Talk:Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives
/archive 1 2004-November 2006
/archive 2 -June 2007


Contents

[edit] Climate

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)

[edit] Religion

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)

[edit] Religion

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:
“ Summary: With regards to self-identification (regardless of official church membership), Christianity is the stated religious preference of about 75 to 79% of Oregonians. About 17% call themselves "nonreligious", 1.2% agnostic, and less than 1% each for Buddhists, Jews, Unitarian-Universalists, and Muslims. The largest and most influential specific churches are the Catholics and Latter-day Saints. ”
-Pete 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxes

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)

[edit] Refactoring

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)

[edit] "Non-religious"

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)

[edit] Mugwumps

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Somthing to steal

[edit] things that may not be:

in reading througgh the Oregon page I notice a few things that may not be:

2nd paragraph of history: Chinook is listed as a tribe: The feds don't recognize them, and even the linked website doesn't really claim that they were a tribe in a traditional sense, though they have been seeking tribal status. Do they belong here.

The spanish source of the US claim of title to Oregon isn'nt mentioned.

Later the idea that Medford is 'culturally rich' seems a stretch. What goes on there that I don't know about?

It's not apparent that this claim can be substantiated: "Industrial expansion began in earnest following the construction of the Bonneville Dam in 1943 on the Columbia River." The driving industry of Oregon has been the wood products industry which had little to do with BPA. BPA did bring some aluminum smelters, but most were located in Washington.

The suggestion that politics in Oregon can be understood by conflicts with 'white supremicists' seems a stretch. What, where, who????

The elections section seems packed with trivia, as opposed to a higher level look at what has gone on in the state for a 150 years.

The Oregon invention of Worker's compensation doesn't even get a mention.

in taxes and budges the political commentary that oregon "only" charges a minimum tax of $10 on corporate tax returns has no place here. It's trivia. What should it be? Usually income taxes are based as a percent of income, and if the income is zero or a loss you would think the tax would be zero. But the whole tempest in a teapot is hardly worthy of this page.


As nto the federal logging logging reductions, the big deal killing the counties has nothing to do with 'national forests' it has to do with O & C lands that have been a trust fund for the counties after the land was taken from the Oregon and California RR.Rvannatta 00:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


This is a great overview, thanks for taking the time. I generally agree with your points, in some cases it sounds like you know more than I do -- I had no idea that Workers' Comp initiated here, for instance, and I don't know about the Spanish source of the US claim on Oregon.
I disagree that the corp. mininum tax issue is "trivia," though. It probably needs to be rephrased, and an additional source wouldn't hurt. The fact that the minimum is $10 might be uninteresting, but the fact that 2/3 of Oregon corporations pay that, and that corporate contributions to the General Fund are under 6% of the fund, are significant; it's very unusual in the States for corporate taxation to be so light. I will seek further sources and try to come up with better phrasing on that. -Pete 01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the road and don't have my references but my recollection of the spanish deal was that at the time the usual international custom was that the first country to plant a flag got to claim parts of the new world. The US was no way in contention for claiming to be here first, but the spanish had poked around the western coast before the brits, so a treaty with spain giving the US their 'rights' which were sort of legally thin to the Oregon territory made a basis of a legal claim that would almost pass the laugh test, coupled wtih a lot of covered wagons painted with slogans of 54-40 or fight, and the unwillness of the crown to get in a 3rd war with the US, lead them to settle for a west coast seaport and call it a day (something that the 49th parallel gave them (Vancouver) If the boarder had been pushed even 50 miles further north, Canada would have had no viable west coast sea port.

by the time of the treaty on the 49th parallel, Hudson's Bay ahd already given up on the columbia River and had fallen back to Victoria, so the settlement became logical. The Must have for the US was the Colulmbia River drainage, and the Must have for the british was a west coast deep water port and Victoria. The settlement at the 49th allowed both sides to have their must have objectives.

As for the state tax issue, it may be that overall corporations should pay more, but the minimum tax issue is just a political foot ball. Lots of these 'corporations' that you speak of are inactive corporations conducting no business at all and are just a piece of paper in a lawyers office file----How much taxes should they pay.....???? You aren't going to balance the budget socking it to them.

The reason that 2/3rds don't pay any income taxes is because they don't make any money---the very same reason that lots of people don't pay income taxes. If you want to tax corporations and get money even if they don't make any money then you need to dream up some tax other than an income tax.

The advocacy of an income tax for a business that makes no money as a way to raise tax revenue is simple nonsense. Its a really bad joke. While I don't profoundly disagree with the concept that it would be nice if business taxes provided a greater share of the budget, I'm doubtful if our political views on the wisdom of such a policy belong on the Oregon Wiki page.

I don't think it is possible to meet the Wiki standard of 'neutral' while advocating that somebody (even darth vader) should pay more taxes.Rvannatta 06:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's some interesting history. I think there's a wiki article on 54-40 somewhere, but I didn't realize the Spanish were involved too. Also, wasn't Robert Gray's exploration of the river somehow involved in the US claim?
On the state tax thing: I was never trying to say that certain parties should pay a greater share, that is my belief, but certainly not something I intended to let "contaminate" the article. Sounds like I may have failed there, so if you think it should come out, I'll concede the point.
It was my belief that this was a significant and unusual characteristic of Oregon's tax structure -- much like the lack of a sales tax. I intended to point it out without attaching a value to it, not to inject my political view into the article.
It may not be as significant an issue as I thought, though. I brought this up with a former legislator tonight, and had a very interesting conversation. He seemed to think that even though it may be unusual for so many Oregon corporations (more along the lines of Nike or Columbia Sportswear, I think, than just the small companies you mention) to pay only $10 in taxes, that it probably doesn't have an enormous impact on the state budget.
His view was that it was Measures 5 and 47, and the way that they affected corporate property taxes, that made Oregon's tax structure so dramatically different from other states. Essentially, that the lack of a sales tax, and the sharp reduction in corporate property taxes following Measure 47, lead to Oregon's relatively inflated home property taxes.
Bottom line, Oregon has the lowest tax burden among Western states, but higher property taxes (I believe) than all other Western states. I think that is a major reason for the perception that taxes are out of control in Oregon.
I am inadequately educated on these points, as you can tell. Still, I think it's vitally important that they be understood, and that this article ultimately have a basic overview of Oregon's tax structure, and how it differs from other states. I will do some research, and hopefully come back with a more sophisticated suggestion (or perspective on what others write.) -Pete 07:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

the poster child for the political flap over the corporate income tax was Portland General electric while they were a subsidiary of Enron. IT was generally recognized that PGE was a profitible subsidiary. However Oregon has a tax administration law that requires subsidary corporations to file consolidated tax returns with their parents, and the tax is figured on the parents tax situation to keep conglomerates from shuffeling money around among their subsidaries to avoid taxes.

I think we all understand that Enron did not make any money in its final year of operation. INdeed the losses were go great that the company collapsed into bankruptcy. ON a consolidated basis there was no profit, and therefore no tax which is exactly what the result should have been.

Requiring complex entities to file consolidated tax returns, and then pay tax the the a portion of their overall income makes decent tax policy. Look at the whole animal, and then if 10% of the animal is in Oregon, make them pay taxes on 10% of their profits-----Otherwise you will be following intra company transfers all over the place and never have an answer.

The flip side of doing this is that if overall thte corporate animal is a loser as Enron was, then there is no income to allocate to Oregon and no tax due----as it should be. I think you legislative advisor was right.--- this is just political noise. and the commentary on it should 'go away'.

Now as to the second point---that the property tax limitations had an unintended side effect of shifting the property tax burden from industrial to residential property, you may be on to something although I'm not sure I can explain why at the moment.Rvannatta 07:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling that all together. I was vaguely aware of the pieces, but your synthesis is very helpful. If the Enron issue is what pushed the corp. income tax into the public discourse, that explains a lot. -Pete 07:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] History

Nothing about Bartolomé Ferrelo first european to discover Oregon, Cape Orford and others places in 1543. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.4.227 (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? [1] [2]

[3] [4] [5] Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budda picture

Regarding the SPAMing of the budda pic on this and other Oregon articles, I think they should be removed. First, they are a "painting" and in this case a picture would be preferred. Also, I do not think what amounts to a portrait of Mr. Gardener should be on any page but one, a page on Mr. Gardener (if he were notable). Then, how does this picture help the reader (it conveys little about the church, which is a rather small and insignificant piece of the Oregon story)? And lastly, at least for this article, there are already more than enough images. What do others think? Aboutmovies (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about there being too many pictures, but this picture doesn't belong in the Oregon article. It really has very little to do with the state and just seems like a commercial for this particular church. --Esprqii (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I share your concerns. I've never been comfortable with the image's prominence in the Pacific Northwest article. Perhaps we should ask the photographer's opinion on how he feels this image is the best illustration for the sections in question. Unfortunately, I'm assuming a little bit of bad faith that additions of the image are somehow self-promotional. I also think it would be better to use an image that doesn't identify a specific person. Katr67 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the picture does not add anything to either this article or Pacific Northwest, and at least in its present placement, is either confusing or misleading about the importance of the LEC's significance in the area. Should be removed from both articles (but a bit of discussion/notification at PNW is probably warranted.) -Pete (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, but it appears that the place the picture was taken, the Living Enrichment Center, closed in 2004. The caption doesn't mention that, and since it would be silly to have the religion section feature a picture of a closed religious center...let's take the pic out in any context where it is supposed to represent "religion" or "a place you could visit." Unless I am misreading the LEC article. (Although perhaps the point was to illustrate Oregon's irreligiosity? ;-) ) --Esprqii (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I like the quirky nature of the photo. The rest of the article's photos seem like a State or tourism commission gallery. It's not promotional because the LEC is closed. As a nonreligious religion thing, it's not a bad compromise as it shows something hard to see. However, I agree it doesn't represent Oregonians very well either. I guess I'm 52% in favor of it, and 48% opposed. How's that for compromise?  :-) —EncMstr 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd support removing it. I'm usually of the opinion that any relevant picture is better than none at all, but this one is a bit misleading. When I first saw it, I thought perhaps Oregon had an unusually high number of Buddhists, but according to this survey:[6] they make up all of 1% of the state population. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Perusal of empirical data may reveal that the designation of the artistic rendering in question as superfluous and unrelated to the relevant topic of Oregon religion may be subject to personal interpretation. I find it irrelevant for this purpose to either endorse or oppose the removal of the illustration in question, but I may venture to offer that my recollection is that the image’s caption did not suggest, nor did the accompanying subsection about religion in Oregon implicate, that the image was representative of the religious affiliation of a majority of Oregonians.

With regard to the relevance of Living Enrichment Center within the wider framework of Oregon history, it would perhaps be correct to advise that most of a scholarly proclivity would suggest that Living Enrichment Center itself is not of central concern. However, the thesis of the subsection “Religion” -- at least as of this writing -- is that Oregon is a non-religious state. The most prolific article about the defunct Living Enrichment Center is "The Profit Margin" published by Pulitzer Prize-winning Willamette Week. In said article, it is written:

“A religious institution in financial trouble is hardly unprecedented. And, frankly, neither is the notion that a pastor may have played loose with the church's checkbook. But the nondenominational Living Enrichment Center is hardly your typical church. Morrissey's followers include local business executives and developers--people not known for gullibility or bad investments.”

The article proceeds to describe that high ranking members of what may perhaps be Oregon's most famous company, Nike, were members of the church:

"According to Morrissey, the foundational belief of New Thought is what she calls "co-creation": People and God working together toward a shared goal, including the goal of financial prosperity. That may explain why the membership rolls have included the names of prominent local businessmen such as retired Nike executive Tallman, entrepreneur Tom Holce and developer Mike Ragsdale."

“But the message only partly explains the LEC's popularity. Of the hundreds of Oregon churches that identify themselves as New Thought, Morrissey's is the only one whose membership rises above a few hundred. Her congregation of more than 4,000 local contributing members rivals that of the Portland area's largest synagogues and Catholic parishes.”

Living Enrichment Center [7] was the largest New Thought church in the state, which in itself makes the church notable on a state-wide basis. Willamette Week at least in part attributes the former popularity of the defunct church to the cultural underpinnings of Oregon society, specifically, the non-religious status of the state, which is the thesis of the “Religion” section of which we are speaking:

“James K. Wellman Jr. [8] isn't surprised that Morrissey's feel-good message has taken root in the Pacific Northwest's notoriously non-religious soil. "Spirituality in the Pacific Northwest is fairly flexible and plastic," says Wellman, who is an assistant professor of Western religion at the University of Washington. "It's a wide-open religious market, and if you have a charismatic leader who puts on a good show, people dig it." And Morrissey definitely puts on a good show. As one observer puts it, "People don't come to worship God. They come to worship Mary."

In closing, the image in question as published on this article did not indicate that it was representative of the religious affiliation of most of the state, that most Oregonians are Buddhists, that Living Enrichment Center was of central concern to the average Oregonian or of major concern to Oregon history. But a nuanced reading may suggest that the image may have illustrated the aspect of Oregon society the “Religion” section explicates: that Oregon is a non-religious state; and, according to Willamette Week, this “non-religious” standing may be one of the reasons for the popularity experienced by Living Enrichment Center, formerly the largest New Thought church in the state, and perhaps it is one of the reasons other non-mainstream religions and religious institutions took root in Oregon, among them Buddhism, Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association, Living Enrichment Center, Rajneeshpuram, What the Bleep Do We Know, Conversations with God, Russian Old Believers, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.13.110 (talk • contribs) 09:11, December 23, 2007

First, how does a church demonstrate non-religiousness? To me a church signifies a religiousness, otherwise we call them organizations like the Oregon Education Association. So the LEC would not demonstrate this, it would demonstrate non-main stream religious beliefs/new thought. But when church is in your name, that seems to be a bit religious.
Second, with that picture, that is not by any means the best picture to represent the LEC. There are lots of pictures on the LEC article that would better represent the topic than a candid of some person in front of the budda. I would object less if the person was removed from the sketch.
Third, though Oregon is known for low church numbers/non-religious, the number is 21%, so 79% of the state is religious, that makes that a super-majority and an almost 4 to 1 ratio. So if there were to be a picture to represent the “religion” section I’m thinking whatever the biggest Catholic Church in the state is, or a picture of the oldest church in the state, or even of the Mormon temple in Lake O. Both the Catholic church and Mormon church I’m sure have far more adherents in Oregon than the LEC (along with the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Methodists, etc). Aboutmovies (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As per the standard methodologies of Wikipedia, my assertion relies merely on juxtaposing relevant and sourced material. The articles say what they say; the links provide the requisite verification. I offer no personal interpretation, but merely the demonstration that the image was related. Whether it is the best image for the section is up to personal interpretation, as is the case with all artistic renderings. On a personal note, it is of no consequence to this editor whether an image on the page of an only marginally notable state is itself notable..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.13.110 (talk • contribs) 09:22, December 23, 2007

<irreverent/irrelevant comment>Oregon is only marginally notable? Hmm. I guess I had better move to California.</off topic comment> Katr67 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To GA COTW

OK, round 14 of the continually process to get this to GA and then FA. My proposals for COTW:

  • Now that there is a History of Oregon article, trim the section here down quite a bit.
  • expand or combine smaller paragraphs/sections
  • refine/expand the WP:LEAD
  • Everyone adopt a section, and in that section you:
    • ensure refs are standardized
    • everything needing a ref has one (rm content if it has been marked for a long time)
    • make sure all pictures are free content or have appropriate fair use rationales
    • copy edit
    • remove simple lists by either converting to prose or expanding into an expanded list that includes details
  • Education: rm community colleges and add blurp to "Public" about # of them and largest one. Then a lead paragraph to the Education section saying: ...has 22 private colleges, 7 state supported 4-year schools, and 1 affliate school to the Oregon University System. There are 18 community colleges located around the state. As of 2007 there are 300,000 students enrolled in primary and secondary schools in the state, with oversight from the Oregon Dept. of Education. The largest school district is Portland with 50,000 students as of 2007. THe five largest school districts are all located in the Will Vall. (all figures made up) Aboutmovies (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'll take the lead and Federal Government section. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Sports section. I think it's probably adequate for now, although perhaps a list of famous Oregon sportspeople might be in order? Pre, Fouts, Schollander, maybe a couple more? Don't want to give that section undue weight, but everybody reads the sports section first, right?? --Esprqii (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Reversion of weather data

I just reverted the addition of Brookings to the climate table. Not because there's any reason not to include Brookings, but because the data lacked a citation; and due to the fact the entire table is cited, leaving it would create the false impression that Brookings was among the cities sourced to the existing citation. -Pete (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I included Brooking, because it has warmest climate in Oregon and Bend, because that metro in Central Oregon has distinct climate and populated by 400000 people. I used info from weater.yahoo.com, which uses common climate data[9].--Tomakiv (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
How about finding one citation that applies to everything in the table for the sake of consistency? The current format does create the impression that the numbers for Bookings are from US Traveler. Cacophony (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not understand why info from US Travelers differs from www.weather.com. I am going to change all data according to weather.com.--Tomakiv (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked data for all cities. Only Portland had different data. There are two locations that commonly use for Portland: Portland City and PDX-Portland Airport, that we had previously. I have changed it to Portland City.--Tomakiv (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, Tomakiv. I have always thought USTravelers seemed like an iffy source, it's good you found the info on weather.com. But I think separate citations for each city are probably in order. Probably a citation after each city's name in the table. (It's a little challenging to dig for the data on weather.com; I figured out how to do it, but it took some clicking around.) I can do the work but it won't be till tomorrow. -Pete (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
www.weather.yahoo.com uses and refers to www. weather.com all monthly average data. So it is, probably, easier to refer by first source.--Tomakiv (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Flag on State for Oregon stub

How a bout a stub sign for short things related to Oregon? Would that be good? Fila934 (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do mean you'd alter {{Oregon-stub}} which produces:
 This Oregon-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
It already has the state flag, so what do you mean? I think I'd rather see the state outline there. —EncMstr 06:15, 4 February 2008

A Flag Map of the state? Fila934 (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon: The suicide state.

Oregon is the only US state listed on the Euthanasia page indicating it's the only state where it's legal to kill oneself or be killed by request. This is notable, and very unique. Perhaps someone from the state with a clue on this stuff could write something up on the article about it? 58.107.154.192 (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First, that is not true. Only doctor assisted suicide is legal, so unless the person you request to kill you is a doctor (among many other restrictions) then it is not legal, and I believe suicide is still illegal, though I'm not sure what the punishment exactly would be. As to coverage, do you mean something like this: "More recent amendments include the nation's only doctor-assisted suicide law,[24] called the Death with Dignity law (which was challenged, unsuccessfully, in 2005 by the Bush administration in a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court), legalization of medical marijuana, and among the nation's strongest anti-sprawl and pro-environment laws." from the "Elections" section of the article? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you should put quote marks around the 'medical' in Medical marijuana, as that is a bit of a joke.Rvannatta (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done a lot of research on the Death with Dignity Act for the article here, and also had a good friend who who died under Death with Dignity. So let me further clarify, because the law and the semantics are very specific. The law makes no reference to suicide, which is illegal. The law refers to doctor-assisted "death." It is available only to people who have been diagnosed to have under 6 months to live – with the diagnosis, I believe, of 3 doctors – and allows them to "choose" the time of their death. The doctor is NOT permitted to kill a patient, merely to assist. The patient must drink a strong, and foul-tasting barbituate (8 ounces, I think) of their own power. It's definitely not euthanasia, which is an action taken by a doctor; and while it is frequently referred to as "suicide," it is not suicide in a legal sense. -Pete (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon - Wiktionary admin mafia?

I don't get it. The Oregon Wiktionary entry is missing any pronunciation information. I add the minimalist pronunciation information transferred from Wikipedia. Within a few hours some guy Connel MacKenzie deletes the update and IP/username blocks me from Wiktionary editing.

Is this really how Wiktionary is supposed to operate? Please advise. -- venusNV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.223.186 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Did you pronounce it correctly? That's the only thing I can think of which deserves a ban.  :-) I'm not aware of many people here doing much on wikitionary; you should ask him. —EncMstr 06:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, they are different projects. So you should ask about this over there on your talk page, which you already have, or send an e-mail, if that is still enabled. Katr67 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racial discrimination section removed from article

The historical policies of racial discrimination still affect Oregon's population today. A 1994 report from an Oregon Supreme Court task force found minorities more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, incarcerated and on probation than "similarly situated nonminorities."<ref name="oregon-sup-crt_1994race-report">http://www.ojd.state.or.us/osca/cpsd/courtimprovement/access/racialfairness.htm Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Oregon Justice System. The Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial and Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System. Accessed 8 March, 2008.</ref>

The edit summary said this makes "Oregonian lawmakers look like bigots". Well, apparently some of them are. The truth is, racial discrimination is still very prevalent in Oregon, and IMO some of that may be a result of the state's early history of sundown laws, a strong KKK presence, etc. If this report is unacceptable because it is too old, perhaps a more recent citation could be found? There seems to be a hesitation on the Oregon wiki articles to mention historical and current racial discrimination because it...what? makes the state/county/city look bad? It seems to paint all Oregonians with the same brush? Do we need to issue a disclaimer when this sort of information is added that not everyone here is that way? Surely our readers can draw that conclusion on their own. This is just my opinion, and I don't want to open an off-topic can of worms, but Oregonians, even liberal ones, seem to have trouble facing the fact that this state was/is not always particularly welcoming to minorities. Is it appropriate, however, to take on the issue in an encyclopedia article that is not specifically about the topic of racism? Katr67 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said. It should be added, and absolutely stressed that this is a talk of institutional racism and says nothing about individuals. Some may be bigots and I'm sure many are not. But the report—from the justice system itself—is highly credible and points out systemic flaws.
I'm restoring that section as it was not adequately discussed. Are there dissenting voices? —Parhamr (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree it should be included. I suspect it will take a bit more discussion and tweaking to find the ideal phrasing, but I see no reason not to leave the text in as we refine it. I also think this is linked to Measure 11 and should be disussed there. -Pete (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be less disruptive to initially link both articles (this one and M11) with a sentence to a new article Racism in Oregon, or something like that? —EncMstr 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
While links between the two would not surprise me, from what I read the scope of the report is different. The task force assembled in 1992 and published the report in 1994. Measure 11 was not likely to have impacted this report, however it may be mentioned in the 1996 and 1997 followups to the initial report. How about we all challenge each other to read through the followups for connections? Cheers. —Parhamr (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The section could benefit from some rewording and stronger references I think. Also, the judicial biases that minorities face in Oregon or in any state are not necessarily the result of historical actions made by the State. By that I mean even states that did not act in similar measure to Oregon in the past could well have the same problems cited in the report.Awotter (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ohh, good critique! My writing connected the history with the report and might border on WP:OR or just unreasonable synthesis. —Parhamr (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Colbert Report

Colbert just gave Oregon a new nickname again -- "California's Coonskin Cap". Keep an eye on the page... we know Stephen's power. Trvsdrlng (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French settlers

Hi, concerning the history concern, there is nothing concerning, the french settlers of the Willamette valley ? They were essential to the Oregon settling, they have married native, and they were the first true settlers of this area.

René Digard decnat@shaw.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.136.246 (talk • contribs) 21:43, April 18, 2008

Hi, good point. There is a bit of information at French Prairie and related articles--feel free to add any sourced info you may have. Katr67 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trillium Lake picture

User:Dwilso has removed this picture--Image:Trilliumlake.jpg from the Geography section twice, saying that there is something wrong with it and that it is messed up. I don't see what's wrong with it, and neither did User:Ulmanor. Can you please be more specific? It looks fine to me in FireFox, and in fact seems like a really nice picture, but maybe I'm missing something. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The geography section needs to be cleaned up, maybe someone could look into it. thanks Dwilso 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Dwilso is seeing but in Explorer, the page currently looks like this, which is a problem. Its fine for me in Firefox. Let me know if you need to know my default settings. Katr67 (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha, I fired up IE and I see the same thing. From the comments, I thought the issue was with the picture itself. Looks like IE doesn't stack the pictures as well as Firefox. Maybe if we stagger them more? I would propose moving the map of Oregon to the top of the Geography section and then staggering the pics better. BTW, what are your IE Wikipedia settings? I think for skin settings in particular. WP looks especially ugly in IE with my default FF settings. --Esprqii (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia I use the monobook skin, and 200px thumbnail size. The screen area for the screen in the screenshot is set at 1024 x 768px. Need anything else? Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleting one or two photos might not be a bad idea either. I don't see any reason that a section on "geography" has to be packed full with what are essentially "postcard" images of Oregon.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the html rendering of the wikitext is presuming that where the photo inline occurs is text flow break. I recommend just stacking all the photos for that section at the beginning of the section. No point trying to space them vertically, only noticeable for very narrow browsers. —EncMstr (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The section looks much better now, thanks. Dwilso 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent "polarizing conflicts" deleting/reverting

The following was recently deleted by 70.59.224.5 and then reverted Esprqii so it's back in the article: The state has a long history of polarizing conflicts: American Indians vs. British fur trappers, British vs. U.S. settlers, ranchers vs. farmers, wealthy growing cities vs. established but poor rural areas, loggers vs. environmentalists, white supremacists vs. anti-racists, social progressivism vs. small-government conservatism, supporters of social spending vs. anti-tax activists, and native Oregonians vs. Californians (or outsiders in general). I had nothing to do with the deletion, but upon reading this section, I agree that maybe it shouldn't be in the article. Is there a specific source for this information? Seems like a subjective unsourced claim to me (I wasn't aware there was a navtive OR vs outsider thing going on). Does anyone else think that it is necessary? Kman543210 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly responding to the deletion by an anon with a single edit and no edit summary provided. There has been a lot of similar vandalism to this article lately. However, I do agree that the sentence in question should be better cited and may be overstated a bit. A cn tag would not be out of order. --Esprqii (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly understandable, as this anonymous user just deleted it w/o explanation. I think the general statement of "the state has a long history of polarizing conflicts" is untrue, but of course that's just my opinion based on living here all my life. I'm wondering if it would be better to pick the parts that are sourced and true and expand on them in appropriate categories in the article? I'm pretty new to wikpedia, so I'm not comfortable making these kind of edits just yet, but at least adding a tag as you suggested would probably be good right now until we can at least verify the information. Kman543210 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Is it just me, or is the .ogg file linked as an appropriate pronunciation at odds with the IPA transcription given? The audio file seems to pronounce "Oregon" with only two syllables, very close to the pronunciation of the word "organ". The contributor of the audio file says he is from Portland on his user page, and I am as well, but I have never heard "Oregon" pronounced like this as far as I can recall. 67.169.198.91 (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, that comment was by me, I failed to notice that I wasn't logged in. unless (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In everyday speech, I prounounce Oregon as 2 syllables, not 3. It almost sounds like organ, but more like OR-GUN. I've lived in Portland all my life. I guess if I took the time to pronounce it, I might use 3 syllables, like OR-uh-GUN, but it usually just sounds like 2. Kman543210 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

well, I'd pronounce it "OR-EE-GUN"----a distinct 'long E' in the middleRvannatta (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I, too, found my personal pronunciation of Oregon at odds with the .ogg file. When I say the word, there is a slight but distinct vowel somewhere between an "eh" and an "uh", such that I say "OR-e-gn". I Even though people unfamiliar with the word don't catch the middle syllable when you speak quickly, I find that when speaking slowly with clear enunciation, the middle vowel is definitely present. I've heard native Portlanders prounounce Oregon as OR-gn or OR-ginn, but in my experience they make up a minority, but I guess they're both valid. As long as you're not some dumb east-coast pundit saying Awr-uh-gawn or anybody else saying ORRY-gawn or anything-gawn...Then we're on good terms. Cloud 9 (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I will delete this picture in a couple days it is highly false and inaccurate....—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddha24 (talk • contribs) 19:27, June 6, 2008

Oregon voter registration by party, 1950–2006
Oregon voter registration by party, 1950–2006
Why is it highly false and inaccurate? The data comes right out of the Oregon Blue Book here, as described on the image page. Looks OK to me.--Esprqii (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to ask the same thing. If it's sourced, then I don't see how it can be inaccurate. I do, however, think that showing a line graph for total registered voters can be misleading. If you look at the graph, you might think that the total number of registered voters has increased, but since the population has increased, of course voter registration has increased. I think a more meaningful number may be percent of registered voters compared to the voting population as a whole. The lines showing the difference between registered voters of each political party does show meaningful data; however, it can be just as meaningful if you use a percentage as well. Kman543210 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Or even eliminating the total registered voters line would make the difference between various party registrations easier to see, which I believe was the point of the graphic. --Esprqii (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the total number of registered voters line, then I agree that it would highlight the difference between the political parties better (if that's the intention of the graph). Kman543210 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just happen to disagree with the graph, especially more recently oregon has become increasingly Dem, according to http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120918572488500.xml&coll=7. and also the http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/votreg/regpart.htm But thanks for your help anyway. Buddha24 (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, fine, disagree with the graph, but do not claim it is highly false and inaccurate (and what's the difference between false and inaccurate), as such I think you should apologize to the person who took the time to make the graph unless you still think it is inaccurate. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I made the graph...it's not intended to make any point, but rather to serve as a general resource on voter registration in Oregon. It most certainly does not provide any kind of information about how Oregonians vote; the subject of the graph is voter registration, not election results. If that's unclear, I'd look first at rewriting the caption to make it more clear. (It seems to me that, recently, a lot of attention has come on whether Oregon is "red" or "blue" in the context of Presidential elections. This is of course an important question, but keep in mind that it's only one of many questions about the politics of Oregon. The story that is most frequently told about this data is actually the rise of non-affiliated voters, not anything about Democrats or Republicans.) -Pete (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I have a guess: I wonder if Buddha is seeing the purple as blue -- in which case, a quick glance might make it appear that the graph shows lots of "blue" voters (often associated with Democratic), and far fewer "red" voters (often associated with Republican). The chart could easily be redone with different colors, if that's the concern. (I don't think I still have the NeoOffice file I created it from, but any basic image editing program will let you search and replace colors). -Pete (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Another improvement could be to list the color key in the caption, instead of within the image, making it easier to read without clicking into the image. See the map in the infobox of this old revision of the Johnson Creek article to see what I mean. I think that would be a big help, I hadn't seen that technique when I made this chart. But I don't have time to make that fix tonight. -Pete (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the intention is to show voter registration (increase/decrease), I'm not sure if showing total voter registration is as meaningful because of population increase. I think the same graph done as a percent of registered voters to population (18+) would be more meaningful, as it could show if more or fewer Oregonians are registering to vote. In certain population statistics, per capita can be more relevant. I'm not sure if the data are available to do this though. Kman543210 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kman, that's exactly why I created the chart at the right, around the same time as I made the registration chart. I'm not sure about this "more meaningful" stuff. In some applications, you want to consider the percentages; in others, you are interested in the overall growth in registration.
I'm all for finding better ways to present information. If you want to make a chart that presents this sort of information in a better way, please do. Then we can discuss which is better for this article. But until we have a choice, I don't see any reason to remove what's here. -Pete (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Even with the population graph, total voter registration increase doesn't mean as much without comparing it as a ratio. I never proposed deletion of the graph; I just don't think that particular line tells you anything. I do think, however, that the lines comparing the political parties do show the difference each year, so that is meaningful. I'm not sure where to find all the voter registration information or population statistics. Kman543210 (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if you do find the info, just remember the passage of the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution would affect your age point for 1971 on if you decide you want a ratio of registered vs. those of the voting age. On a side note, if you make the chart I'd make sure to use over 18/21 and label it voting age and not "eligible to register" as many people may be of voting age and counted in the census but are ineligible to vote (non-citizens and felons). Aboutmovies (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon voting

User:Buddha24 has made several changes to the politics/election section to replace this paragraph:

In the U.S. Electoral College, Oregon casts seven votes. Oregon has supported Democratic candidates in the last five elections. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry won the state in 2004 by a margin of four percentage points, with 51.4% of the popular vote.

with this one:

The state has been thought of as being liberal, it has voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in every election since 1988.

I prefer the original way which provides more detail (without comma splice). While it is probably true that many people do think of the state as liberal due to its Presidential voting record, there is also a strong conservative streak in much of the state, as described in this article. In any case, the statement is unsourced opinion as is. --Esprqii (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "the state has been thought of as being liberal" belongs for the same reasons that you said, but I do like putting a year in instead of "the last # of elections." If you just have "since 1988," then you don't have to count how many elections. I don't think the statement about Kerry is needed either. How about the following:
"In the U.S. Electoral College, Oregon casts seven votes. Oregon has supported Democratic candidates in every presidential election since 1988."
Just a thought. Kman543210 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)