Talk:Berkeley Hills

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Berkeley Hills are not in Berkeley? 2 The Little H is Petty and Wrong 3 Diablo Range 4 Lawson Report

[edit] Berkeley Hills are not in Berkeley?

I'm trying to make sense of this article. If someone says "Berkeley Hills", everyone would understand that the person is referring to the hilly part of Berkeley. Likewise, "Oakland Hills" refers to the hilly part of Oakland. To assert that this usage is incorrect strikes me as bizarre. Apparently it is saying that there is some usage of the term among some geographers that has a different meaning. I can't find any examples of this usage anywhere on the internet, so I'd like to see a citation. Also, it should be made clear that there is another common usage and this definition also applies in a certain technical field. Lagringa 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Berkeley Hills are in Berkeley...and also in Oakland, El Cerrito, and Contra Costa County. Tmangray 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is confusing. It's bizarre only if you also consider that San Francisco Bay is Berkeley Bay within the city limits of Berkeley and Oakland Bay within the city limits of Oakland, etc. This wasn't even a question before about the 1980s. The name "Oakland Hills" never appeared on any map or in print. In fact, I have yet to see any map which gives that name to the former Contra Costa Hills. My maps all show the name "Berkeley Hills" extending well into Oakland, with no "Oakland Hills" indicated at all. The original application of the name occurred back in the 1800s because of the influence in geographic circles of the University people, and the usage was accepted. Maybe that will change, but it hasn't yet, except informally. Tmangray 05:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's one gazetteer which I found online as an example: [1]. The same reference has no listing at all for "Oakland Hills". Clearly there are Oakland hills (little h), but no given name like Berkeley Hills for a particular range. Not only do the Berkeley Hills extend into Oakland, but also on their east slopes, into Contra Costa County. I have maps showing the name applied northward as well into Kensington and El Cerrito. Tmangray 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google turned up this example of usage by, of all things, a geographer: [2]

Looking at a USGS map from 1914, the name "Berkeley Hills" appears along the ridge from Richmond southeast into Oakland just past where the Caldecott Tunnel is today. There is no topograpic name "Oakland Hills" anywhere, but starting above far east Oakland and extending south to Hayward appears the name "San Leandro Hills" on the ridge above the Hayward Fault. Tmangray 07:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Those cites do not suppost the assertion that it is incorrect to refer to the hills in Oakland as the "Oakland Hills." They support the assertion that geographers refer to the East Bay hills as the "Berkeley Hills," but they are not very strong sources. (One only implies it.) You can't come up with a stronger source? A topic that constitutes an entire article should be supported by at least a couple solid sources. In any case, "Oakland Hills" is in widespread use and has been for a long time - I could easily provide many thousands of examples. I understand your preference for the lower case "h", but capitalizing the name doesn't make the whole name "incorrect." Lagringa 23:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of sources would convince you that there is nothing wrong with "Oakland Hills." I searched for examples of geologists and geographers using the phrase with capital "H" and found quite a few examples: CA Geological Survey, USGS, USGS, Geotimes, Geological Society of America, a geologist,a geographer, a geological engineer. So, what I propose is creating a separate article on the Berkeley Hills as a geological formation, which a disambiguation link from the main article. Lagringa 19:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we are discussing not a geological formation only, but also a geographical name. All USGS maps show Berkeley Hills (and further south, San Leandro Hills). None show Oakland Hills. The USGS's official nomenclature likewise. If you can't find those, look at a AAA map. Or look at the East Bay Regional Parks descriptions of the various peaks, all of which are in fact outside Berkeley, yet are the "Berkeley Hills". The ref's you found (after intensive digging I'm sure) are thin, informal, and likely from people unfamiliar with local geographic names. Your cites (the first two are the same website) don't address the significant point upon which you seemed to first question the usage: that geographical names for landforms don't necessarily coincide with political boundaries. Once you can get your head around that, the usage isn't so hard to understand. Tmangray 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

An example: there is an ocean current called the California Current. This name applies to a current which runs, not just along the California coast, but from British Columbia down past Baja California. There is no such thing as an "Oregon Current" or a "Washington Current". Tmangray 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another example: the Hayward Fault is not just that portion of that fault within the city limits of Hayward. Tmangray 00:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect to your claim that the term "Oakland Hills" is recent, here is an example of its use by a naturalist in 1893. Lagringa 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As a common usage for the hills, it is recent. And FAR less common in print than Berkeley Hills. That cite required a lot of time to find I'm sure. Consider the poetic sense of the piece. The author was obviously not concerned with whether or not he was spelling out the correct name for a landform. Certainly, no map of the period showed any such name. Tmangray 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Little H is Petty and Wrong

Stepping into this one late but Tmangray's insistence that the Oakland Hills get the small 'H' treatment because it is not common on maps is petty and wrong. It is in fact common terminology, and no one who lives in the Bay Area is confused when you use the term. If anyone was confused that little fire a few years back kind of took care of that. I bet Tmangray is the hit of the party when he tries to explain how wrong someone is when they say they live in the Oakland Hills. The article's explanation of this issue is fine, but the redirect from 'Oakland Hills' to 'Oakland hills' should be undone.--Fizbin 17:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Only proper names are capitalized. "Oakland hills" is not a proper name. There is no such entry in the USGS database, nor on any map I have ever seen, nor is there any specific range to which the term applies. It may be common in the usage of some people, but it is not encyclopedic. Tmangray 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diablo Range

As I understand it, the Berkeley Hills described in this article are nothing more than the foothills of the greater Diablo Range (in this region, culminating in Mount Diablo itself). It seems that the Berkeley Hills are simply the westernmost range of the Diablo Range in the Bay Area. The mountains around the Lamorinda and Concord/Walnut Creek areas seem to be the same range. The point is, this article does not mention the Diablo Range. I would like to add a sentence stating that the Berkeley Hills are a part of the Diablo Range, but I wanted to confirm that this is commonly understood first. - PAQ

I have never encountered any source that mentions that the Berkeley Hills are part of the Diablo Range. Both ranges are part of the Coast Ranges. The Diablo Range proper is the last range before the Central Valley. The Diablo foothills lie directly along the range's western slopes and represent the transition from valleys such as the San Ramon Valley. The USGS classifies the Berkeley Hills as a range in its own right (see the link at the bottom of the article). Tmangray 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to the Mount Vaca article, look through the links and references there is a great great website which can give you all the answers you need regarding mountain ranges, hills, and all kinds of peaks.Cholga^talK! 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawson Report

The famous 1908 Lawson Report on the 1906 Quake (text available online) contains passages by Prof. Andrew Lawson himself on the application of the name "Berkeley Hills" as to its extent and ambiguity of southern termination, toponymically-speaking. I am adding this as a reference. By the by, he also never uses any such name as "Oakland Hills". Tmangray (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)