Talk:History of California

Untitled

An editor hjust added a "tooshort" tag to the article. IIRC it took a lot of work to get the article this short yet comprehenisve. Could the editor expand on his view of how the article should look?   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remvoe the tag, pending a discussion on what's needed in this article.   Will Beback  talk  16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

the 'tooshort' tag says the introduction is not sufficiently descriptive of the article. An intro of a short sentence does indeed seem not sufficient. Hmains (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this thread and I think the "lead too short" still applies so I put it back. --Mcorazao (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox suggestion

I made a proposal for a change to the infobox. Please feel free to comment there.

--Mcorazao (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported statements regarding California Indians

(I am new to making comments about Wikipedia articles, so bear with me.)

I've identified the need for improvements regarding several unsupported statements, assertions, and assumptions about California Indians found in the European Exploration section, as follows:

• Unsupported statements about the dwellings in which the Indians lived.
• Unsupported statements about the clothing worn by California Indians.
• Unsupported statement "The isolation of the California tribes and the poor conditions for growing food without irrigation explains..."
• Unsupported statement "Without agriculture or migratory herds of animals or fish ..." regarding facts about animal migrations within or across California.
• No supported statements in the paragraph that begins "Basket weaving was the highest form of art and utility"

I've identified the need for improvements regarding missing information relevant to California Indians, as follows:

• No statements about the geographical distribution of Indian population in California.
• No statements about any regional differences about the dwellings in which the Indians lived.
• No statements about the diets of California Indians who did not rely primarily upon acorns.
• No statements about the diets of coastal California Indians.
• No statements about an explanation for the absence of irrigation by California Indians (especially those in Southern California), when tribes just to the southeast (Yuma area) practiced it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSholar (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments are good, but improvements are better. I hope you take it upon yourself to make some or all of the needed improvements. WCCasey (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

POV?

There is not obvious POV material in this article. POV assertions should be explained and examined here. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Section moved from article

This section is a duplicative mishmash that I can't make heads or tails of - is it supposed to be a lead section or is it just repeating everything below it? I thought I'd move it here for editing and discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Section under discussion

The early human history of California is characterized by being surrounded by barriers nearly isolating the state: the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Sierra Nevada mountains backed by the nearly barren Great Basin in the east, the Mojave Desert and Sonora Desert areas in the southern interior and Redwood–Douglas fir forests on the rugged mountainous North Coast. Many California Indian tribes were hunter-gatherers and practiced a low-intensity fire ecology which sustained a low-density agriculture; a sort of permaculture which was very unlike traditional tilling-the-earth agriculture. Trade routes connected some California tribes with the Hohokam and Chacoan cultures at different points — shells from species native to California have been found in excavations of Hohokam and Chacoan sites. After initial explorations, the Spaniards left Alta California alone for over 200 years. Relative isolation continued even after Spanish Missions, the Presidio and pueblo settlements began to be developed in 1769. The only easy communication with the rest of New Spain (Mexico) was by ship, as the Quechan (Yuma) Indians shut down the Anza Trail in 1781. This trail (discovered in 1776), across Arizona along the Gila River and the Colorado River crossing (Yuma Crossing), was the only "easy" way by land from Mexico to California. Essentially the only communication from Mexico to California was via a 30-50 day sailing ship voyage against the south bound California Current and the often opposing winds. The sailing ship trip from California to Mexico was much easier, but of course the traveler had to get to California first. Since California initially had very few settlers and essentially no exports and could afford only a very few imports for its few inhabitants, ships to and from California were few. The average number of ships going to Alta California from 1770 to 1821 was 2.5 ships/year, with 13 years showing no recorded ships. The small number of ships meant that few new residents arrived, so that increases in the Californio population were nearly all due to internal growth of the original settlers. After Mexico gained its independence from Spain and acquired the Province of Alta California in 1821, the Californios started developing approximately 500 large (over 18,000 acres (73 km2) each) Ranchos of California. Most were granted on former Mission lands, given for little or no money to friends and family of the California authorities. The Californios lived mostly on their ranchos or at the five pueblos (towns) in California. These ranchos raised cattle, sheep, horses and other livestock that more or less raised themselves. The Californios did little work themselves, relying on the former Mission Indians to do the vast majority of all agricultural work including sowing and harvesting of crops, irrigation, cattle herding, fence building, building construction, laundry, cleaning, cooking, etc. Nearly all male Californios rode to wherever they were going at all times, making them excellent riders. They indulged in many fiestas, fandangos, rodeos and roundups as the rancho owners often went from rancho to rancho on a large horse bound party circuit. Weddings, christenings, funerals and other church activities were all celebrated with large gatherings. California in this period has been described as a large unfenced pasture. The only fences were those required to protect crops from cows or horses eating or trampling them. The hides and tallow produced by the ranchos finally gave the Californio residents something to trade. A few ships a year brought manufactured goods like glass windows, nails, hinges, fancy shawls, boots, elaborate belts, capes etc. from Boston, Massachusetts and Britain to California and exchanged them for their hide-and-tallow "crop". By 1846 the mostly American whaling industry was being developed in the Pacific Ocean, again leading to a few whaling ships stopping in California for fresh water, wood and vegetables they could get in exchange for a few trade goods. Most Pacific whaling ships stopped at the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) which had over 100 whaling vessels temporarily based there by 1845. To avoid the high custom duties (tariffs) of 40-100% imposed by the Californio authorities in Monterey, California, many preferred to first land in the San Francisco Bay area to get the most for their imported trading goods. Smuggling and bribery were common. Starting about 1825 the Mission Indian population started decreasing rapidly, as Indian deaths far exceeded births. The various acquired diseases and abuse of the Mission Indian population caused them to decline from over 80,000 in 1820 to only a few thousand by 1846. This process was sped up when in 1834–1836 the Mexican government, responding to complaints that the Catholic Church owned too much land (over 90% of all settled land in California), secularized (dismantled) the Missions and essentially turned the Indians loose to survive on their own. Most of the Indians went from doing unpaid labor at the Missions to doing unpaid labor as servants in the pueblos or workers on the ranchos. Other Indians returned to small Indian settlements in the sparsely settled Central Valley and Sierra Mountains of California. As the Mission Indians rapidly declined in population and the Missions were dismantled, most of the agriculture, orchards, vineyards, etc. which had been raised by the Mission Indians rapidly declined. By 1850 the Hispanic (Spanish speaking) population had grown to about 9,000 with about 1,500-2,000 adult males. By 1846 there were about 2,000 emigrant non-Hispanics (nearly all adult men) with from 60,000 to 90,000 California Indians throughout the state. Beginning in about 1844 the California Trail was established and started bringing new settlers to California as its relative isolation started to break. The Mexican–American War began in May 1846, and the few marines and bluejacket sailors of the Pacific Squadron and the California Battalion of volunteer militia had California under U. S. control by January 1847, as all the pueblos in California surrendered without firing a shot. In February 1848 the war was over, the 25 years of Mexican rule with over 40 different Mexican Presidents was over, and the boundary disputes with Texas and the territorial acquisition of what would become several new states were settled with a $15,000,000 payment agreed at the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The California Gold Rush, beginning in January 1848, increased California's non Indian, non-Hispanic population to over 100,000 by 1850. This increased population and prosperity eventually led to the Congressional Compromise of 1850 which admitted California in 1850 as a free state—the 31st. See also: Spanish Missions of California, Maritime history of California, California Trail, Californio, California Battalion, Pacific Squadron, California Gold Rush, Women in the California Gold Rush

Nuke it. Someone spammed a bunch of crap like this all over California place articles. I've been dealing with it as I can, but haven't gotten here yet. It's perfectly well covered in the small section that remains along with the Main article template link that's there. I hope you don't mind that I collapsed it, but it's so long... Feel free to uncollapse, of course, if you'd prefer.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Some parts of that text serve to summarize relevant article text, per WP:LEAD These parts should be retained to build the lead back up to proper size. Everything else should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding large chunks of text added to this article, there's this March 2012 addition by User:Yo lenin1 who mostly based the text off of a college syllabus published online by professor Chuck Smith of lil' ol' Cabrillo College: http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/anth6_syllabus.html

There's also an April 2011 big text addition by Special:Contributions/24.5.250.93 who cited some sources but also left many paragraphs uncited. This IP editor from Dublin, California, is very busy in California subjects, adding lots of text with less concern than I would wish for expressing ideas succinctly. The same IP filled the intro up with this mass in March 2011; I think this is most of what puzzled NorthBySouthBaranof and dismayed Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Other dubious contributions by 24.5.250.93 include this small one, this troubling change to the intro, this removal of cited text plus a large text addition, this huge addition, these two sizable additions from November 2010, and at the very beginning, these sweeping changes from October 2010. The IP editor gets a lot of facts right, verifiable from standard histories, but sometimes wanders off into fringe territory, or adds unneeded details that are not part of the mainstream consensus—details that do not help our poor hurried reader economize on his or her time. In the worst cases the Dublin IP editor gets certain 'facts' utterly wrong. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I see that I commented as long ago as 2011 [4] that the lead had "gotten completely out of hand" but I didn't know how to deal with it; I kind of washed my hands of the article. My bad. Let's do this: let's first agree here on what should be covered in the lead (which is supposed to summarize the contents of the article and should be a couple of paragraphs), and then we can write up a proper lead section. Examples of what should be mentioned (and I do mean just mentioned): Native Americans, European exploration and colonization, Mexican revolution, US annexation, statehood, Gold Rush, transcontinental railroad, post-War growth - what else? --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How about the Russian trappers and their Fort Ross? The California hide trade. There is a lot of misunderstanding about pre-contact agriculture, so maybe we mention the sustainable practices of the early people. The high population density of pre-contact California, holding 1/3rd of all natives living in what would later be the 48 contiguous states. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll undertake the writing of a proper lead but I think it should wait until the article itself is cleaned up; the lead is supposed to summarize the article's contents, and we would need to know what we are summarizing! --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

not sure why youre hatin on me. most of what i added seems to have been conserved in the form of a new section, and everything was sourced and verified.--Yo lenin1 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Dublin IP editor contributions

See discussion above. I think 24.5.250.93 has added too much material to this article, both too much detail and too much unsupported, unverifiable text. We should start over with this article as it existed before the IP editor began working on it. Here is the diff of October 3, 2010 to right now: [5]. The article was 24kb then but now it is 100kb. Some middle ground must be reached.

I believe this same person is now operating as 24.4.47.82, especially evident in the contribution history of the Livermore, California, article. Other articles affected by the Dublin editor's too-large additions include Maritime history of California, Tariffs in United States history, Excise tax in the United States, Tariff, California Trail, Californio, SS California (1848), Battle of Monterey, Thomas Cavendish, Women in the California Gold Rush, Oregon Trail, Panama Canal, Panama Canal Railway, British Agricultural Revolution, Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, Conquest of California and Central Overland Route. The editor tried to rewrite History of California to 1899 but was stopped by two other editors and myself. In April 2011, the editor tried to rewrite California Gold Rush but was stopped by Hmains and Owen. An initiative is needed to determine which IP contributions are verifiable and which ones are appropriate weight and detail for an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are proposing to undo all editing since October 2010? That's pretty drastic. It would undo all the junk edits, but also all the positive edits, of which there have been many during that time. But it's probably easier to do that (and then look back through the history and restore the valuable edits) than to try to rewrite the current mess. I endorse this idea but I'd like to hear from a few more people before it is done. Maybe we should invite comment at relevant WikiProjects; one of the causes of the problem is that this page has few watchers. --MelanieN (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just posted a link to this discussion at the various California WikiProjects. We need more input here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much communication with this editor on his Talk Page. Wouldn't that be the place to start? Also, I would simply remove any information without sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the best way to go about this is to look at the articles edited, and look at the content which is not verified by a reliable source. Then interested editors can attempt to find reliable sources to support the content, or remove it outright per WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dividing it up

What is the point of this 2-part split?

Better divide Californian history into about eight periods, and do a full-length article on each. Then simply put the eight lede sections together, and let that be your single article titled 'History of California'. Valetude (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Intriguing proposal. Can you flesh it out with suggestions for the sub-articles? Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For example:

1. Pre-colonial 2. Spanish Era 3. Mexican Era 4. American State 5. The Railroad Age 6. Industrialisation 7. Silicon Valley 8. Immigration pressures Valetude (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Where would you put the growth of the orange industry? Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

At whichever historical stage you feel it became significant. Of course, you could re-theme the whole series (Fur trappers, Film industry etc). But I think people prefer the straight sequential style in an article titled 'History of...' Valetude (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Francis Drake

Francis Drake not really revelant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.30.138 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree. Drake established the first English contact in what would become the USA. The first service of the Church of England was there. The first exchange of Chinese goods was there. This is now a National Historic Landmark. Including Drake is important to an overview of California history.MikeVdP (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331220353/http://www.sfgov.org/site/visitor_index.asp?id=8091 to http://www.sfgov.org/site/visitor_index.asp?id=8091
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004055802/http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgpop.htm to http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgpop.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111207115225/http://www.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=1617 to http://www.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=1617

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026054357/http://ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html to http://ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100128022726/http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1849/full-text.htm to http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1849/full-text.htm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65cUaXQm8?url=http://www.sell-oldgold.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi to http://www.sell-oldgold.com/articles/Mining-Communities-in-the-1849-Gold-Rush.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927024843/http://www.maderatribune.com/life/lifeview.asp?c=100216 to http://www.maderatribune.com/life/lifeview.asp?c=100216
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102074700/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Vizcaino

Vizcaino is believed to have entered Drakes Bay seeking any remaining cargo from Cermeño's lost San Austin. The article should be updated.MikeVdP (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, if true. Provide a reliable, verifiable source for this claim. WCCasey (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:History of California for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:History of California is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:History of California until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

Francis Drake section

There's been some recent editing and trimming of this section. It read

The English explorer and privateer Francis Drake sailed south along the coast of northern California in 1579 after capturing two Spanish treasure ships in the Pacific. It is believed Drake put ashore somewhere north of San Francisco, where the Golden Hind underwent extensive repairs and accumulated needed supplies for a trip across the Pacific. The exact location of Drake's port is still undetermined, but a prominent bay on the California coast, Drakes Bay, bears his name. He claimed all the land south of 42 degrees latitude, north of the imprecise Spanish claims and eastward from coast to coast for England, calling it Nova Albion. Spanish maps and explorations were generally not published, being regarded as state secrets. As was typical in this era, there were conflicting claims to the same territory, and the indigenous peoples who lived there were never consulted.

User:Rjensen removed the mention of Drake’s Bay and the sentence at the end about indigenous people. After I restored them, he removed them again, with the edit summary drop unsourced claims and unintended suggestion that he landed in Drake Bay. I contend that it makes no sense to mention him without even mentioning Drake’s Bay (whether or not he landed there, it is named for him), and as for unsourced claims, the entire paragraph is unsourced. Shall we delete it all?

What started the attention to this section is that user:Hu Nhu replaced the entire section with this completely different version:

Historian Dr. John Sugden, after reviewing numerous proposed Drake landing sites, observed, "No aspect of Drake's career has suffered more false leads than the site of Nova Albion." Sugden concludes that "the evidence overwhelmingly favours Drake's Estero in Drakes Bay" and that "it is high time the United States register of National Historic Landmarks officially recognized Drake's Estero as the Elizabethan anchorage."Prior to Drake's voyage, the western coast of North America had only been partially explored in 1542 by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo who sailed for Spain. So, intending to avoid further conflict with Spain, Drake navigated northwest of Spanish presence and sought discreet site at which the crew could prepare for the journey back to England.

On 5 June 1579, the ship briefly made first landfall at South Cove,Cape Arago, just south of Coos Bay, Oregon, and then sailed south while searching for a suitable harbour to repair his ailing ship. On 17 June, Drake and his crew found a protected cove when they landed on the Pacific coast of what is now Northern California. While ashore, he claimed the area for Queen Elizabeth I as Nova Albion or New Albion. To document and assert his claim, Drake posted an engraved plate of brass to claim sovereignty for Elizabeth and every successive English monarch. After erecting a fort and tents ashore, the crew labored for several weeks as they prepared for the circumnavigating voyage ahead by careening their ship, Golden Hind, so to effectively clean and repair the hull. Drake had friendly interactions with the Coast Miwok and explored the surrounding land by foot. When his ship was ready for the return voyage, Drake and the crew left New Albion on 23 July and paused his journey the next day when anchoring his ship at the Farallon Islands where the crew hunted seal meat.

Sources

I reverted that edit, saying it is too drastic a change, but let’s discuss it. IMO it is too argumentative and does not recognize the existence of controversy, and also contains possibly too much detail. And if we use the first part about Sugden it should go later in the paragraph, in a discussion about where he landed. But at least this version is sourced, heavily so, unlike the current paragraph. Maybe we can utilize that material, and work out some kind of merger or compromise wording? I think I can work with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots of places/things are named after Drake and that belongs in the Drake article not in this history of the entire state. see Francis Drake#Cultural impact POV complaints about the Indians not being consulted reflect the editor's personal values not the European explorations. Rjensen (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:RjensenUser:MelanieN. Oh, my. I certainly did not mean to create a problem here, and I clearly have. I did intend to replace the entire section; however, I did not intend to replace it exactly as I did. I erred when I cut and paste from the New Albion error and did not notice it when I previewed the edits. The New Albion article is in the queue (it was recently given GA status) for Did You Know. I updated many articles to reflect consistently with contents of the New Albion article.

I propose this.

National Historic Landmark commemorating and honoring Sir Francis Drake, Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño, and Coast Miwok people at Point Reyes, California

English explorer, Francis Drake, after successfully sacking Spanish towns and plundering Spanish ships along their eastern Pacific coast colonies, sought safe harbour to prepare his ship, Golden Hind, for circumnavigations back to England. He found it on 17 June 1579, when he and his crew landed on the Pacific coast at what is now Point Reyes in Northern California. While encamped there, he had friendly relations with the Coast Miwok people who inhabited the area near his landing. Naming the area Nova Albion, or New Albion, he claimed sovereignty of the area for Elizabeth I of England. To document and assert his claim, Drake posted an engraved plate of brass to claim sovereignty for Elizabeth and every successive English monarch. Sailing away on 23 July Drake eventually circumnavigated the globe and returned to England in September 1580.

Sources

In many ways I agree with your objections and comments and hope this adequately addresses. There are two points of slight controversy which the main article, New Albion addresses: uncertain status as a privateer and the existence of fringe theories regarding alternative locations. Additionally, the accompanying photograph is from information that is decades newer than the current article image and so should be included.

Also, as I am unfamiliar with the initials, IMO. What do they mean? I look forward to your reponses.Hu Nhu (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

MUCH better. A remaining problem is that too much of the proposed text is not about California--it's all covered in the Drake article--that's where readers can go to discover what he was doing in California and where he went afterwards. One footnote should be enough. SPACE is an issue and we have LOTS of history to cover in this one article. IMO = in my opinion.  :) Rjensen (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hu Nhu and Rjensen, I appreciate the ability to talk about this and I'm sure we will come up with a much improved section - in particular by the addition of references. I will come back and work on it when I have a little more time. As for Drake's Bay, I really don't think we can ignore the recognition by the National Park Service! And as for "SPACE is an issue", if space is an issue we might want to do something about the paragraphs and paragraphs about native lifestyles in the Cabrillo section. Is there a "main article" we could link to for most of it? But that's for another day. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review User:RjensenUser:MelanieN. I have a much better understanding of the initial criticism. Your thoughts about the following? If you find it satisfactory, I'll post it.

Main article: New Albion

National Historic Landmark commemorating and honoring Sir Francis Drake, Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño, and Coast Miwok people at Point Reyes, California

English explorer, Francis Drake, after successfully sacking Spanish towns and plundering Spanish ships along their eastern Pacific coast colonies, sought safe harbour to prepare his ship, Golden Hind, for circumnavigation back to England. He found it on 17 June 1579, when he and his crew landed on the Pacific coast at what is now Point Reyes in Northern California. While encamped there, he had friendly relations with the Coast Miwok and claimed sovereignty of the area for Elizabeth I of England as Nova Albion, or New Albion.

Sources

Hu Nhu (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I recommend: English explorer, Francis Drake, on 17 June 1579, landed at what is now Point Reyes in Northern California. [1] He had friendly relations with the Coast Miwok and claimed sovereignty of the area England as Nova Albion, or New Albion. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rjensen, I really don't think we need to trim it that drastically. Even the full original paragraph was not too much IMO. Hu Nhu, thanks, and congrats on your Good Article. I'm mostly OK with your suggestion (which I prefer to Rjensen's), but I'm not sure what "their eastern Pacific Coast colonies" means. It's confusing to Americans who think of that area as the West Coast, not the Eastern Pacific (although of course it is that too). How about something like this: "After attacking Spanish towns and ships along the Pacific Coast during 1578 and 1579, he sought a safe harbor north of the Spanish settlements where he could prepare his ship, Golden Hind, for circumnavigations back to England. He found it...." After all, his attacks up and down the Pacific Coast are also part of California history! As for a mention of Drake's Bay in the text, which I wanted, I have changed my mind. The picture of the plaque makes the point adequately. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and we don't need the "main article New Albion" tag. The link in the text is enough. When I asked about a "main article" tag, I was wondering if there was material elsewhere about native lifestyles, which could replace the extensive descriptions in the Cabrillo section above this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

HelloUser:MelanieN and User:Rjensen. Yes, it is good to chat with both of you regarding this edit. As a historical note, I'd like you to know that Drake sacked his last settlement, Guatulco, which is in southern Mexico before sailing northwest into the Pacific, then east to the Oregon coast, and then south along the coast to Point Reyes. No attacks were anywhere near California, and I'd like to avoid that possible misunderstanding. I believe this might bring everyone together. The reference is correct for the entire paragraph and I'll leave off the main article tag. I appreciate the kind attention you've been giving this--especially as the DYK post will be in a few hours. Perhaps we are able to resolve this before inquiry into the article begins.

After successfully sacking Spanish towns and plundering Spanish ships along their New World, Pacific coast colonies, English explorer Francis Drake landed at what is now Point Reyes in Northern California on 17 June 1579. He had friendly relations with the Coast Miwok and claimed sovereignty of the area England as Nova Albion, or New Albion.

Sources

Hu Nhu (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I actually preferred your more extended version (only with "Pacific coast" instead of "eastern Pacific coast"). He needed a harbor to repair his ship and found one in California, what's wrong with including that? And the date of his landing? I think it's important, this is a history article after all. And I don't think "New World" adds anything here. Let's keep tweaking it, we are working well together and I think we will come up with something everyone agrees with. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and of course this article uses American English: June 17, 1579 rather than 17 June 1579; harbor rather than harbour. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

HelloUser:MelanieN and User:Rjensen. The New World, Pacific coast colonies is to differentiate from their colonies in the Philippines which are also in the Pacific. New World, Pacific adds specificity and also precludes their New World colonies elsewhere. The only Spanish colonies--including Pacific coast colonies--to which Drake traveled were those in the New World.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. How about "their Pacific Coast colonies in the Americas"? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

HelloUser:MelanieN and User:Rjensen. This is an outstanding suggestion. I will make the changes and post the new edit. I appreciate the kind attention, thoughtful ideas, and pleasant cooperation of everyone involved in the discussion.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Which new edit? I still prefer your longer version (your next-to-last proposal) over the minimal version that Rjensen proposed - which you seemed to adopt with your later, shorter version. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

the text is about California--it is NOT about Drake--it's about the date of first european explorer to visit. anyone interested in Drake can learn much more in one click to Drake article. Space on him removes space devoted to California topics. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsensical article redundancy

I just noticed that this article is simply a slightly less detailed version of History of California before 1900 with a single paragraph summarizing 1901–present. I propose that we merge this and the "before 1900" article, and then make this page a redirect to California#History.

One day, when these articles are full of quality information and sources, we can decide to create an intermittent version, but right now there's way too much work to do to get things up to par. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

History. California

Your statement that LA grew rapidly needs to changed to postwar sunbelt migration. I believe SF grew rapidly as the first settlement. Also the German, Italian and Portuguese families established key agricultural colonies and churches. They did not leave after harvest to go go home.

You need to rewrite this to explain the systemic process. 2607:FB91:480:E01D:8DCC:374D:E53E:7014 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

US invasion vs Californio rebellion

The article makes a claim that the Californios rose up against Mexico. The source is some tripod page. Most books make no such claim. The bear flag partisans were not californios, but Americans, under leadership (unofficial) of American military. 184.190.145.231 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1836 alvarado flag.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Add Detailed Map of California in 1876

California in 1876 by SB Linton

This is a highly detailed map of California and Nevada in 1876 by SB Linton. I think it should be added to the page, because it shows what California was like lots of interesting details. However, the chapters appear to end in the 1850s. Information about on the page about the decades between 1860 and 1900 are missing. -Artanisen (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)