Talk:Religion in Oregon

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


Edited the first paragraph which had the claim that Oregon has a high amount of evangelical Christians. In reality, Oregon has 1% less than the national average. In total, Oregon has significantly less protestants than the national average. source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

some thoughts about expansion[edit]

Older stuff:

Contemporary stuff:

Check out:

-Pete (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, from early Euro-American settlement days there was a strong anti-Catholic sentiment amongst the America settlers. This was likely due to the animosity against the HBC and British interests in the area, with many of their employees being Catholic (see French Prairie). This lasted into at least the 1920s with the rise of the KKK who were not only anti-Black, but also anti-Catholic. The KKK helped pass the legislation at issue in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and were a major player in getting people elected during that time, including governor Walter M. Pierce (the namesake of the case). You might also tie-in the temperance movement [1][2][3] which at least started as an outgrowth of religion. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (some sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) Aboutmovies (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
PS this book is fully searchable and has a fair amount of church stuff, including images which are public domain. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don' know why, but this is much harder to research than cannabis or alcohol. With those I just throw up a google news search, and come back with a ref. With this, all I get is that we arent' religious and we support assisted suicide. I don't do actual book research (gbooks doesn't count) and I think that might be what this article requires. Google books mostly returns old books, unfortunately. It's too bad, because this is way more notable than cannabis or alcohol. If anyone has any ideas, please post them here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I think organization is the most difficult process. It can be hard to generate historical context chronologically for an article that hits a variety of subjects (multiple denominations, churches, etc.) I think establishing a framework would help, that way research for each of the sections could be done separately, and it wouldn't come across as such a daunting task. Pete posted some great ideas. Unfortunately, I started this article during a time when I am very busy (I just moved to Portland, so I have a lot on my plate right now with the move, getting started, etc.). However, I've seen what this group can do, and I hope we can tackle this article and make it outstanding. I can see a "DYK?" along the horizon! Any other ideas on organization, chronology, etc.? -Whataworld06 (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, another detail -- the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Oregon (and other articles from that encyclopedia) -Pete (talk)
  • This chapter has a lot of great information about the establishments of various denominations. Definitely worth checking out! -Whataworld06 (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know?[edit]

If we can increase the prose 5-fold, does anyone have thoughts on a possible DYK? --Another Believer (Talk) 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the DYK rules, the expansion has to be done in just 5 days. So time is ticking away. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, good to know. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Are the two images in the "Current statistics" appropriate and preferable? I found that and thought they might be nice and informational, though I wasn't sure if Oregon-specific images would be better. Also, is anyone aware of other images that could be used once the article is expanded? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fine for now. Sure, it might be nice to make more specific ones some day, but I think these ones add value to the article -- so I'd say, no rush unless you're feeling majorly motivated! -Pete (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I will stay on the lookout for other images that could eventually be used for the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A good article in the Oregonian for writing a Buddhism section[edit]

This source from the Oregonian will help for writing a Buddhism section. I've copied it into the WikiProject Oregon blog, but published as a "private" entry so that you have to be a member to read it. So if you feel like writing that section, just be sure you have a Wordpress account with WikiProject Oregon membership, and follow this link. (Ask me or Steven Walling if you need permissions, we'll be glad to help!)

Do you guys think this would be a valuable way to approach collaboration in the future? Seems to me it's a good way to enable us to look at Oregonian archives without violating their copyright. -Pete (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an okay workaround, and we can give read-only rights (I think) to anyone not interested in ever writing a blog post. Steven Walling (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Some notes on missionaries[edit]

Here are some notes I took a while back on my user page, on existing WP content about early Oregon missions. In case it's of use for expansion:

-Pete (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for various denominations[edit]

So I think this article may be a bit too daunting to tackle at once without a clear template or organizational frame outlined. I am wondering if it might be easier to create articles for different denominations: Buddhism in Oregon, Christianity in Oregon, Hinduism in Oregon, etc. That way the articles could be researched more specifically. Then, the Religion in Oregon article could be used mainly for summarizing, directing to main articles, and offering current statistics for the state. Any thoughts? At the same time, I am not sure how extensive articles about Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. in Oregon would be or if they are even worth having separate articles for. I just thought subdividing the information might actually be easier. Just throwing out ideas. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe start sections for each here as we find sources with redirects? I imagine full articles are possible, but all we'll have are a bunch of stubs if we start with the separate articles first. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
True. Forgive me, I am still learning the way of WP. I'll take it articles are best created when the need actually arises, as opposed to starting with several puzzle pieces to complete one larger, overarching subject. I think I just saw how the Cannabis and Alcohol articles were joined to create the Controlled Substances page, and I was thinking that method might be applied here. Anyways, thanks for the input! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't sweat it. Actually, the wikipedia way is to create lots of stubs and fix them years later. The Oregon editors are just a bit more civilized. ;-) What would be good is if we could run down some of the sources [ used here[. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah -- it's possible to go in either direction (make specific articles first and then create summaries, or make overviews and then split them off as they get unwieldy). In this case, I agree with Peregrine that it's probably a better approach to fill this one out first…but AB, you shouldn't let that stop you if you're feeling motivated to work on one (or more) specific articles. We try to be flexible here, and support each other's work; if you come up with a good start for an article on Buddhism in Oregon, we'll find a way to integrate it with the rest of what we've got. Onward and upward! -Pete (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and another comment...if you're feeling a little discouraged that this article isn't growing as quick as the Substances in Oregon articles did, don't worry about it too much. Sometimes, a topic hits a chord, and lots of people gather around to build it up; other times, people are busy or focused on other things. As far as I can tell, there's not a whole lot that can be done to make it "come together" if people are busy; we just do the best we can at the moment. Don't worry, there will be other periods of frenetic article writing in Oregon…they come and go pretty quick! -Pete (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholic stuff[edit]

Here's some places to expand/get info for this article on Catholicism in the state after the initial Catholic settlement on French Prairie:

The whole area around Mt. Angel, Sublimity, Stayton, Scio, Aumsville, and Jordan (etc.) in Marion County has an early history of German-speaking Catholic settlement. I think they also settled in French Prairie later because the French Catholics had already established churches there. I know this is true for Saint Louis. Katr67 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New Pew Forum data for 2009[edit]

This article needs some updates as Oregon is no longer the least churched state. See [9] and [10]. --Esprqii (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article says Oregon is the state with the highest percentage of residents unaffiliated with a religion, not the least churched state. The 3 panels of information in the pew article don't reference affiliation. The most recent survey I can find for affiliation is a gallup poll in the first half of 2009 ( The poll ranks Oregon as #1 (24.6%) of states with the highest percentage of residents identifying as None/Atheist/Agnostic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeClock871 (talkcontribs) 04:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Religion in Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)