Talk:Oklahoma/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Oklahoma. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

State Quarter

I wanted to know how everyone felt about adding the state quarter; sense this is a FA I thought it should be disscused.--Cal (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. The state symbols section would be a nice place. Okiefromokla ^questions? 11:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the image mentioned above with a photo of a proof quality coin. 83.89.43.14 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma Today

I am posting this here, because I am not satisfied with the situation. At the top of this page, it says, "if you can update or improve it, please do". I added a one-sentence paragraph to the Media section on our official state magazine, Oklahoma Today. It was removed immediately by okiefromokla without explanation. After I inquired, he gave me this:

"I removed your paragraph because it violated our policies on advertisements and undue weight. We generally don't mention specific businesses or publications in articles with few exceptions for very notable publications if they are the primary news outlets in the state, such as the Tulsa world and the daily Oklahoman. For anything else, such as a particular magazine, in most cases it is not even appropriate to state it briefly in an article about a state, not to mention devote an entire sentence to detailing specifics about a magazine."

I don't see how it was undue weight or "advertising" when you compare it to what else is in the section:

"Oklahoma City and Tulsa are the 45th and 61st-largest media markets in the United States as ranked by Nielsen Media Research. The state's third-largest media market, Lawton-Wichita Falls, Texas, is ranked 144th nationally by the agency.[135] Broadcast television in Oklahoma began in 1949 when KFOR-TV (then WKY-TV) in Oklahoma City and KOTV-TV in Tulsa began broadcasting a few months apart.[136] Currently, all major American broadcast networks have affiliated television stations in the state.[137]

The state has two primary newspapers. The Oklahoman, based in Oklahoma City, is the largest newspaper in the state and 48th-largest in the nation by circulation, with a weekday readership of 215,102 and a Sunday readership of 287,505. The Tulsa World, the second most widely circulated newspaper in Oklahoma and 77th in the nation, holds a Sunday circulation of 189,789 and a weekday readership of 138,262.[134] Oklahoma's first newspaper was established in 1844, called the Cherokee Advocate, and was written in both Cherokee and English.[138] In 2006, there were more than 220 newspapers located in the state, including 177 with weekly publications and 48 with daily publications.[138]

Two large public radio networks are broadcast in Oklahoma: Oklahoma Public Radio and Public Radio International. First launched in 1955, Oklahoma Public Radio was the first public radio network in Oklahoma, and has won 271 awards for outstanding programming.[139] Public Radio International broadcasts on 10 stations throughout the state, and provides more than 400 hours of programming.[140] The state's first radio station, KRFU in Bristow, moved to Tulsa and became KVOO in 1927.[141] In 2006, there were more than 500 radio stations in Oklahoma broadcasting with various local or nationally owned networks.[142]"

If public radio can have a full sentence mentioning it's awards, and be linked, I don't know how this is any different. — jbrown84

OPR and PRI are top radio news outlets in the state and are therefore notable in a summary of media of Oklahoma. Mentioning one of the state's many magazines violates Wikipedia's standard of summary style for a broadly-focused article such as this, as well as Wikipedia's policy against giving undue weight to a particular item. Is there a particular reason you feel this magazine is especially notable in a brief summary of Oklahoma media? Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it is the official magazine of the state of Oklahoma. This is not the Baptist Messenger or Edmond Monthly we are talking about. — jbrown84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown84 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but is it a primary media outlet? It's a cultural-based magazine that promotes tourism, and regardless of its awards, it doesn't seem to be one of the most notable publications in the state. Even if it were the largest magazine in the state (which I don't think it is), I would still question its notability in an article as broad as this one. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have liked to hear from others on this, but you are apparently king, so have it your way. Jbrown84 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other people too, and they may still say something. But it is iffy to set aside space in this broad article to a specific magazine that is not a major media outlet, especially given the nature of this magazine as a tourism/cultural guide. It seems like an advertisement, although I have no doubt that you are not intending it as such. However, I should have probably waited to remove it, and I apologize for the speedy revert. If you would like to re-insert it, I won't remove it unless there are no comments from others on the issue for a few weeks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla is right. WP:Summary needs to rule on cases like this, considering the scope and size of the article. The fact that the magazine is the official magazine of the state doesn't make it notable enough for mention here, on a general article about the state. The section as it's currently written strikes the right balance between breadth and depth. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma Living, published by the "Electric Cooperatives of Oklahoma" Rural_electric_cooperative, claims to have the largest circulation... even if it is somewhat of a captive audience ;) --RatOmeter2 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The article says:

"Oklahoma City's Devon Energy is the second-largest crude oil company in the nation, while Kerr-McGee and Chesapeake Energy rank sixth and seventh respectively in that sector,..."

I don't buy this. If they are using the Fortune 500 list, that data is FLAWED. They put ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips in "Industry: Petroleum Refining", and if you know anything about these companies they make a minority of their REVs and NI from Refining. Fortune mis-categorizes companies all the time, as do most of these publications. Please use oil & gas industry source like CERA, DOE, O&G Journal, etc.

WikiDon (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I clarified what the reference says and attributed the claims to fortune magazine, which should settle things. In case it doesn't, and you don't want to include Fortune at all, I will say that we need a definitive source to indicate that Fortune Magazine's rankings shouldn't be trusted. I don't know Fortune's criteria for placing companies in certain categories, but its rankings are one of the most definitive and prestigious in the business world, and Fortune should be treated as a very high-level expert in this realm. But I'm happier with the sentence now. It's better to attribute the statement to a trusted expert rather than present it as if it was as unequivocal fact. Does that work for you? Okiefromokla ^complaints 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you wrote this sentence with an attached reference:

"According to Fortune Magazine, three of the largest private oil companies in the nation are located in the state,^[1]"

^ "Three Of America's Largest Private Companies Call Oklahoma Home". Oklahoma Department of Commerce. 2005-12-02. Retrieved 2007-08-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

ONE: the magazine referenced in this reference is FORBES, not Fortune.

TWO: two of them are NOT "oil" companies, they are retail gas stations/convince stores. The reference doesn't refer to them as "oil" companies and neither should Wikipedia. They should be: "NAICS 44711. Gasoline stations with convenience stores"

If you want to see the REAL top producers of oil & gas in the U.S., look here:

Table A6. Top 50 U.S. Operators Ranked by Reported 2006 Operated Production Data - EIA-DOE.gov

Performance Profiles of Major Energy Producers 2006 - EIA-DOE.gov

Leading Oil and Gas Companies by Liquid Reserves in the US: 2005 in Millions of Barrels for BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp, Occidental Petroleum Corp., ChevronTexaco, Shell Oil Co., Devon Energy Corp., Anadarko Petroleum Corp., USX-Marathon Group, Apache Corp...

Leading Oil and Gas Companies by Natural Gas Volume Reserves in the US: 2005 in Billions of Cubic Feet for BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp., Burlington Resources Inc/ConocoPhillips., El Paso Corp., Anadarko Petroleum Corp., ChevronTexaco, Shell Oil Co...

Industry classifications:

NAICS 211. Oil and gas extraction (inc: ExxonMobil, Devon, etc.)

NAICS 213111. Drilling oil and gas wells (inc: Parker Drilling, Noble, Paterson-UTI, etc.)

NAICS 213112. Support activities for oil and gas operations (Halliburton, Schlumberger, Bariod, etc.)

NAICS 2212. Natural gas distribution (Arkla, etc.)

NAICS 32411. Petroleum refineries (Valero, etc.)

NAICS 486. Pipeline transportation (Williams, El Paso, etc.)

Didn't Anadarko buy Kerr-McGee? SEE: Kerr-McGee

I fixed the first sentence, it had been a while since I looked at that source. We don't need to get specific with industry details, so I changed the sentence to say "oil-related companies" rather than "oil companies." That's the main point of the sentence.

With regards to the references you provide, Forbes and Fortune have ranked companies by size ("nation's largest companies") while the Energy Information Administration's list is by oil production, reserves, etc., and not necessarily the size of the company. At least, that's what I am taking from it. Am I wrong?

Thanks for bringing up the Anadarko purchase of Kerr. The source we have is for 2006, so it wouldn't be reflected there. I don't have the time at the moment but I'm sure a quick google search would provide a source for the acquisition. We'll have to remove it if the Kerr-McGee article is correct. If you have a source right now, feel free to do it yourself if you'd like, or if I don't get to it soon enough. Okiefromokla ^complaints 19:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Forbes and Fortune have ranked companies by size ("nation's largest companies")"

By what metric? (I know, but you need to say). By the weight of the employees? You need to specify by Sales/aka Revenes; by Earnings/aka Net Income; Market Cap/shares x price. On all those measures I again contend that the EIA-DOE numbers would be the same in the same order. WikiDon (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think Fortune's rankings have a lot to do with net worth. Could you find a source for the Forbes/Fortune criteria? I wouldn't be opposed to attaching the information, but since the claim is attributed, it shouldn't really be necessary. Still, I don't have a real objection to it.

The EIA-DOE source can and probably should be used when referring to a company's rank in regards to its oil capacity/production, but that figure is not necessarily directly related to the relative size of the company, is it? I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand. Okiefromokla ^complaints 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Private v. Public:

A) In the government world public entities are owned by the state / private ones by individuals (and other companies)

B) In the corporate world public means shares are traded openly on an accessible exchange / private ones shares are closely held and not easily publicly traded

Taking this second one in to account (which is what we use here in the U.S., most companies are ranked by 1) Sales, 2) Earnings, 3) Market Cap, 4) Net equity, 5) ROE, 6) ROA, etc., (among other metrics).

The closest thing to "net worth" (which is a term used for individuals) would be "net equity" or "shareholders equity", which is assets minus liabilities (all you own-all you owe=).

On this metric it is still the shakes out about the same. On U.S. assets, the U.S. division of BP (the old Amoco) is still #1, Chevron #2 (w/the old Texaco), ConocoPhillips #3, Anadarko #4, Shell USA #5, etc. Devon doesn't make the top 10.

You are taking references at face value when those references are flawed. We can't just put in things that are wrong just because we have a source. I could find a source that says George W. Bush is a reptilian. Doesn't mean it should be in Bush's article. "Experts" make a lot of mistakes, all the time. I'll try to get to it and work up something that is more factual and more acceptable, and just not parroted public relations press releases. WikiDon (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Native Ballerinas

I don't want to revert it without discussion first, but I don't think it's appropriate to mention Oklahomans who have received an award in this article (with a few theoretical exceptions). The section in question needs to only briefly cover the absolute most important parts of Oklahoma arts and theater. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to remove the ballerinas because they don't seem to qualify as such. Okiefromokla ^complaints 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its intersting but kinda out of place.--CPacker (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not eloquent, but I strongly disagree for the following reasons:

(1) Oklahoma is different from all other states in that it was Indian Territory. The fact that these women are artistic, Native, and recognized for that fact is special specific to Oklahoma. (2) The paragraph on sports mentions Clayton Bennet buying the Supersonics, a person who's only claim to fame is that he is rich, and nobody has suggested removing him from the page. (3) The ballerinas are not just famous for their craft, they developed areas of art for the entire state of Oklahoma. In addition Chouteau and her husband established the first fully-accredited dance department in the UNITED STATES at the University of Oklahoma, Norman, putting Oklahoma ahead of every other state, including California and New York in this field.

There is more, but I think this should be enough to keep them there. If not, I will respond again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Odestiny! I was hoping you'd respond before I took action. Here is what I have to say in response to your three points:

There are many native Americans from Oklahoma who have received awards and contributed greatly to the state's culture, and even the nation's culture, but we just can't include them all. To highlight these ballerinas says that they are so important that they qualify to be mentioned in a breif summary of a broad topic like art in Oklahoma, whereas the other influential Oklahoma artists are not worthy of such inclusion. But how can we possibly be fair and include every Oklahoman who has received similar recognition?
The paragraph you refer to in sports isn't meant to focus on Clayton Bennett. Rather, the topic is the SuperSonics, who are poised to become Oklahoma's first permanent major league sports team — I don't think you mean to object to the importance of this?
"The first fully-accredited dance department" seems noteworthy enough, and it could be mentioned in art or education as long as there's a source to go with it. But giving any of these ballerinas a few sentences to highlight their career accomplishments would not fit the point of this article. We don't even do that for Garth Brooks, Toby Keith, Will Rogers, or the massive number of astronauts from Oklahoma, to name a few examples. Okiefromokla ^complaints 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC

You have some valid points, and I understand the reasoning. The point that Will Rogers is not mentioned is just amazing in itself, while businessmen like Bennet and Cyrus Avery (the father of route 66 ?!)are included. But aside from this, perhaps the issue could be solved by rewording to mention the Tulsa Historical societ, then sculpture of them, in the same way Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys are mentioned in reference to Cain's ballroom. Their importance to Culture in Oklahoma is equal or excedes Clayton Bennet's position in sports due to the fact that when the Smithsonian opened the Museum of the American Indian in Washington, this is who they chose to acknowledge, these Native American ballerinas from Oklahoma. (I still can't get over he is mentioned over Will Rogers! That's insane!) Aside from this, look at the Wiki article on Georgia, it mentions The Black Crows, Wide Spread Panic, Drive-By Truckers, R.E.M, The B-52s, Opera singer Jessye Norman, James Brown, Little Richard, Julia Roberts and many more. The article on Texas mentions Blind Lemon Jefferson, Robert Johnson, Huddie "Leadbelly" Ledbetter, and Bessie Smith who simply played in clubs there. I could go on and on, but the fact that these are Native American artists in a state known for Native Americans should be included under Art and Culture if other states can list The B-52's. Odestiny (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't for detailing famous people from Oklahoma. Cyrus Avery and Clayton Bennett aren't mentioned for their fame. They're mentioned because of their direct roles in connection to important Oklahoma events (bringing route 66) or institutions (bringing the SuperSonics). These ballerinas are just a few of the Oklahomans who have received awards, but receiving an award does not determine if someone is important enough to be mentioned alongside the most important aspects of Oklahoma culture. Remember, this is a high-level article, meaning it should be very broad and written in strict summary style. Also, I will note that Georgia and Texas are not featured articles and therefore do not represent the very best of Wikipedia. Okiefromokla ^complaints 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Heavy bias

I only went through the lead, and it reads like an advertisement. This article needs serious work. Lixy (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. The lead hasn't changed since the Featured Article nomination, and the article passed there with flying colors. Maybe you'd like to give some examples. Okiefromokla ^complaints 05:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tulsa Race Riots

A photograph of the lynching of the woman and her son was circulated as a post card and was a key point leading to the race riots, as were the other lynchings and the Jim Crow laws. All are important points in the history of Oklahoma and supported in detail in the reference cited. It is called "the" costliest in history, not "one of the costliest". Removing these details delutes the article. Odestiny (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

The article lists American as an ethnicity, what does "American" ethnicity signify apart from Native American as they are the only ethnic Americans? Scots-Irish is one of the largest white ethnic groups in Oklahoma and the southern states.jeanne (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what American ancestry means, but the U.S. Census Bureau considers it a category. Apparently it's a very common ancestry in Southern states — which is why I doubt it means Native American, since, for example, there's no way that Mississippi has 14.2% Native American ancestry. In Oklahoma, Scotts-Irish is one of the 10 largest ancestry groups, but it is nowhere near the size of the groups mentioned in this article. Per the US Census ([1]) these ancestry groups encompass 300,000 to 500,000+ people in Oklahoma: American, English, German, and Irish. "Scotch-Irish" has significantly less, at 67,000. It's also of note that "Scottish ancestry" includes more people than "Scotch-Irish ancestry", according to the census.

By the way, if you happen to find out what "American Ancestry" means, I would be curious to know. I would guess that it means those whose families have been in America since its founding. Okiefromokla ^complaints 02:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article on the Irish Diaspora, American ancestry in the South is taken to mean Scots-Irish. I know from my mother's own ancestry (she was born in Oklahoma and never listed "American" as her ancestry),most Scots-Irish people are heavily mixed with English and there is a lot of French, especially if they've ancestors from Louisiana, like my mother.I would say that American blood to a Southerner is really Scots-Irish and English.jeanne (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I just happened to recall in Goldman's bio on Elvis, when it was pointed out to Vernon Presley that their surname was an old English name, Vernon looked blank and replied that as far as he knew his people were always "in those parts", referring to Mississippi!jeanne (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. The article for Scotch-Irish American confirms that some have claimed American ancestry, although that statement isn't sourced. Perhaps it would be appropriate to note in the demographics section that the actual number of people with Scotts-Irish ancestry may be higher due to reporting American ancestry? If that sounds good, I'll see if I can find a source for it. I don't see how we can do anything bigger than that, as we have no way of knowing how many people who claim American ancestry in Oklahoma are Scotts-Irish. It would just be guessing. Okiefromokla ^complaints 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the amount of Scots-Irish surnames in Oklahoma-and the South as a whole, I'd say the Scots-Irish population is extremely high. Even the town of McAlister confirms a Scots-Irish presence. It just seems to be a characteristic of many Southerners to claim "American" as their ancestry, when they are obviously of British Isles origin per their surnames.jeanne (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, check out this article, it's really interesting as ragards the Scots-Irish numbers: Maps of American ancestries jeanne (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that is interesting. But according to that article, people who say they have "American" ancestry can also of English, Socttish, and Welsh descent. I think it's justified to make a note in the Demographics section about "American ancestry", as it's safe to say that Scotts-Irish and other ancestry groups in Oklahoma are larger than their Census numbers indicate due to the possibility of claiming American ancestry (as long as we find a source). But we shouldn't speculate how much larger they are, because we have no way of knowing how many of each group claimed American ancestry. It would be guessing to say that more Scotts-Irish people claimed “American ancestry” than did English, Welsh, or other groups. Therefore, it would be speculation to say that so many Scotts-Irish claimed “American ancestry” that the group is actually among the top ancestries in Oklahoma, going from a count of roughly 67,000 on the census to an actual number of roughly 400,000 to 500,000 like German, English, and Irish. Do you agree? Of course, a reliable source that says Scotts-Irish is one of the largest ancestry groups in Oklahoma would negate this whole conversation. Okiefromokla ^complaints 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, most Oklahomans I know have either Scots-Irish or English surnames so I wonder if that in itself could be considered a source? A survey of the most common surnames could be indicative of ancestry.jeanne (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Such a source could be used to show the prevalence of surnames in Oklahoma, but not to make a conclusion about ancestry in Oklahoma. Doing so would constitute original research. Quoting the policy, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." Nevertheless, surnames don't necessarily reflect ancestry. For instance, I have an eastern-European last name but no such ancestry. Okiefromokla ^complaints 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Steinbeck and the Okie stereotype

I'm not from Oklahoma, and don't know a lot about Oklahoma, but I think it might be somewhat unfair to say that the term "Okie" is a negative stereotype introduced by John Steinbeck -- one, because Steinbeck did not portray his "Okie" characters in a negative way, they were actually the heroes of his story, and two, because if you follow the link to the wikipedia entry on the word "Okie" you can see that the word was around way before Steinbeck used it and it has a rich and varied history. -- Jillian in Nevada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.72.27 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Okie stereotype is very much a negative one, though there could be a couple of better sources to back it up in the article. However, the term "Okie" and its long hitory isn't the point. The actual negative stereotype that was introduced in the Grapes of Wrath is the focus there. Still, in many cases, the term "Okie" goes hand-in-hand with the dust bowl/hick stereotype that much of the nation still holds (again, which was popularized with the Grapes of Wrath). Again, could use some better sources, but I think the question of including the word Okie with implcations on its negative connotation is a non-issue, as this is an obvious part of American culture (at least to me, having lived on both coasts before Oklahoma). Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. I am from Oklahoma and I think it is an extreme stretch to exclusively qualify the term "Okie" as negative. I have traveled extensively in the United States and abroad and have heard the term "Okie" in negative, positive, and casual contexts... but I have to say that the positive and casual uses of the term far outweigh the number of negative uses I have heard.

Aside from that, another issue I take with this article is the following statement:

"The stereotype has shaped cultural perceptions of the state and its largest cities have been named among the most underrated travel and cultural destinations in the United States."

This statement is a massive stretch, almost to the point of being misleading. Negative stereotypes (no offense, but most of which have nothing to do with the word "Okie" or Grapes of Wrath) are secondary to other issues in the state of Oklahoma which cause a lack of tourism. Major cities in Oklahoma, above and beyond everything else, lack the tourist-friendly infrastructure and attractions we see in other successful tourist towns across the country. One mainstream opinion of the situation is that cities in Oklahoma have either ignored tourism altogether, or halfheartedly focused on regional or niche tourism... in short, cities in Oklahoma are not set up as tourist destinations... negative stereotypes aside.

Timdlocklear (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have lived in Oklahoma almost all of my life and I don't consider the term "Okie" a negative stereotype. I have also asked several people that were born and lived in Oklahoma all their life and they don't consider "Okie" negative. Some of these people, like myself are in their 50's and 60's. I am sure any term can be used in a negative way, and this one has been used that way, as well. I am also sure there may be some people from Oklahoma that consider the term is negative. But, I suspect that most don't. We as Oklahoman's "own" the term Okie. It is "ours", I love the term. As far as I am concerned anyone that thinks "Okie" is negative is not from Oklahoma or hasn't lived in Oklahoma very long. Is there anyone else from Oklahoma that hasn't commented, that would like to add their comments? - Xltel (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There really is a stereotype associated with the word "okie" outside of Oklahoma, and it's mostly negative, especially where I grew up in California. From my experience, the word has a much stronger negative connotation on the west coast than it does on the east coast, which would seem to make sense given its historical usage. But I also agree that most Oklahomans don't consider the word negative: it's a positive thing, by far. (heh, look at my name… I'm proud too :P ) The article should definitely have both views of the word. Obviously, we need to find references for the two connotations. The current refs for the negative view are not very strong. We could do better. I will note that while I was working this article to FA status I did come across a news story that spelled out something like "Oklahomans consider 'Okie' a word of pride," but for whatever reason it slipped my mind to include it in the article. But at least it's out there somewhere... I also wouldn't be at all opposed to removing the sentence that the "okie" steriotype has shaped perceptions of the state. It doesn't seem like something that necessarily needs to be there and it is hard to adequately source anyway. As Timdlocklear wisely pointed out, lack of tourism is due to a number of factors. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with having both views. Positive only please. This is an article about Oklahoma, not what Californian's think about Oklahoman's or Okie's. Okie's like to be called Okie's. If Californian's are negative about the term, then put that in the California article. (Not that I am saying Californian's are negative) The WP article Okie covers the history of the term. -- Xltel (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone else from Oklahoma that hasn't commented, that would like to add their comments? -- Xltel (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that - there should be at least some mention of the negative steriotype, as much as we don't like it. For example, the other FA state article (Minnesota) has a lot of information on how that state is viewed. This is why I've included two major views in this article (the negative dustbowl steriotype and the stereotypical "oklahoma friendliness"). It should be noted that the use of the word "okie" within Oklahoma is not how the state is viewed, because it's more of a pride term for Oklahomans. What we need is for people to comment who live outside of the state, not inside the state. Oklahomans are probably not going to have much dealing with the word as a negative connotation if they haven't lived anywhere else for any period of time (or, better yet, grew up any where else). There are sources for both and we should include both. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we should leave out the negativity of the term altogether either, particularly since it has a great tie-in to the Grapes of Wrath, but we should also point out the positives. As for getting people to comment, that's all well and good but it's not a source. We need to cite hopefully a sociological source (or more than one) in support of whatever the text will be. I'm certain that there is surely an expert opinion out there on the subject. We should also try to detail whether the negativity of the term is historic, or pop culture. As we may possibly be seeing in these comments, extreme negativity of the term "Okie" is mostly historic, with pop culture possibly seeing it as a term of endearment. I do really wish we could clarify the tourism thing, though... I think that is misleading. I might re-read the article and try to find some text to support a change, and follow up in comments here. That was my two cents for the day, LOL! :) Timdlocklear (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Oklahoma and I don't take it negatively, that's what I call myself. :) --HoopoeBaijiKite 03:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Okie here. I have resided in this state since birth in 1967. I have never heard a resident of Oklahoma use the term in a negative way. The first time I perceived a negative interpretation was in public school while studying history, specifically the Dust Bowl/Depression era. There it was explained that the term Okie was used in a derogatory sense, mainly by Californians who were on the receiving end of many poverty-stricken migrants. There are historical hints that the term emerged before the dust bowl, but it seems that its wide-spread recognition outside Oklahoma began at that time and conveyed a negative connotation. Wikipedia's own article on the term Okie, relates a humorously apropos anecdote, paraphrased here: "California DOT refused to allow the name of the "Okie Girl" restaurant to appear on a roadside sign on Interstate 5, arguing that the restaurant's name insulted Oklahomans; only after protracted controversy (and a letter from the Governor of Oklahoma) did the agency relent." Sounds to me like the discussion here has already occurred in the situation above with California saying "Oh, no! That's not nice!" and Okies replying, "Nah, it's OK. We kinda like it." --RatOmeter2 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to the association of the term to Steinbeck, I think it is fair to say that his book might very well have "popularized" it. It's not difficult to imagine that the negative connotation of the term might have stayed generally confined to California without the book's publication.--RatOmeter2 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am from Oklahoma and I find not negative conotation in the word. I know that at one time it was used negatively to refer to anyone from the area of the dustbowl, but I think that for the most part Oklahomans are proud to be called okies. I am an okie and will gladly state that anytime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.124.2 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Early 20th Century Oil Boom

Okiefromokla, may I suggest that more space should be given to the early 20th century oil boom which occured in Oklahoma and it's neighbouring state Texas. I just recently came into possesseion of an essay written by my aunt who lived during that era. Not only did numerous little oil towns spring up, complete with "streams of oil running down the main street and citizens needing to walk across the street on a wooden plank", but the social fall-out for the oil refinery workers and their families was enormous. They led an itinerent lifestyle, following each strike, constantly moving around the little make-shift towns. My maternal grandfather was an oil refinery worker, and my mother and her siblings, lived in 200 different places during that time period. Very little has been written about that era. Perhaps it merits a separate article? By the way your article on Oklahoma is brilliant.jeanne (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Though I did contribute to it much, I don't consider it my article, as it belongs to everyone — that's the ideal of Wikipedia. :) But thanks again! About your suggestion, what did you have in mind? I hesitate to add more than an additional sentence or two about the oil booms because of the article's size, but also because the summary style guideline advises that the most important points be summarized with details presented in sub-articles. History of Oklahoma would be a good place, and specifically, this section. However, if we have enough information, WikiProject Oklahoma would be ecstatic to have an article about the Oklahoma oil booms. That would be great if you wanted to work on it! Your aunt's essay could be used to some extent if it was accessable online. Perhaps with quotes as a witness testimony of sorts. Okiefromokla ^complaints 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Im just piggy-backing on jeanne's suggestions but I also think that is would be nice to have some info on it, just a sentence or two. I did my reaserch paper in 12th grade over the Oklahoma oil boom and its really cool how it shaped Oklahoma as a state. I think it would fit nicley in the history section right after this sentence, "The new state became a focal point for the emerging oil industry, as discoveries of oil pools prompted towns to grow rapidly in population and wealth. Tulsa eventually became known as the "Oil Capital of the World" for most of the 20th century, and oil investments fueled much of the state's early economy." But since jeanne probably knows more about it than I do I'll let her add it. Aslo I agree with Okiefromokla that an article on Oklahoma oil booms would be a nice addition to Wikipedia if you wanted to work on it. --CPacker (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you list the sources you used for that research paper? They might be useful. I agree there could be another few sentences, but I really don't think anything much longer would be in line with the summary style of the article. Specific details should almost certainly go into the relevant subarticle. Okiefromokla ^complaints 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya... if I can find them. If so I will get them to you.--CPacker (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot publish my aunt's essay online as it is really the property of my cousin, and besides, it contains much personal information about my grandparents that I would prefer to keep within the family. Out of respect to the dead who cannot defend themselves. A pity really because my aunt's essay could provide a lot of info on the oil boom.It's an era pretty much overlooked by historians as is most of the history of Oklahoma. My grandmother told my aunt that while walking to school she would come upon the bodies of lynched horse thieves hanging from the trees! This would have been during the 1890's.According to my aunt, Oklahoma was wild before it became a state.--jeanne (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Germans

I am curious as to how the largest ethnic group in Oklahoma is of German descent. Would they be descended from the Germans who settled Pennsylvania in the 18th century or the later arrivals in the mid-19th century? I would have imagined the largest group to have been English like the other Southern states.--jeanne (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Maps of American ancestries. It's easy to see that Oklahoma is not necessarily tied as strongly to the south as it is to the Midwest in terms of ethnicity. One obvious explanation for this is the unique way in which Oklahoma was populated — landruns, oil rushes, indian removal, etc. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The map also explained that Scots-Irish is probably the second largest white ethnic group, but so many people simply describe themselves as "American", especially in the south, that it's hard to obtain an accurate percentage. I for one believe Scots-Irish ancestry is higher in Oklahoma than reported.--jeanne (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect so, too. Unfortunately, there isn't much we can say about it without a reliable source. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Culture poll

Just removed a poll [2] that is claimed to suggest that Oklahomans view themselves as part of the South, but we have to be very careful about these kinds of things. First of all, this is apparently an informal poll, not a sociological study—meaning we have to take it with a grain of salt. Moreover, the poll apparently surveyed 17,000 people across the country with presumably a very limited number of those being in Oklahoma (which means it is a highly inaccurate poll). But even so, the source does not provide data for the Oklahoma results, which may mean that a solid majority of respondents have claimed themselves as "southern," or simply more than any other regional allegiance. For example, the results could have been 30% southern and 25% Midwestern. In other words, this may not be something that would be useful for academic purposes, and the same probably goes for us. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, I just did some further looking into this poll, and found that 800 people were surveyed from Oklahoma, but I cannot access the more specific results. Can anyone else load the page? [3] Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie-I read somewhere and can't remember where it that it depending on where your family migrated from. For instance, myself my ancestors are from Arkansas by way of TN so I think of Oklahoma as being in the South, but people whose ancestors are from let's say Ohio do not view Oklahoma as being South. I think it is all in perception. 199.218.124.2 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alligators and Palms native to Oklahoma

Thought it might be interesting in the Climate section to add mention of the fact that American alligator and sabal minor palmettos are native in the Subtropical eastern part of Oklahoma. Just thought it would spice things up (and is verifiable true).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

interested

I'M DOING A STATE report on oklahamo and its really interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.129.200 (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma/Indian Territory and the Civil War

While on the topic of Oklahoma's unique Southern culture and influences, I believe it is necessary to mention the history of Gen. Stand Watie (last Confederate general to surrender) and the Tribes' involvement in the war. As I understand it, the 5 Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma had quite a unique history during this period, and the Freemen debacle and controversy has been brought to attention not too long ago. There was once a large section devoted to this time frame on an older Wiki article, so why has it vanished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajokie (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Democrats In Oklahoma

I have to believe this sentence can't be right: "though Oklahoma has more voters registered in the Democratic Party than in any other party". I'm willing to believe that the percentage of voters registered Democrat is greater than any other state, but given that California has 50 million people, how can Oklahoma possibly have the highest number of Democrats? I would have just corrected this myself, but since I'm not sure what the writer meant, I'm not sure what the correct statistic is. SJS1971 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It means what it says: "Oklahoma has more voters registered in the Democratic Party than in any other party". Not "than any other state does". It just means there are more registered Democrats in Oklahoma than registered Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, Greens, etc., in Oklahoma. No comparison to other states is being made at all, only to other political parties in OK. +An gr 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Better introduction?

So, I realize this has been a featured article, but it seems to me there's room for improvement. Particularly in the introduction. It's a lot like any other state's introductions, with reference to too many mundane facts and to many pedestrian modern superlatives. Certainly there's room for those in the article, but couldn't the introduction focus on a few things that make Oklahoma markedly different from other U.S. states? For example, its history is completely unique among American states, having first been remaindered to refugees of the American Indian diaspora, and then later settled by the mostly white winners of a government-organized horse and buggy race. Its economic history is a metaphorical roller coaster, early on being first a land of self-starting agricultural bounty (as characterized in the musical "Oklahoma!") and then a magnet for oil barons, and then devastated by the Dust Bowl, and then built up again on the back of defense manufacturing and soaring oil consumption, only to collapse in the '80s with the oil bust, in a way that helped precipitate the national savings and loan crisis. ... Oklahoma holds a fascinating and underappreciated role in American history. That can surely be referenced more clearly here. Lobosolo (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is long enough to support a slightly expanded introduction - go ahead and add a history-themed paragraph (maybe of five or so sentences) if you want. AlexiusHoratius 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Better topography photographs

Do you think we can get any uglier with the landscape photos? Why does every description of Oklahoma always come with shots of the dust bowl, shots of some vast grassland going into oblivion, Black Mesa and the mandatory windmill shot with not a tree in sight? Do any of the authors ever venture east of I 35 and south of I 40. No one lives in the panhandle. How about some shots of the Kiamichis?

Also, your assertion that "most" of Oklahoma lies in the Great Plains is false. The Great Plains encompass a vary small portion of our state in the NW and Northern portions. http://www.literarian.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/greatplains.jpg Central and Western Oklahoma are within the cross timbers and consist of rose bed plains(a more hilly and wooded type).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryan74 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable content?

It states "It is located on a confluence of three major American cultural regions'". Which three? The link explains what a cultural region is, but does nothing toi explain or support the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.9.165 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it said that watermelon was a vegetable. It isn't a vegetable it is a fruit. A user then charged me with "disruptive editing". Please tell me how this is disruptive. I believe wikipedia has charged me falsely. Im not impressed and I live in Oklahoma so I think I would know a bit more than wikipedia trolls who seemingly have nothing better to do than spend their lives on wikipedia. A WATERMELON IS A FRUIT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonFreechman (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive editing was for the edits that followed. And, as far as Oklahoma is concerned, watermelon is a vegetable. [4] DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, fruits are just a subset of vegetables. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive. +An gr 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For the uses of the state, watermelon is a vegetable. Codster925 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Plurality voting

In "Law and Government", text says state officials are elected by plurality voting. That's wrong, right? Oklahoma's one of the few states where a candidate only wins with a majority vote, acquired in a runoff election if necessary. Lobosolo (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We do elect our officials by plurality voting in the General election as was the case in the 2002, its only in the primary's that we have runoffs.--Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Well, that could be clearer, right? I don't feel qualified to revise, but Oklahoma's relative uniqueness in the primary runoff requirement sort of belies this blanket statement about plurality voting. Lobosolo (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be rewriting the statement to better explain our system of voting.--Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Presidential Election of 2008

"Oklahoma was the only state whose counties voted unanimously for McCain." This is true only because Alaska's primary subdivisions are called boroughs. McCain carried all the boroughs. Dynzmoar (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop editing back and forth on whether Oklahoma was the only pure red state in 2008. If there is a dispute, which there clearly is, we discuss in on the Talk Page not but edit comments as we edit back and forth. Here are two map sources I found. [5][6]. ─ Matthewi ^(Talk) • 00:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is how you handle Alaska's Unorganized Borough. Not all of Alaska is part of a borough; the emptier parts of the state are administered directly by the state government and are not part of a borough. To facilitate census taking, the Census Bureau splits the borough up into "Census areas"; Obama won some of these. So whether Oklahoma was the only state to go all McCain in 2008 depends on whether you treat the unorganized borough as equivalent to a borough or use the census areas. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We just need to discuss in on this page or another Talk Page to see how I handle it. I don't know much about it though. ─ Matthewi ^(Talk) • 01:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links

This article contains so many dead links. Which might be a problem when proving it's verifiability. Someone definitely need to do a ref-improve or if it gets re-assessed it might loose featured article state. I'm eager to help if someone need a hand--Chamith (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Edits

1. Oklahoma does not lie "fully" in the southwest. The western United States begins west of the 100th Meridian West . The notion that Oklahoma is part of the great southwest is based on a lack of geographical knowledge. Oklahoma proper is located in the south central United States and is part of the Eastern half of the United States.

2. Oklahoma, or most of it is not situated in the temperate zone of the united states. It is located in the Humid Subtropical Climate zone. There are maps on both pages that outline this.

3. The author has given the impression that all American Indians in Oklahoma evenly sided with the Union and Confederacy. The plains Indians of western Oklahoma are not directly connected to the Civil War. All Five Civilized Tribes sided with the Confederacy; with the exception of a band of Cherokees that broke off and sided with the Union.

4. The author left out the Cross Timbers region. In reality, a very small portion of Oklahoma is situated in the Great Plains. The web is inundated with lazy and false versions of the great plains map. Basically maps that cover the entire state and the media picks up on them. I can assure readers that most of eastern Oklahoma is not part of the plains region. This is the actual map of the great plains and it can be verified by looking at Google Earth.

4. What are "western" ranchers? How is this a cultural influence? Many of these ranchers came straight from the old south like most of Oklahoma's population.

5. "Residents of Oklahoma are associated with traits of southern hospitality – the 2006 Catalogue for Philanthropy (with data from 2004) ranks Oklahomans 7th in the nation for overall generosity[135]. The state has also been associated with a negative cultural stereotype first popularized by John Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath, which described the plight of uneducated, poverty-stricken Dust Bowl-era farmers deemed "Okies"

That is how that sentence should read. The Grapes of Wrath misconception does not cancel out the southern hospitality aspect. It was a fictional book. There is no reason for "While". I simply broke this up in to two sentences. Why is southern hospitality a "stereotypical" trait? It is an attribute. Kryan74 (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to question your claim that Oklahoma is located in the Eastern United States. According to whom? On what grounds are you making this claim? The 100th meridian west clearly is a significant distance west of the actual center longitude of the United States. I have never seen Oklahoma classified as being in the East; it is clearly divided. Dustin (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

On #4, maybe Wikipedia is using an overly broad definition that can be changed, but you are using an overly narrow definition so aren't really doing this page justice. Also, you can't give any better a delineation of a plain by looking at Google Earth than you can a desert. Dustin (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding #4. That is the actual map of the plains. That comes from multiple geographical studies and can be verified by looking at overhead maps. Central Oklahoma is the situated in the Cross Timbers region and eastern Oklahoma is part of the eastern woodlands. Kryan74 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 37 external links on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120617002729/http://www.ok.gov:80/elections/documents/reg_0112.pdf to http://www.ok.gov/elections/documents/reg_0112.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What about the Indians?

Considering that much of the state is divided into Indian Reservations, I am curious why there is so little mention of that. It would be nice to see how that interplays with state jurisdiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.137.90 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There exists exactly one Indian reservation in Oklahoma, Osage Indian Reservation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.182.75 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Apart from Osage County, there are not actually reservations in Oklahoma. There are tribal governments that operate in certain defined areas (e.g. Chickasaw, Cherokee, et al.) but in order to fall under their jurisdiction you either have to be a member of the tribe or otherwise consent to their jurisdiction (i.e. by being employed by them or dealing with their businesses). Otherwise Oklahoma law applies. Ultimately though it is not something that directly affects most residents of Oklahoma on a frequent basis (unless you're the sort of person who goes to the casino every day), which is why I assume it's been left out. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Osage Nation doesn't even have a reservation. The Tenth Circuit ruled very clearly in Osage Nation v. Irby, 597 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2010), cert denied, that the Osage Allotment Act of 1906 ended their reservation status (despite the tribe's retention of the infamous Osage mineral estate). There are no "reservations" in Oklahoma. 68.12.156.16 (talk)

Oklahoma does not have reservations. We have nations. There is a major difference. Kryan74 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK has the highest Native American Indian percentage population outside Alaska, between 11 to 19 percent of the state population, including mixed-race and non-tribal members. There are sizable Urban Indian communities of the state's over 50 federal and other state recognized tribes in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. And some Native majority communities in the Eastern half of the state. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oklahoma has 39 federally recognized tribes and no state recognized tribes headquartered in the state. The tribes are mentioned in the Culture section. Oklahoma's Native American population is mentioned numerous times throughout the article. Yuchitown (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110315095936/http://flyokc.com/Airlines.aspx to http://flyokc.com/Airlines.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809135444/http://www.legendsofamerica.com/66-Facts.html to http://www.legendsofamerica.com/66-Facts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What the actual fuck?

There is a disgusting pornographic image on the main page, at least loading up for me. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It was vandalism on a template included on this page. Should be fixed now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible Geology section

I noticed this article does not have a section on Oklahoma geology. I think that would be a useful addition, since I was wondering how I could go about mentioning the state's earthquakes, since there is currently no appropriate section. Master of Time (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ochre Homme

Ochre Homme is French for Red Man, so wouldn't that be a loan phrase from the Louisiana colonists, in a bastardized version attributed to Choctaw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.39 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Native American territory?

I don't really have an opinion one way or another about this, but I figured I'd kick off the discussion: what should be done now that the Supreme Court has ruled that more than half of Oklahoma is actually Native American territory? I see that someone had added it to the history section, but what about the territory visualization? Demographics? Population map? Should there be a separate article for "indigenous territory formerly part of Oklahoma"? Coolreader18 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's Tribal land located within the State of Oklahoma, no borders have changed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of citations/data in need of update

So I won't keep defacing the article with "citation needed" tags because it's an FA and it should at least look the part. But there is currently a serious lack of citations that needs to be adressed, in instances such as:

the first 2 paragraphs of the geography section
"Cimarron County in Oklahoma's panhandle is the only county in the United States that touches four other states: New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, and Kansas."
"Southwestern Oklahoma contains many rare, disjunct species including sugar maple, bigtooth maple, nolina and southern live oak."
"Oklahoma's highest-recorded temperature of 120 °F (49 °C) was recorded at Tipton on June 27, 1994 and the lowest recorded temperature of −31 °F (−35 °C) was recorded at Nowata on February 10, 2011."
"The territory now known as Oklahoma was first a part of the Arkansas Territory from 1819 until 1828."
"Deliberations to make the territory into a state began near the end of the 19th century, when the Curtis Act continued the allotment of Indian tribal land."
"Oklahoma also has a rich African-American history. Many black towns thrived in the early 20th century because of black settlers moving from neighboring states, especially Kansas. The politician Edward P. McCabe encouraged black settlers to come to what was then Indian Territory. He discussed with President Theodore Roosevelt the possibility of making Oklahoma a majority-black state."
"Over a twenty-year period ending in 1950, the state saw its only historical decline in population, dropping 6.9 percent as impoverished families migrated out of the state after the Dust Bowl."
"Prominent theatre companies in Oklahoma ..." - very long paragraph with zero citations
The Sports#Current teams section (????)
Almost the entirety of the "National politics" section, etc, etc.

The article is also in need of an update to its data. The Education section presents data ranging from 2004 to 2008; the bulk of the data from the energy section is from 2009; the Economy section has data ranging from 2005 to 2007, the language section data is all from 2000(!!!), the Demographics section features data that ranges from 2005 to 2009, the media section has two figures from 2006. These figures are all 10 years old at the very least.

This article does not seem to meet the current Featured Article criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I may take a look at some of this stuff later, but the Tipton record-high and Nowata record-low temperatures can be sourced to the Oklahoma Mesonet (couldn't find the Tipton bit on the Mesonet site itself). Master of Time (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Almost one year later and the article manages to be worse somehow, with all that white space in the climate section. Still a lot of unsourced text, 2000, 2002, 2006 data, short, stubby sentences and so on. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Image sandwiches

Images need to be cleaned up on this article, too many are sandwiching the text (floating images on both left and right and several one are on the opposite side of tables). This goes against MOS:IMAGES. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. I tagged the article accordingly. —howcheng {chat} 05:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Home of the Red Man

As an Oklahoman, this is what I've been taught Oklahoma meant since forever. I assume someone younger than me revised history in the past 10 years to then make up a newer, woke definition. Even the Chahta page^[1] mentions its origins. This is b.s.Jawz101 (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC) The guy they credit for saying it means honored also has Home of The Red Man on his page. Anyways, has anyone tried these human apples? They are delicious.

For what it's worth, I reached out to a translator for the Choctaw Nation^[2] to ask about this. Here is an excerpt from her reponse

Halito <my name>;
Thank you for your concern and question. The things we see and read can sometimes be annoying or troubling to us. As a fluent Choctaw speaker, I understand where you are coming from. Choctaw was my first language. There are elderly speakers in our department who are older than me. We see many things that have been written and put up on different sites in our language that we do not agree with. We teach “Oklahoma” to mean “red people”. Okla means people and we also use it to mean “they” as a pronoun. Homma means “red”. Of course the spelling is “homa” in Oklahoma. Home of the red man is correct when you think of red people. I hope that this helps I am not that great in “English” for I am still learning. Growing up I was around more Choctaw speakers and did not hear English spoken except in school. But in school, I had a Choctaw speaker who was my best friend and we spoke Choctaw to each other most of the time. Of course in high school, we got lots of paddlings for speaking Choctaw. It was a natural thing for us to speak Choctaw because when we returned to our homes, that is what was spoken. Please feel free to contact me if I may be of further assistance.
Yakoke,

<their name>

Jawz101 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "Choctaw", Wikipedia, 2021-07-09, retrieved 2021-07-26
^ "Language | Choctaw Nation". www.choctawnation.com. Retrieved 2021-08-21.

Southern Plains

The Southern plains are not a region. They are a geological and geographical formation. Regions consist of culture and settlement patterns. Furthermore, less than a quarter of Oklahoma actually lies within the great plains. That should be removed.

JamesRogers23 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

[OK_Energy_5-1] "Three Of America's Largest Private Companies Call Oklahoma Home". Oklahoma Department of Commerce. 2005-12-02. Retrieved 2007-08-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] "Choctaw", Wikipedia, 2021-07-09, retrieved 2021-07-26

[3] "Language | Choctaw Nation". www.choctawnation.com. Retrieved 2021-08-21.

[1]

[1]

[2]