Talk:Oklahoma/Archive 1

message: I edited the statement regarding the museum.  The previous version stated that it houses the largest American West and American Indian art collection and artifacts.  However, according to the museum's official website, this prior statement applies just to the American West collection, even though the American Indian collection is quite impressive.  The Gilcrease is such a gem for Tulsa and Oklahoma.  We all should be very proud of it.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.207.237.118 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gilcrease Museum

message: Article says that Oklahoma has the most powerful thunderstorms in the world...this seems unlikely, is there a citation for this?
:I think you're right on doubting this. Dr. Dan Cecil apparently thinks that, while the midwest of North America has strong thunderstorms, South America's are just as strong or stronger (http://uahnews.uah.edu/scienceread.asp?newsID=128). I am changing the text to reflect this, at least until someone can come up with a good reason why Oklahoma should be able to boast the strongest storms in the world. --jackohare 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That link's no longer valid. Was the gist just that T-storms are worse in S. Am?  Fustigate314159 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Oklahoma is more notable for its tornadoes than its thunderstorm. --JaredChilders 20:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thunderstorms

message: Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.
I live in Oklahoma and we do get some pretty nasty thunderstorms here. But it is also true that most of our thunderstorms do lead to tornadoes, some pretty bad ones too, exspecilly the one in Moore, OK in 99'.
24.117.225.222 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: editing

message: I've expanded this section slightly. My intent is to make several adjustments here and then propose it as a standard in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._States and its discussion. We should also report the State Legislature's make up (Senate and House). If no one else does, I'll look these up soon. Thanks, Lou I 15:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics Section 

message: Im looking for this topic just because I have to do a p
:The bathroom is down the hall on the left. Don’t forget to flush! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.67.207 (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's spanish version 

message: Just reading through this article is a nightmare. This is way, way, way, way too much information for one page. Besides just creating a history article, we should probably look at the possibility of cutting some of the sections down, or nominating a few other sections to be moved to their own articles. Roygene 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though its not yet October 14, I'm going to go ahead and move the section. It clearly needs to moved and the article will be much, much more readable it we dice it up. Roygene 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Needs Own Article 

message: I forgot to give summaries for my edits so I'll write down what I did here. For the past several weeks, I have been scanning Oklahoma related articles and cleaning them up (several of them have been almost unreadable). I just finished cleaning up this article and enhanced its readibility. This article was a nightmare; there was absolutely no coherence whatsoever (it was worse than the Neighborhoods of Oklahoma City article). There was no organizational structure, no predictable pattern, and the general level of it was low. So, basically what I did was restructured the article and rearranged the layout, fixed several instances of redundancy, and performed general massive cleanup. I still believe that the History section should be moved to its own article; please respond. If no one responds by 8:00 p.m. CST on Saturday, October 14, 2006, I'll go ahead and move the section. Roygene 01:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Log 

message: This article says Oklahoma has the second-largest number of Native Americans of any state.  The Native Americans in the United States article says it has the third largest, after California and Arizona.
Can anyone confirm either of these?  Rojomoke 15:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Native Americans 

message: Someone needs to update the elected officials.  Mary Fallin is no longer the LT. Governor, and I think that some of the others listed in the Executive Branch have chnaged since the November 2006 election. Johnppd24 11:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and fix those yourself. I'm surprised those were overlooked. I did a lot of updates myself during the election, but I guess the Oklahoma page may have been overlooked.--NMajdan•talk 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elected officials. 

message: Why do famous people from states like Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, leave and dont come back, Bill and Hillary Clinton are from Arkansas, after they got to the White house they are in New York,Garth Brooks lives mostly in San Diego, Carrie Underwood...gone, Will Rogers...Moved to Malibu, I wonder why...?:)
:If the anonymous soul who authored this question would like to posit some theories on why those foolish famous people choose not to live in the state of their birth, please do so. If you are just trolling for comments from those of who do still live in what we believe is a nice place, I guess you succeeded. As for Garth and Carrie, they're free to stay away, but I'd like to have Will Rogers back. --Crispyinstilly 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous People

message: Why is 'no religion' listed as 40% of the population!? I know that's not right. Would somebody please fix this. --Wgbc2032 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number is correct, kinda.  Oklahoma religious affiliations says 1.43 million are Evangelical Protestant, 453k are mainline Protestant, 2.9k are Orthodox, 169k are Catholic, 40k are "Other", and 1.35m are "unclaimed".  The website explains "unclaimed" to be "those that are not adherents of any of the 188 groups included in the Church & Church Membership Data. This number should not be used as an indicator of irreligion or atheism, as it also includes adherents of many groups not included in the data.".  It seems to be that "no religious affiliation" is not the correct verbiage to describe the category "unclaimed".  Probably a good way of describing this category is "Other or no religious affiliation".  It's less useful saying "Other or no religious affiliation", but it's also more accurate so I'm going to change the wording.  If you can think of something better, go ahead.  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also commonly hear people define themselves as merely "Christian" without any particular denomination attached. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bring this up for two reasons. Firstly, Oklahoma is part of the Bible Belt and although I'm no expert on religion in America, I can guarantee you with a fair degree of certainty that that number is wrong, probably very wrong. Secondly, according to this very website, Washington has the highest number of non-religious people, with 25%. This statement isn't sourced, so it could be wrong, but it nontheless contradicts the figure shown here. If I had to guess, I'd suggest the number shown here is primarily non-denominational Christians, or Christians belong to churches unaffiliated with the major Protestant denominations. The current change is a mild improvement, but a new chart needs to be found. --Wgbc2032 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of 1.35m outside of that 188 group is probably reasonably accurate, it's just whoever originally put in the numbers just mistook "unclaimed" to mean "no religious affiliation".  A source that took into consideration "no religious affiliation" would be nice as opposed to one that has one big category for people outside of some 188 denomination list.  At least this portion of the article is more accurate now.  If you find a better source, feel free to replace this one (2000 year data is a bit old by now anyhow). -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  This website says the percentage of Oklahomans who identify as non-religious is 13-14% --Wgbc2032 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to work this into the article. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Information about Oklahoma's Centennial needs to be added immediately to this article or added to a separate article See the official website, here. Real96 06:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centennial 

message: Can someone explain the religion section to me? I mean seriously...
: Vandalism from this morning; fixed now. -- nae'blis 23:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Satan 

message: I think it should get a bit more than a mention in the Trivia section. Although I don't believe it has Rural Flight due to it not being part of the Midwest farm states, it was affected by the Dust Bowl and still suffers somewhat slow population growth because of it. 
"Migration within the country produced a net decrease of 15,418 people."
I think that's evidence enough that people would rather live elsewhere. No offense to any of you Oklahomans.
7FlushSetzer 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in the trivia section needs to be merged into the actual article. Secondly, the Dust Bowl happened 80 years ago and in no way has any correlation with population trends today. Therefore, the article shouldn't imply that it does, but any statement like that would need to be cited anyway. Thirdly, Oklahoma hasn't had a net population decrease for over 50 years. In fact, the state's population growth between 1990 and 2000 was ranked 26th, ahead of 24 states. see: Okiefromokla•talk 04:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info should be added about Oklahoma's rural flight