Talk:Cave Junction, Oregon

Cave Junction, Oregon was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 3, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
January 13, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 6, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that gold was first discovered in Oregon in 1850 in the Illinois Valley near Cave Junction, Oregon, the same valley in which a 17-pound gold nugget was found, the largest in Oregon history?
Current status: Delisted good article

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Refs for future use

[1] police - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC) [2][3][4]Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Knapweed: [5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trees/forest:[6] [7] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wine: [8]

Rough and Ready: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Peregrine Fisher 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of lumber mills

The statement that the lumber mills dwindled due to goverment regulation and roadless federal lands sounds specious to me. Most of the mills were gone in the late 1960s, decades before such regulation was contemplated and before road construction on federal forest lands was curtailed. Cave Junction residents from the late 1950s and early 1960s will remember extensive clearcutting on the Siskiyou slopes around the Illinois Valley. Over forty years later one can still see the damage caused by those clearcuts, which haven't produced any harvestable timber of note. The one mill that lasted the longest, Rough and Ready, did so because they relied heavily on well-managed private timber holdings. Offhand, I'd say the mills disappeared mostly due to greed and lack of foresight. —Quicksilver^{T @} 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the statement sounds specious. The phrase used to say "clearcutting and over-harvesting on the surrounding mountainsides" but someone changed it to the current wording. So I tagged that for "citation needed" but I don't think our little Wiki article on Cave Junction needs to be a POV battleground about the pros and cons of the timber industry. I'm removing the phrase, and if anyone can actually find a source for the mill closures being due to either clearcutting or overregulation, then please do put it back in. Katr67 21:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on latest additions

I thought the treehouse resort was in Takilma? Katr67 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. It has a CJ address, but I made a note of that in this article. - Peregrine Fisher 16:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking maybe the things that aren't actually in CJ should be taken out and the nearby locales put in a "see also" section, but I think your solution works fine. Since I'm not from there, I don't know what the locals consider to be in CJ, and we know the USPS doesn't always agree with the locals. (In that region, however, I've noticed some people seem to equate Ashland with Medford, but I'd say those are separate locales.) Great job with expansion! I can see a few things I'd like to tweak, so I'll do that and you can see what you think. Do you think the newspaper or the Great Cats place merit their own articles? Because I generally prefer to make things like that redlinked wikilinks rather than embedded titled links, Like this, then use the external link as a reference until an aricle is written. Katr67 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done messing with it. You can see there are some commented out sections that can be uncommented and expanded as needed. I'll see about checking the good book for some history one of these days. Katr67 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I didn't know the correct section headers and it will be easier to expand on these. I'll try and find maybe two refs minimum for each section. Ashland and Medford are definitely seperate cities, but I would consider Kerby (to a lesser extent) and Takilma (to a greater extent) part of the "greater Cave Junction metro area," if one wants to call it that. Takilma doesn't have any stores and its closest town is CJ. Kerby doesn't have anything besides two galleries and their teeny museum. Takilma is about 7 miles outside of downtown CJ and Kerby maybe 2-3 miles. If I CJ ever becomes too large (doubful), some of the info can be moved to the other pages. - Peregrine Fisher 17:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) That works for me. (re:moving content) Sometimes the city articles list things that are 100 miles away as "notable attractions", and besides wikipedia not being a tourist guide, each article should actually be about the place in the article title, and not everything w/in a 100-mile radius. Obviously these need to be treated on a case-by-case basis though. I defer to people who are familiar with the areas in question. I do know that I signed up for a popular Internet networking service and it says the populous place in Marion County in which I live is actually part of Portland. News to me. Katr67 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the re-class to B. This does now meet the low end of the B class, but note 1) generally due to conflicts of interest we do not rate articles we contribute to (see WP:GA for an actual ban for that classification). 2) The number of references really has very little do due a classification; B class is about broad coverage of a topic (with maybe one part missing) so an article about a city could have 50 references for it's history section and not cover the economy or geography at all and thus would only be start; now adding a bunch of references will move a start class article up if references were the only thing deficent. Just a few notes for the future.

As to continued improvement, the glaring issue I can see is the lead needs expansion. Aboutmovies 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've gotta work on the lead and history sections, and add a government section. COI is about article space, not talk pages, but I get what you mean. - Peregrine Fisher 22:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prosification

It's fine to have just have a bullet point to certain things, especially if they have their own articles. So for the newspaper, just a link to the article I'm sure you're going to create (hint hint) is better than repeating that information in this article. Basically this article should be reserved for info about the city of CJ and the details about the things in CJ should go in their own articles. I think you need only the briefest mention of Oregon Caves, and people who are curious can click on that article to learn more. Katr67 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go into too much detail on the newspaper and the caves, but I like to put a few sentences in so people can get a rough idea of what it is without having to go to another page, where they can get a detailed article on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

Is the 61 inches a typo? That is a lot more than Portland and atypical of Southern Oregon outside of the coastal cities. Aboutmovies 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I was using Yahoo real estate, but they may not be accurate for Cave Junction. I think they may be basing it on the weather at a nearby mountain, and not in the actual city. The Chamber of Congress puts it at 50 to 55 inches, and has different numbers for snow, temp, etc. I'll change the info. - Peregrine Fisher 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

The article does not comply with the Manual of Style. The Forest fires section should be a part of the history, not the last section. Wikipedia is not a travel or tourism guide, and a Points of interest section violates this. Much of the content is suitable for other sections. The Caves parts should go into Geography. The resort and wineries paragraphs need to go in to Economy, as does the Great Cats World Park bit. Historic sites should be a part of the history section, and along with Climate, the article should do all it can to avoid single-sentence sections. The following is most egregious violation of not only MoS, but some of the basic pillars dictating Wikipedia content. Having a Hippies section is a gross violation of a properly formal encyclopedic tone. Many people object to the characterization of hippie, which makes it POV and even possibly original research. Environmentalist and hippie are not precisely analogous terms, and characterizing all of the individuals possibly included in that section as hippies makes the article read like it was written in 1969. In order for the article to comply with the MoS and the GA criteria, this section should either be removed entirely, or moved to History and completely rewritten.

2. Factually accurate?:

The bare minimum of inline citations are one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. The article generally does an okay job of this, but several sections are woefully uncited. Demographics, and the intro to the Culture section both need basic citations.

3. Broad in coverage?:

The History section only goes up until its incorporation in 1948, which certainly isn't comprehensive. That's more like pre-history. The Geography section is pretty thin, and it could go into quite a bit more detail about how the unique geography has shaped the town and its growth. The Government and politics section should not focus primarily on the political leanings of its citizens, as it does now. The section should be a concise overview of the city government and any relevant history, which it is not now.

4. Neutral point of view?:

The article contains an entire section which violates a neutral point of view, as noted in the first section.

5. Article stability?

Not the subject of any recent or on-going conflicts.

6. Images?:

Present and accounted for with proper licenses.

Closing comments: As the necessary changes would, in my estimation, take longer than the maximum hold period of a week to complete, and the article meets one or more of the quick-fail criteria, I have failed it without the customary hold for minor improvements.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed assessment. I wasn't totally satisfied with the layout myself, but I didn't know what to do. I had looked at other GA city pages, but they weren't a lot of help because CJ is such a small town. If and when I fix the above problems, I'll bring it back to GA. - Peregrine Fisher 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Cave Junction, but I found this part of the lead odd: Residents range from very liberal to strongly right-wing. This describes just about every city in the United States. Is there something special about the politics in Cave Junction? If so, we can probably replace this sentence with something more descriptive. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The demog section is already cited with {{GR|2}} as are all the Rambot-produced city articles that use 2000 census data. These don't need citations at the end of every paragraph. Katr67 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For those who don't know about this bit of Wikipedia history see here for an example what the bot initially produced for every census locale in the United States. Katr67 21:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I completely agree that Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, I disagree that having a "Points of interest" section violates this principle. For example, look at the GA Youngstown, Ohio, which has a section entitled "Attractions", the use of which I tend to discourage for the Oregon city articles. I think "Points of interest" is more neutral and less tourist oriented. Salt Lake City, Utah, another GA, has "Sites of interest and city architecture". However, if you look at Salem, Oregon, which is far from being a good article, though it has the potential, you can see how I rearranged some of the sections today in keeping with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline, which recommends headings such as "Arts and culture" and yes, "Museums and other points of interest". Now, the way the section is written is another matter that I haven't looked into, but the headings themselves do not violate WP:NOT. Katr67 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, "other violations exist" is not a valid argument. Second, calling something "points of interest" is patently advice-like, advocating edifices or attractions which would be good tourist destinations. That clearly violates WP:NOT. But whether you agree on that or not, all of the information in that section belongs in other sections, some of which (like geography) are extremely flimsy. There is no reason to have a POI section - something not advocated by basic MoS section guidelines - when other essential sections are seriously lacking. VanTucky ^Talk 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old discussion, but VanTucky, your citing of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is inaccurate, and brushes off a perfectly legitimate argument by Katr. This is not a deletion debate, and the examples Katr cites are from articles that have passed GA. If there was a problem with the "Points of interest" section that's one thing, but your claim that such a section title is necessarily "patent" violation goes beyond the task of reviewing an article for GA. We needn't get into that here. -Pete (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takilma, Oregon

Shouldn't the information pertaining to Takilma be moved to the Takilma article? Otherwise perhaps the general culture of the region should go into Josephine County, Oregon or Southern Oregon articles. Katr67 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought of that. It would make it easier to pass GA, I guess. The article I've created here is really about the Illinois Valley, which most people would call Cave Junction. The only parts of it that are CJ spedific are Demographics, Government and politics, Education and part of Media. The rest are partially or wholly about stuff outside the city limits. I would say people outside of the valley would call the area Cave Junction, and residents are about evenly split between calling the area CJ or something more specific. When the new york times writes about takilma, they say Cave Junction at the beginning or their articles, for instance. The main accomplishment of the hippies is the Health Center, which is now in CJ but started in Takilma. Also, the descrimination against them happened in CJ. I'm not super informed on the rules for city articles, but I would say that most people would expect to find Takilma's info within this article. Takilma isn't really any different from other, non-unicoporated parts of the valley besides a bunch of hippies moved there. I could probably come up with maybe six sparse paragraphs for the Takilma article, which is why it seems this is a better place for the info. It's kind of like Redwood, Oregon where people who don't live there think it's part of Grants Pass, and I suspect a lot of the younger residents are also unaware that they're not part of GP. Maybe creating a redirect to CJ at Illinois Valley is the best way to go. I wish there were some other pedians familiar with the area, but I don't know of any. I guess I could ask at the Grants Pass page. Those people might have something to add. I can't think of a good northern Oregon parallel. Everything up here is so much more populated and notable it's easy for a good article to be created on it. I'll look for some refs that discuss it, but I'm not sure I'll find much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crime section, maybe

On December 11, 2007 former mayor Tom Green was found beaten to death outside his Cave Junction home. Green sheltered homeless teens at his home and homeless nineteen-year-old Timothy Waddell was picked up by police and charged witht the murder. According to witnesses, Waddell repeatedly bashed the 70-year-old Green's head into the asphalt in an unprovoked attack. Green was mayor in the late 80's and early 90's.^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) 22:36, December 11, 2007

^ "Former Mayor of Cave Junction dead; teenager arrested". KXLY. Retrieved 2007-12-11.

Oh that's just awful. I'm not sure it merits inclusion in this article though, since Green doesn't seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards, even if he was a good guy. Katr67 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying to find general crime data, but figured I'd wtite this up while I'm at it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geology, Soils and Vegetation

Moved from article. Most towns don't have sections like this, and it will make passing GAN very difficult. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Junction is located in an area of complex bedrock lithology. Many types of sedimentary and igneous rock, often metamorphosed, occur around town. Ultramafic rocks dominate many areas and the infertile soils produced by their weathering make the regional vegetation less luxuriant than one would expect from the average annual precipitation. Douglas-fir, incense cedar, Ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, California black oak and Pacific madrone are among the prominent native trees with the greatest species diversity on sites with little ultramafic influence. Some fertile loams in and around the town support gardens and farms.

Geologic Map of the Northwest Quarter of the Cave Junction Area

Web Soil Survey

I saw the first ref, but I'm not qualified to summarize it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political statistics

I removed the reference to Yahoo!'s political information. First of all, this information is county-level, not for Cave Junction. Second of all, it was from 2004. Using four-year-old election results to determine a city's political affiliation is probably a bad idea.

For what it's worth, the precinct data from 2008 indicates that Cave Junction voted as follows: Obama 343, McCain 338, Nader 5, McKinney 4, Barr 9, Baldwin 10, Write-in 11. Once I get this documented online, I'll re-edit the article. Trafton (talk)

Sounds good. Thanks for the effort. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IV Times

It needs to be non promotional, and could you provide the paper's web address? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks in notable residents section

By consensus at WikiProject Oregon, we discourage redlinks in notable residents sections, which in turn discourages vanity additions, and also because existing articles help "prove" notability. Most of these sections are lists, and have the standard disclaimer seen below:

+++++

Note: · Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability. · The biographical article must mention how they are associated with Cave Junction, whether born, raised, or residing. · The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited in this article, unless it is well-known. · Alphabetical by last name please · All others will be deleted without further explanation

+++++

Should we be making an exception for prose notable residents sections, and if so why? Katr67 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we've got rules, I don't see why prose should be any different. I just did prose for GA purposes, but it's that same stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cave Junction, Oregon. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Cave Junction, Oregon. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Cave Junction, Oregon. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230039/http://www.cavejunctionoregon.com/new_page_5.htm to http://www.cavejunctionoregon.com/new_page_5.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://realestate.yahoo.com/Oregon/Cave_Junction/neighborhoods
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonartscommission.org/pdf/ABC_TA_Rpt_01.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.grantspassoregon.gov/Index.aspx?page=280
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cavejunctionoregon.com/attractions.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.threerivers.k12.or.us/departments.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.illinois-valley-news.com/calendar.html

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cave Junction, Oregon. 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/20071112062546/http://www.guestontap.com/byview.php?id=60725 to http://www.guestontap.com/byview.php?id=60725

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Cave Junction, Oregon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition is on the Sweeps list. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GabrielPenn4223, when you open reassessments, please try to specify which of the GA criteria the article does not meet. So for this article, for example, you could say "the Demographics section is essentially unsourced, failing GA criterion 2b), and has not been updated since 2010, failing criterion 3a)". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The demographics is extensively unsourced, fail GA criterion 2b and has not been updated for 14 years, failing 3a

Added this thing. Keep or delist? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] "Former Mayor of Cave Junction dead; teenager arrested". KXLY. Retrieved 2007-12-11.

[1]