Template talk:Oregon Early History

Why 1806?

If you're going to reach back to, ahem, 1500 as a start date, why the arbitrary cutoff at 1806. Isn't 1806-1846 also "Oregon Early History"; or at least up 'til the end of the Northwest Country in 1821, which certainly marks the end of an era; I was going to add David Thompson (explorer) and other NWCers....if the list here includes people who didn't even land in Oregon (Quadra and Vancouver) and likewise events that didn't take place there (the Nootka Convention/Crisis), it seems a bit odd when the cutoff date prevents the addition of other extraneous-to-physical Oregon events and people; is the meaning of "Oregon" here today's Oregon, or the Oregon Country? If so, events/people up to 54-40 should be here; whether in the Queen Charlottes/North Coast or those parts of New Caledonia south of 54-40? In practical terms "Oregon Country", as an extension of American presence, reach only to Kamloops, where the Astorians (briefly) had a fort; but on the Coast American ships/captains and their dealings with Haida/Tlingit/Tsimshian chiefs are then part of teh story (mostly Bostonians; the history of Massachussetts being tied in here...). But taht's only if "Oregon" in the title here is equated with "Oregon Country"; if it's the current meaning of Oregon, then it's dubious to include Vancouver, Quadra, the Nootka Convention etc; yes, they affected the events which led to the state of Oregon, but then so did the Russian American Company and events in New Caledonia, et al; I just got a "cut it out, please" for pointing out Oregon-centric items which affect historical articles; a similar problem exists with the still-misnamed {{Native peoples of the Pacific Northwest}}, which again is Oregon-focussed and marginalizes other areas of the Northwest Coast}; Steamboats of the Columbia River is written also from an Oregonian context despite the title; which to me should be a directory of the articles for the various stretches of the river, not just the lower one (which in the Oregonian view/language uses "Upper Columbia" to mean something well below Wenatchee, whereas "Upper Columbia" has different meanings in the other jurisdictions (WA and BC) it flows through. Oregon-centrism in Wikipedia exists; I work hard to diversify BC articles with WA and other related US content, but find myself attacked for seeking balance and "unfortunate language" or outright bad/wrong history. "Stop it, please" is my rejoinder to being told to shut up about this. I'm not being "Uncivil" or acting in "bad faith" - I'm pointing out a foible and shouldn't be shot down for pointing out it very clearly exists. Didn't mean to riff off this here, but in writing out hte issues with this template it's a case in point; "Early History of Oregon" ending in 1806? What's after 1806? Modern history?Skookum1 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It always strike me as strange that trying to open people's awareness on history can be seen as inherently aggressive or negative in nature; my efforts are always contributory, and use pointed language because of the sharpness of the points involved. You should be aware I'm just as "constructively critical" of Vancouver-centric and Central Canada-centric topics/materials on this side of the border, or town-centric/boosterist stuff or propaganda/invective materials in First Nations/Native American articles. I'm not "after Oregonians". I'm just asking people to pull themselves out of their jurisdictional landscapes and see the bigger picture; and the bigger picture is very much needed in discussing the history of the Pacific Northwest; one of my frustrating consierations is whether to put Category:History of British Columbia or the new History of Canada switch on the WPCan templates for articles like Fort Vancouver, Fort Okanogan, Fort Colville, which are part of our history even though the region didn't wind up as part of Canada; I've held back on doing that, but I suppose if WP:Oregon is to be on Nootka Convention then all's fair in love (and wars that were never fought) and the Canada-hist template and respective BC/Canada history cats should be included in those articles.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First, to why 1806. A break point needed to be selected, otherwise the template would be huge. Same with the other break points. 1806 is after Lewis & Clark, but before Fort Astoria. So its a good point in the transition from more sea-based exploration to land based exploration and wider settlement by non-Natives. After this the fur companies really move in and establish posts. Then missionaries and eventually settlers. As to what comes next, its the Pioneer history template. Again, any division point will be arbitrary. Which takes us to issues two. What fits here? This is an "Oregon" history template. If it was for Oregon Country, it would be "Oregon Country early history" or "Early history of the Pacific Northwest" or something along those lines. This template is for the history of the state of Oregon, one of a series of 4. Each includes those things directly related, such the Oregon Trail that touched the soil of the current boundaries. Others are more tertiary, again there is a gray area. The U.S. Constitution and the Napoleonic Wars have (had) varying effects on what became Oregon, many things have and still do. The goal is to try and keep it to more directly related items, but it becomes opinion on what that is, thus why you may see what you feel are inconsistencies in what is included. Also note, this template has been around for a while now, and new articles created since then that should be included simply have not been added by those who think they should be added. Now, with your point about Vancouver, he led an expedition that is responsible for several place names in the state of Oregon (see Mount Hood), and at the time of the creation of this template there was not a separate article for the expedition. So, if you would like to remove him, feel free to. But he did/does have an impact on Oregon history. It may not be as direct as others, but it is more than some others. Its the gray area.

With the other issues, yes many of your comments are uncivil. You have been told that before. When you write what you wrote and were told by Pete not to do that, that was a pointed attack only at Oregonians. You were the person who added the WP:ORE template to the page where you made the comments so it would be you who should have added the other templates (basically you were attacking yourself). People in Oregon had nothing to do with it. Thus comments like the one you made come across as not only uncivil, but a little ridiculous. Try being civil in your discourse and we may try to help. Take for instance the ship name at Fort Astoria issue from a while back. It was obvious to me that there were two ships by the same name, and I was a bit rude in my reply because that's what I get from you, and because of the way you went about the issue. Had you simply asked on the talk page (please refrain from using hidden comments for commentary that belongs on the talk page) about the ship name, someone would have come along and said, yes, the name is correct, there was a ship by that name involved. Then if the ship was notable, maybe an article gets made, and we all live happily ever-after. But I know I for one have become a BC hater and will have nothing to do with articles from there because of you. Prior to Wikipedia I loved BC, I even spent my honeymoon there. But after your continual personal attacks against myself and others, and the US/Oregon POV rantings I have come to hate what is a beautiful place. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Skookum, I am sure you believe that your criticisms are constructive, but that doesn't make it so. Edit summaries like this one, in which you specifically draw conclusions about the motivations or cognitive abilities of your fellow editors, cross the line that the policy on no personal attacks warns against. It's fine to suggest expanding our view in a certain way; I think we all welcome that kind of criticism, and consider it constructive. But taking the extra step of concluding that certain editors have an inferior perspective to yours is unnecessary, and is an unwelcome distraction from our project of building an encyclopedia. You have a lot to offer, and I've enjoyed and learned from your contributions on numerous topics; but the dismissive and insulting language simply must stop. -Pete (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)