Talk:Oregon/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.

Early Oregon Native Americans

Oregon's earliest residents were several Native American tribes, including the Bannock, Chinook, Klamath, and Nez Perce.

That's only accurate if by "Oregon" here the Oregon Country is meant, not the area described by the current boundaries of the State of Oregon; in that context there are numerous other tribes that should be mentioned before the Nez Perce; the Wasco and Tillamook come to mine, but there are many others.Skookum1 23:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is accurate as to the borders of Oregon the modern political entity. Each tribe has now been sourced to demonstrate that fact. As to the Nez Perce you may want to read about them on their page. As you may not know, the Wallowa Valley is in Oregon, and this is part of the traditional home of the tribe (the land Chief Joseph the younger was forced off of), which is why they purchased some of the land in September of 1997 as they try to re-connect to their heritage there.[1] Aboutmovies 06:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentence is false as written, human habitation in Oregon and North America in general goes back at least 10,000 years if not much more. It is highly unlikely the tribes listed existed back then. Pfly 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Someone needs to fix the "A Horrible State" vandalism on the page. I can't seem to figure out how to do it right now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:52, November 16, 2006

What do you mean? It's already been fixed. Katr67 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Should there be something mentioned about the drug problems in Oregon and the fact that teens addicted to drugs from all over the United States are drawn to this place? And the amount of marijuana cultivation going on.

I don't think it is different enough from the rest of the nation to warrant including in this article. Drugs are a problem everywhere and marijuana is grown eveywhere. Cacophony 06:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Oregon. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing information about covered bridges

I miss any information or links about a very typical cultural element of Oregonian culture: covered bridges. Could somebody enter this with a referral to the Wikipedia pages Covered bridge and/or Cottage Grove? The latter has even the nickname "Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Railroads over the Cascades

The article says: In the 1880s, railroads enabled marketing of the state's lumber and wheat, as well as the more rapid growth of its cities. The Great Northern Railroad was the first railroad to cross the Cascade Mountains, thus connecting the Pacific Northwest with the rest of the Union. But unless I'm mistaken, the Northern Pacific Railway was earlier, "crossing" the Cascades via the Columbia Gorge, no? Pfly 07:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a reference work on railroad history handy, but I think the SP&S line on the Washington side of the Columbia and the UP lines on the Oregon side were first operated by smaller carriers long before BN and UP absorbed them. But at this point I am going on hazy memory of stories of my railroading family members (three uncles and a grandfather) who all worked those lines in the days of The Dalles Roundhouse and Wishram Station. I don't think we want to open this kettle of worms in an article on Oregon. The story of the railroads is too vast, and mostly beyond its scope. It should go in an article of its own, and the more general statement here left as is, in my opinion. Also, there are still no railroads "over the Cascades" in Oregon, where the east-west lines run through the gorge, and I am not sure it is an accurate description of the northern Washington line either, which traverses a pass "through" the mountains. Work on this subject has already begun at Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes.. I think the sentence struck me as awkward in its apparent claim that before a railroad crossed the Cascades, the Pacific Northwest was not connected to the rest of the Union. Not only did the SP&S predate other rails tapping the lands east of the Cascades, and rail connections from Portland to California's transcontinental rail existed early on, but the Pacific Northwest includes the Willamette Valley and Puget Sound, which were connected to the whole world by ocean shipping. Just an overly grand claim here, it seems.. Pfly 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Please to not be forgetting the east-west line over Willamette Pass 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely another case of the "two Oregons" problem rearing its ugly head. The original sentence should probably be replaced with a clearer and more accurate paragraph. I am still uncomfortable with the reference to the Burlington Northern, which it seems did not even exist in Oregon in the specified decade of the 1880's. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent republic

Trying to address the bits with "citation needed"s. On this one: The Oregon Country functioned as an independent republic[citation needed] with a three-person executive office and a chief executive until August 13, 1848, when Oregon was annexed by the United States, at which time a territorial government was established. -Wasn't Oregon Country held jointly by the US and Britain. There may have been an American "de facto" independent local government, but then again, there was a "de facto" independent British one too, the Hudson Bay Company. The claim of independent republic reminds me of similar claims of the Watauga Association in Tennessee, which was only "independent" in the sense of being on the distant frontier beyond effective jurisdiction by the national government. This was true of a great number of frontier regions and would only be exceptional, I think, if the frontier government actually proclaimed independence, like Texas. In any case, with no citation here, or for the same claim on the Oregon Country page, I'm inclined to simply remove it, perhaps replacing it with something about joint US - British occupancy. Thoughts? Pfly 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Whatever replaces it needs to be authoritatively cited, nonetheless. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
After clicking "save" it occurs to me that the author of the sentence in question may have been making reference to a provisional government being established before federal authorization to do so. (I'm too old to be remembering 5th grade civics lessons at Joseph G. Wilson Elementary.) Although, I suspect it is a cut and paste artifact from the California article which someone may have used as a template and failed to delete all the inapplicable bits. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The context of this, as it appeared on the Oregon Country page, was that it had been allegedly established in 1818; somewhere here or there there were also dates in the early 1840s. I think parly here is that there's an effort to retro-fit regional history to suit separationist/regionalist biases/agendas of various kinds, whether Cascadian/Ecotopian or of the State of Jefferson variety. Sure, a bunch of Americans sitting around the card table or church hall declaring a provisional government in Oregon City (so-called at the time, for it certainly wasn't a city, nor anywhere near as "metropolitan" as the HBC's Fort Vancouver, or indeed any number of very large native villages/fortifications throughout the territory they claimed to be the "provisional govenment" of can do that if they want, but it doesn't mean anybody else has to notice, or recognize them as legitimate; and saying "the twenty of us are a republic and we "govern" everything from here to 54-40 and over to the Rockies and down to Shasta" is a pretty nice boast, but there's no demonstration of effective control or other actual government; the HBC didn't presume to be a "government" (and in fact when confronted with a new, rival colonial administration on the Colony of Vancouver Island in 1843 the conflict was resolved only by replacing the governor and giving his job to the HBC boss - Douglas - and the issues of company vs. colony never quite went away until his retirement). Effective rule in the Oregon County/Columbia District/Pacific Northwest remained in First Nations/Native American hands until the Oregon Treaty; and the only thing in it resembling a govenment, but still wasn't a government, was the HBC's administration of its trade monopoly/license; but it was a very spare presence, only a handful of forts/posts (some well-populated, though), though not as spare as the non-presence of Ameicans as was the case in reality, vs. the myth which says there was "a flood". It wasn't until something like 1844 that there were more Americans than British subjects/employees in the region ("employees" because the Kanakas and certain others weren't necessarily British subjects; the First Nations/Native American population weren't subjects of the Crown until the declaration of the colonies in 1849 and 1858...and they of couse grossly outnumbered everyone else even after the great smallpox epidemic of 1862....).Skookum1 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
All of this is fascinating as a discussion, but in terms of editing the article, it seems only to reinforce the necessity of enforcing the policy of requiring statements of fact to be properly cited. The reader can then judge for him or herself the nature of any cardtables and who may have sat around them. --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

remove reference citation tag

I have removed the unreferenced tag as there are a number of references in the section tagged so it would be neccesary to put an individual citation tag on questionable statements cheers --Matt 10:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberalism and Leadership

Anyone want to mention Oregon's liberalism that has lead it to be one of the leaders in the nation on my issues. Like Death with Dignity, Medical Marijuana, and though the passing of Measure 36 in 2004, its refusal to allow discrimnation against homosexuals, and it current state of having Portland being the leading city in Green initatives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

What? Measure 36, which did pass in 2004, outlawed same-sex marriage. See Oregon_Ballot_Measure_36_(2004). Joshbzin 19:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read it properly it states "though with the passig of Measure 36 in 2004, its refusal to allow discrimnation against homosexuals." Please be more careful when reading.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:28, March 19, 2007

Perhaps you're not familiar with how diffs work, but anyone who's interested can check your contributions or the page history and see that you amended the first comment and claimed Joshbzin had misread it in the same edit. [2] -- Vary | Talk 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Government section

The Government section of the article does not currently have any citations in it (I'll try to find some). Now the parts about how the government works is not a big issue since cites are really only needed if it is something likely to be challenged (i.e. we don't have to cite that gravity exists). But the area that discusses politics certainly should. And though I agree that the state is a moderate leaning democratic state, that doesn't mean everyone thinks so. But more importantly we need to avoid assigning value to info, just add the information and let readers draw conclusions. For instance I removed the part about Kerry winning "significantly more" votes in Oregon that Gore. One, why is that relevant to this article (and balance would call for some info on Bush), and two "significantly" is a value judgement. Significant to one is negligble to another. Put the actual numbers in if you think they are relevant to the article. I doubt any current WP:WPOR members were responsible for this, so this is just a friendly reminder for all those who come accross the article to edit it.

If we don't police ourselves, we'll never get the article up to FA status. Aboutmovies 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

State Symbols section

The state symbols section includes a note, "State rock: Thunderegg (like a geode but formed in a rhyolitic lava flow; since 1965)," which is misleading. This implies that the difference between a thunderegg and a geode is that thundereggs forms in a rhyolitic lava flow, and could be read to suggest their formation is an igneous process. A more correct and precise way to identify the difference is to note that the term "geode" implies an open space at the center but doesn't imply any particular type of crystal. Thundereggs, in contrast, often don't have a void and are usually filled primarily with silica, although zeolites, calcite, and other minerals are sometimes found. In fact geodes are often found right along with fully filled thundereggs (I have a thunderegg geode sitting next to me) and are still called thundereggs. Fully filled or not, thundereggs form from silica rich water that infiltrates cavities in rhyolitic rock, not necessarily lava flows, depositing the thunderegg as a sort of nodule after the parent rock has cooled -- a process that may take a very long time. This is easy to see when you look at a thunderegg that has been sliced open and polished: there are often concentric bands and/or parallel layers of agate, and in rare cases partially fluid filled voids. When the layers are parallel their orientation represents a level surface at the time when the silica (typically agate/opal) that fills the thunderegg was deposited. In some rare cases tectonic forces may reorient a thunderegg while it is forming, resulting in two different parallel layers of agate at an angle to one another. Sometimes you can find the channel that allowed the mineral laden water to enter the thunderegg. Given as much, it's very clear that although thundereggs do form in rhyolite and similar rocks, their formation is an unambiguously sedimentary process NOT an igneous one.

The fact is, the definition of a thunderegg is pretty soft but most people who have seen thundereggs know one when they see one. On the outside they're usually golf ball to grapefruit sized grey to reddish brown spheroids, and on the inside they're (often) filled with a wonderful display of agate, opal, etc.

Given as all that, I'd recommend removing all or part of the explanatory comment next to Thunderegg, or completely rewrite it in a way that I can't quite manage at the moment. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

External links discussion

Let's discuss external links here.

For starters, I don't like that "Oregon Newspapers" link one bit - it's mostly advertising. Still, the value of a link like that is undeniable; so let's try to find a similar one, that's from a more reputable source. -Pete 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that link was ghastly. I was going to suggest changing it to the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association website, but the other link was so content-free, I just went ahead and did it. I think it's what you were looking for. And there's always List of newspapers in Oregon, which if we added a media section to the article (just noticed we don't have one), we could link to and perhaps eliminate the external link altogether, if we took care of the redlinks. Katr67 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, for anyone in or near Multnomah County, did you know that you can browse old articles from the Oregonian, the Register-Guard, the Statesman Journal, and the DJC via the library's web site? You need to know your card number and PIN (usually the last 4 digits of your phone number), and then go to . -Pete 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oregon and popular culture

I'd like to see a page for Oregon and popular culture (perhaps with that as a name.) For instance, the list of movies filmed in Oregon seems moderately useful, but I don't think it belongs on this page; so let's give it a home. I'm sure there is other pop culture trivia that would end up there, so I don't think it should be super-specific like "list of movies filmed in OR." Thoughts? -Pete 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out Portland, Oregon in popular culture. It's stopped lately but people were always trying to add anything within 100 miles of Portland to that list. In light of that, it seems redundant to also have "Oregon in popular culture". Would the Portlanders be upset if we combined the two? Maybe just call it "Culture of Oregon" (check out Culture of New York City, for an example to emulate). I actually started and abandoned a more-inclusive List of films shot in Oregon (not an article--this a temporary sandbox page in my user space--contact me if you'd like to edit it). Many states have one, see: Category:Lists of films by location, so perhaps it can stand as a separate article to be linked from the main culture article? Speaking of that, while I'm at it, I'd like to make a plea for a music-inclined person to clean up the related Music of Oregon. Katr67 03:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Let's convert the following text into a table :

Any thoughts before I get to work? -Pete 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rappers killing people

I removed a line in the Naming section which said that Oregon has a lot of rappers and that you should not go there or they would murder your family. Omega65 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC) A proud Oregonian

Removing 'incorrect' (disputed) pronunciation.

I'm an Oregon native, and NOWHERE in Oregon is the 'disputed' pronunciation used. There may be some regional variation throughout the state, but they are all very close to the first pronunciation. There are places in the Eastern U.S. where "AR-eh-GONE" is the correct pronunciation for "Oregon", but not when referring to the state. (For example, I have a friend who grew up next to Lake Oregon in Wisconsin. "AR-eh-GONE" is a correct pronunciation there.) The pronunciation of the name of this state is not in dispute. There is a right way, and a wrong way. (I went to college in Prescott, Arizona. Most people, including myself before I moved there, would pronounce this town "PRESS-cot". The locals pronounce it "PRESS-kit". That makes "PRESS-kit" the correct pronunciation for that location, irrespective of the 'correct' pronunciation of the same word elsewhere.) Ehurtley 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Correct" pronunciation is determined not by the residents of the state, but by usage among English speakers in general just as for any other English word. The dictionary (Merriam Webster) cited for the pronunciation favored by Oregon residents lists both pronunciations as correct. So does American Heritage Dictionary. For us to overrule the research of multiple dictionaries based on personal preferences would be POV. Erall 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on the use of English is that articles relating to Britain use British English, without reference to the American equivalent, and articles relating to the USA use American English without citing the British equivalent (as opposed to International English for both). Equivalently, shouldn't the page on Oregon cite the "Oregon" pronounciation, without reference to the "everyone else's" pronounciation?
And by the way, the dictionary isn't God. It hardly has the final say on matters like this (dictionaries get plenty of stuff wrong, especially medical and scientific terminology). Radioactive afikomen 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You bring up a good point with the British/American English analogy. Looking over the policy page (WP:SPELLING), it looks like it's intended for national differences rather than regional, but it might apply here by extension. On the other hand, the pronunciation policy page (WP:PRON) says to use both the English and the local pronunciations of foreign place names. Also not directly applicable here, but potentially relevant.
Dictionaries do indeed get things wrong, but they are the standard references for the meaning, etymology, and pronunciation of words. There's a strong presumption the dictionary is right unless someone comes up with other citations that are more reliable about the fact in question (for example, for medical terms I'd trust a medical reference book over a general-purpose dictionary). The dictionaries are the best verifiable source on this question that has been brought up so far. Erall 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the OED concurs on the multiple pronunciations. It lists for British English): /ˈɒrɪɡ(ə)n/ and for American English: /ˈɔrəˌɡɑn/ and /ˈɔrəɡ(ə)n/. Hope that helps, though it doesn't address at all the "foreign vs. domestic" problem - I'm a lifelong Oregonian (or as the OED also lists, Oregonite), and I don't think it's at all offensive or bad to have both pronunciations listed. akendall 05:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
this and this might also be helpful - they're from the archive of this page. akendall 06:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, akendall, for pointing out earlier contributions to this discussion. I'm beginning to think this conversation and the accompanying reversions are becoming a drain on this page, which is about much more than the pronunciation of the state's name. Let me suggest the following solution: since the origin of the name "Oregon" is itself unknown, and there is an interesting collection of theories, we should create an article called something like History of the name "Oregon", drawing info from this page and the Columbia River page, and include a discussion of the various pronunciations. Then, the Oregon page can simply state that the pronunciation is a matter of some dispute, and link to the other page. Any objections, or suggestions for a better article title? -Pete 18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Etymology of the word Oregon or (Etymology of the name Oregon)? Taking a cue from Minnesota and a quick search around the wiki, which seems to show that generally the quotes are left off in titles except for the history of a certain expletive... Or if we really want to sound fancy, how about Oregon (toponym)? (as seen at Albania (toponym)) Katr67 18:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Oregon (toponym), and the fact that we can, once and for all, pawn this discussion off onto another page (though unfortunately, I'm sure we'll all still remain involved). akendall 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This goes out to Erall who wants what we Orygonians do not want: The incorrect is fine here to go along with the correct as determined by residents of this state with a proper explanation, if and only if you get every other state/region/town to do the same. For instance you might want to check out the talk page for Illa noize and see how they like it when their name is mispronounced, even though this is a very common mispronuctiation as shown by Ludacris' Pimpin' All Over the World song where he goes to Illa-noize to get a taste of Chicago. Aboutmovies 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary (?) semi-protection

An administrator who has not recently participated in this talk page just semi-protected this page, which I believe does significant damage to our efforts to make Wikipedia:Wikiproject Oregon a welcoming place for newcomers, and thereby damages Wikipedia as a whole. I have explained this on his/her talk page, and hope that others will join me in requesting immediate un-protection. -Pete 20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is, at present, appearing on the Colbert Report. It was on the suggestion of him and other users that I protected the page, which has been a past target for Stephen Colbert related vandalism. You might not have been active then, but last August we had some significant difficulty with Elephant following mention on the Colbert Report. I realize that this type of thing can hurt your article slightly (I'm familiar with all of the arguments), but this is clearly in the best interest of Wikipedia. alphachimp 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That justifies an unannounced, unexplained, pre-emptive semi-protection for a week?? OK, I'm glad to see it's not entirely random, but it doesn't seem a whole lot better. And I'm giving you a D- for communication. -Pete 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protection policy states unambiguously that page protection should not be used preemptively. I would still like to see the semi-protection reversed, and am willing to put my own time into dealing with vandalism on a case-by-case basis. I will be offline for a couple hours, but will return before the show airs on the east coast. (I cannot, however, cover the entire 4-hour period while the show airs across the nation, so assistance would be appreciated.) -Pete 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Having sufficient reversion sentinels during the hours of the show isn't much of a problem. At least during the Colbert Portugal vandals, the problem was they wore me down by persisting for weeks, at a rate of 20-25 per day, at least when I appealed for semi-protection at that time. After it was granted, another administrator rescinded it a week (?) later, and it was immediately resoundingly pounded. Besides, newbies seeing that there are some visible protection mechanisms is more likely to be welcoming than a corrupted article. —EncMstr 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the history lessons from Katr, Aboutmovies, and EncMstr, and their contributions to keeping the Oregon editing community on track is invaluable. However, it seems to me that Colbert viewers generally have a reasonably good sense of humor. Despite the experince reported above, assuming that they will put the same kind of effort into a joke that is nearly a year stale strikes me as overly cynical. I may be wrong, but I would much rather be proven wrong than simply declared wrong. A couple points of clarification: (1) I would not oppose a semi-protect once a problem has erupted, and (2) the presence of the explanatory tag that Katr mentioned a while back would be a massive improvement, and I don't understand why we should wait until the show airs to put it up. -Pete 22:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the tag looks like: diff. Katr67 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC) You'd be surprised by the tenacity of this thing. I'm too lazy to find the diffs, but I'm pretty sure I've reverted Colbert vandalism in the past couple of months. The Idaho's Portugal thing has taken on a life of its own. Heck, a member of WPOR even added some Colbert derived info once. He says it wasn't vandalism, so I think he sincerely believed that Oregon is sometimes referred to as Washington's California... Katr67 23:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. It wasn't mentioned on colbert. alphachimp 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. So much for your assurances that this would "actually improve" the page, and is "clearly in the best interest of Wikipedia." Omegachimp. -Pete 07:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that was unwarranted and unnecessary. If there is a credible threat that someone is going to attack someone, just like a page -- why wouldn't you want to protect it just in case. The page has been unprotected, give the guy a break. Bring it to Jimbo if you really want to ask why WP:IAR was essentially used to protect the pages. It didn't disrupt anyone from editing the page for such a short time. No reason for the attack. MrMacMan Talk 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Unwarranted, no. Alphachimp made assertions that were stronger than necessary to explain his/her position, and they turned out to be untrue. He/she also expressed boredom with "all the arguments," rather than consider them in light of the specific situation. This approach came across to me as patronizing, an impression that was compounded by the lack of acknowledgment of his/her error; so I believe some words in my own defense were warranted. Unnecessary, yes; just like pretty much everything we all do here. As I've said before, I think this entire exchange has not been good for Wikipedia; but I entirely disagree that it's me who crossed a line. -Pete 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey Pete, what is up with the disparaging personal attacks against an admin doing his or her best to protect all wikipedia articles, not just this one from vandalism in the middle of a major concerted attack by vandals? Were you on RC patrol last night, having to repeatedly revert "librarians are hiding something"? Its pretty obvious that alphachimp was trying to do the right thing here, even if a little prematurely. In general, as is stated below, protection should be used sparingly. In the middle of a massive concerted effort, however, things might be different. This is being discussed on the policy section of Village Pump as well. Gaff ταλκ 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. The Oregon article was protected because Stephen Colbert refered to Oregon as "Idaho's Portugal", or did he specifically ask editors to change the article (like with the elephant thing earlier)? I also disagree that premptive protection is necessary, especially on a page that so many people have on their watchlist. Protection needs to be used as sparingly as possible. I don't think any blatant vandalism to this article is giong to last very long at all. Thanks, Cacophony 22:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks like the article was blocked before the Colbert show even aired! Pre-emptive blocking of the page does seem totally excessive.Gaff ταλκ 23:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Look at the quality of this vandalism. They couldn't even get the insult right. =P akendall 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Curious about the removal of Sexton Summit from the climate chart. The notability of the exact location doesn't seem too important, if it's the only place listed in the Klamath Mtns (or is it Southern Coast range?), then shouldn't it be included? Maybe with a name that makes it more obvious where it is? -Pete 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikevegas40 added the climate infobox to all the states, using info gleaned from this commercial website. Since the infobox created lists the locations as "cities" and Sexton Summit (which apparently is in the Klamath Mountains on I-5 between Myrtle Point and Grass Pants) isn't a city, I took it out. Now, I said it was obscure because I'm not familiar with the location except to note that Oregonlive has a traffic cam there, and I don't get south much, so maybe it's wildly famous and I've been living under a rock? And why that pass and not Siskiyou, for example? In any case, it's not a city, and I think that's probably the kind of information for which an encyclopedia reader is going to be looking--a general comparison of cities. The website only has info on those cities provided, so if we want to add another location we'll have to find it somewhere else. Can we rename The Sexton Summit bit as Grants Pass or try to find the info somewhere else? I assume there's a elevation difference which means the figure would be pretty different? On the other hand, since this is just an overview, (we're not the weather channel and what we really need is Climate of Oregon) is the coverage broad enough without it? We do already have Medford... Katr67 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As an occasional I-5 driver through the Siskiyous, the only thing you need to know about Sexton Summit is that it's cold and quite remote. It's definitely not a city, and in fact, I would be so bold as to say that *no one* lives there. (Apologies to any wikihermits in well-insulated caves with wifi.) If we want to add Ashland or Grants Pants, I'm all for that, but I don't think we need to report the climate of a remote mountain pass as it is only of value to geeks (like me, sadly) with thermometers in their cars who go "oh, look how cold it is *now*!" when they drive through. (By way of comparison, I note that Donner Pass is absent from California's climate page.) --Sprkee 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make (and yes, it occurs to me that maybe I'm being too pointy) is that the notability of the "city" isn't necessarily the best reason to choose what does or doesn't go in. Seemed to me that all regions of the state should be included, and that Sexton Summit might represent a place that's inadequately represented. It is too bad that the only source that's come up is a limited, commercial site…anyway, I think I'm convinced by your arguments, or at least, don't see much use in further horse-beating! -Pete 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


The bulk of the "religion" section has been tagged for months as needing a citation. Also, while some demographic breakdown of religious affiliation would be useful, a list as comprehensive as this one seems too detailed for this article. I've removed most of the section from the main space (keeping only the part that's in bold below), and will paste it below; please make suggestions about what should go in this section! -Pete 02:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


The religious affiliations of the people of Oregon are: [citation needed]

Typical of the Northwestern part of the United States, Oregon is second to only Washington State in percentage of people identifying themselves as "non-religious".[1] Compare these values with the average values for the United States.

Hey, we're not done with Taxes and Budgets! Ok... I guess this needs some work too. I really think the table could and should be converted to prose, something like this. As for what should be covered, the number of non-religious is certainly noteworthy. As is the Catholic Sex Scandal and the Portland Diocese filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy. I'm not really sure what else, I think religion in Oregon pretty much reflects the rest of the U.S. Cacophony 03:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Aw, don't tell me you can't walk, chew gum, and keep a few dozen (hundred??) WP articles in your watchlist at the same time ;) You're right, of course, though your recent edits to the taxes section have been a big improvement. Anyway, I think removing this stuff was an improvement in itself, even if it takes us a while to get the "good stuff" in there. The article you link looks interesting. Doesn't look like a reliable source in itself, though it does provide sources for lots of the detailed info, which is good. Interestingly, its lead paragraph contradicts our article - actually puts Oregon ahead of Washington on the non-religious scale, citing a 1990 report called "Kosmin". Google tells me that this is a report out of CUNY based on the 1990 census, but the press release is all I can find - the weblink to the full report is dead. But there's human contacts listed, so it's far from a dead end.
Anyway, I think their "summary" is just the sort of thing our section should have, if we can find sources for it and maybe update it/flesh it out a tad:
-Pete 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


The "taxes" section is currently a subsection of "economy." Seems like it also has a strong claim to the "government" and "education" sections. My gut says Gov't is the right place, but I'm curious what others think? -Pete 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Government would be ok, right now it is missing stuff that ties it in with the economy. Stuff I think we should add:
  • estimate at how much money is generated by a lack of sales tax. The Seattle Times claims that cross border shopping (not necessarily all with Oregon), costs them $49 million in lost sales tax. The Cascade Policy Institute claimed that the 1993 5% sales tax proposal would've resulted in a loss of $3 billion a year in Oregon retail sales. Are there any sources for what the current economic benefit is?
  • more on how Oregon spends this tax money (especially how it compares with other states).
  • We also need to cover the recent proposals to replace the gas tax by charging by the mile.
  • The failed "McCall Plan" in 1973 should also be worked in somehow.
  • As could the school funding problems following the economic downturn in 2001 and how it resulted in Oregon having the shortest school year in the nation.
  • We could also talk about Measure 47.
  • That discussion should probably discuss similar/related measures like Measure 5. A cleanup of the Oregon tax revolt article might be a good start, making it something worthy of linking to. -Pete 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking this section has made a lot of headway, but, like just about everything that I work on, it needs a bit of polishing. Cacophony 05:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Lowest beer tax in the nation (I think?), and the influence of the restaurant lobby, including the Hawaii scandal? Other especially powerful lobbies? -Pete 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


I recently took a bold step, summarizing many of the items on this talk page, and deleting two or three old and insignificant items (like reports of one's own reversion of vandalism.) I did so with the intention of clearing out issues which were resolved, and making the discussions easier to scan through for their main meaning. This is an appropriate action according to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, which states that:

"Both refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility."

Wangi reverted my edits, correctly pointing out that WP:TALK makes no such suggestion. It appears that these two guideline pages are inconsistent on this point.

So, what do people think? I am well aware that messing with other people's words can be a dangerous thing, but the following considerations motivated this approach:

  • Drawing the most salient points out makes it easier to review discussion, which may improve our ability to build on past successful discussions, rather than repeating old mistakes/cycles.
  • I made a specific note (summarized) in the heading of each section I altered.
  • I am confident in my own ability to distinguish between discussions that are "touchy" and those which were relatively uncontroversial, and have likely faded into memories.
  • In the event that somebody thinks I erred in that, I have no problem deferring to their judgment in reverting a specific discussion to its complete state.
  • The full conversation is always available in history should it be needed.

Please share your thoughts, Oregon folks. -Pete 08:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring a page is hardly controversial, it's absolutely essential to maintaining understandable discussions. What happened to the talk page history??? Even though Help:Archiving a talk page makes the suggestion that moving a page one of the proper ways to archive, I strongly disagree with its use in this instance. The conventions that we were using prior to Wangi's arrival should be respected. There was a lot of stuff that needed to be cleaned up, but I think the current version should have at least 10 threads. Cacophony 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I'll comment on the refactoring as soon as the page move/archive snafu gets fixed up. I believe the page move obliterated the content that was already archived in Archive 2??? Katr67 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Stemonitis is fixing it/fixed it/tried to fix it/messed it up more??? I feel like we're in star trek going some kind of time shift worm hole. Can somebody let us know what's going on, or what went on, or more importantly if it's over and we can get back to our discussion? Thanks! -Pete 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience. I think it should all be back to normal now. The edit histories are all at Talk:Oregon, while the archived contents are in the archives. Any problems, let me know. --Stemonitis 17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the right solution, or at least the right temporary solution, to me - but Katr seemed to think there was already an /archive 2 prior to last night, and that its contents got deleted by mistake. I don't remember for sure, but can you confirm whether or not that's true? This is getting way past my understanding of how MW works… At any rate, thanks very much for your help sorting this out. -Pete 17:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] There's nothing in the deletion log under that title, and there are no deleted edits to undelete. There are also no other archive pages existing with titles beginning "Talk:Oregon". If there was another archive, then it must have been at a different title, and have been deleted since (for reasons unclear). In summary, as far as I can see, no previous Archive 2 has either existed or been deleted. --Stemonitis 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, see below: looks like Katr was getting the WP:WPOR page confused with this one. I think we were wrong about that problem - thanks for checking though! -Pete 18:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed by some of the comments here - especially those implying I've done something wrong. The way I archived the old comments is a common way of doing so, and one explicitly mentioned in Help:Archiving a talk page. It's the way I always archive talk pages.

There was previously only one archived linked from this talk page, I didn't delete any existing second archive.

Refactoring talk pages isn't a bad idea by itself, it just needs to be balanced right. There's no point doing it for dead threads and threads which shouldn't be here in the first place. Likewise the real benefit is in long running threads and very long discussions, which this talk page doesn't really have. Refactoring as a discussion progresses makes sense, a big batch of refactoring doesn't improve matters really I feel, especially when most of the refactoing is going over things which are stone dead. Thanks/wangi 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't allowed to save my post earlier for some reason and also had an edit conflict with Pete. I think I was getting this page mixed up in my memory with the WikiProject Oregon talk page, which has several archives. Thanks for clearing this up. Katr67 17:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Wangi, I think there was a suggestion that you might have done something wrong by mistake, but I see no accusations of you acting in bad faith…it's clear to me that everyone here is doing their version of editing in the best interest of WP.
I still believe my attempt at refactoring was of value - in some cases, it made discussions easier to scan over, and draw out important points; in others, it made it clear that issues were "dead," which in my view is a good first step to simply deleting them. Most of them, I wouldn't want to delete of my own accord, but I think the agreement of one or two other editors would be sufficient for an item that appears uncontroversial and has outlived its usefulness.
I acknowledge that my refactoring was unconventional, but I think it's a good thing. If frequent editors of this page/wikiproject like Cacophony, Katr, and a few others agree, I think we should be willing to explore a new way to communicate about this highly-edited and very important page. Do you have a problem with that in principle? -Pete 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey Pete, sorry I didn't follow up. Personally I don't mind wading through a whole page of unrefactored posts and prefer to archive things as-is, but you may have noticed that I (pick one) a) Have a great deal of patience b) Have a masochistic streak. But I think it makes sense to condense things down into a FAQ of sorts in order to help us get this thing up to FA eventually. What about putting a clearly marked link at the top of the refactored archive to the diffs that show how all the posts looked before they were refactored, so at least us those of us who are interested in the whole shebang don't have to also wade through the page history to find it? I trust your refactoring though, but I'm also interested in what Cacophony has to say. Katr67 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool. How about this? Keep the archiving procedure as is: complete archives, copied-and-pasted to preserve history on the main "talk" page. Then, in addition, I can create a "summaries of notable discussions" sub-page. That way, I can be even more brutal than I was about not including unimportant ones, because I'm not "deleting" anything. Finally, I could make a little iconic "resolved, summarized here" note, with a link to the summaries page, that could be placed inconspicuously at the end of discussions in the archives. Would that meet everybody's concerns? -Pete 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Perfect, I was thinking of something along those lines. Katr67 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I also like the idea of a summary page that boils down the issues that have been raised/resolved. I really prefer to refactor a page before moving it to an archive, but by refactoring I only mean adding unsigned templates to unattributed comments, and adding indents/breakes between each individual comment to help understand who said what. Anything more than that is a slippery slope, unless it is a summary page, then by all means make it as simple as possible. Much of this conversation could also be copied to Wikiproject Oregon. Cacophony 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with those concerns - touching content is an something folk will find issue with. However a separate summary (with link to the original discussion) is a good idea. Perhaps better placed on the wikiproject? Ta/wangi 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


I checked the recent edit that added Vermont to the list of states with the largest percentage of people stating they are non-religious. When I was checking the citation to make sure it backed up with fact, I noticed that Colorado matches the 21% figure of Oregon (WA is 22 and VT 25). Looks like we might want to revisit this statistic. Is Oregon third or fourth? If it falls down to fourth, is this still notable enough to have in the article, or should we find more sources that back up Oregon's non-religious status? Latr, Katr 14:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, because I looked at the cited source as well, and can't find anything mentioning Vermont or Colorado. Is that site in the middle of an update? -Pete 15:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Section 10, Exhibit 15 (the table). The text below the table states that Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Wyoming have "no religion" as the largest percentage as compared to other religions, but when just comparing across the no-religion category, it's VT, WA, OR and CO as the top four. I note that Oregon seems to have the biggest "point spread" between no-religion and the next most popular religion, Catholicism. I'm no number cruncher, so I don't know which statistic is more significant. I know the "godlessness" of Oregon has been written about in other sources so now I'm thinking we definitely need some outside analysis besides this one paper... Latr, Katr 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, more/better sources should be sought out. In the meantime, how about simply: "Oregon, like neighboring Washington, ranks among the top four states in percentage of "non-religous" residents." (Basically, avoid getting into specifics where we don't know/understand it for sure, and where it's not directly relevant to Oregon.) -Pete 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I like that wording--simple and yet regional. Adding the names of other states does start to stray off-topic... Latr, Katr 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


I read here: International Pole dancing Day that pole dancing originated in a performance by one Miss 'Belle Jangles' at 'Mugwumps Strip Club' in Oregon in 1968. Can anyone confirm this and tell me exactly where this world-historical strip-joint is situated? Colin4C 12:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sports Article mistake

Why is it that the in the sports section in Oregon that the article directs to "sports in Portland"? Shouldn't direct to an article titled "Sports in Oregon?" Additionally, the section doesn't make any mention of college sports. Dabomb87 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added in a bit about the college civil war game to spruce it up a bit, unfortunately I'm not much of a sports follower so nothing else to add there. --King256 04:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

De-redlinked Oregon Forest Resources Institute

Hi everyone. As my first real act of membership in the Oregon Wikiproject, I've created a stub for Oregon Forest Resources Institute. So that's one down, and several more to go... --GoodDamon 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Somthing to steal

overlap with 'oregon pioneer History'

It seems as if the Oregon Pioneer history and the 'history' section of this page are functionally redundant. Presently they sort of pass in the night seemingly very different because they are written differently, but logic of having an extensive history section in the oregon page duplicated by an 'oregon pioneer history' separate page.....?????? My objection is not to the material in either place, just the organization (or lack thereof)Rvannatta 07:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rvan: I think you've hit on one of the major projects we have looming over us. History of Oregon has long been a redirect to this article, and apart from Aboutmovies' excellent work on the pioneer stuff, nobody has taken on the task of studying up and writing. Which is to say, I think the first thing to do is to write a full History of Oregon, and then summarizing it for this article will be a relatively easy task.
Some efforts have been made, though. See this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/History of Oregon. It would be really helpful if you could take a look and offer your thoughts -- you always have excellent perspective on these things. -Pete 07:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As Pete said, its a long term project. I've been working on the period of 1806-1890 (titled it pioneer history) and filling it out. Then it will be 1500-1805 (early history), 1890-current (modern), and then "Native people's history" each with a navigation template. The templates are done, but not the individual articles. Then after that it would be really easy to write a summary using each of these four articles as subsections for the History of Oregon article. As to the same material, parts of it yes, but the pioneer doesn't really touch on the before and after, and is far more detailed, yet maybe half complete. Aboutmovies 15:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
sounds like there is a plan. As one just traipsing through the tulips there seemed to be an organization/structural issue, but with the curtain pulled back a little it makes more sense. I guess I was also mystified as to why the 1890 cut off, and would make a case for 1900 instead. Not only does that mark the change of the rather arbitrary century according to our calandar, it also marks the dawn of the machine age which radically changed the way people lived.
The machine age was born with the development of High Speed Steel (HSS), a special blend of steel that resists getting soft when it gets hot, and this material became available very close to the turn of the century, and made the lathes of the country vastly more productive, enabling the machine age.
An alternative way to look at 'pioneers' would be in the way that they got to Oregon. the Magic date there is 1883 or early 1884. when the Northernn Pacific Railroad opened, bringing a fresh trainload of immigrants to Oregon every day. One might say that a pioneer is one who got to Oregon the hard way---either by walking the Oregon Trail or taking some round about way to get here.Rvannatta 07:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll look over the 'history of Oregon project' soon, but it's after hours nowRvannatta 07:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I selected 1890 partly because of what you point out above. The transcontinental rail connection significantly changed things, and basically ended the pioneer view of wagon trains and log cabins. But 1883/4 is a bit odd looking, and the change was gradual. But 1890 does mark a new census, one in which the state's pop almost doubled for the second straight time, then with growth rates slowing down after that. Ditto with Portland (though even greater growth rates). 1900 seemed too late in the process of change away from the pioneer times. There is no, this is the "day the pioneer died" to select from. No 4th of July, no Black Tuesday. 1890 worked for me, and its an approximate end, as will be outlined in the article, just as it will be in the other time frames for the other sub articles of History of Oregon. Aboutmovies 05:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the log cabins, but clearly there was a transition and it didn't happen evenly. Many fairly 'modern' houses were built in Portland in the 1890's, but the transition was much behind that elsewhere so in some ways it is a matter of whether one looks at it from a portland perspective or not.
I tend to view history with less urban lens than many, and roads, the automobile, electric power, and the adaptation of railroads to logging are the keys and all happened after 1900. More than any single thing logging and related wood products processing defined oregon in the first half of the 20th century. Prior to 1900 it was only bull teams and flumes but with the century turn, came railroad logging, which would support the massive sawmills and papermills, which explains much of what happened in the rest of the century.
when you write of the 1890's I think of there being essentially no roads in the state, and think of the Silver lake fire of 1894---in which a burning dance hall killed 43 people and gravely injured many more,---and a survivor had to ride horseback for 100 miles to even find the nearest doctor, and you call this modern times.....
Similarly other things such as in door plumbing, paved streets, and perhaps even street cars may be indicators. In the end I agree the cutoff must be arbitrary, but history looks different with different lenses.Rvannatta 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Nothing about Bartolomé Ferrelo first european to discover Oregon, Cape Orford and others places in 1543. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, but there's nothing currently in the Ferrelo article about Oregon. Do you have any sources? Katr67 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I take it back. I didn't realize "Cape Orford" linked to Port Orford, Oregon. But apparently Ferrelo's claim is disputed? [3] [4]


[6] [7] Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mayer, Egon (2001). "American Religious Identification Survey, Key Findings, Exhibit 15". City University of New York.  Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)