Talk:Northern California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] "Northern California" has no meaning?

Re: the reversion by Hike395 "revert: if it doesn't have a meaning, why do people 1) refer to it constantly and 2) we have an article on it?"

Not having INHERENT meaning is very, very different from having NO meaning. I would love to see this article directly address the questions you pose. Why do people construct a divide between northern and southern California?
What is "inherent" meaning? I strikes me as a very POV-laden term: some people may find "inherent" meaning in something, while others do not. I think we should avoid including this in the article entirely, unless we can describe who thinks about the "inherent" meaning of Northern California, and why. hike395 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, you just proved my point. You are saying the article should just arbitrarily assume a definition of Northern California without explaining or justifying it! The fact remains that there is no place officially called "Northern California." The term is entirely subjective! Rather than address this issue, or examine the reasons why people would want to divide our state into two, this article is little more than a homage to what some individuals see as their glorious northern Californian homeland. At the least, this article should say WHY the line between north and south is being drawn where it is. For instance, why is Fresno, which is physically SOUTH of the geographic north-south halfway point of California, supposedly in "Northern California?" Address that, and we'd have an interesting article! Udibi 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a Northern California just like there's an Upstate New York or Upstate Michigan, or a Panhandle in Texas. Where to draw the line is a bit of an argument, which this article addresses adequately.Kmmontandon 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems pretty simple to me. There is general Northern California, which means everything that isn't Southern California, and then I suppose if you are speaking of all the various regions, there is really northern california, which I guess would be Humboldt et al. It's not about a geographic halfway point or anything as absurd as that. It's about culturally/economically/socially distinct regions. All the other regions of California have more in common with each other than they do with Southern California. (And i suppose the thing they have most in common is loathing southern california :-p ). Novium 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is a cut-and-dry half-way point upsurd? It is far more logical than some arbitrary boundary based upon supposed differences in culture. 75.37.144.221 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the purpose. If the purpose is to assign all of the state to one of two regions, as in proposals to split the state, an arbitrary line is necessary, preferably one following existing administrative divisions. For culture or geology, it may be different. For any perspective emphasizing the Central California regions, they are regions of their own. The discussion has to distinguish different division for different purposes. --JWB (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern California or California??

Most of the history in this article is about California rather than Northern California. Shouldn't this info appear in the California article rather than here? I think an exploration of the history of the term "Northern California" would make for a stronger article. Why are people dividing the state into north and south? Why not east and west? What are the cultural and political forces behind the use of the term? Has the definition of north and south changed over time? Are the regions today as distinct as they once were? Udibi 02:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As a San Franciscan, I think I should inform you about this. There is most certainly a boundary between the two, for a variety of geographical, climatic and most signifigantly, cultural reasons. First of all, while most of Northern California is fairly wet, most of Southern California is desert, as a result Southern California takes a large portion of Northern California's water (when there is a water crisis us Northerners are hit harder) leading to a lot of animosity between Northern and Southern California. Secondly, the cultures between both regions are extremley different. The typical Californian stereotype is that of an Southerners, that whole Valley Girl thing is Southern, that whole palm tree thing is Southern, and Southern California has a much more materialistic feel. Northern California, on the other hand, containsa the SF finnacial dstrict, and Northern Californians tend to be much more enviromentally oriented (as nearly all of californias famous scenic areas are in the North). Of course a lot can be said for Dodgers v. Giants. As to your question of history, a lot of California's history has happened in Northern California (Gold Rush, Bear Flag Revolt, etc...). i hope you can get from my tone alone how strong a rivalry there exists between the North and South. And as to your question about east-west, well, California often is, but the distinction loses its boldness North and South of the Sierra, as the Eastern Sierra (owens valley, mono lake) has a very distinct culture, but overall likes to be associated with Northern California as a result of the Water Wars. I hope this answers your question.

After reading the whole article, I have to agree. Half or more is standard California history predating the modern north-south division. There is little material about the present region or concept. --JWB (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that many people in the northern part of California indulge in stereotypes about themselves and about the southern part of the state still does not create a real, existent place called Northern California. What it does is further highlight what I have been commenting all along: Rather than give a history of all of California and present it has a history of NORTHERN California, a more meaningful article would address the animosity that some people in San Francisco and surroundings have for people further south, and examine the regionalism that it has apparently created. I am not saying that northern California isn't an interesting subject to discuss, but to merely pretend it is its own official entity and create an article AS IF there were a STATE of Northern California isn't adding to mankind's body of knowledge. Rather than a disclaimer or brief mention, the BULK of the article should be about the NOTION of a Northern California.
One could just as easily argue that there is a costal California and an inland California. You seem to forget that most of "Northern" California inland and north of the Bay Area tends to be, in comparison, politically conservative. It is not hard to find people there who deride both SF and LA EQUALLY as bastions of pinko-liberalism.
Still, as for the profound cultural differences between the different regions of our state.... try going to the Old World (Asia, Europe, Africa). There, if you go from one valley to the next, you will often find remarkable differences in dialect, architecture, cuisine, traditions, what have you. WHAT profound differenes of this type exist between southern and northern California? We all live in similar urban sprawl (urban areas of the city of San Francisco, and downtown LA being the exceptions), and like most Americans the majority of us live an automobile-oriented lifestyle. We eat the same food food, we shop at the same chain stores, we wear the same clothing, we speak the same language with the same accent (throwing "Hella" into your sentences doesn't make for a dialect, and Valley Girls were a film-created fad intended for consumption in the Midwest that went out of style in 1982).
For the record, the stereotypes you quote are not only just that - stereotypes - they're outdated. The factual basis on which they derive has not been true for decades. As for this "strong rivalry" - the only time I have heard it is when I've been in San Francisco. I have yet to hear anyone in LA or San Diego (disclosure: I am from LA and used to live in San Diego) ever compare themselves to San Francisco or the northern part of California, nor have I heard anyone "down here" talk about those areas in disparaging terms. In my opinion, it is a one-sided rivalry. To end with my own cheap shot (please indulge me here)... there is a paradigm in advertising that if you have to compare your product to another brand and constantly tell people that you are better, you clearly are not. If the competitor doesn't even mention you, it only solidifies your status as second-best. Udibi (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue at hand is not one of rivalry, which you seemed determined to believe. As far as this article is concerned, the issue is purely one of geo-cultural identification. No talk of "who's better" or any such nonsense, just identifying a perceived division between two regions, some of which is based on very solid geological/cultural differences, and much of which is purely psychological - the latter of which is no less valid than the former.
It is stupid to talk about which is better, Northern or Southern, but keep in mind that that's not what the article is trying to do, and any entries along those lines can simply be edited out.Kmmontandon (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I am not expressing myself effectively. The rivalry you are referring to is my rebuttal to the previous entry. My PERSONAL belief is that there is no real reason for a rivalry and that we would all be better off if everyone spent their energy on something constructive, rather than on trying to create distinctions between us.
Let me try to break it down and maybe my point will come across better:
Fact 1) There is no place officially known as Northern California. As such it is a construct. That does NOT mean that it does not exist or that it doesn't have meaning. What that DOES mean is that it is a distinction which may exist in people's minds, but it is one that does not have hard, factual, irrefutable, on-the-ground existence.
Fact 2) The geographic and cultural differences between Northern and Southern California are hardly earth-shattering. Both the northern and the southern parts of California have the same language, the same dialect, the same dress, the same cuisine, the same (state) government and laws, the same economic system, a very similar overall built environment, many similar climate zones, the same educational system, a similar ethnic mix, etc., etc., etc. Greater Los Angeles and the Bay Area, the urban centers of each region, USED to be politically contrasting in that LA was more-or-less politically conservative while the San Francisco area was typically liberal. Even this distinction has faded away. Please, go and check any election from the past two decades - you will see that both areas vote very similarly.
Fact 3) This article pretends that there is an official political entity of Northern California and simply proceeds to tell the story of all of California and packages it as Northern California.
A simple test for anything included in this article would be to ask: Does it contribute to my understanding of NORTHERN California as opposed to all of California?
Please take a moment to read the article for Southern California. It is a much better encyclopedia article (and I say that without having contributed to it at all). It includes a very appropriate analysis of the boundaries of Southern California. At no point does it try to pass off California history as some kind of unique Southern California history. Really the entire "History" section of the Northern California article should be deleted - it is too long and does not contribute meaningful understanding that does not apply to California as a whole. I would cut out the section, but realize that I would step on quite a few toes by doing so. Udibi (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that much of the History section should simply be removed and folded into the main California history article(s).
I'd also like to see a mention of the more significant of the various 26 proposals for splitting California in two (or three or four) pieces. Plus a link to List of U.S. state secession proposals.
Yet another worthy mention here would be language differences such as the practice of saying "Five" in NorCal when talking about Interstate 5. SoCal says "The Five". Of course there would be a link to California English. I'll give it some thought. Binksternet (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually saying "THE Five" is more of an LA thing. In San Diego, they also say "Five" or "I-Five." That is therefore not a completely reliable indicator of northern or southern California origin. Udibi (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the split proposals should be mentioned only briefly. At the least, they are equally applicable to Southern and Northern California, and are a topic about California as a whole. Interestingly, nobody mentions one of the main original motivations for having a single state in the first place, which was to deny the South the possibility of another slave state. --JWB (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My two cents - the current History section follows a standard pattern from what I can see - "What are the historical events that took place within the boundaries of the region being discussed." If you look at American history, Chinese history or other history sections, a description of historical events which took place within the boundaries of the region is a staple. In addition, events which took place outside the region, but which had an impact within the region also are appropriate. Hence, I'm a bit puzzled why the current History section (historical events within the region + external events with an effect on the region) should be deleted.

Many of the comments about additional topics are really quite interesting, and most (if not all) deserve a paragraph or two (or more) to be added to the article. The current history section does seem to stop at about 1850, and many of the topics suggested do have modern tone to them.

A suggested litmus test ("include only what would not be contained in the article about the larger region") doesn't sound familiar to me. Would that test mean, for example, that there couldn't be a discussion of the '06 Fire and Earthquake in the San Francisco article because that event would also be covered in California history article? Might it also mean that there couldn't be a discussion of the Boston Tea Party in the Massachusetts history article, because that event would also be covered in the American history article? That strikes me, at least, as a bit unusual of an approach.

My suggestion, please do add on the quite interesting suggested topics, but there doesn't seem to be any basis for deleting the current section. Instead use the current bare bones History section as a framework to add supplements that add more "local color" or detail, and add supplementary material to discuss more modern events. NorCalHistory (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new sub-heading to encourage people to add post-1848 events. NorCalHistory (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There most certainly are "official" definitions/boundaries for Northern California, although not necessarily those suggested by the article. Take a look at the map of the United States District Court regions and you'll see a very sensible and reasonable division of California into four districts, Southern, Central, Northern and Eastern. I agree that mindless stereotyping of regions based on some supposed rivalry is a waste of time. But Northern California is a distinct region, recognized in many ways, and not simply a secessionist fantasy. 70.231.255.160 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
NorCalHistory: I understand your point about my notion of a litmus test, and can only say that there may sometimes a fine line between what is superfluous duplication of information about California History, and what would be a meaningful addition to the Northern California article. Your example of the SF earthquake is interesting. I think the key difference is that it would not be redundant in a SF article because the SF earthquake did not have the same impact for ALL of California, or even in areas relatively close to SF. While the earthquake was certainly important to all of California, it was obviously much more important to San Francisco itself. I think the difference is that a California History article would not cover the earthquake in the same depth as a San Francisco history article would.
In contrast, if you devote sections of the Northern California History section to the standard California history of Native Americans, Spanish Rule, Mexican Rule, Sutter’s Mill, American Settlers, Statehood, the Gold Rush, etc. it isn't really information that is going to be unique to this article - it's going to be redundant. I think you would agree that there is enough to say about Northern California that could make for a long article. Even if for no other reason than efficiency, I would suggest we focus on topics and details that aren't going to be found in the same form in other articles. On Wikipedia, related articles are only a mouse click away, after all. In my opinion, if an historical event is also true, or is equally important for, Southern California, it should probably only get brief mention in the Northern California article - it will be covered in the California History Article(s). The difficult thing, I think, in writing a history for Northern California is that it is a large region that covers half the state, and which - just to make things really interesting - doesn't have 100% set-in-stone boundaries. As such, it is hard to distinguish what is Northern Californian and what is simply Californian.
My personal thought is that I would mention things such as the fact that the missions extended only as far as Sonoma, and that areas north of there were basically outside of sphere of Spanish rule during the colonial period. I would probably also mention something about Sir Francis Drake landing in Northern California and declaring New Albion (although recent research seems to suggest he may have landed in Oregon, and nothing really came of it anyway, so maybe that isn't so good), about Russian fur trappers (who, to make the Cal/NorCal distinction clear, did not go to Southern California)...Historical details that have much more importance for Northern California than for California as a whole, and that aren't going to get the same coverage anywhere else. I admit, it's not always cut and dry.Udibi (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that we basically agree on many things - emphasize historical events that took place in the area now known as Northern California, briefly mention events that occurred in the state (or the world) as context (they will get treatment elsewhere as well). I think that the current version of the History section is headed in that direction. I understand that it may feel a bit repetitious because so much of what is viewed as "California history" did physically occur in Northern California, so that telling the story of Northern California will feel like a telling of the story of California! However, those facts are important to tell the story of Northern California.

You may have noticed that the pre-1847 history section has undergone a serious condensing, and I suppose that there is more that could be done along those lines, plus I started some post-1847 sections for others to expand. Perhaps more importantly, in my view anyway, the rest of the article needs to be brought up to the same level of detail, etc., as the History section. The article does seem to be "History top-heavy" but that should be an inducement to increase the rest of the article (not to delete the existing work).

I would particularly urge some of the editors who came up with wonderful ideas about additional concepts to add to the article to do so! There was a recent study showing how a very small percentage of the contributors are contributing a very large percentage of the text. Let's remedy that imbalance! Please do continue to contribute fresh, well-written, nicely researched and cited material to flesh out this article! All the best, NorCalHistory (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Archive discussion August 2006 and earlier

[edit] Fresno Removal

I don't think anyone north of Los Angeles would consider Fresno in Northern California. It is always referred to as Central California or Central Valley. I would propose removing references to Fresno from this article. Tenacioust 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on how many sections you're dividing the state into. If you're dividing the state into only two sections, then Fresno is definitely considered more "northern" than "southern." If you're dividing the state into three or four sections, then Fresno would belong in Central or Central Valley. However, as I'm reading this article, the focus is on a two-part division of the state - so Fresno is appropriately in this article. NorCalHistory 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you take a map of California and draw a line across its geographic half (half the geographic area north, half the geographic area south - seems pretty objective to me), Fresno is to the SOUTH of the North-South divide. Culturally, economically, or otherwise, I see little reason why Fresno would be "definitely considered more "northern" than "southern."" By whose definition? Udibi 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Udibi- Northern California is hardly ever divided that way, it is generally divided along the tehachapis. And Fresno has more in common with Sacramento and San Francisco than it does with L.A
Also, Fresno is only about as far south as Monterey - and I don't think that anyone would argue that Monterey is not part of Northern California. NorCalHistory (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
True, although a dividing line might better run southwest-northeast. --JWB (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would consider Monterey (and Fresno) Central California. And I think alot of others would too. But I try not to involve myself in the "What does Norther California mean?" game, so I'm not suggesting a change. But a lot of people don't even consider Santa Cruz to be Northern California. White Lightning (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Auburn, Placerville, and Eureka? Major Cities?

These cities are questionably major as far as my understanding. I believe they are all county seats but they seem out of place in my opinion. I would consider a either city with a population over 100,000 or a that is the primary in a metropolitan area at the very least to be a major city. Does any one else agree?

Perhaps a "prominent cities" entry could be added - cities that are relatively small might nevertheless be prominent or major in their region, especially given the generally rural nature of Northern California.

[edit] Stan State

I'm curious as to why Cal State Stanislaus in Turlock is not included in the list of CSU's, considering schools much farther south (UC Merced, CSU Fresno) make the cut. If there's no opposition, I'll modify the page and add this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arden (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WikiProject Rating

Definitely not a "stub," I believe it means at least the B quality, and is at the upper end of that range. NorCalHistory 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] music/culture

there is a large musical variety that is definitive of northern californian culture (as opposed to southern california)
perhaps not only music but also culture would be important to address.
24.4.12.186 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UC Santa Cruz

Why is UC Santa Cruz not listed as one of UC campuses in northern California? --sergeymk 15:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

User:JWB, without a comment, added an external link to The Northern California megaregion. This article never refers to Northern Cal as a "megaregion," nor does it ever refer to the think tank that wrote that paper. Consequently, I saw it as insufficiently related to be worth keeping, so I deleted it. User:JWB immediately reverted the deletion with a comment of "rv unexplained deletion." Well, here's my reason for deletion--what's the reason for keeping it in?

That particular link would, I think, be better added to San Francisco Bay Area than here. A great deal of Northern California isn't urban at all. Dori (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the map in the reference, it covers a much larger area than the Bay Area proper, and they start by analyzing the entire Northern California area for urban connection, although of course they find the peripheral areas are not as closely linked. There is no claim that outlying areas are urban.
If there were a separate subarticle for Northern California as an urban region, there might be a case for relegating the link there, but there currently isn't.
I don't particularly enjoy neologisms like "megaregion" or "megapolitan area", but these are what scholars studying the phenomena do coin and use. --JWB (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you either need to add a section to this article about NorCal as an urban region, start a new article about NorCal as an urban region, or add that link to San Francisco Bay Area. Right now, though, it's a link that's unreferenced in the article and it should go. Dori (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is a Cities section although it is still short. I could add some text there, but where is there a policy that all links have to be a citation for a specific passage in the article?
I'm not sure why you don't want the material. Southern California for example has a reasonable description of the urban landscape there. --JWB (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with adding an "urban landscape" section to this article. It's just that that topic isn't currently covered, so an external link that goes into depth on the subject is (currently) out of place. Go for it! Dori (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)