Talk:Oregon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

I was reading the section about the name of Oregon (great work, by the way, thanks), and I realized a native of Oregon pulled my hair (already scarce), when she told me that the name came from the fact that during the California Gold Fever years, people arrived to Oregon, and not finding gold they estimated that "THE GOLD ORE had GONE", and it became the name of Oregon (or Oregone?). Mexico --- Ags -----Dagofloreswi (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Never heard that one before, but easily refuted as the Gold Rush was in 1848 and Oregon was in use well before that. You'll have to come up with your own good story to tell them and get even. Maybe that George Washington was named after the state and the term Washington is the term for tree in some Native American language. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, even without the impossible dates, no one trained in linguistics or toponymic studies would give the obviously (indeed, crassly) folkloristic "etymology" the time of day. The real explanation is probably an insolvable riddle: starting with the 99.9% likelihood is that it's a Native American term doesn't get you very far. There are, or rather were, lots of Indian languages spoken in the area, belonging to several different families, most either poorly described or not at all prior to disappearing, and most of them having very gaudy phonologies that are even more prone to butchering by outsiders than the typical American Indian language. Evidence furthermore suggests (I believe it goes back to Lewis & Clark) that the term originally applied to what is now the Columbia River, which is quite plausible (evidence suggests the same thing for the name Wisconsin); if true, that shuffles the deck further, given the length of the Columbia, and also raises the possibility that early travelers may even have been confused about whether the term was for the river itself or for the more striking reaches of the Columbia Gorge. In a nutshell, it's hard to know, impossible really, where even to start looking for an etymology of "Oregon", and every likelihood that even if you somehow stumbled upon it, you wouldn't recognize it. Alsihler (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Are you aware of the Oregon (toponym) article we spun off a while back? -Pete (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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:[1] 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 [2] 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. [3] 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)

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)

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[4].--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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

32nd/33rd state issue

Since User:Presumptive keeps adding this back, I thought we should discuss it here. While I love trivia like this, I don't think it belongs in the Oregon article for several reasons: first, the 1953 legislation that cleaned up Ohio's admission to the Union specifically ordered that Ohio was retroactively admitted in 1803. Second, I don't think anyone is seriously confused by this. It is an interesting blooper from history that is described on the Ohio page, and on the List of U.S. states by date of statehood article, as it should be. Finally, more than half (I'm too lazy to count) of U.S. states were admitted between 1803 and 1953; if Oregon's article is footnoted, then so too should all those other U.S. states. I don't see why Oregon is singled out here. Perhaps if Oregon had been the state admitted right after Ohio, or if there is some other compelling reason that Oregon's order of statehood is related to Ohio's--for example, if Oregon had a similar issue, but it was corrected at the last minute. But that would need to be mentioned, and I am not aware of any such issues. Comments welcome. --Esprqii (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong. Inserting something that states "some consider it to be the 32nd state" is only based on a trivial technicality that was officially corrected by legislation. For all intents and purposes, Ohio was considered a state. That would be similar to using the technicality that some "states" are actually called commonwealths in their constitutions and are not states. It should be left out in my opinion. Kman543210 (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I made some changes and rewrites to the Intro. I hope I did a good job. In my opinion this section still has a couple of problems:

1) The introduction is way too long.

• The road section needs major consolidation. It's enough to just list the major highways (if that). This is the kind of information a reader can find in the main article portion if they're really interested in roads in Oregon.
• Trivia like Intel being the largest corporation or the bit about the Port could also be relocated into the body of the article.
• I think it would be better to introduce major industries in the Intro, by saying for example that there are many high tech and aerospace companies in the Portland area while agriculture, cattle ranching and timber businesses are common in other parts of the state.

2)My second concern is related in some ways. The introduction seems to have a Portland/ Willamette Valley bias.

• The introduction goes into detail about this area being the most populous and the most productive and then lists specific companies and other details. I don't know that bigger is necessarily better or more significant. I would like to see this information summarized and balanced by mentioning the wood products, agricultural, natural resource, and ranching industries located in the rest of the state. For example Jeld-Wen makes Pella windows and a lot of other products in Klamath Falls. The ZX ranch in Paisley Oregon is part of J.R. Simplot's empire. Ashland is an area with a growing wine, arts and tourism focus. Eugene and Bend also have unique and special character and characteristics that are notable.
• So I'm just saying it would be nice to make the intro more of an intro, and more inclusive with better balance. Thanks.

EmilyWolff (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The introduction conforms to WP:LEAD, and should be about this long if we ever want to get the article to Featured Article status. It can be refined and some things moved out, but I disagree about bias. I don't recall the lead saying the valley is better than the rest of the state. Now, I estimate about 50% of the lead is valley/Portland content, which is disproportionate to its size in relation to the state. But, 2/3 of the population lives there, which means 2/3 of the built environment is there (generally speaking). Bend and Medford are not mention, but neither are the more populous cities of Gresham, Beaverton, and Hillsboro. So I think the proper balance is there regarding valley/rest of the state. But certainly refinements can be made. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

State Symbols

On the Oregon article, it says that Oregon has 24 recognized State Symbols. I recently found out that Senate Joint Resolution 31 adopted on April 12, 2003 establishes the Oregon Tartan. It seems like maybe that should be added as well? 216.25.212.168 (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the bill died in committee. See this diff: [5] Katr67 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, Katr, how is it that you are so on top of everything? I mean how, exactly. I need to know. -Pete (talk)

Abnormal brain chemistry--It's a blessing and a curse. And here's a summary of the 2003 Senate Measures that I should have used as a cite instead: http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/pubs/senmh.html Katr67 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Very awesome, you brainy freak. Adding to Seventy-second Oregon Legislative Assembly, right now. -Pete (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, we don't have that one yet. DARN IT! -Pete (talk)

(edit conflict--who are you calling a freak?) To further burst the bubble of the promoters of the Oregon Tartan, we learn that the date "April 12, 2003" is not when anything was adopted, but was when the Governor proclaimed that day "Oregon Tartan Day." An altogether different thing from proclaiming an official state tartan. And look how easy it is to get the Guv to proclaim something: [6] Those folks might not realize they need to get someone to sponsor some new legislation! Katr67 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my own freak flag/tartan is flying especially high these days -- I mean it as a term of endearment of course! So, about proclaiming Oregon Wikification Day...who's on that one? -Pete (talk)

Economy

Intel is no longer the largest public employer in Oregon - it was surpassed in late 2008 by Providence Health Systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.71 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Land use

Federal lands in Oregon

I adapted the map at the right, uploaded, and then looked for the Oregon land use section to add it. Surprisingly, I don't see such a section. I would expect it to present facts like X% of Oregon is agricultural, Y% is urban, and 51% is federally owned. I'm pretty sure it was present at one time, including interesting stuff about strict land use planning. It could be 3+ years ago since I saw it though. What happened? —EncMstr (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Regardless of what the University of Oregon Bookstore site says, I've always thought that the "ORYGUN" window stickers were made as a fun way to instruct others how to pronounce the state's name, as in OR-EE-GUN. That's how I, and many, many other native Oregonians pronounce it. If the UO Bookstore wanted to go for the "incorrect" pronunciation, they should have spelled it "ARE-ah-GONE" or "OR-uh-GONE." When I see "ORYGUN," I think "OR-EE-GUN," which is how I've said it since I learned to talk. Bobomejor (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OR-EE-GUN? "EE"? Like O'Regan? (as opposed to O'Reagan). Just kidding; Oh-Raygun etc....I think there's an IPA character for the not-quite-schwa in the nearly-two syllable pronunciation, but I don't know IPA well enough to render it; suggest a few of you Oregonians do a voice file each adn then post them on the IPA workgroup area and see what a trained user of IPA renders it/them as....Skookum1 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone from Briddush K'lumbya, that is....Skookum1 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to my brother-in-law, and it turns out that when Portland native and former University of Oregon quarterback Joey Harrington was drafted byt the NFL's Detroit Lions, he passed out some of the "ORYGUN" stickers to remind members of the Detroit media how to pronounce our state's name. Furthermore, someone in a message board I browsed said that the Oregon State University bookstore once sold sweatshirts that said, "ORYGUN STAYT" to remind people how to pronounce their name. My point of all of this is that the article should be updated to reflect the fact that REGARDLESS of what Travel Oregon has on their information, PLENTY of Oregonians pronounce their state name as "ORY-GUN" or "OR-EE-GUN," including me, a lifetime Oregonian and a UO alumnus. I have added a paragraph reflecting this, with several references. I don't think information on OregonLive.com culled from Travel Oregon should trump reality.Bobomejor (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who grew up in the east coast, when I was younger I would pronounce Oregon rhyming with "polygon". Eventually people from Oregon "corrected" me, and ever since I've pronounced it "their way". However, I think Oregonians need to be more tolerant of other people's regional accents. You don't hear me as a north-easterner criticizing them for saying words like "marry" wrong. So, even though this Wikipedia page suggests/advocates the "native" way to say it, I would say that it'd only be fair to also recognize that millions of people back east, outnumbering the Oregonians, say it another way. 67.42.85.160 (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The way most east coasters say it isn't simply a difference in regional accent, it is simply the wrong way to say the word. Imagine a bunch of people pronouncing your name wrong. That's the way we feel about it when people say "ARE-RIG-GONE" rather than the correct "OAR-RIG-GIN" (or, alternatively, virtually indistinguishable from the pronunciation of "organ" when speaking fast). You don't "tolerate" a bunch of people saying your name wrong, you correct them. I wouldn't object to a note about millions of people pronouncing it wrong, however (assuming we have a reliable source, of course), as that's obviously often the case. VegaDark (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely is a legitimate regional difference. As for the idea of names somehow being immune to that... Maybe you should listen to a New Yorker and a West Coaster each say the name "Mary". They will differ. 71.35.137.18 (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And people south of the border call it what Neuvo York? I don't see that in the New York entry. I also don't see the mispronunciation of Illinoize in that article either. And should there be on Worcester, Massachusetts a note saying most people from the west coast look at it and say were-chester and not Wooooooooooooster? And the River Thames with a note how many people pronounce it taaames instead of temz? There are correct ways of saying each of these. As to the persons mane and Mary, VegaDark isn't saying there are not regional differences in how people say names such as Mary, but if Mary Johnson in New York says her name is pronounced Maaaaaaury, then that is the proper way to say her name, as in just Mary Johnson and no one else also named Mary. If my name is Michael Chang, saying it as the Russians do is mis-pronouncing it, despite that this might be being the prevailing way of saying that name to anyone with a Russian background. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about different accents in the same language, among native speakers. They both exist and they're equally valid. If anything it should have some weight that more speakers have accent X than accent Y. Let's see some statistics on native speakers of English and see whose accent has it rhyming with "polygon" and who doesn't, and we'll see how frequent the "incorrect" pronunciation is, and how few people have it "right". We can debate this all we want in a childish wiki discussion flame war but I'll still be right. By the way, Spanish speakers say nueva yor (IPA /nweβa ʝor/) 71.35.137.18 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The native speakers only discounts the Russian and Spanish items I raised. So, what about Worcester, River Thames, and Illinoize? And you being right, well then let's say your name is Fred, but I and everyone else call you Fried, then that means your name is pronounced Fried, right? Also, you might want to watch what you type, civility is required on Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I changed the first part of the pronunciation to represent an "R-colored" vowel; ɔər as in "ORal". The ɒ sound as in bOt or jOHn is completely off, I believe. When spoken the ɒ combined with the "R" would make an "AR" sound as in "ARkansas". Agreed? 220.26.47.47 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also an Oregon/Washington native, I can vouch that it should be only two syllables. Rvannatta's pronunciation is one that I have only heard far from home. The E is non-existent except in another form like "Oregonian" (OR-uh-GO-ni-an), otherwise somewhere between OR-gun and OR-ghin. (Graffiacane (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Films

The films section is starting to get unwieldy. These kind of sections are a magnet for every crappy film ever made in Oregon. There is now a List of films shot in Oregon. Perhaps there should be a subsection on the "Film industry" where we can link to the list. Then we should pare the list in the article down to the ten or so most famously Oregon movies. That could be difficult. I'd say Cuckoo's Nest and Animal House are two, maybe Goonies and Kindergarten Cop. Other ideas? I think we should also add an editing note to the top of the section that says please don't add films here unless you discuss it on the talk page first. Katr67 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Governor Tom Mc Call

Not that I think that every governor should be named on the Oregon page however I do feel that Governor Tom Mc Call warrants mention. He was the governor who initiated "No self Service" and "the Bottle Bill" just to mention a couple. I believe he was a major contributor to what Oregon has become, not to mention his old campaigns like "Last Year in Oregon 7233 People Fell off their Bicycles and drowned" as well as "Don't Californiate Oregon" which later led to the term "Californication" . Those campaigns were designed to keep Californians, and Washingtonians from Moving to Oregon, and that preservation of Oregon is what gave it a unique identity from its Neighbors such as California and Washington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markosjal (talk • contribs) 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Californication (portmanteau) for sourced facts relating to these topics, most of which were indirectly related to Tom McCall. The beginning of no self service gasoline predated Gov. McCall by least two decades, in 1951. However, I agree that he should be mentioned for many other things.... —EncMstr (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Restore "Related information" heading?

I propose to restore the change reverted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon&diff=prev&oldid=277565095

The "Related information" heading was added to separate the navboxes from the "External links" section and to provide the readers with a quick way to reach the navboxes from the table of contents. The reverting editor does not say the "Related information" heading is unhelpful but, rather, that it is "unprecedented." This does not seem to be a valid rationale to me. Does anyone have a better reason the "Related information" heading should not be restored? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Another unexplained reversion that I propose to restore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon&diff=278795490&oldid=278628010

Any objection? (If the answer is "yes," then please see wp:REVEXP.)Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction changes

im a little nervous to make changes to an article after having problems before, so i am going to suggest some changes here and if anyone else agrees with me, they can make the changes...

Oregon (en-us-Oregon.ogg /ˈɒrɨɡən/ (help·info), OR-i-gən) is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. The area was inhabited by many indigenous tribes before the arrival of traders, explorers and settlers. The Oregon Territory was created in 1848 after American settlement began in earnest in the 1840s. Oregon became the 33rd state on February 14, 1859. Oregon is located on the Pacific coast between Washington to the north, California to the south, Nevada on the southeast and Idaho to the east. The Columbia and Snake rivers delineate much of Oregon's northern and eastern boundaries respectively. Salem is the state's third most populous city and the state capital, with Portland the most populous. Portland is currently the 30th largest U.S. city with a population of 575,930 (2008 estimate) and a metro population of 2,175,133 (2007 estimate), 23rd largest U.S. metro area.

i think that the line "Oregon is located on the Pacific coast between Washington to the north, California to the south, Nevada on the southesta and Idago to the east." should be moved further up the introduction... it seems to be more basic information then when the oregon territory was founded... also moving the information about the rivers up with it

i also think the line about the oregon territory could be shorted to "The Oregon Territory was created in 1848, and Oregon became the 33rd state on February 14, 1859.".

i would also change "Salem is the state's third most populous city and the state capital, with Portland the most populous." to "Salem is the state capital as well as the the state's third most populous city, with Portland the most populous." i think it reads better that way... its just an order of words change...

anyway, i dont want to start a war, but i thought that those changes might improve the introduction of the article... any thoughts? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Lead

Oregon (/ˈɒrɨɡən/^ⓘ, OR-i-gən) is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. The area was inhabited by many indigenous tribes before the arrival of traders, explorers and settlers. The Oregon Territory was created in 1848 after American settlement began in earnest in the 1840s. Oregon became the 33rd state on February 14, 1859. Oregon is located on the Pacific coast between Washington to the north, California to the south, Nevada on the southeast and Idaho to the east. The Columbia and Snake rivers delineate much of Oregon's northern and eastern boundaries respectively. Salem is the state's third most populous city and the state capital, with Portland the most populous. Portland is currently the 30th largest U.S. city with a population of 575,930 (2008 estimate) and a metro population of 2,175,133 (2007 estimate), 23rd largest U.S. metro area.

Suggested Lead

Oregon (/ˈɒrɨɡən/^ⓘ, OR-i-gən) is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, located on the Pacific coast between Washington to the north, California to the south, Nevada on the southeast and Idaho to the east. The Columbia and Snake rivers delineate much of Oregon's northern and eastern boundaries respectively. The area was inhabited by many indigenous tribes before the arrival of traders, explorers and settlers. The Oregon Territory was created in 1848, and Oregon became the 33rd state on February 14, 1859. Salem is the state's capital as well as the state's third most populous city, with Portland the most populous. Portland is currently the 30th largest U.S. city with a population of 575,930 (2008 estimate) and a metro population of 2,175,133 (2007 estimate), 23rd largest U.S. metro area.

Discussion

I shortened the sentence you suggested and moved the other one including an extra for sentence flow. Is this what you are proposing? Feel free to edit the suggested lead until it looks right. ZabMilenko 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

wow, thanks for fixing the formatting... i still have a lot to learn. yes, that is what i am proposing and i think it looks/reads better that way... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good! I will boldly change it and see what everyone else thinks. Don't be afraid to have your work reverted, it happens to all of us sooner or later. ZabMilenko 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Side note: you could signup for an account and other editors will be able to discuss your edits with you directly. There is nothing wrong with editing from an IP though. ZabMilenko 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks a lot, 70.71.22.45! I was just about to say that the lead looks a lot better, except that "located on the Pacific coast between Washington to the north, California to the south, Nevada on the southeast and Idaho to the east" is too much detail for the first sentence, and I think it should be a separate sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence is very long.Whoops, it was already fixed. But it definitely sounds a lot better, great job! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"State of Oregon" redirect

There is currently a discussion over whether "State of Oregon" should redirect to Government of Oregon or Oregon at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#State_of_Oregon. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Transportation

The article for Oregon currently has nothing on its transportation. Thought I'd bring it up to see if anyone would be willing to add it in.booksrule9 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Section order

I was looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._states#Body_of_article and I know it's not a rule, but the historical population info that is under Oregon#History seems like it would fit better under Oregon#Demographics. The major cities section also seems like it would fit better as a subsection of Oregon#Demographics rather than Oregon#Geography but I can see why it's there as the text discusses the connection between the population and the geography. Also, wouldn't the Oregon#Demographics section fit better under Oregon#Geography instead of under Oregon#Economy? TimeClock871 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cartogram

Please consider removing this chart for two reasons. #1, it doesn't offer much in the way of good information. The counties are twisted and rotated and ranked in population size, something the map above it does more effectively. It's cute but not scientific. #2. The website on the map does not exist any longer either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.205.58 (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Europeann EXploratio

I Think In The Europian EXploraation There Shall Be A Expanding To Article Becausse It Is Short. Any Peple Who Want To POst It Here Or On My Talk Page Sign You Name As You Write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

EMploy

Hi . Articlle Subjec t EmployMent Needs EXpanding. Can SomBody Help Wiki Pedia Page On The Article Here . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits to the Name section

I couldn't quite fit everything I want to say in the edit summary box, so I'm writing it here instead. There was, I thought, some awkwardness in wording and possibly misleading statements. Plus the summary here did not quite agree with the more detailed info at Oregon (toponym). So... first I thought the section needed to start with a little context. As it was it began, The origin of the name "Oregon" is unknown. One theory is that... I thought it would help to mention the earliest known usages (1765 as "Ouragan" and 1778 as "Oregon"), and that the names referred to the "then–mythical" River of the West. So I added a bit of context and moved the info about Rogers's 1765 petition to the section's "lead", before the first theory is described. I also left out the phrase "according to the Oregon Blue book"--there are many sources besides the blue book that describe the 1765 petition, including the T.C. Elliott one I added.

Second, the first theory given, on "Oregon" coming from French ouragan ("windstorm"), I felt the text as it read implied that French explorers had been to the Columbia River and the Gorge itself, and having experienced the gorge winds named the river Ouragan. But we're talking pre-1765 here (thus the use of starting out with that context), and while I admit the French explorations of the interior were impressive to the extreme, the notion that they had firsthand experience with the Columbia Gorge before 1765 is very very hard to believe. There was no source for the claim, French explorers called the Columbia River "Hurricane River" (le fleuve aux ouragans), because of the strong winds of the Columbia Gorge. I was tempted to slap on a "citation needed"--incredulous at the idea of French explorers in the Columbia Gorge at that time. If nothing else I'd want a source about le fleuve aux ouragans. Instead I took the time to read the T.C. Elliott source provided on the Oregon (toponym) page. Elliott is rather strong in his claim that the name comes from French ouragan, but he never claims the French had reached the Columbia River. Nor does he say they called it le fleuve aux ouragans. So I left that bit out and instead tried to tersely summarize what Elliott does say. Hopefully my edits are not too poorly worded and make sense--that the French of the Great Lakes and upper Mississippi River region had heard from the Indians of the powerful winds of the lower Columbia River (although why such info would be known 2,000-some miles away makes me skeptical); or that the French had firsthand, or firsthand experience with Indians aware of the powerful windstorms (including tornadoes) of the Great Plains, through which the Columbia River was then thought to flow. I can more easily see how a (mythical) large westward flowing river, whose headwaters were said to lie within a reasonable portage distance from the Mississippi's upper headwaters, and which supposedly flowed west clear to the Pacific, crossing the windswept Great Plains, might be named for the powerful winds of the plains--winds which interestingly enough are also called Chinook winds.

Anyway, I tried to fit all this in the edit summary box but ran out of space. Posting here instead, I've rambled on a bit more than I should--my apologies. I still think George Stewart makes a better case with his theory about the Wisconsin River, but after researching this evening, the French "hurricane" theory is not quite as far-fetched as I had thought--still hard to swallow, but within the realm of possibility. Pfly (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Governor-elect

Kitzhaber is generally being declared the winnor of the gubernatorial election... I think that we should add him as Governor-Elect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbbard (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Waiting a couple days until it is more clear is more prudent. I'd love to wait until results are official, but I recall that takes a few weeks. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Chris Dudley conceded, so I think it's safe now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbbard (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Section

I moved some of the sentences around a bit. There was a lot talking about population in two different paragraphs. Im not sure if there is too much information about the population density in that second paragraph.Filiwickers (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Russian ownership

Why in the article there is no word on that staff Orego and Washington when they were Russian possessions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.108.194.254 (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Aloha, Oregon

Aloha, Oregon (49,425 pop) is actually bigger then Tigered (48,035 pop) making it the 12th largest city. It is unincorporated I know and I figure this might be the reason for it being left of the list but I was wondering if due to it's size if it should be listed on there or not as the 12 biggest and tigard either moved of or kepts as the 13th. maybe extending it to the top 15? this list all the other somewhat sizeable places in it? that would inclued #14 Lake Oswego (36,619 pop) and #15 Keizer (36,478 pop)

Just a though mainly just wanted to know about Aloha as it is getting pretty sizable now but I wasn't sure due to it status as unincorporated. hoping to hear some others thoughts on this.MathewDill (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got it--as an unincorporated area, not a city, Aloha can't be included on the list of most populated cities. --Esprqii (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation issue is coming up again. We have a section on it under "Name" and the separate Oregon (toponym) article, but neither really delves into the pronunciation issue at any length. Perhaps the problem is coming up with reliable sources that describe "valid" pronunciations.

It would be worthwhile for anyone who wants to chime in to read the previous discussions on this topic:

• Talk:Oregon/Archive_1#Pronunciation
• Talk:Oregon/Archive_1#More_on_pronunciation
• Talk:Oregon/Archive_2#Removing_.27incorrect.27_.28disputed.29_pronunciation.
• Talk:Oregon/Archive_3#Pronunciation

--Esprqii (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sign at I-5 border crossing, 1970s

I've heard a few times over the years that on I-5 at the Oregon-California border in the 1970s the signage showing you were entering Oregon said something like "Welcome to Oregon, Have a Nice Visit". Anyone else heard this? If it can be proven it deserves mention somewhere on wikipedia, if not in this article. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Technical definition of frontier

"...which still meets the technical definition of a frontier."

That just doesn't pass the smell test to me. I'm deleting it. If you got a source, you can put it back. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

where is the topographic map??!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.15.46.138 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

LGBT(Q) information in article

What section does this info go in? Discuss. Valfontis (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that was in the wrong place too, as well as not having an easily-recognizable title for many users. I think it might go under Law and Government. The ban on same-sex marriage is mentioned under the "State" section, but I think it would all seems better placed under "Politics," with seealsoage to Same-sex marriage in Oregon. --Esprqii (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah agree the acronym needs to be spelled out in the first instance. Per a small revert war, should Stu Rasmussen be mentioned anywhere? (Is Sam Adams, in regards to his LGBTness?) Valfontis (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Stu doesn't really seem noteworthy where he keeps being placed. He could go in Politics of Oregon. I note that the article about Oregon's Mexico does include a more extensive LGBT section under Demographics, but I still think the current content is more about law and politics than demographics, which would cover the number of LGBT people and where they live, right? There is an article about LGBT rights in Oregon that could also be linked in a subsection. --Esprqii (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It could fit under politics or a different subsection. I'm not firmly convinced that it requires it's own section, but the information should be incorporated somewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Climate

The climate in Oregon is milder than most U.S. states. By the summer will be 80°F an at winter will be 23°F with snow depths maybe 10  in. Adjkasi (discuss me) 05:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Weather in Portland, Oregon

The current conditions there are Cloudy, temperature at 58°F, wind speeds at 3 mph northwest, and 77% humidity, based on weather.com and at Yahoo! Weather. Adjkasi (discuss me) 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban on self-service gasoline

I don't know where, or if it is already mentioned, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that Oregon is one of two states in the nation that prohibits drivers from pumping their own gasoline (New Jersey is the other). DPH1110 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)DPH1110

I'm not sure it belongs in the main Oregon article, but it should definitely be in the Transportation in Oregon article. I see it in a couple of articles (here and here). --Esprqii (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Idaho's Portugal, California's Canada, Washington's Mexico? Is this true? Even if not, isn't it notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in the article that "Stephen Colbert says Oregon is Idaho's Portugal" or something? --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up?  13:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Flora/Fauna

In the flora fauna section, camas is listed as a tree species, when in fact, it's a small herbaceous plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.147.242 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

National Park not listed under Flora/fauna section

This section states that there are two National Parks in Oregon: John Day Fossil Beds and Crater Lake, but there is also Lewis and Clark National Historical Site (Fort Clatsop)in Astoria, OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenbrooktrout (talk • contribs) 03:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks. How much flora and fauna are involved there? It sounds like the mention of the other two (John Day Fossil Beds National Monument and Crater Lake National Park) is misplaced in that section anyway. Then mention also needs clarification because most people think Oregon has one National Park, not taking into account the other National whatevers. Valfontis (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and stuck it in there, but I think that info needs to be moved to a different section. Valfontis (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

White gap at the top of the page

Just wondering: is there a good reason for the gap of white space between the lead and text; might the page not be improved through reformatting it so that this is no longer there? Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 18:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no such gap. Perhaps it has do with resolutions. Scarlettail (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Layout issues such as this are very difficult to replicate—let alone address. There are quite a few variables: browser family and internal preferences, font selections and substitutions, style sheet preferences (skin, layout), image size preferences, window width, text justification setting, etc. —EncMstr (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm on Windows 8 PC, Internet Explorer. So it's a pretty basic set-up. If it's variable it's best left alone though. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The layout issue, if it were to be addressed, is simply the placement of images after the lead but before the first subtitle. Moving them down would fix that, but would mess up the rest of the image placement. So again, probably best left alone. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 19:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm a screen's worth of whitespace after the lede in ie9. Using Firefox seems to resolve such issues for me (but I can't check right now). Would collapsing the TOC help? Valfontis (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you all made me open IE. But yes, I see it too. I think the problem is with the two images directly below the infobox. IE seems to want to clear out space next to the images. I bet if we moved those images it would solve the problem. I can try later if no one else can. --Esprqii (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny, once or twice a year I fire up a virtual machine containing Windows XP but I never think of running IE. I just ran IE 8 and it looks just fine at all window widths and whether or not the TOC is expanded. —EncMstr (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)