percentage of White, INCLUDING White Hispanics, and after all races you can add as a cultural definition the concept of Hispancs/Latinos (and taking into account that once anybody starts speaking English as his/her mother tongue, he/she cannot be considered a "Hispanic" as it is a cultural concept)--[[Special:Contributions/88.24.242.30|88.24.242.30]] ([[User talk:88.24.242.30|talk]]) 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
-== "famous for earthquakes" ==
-"California is famous for earthquakes" sounds kind of weird to me -- as if that's something to be celebrated. [[Special:Contributions/81.129.128.129|81.129.128.129]] ([[User talk: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? -[[User:Optigan13|Optigan13]] ([[User talk:Optigan13|talk]]) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
-== 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. [[Special:Contributions/198.123.50.21|198.123.50.21]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Skew-t|skew-t]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.library.ca.gov/history/symbols.html ''History and Culture - State Symbols'' www.library.ca.gov] but got promptly removed because issue never made it out of legislative committee(s). --[[User:Morenooso|Morenooso]] ([[User talk:Morenooso|talk]]) 14:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
-== Edit request from Keith20988, 19 April 2010 ==
-{{tld|editsemiprotected}}
-<!-- Begin request -->
- california sinks 1 inch a year
-<!-- End request -->
-[[User:Keith20988|Keith20988]] ([[User talk: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. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
-::{{ESp|rs}} -- <font color="green">&#47;[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]&#124;</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]&#92;</font> 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 propoerty is sold it is reassessed for tax value and the new owner is responsible for taxes based upon the reassessed value.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Uw1981|Uw1981]] ([[User talk:Uw1981|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Uw1981|contribs]]) 03:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-: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. --[[User:Skew-t|skew-t]] ([[User talk:Skew-t|talk]]) 11:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)