Talk:Oklahoma/Archive 2

message: I removed the characterization of Timothy McVeigh as christian as I do not recall any emphasis by him of his christian beliefs, and his actions clearly are not advocated by christian people.
:I remember a mention of him being (claiming to be?) Catholic.  However, you're correct about his actions contradicting Christian teachings!  Fustigate314159 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps he said he was born a Catholic. He has claimed to be a "Nietzchian". --64.149.39.28
I disagree that McVeigh's Christianity should have been removed, since early news reports allocated so much ink to speculation that it, like World Trade Center One, had been done by Islamic terrorists.--W8IMP (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: McVeigh Christian

message: The article says that 13.1% of the population is American.  That implies that 86.9% are non-citizens.  Perhaps the 13.1% should says "unspecified heritage" or something.--Appraiser 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "American" is the ancestry - it is taken directly from the U.S. census bureau for Oklahoma ancestry, per the source cited. Its not uncommon, most southern states have a large "amercian" ancestry. I don't pretend to know what it means, but it doesn't mean American citizenry. Okiefromokla•talk 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously that's distinct from Native American.  That's weird.--Appraiser 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. Its odd. I've never heard of "American" ancestry prior to working on this article but the U.S. census uses it in all its reports. Then again, I'm not an expert on these things so I just put what the U.S. census says. Okiefromokla•talk 21:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: if this would be featured on November 16, 2007, Oklahoma's 100th anniversary. Miranda 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it up in the "date requests" section here:Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests 30 days before Nov 16th. We had Minnesota on the front page on it's 149th anniversary. -Ravedave 14:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, that was the whole reason the article was improved to FA. Now the hard part is waiting until 30 days before Nov. 16th :P Okiefromokla•talk 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask Raul, he has a kind heart. You might have to beg, though. :-P Miranda 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And, I was right. :-D Miranda 02:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This would be great... 

message: Guys. I'm just a normal editor who wants to make Wikipedia better and just happens to put a lot of time into this particular article. I don't feel like I own the article despite what ever accusations were made against me. And I don't regurally revert people's edits... I just edit them when they could improved. But I certainly don't push any matter if an editor feels strongly about something I changed. That's the nature of Wikipedia. Come on, we don't need to have edit summaries like "Okiefromokla doesn't own this article" ... please, let's keep it as collaborative as possible people, we don't have to get antogonistic. Okiefromokla•talk 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is my hope that noone should be discouraged from making edits, as I certainly don't mess with every edit someone makes. I know it looks like I am the overwhelmingly primary contributer to this article because I've made about 450 edits on it over the past month, but other than that, other people have been contributing just as much as they normally have, but that isn't very much, as there has historically been limited interest in this article. Still, any impression that I am dominating the article should be gone soon, as I don't forsee myself making too many edits on it in the near future. Okiefromokla•talk 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok, lets make something clear

message: The article states; "Oklahoma City and Tulsa serve as Oklahoma's primary economic anchors, with nearly 65 percent of Oklahomans living in their metropolitan areas." I don't believe the 65% can be supported. The reference used does not support that and just doing some quick generous calculations the total I got was in the 50% to 52% range and is likely lower then that in reality. We need a better number if one is going to be used and a better reference. -- Xltel 12:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how the number became "nearly 65%". Its actually "nearly 60%". OKC's metro area  + Tulsa's metro area (1,172,339 + 937,895) is 2,110,234, and 2,110,234 divided by 3,579,212 is 59%). I don't know if a reference could be used there, in fact I doubt you could find anything that comes out and says it. The reference currently being used was meant to simply carry Oklahoma's population and the population of the OKC and Tulsa metro areas. But, as you point out, the populations of the metro areas do not seem to be on the reference, just OKC and Tulsa itself. Thanks for pointing out the error. Okiefromokla•talk 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple of things.... First where did you find the population of the Metro Areas? I have not been able to locate that, but if it were available that would be a good reference. The percentage I got of 50% to 52% was county that Tulsa and OKC are in plus and appropriate adjacent county populations around OKC and Tulsa, that in some cases I was sure included rural small communities that would never be considered part of a "Metropolitan area". Just looking at the Metropolitan area article, they mention that sources can vary by millions and people tend to use the higher numbers for there city. So not sure why we would want to use a totally non-sourced number in the article. Second, I am wondering why you would change the article to use 60% in lieu of the correctly rounded up 59%. Why not be accurate and factual. I am new to Wikipedia editing, but I would think it would be very important to have factual numbers and not ones that are inflated. I would be inclined to remove the percentage factoid in the article if the percentage is not changed to be accurate and proper references are used that define the Metro region in an acceptable non-inflated manner. And to answer where the 65% came from, it looks like was from two of your edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma&diff=prev&oldid=149656244 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma&diff=prev&oldid=149801219  I will leave it as is for now, but if valid arguments cannot be provided in the next few days to keep this in, I will remove it from the article this weekend. -- Xltel 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want it to say "59%" instead of "nearly 60%", both are completely accurate and valid. Also, the greater Tulsa and OKC metropolitan areas are a census designated region (see the Tulsa or Oklahoma City articles for a ref and description of each metro area). However, this article has a ref for their populations. Please see reference 163... . This reference can be (and has been) placed after the "nearly 60%" fact as well. Okiefromokla•talk 21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S... that ref is actually number 8 now that I moved it. Okiefromokla•talk 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is a Combined Statistical Area and not a 'census designated region'. It also includes a lot more area including many rural communities that are in no way a part of a metropolitan area. Even the Wikipedia article for Combined Statistical Area says "The use of CSAs as a representation for a single metropolitan area is not always appropriate." In these cases that statement appears to be appropriate. -- Xltel 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tulsa-Bartlesville CSA and the OKC-Shawnee CSA are certainly census designated regions, and they include one additional county on top of each city's MSA. This U.S. census page has this definition of a CSA:  "If specified criteria are met, adjacent Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, in various combinations, may become the components of a new set of areas called Combined Statistical Areas. ... Combinations for adjacent areas with an employment interchange of 25 or more are automatic. Combinations for adjacent areas with an employment interchange of at least 15 but less than 25 are based on local opinion as expressed through the Congressional delegations." In other words, a CSA includes a nearby region predominantly economically and/or socially connected to the core statistical metropolitan area. Nevertheless, even this distinction is a minimal addition to the Metropolitan Statistical Areas of OKC and Tulsa. The combined figures of these regions not including their CSAs [1,172,339+897,752 / 3,579,212] is .578 (58%) of Oklahoma's population compared to the .589 (59%) included in their CSAs [1,240,977+946,993/ 3,579,212]. For comfirmation of MSA populations without the CSA, see:, or "Tulsa Metropolitan Area" and "Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area". Okiefromokla•talk 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I get it. You pretty much want to include a lot of rural Oklahoma into Tulsa and Oklahoma City. When you look at the map for this it includes a very wide area of Oklahoma and has nothing to do with who lives in a Metro areas.  The 60% is inflated and the entire sentence should be removed. It does nothing to clarify the Metropolitan areas of Tulsa and Oklahoma City. But look, I really don't have any more time for you. Someone later on can correct this. It doesn't appear that anyone else is around that wants to chime in at this point. And I have better things to do then go back and forth with you on this. The reality is the reality. The entire article needs to be fact checked I suspect there are other references that do not support the statements. This is the second I have found. I am proud of Oklahoma and I think the article should be factual. 60% of the population of Oklahoma does not live in the OKC & Tulsa Metro areas. The only way you have been able to claim that is to include Shawnee, Bartlesville and hundreds of small towns that have nothing to do with the Metro areas. I mean there is no way that Tulsa runs all the way from the Kansas line to Henryetta. When you get a chance refer me to the Wikipedia article on 'census designated region'. CSA, CDR, some government way to count people, whatever.... Henryetta is not part of Tulsa and Chickasha is not part of Oklahoma City. -- Xltel 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way. Still, I don't make the Census Bureau's definition of what constitutes a Metropolitan Area. Its not that henreyetta or these other towns are part of Tulsa, its just that they are part of the area that the Census bureau has designated, and those areas they determine to have high economic and social connections with OKC and Tulsa, and are therefore part of their metropolitan areas. Feel free to take a look at Metropolitan Statistical Area, or Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which lists the populations of the largest metropolitan areas in the country based on the Census' official definition of a metropolitan area (which is a MSA and/or CSA). Do you think it would be better to change the "nearly 60%" to "59%"?Okiefromokla•talk 04:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already said what I prefer and my plans. Have read all the links you have provided and more. Combined Statistical Area CSA numbers you are using are misleading and that article even says they are not always appropriate... "The use of CSAs as a representation for a single metropolitan area is not always appropriate." I agree with that in this case and plan to delete the sentence later this weekend unless someone provides something that is not inflated and appropriate for the Oklahoma article. -- Xltel 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, you do not have a case to delete it simply because you do not agree with the census bureau's definition of a metropolitan area. In Wikipedia, it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia articles as sources, and, in this case, it is still not appropriate to use an unsourced statement in the Combined Statistical Area article to support your argument. The statement in question that you keep refering to is not a rule by any stretch of the imagination and seems to be opinion in it of itself - a combined statistical area is always a census designated region and it is always appropriate. The article says "nearly 60%" live in the OKC and Tulsa metro areas, which is appropriate for both the 59% figure of the CSAs and the 58% figure without the CSAs. Like I keep saying, if you wish to change the "nearly 60%" to "59%" or "58%" - that would be completely reasonable. The 58% would be accounting for only the MSA and not the additional county added for the CSA. But simply disagreeing with the United States Census Bureau on its definition of a metro area is not a reason to delete a completely true statement. If there is anything at all I can do to help you to understand what a Metropolitan Area is, please tell me, as I am fairly well versed in the subject. You may be confused in that you are thinking a Metropolitan Area is the "urbanized area" surrounding a city or a contiguous area of urban development, but this is not the case. Once again, if you scroll up to the links I have provided during this conversation, you will see that the United States government defines a metropolitan area very specifically much like it defines what constitutes a city or other census-designated statistical areas, and it very much includes rural areas surrounding a city. There is even a wikilink in the article to Metropolitan Area, which explains what this is. Additionally, the Metropolitan Area population figures for every U.S. city in Wikipedia is always taken from the Census' tally. I find your argument illogical in that you simply claim that the Census bureau's figures for the Tulsa and OKC MSAs are inflated. This, frankly, is not something you should be bringing up with Wikipedia. Write a letter to your congressmen. Okiefromokla•talk 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement in the article does nothing to explain CSA's, MSA's or actual population in the "urbanized area". Those are explained and referenced in the individual city articles fairly well, but not in the Oklahoma article. You had the number at 65% to start, before you reduced to the rounded up nearly 60%. I do understand the US Census Bureau and it's definitions. They are clear. As I have told you, I have examined all the references and understand them. The problem I am having is the way the numbers are presented and explained in the article. If you feel the nearly 60% should be in the article, Then I believe it should be fully explained with what a CSA is and also explained that it is NOT the "urbanized area" of Tulsa and Oklahoma City. It is a very broad area that is defined by the US Census Bureau. Looking at the map of the CSA anyone would realize the population in that area is much more then Tulsa and Oklahoma City. That explanation should be fully provided in the "Demographics" section and not a quick hit in the lead. And the map of the CSA's should be provided right below the population Density map. I think that would make it clear to the reader that nearly 60% of the population in Oklahoma does NOT live in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. The link in the lead sentence links to Metropolitan area and that does not describe a CSA or its implications. The way the sentence is written and used makes it deceiving. That is the problem I have. If you want to add something that clearly explains the nearly 60% number and put in the Demographics section, I don't have a problem. But, I do have a problem with saying that 60% of the population lives in Tulsa and Oklahoma City in the lead. And, please don't come back with something condescending. Try to understand the problem I have with saying "Nearly 60 percent of Oklahomans live in the metropolitan areas of Tulsa and Oklahoma City" with no further clarification. It is just too brief and not clarified. -- Xltel 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I sounded condesending. I agree that we could add more clarification in the body. However, there was already some clarification in the city and towns section, and I have added specification that the population figures are according to the United States Census Bureau's estimates of the metro areas. I also added a definition of a metropolitan area along with a new ref to back it up, and tweaked the population figures to match the MSA instead of the CSA and made sure to specify 58 percent instead of "nearly 60". Further down in the section, it specifies the population for the cities of Tulsa and OKC, so there shouldn't be any confusion between the metropolitan areas for the cities and the actual borders of the cities. Also, it provides a link to Tulsa Metropolitan Area and Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area for the exact boundaries of these regions and further description. Okiefromokla•talk 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed this to "metropolitan statistical area" because the Combined statistical area figures are not used in the article anymore. "nearly 60%" now represents the 58% figure (58% of oklahomans live in the metropolitan statistical areas of OKC and tulsa - this is spelled out in the city and towns section.) Okiefromokla•talk 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nearly 58%" is, well, incorrect and confusing. "Nearly 60 percent" is preferable even for the MSA figure. If the percentage was off by a few whole percentage marks, then saying "nearly" would be correct. However, since it is off by only a few tenths of a percent, "approximately 58%" would be more correct. It's odd to use a specific number like 58 percent as the rounding destination by saying a number is "near" it. Usually saying a number is near something would mean it was rounded to the nearest 10 or 5, which is why the "nearly 60" was being used. The more specific 58% is detailed in the body, and so saying "nearly 60 percent" in the lead would also be in line with the wikipedia guideline of being general in the lead and having specific information in the body. (see WP:LEAD) Okiefromokla•talk 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 65% in Metro Areas

message: Can anyone find a ref for the claim that there is a movement to make Oklahoma a Native Americn state, or anything similar to that? I can't... I'd hate to leave an unsourced claim in for too long. Okiefromokla•talk 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Native American state claim

message: Something to ponder for everyone here. I added a mention of the Sonics to the article, which I was reluctant to do before because nothing was set with their supposed move. Since the Sonic's owner has announced he plans to move the team to Oklahoma City, that has changed. I realize there is a big, long background to this situation but I hope there will not be much of it put into this article. I know people from Seattle are going to want to put in all of the lawsuit and all the things high ranking people have said about it, but the articles of Oklahoma City, Seattle SuperSonics, or Seattle would be better articles for those details. I also wikilinked the text to Oklahoma City's detailed description of the situation, and sometime in the near future, if anyone adds to it, we can make it a stand-alone article. As for this particular article, which is about the state of Oklahoma, a lot of detail about that would be off topic. Okiefromoklatalk to me 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S: I know this is a sensitive issue for some people and that editors from Seattle can be quite passionate about this. So remember that calm, rational discussion is key to these kinds of issues. Okiefromoklatalk to me 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note. It looks like there is a low grade revert war across this article, the OKC article, and a Sonics article.  In order to consolidate the discussion into one place, please head over to Talk:Seattle SuperSonics#November 14 reverts to discuss. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seattle SuperSonics

message: Is it just a coincedence that this article was featured on the main page on the 100th anniversary of Oklahoma's statehood? Or is that intentional? Smartyllama 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No coincidence.  Look above.  Talk:Oklahoma#This_would_be_great...  Kablammo 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidence? 

message: Ok, were getting a lot of vandalism right now. Can this page be semi-protected for at least a few hours? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I won't ask for a page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection just yet, but if vandalism increases I will. Also, it goes without saying that admins can use their judgment in enacting a short semi-protection even if its not requested Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A vandalized edit once every 1 or 2 minutes during last hour is too much for me. I'mn requesting it. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 03:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of the dangers of being a featured article.  Admins will not - without grave reason - considering protecting a page that's on the main page.  Kind of betrays that "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" thing when our featured articles aren't editable.  - Philippe | Talk 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection...

message: Think about the grammar here..."Formed from Indian Territory on 16 November 1907, it was the 46th state to enter the union"...•Jim62sch• 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed with proper nouns. Miranda 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uh...

message: Today, I've just heard that anti-illegal alien laws passed recently have taken effect, chasing out illegal aliens. This was all over all of the news outlets, especially CNN and FOX News. OK's new laws have even made it illegal to assist illegal aliens, since these laws state they're criminals. Can this be stated in the article ? More states (17 so far) has followed with similar laws. 65.163.112.104 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article is an overview of the state, not a recordbook of its laws or a newspaper; it just doesn't fit with summary style. There are many state laws that are equally as groundbreaking, so it wouldn't make sense to only include the immigration law (its anti-meth law and its anti-restaurant smoking law, for example). You might try Politics of Oklahoma, but there's a chance some editors might still say it fails notablity. I would say go for it anyway. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine "you're" a pregnant illegal alien. Instead of getting to a hospital, you're arrested and deported as a criminal alien, and the baby, termed a "anchor baby", will not be allowed to be a US citizen. That is some of the new laws. Notable enough ?! 65.163.112.104 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the law. If you'd like, read over this, it has news stories and an overview of the points of the law. Still, I remind you this article is a summary of the state of Oklahoma, so such a mention would not be appropriate here. Once again, Politics of Oklahoma would be better. Thanks. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK's Illegal Alien Laws

message: I have modified two references to the climate of Oklahoma that suggest that those parts of Oklahoma closest to the Texas/Oklahoma state line are subtropical and humid in climate. Note well that the Texas/Oklahoma state line is the longest in the United States, and that the Oklahoma Panhandle in the northwest -- a region that must be colder and drier than the rest of the state -- is also close to the "Texas state line". Besides, the "Texas state line" is two perpendicular lines between western Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle; the rest is the Red River. 
In essence, Oklahoma gets warmer toward the south and wetter toward the east... I have adjusted such wording as "along the Texas state line" in reference to climate to "the south", "the southeast", or "along the Red River".--Paul from Michigan 16:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate -- and the "Texas Border" 

message: I did a run-through of all of the edits during the 24 hour period on November 16 when this page was Today's Featured Article. These are manual, hand counted figures so they obviously could be a little off, but I did go through it twice.
*200 total edits
*175 edits of vandalism and spam, including reverts of vandalism and spam
*25 constructive edits (16 if you don't count my edits)
*0 edits of significant alterations in content or meaning
*Out of roughly 80 IP addresses and new registrations, one or two made a productive edit.
*see the net changes that occurred during Nov. 16
Ok, so not the most productive day, but the article probably got a lot of exposure. I do hope that TFA's will be automatically semi-protected someday, as these stats are pretty much identical to every other main page article. It is, frankly, ridiculous. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 02:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breakdown of edits during Main Page stint

message: Thank you, Wikipedia, for chosing Oklahoma as your featured article for November 16, 2007, 100 years after Oklahoma was admitted as the 46th U.S. state.  This Okie is very grateful. ProfessorPaul (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not thank the people who got it up to FA status for this occasion :) :P Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you, Wikipedia

message: At over 100k this is a massive article, but it goes to prove that the recommended 32k limit is not right for a topic of such enormity.  Everything is well summarised and the article couldn't really be cut down any further - well done those that have worked on it.  violet/riga (t) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but keep in mind that there are 177 refs, and that takes up a ton of space. The actual prose size is well under 50k. And thanks for the compliment :) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: The article lists 19 sepcies of vertebrates (ignoring that one, Dove, is actually a link to a family, and that there are several species of doves present in the state) and then goes to say that there 19 other vertebrate species in the state. There are 469 species on the List of Oklahoma birds. That list does include about 90 accidental, hypothetical, extinct and extirpated species that can't really be counted as part of the fauna. But there are still many more 349 bird species present in the state. I think there are some mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians as well. Dsmdgold (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where you're talking about. The only mention of vertebrate species I know of is in the Flora and fauna section, which says "In the Ouachita Mountains, the state's most biologically diverse ecosystem, black bear, red fox, grey fox, and river otter populations coexist with nearly 330 other vertebrate species." Care to elaborate? Thanks, Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my eyes glazed over that important prepositional clause. Sorry. However, using the source cited, I'm still not sure where the number comes from. The source gives a total for 328 vertebrate species, not 334 (330 plus the four species named in the sentence.) I'm also uncertain about the Ouachita Mountains as "state's most biologically diverse ecosystem". The claim isn't the source and the same source list the Cross-timbers as having 351 species of vertebrates. I recognize that there is more to biodiversity that vertebrates, the most diverse claim should have a source. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "nearly 330" - thus the 328 number. I'm not sure you saw that, but I just went ahead and changed it to the exact number to avoid confusion. I looked for another source that the Oachitas are the most biologically diverse ecosystem in Oklahoma, but, as you might think, such a specific thing probably isn't mentioned anywhere on the web, so I changed that up a little Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 18:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vertebrate Species

message: The image currently being used in the article to show the Dust Bowl and its effects (:Image:Dust Storm Texas 1935.jpg) is actually a photograph taken in Stratford, Texas. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include instead an image of the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma, like :Image:Dust storm CimarronCounty OK.jpg? — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a picture of an oil well from Texas, but I chose that in addition to the dustbowl picture because of their content. There's not another good oil well picture, and the Cimarron County picture is just a bad, ugly picture that doesn't illustrate the content well. :Image:Dust Storm Texas 1935.jpg is the best dust bowl picture on Wikipedia, and scenes like that were common throughout the Oklahoma Panhandle and all the areas affected, so that's all that matters. In short, I chose the best example of the dustbowl rather than a bad picture that doesn't fit into the section well simply because it's in Oklahoma. Besides, Stratford, Texas is litterally a few miles from the OK border, so I think it's a perfectly good example of Oklahoma's dust bowl. :) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 23:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the picture of the cowboy isnt necessarily from Oklahoma either, it's just an example of a cowboy. In fact, I think he's from South Dakota. :) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the images in this article are supposed to be representative of Oklahoma, not the subject of the image.  If an article is about coffee shops in Italy, it would not be appropriate to use an image of an Italian themed coffee shop in Seattle, so an image of a random cowboy does not appropriately represent Oklahoman cowboys.  This article seems to be violating a lot of the "guidelines" in WP:MOS#Images. There are numerous instances of text being sandwiched between two images, decide if the article is going to follow left-right staggering, or right aligned, there are several images that force a size, and vertical images do not use the "upright" parameter, which results in an overlarge image. I'm also concerned about the lists in the Religion and state symbols sections.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to fix anything. But I'm not sure what you mean about the lists in the Religion and State Symbols sections. What's wrong with them? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when the image is supposed to represent the fact that cowboys traveled through Oklahoma, I think it's perfectly ok to have a picture of a cowboy on the plains there, or a picture of a dust storm in the dust bowl just miles outside of Oklahoma, as such storms were typical in Oklahoma. I don't think an italian-themes cofee shop is necessarily typical of an italian coffee shop. But I see where youre coming from and I'm open to changing the pics. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: One's opinion can very on the quality of pictures. The Cimarron County picture is by Arthur Rothstein and one of the iconic images of the dust bowl. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LISTS and Wikipedia:Embedded list clearly say lists can be used within articles. The state symbols and religion lists were copied from Minnesota, which set the precedence for U.S. state featured articles. It uses a similar number of symbols in its list, and List of Oklahoma state symbols has a far, far greater number of symbols (presumably all of them).  I don't see anything wrong with the lists as they are. Also, why would you want to delete half of the pictures? The article has a good number of pictures as it is. ...which pictures would you delete? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dust Bowl image 

message: The infobox gives the 2000 population as 3,579,212, the same number the text gives as the 2006 population estimate. The source cited in the infobox says that it is the 2006 estimate. I could not figure out how to change the year in the infobox to 2006. Could someone do this please. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a source for the foreign-born figure, which, as you say, wasn't in the other source for some reason. The new source says the 2006 number is 4.7%. Also, I changed :Template:Infobox U.S. state so that it doesn't specify that it's the 2000 population. I dont know how to make it so you can enter a year for the estimated figure, but without the "2000" it implies its the most current figure. The problem was in the actual template, not this article. Thanks. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info Box

message: The article has this sentence "In total, aerospace accounts for more than 10 percent of Oklahoma's industrial output, and it is one of the top 10 states in aircraft manufacturing." however, the source cited reads "Harvard
University recently ranked Oklahoma as one of the top 10 states in the nation for manufacturing of aerospace engines."  Ranked by Harvard as top 10 for manufacturing of aerospace engines, is not the same as one of the top 10 states in aircraft manufacturing. Is their another source for this? Dsmdgold (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerospace

message: Have someone heard about commons.wikimedia.org? I translate this brilliant article to norwegian, and everytime I want a picture, it isn't uploaded to commons...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.171.16 (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: I have removed it from the list of percentages in the religion section all together. There's no real reason to have it, as it comprises only 2%. But please do not reinsert it outside of the evangelical protestant bracket. The Church of Christ has roots in the American Restoration movement, even though the church retraces its beginnings to the time of Christ. That is probably why the Association of Religion Archives classifies it as evangelical protestant. This is based on an impartial source, not the church itself. Please try to remember that Wikipedia is not a debate forum over the subject itself, so without another reliable source, discussion over whether or not Churches of Christ is evangelical protestant is irrelevant. I hope this can be agreed. Thanks. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 19:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Churches of Christ