Talk:Alta California

message: 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. ;-) gK ¿? 07:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ranchos of California

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Great. Why don't you do the honors? -Will Beback · † · 09:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alta%2c_California]] [[95701]] [[95715]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Land grants

message: 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)
thread_title: Lands under Mexican rule

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  flags that have flown over California 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree that the wording was confusing. Improvements made. WCCasey (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent of Spanish and Mexican control over Alta California 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023001614/http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap2/chap2-sect5.html to http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap2/chap2-sect5.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merger discussion: Alta California Territory

message: This dead citation link was removed: <"the American Conquest of California"  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)
thread_title:  Dead source link removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Compose–comprise distinction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Republic of Texas flag?