A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 9, 2006. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 390 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Under the "Labor politics and the rise of nativism" section, it said that the Chinese were "expelled from the gold fields." I was wondering why. The sentence is just dropped in there. It is interesting, but it raises more questions. At least another sentence or two would be nice to fill out this point.
The beginning of this article is unattractive and is a complete disappointment.
The Table of Contents is very long and the picture is almost invisible. The Table of Contents is askew in relation to the picture. Most of the page displayed is blank! This looks very, very bad and is a waste of space.
To remedy this, a slight bending of Wiki conventions should be made. Since the content of the article is obvious from the title, a familiar topic, the first paragraph ought to be placed under the picture, not at the top. This would allow more of the blank page to be filled.
"When looking at a map of California, the southern border does not run straight east to west, as other borders in the western U.S. do. Rather, it runs at an angle from Arizona to just south of San Diego Bay."
Why? I've always wanted to know. Kingturtle 05:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand what the point of this paragraph is, or why exactly it is under a heading entitled "High-tech expansion" (wouldn't it make more sense for the first sentence to be under the "Victim of its own success?" heading?):
"By 2004, it seemed that many of the coveted high-tech jobs are either "offshored" to India at ten percent of the labor costs in the U.S., or "onshored" by recruiting newcomers from among the billions in India and China. New laws have removed caps to visas, especially since the adoption of NAFTA. Tens of millions of people from the third world have entered the U.S. since 1960, settling at first mainly in California and the Southwest, but now throughout the continent. In 1960 (when the birth rate nearly equaled the replacement rate) the population of the U.S. was 180 million; in 2000, it was 280 million. By 2010, Hispanics might well be the majority of the population residing in California alone. This is perhaps the greatest population change in world history."
Why is the U.S. population mentioned in an article about California history, and why is a 55% increase over 40 years the "greatest population change in world history?" (A bit hyperbolic there?) There are also a number of errors here. This paragraph wrongly implies that American population growth is fueled by immigration; actually only about one-third of it is, while the rest comes from births. Also, it is highly unlikely that Hispanics will be a majority in California in 2010, as they made up only 32% of the population in 2000. (They might, however, constitute a *plurality* of the population in 2010.) Finally, it is untrue that NAFTA has resulted in the removal of visa caps; that change took place in 1965, long before NAFTA ever was proposed.
This reads like a chunk directly out of a textbook (not all necessarily directly related to the current article, not summarized) and indeed a book is cited as primary source. Have left question on user's talk page trying to confirm whether this is an exact copy. If it is, it needs removal. If it's not, it needs a lot of paring down IMHO. Elf | Talk 15:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
On 8/18/2022 @ Trimmingshipwreck: changed Indian to Indigenous. @ Fettlemap: reverted with a comment about quotes, though no quotes were used. I tend to agree with changing Indian to Indigenous, which is more neutral and meaningful. Not sure if it should be capitalized. Wikipedia generally uses Indigenous or Native American: Indian#The Americas. Kim9988 ( talk) 00:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)