Talk:Northern California/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"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)

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)

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)

FWIW, I grew up in Monterey, and everyone there considers it to be part of Central California, and we think the same of Fresno. The mysterious dividing line between Northern and Central California is, culturally-based (vs. geographically-based), probably between Gilroy and San Jose and points east. btphelps (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

music/culture

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

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)

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)

nor cal

a clothing company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.41.66 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced + duplication, opinion, or incorrect

On 22 November, User:Moalli made these changes to this article. I reverted them, with a edit summary of "Rvt to previous version by Norcalal--edits by Moalli were all unsourced; some were also duplication, opinion, or incorrect".

Shortly afterwards, User:76.204.77.29 re-added most of the same "information," along with some pseudo-references. Here's why I'm reverting it again:

Edit	Comment
Northern Califronia	If you want to write something about Northern Califronia, go create a new article. This one's about Northern California.
contains a world city, San Francisco,	Unsourced.
that is one of the world's and the West Coast's largest financial center as well as a cultural and tourist hub and center of liberal politics.	Unsourced. I can find poor refs that say that SF is no longer the largest financial center on the west coast (Los Angeles is), but I can find nothing at all that says it is. And the phrase "center of liberal politics" is definitely not WP:NPOV.
San Francisco County is also the fifth most densely populated county in the United States with 6,422.57 people per sq km (16,634.37 per sq mi).	Unsourced.
The region is also home to San Francisco International Airport, the tenth-busiest airport in the United States by passenger volume (see World's busiest airports by passenger traffic) and Oakland International Airport which has one of the busiest domestic traffic in the United States.	Unsourced; if it was sourced, it should be under Transportation. Also, what does it even mean that Oakland has "one of the busiest domestic traffic"?
Northern California is also home to the Port of Oakland, the United States' 4th busiest commercial port.Port of Oakland Official Site: Facts and Figures (2006)	Citation doesn't back this up; it just says that Oakland is the "4th busiest container port"—not the same thing at all (think cruise lines).
The Port of San Francisco across the San Francisco Bay has declined in traffic volume in the past decades but was the major port of entry from the Gold Rush until the 1970s. The Port of Stockton is the busiest inland port in California and is located on the San Joaquin River delta.	Unsourced × 2 (and should go under Transportation anyway, not Significance).
The region is also home to efficient public transportation systems and rail lines, most notably the First Transcontinental Railroad that formerly terminated in Sacramento but now extends to Oakland.	Efficient? Notably? First, the Oakland extension was completed in 1869 (yes, more than 140 years ago). The First Transcontinental Railroad article doesn't give a precise date as to when it was no longer making transcontinental runs, but implies that it was sometime between 1904 and 1942.
Northern Calfornia also has the highest concentration of the highest-income places in the United States with Belvedere in the Bay Area having the title of the highest median income for a population of over 1,000 with over $116,000.Census 2000 Demographic Profiles	The source given does not back up this statement.
The Bay Area is also the metropolitan region with the highest concentration with households with median incomes of over $100,000 in the United States.	Unsourced.
In contrast however, the interior areas of Northern California outside the metropolitan areas contain the state's most poorest towns, with the village of Tobin north of Greater Sacramento having a poverty rate of 100%.	If you follow the link to that CDP's article, you'll see that it had a population of eleven in 2000. About the income stats, the article says, "the small sample size means this status must be taken cautiously"—which isn't being done here. The "reference" comes with its own {{Page needed}}, which again means that this is unsourced.
Northern California is divided between a liberal, more Democratic leaning coast as well as the core area of Greater Sacramento and a more conservative, Republican interior. This division is often attributed to the more diverse, liberal populations of the San Francisco Bay Area, core Greater Sacramento area counties of Sacramento, Yolo, and Nevada, and the rest of the coastal area (see Coastal California) to the rural, White-majority population in the Central Valley and interior.	First, this is entirely unsourced. Second, you could say almost the identical thing about Southern California—the coast is more liberal than the interior—and since that can't be blamed on SF, the whole house of cards falls apart.
In recent elections, the Central Valley counties of Fresno, Madera, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced have leaned more Democratic due to more diverse populations and influence from the Bay and Greater Sacramento areas and all of these counties except Madera voted Democratic in the 2008 U.S. Election.	Unsourced. How do we know it was due to the SF Bay influence?
Many liberal issues such as marijuana usage and abortion have been popularly supported in liberal areas while they've been constantly challenged and voted against in the conservative interior.	And this is also true in Southern Cal. Without sources, we can't say anything meaningful about this.
The contrast of political views in Northern California can be seen by the difference in the county results of the 2008 U.S. Election with San Francisco as the most Democratic county with 84% voting Democrat and Modoc as the most Republican with 68% voting Republican."Supplement to the Statement of Vote: Statewide Summary by County for United States President" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2009-04-10. Retrieved 2009-06-13.	Presidential voting percentages are not the beginning and end of political views. Look at that reference and see how many votes also went to McKinney (Green) or Nader (Peace & Freedom). Notice, also, that with less than 5000 votes cast in Modoc, to quote from above, "the small sample size means this status must be taken cautiously".
Nevertheless, Northern California is seen as a more liberal region due to the more heavily populated San Francisco Bay and Sacramento areas compared to the small population of interior areas and the political view cases of the five Central Valley counties between Sacramento and Fresno Counties.	Again, unsourced.
Northern California Presidential elections results table	These numbers are unsourced, and the only thing that's definite is that they could not have come from the previous reference.

User:Moalli or User:76.204.77.29, feel free to bring this back, but it needs to have verifiable reliable sources with no original research or bias. Better spelling and grammar would also be nice. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain this to me?

Haha so i was reading this article, which is great by the way, and i came across this sentence.. "Northern California is home to three of the state's four metropolitan areas that are home to over three-fourths of the region's population as of January 2009". It's only slightly confusing lol. Can someone explain because to me it's saying that of the three out of four largest metropolitan areas in the state, three are in NorCal? I don't know it's just really confusing. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"NorCal" ??

I was born in Northern California, and have lived here 47 years to the present day. Not once have I ever heard anyone from here refer to Northern California as "NorCal". Never, ever, ever, never!! If you used that term in the presence of any real northern californian they would look at you really weird and know you must be from somewhere else.

I've heard lots of people call Norther California "NorCal" for short, including on TV shows and in print. Perhaps you haven't because you are part of an older generation. I changed the page to match to put (NorCal) at the top similar to how (SoCal) is at the top of the Southern California page. Brandonlee25 (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, some companies might use the term "NorCal" in their company name, e.g. "NorCal motors", "NorCal Dry Cleaning", etc. But no God-fearing Northern Californian would use that term in their normal speech to refer to Northern California.

As a related aside, this mistake reminds me of one time I was up in Seattle about 10 years ago, and someone asked me if I was from "Cali". This was the first time I had ever heard the term "Cali" used to refer to California. The simple reason was that nobody in California ever uses that term. If a Californian says the word "Cali", they very likely are referring to the city by that name in Colombia, South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emwave (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Searching either Wikipedia or the Web gives plenty of references to the term. I see people wearing these T-shirts [1] or sporting these license plate frames [2] on their cars. Granted, you won't hear many people 47 years old wearing those or using the term. --JWB (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While the term NorCal may be used on T-shirts and for other commercial purposes (which are the uses I found in a Google and Yahoo search), the phrase is not lingua franca among those I am acquainted with who have lived in Northern California our entire lives. btphelps (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding a note about a year after the previous discussion... California is simply too big and populous for everyone to have talked to everyone else. I've seen a lot of these "I've never heard..." or "nobody says..." in discussions of subregions of California that already have documentation and references posted in their articles. But in the case of "Norcal" I'll add another data point - it must have been used enough that the FAA named the Air Traffic Control for the Bay Area, Sacramento and Stockton after it. Pilots of large and small aircraft talking to radar controllers call "Norcal Approach" on the radio 24 hours every day. Ikluft (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My goodness! I am born, raised, and lived my whole life in Northern California and I have lately seen NorCal logos being sported on shirts and on car rear window panes. And I have heard people use Cali as an affectionate term to refer to California. Granted these phenomena are only used by the very young, so yea, you won't hear 47 year-olds using "NorCal" or "Cali". I myself don't say "NorCal" or "Cali", but yes, I've heard it here and there. So just because YOU haven't heard it doesn't mean you can make a conclusion for the ENTIRE upper portion of our state. How arrogant!WACGuy (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

NorCal on shirts, etc. is a brand. This has been discussed and beaten to death. It is inappropriate to place "Nor Cal" in the lead. IF an editor wants it in the article, maybe add a section entitled "Names of Northern California" and detail the names and the debate for that matter and use citations. Actual official names are bolded in the beginning of an article. Slang is not. Norcalal (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I mentioned that the term "NorCal" is used as a nickname in the article. Only a quick search on some local newspapers turned up several uses of "NorCal" to refer to the region, not to any clothing brand. This link is just an example of how this term can be used in a newspaper without explaining the context: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/10/4113489/norcal-oyster-farm-dispute-spreads.html. Note that the term only shows up in the headline and does not refer to any company and is not defined anywhere. Wikipedia can be helpful for someone reading a similar article and unfamiliar with the term, as "norcal" redirects to this page, but before my last edit, it did not appear in this article anywhere. I will concede that this term does not need to be at the top, as the equivalent "SoCal" is for the Southern California page, because "NorCal" is not as widely used at present. But there shouldn't be a reason to revert my latest edit. This issue should probably now be settled.Brandonlee25 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can be found in the name of some vacuum cleaner repair shops, insurance brokerages, as a division of state high school athletic regulatory bodies, etc., all of them almost certainly named or created by non-natives. Yes, commercial enterprises put their brands on decals and t-shirts. I myself once hired Nor-Cal Heating and Air Conditioning to to repair my furnace. Although we saw those usages from childhood, you still won't find people of my generation saying, "I'm originally from NorCal". Nor would we write to the friends saying, "Next time you're coming to NorCal, let me know." It's just not done. Wouldn't occur to us. "NorCal" is a form of branding (commercial or otherwise), probably created by outsiders or transplants, but it isn't used in a casual narrative context by my generation, and though I'm happy to be shown otherwise, I do think it's about where you were raised, not which generation you're in.

Using it in conversation would brand you as a non-native, like referring to Boston as Bean Town. I suspect "The Big Apple" has the same effect, but I'm not sure. Petershank (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Similar to saying : "Frisco".

Who deleted my posts?

Two questions

1. What percentage of California's area is this region??
2. What percentage of California's population lives in this regions??

Georgia guy (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Major cities in the United States are usually considered those a above 500,000 in population, of which there's approximately 18 to 20 in count that are above 1 million in population. At that, there's a huge range, from those that barely make that grade to one's that are well beyond 500,000. By estimate, there's maybe about 35 cities with more than 500,000 people.

For example, San Jose, CA has become known as the nation's tenth largest city; whereas, projections put it just over 1 million people, maybe at about 1.4 by estimates. Compare that to New York City, the nations's most populace city, which is approaching 8.5 million. Even Los Angeles, which is the second most populated, is nearly just half of New York's, at not nearly 4 million people. Sacramento, is below 500,000 and may well be projected to reach that bar. Some people may assume that Oakland is a major city, but it's dropped to just above 400,000 in recent years, ranking it at #45.

The next grade of cities are of a different consideration, from maybe 500,000 and down… to which populations and other factors are often quite different. When cities go above 500,000, things change. That includes everything from public services to the local economy, aside from statistical reports and profiling.

See Wikipedia's own article on "List of United States cities by population."

Also consider article like "America's Safest and Most Dangerous Cities," which deals with the controversies of ranking cities by population, in correlation with other factors such as crime, geography, economics and so on. This is largely done by categorizing cities thusly, hence the controversy.

Small towns, villages can be below a few hundred thousand, down to just ten-thousands and hundreds.

Keep in mind that cities usually become incorporated and become recognized differently by their counties, state and nation, when they become larger than 500,000 or so.Ca.papavero (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Why is "northern" not capitalized, but the "South" in "South Florida" is?

They are both regions of their respective states. What makes South Florida any different? Both the Associated Press and the Chicago Manual of Style say it is "Northern California" and "Southern California". AP editor David Minthorn goes further and states "Lowercase the compass point - central Louisiana -- unless it's a widely known section, as in Southern California or South Florida." Thankstelfair (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It depends on whether the directional names have "attained the status of proper names", according to Wikipedia's manual of style. — Gorthian (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Northern California and Southern California long have attained status as a proper name of their respective regions. Same for South Florida. Thankstelfair (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

San Jose and San Francisco: Which is greater? How is preeminence decided in list order?

Though the census has identified San Jose as the principal city in the title of a particular Combined statistical area (due to population and related demographics), there are many reasons why SF is the preeminent city. The idea of listing SJ first in the Cities section is ok, especially if referencing the cities and their size. However, there are many other categories in looking at the qualities of a city and why one or the other may be preeminent. Because SF IS preeminent in so many other areas, it seems that it should be list FIRST at the BEGINNING of the article due to the fact that in so many characteristics, SF is preeminent. There is only one significant reason San Jose is larger: There is more room for urban sprawl (which made real estate less expensive) while SF is very dense and confined. These aspects are obvious. But I see that they need to be pointed out here. Further issues exist with using the CSA as the sole reason and then attributing significantly more meaning beyond that fact. After all, it is primarily for statistical data development. This development is directly related to assigned relationships between cities related to geography, economy, and population. To summarize: Much more exists in the determination of the preeminence of one particular city over another than the details of a CSA and for an editor to say that the US Government has decided this in citing the existence of name order in a particular CSA is not sufficient to determine preeminence. And, finally, just because the US Dept. of Commerce Census Division determined some name order is not tantamount to the US Government determining preeminence. The current form with SF first in the intro paragraph and SJ first in other places seems to create a reasonably accurate representation of facts...hopefully. Please weigh in as I know others will... Norcalal (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is a Global City? See the Global City article. SF is a beta class, while San Jose did not make the list. Besides its location in proximity to or including Silicon Valley, how would it begin to compete on any other level? Lists of reasons can begin here to settle this...

More data on World Cities... http://www.41latitude.com/post/400972984/most-important-cities-united-states.

They're both global cities according to GaWC. San Francisco just ranks higher, I believe San Jose ranks "high suffiency" or "suffiency". Obviously San Francisco ranks higher on a global scale though. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A good point that SJ is not a Global City anywhere near the Beta Class...actually it did not rate the list. How could San Jose compete on any other level beyond the fact that it is part (and only part) of Silicon Valley? Total numbers of persons employed in the City of San Jose is only like 1,800 more than the City of San Francisco, with both having way over 400,000 workers each. The Silicon Valley argument is about what besides silicon valley related employment and development of technology? Besides Apple, Google, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Facebook, Sun/Oracle, Yahoo, and most of the other cool Silicon Valley companies are NOT I (I REPEAT NOT!) headquartered in San Jose. [Why do most of the cool kids avoid San Jose?]. West coast banking giants (cheifly Wells Fargo and west coast ops for B of A) are all in SF. Since San Jose exceeded the population of SF around 1990, it seems that there is potential for this pissing contest but in reality the name of the region and the associated iconic characteristics are ALL in SF. The US Mint and regional Federal Reserve are in SF. The 9th District of Federal Court is in SF. Cable cars, China Town, those amazing hills, the TransAmerica Pyramid, Levis, the Giants Baseball Team, and many others; Fisherman's Wharf and the Golden Gate Bridge itself is (2/3) within the City of SF for crying out loud. SJ has the tech museum and the Winchester Mystery House, and sprawling development and malls and freeways and what else? Population is insufficient as a category for rating all by itself. What kind of bread or chocolate, or rice, for that matter, is San Jose famous for? Norcalal (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: even though San Jose has surpassed the other in both population and area, San Francisco still remains the internationally more famous, more well-known, global center of the region – whether it is due to precedence or some other reason. Since Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, San Francisco should generally be listed in first in most cases, because that is internationally more common and recognizable. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco also has the history not present in San Jose. Historically San Francisco was the largest California city and certainly the financial center, having its own stock exchange. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this section is incredibly biased, ignorant and condescending. Yes, indeed, even beyond population figures, San Jose actually has a deeper history in the state than San Francisco. For example, it was the state's fist capital when it became part of the United States. The first state legislature met here. How can the person here mention Bank of America, and yet not recognize that it's founder was born and raised here in San Jose, although Bank of America is ironically no longer based in the SF Bay Area (although many people don't realize that, or forget that fact). So was Cesar Chavez born here. FN in 1912 became the first licensed broadcast station in the US, to which KCBS is a descendent. And that's not just part of broadcasting history, but also part of telephony and other electronics and media history… if you comprehend the entire story of its founder and his contributions. The San Francisco 49ers are now based out of Santa Clara, although they are known as the San Francisco Bay Area team… many of the Bay Area's sports teams actually having ties to San Jose and the south bay, from its players, coaches, investors and so on. San Jose is not simply known as the "Capital of Silicon Valley" or the state's first legistlative capital, but it was also the lead city of Santa Clara County, when it was a preeminent agricultural city in this nation, providing everything from the nation's best grains, cattle, fruits and wines. Indeed, this city led the American wine and beer industry long before Napa, Sonoma and SF became synonymous with those industries. Many of these wineries and growers are still in this county, although not as visible against the changed economic base. These are only some of the major contributions that have come from San Jose for many, many years, continuing into the present. California's history began here, as much as it continues to be influenced in many ways by this city and its people. In fact, as the nation's tenth largest city and the state's third largest, it's today possibly recognized as the most influential economic and cultural center to that of New York and Los Angeles. When you realize Silicon Valley's impact in recent generations, as well as that San Jose is the seat of Santa Clara County, which in turn is the largest share of Silicon Valley (aside from the Bay Area itself) then you must also consider that it is contestable as the most significant city in the nation, if not the world. It's hard to consider the world today, without the contribution that have come out of San Jose and Silicon Valley, whether the world recognizes that yet, or not. Its the people here that have created an economy (for better or worse) that influences the world, either as Silicon Valley, or as the agricultural center that fed the nation and the wold through the Great Depression and World War II. Even during the war, food production and farm machinery companies (aside from radio, etc) transformed everything from packing, farm practices, logistics, militarization and so on. That started here! San Jose, even as a smaller town, changed the world. And even though it has been kept as esoteric knowledge for decades, does't discredit those facts. Indeed, much of what California is today, is actually owed to San Jose. Ca.papavero (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No not FN. KDKA was first licensed commercial station in US, in Pittsburgh PA in 1920. No licenses were issued before 1919: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDKA_(AM)

who deleted my posts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.164.98 (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)