Talk:Gulf of California

message: The name "Sea of Cortés" is the one preferred by most local residents - howcome the Mexicans prefer a name in English? That should probably be rephrased. // Habj 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The local name is Mar de Cortez or Golfo de California. In my experience it is called Golfo de California while you see Sea of Cortez or Mar de Cortez when the text is directed at tourists.--ElisabethS (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locally used name 

message: I removed the sentence That event led to the creation of the Grand Canyon.  since this seems to controversial. According to the article Grand Canyon, there is no authoritative theory on the formation of Grand Canyon. If this is wrong, then that event should be expanded in that article, rather than here. // Habj 07:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do You mean? feydey 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a church, religious BS has no place in an educational setting.  189.130.17.30 (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I've moved the 5.3 million-year info into the Geology section, and removed the phrasing that implied that that date is only believed in by "some people." Young-earth theories of the earth's origin are not taken seriously by most credentialed geologists. The "500 scientists" mentioned in the comment above may really exist, but they represent a tiny subsection of the scientific community. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that I havn't looked for a reliable source for the 5.3 million-year figure--I just moved it over from one section to another. Citing a source would probably be a good idea, though. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of Grand Canyon 

message: Any bathymetry about the sea? depth, etc?? is it deep or shallow? --Kvuo 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. knoodelhed 16:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depth 

message: this article talks very little about the water temperature. it needs a chart of water temp varying by time of year and exact location(latitude). Now I have to seek this information elsewhere, thanks alot wikipedia!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  water temp chart-not enough information in article 

message: I highly doubt that the salinity of the Gulf of California is 1.3 to 2.5 ‰ unless it turned into a freshwater lake sometime in the 3 years since I've been there.  A search around gave me the more realistic numbers of 35 and 35.8 at the surface.  I'm editing the article to reflect this. Bradweir (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  How'd we miss that one???  Thanks for the edit. Mziebell (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salinity 

message: All of the Chinese names in use for the first two centuries or so after Matteo Ricci's map  with their information provided by Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese Jesuits  refers to this body of water as "The Eastern Red Sea" (, Modern Pinyin Dong Hong Hai). Now, Chinese names for Mexican places are trivial enough that it belongs on the zh.wiki and not here, most likely, but that use does speak to what the church and other officials were obviously calling it at the time (i.e. neither California or Cortez). Calling it "Vermilion" in English also distracts from the obvious parallel with Moses's pool. 
So any sources for the history here? How official was the Red Sea name? and was the parallelism with the old Red Sea intentional (originally using similar words) or accidental (when they translate "vermilion" into Chinese)? — LlywelynII 03:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese name: Eastern Red Sea

message: "Depth soundings in the gulf have ranged from fording depth at the estuary near Yuma, Arizona to in excess of 3000 m in the deepest parts."
Added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulf_of_California&type=revision&diff=103622524&oldid=97980202
The citation given for this addition was incorrect (which is why it eventually disappeared). I question why "Yuma Arizona" is mentioned at all, since Arizona doesn't even touch the gulf. "Fording depth" doesn't make sense in this context - is it saying that near the north shore of the gulf, the water isn't deep? Well, duh. Water is generally shallow where it meets the land.
I'd like to request a rewrite of this section. A google search of "gulf of california bathymetry" brings up immediate results from the USGS, NOAA, and multiple educational institutes. I do not have the background or knowledge in the subject to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.11.175 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bathymetry 

message: This article claims there are 37 and 900 islands ("Its more than 900 islands are...", "The Gulf of California contains 37 islands"). Perhaps someone can use the content of this redirect to start a section on islands?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many islands? 

message: This article discusses some of the geography of the Gulf of California and while I was reading it, I noticed it mentioned that it came to be the Gulf of California when tectonic forces happened. So that people have a clear understanding, they can mention that it happened due to Pangea or the type of tectonic force that caused it to happen. Was it due to a divergent boundary or a convergent boundary? If it is any of the ones mention, explain how it happened so people can understand the geologic history of it. The article mentioned that it has ongoing volcanic activity on the island of Isla Tortuga but what is the evidence for that? It was a broad explanation but if one wants to really get to know the Gulf of Mexico they need to understand the history about it and all the geological features that come along with it. 
I had looked at one of the citations to learn more about one of the mentioned subjects. When I clicked on the link I was directed to a new website but it only read Spanish. Since I know how to read Spanish, I had no problem continuing my search but for those who do not read the language, it is unfair to them. The source one chooses should be accessible by all. Speaking of citations, when I was reading about the tectonic forces I clicked the link and realized that it led me to another Wikipedia page. The sources one chooses to cite should be a reliable source that has factual information and not one that is of the same exact web source. One cannot be totally sure that they are receiving the right information when the citations are not of the right kind. Mgh972103 (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification and Citations

message: While reading the article, I felt there was bias when it said "The Gulf is thought to be one of the most diverse seas on the planet...". However, I see that the information came from another source and is noted. Furthermore, the part where you talk about it being a home to more than 5000 species is distracting. Overall, it's an interesting fact, but it doesn't go well with the order you provided the information. KawaiiKoreaboo (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluation

message: I have a couple of questions about the geology section. Could you maybe go into more depth on the subject?  It seems a bit vague on subjects like earthquakes, volcanism, tectonic plates, etc.  Maybe you could go into a bit more depth on those subjects?  Also, it seems to lack references/sources that are reputable and allow more depth in the paragraph.  Would it be possible to expand more on the paragraph and add some citations and references?  Otherwise the page is done well.
Mmh01 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology Questions 

message: When it comes to the article as a whole, why wasn't there a section that discussed earthquakes? Volcanic activity in the geology section is discussed, therefore mentioning how often earthquakes happen would be a good addition. If information on earthquakes along the gulf were added to the geology section then it wouldn't be so concise. Another question I had was, what range does the salinity have to be in order for marine life to survive?
AgKimm (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation Of Article 

message: You didn't like my edit; fine. I suggested to see "coastline paradox"; perhaps spoonfeeding it will work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
But maybe you're better than all of that and have found some magical way of obtaining the "4000 km" length.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:57D4:600:AC12:B878:71C:B5E7 (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  4000 km indeed!