This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Baja California peninsula article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the article, the split into Alta and Baja took place in both 1773 and 1804. Can't be both. –Hajor 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's true, i did not notice it until now, i would like to check that... the reason that i put down that date was because that is the year that appears in the inscription on the marker..., i was down there this last weekend, i will investigate and make any correction necesary... of course that correction on the inscription will be a little more difficult. =) By the way... where did you get the 1804 info?
Sorry if i did anything wrong in my last answer to you... im quite new to all of this and not much of a computer expert... like i mentioned before i appreciate your comments and will look into them... i think i should have a reasonable answer in a couple of days... EjidoMike 05:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I found the following information on the bajaquest.com website... it quotes the same Sociedad de Historia De rosarito A.C. as the source for the info - the same society that erected the marker - :
"In 1767 the Jesuits were expelled from Mexico in a political-religious decision, the Franciscans were asked to take over the administration of the missions. In 1772, a concordat (agreement) was signed between the King of Spain -with the support of the Viceroy of New Spain (Mexico) and the Pope- and the leaders of the Dominican and Franciscan monks resulting in the division of California in 1773, using the local mountain range that meet the sea at Calafia. The Palou Frontier was establish as the dividing line between Nueva (new) or Alta (upper) California and Antigua (old) of Baja (lower) California."
I also found many websites that indicate 1804 as the year the partition took place... i will keep looking into this. EjidoMike 05:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please edit this article to include some links to some points of interest.
>>>I have repeatedly but JOHN HARDER deletes my links and discredits my BAJA site as SPAM
www.baja.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1stMensch ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Is "Baja California Peninsula" an official name? Otherwise for the sake of consistency (and easier wikilinking) I propose the article is renamed "Baja California peninsula". Thanks for any insights, David Kernow 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Since Baja California became a state, its official designation is no longer Baja California Norte. Baja California is the political designation for the northern state. Nonetheless, "Baja California Norte" continues to be commonly used as an informal designation, to distinguish it from the peninsula as a whole (which is also commonly referred to simply as "Baja California"). Yes, "Baja California Norte" is merely an informal designation. No, it is NOT incorrect! RhymeNotStutter 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "Baja California Norte" is merely an informal designation, informal but also INCORRECT!. The official state name is Baja California. When the North Territory of Baja California became a state the term "NORTH" didnt form part of the official name. There is a Baja California Sur but not a Baja California Norte because it doesn't exist. I live in Baja California and it is a little annoying to hear about BCN, imagine to read it in a global SOURCE of information. It's a common error, even to many mexicans, but Baja California Norte is a WRONG desiganation. JC 15:20, 18 January 2007 (PST)
Jcmenal: please stop trying to assert your personal preference in geographical terms as "fact". As you are aware, "Baja California Norte" has been used extensively, including in publications issued by the Mexican government, including the titles of books by at least two Mexican Presidents (Adolfo Ruiz Cortines and José López Portillo). No, it is not an official political designation. Neither is the regional term "Southern California," which has no political status, but it's usage is still perfectly correct. It is not appropriate to try to use Wikipedia as a medium to foist your personal preferences on readers as "fact" or to dismiss established a well-established usage as "incorrect" because you do not like it. RhymeNotStutter 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not actually highlighted, its a topographic map. 24.91.9.206 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't there an offer to annex/sell Baja California to the US during WW2 ? I have heard the story, but seen no references, that it was offered to Franklin Roosevelt around the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. - Bill 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says: " It is considered territory of Northern America. "
This is at odds with the Wikipedia page "Northern America".
I've no idea which is correct, but one of the two pages needs to be changed.
Ordinary Person 08:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's North America. We cross into South America when we pass Panama. ( Nurse Hilditch 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
Yup, it is a North American territory; it belonged to Northern America when the peninsula was part of the New Spain and the early years of independent Mexico. JC 10:05 1 Octuber 2007 (UTC-8)
5% Asian (Most of them Filipinos)???, where you found this information, most of the Asian population here is Chinese. JC February 27 2007, 22:50 (PST)
Where are these demographic statistics coming from? I have never seen such a detailed survey for Baja California. 10% Asian seems to be a bit high; from sight I would say 4% max. As far as the other statistics, its hard telling. I have been in parts where there is a significant European component, but where are the official numbers?
Libertythor
05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph speculating that the Baja will continue to grow and turn parts of the State of California with it into a large island is written poorly and without citation, leading me, a normal person, to believe, from the wording use, that this will happen very soon, instead of millions or billions of years into the future. I suggest somebody, with extensive geologic knowledge re-write this portion of the article. Sierraoffline444 ( talk) 08:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
was any land sold in this area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.213.65.18 ( talk) 00:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. The requesting editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor, and the balance of the arguments presented by the remaining participants does not support the move. RL0919 ( talk) 13:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Baja California peninsula →
Baja California Peninsula — Relisted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Capital P as for all(?) peninsulas in
Category:Peninsulas by country that use the term "peninsula" in the article title.--
TopoChecker (
talk)
16:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Evidence for existence of upper case can be found via http://www.google.com/search?q=%22baja+california+peninsula%22 - both variants seem possible, so WP can choose. If all(?!) other peninsulas are written with capital P, then this one should use upper case too? TopoChecker ( talk) 02:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This article could stand to be expanded. The current state doesn't match Wikipedia quality standards I've come to expect. Both its history section and timeline begin with arrival European explorers. I suggest more detail, significance, and at least a passing mention of indigenous peoples and cultures. 24.40.144.211 ( talk) 03:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is named "Baja California peninsula", but English Wikipedia uses upper case for class names, compare these peninsula articles:
Eldizzino ( talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baja California Peninsula. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Baja, California and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Baja, California until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tigraan
Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)
11:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Baja California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This sentence in the history section - A reason for such a mistake could have been originated in the secret in what the Spaniards hold their cartography far from other European powers' eyes - is referenced but makes limited sense. Anyone with knowledge of the topic care to improve it? Geopersona ( talk) 06:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Baja California peninsula article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the article, the split into Alta and Baja took place in both 1773 and 1804. Can't be both. –Hajor 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's true, i did not notice it until now, i would like to check that... the reason that i put down that date was because that is the year that appears in the inscription on the marker..., i was down there this last weekend, i will investigate and make any correction necesary... of course that correction on the inscription will be a little more difficult. =) By the way... where did you get the 1804 info?
Sorry if i did anything wrong in my last answer to you... im quite new to all of this and not much of a computer expert... like i mentioned before i appreciate your comments and will look into them... i think i should have a reasonable answer in a couple of days... EjidoMike 05:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I found the following information on the bajaquest.com website... it quotes the same Sociedad de Historia De rosarito A.C. as the source for the info - the same society that erected the marker - :
"In 1767 the Jesuits were expelled from Mexico in a political-religious decision, the Franciscans were asked to take over the administration of the missions. In 1772, a concordat (agreement) was signed between the King of Spain -with the support of the Viceroy of New Spain (Mexico) and the Pope- and the leaders of the Dominican and Franciscan monks resulting in the division of California in 1773, using the local mountain range that meet the sea at Calafia. The Palou Frontier was establish as the dividing line between Nueva (new) or Alta (upper) California and Antigua (old) of Baja (lower) California."
I also found many websites that indicate 1804 as the year the partition took place... i will keep looking into this. EjidoMike 05:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please edit this article to include some links to some points of interest.
>>>I have repeatedly but JOHN HARDER deletes my links and discredits my BAJA site as SPAM
www.baja.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1stMensch ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Is "Baja California Peninsula" an official name? Otherwise for the sake of consistency (and easier wikilinking) I propose the article is renamed "Baja California peninsula". Thanks for any insights, David Kernow 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Since Baja California became a state, its official designation is no longer Baja California Norte. Baja California is the political designation for the northern state. Nonetheless, "Baja California Norte" continues to be commonly used as an informal designation, to distinguish it from the peninsula as a whole (which is also commonly referred to simply as "Baja California"). Yes, "Baja California Norte" is merely an informal designation. No, it is NOT incorrect! RhymeNotStutter 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "Baja California Norte" is merely an informal designation, informal but also INCORRECT!. The official state name is Baja California. When the North Territory of Baja California became a state the term "NORTH" didnt form part of the official name. There is a Baja California Sur but not a Baja California Norte because it doesn't exist. I live in Baja California and it is a little annoying to hear about BCN, imagine to read it in a global SOURCE of information. It's a common error, even to many mexicans, but Baja California Norte is a WRONG desiganation. JC 15:20, 18 January 2007 (PST)
Jcmenal: please stop trying to assert your personal preference in geographical terms as "fact". As you are aware, "Baja California Norte" has been used extensively, including in publications issued by the Mexican government, including the titles of books by at least two Mexican Presidents (Adolfo Ruiz Cortines and José López Portillo). No, it is not an official political designation. Neither is the regional term "Southern California," which has no political status, but it's usage is still perfectly correct. It is not appropriate to try to use Wikipedia as a medium to foist your personal preferences on readers as "fact" or to dismiss established a well-established usage as "incorrect" because you do not like it. RhymeNotStutter 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not actually highlighted, its a topographic map. 24.91.9.206 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't there an offer to annex/sell Baja California to the US during WW2 ? I have heard the story, but seen no references, that it was offered to Franklin Roosevelt around the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. - Bill 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says: " It is considered territory of Northern America. "
This is at odds with the Wikipedia page "Northern America".
I've no idea which is correct, but one of the two pages needs to be changed.
Ordinary Person 08:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's North America. We cross into South America when we pass Panama. ( Nurse Hilditch 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
Yup, it is a North American territory; it belonged to Northern America when the peninsula was part of the New Spain and the early years of independent Mexico. JC 10:05 1 Octuber 2007 (UTC-8)
5% Asian (Most of them Filipinos)???, where you found this information, most of the Asian population here is Chinese. JC February 27 2007, 22:50 (PST)
Where are these demographic statistics coming from? I have never seen such a detailed survey for Baja California. 10% Asian seems to be a bit high; from sight I would say 4% max. As far as the other statistics, its hard telling. I have been in parts where there is a significant European component, but where are the official numbers?
Libertythor
05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph speculating that the Baja will continue to grow and turn parts of the State of California with it into a large island is written poorly and without citation, leading me, a normal person, to believe, from the wording use, that this will happen very soon, instead of millions or billions of years into the future. I suggest somebody, with extensive geologic knowledge re-write this portion of the article. Sierraoffline444 ( talk) 08:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
was any land sold in this area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.213.65.18 ( talk) 00:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. The requesting editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor, and the balance of the arguments presented by the remaining participants does not support the move. RL0919 ( talk) 13:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Baja California peninsula →
Baja California Peninsula — Relisted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Capital P as for all(?) peninsulas in
Category:Peninsulas by country that use the term "peninsula" in the article title.--
TopoChecker (
talk)
16:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Evidence for existence of upper case can be found via http://www.google.com/search?q=%22baja+california+peninsula%22 - both variants seem possible, so WP can choose. If all(?!) other peninsulas are written with capital P, then this one should use upper case too? TopoChecker ( talk) 02:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This article could stand to be expanded. The current state doesn't match Wikipedia quality standards I've come to expect. Both its history section and timeline begin with arrival European explorers. I suggest more detail, significance, and at least a passing mention of indigenous peoples and cultures. 24.40.144.211 ( talk) 03:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is named "Baja California peninsula", but English Wikipedia uses upper case for class names, compare these peninsula articles:
Eldizzino ( talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baja California Peninsula. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Baja, California and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Baja, California until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tigraan
Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)
11:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Baja California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This sentence in the history section - A reason for such a mistake could have been originated in the secret in what the Spaniards hold their cartography far from other European powers' eyes - is referenced but makes limited sense. Anyone with knowledge of the topic care to improve it? Geopersona ( talk) 06:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)