Jump to content

Talk:Alta California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ranchos of California

[edit]

http://www.socalhistory.org/pages/LABioah.htm

"After 1821 and Mexico's independence from Spain, almost 800 ranchos were established, the bulk of them in the 1830s and 1840s."

That's not including the Ranchos already granted by the Spanish. The list of Ranchos could end up being one v-e-r-y long list. ;-) [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 07:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know that the list needs to be exhaustive. My guess is there may be 40 or so notable ranchos. Most ranchos were probably small, rapidly sold, rural, lost in the Americanization process, or otherwise insignificant. -Willmcw 03:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alta,_California 95701 95715

[edit]

The statement that somehow shares an esoteric belief that the majority of Californios wanted independence from Mexican rule simply is false..only the emigrant Americans flooding into the California provence were the ones that wanted to take what was percieved as theirs. Inflamatory statements like this that distort history is why we have such an ignorant understanding today in this reigon, I would suggest writing only citation fact, not Hollywood fiction DonDeigo 16:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There should be a page of Alta,_California, which shares the zone improvement plan code of "95715", with Emigrant_Gap,_California & Blue Canyon, California {list_of_airports_in_California, Interstate_80_in_California}.

< http://google.com/search?q=%22alta%22+%2295715%22+%22emigrant%22+%22blue+canyon%22++california++ >.

Here are some of the other versions of "Alta":

Altadena,_California

Los_Altos,_California

Palo_Alto,_California

Altaville,_California

Alturas,_California

Alta_Loma,_Rancho_Cucamonga,_California

Alta_Sierra,_California

California_(province)

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that "Alta, California" is different from "Alta_Sierra, California"? I can't find any reference to plain old "Alta". -Will Beback · † · 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do input "95715" into:

{ < http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp >,

< http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp >,

< http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_3_results.jsp >,

usps,

not < http://usps.org/newpublic2/index.html > }

< http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown_zip.jsp >,

for:

EMIGRANT GAP, CA

Acceptable City names in 95715

ALTA, CA

Not Acceptable

BLUE CANYON, CA


The results of 95701 are:

Actual City name in 95701 (PO BOX)

ALTA, CA


< http://areacodes.cc/index/530.html >;

< https://zipcodes.cc/zip/95701 >:

95701 is the Official Zip Code of Alta , CA
California
Alta has a population of 732
Housing Units = 361
Land Area = 15.503202 Sq. Miles
Water Area = 0.023331 Sq. Miles
Latitude = 39.217668
Longitude = -120.783461
<<< Click on Map to Zoom in to your area
Alta Weather
1

< https://zipcodes.cc/zip/95715 >:

95715 is the Official Zip Code of Emigrant Gap , CA
California
Emigrant Gap has a population of 180
Housing Units = 138
Land Area = 14.402368 Sq. Miles
Water Area = 0.048252 Sq. Miles
Latitude = 39.277658
Longitude = -120.706702

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Why don't you do the honors? -Will Beback · † · 09:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land grants

[edit]

I started making a list, by searching "California land grant". I quit when I found this subsection. Someone may want to include in the table at least all those ranchos with their own Wikipedfia pages. (Wetman 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)):[reply]

Lands under Mexican rule

[edit]

The article goes from "1 Lands under Spanish rule" to "2 Mexican-American War" but in between those should be "Lands under Mexican rule". This is something that should be added.Emargie (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flags that have passed over California

[edit]

I'm wondering if this section might benefit from some additions. For example, according to Flag of California:

1836 California Lone Star Flag

In 1836, Juan Alvarado and Isaac Graham led a revolution against Mexican rule. During this first revolt, rebels were able to capture Monterey and declared California "a free and sovereign state". Although their rebellion failed to secure independence for California, it inspired the design of the flag of the Bear Flag Revolt. The Lone Star Flag of California contained a single red star on a white background.

Flags over California, A History and Guide (PDF). Sacramento: State of California, Military Department. 2002.

Check out the pdf reference too. There are even more flags listed there as well that aren't on the page. Thoughts?

sallison (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, the Diputación—the Legislature of California—formally declared independence from Mexico as an independent country in 1836.
This was recognized in the capital of Monterey, and also in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. This happened the same year that Texas declared independence, too, so this was serious business. The Mexican government left. However, Carlos Carrillo wanted to be governor, and set up his own government in Los Angeles. This made government difficult, so Alvarado petitioned Mexico to be admitted not as a Territory (which it had been since 1822), but as a "free and sovereign state" under the Constitution of 1824, which was technically still the law of the land south of the USA. Wyeson 08:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

flags that have flown over California

[edit]

If the Russian America Company is there, so should the Hudson`s Bay Company be, no - because of Yerba Buena? Also, the "colonial administrator" title is wrong; the "Governor" of Russian America's real title was "Chief Manager"....I'm not sure what Kuskov's title in Russian was but I'm thinking the "administrator" in his wiki-article probably could also be just put "Manager". There was no formally disputed sovereignty, also, more like the RAC avoided the issue and the diplomats avoided it too....Russia had no formal legal claim, by its own ukase, south of 54-40, or before that to 51 and as low as 43-50....never past 42; Spain would not have stood for it especially after the Nootka Conventions.....nor would the US or UK; Russian incursions south of Vancouver Island were not on the table; the fuzziness of some of this in the article is natural; but the supposition that Russian America was a colony is very wrong, also that there were any claims formally, other than be pretense of the fort's administrators, that Fort Ross was on Russian soil; re Russian America it was considered not a colony but an integral part of the Russian Empire, not governed with a governor like a guberniya but under the special ukase of 1799 which established its terms of reference and its political/corporate structure and regulations governing same. In practical terms Fort Ross was a colony, but not by definition or de jure.Skookum1 (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The HBC ran a depot/trading house for several years within the Yerba Buena settlement. I wouldn't consider that the same as the Russian colony. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The HBC were more circumspect about their status in New Spain/Mexico than the Russians did with their quasi-sovereignty that they sidestepped whenever Spanish/Mexican officials came by....but their status as foreign trading companies was the same; and the settlement, as i recall, grew up around the HBC post, not the other way around....and the HBC flag flew over it.Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple consultation of a book found through Google dispels the notion that the British founded YB. As their store was in operation for less than a decade I do not find it significant enough to warrant adding the HBC flag to the section. link Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess I'm thinking more on the lines of the HBC's penetration of the upper part of the state, though I recall also that t hey made a point of not establishing posts so as to not offend Spain/Mexico....they did trap and camp in what are now the northern counties of California, but didn't "fly the flag" over any established post there.Skookum1 (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of Spanish and Mexican control over Alta California

[edit]

Disputing "Neither Spain nor Mexico ever colonized the area beyond the southern and central coastal area of present-day California, so they never exerted any effective control beyond Sonoma in the north or the California Coast Ranges in the west." Sonoma is in present-day Northern California. Re: "California Coast Ranges in the west", in stating that their effective control didn't go beyond the California Coastal Ranges in the West, the author is saying that Spain and Mexico exerted control exclusively to the East of the Coastal Ranges. That assertion is false -- possibly a typo or oversight. I do wonder if Spanish or Mexican control extended to the Central Valley of present-day California. That would render the statement about the coastal ranges completely inaccurate. Hu77on (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the wording was confusing. Improvements made. WCCasey (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alta 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:

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) 04:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion: Alta California Territory

[edit]

I propose merging Alta California Territory with this article. It is rather short, of interest to this page, and can simply be consolidated into a new section. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This dead citation link was removed: <"the American Conquest of California" Archived 2012-10-23 at the Wayback Machine Wilson, John L. Stanford University.> This citation was used in the infobox as the source for an Alta California population figure of 85,000 (no year specified). WCCasey (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compose–comprise distinction

[edit]

User:WCCasey reverted my edit. I wrote the following lengthy explanation on his or her user page the next day. He or she deleted my entry with no comment whatsoever. I have retrieved it and pasted it below.

I know that this is a nuance that many people don't understand, and also that these words have come to be used interchangeably by many writers and speakers. It was only about six years ago that I came to understand this myself, though I've been a professional editor for longer. Comprise essentially means "include" or "contain" or "consist of," usually meaning that the listed elements are the entirety of the whole. Example: The United States comprises 50 states. INCORRECT: The 50 states comprise the U.S. The states compose the country; the country comprises the states. Compose (which most people understand better) means "make up" or "be an element of": The parts compose the whole; the whole is composed of the parts.

The whole comprises the parts. The parts compose the whole.

In the article, "Most of the areas formerly composing Alta California . . ." is correct because the areas are the parts of Alta California; clearly, the areas (small portions of Alta California) do not contain Alta California; rather, Alta California contains or includes them. So, Alta California comprises the areas, and the areas compose (make up, are elements of) Alta California.

Here are some good explanations:

https://www.dictionary.com/e/comprise-vs-compose/
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/comprise-versus-compose
https://grammarist.com/usage/compose-comprise/

See [Alta California page revision]. Holy (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Holy (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with User:Holy on how to use the two words, but we could avoid confusion about both words by changing the sentence to something like "Previously, the province of The Californias (Las Californias) included areas that became two separate provinces in 1804: Alta California and the Baja California peninsula." WCCasey (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Here's another discussion of the difference between comprise and compose: <https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/comprise-versus-compose> WCCasey (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Texas flag?

[edit]

Parts of Alta California (extending into what is now Colorado and Wyoming) overlapped with the "stovepipe" claimed by the Republic of Texas; i.e., the land extending from the headwaters of both the Arkansas River and the Rio Grande toward 42° North.

Ought the article to mention that? Pine (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alta_California&oldid=1241455383"