Jump to content

Talk:Oregon/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Education introduction

User:Ckere has reverted my changes twice now for the introduction of the education section, and for some reason didn't want to discuss the edit dispute here, but wanted to take it up on his her talk page. I made the following reply backing up all my edits with sources, which have not been replied to. I see no reason why others should not see this and comment. If Ckere continues not to respond I'll be putting my edits back.

  • "First,the proper way to deal with an editing dispute is not to use the revert function or call my edits "vandalism." Second, all my information was correct, and OSU has the edge in every category that Wikipedia reliably cites as criteria for the "flagship" university. The opening for OSU describes it as a flagship as well. Let's take a look at the facts: You state that my claim about funding is false: You're absolutely right that I was talking about research funding, which is exactly what my edit stated. I made no mention of operating budget. "The university receives more funding for research, annually, than all other public higher education institutions in Oregon combined." This is the same source I used in my edit. Second, the claim that OSU is more selective is backed up by the source I provided. OSU's average GPA for incoming freshman was higher than UO's. "This year, OSU raised the bar slightly, attracting freshmen with an average high school grade-point average of 3.59, up from 3.57 the previous year. UO’s freshman class fell a bit to 3.58, down from 3.6 last year." OSU admits higher qualified students, on average. Is that not the definition of more selective? If a small, poor quality school only allows in 10 out of 100 applicants, and their average GPA was a 2.0, that would make them one of the most selective universities in the country by that logic. "More selective" in an admissions context means higher qualifications for the student. Third, yes, universities are ranked. Wikipedia uses 4 national rankings and 2 global. OSU is ranked higher than UO in 4 of those 6, although 2 of those 4 overlap as national and global, hence my mentioning that OSU is ranked higher by 3 organizations. Your reverts to only show OSU is ranked higher in one is what is POV and biased here. Finally, you admitted that some of my edits were completely correct. Then why did you revert them? You just admitted to reverting completely correct and properly sourced information.
Now, let's take a look at "flagship" criterion according to what is reliably sourced in Wikipedia's section on Flagship#Education. "The College Board, for example, defines flagship universities as the best-known institutions in the state, noting that they were generally the first to be established (Advantage: OSU) and are frequently the largest (Advantage: OSU) and most selective (Advantage: OSU if student qualifications is the criterion, advantage UO if percent of applicants admitted is the criterion), as well as the most research-intensive (Advantage: OSU) public universities. These schools are often land-grant, sea-grant, or space-grant research universities" (Advantage: OSU). UO even dropped their flagship claim in 2013. Here's a source stating OSU is a flagship university. You stated that the "radical shift in tone reeks in bias." What was biased is what you reverted the page back to and is not backed up by the sources. I am of course willing to work with you on the wording, but if anything your catch-all revert, calling what I did vandalism, and perpetuating the retention of the extremely biased and contrary to sources section that was up there is far more akin to making an edit due to a college rivalry. I hope that you can propose some acceptable changes, otherwise I'll be involving a 3rd party since I don't intent to get into a revert war with you." VegaDark (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I had requested that you to keep the discussion in one place since this is a dispute between you and I, but I see that you've gone ahead and disrespected that by copying everything to here as well as reigniting the flame war on OSU's talk page as well. It makes things extremely hard to keep track of. You also decided to silence me by failing to include any of my replies. I'm not going to apologize for not replying to your comments in a timeframe to your liking -- believe it or not, I have a life to live outside of engaging in petty Wikipedia edit wars over your alma mater. Also, I don't know why you consistently refer to me as male. I am female, please use feminine pronouns instead of assuming male to be the default gender.

  • "The opening for OSU describes it as a flagship as well." -- Other Wikipedia pages are not valid sources.
  • "You state that my claim about funding is false: You're absolutely right that I was talking about research funding, which is exactly what my edit stated. I made no mention of operating budget." - My mistake about the research funding issue -- I misread that part of the edit. Regardless, universities are much, much more than just research institutions. As such, if you wish to boast about finances, it makes more sense to boast about UO's overall finances.
  • Regarding selectivity: First off, GPA is not even close to the only think that universities consider for undergraduate admissions. They look at testing scores, extracurricular activities, essays, demographics, and extenuating circumstances as well. So long as they follow proper laws, universities may select by whatever they please. In my original reply (which again, you chose to leave out), I cited evidence that UO admits a lower percentage of its applicants than OSU does. This is the conventional sense of selectivity.
  • Regarding rankings: Again from my original reply, some rankings are more influential and holistic than others. By editing to boast more about all of OSU's successes in minor rankings while failing to mention all of UO's successes in more significant rankings (as well as actively eliminating information that reflects well on the university) shows more bias, in my opinion.
  • "Finally, you admitted that some of my edits were completely correct. Then why did you revert them? You just admitted to reverting completely correct and properly sourced information." - Because most of the other changes you made were problematic enough to warrant a revert, especially since you went about it in a fashion that screamed of "I want to edit Wikipedia to show that my alma matter is better than its main rival". Again, I explained more of this in my original reply, which you have failed to include.
  • Regarding flagships: Actually, Western Oregon University is the first public university established in the state of Oregon, having been founded in 1856. OSU and PSU switch claim for highest enrollment on nearly a yearly basis, so that metric is highly unreliable. See my previous points about selectivity. Also note that The College Board's definition's first point of definition as "the best-known institutions in the state". This is almost certainly UO on both a state and national level, but we have no real objective measurement of that to confirm.
  • Regarding the UOMatters post, UO removing one bit from promotional materials means nothing. OSU doesn't claim itself to be a flagship institution either.
  • Regarding the stateuniversity.com post, I wouldn't consider that an even remotely reliable source considering it claims that United States Coast Guard Academy is the best public university in the country, University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez is the 15th, and that UO is the second oldest public university in the state.

I will be making an edit soon that incorporates some of the changes you tried to make, while still being neutral and reflective of reality. Ckere (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • it's a dispute that deserves more eyes on it which is why I posted it in multiple places. I figured you could include your own replies, it could look confusing if I was including something you wrote under my signature. Assuming you were male was a safe assumption, particularly where you don't have a user page to indicate what gender you are, but I'll keep that in mind for future interactions. As for your points:
  • No, but as you are well aware from your interactions on Talk:Oregon_State_University#flagship_status, there are reliable sources for this claim. See [1], [2], [3]. Reliable sources have called it a flagship, so it is irrelevant to what either of us believe. I approve of your edit saying there are two flagship universities, as that's what the sources state (although I am personally puzzled, based on the criteria for flagship status, why UO is also considered a flagship institution according to said sources).
  • "Regardless, universities are much, much more than just research institutions. As such, if you wish to boast about finances, it makes more sense to boast about UO's overall finances." - I disagree. First off, it's not boasting, it's reciting an important reliably sourced fact. Second, yes, research funding is more important than operating budget when it comes to determining a flagship institution. See here, page 30, which states "The College Board defines “flagship universities” in the following way: “Flagship institutions are the best-known institutions in the state, were generally the first to be established, and are frequently the largest and most selective, as well as the most research-intensive public universities.” I don't think it's disputed that OSU is most research intensive university in Oregon. As sourced earlier this and this are reliable sources for that fact. I think that's a great fact addition into this section.
  • As to selectivity, here's a source that cites their university selectivity criteria as "based on the entering students’ grades and test scores.", although there are other sources that support your position [4] (that source does state that more than just a percent of applicants can be taken into account, however). Considering competing sources on this, it would be misleading to call either university the "most selective" without qualifying that statement. Considering you left UO as the "most selective" in your edit, I'll be changing that shortly.
  • "Regarding rankings: Again from my original reply, some rankings are more influential and holistic than others. By editing to boast more about all of OSU's successes in minor rankings while failing to mention all of UO's successes in more significant rankings (as well as actively eliminating information that reflects well on the university) shows more bias, in my opinion." Here's the facts: Wikipedia uses a template, Template:Infobox US university ranking, for national universities to show their rankings on their respective pages. Both UO's and OSU's rankings include 6 of the apparently 10 different sources that that template has options for, although 1 of the global ones is overlapped with national, so it's really 9 different sources. I haven't looked at the talk page for that template, but I have to assume that there was consensus that these 9 were all notable enough sources to include in the infobox. Of those 6, one is the one that overlaps, making 5 different organizations that both UO and OSU have linked in their infobox, 3 of those 5 ranking OSU higher than UO (4 of 6 if we include the overlap). It is misleading to the reader to only cite 1 each. I don't see why we can't say which organizations rank each higher in this sentence. It's simply relaying information, there's no discussion as to which rankings are more significant than others. Additionally, I don't know where you are coming from with your accusation that I "actively eliminated information", I did not remove any information regarding UO's ranking in my edit.
  • Again, I take issue with your assertions that I made these edits to make OSU look better. I was citing reliable sources, some of which had changed the information that was in place, such as largest, selectivity, etc.
  • I'm aware WOU is the oldest, I simply stated that OSU was older than UO. Same with number of students, OSU has been higher than UO for some years now. Last I checked, WOU and PSU were not being considered for "flagship" status. As to "more well known", that is your opinion, you are right there are no objective measurement. Additionally, "More well known" is very hard to define. Penn State became much more well known after their giant scandal, does this strengthen their argument for flagship status? I would imagine that's not what the author had in mind.
  • See above for three reliable sources as to OSU being a flagship university, the link I chose to provide was a poor one upon further review (and was not cited in an article - I would have done more research into the source before adding that). VegaDark (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to reset this conversation and keep it centralized here instead of spread across multiple Talk pages.

First, I just removed the unsourced flagship claims in this article and replaced them with sourced facts using the Carnegie (Basic 2010) Classifications of the state's public universities. Hopefully that will satisfy all parties at least as an interim step until we reach consensus on the flagship designation(s).

Second, I removed the flagship claim from this and one of the university article (OSU, I think) because they're unsourced. The claims may be valid and supported by reliable sources but the onus is on the editors who believe the information should be included to provide those sources.

Third, I'm confused why this is such a long, drawn out conversation with poor references and original research. It doesn't matter if one or more Wikipedia editors believe a fact to be true; it matters what can be found in high quality, reliable sources. So I'm puzzled that the standard sources for this kind of information haven't been cited; they're cited in Flagship so they're not hard to find! See what they say, write that up in a neutral manner, and include citations - it's that simple. Since this appears to be a disputed topic, I recommend not using self-published materials from the universities in question unless they are significant, factual claims (i.e., don't use the university's marketing and public relations materials) or you are trying to specifically document the universities' claims. ElKevbo (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

(Note: Discussion began at Talk:Oregon State University and was copied/moved here to keep it centralized.)

An unregistered editor just edited Oregon State University and asserted that it's a flagship university citing only this reference. It's a reliable source but it's really, really weak evidence for such an important claim. The paper was released ten years ago and classifies institutions as "flagships" based on data that were already over ten years old when the paper was released which means the data are now more than twenty years old. The document was published as an NBER working paper which means that it may have undergone some sort of review process but it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal or other venue where we are assured of editorial oversight and quality control (although I assume that the NBER has those kinds of mechanisms in place; I just don't know for sure). This single piece of weak evidence is entirely insufficient to justify such a strong claim. ElKevbo (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's an article that references OSU as a flagship university that also passes WP:RS and is far more recent: Source. VegaDark (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't explicitly call OSU a flagship though, just that according to the author of the article there are two flagships. For all we know the author could think WOU and EOU are the flagships. Personally, I think OSU shouldn't be listed as flagship -- if you do a quick search for UO's flagship status, there are comparatively many many more sources backing that up. 65.78.144.35 (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the The Bulletin article implies that the chancellor of the Oregon University System said that the two institutions are flagships. But it's not a direct quote so it's not entirely clear if that is something the chancellor said or the reporter's opinion or interpretation. Without knowing which of those two possibilities is correct, this is pretty weak source, too.
There have been several discussions and edit wars about the flagship status (or lack thereof) of several universities lately so I apologize if I'm repeating myself but I urge you to consult the sources in Flagship; they're pretty good sources and include many of the most authoritative on this very subjective, murky, and ill-defined topic. You'll be on much better ground if you can cite sources written by experts in higher education. ElKevbo (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've already addressed the criteria for a flagship university status as sourced at that page above. To reiterate, ""The College Board, for example, defines flagship universities as the best-known institutions in the state, noting that they were generally the first to be established (Advantage: OSU) and are frequently the largest (Advantage: OSU) and most selective (Advantage: OSU if student qualifications is the criterion, advantage UO if percent of applicants admitted is the criterion), as well as the most research-intensive (Advantage: OSU) public universities. These schools are often land-grant, sea-grant, or space-grant research universities" (Advantage: OSU)." If we are basing flagship status based off of what the flagship#education sections has reliably sourced as criteria for such a status, then OSU has an advantage in those criteria almost across the board. VegaDark (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That's the College Board's definition, not Wikipedia's. What ElKevbo is saying is that we need specific reputable academic authorities mentioning specifically OSU as a flagship university, which has yet to happen. Circumstantial evidence is not enough. 65.78.144.35 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a stand-alone definition of a flagship university. VegaDark is taking the wikipedia entry, using criteria that were found to be acceptable for it, and applying it to a different area of wikipedia. I don't see the point in undermining an approved wikipedia entry because you find the College Board definition, which is cited in it, more circumstantial than arbitrary references of flagship universities in literature that is clearly not intended to address the issue of defining the term. Perhaps the inclusion of the College Board criteria in the flagship entry, and in turn in this conversation, could be questioned, but I fail to see a more reputable source for defining it that is timely and relevant. If there is no issue with its inclusion into the wikipedia entry for flagship, I fail to see how there should be any issue with it being applied to define the term for another wikipedia entry. At the very least, there appears to be little support for a definitive statement of the University of Oregon being a flagship university (currently) than simple past precedent. Xenocide85 (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
ElKevbo is more likely to have a better response to OSU's flagship status than I could give you, but judging from how discussions regarding articles from other supposedly flagship universities turned out, consensus seems to be that in order for a flagship university to be listed as such on Wikipedia, there must be a sufficient amount of good-quality sources referring to the university of a flagship. That's all I can really tell you, but if you wish, I can list more sources backing up UO's flagship status. [1][2][3][4] Note that the second reference is from The College Board. Ckere (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "USA TODAY's 2006 College Tuition & Fees Survey". USA Today. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
  2. ^ "Trends In College Pricing 2014" (PDF). The College Board. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
  3. ^ "Best Flagship Universities For The Money: Fiske 2014 List". Huffington Post.
  4. ^ Grove, Allen. "University of Oregon Admissions". About Education. Retrieved 3 December 2014.

Per capita personal income

Several sources disagree on Oregon's per capita personal income (PCPI), but not by much difference. For reference, there's [5], [6], [7], and [8], which I've cited in the article as it's probably the best source. Bea.gov won't load for some reason, but I viewed it this way. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941!!

Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941!! How did 1942 get into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.232.75 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. Conifer (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The link in endnote #23 "Chronology of events, 1543–1859". Echoes of Oregon History Learning Guide. Oregon State Archives. Retrieved August 11, 2011. 

should be: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/echoes/chronology.html

159.121.168.68 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the link. Conifer (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oregon. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Official language

"De facto official", as in "Official language: De facto: English", is an oxymoron. Is there a better way to express the intended idea in the infobox? — Ipoellet (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sports section redo (Portland TrailBlazers)

In the sports section it talks about acquiring two new players Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. I want to point out that currently neither of these players play for the Portland Trailblazers and one is out of the league entirely. I attempted to recognize players that were currently on the team (though in a poor way), but my edits were reversed due to not being backed with a source, but a 9 year old article is still apparently a reliable source for a sport that can have major changes after one year of play. I was hoping to remove mentions of these former players in order to talk about the current state of the team. DJGaberaham (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@DJGaberaham: Don't be discouraged. Certainly removing those old players, or maybe rephrasing to say that they used to play is okay. You can insure that your edit persists if you add a citation to a verifiable and reliable source following the new text.
The Oregon article is closely monitored because the subject is popular and well known throughout the world. Also the article is commonly attacked by vandals, and it is watched by hundreds (366) editors.
Note that Wikipedia articles are not sources. As long as a verifiable citation to a reliable source backs up a claim in the article, we don't bother much over it aging. But of course it should be updated when it is appropriate. For more Wikipedia context, please see The Five Pillars, and please, try again. Thanks, —EncMstr (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Two-sided Flag

Oregon has a two-sided state flag -- the only one in the country. Only one side was shown in the inset info box. I put both sides of the flag into an illustration above the box, but I am not skilled enough with pre-existing templates to figure out how to get the flag images inside the info box -- and I don't want to edit a template that will affect other states.

Apparently there is a way to make exceptions in these boxes, since Ohio's non-rectangular flag has been accommodated. Perhaps someone who understands these templates better can get the two flag images inside the box, with the Seal perhaps going on the line below them. Thanks.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

First state to legally recognize gender fluids

Oregon has just paved the way for gender fluid equality! I am so happy that liquids can now get the same legal recognition as solids and gases. This is a great win for gender idenity and the trans movement. Xhey can now put it on xheir drivers licenses and state ID cards. Shouldn't this great moment in history be added to the article? It's all over the news. Here's one of the news stories on it I've found: http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/oregon-becomes-first-state-add-third-gender-driver-s-licenses-n772891 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straight cis binary male human (talk • contribs) 03:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oregon had a "whites only" clause in its original state Constitution

Oregon had a "whites only" clause in its original state Constitution, is the text in the article.

How was this clause worded? Is it still in the Oregon constitution? If not, when was it removed?Jochum (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"Oregroun" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oregroun. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Oregon. 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) 23:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oregon. 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) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

massively overlinked

Per MOS:OVERLINK this article seems just absurdly overlinked. The Oregon#Flora_and_fauna section was probably the worst offender, so I tried to remove a few that didn't seem to add anything to the article, the problem being that it's hard to tell which ones are actually useful when EVERYTHING is linked. I'm hoping someone who knows this material better will come along and put back any that are actually useful to understanding Oregon and remove some in the rest of the article. --valereee (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A question about citation

Hey! Haven't really done much in the way of reverting edits, so am a little hesitant. But this one seems pretty clear. I have a pic of an Oregon State Parks plaque at Coos Bay I was going to insert. Then I saw it would be inconsistent with the text. Then I checked out the text and saw it did not really reflect the citation's (a book) information.

  • Here is a screenshot of the cited book.
Screenshot of 1904 book A Short History of Oregon.
  • This is what the text of the article says. The reference, number 57, follows at the end of this text. It is that of the screenshot.

Francis Drake made his way to Nehalem Bay in 1579 and spent five weeks in the middle of summer repairing his ship. He claimed the land between 38–48 degrees north latitude as a Symbolic Sovereign Act for England.

As you can see, the citation and text are not in agreement. Nehalem Bay is not mentioned at all in the book. And the degrees in the book are stated to be uncertain which is not indicated in the text. The text implies confidence not reflected in the book. And that the book seems to mention California as the land that was named seems to be at odds with the Nehalem Bay statement. Shouldn't Symbolic Act for England also be in the citation? It isn't.

The source seems like a good one, I think, so I am unsure how this happened.

So, considering all this, and that the mention and accompanying pic of Francis Drake's first North American encounter was near Coos Bay seems worthy of inclusion, I would like to make the appropriate changes. But I don't want to make a mess of things, especially on what is a pretty good article. Most of my work has been on Wikipedia Commons, not editing. That's why I was going to insert the State Parks plaque pic. But from what I can see, the text of this need to be changed. What do some of you think?Hu Nhu (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it has been a week and no one responded. Thus I made the changes to which I alluded, keep the citation that was previously written and added another to assist. I believe everything is correctly and reliably cited and that the contribution is proper.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That is what you should do. You have a referralable citaion so Keep it in accourdance with the book Thekidn1 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Why Are Hispanics Not Included in the Demography Charts?

Hi. Why are Hispanics (or Latinos) left out of all of the demography charts that have been created? I don't have time right now to fix that, but that is an enormous omission. Was it left out deliberately or accidentally? But that seems quite discriminatory or sloppy to have left them out. Was someone simply inexperienced at demography, that they would have left them out by not checking their conclusions? We may never know. But can anyone fix it? Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not know, but it says "other race" in it, so I assume hispanics are included in that catgory, seeing as it does not mention it in the other areas of the demographics. Firestar9990 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Agriculture

Not sure why grass seed isn’t mentioned as Oregon produces more than the rest of the world combined and it is probably the most grown crop in the willamette valley. “ Oregon, the US’s primary forage grass producing state, produces more grass and legume seed than the rest of the world (2003 = 420,000 MT)” https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/%24department/newslett.nsf/pdf/fsu6885/%24file/worldforage.pdf

And “ Grass seed crops are grown on more than half of the total harvested cropland in the Willamette Valley.”

https://valleyfieldcrops.oregonstate.edu/grass-seed

Furthermore no mention of “Tillamook” cheese and ice cream and the more recent development of truffle harvesting. 

https://oregontrufflefestival.org/our-story/

IPerceptor (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

250 ships in 250 years?

"Spanish ships – 250 in as many years – would typically not land before reaching Cape Mendocino in California..." 250 ships in 250 years? Lenbrazil (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Paranormal/Supernatural Activity

Do you think we should mention that Oregon has a strange history full of alleged paranormal incidents and supernatural creatures?

(161.29.246.205 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC))

There is no credible evidence from credible sources for this claim. There is, however, a very credible source for why such claims are often unfounded, which is headquartered in Bend, Oregon: Brian Dunning and the Skeptoid podcast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(author)#Skeptoid_podcasts DaKine (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't answer something I don't know Jozzey malale (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oregon/Archive_4&oldid=1173909587"