Talk:California

GDP comparisons don't sound correct

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 46,858 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).

Additionally, the idea that California's GDP is larger than all other US states combine is ridiculous. Texas and New York (the next two largest) are in the neighborhood of $2.45 trillion, as opposed to California's $1.94 trillion. Hardly larger than all other US states combined.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitae drinker (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 December 2012

Additionally the claim that California has a larger GDP (PPP) than India and Russia is verifiably untrue - in fact it's less than half of India's GDP at purchasing power parity, please correct these — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicdb (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 May 2013

Are there reliable sources that can verify the statement above?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

World Stage

I think there could be more detail on California's international diplomacy efforts and other efforts to influence the world (such as through the recent California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)). California's international efforts go back at least to 1998, and a good article that summaarizes the history of these efforts through 1998 is Dave Lesher (January 8, 1998). "Golden and Global California". Los Angeles Times. p. 1. Retrieved October 28, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX, if anything is added it needs to be balanced including criticism of the legislation. Moreover, it already has its own article, and need not be included in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

California is a leader in certain ways, but it is a sub-unit of the USA and not its own country with a diplomatic corps or ambassadors. Instead, the California governor or similar high-ranking person may choose to promote the state "diplomatically" on the world stage, or to promote ideas that reflect well upon the state, being that the state has some expertise to offer in that enterprise.

In general, I think such a section would be too easily made into a pep rally promoting California rather than an encyclopedic analysis of the success or failure of such endeavors. I don't think it is necessary to bring such a section into this article. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

True, and don't forget that such promotion and other diplomatic efforts by state governors both inside (e.g. Chris Christie visiting Israel) and outside[1] the US is not unique. There's nothing particularly notable about California's manifestation of it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013

In the Immigration part of the Demographics section, the article refers to immigrants coming from "Mexican Countries". This seems to be lumping in all of Latin America to Mexico. I suggest that this is changed to "Latin American Countries". JaimzCC (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Now changed. Thank you for pointing that out. AlexiusHoratius 00:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mexico as a bordering country

The introduction mentions Oregon, Nevada and Arizona as bordering states, but completely ignores the border to Mexico. I think that should be changed 2001:630:12:242C:89D8:6C09:5D33:F6D5 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Mo

It certainly should. A model to draw on is Texas, which says "Texas shares an international border with the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas to the south, and borders the U.S. states of New Mexico to the west, Oklahoma to the north, Arkansas to the northeast and Louisiana to the east." Suitably Wikilinked, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling correction

in the article San Francisco is listed as having the "21th" largest airport. Please change this to 21st. Thanks Zeppelincheetah (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting that. AlexiusHoratius 13:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit needed

There is an edit needed in the Politics section. The number of total registered voters is the same as the Democratic voters. The total registered voters should read 18,245,970 according to the existing reference link. Mswan57 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Almonds are chief exports

I would like to add a bit about how California exports a LOT of almonds. It is their chief agricultural export and there is no mention in the article. Here is a video about it from the Almond Board of CA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6-upla2Fr8

Unfortunately, youtube is not often considered a reliable source in and of itself, and the Almond Board of CA isn't necessarily a reliable source, so if a reliable source can be found to state that almonds are the largest exported item from California, then we would consider it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This article here states that it's the states largest agricultural export item, and this source from the Census Bureau says that it's the 6th largest export of California, by value.

If the content is added, it should be added to the agriculture section, or to the almond article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Various sources describe California as being the world's leading almond exporter, supplying about 80%[2] to 85%[3] of Global demand in 1993, not counting the nuts eaten in California and the rest of the US. There was a big expansion period starting in the 1960s. Surprisingly, the almond industry relies to a large degree on pollination supplied by bees that are trucked around the US depending on which crop is flowering. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if we are going to include this, it should be along with the top ten other exported products of the state in the economy section. Otherwise, if we are only going to state that almonds are the state's chief agricultural export, it might be better in the sub-article Economy of California.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. A list of top ten agricultural products by cash value would be perfect in the Economy section, at the agriculture paragraph. Or if a list of aggie plus non-ag exports can be put together, such a list could be its own paragraph pertaining to exports. This list of CDFA stats could be useful. This USDA report from 2011 puts the top ten aggie products in this order by cash value: 1) milk and cream 2) shelled almonds 3) grapes 4) cattle & calves 5) nursery 6) berries and strawberries 7) hay 8) lettuce 9) walnuts 10) tomatoes. Very few reliable reports exist to gauge the relative value of marijuana growing in California, but some observers put it in the top ten. NORML puts it at the very top of the list [4] and Time magazine agreed with that assessment in 2009.[5] The official reports do not include this shadow crop. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets be consistent and not include marijuana, otherwise it could be WP:SYNTH. If there was a paragraph on the economy of illegal drugs (although marijuana is legal in California for medical purposes only), then I can see a mention of marijuana's value to the economy, but otherwise, IMHO it is out of place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the top three products from the USDA source, if we want to include the top ten, I am not opposed to it; but why only list the top ten agricultural products?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs Update

Prop 8 has now been overturned by the federal courts and gay marriages are now legal. Correct, US Supreme did not overturn prop 8, the Federal District Court did, and the US Supreme held that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked standing ... same result, gay marriages are now legal in CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.202.40 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)