Talk:Oregon

"State of Oregon" redirect

There is currently a discussion over whether "State of Oregon" should redirect to Government of Oregon or Oregon at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#State_of_Oregon. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Transportation

The article for Oregon currently has nothing on its transportation. Thought I'd bring it up to see if anyone would be willing to add it in.booksrule9 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Section order

I was looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._states#Body_of_article and I know it's not a rule, but the historical population info that is under Oregon#History seems like it would fit better under Oregon#Demographics. The major cities section also seems like it would fit better as a subsection of Oregon#Demographics rather than Oregon#Geography but I can see why it's there as the text discusses the connection between the population and the geography. Also, wouldn't the Oregon#Demographics section fit better under Oregon#Geography instead of under Oregon#Economy? TimeClock871 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cartogram

Please consider removing this chart for two reasons. #1, it doesn't offer much in the way of good information. The counties are twisted and rotated and ranked in population size, something the map above it does more effectively. It's cute but not scientific. #2. The website on the map does not exist any longer either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.205.58 (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Europeann EXploratio

I Think In The Europian EXploraation There Shall Be A Expanding To Article Becausse It Is Short. Any Peple Who Want To POst It Here Or On My Talk Page Sign You Name As You Write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

EMploy

Hi . Articlle Subjec t EmployMent Needs EXpanding. Can SomBody Help Wiki Pedia Page On The Article Here . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits to the Name section

I couldn't quite fit everything I want to say in the edit summary box, so I'm writing it here instead. There was, I thought, some awkwardness in wording and possibly misleading statements. Plus the summary here did not quite agree with the more detailed info at Oregon (toponym). So... first I thought the section needed to start with a little context. As it was it began, The origin of the name "Oregon" is unknown. One theory is that... I thought it would help to mention the earliest known usages (1765 as "Ouragan" and 1778 as "Oregon"), and that the names referred to the "then–mythical" River of the West. So I added a bit of context and moved the info about Rogers's 1765 petition to the section's "lead", before the first theory is described. I also left out the phrase "according to the Oregon Blue book"--there are many sources besides the blue book that describe the 1765 petition, including the T.C. Elliott one I added.

Second, the first theory given, on "Oregon" coming from French ouragan ("windstorm"), I felt the text as it read implied that French explorers had been to the Columbia River and the Gorge itself, and having experienced the gorge winds named the river Ouragan. But we're talking pre-1765 here (thus the use of starting out with that context), and while I admit the French explorations of the interior were impressive to the extreme, the notion that they had firsthand experience with the Columbia Gorge before 1765 is very very hard to believe. There was no source for the claim, French explorers called the Columbia River "Hurricane River" (le fleuve aux ouragans), because of the strong winds of the Columbia Gorge. I was tempted to slap on a "citation needed"--incredulous at the idea of French explorers in the Columbia Gorge at that time. If nothing else I'd want a source about le fleuve aux ouragans. Instead I took the time to read the T.C. Elliott source provided on the Oregon (toponym) page. Elliott is rather strong in his claim that the name comes from French ouragan, but he never claims the French had reached the Columbia River. Nor does he say they called it le fleuve aux ouragans. So I left that bit out and instead tried to tersely summarize what Elliott does say. Hopefully my edits are not too poorly worded and make sense--that the French of the Great Lakes and upper Mississippi River region had heard from the Indians of the powerful winds of the lower Columbia River (although why such info would be known 2,000-some miles away makes me skeptical); or that the French had firsthand, or firsthand experience with Indians aware of the powerful windstorms (including tornadoes) of the Great Plains, through which the Columbia River was then thought to flow. I can more easily see how a (mythical) large westward flowing river, whose headwaters were said to lie within a reasonable portage distance from the Mississippi's upper headwaters, and which supposedly flowed west clear to the Pacific, crossing the windswept Great Plains, might be named for the powerful winds of the plains--winds which interestingly enough are also called Chinook winds.

Anyway, I tried to fit all this in the edit summary box but ran out of space. Posting here instead, I've rambled on a bit more than I should--my apologies. I still think George Stewart makes a better case with his theory about the Wisconsin River, but after researching this evening, the French "hurricane" theory is not quite as far-fetched as I had thought--still hard to swallow, but within the realm of possibility. Pfly (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Governor-elect

Kitzhaber is generally being declared the winnor of the gubernatorial election... I think that we should add him as Governor-Elect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbbard (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Waiting a couple days until it is more clear is more prudent. I'd love to wait until results are official, but I recall that takes a few weeks. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Chris Dudley conceded, so I think it's safe now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbbard (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Section

I moved some of the sentences around a bit. There was a lot talking about population in two different paragraphs. Im not sure if there is too much information about the population density in that second paragraph.Filiwickers (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

General comment

As a forgein national, I have been living in Oregon for almost 20 years. It is really a beautiful state, and not so much run over like other places in Washington State or California. Especially the 90's were awesome, and one could find a job. Often however, the different districts in Oregon seem extremely provincial, red neck enclaves. One really has the feeling, one lives away from civilization, like on another planet. Diversity there usually is just a bumper sticker on a car. Medium sized towns, like Eugene and Corvallis, unless you are on the campuses (the schools in Oregon do have an excellent reputation) seem deserted often. There is hardly anybody around. You have to look for hours just to find a decent restaurant or place to hang out. And even then, it seems nobody is ever around. Eastern Oregon is a natural wonder but a desert and the towns, I don't know, it is cheap, but where are all the people? The average income is still quite low and there is a lot of poverty and homelessness. I do look up to Kitzhaber, who is now governor again. But Oregon should finally attract more visitors from abroad to boost its tourist industry. I have seen Motels there and living accomodations, give me a break! So, if you want peace and quiet, don't need to work and want to be away from the world, then you should really visit Oregon. Unless I was outdoors, I got really bored there and lonely. Also, the current economic situation particularly in the south such as in the 4th district is dire. I mean not everybody can be a grower to make money that way. I think Oregon needs to open up to the world more and improve its average. I know it is a democratic state, and that is fine. But certainly, aside of the health initiatives, it has not so much to show for.