Jump to content

Talk:California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 11, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
March 4, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 7, 2004, September 9, 2007, September 9, 2008, September 9, 2009, and September 9, 2010.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

[edit]

Mexican is the most common ancestry in California, followed by English, German and Irish. Add this to demographics section.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/california-population-ethnicity/#:~:text=Mexicans%20comprise%20the%20largest%20ethnic,of%20Californians%20identifying%20as%20Mexican. 91.192.81.61 (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mexican really an ancestry? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the experts and reliable sources use it. See Heyman, Josiah McC. "US immigration officers of Mexican ancestry as Mexican Americans, citizens, and immigration police." Current Anthropology 43.3 (2002): 479-507. and Duncan, Brian, and Stephen J. Trejo. "Ancestry versus ethnicity: The complexity and selectivity of Mexican identification in the United States." in Ethnicity and labor market outcomes . 2009. 31-66. Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what does it mean? HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Per WP:SWYGT, the provided source was the SF Chronicle, but the data from the Chronicle comes from elsewhere.  Spintendo  20:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023 (4)

[edit]

Chinese, Filipino, Indian and Vietnamese are the largest Asian ancestries in California. Add this information to demographics section.

Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/california-asian-population-growth/ 91.192.81.61 (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per WP:SWYGT, the provided source was the SF Chronicle, but the data from the Chronicle comes from elsewhere.  Spintendo  20:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2023

[edit]

California has the largest Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan population. Add to demographics section.

Source: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/2020-census-dhc-a-hispanic-population.html 91.192.81.61 (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Largest as compared to whom?  Spintendo  20:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a response from someone who does not have a Nintendo reference on their username? Thanks. Mousefountain (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spintendo Other US States, as the source linked above, the US Census, states. 64.58.160.98 (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far-left revisionist fake history promoting "California genocide" BLM propaganda

[edit]

This article falsely states that "the depopulation of indigenous peoples" constituted a "California genocide." That is Marxist revisionist history promoted by the far-left Democrat media who are trying to degrade the meaning of the word "genocide." Death by smallpox is not a genocide. Real, non-politically-partisan historians know that there was no such thing as a "California genocide." 2603:8000:6400:83B5:71CD:2AA1:2970:EFF8 (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly not read about the campaigns to wipe out indigenous peoples that were undertaken by white settlers. Posses of white men would hunt down and kill Indians to get rid of them entirely. Nobody in California had heard of Marx yet when this was happening. Binksternet (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet (talk · contribs) is absolutely right; there is a well documented historiography around the California genocide that has existed far before Marx or BLM. And if you chose to read the California Genocide article, you'd see that it concerns itself with exactly what he describes: posses of white settlers out to exterminate indigenous people and government-sponsored wars against tribes, NOT about small pox or diseases... Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.) The IP editor claiming that Democrats are Marxists is laughable.
2.) There is still a serious historiographical debate on whether the atrocities were genocide or ethnic cleansing by serious scholars. (As of 2023) So I think we should be non-committal for now.
3.) As you rightfully pointed out: it definitely shouldn't be removed from the article. It's a notable and terrible part of Californian history. KlayCax (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Assertion about Men in Women's Clothing

[edit]

The section 'Indigenous' needs to change. In the start of the section, current understand of the demographics of native people says "greater than 300,000 people" in "more then 70 distinct ethnic groups". Yet the very next paragraph goes into detail with one theory of "men in women's clothing have traditional roles" and declares it to be "common". No one knows that those gender roles were "common" in California. This wording is directly misleading. It is not intellectually honest to put forward one particular theory as "common", without admitting the context or considering other theories, if not equally even in passing at all. Secondly, there were warrior tribes, and practices of slavery among some tribes. The implication is that the tribes really were diverse, including savage and cruel behavior associated with dominant hunter clans with territory. This portion of history is not mentioned at all. This section shows obvious bias, does not meet standards of fairness, accuracy and rigor.

Questionable Assertion Written in an Authoritative Way

[edit]

The section 'Etymology' needs to change. In "the origin of the name California" it is said that no one really knows how the name was picked or the origin. Yet the very next paragraph goes into detail with one theory calling it "the most likely" and spins a strange tale at length. No one knows that this is the "most likely" origin of the name California. This wording is misleading. It is not intellectually honest to put forward one particular theory as the most likely origin of the name California, without admitting the context or considering other theories, if not equally even in passing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.113 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv Region (Ukraine) and California to became twin-regions

[edit]

https://sd03.senate.ca.gov/news/20240425-legislature-approves-sen-dodd%E2%80%99s-ukraine-sister-state-measure I think it's safe to add Lviv Oblast, Ukraine to the twinned regions list. LightNovell (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

[edit]

Insert hyperlink for the word Hindi, in the demographics(languages) section. Bahavesh (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit request

[edit]

The second sentence of the article intro has a minor grammatical error. Proposed remedy:

It borders Oregon to the north, Nevada and Arizona to the east, and shares an international border with the Mexican state of Baja California to the south. 2605:59C8:30BC:6F10:7D39:C088:E451:7F84 (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California&oldid=1255426214"