Talk:Oregon/Archive 2

message: :Oregon's earliest residents were several Native American tribes, including the Bannock, Chinook, Klamath, and Nez Perce.
That's only accurate if by "Oregon" here the Oregon Country is meant, not the area described by the current boundaries of the State of Oregon; in that context there are numerous other tribes that should be mentioned before the Nez Perce; the Wasco and Tillamook come to mine, but there are many others.Skookum1 23:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is accurate as to the borders of Oregon the modern political entity. Each tribe has now been sourced to demonstrate that fact. As to the Nez Perce you may want to read about them on their page. As you may not know, the Wallowa Valley is in Oregon, and this is part of the traditional home of the tribe (the land Chief Joseph the younger was forced off of), which is why they purchased some of the land in September of 1997 as they try to re-connect to their heritage there. Aboutmovies 06:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The sentence is false as written, human habitation in Oregon and North America in general goes back at least 10,000 years if not much more. It is highly unlikely the tribes listed existed back then. Pfly 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Oregon Native Americans

message: Someone needs to fix the "A Horrible State" vandalism on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon page.  I can't seem to figure out how to do it right now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.52.166 (talk • contribs) 19:52, November 16, 2006
:What do you mean? It's already been fixed. Katr67 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Should there be something mentioned about the drug problems in Oregon and the fact that teens addicted to drugs from all over the United States are drawn to this place?  And the amount of marijuana cultivation going on.
:I don't think it is different enough from the rest of the nation to warrant including in this article.  Drugs are a problem everywhere and marijuana is grown eveywhere.  Cacophony 06:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs 

message: The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing).  Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Oregon.  Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   New ''Sports'' section added to updated [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states]] format   

message: I miss any information or links about a very typical cultural element of Oregonian culture: covered bridges. Could somebody enter this with a referral to the Wikipedia pages Covered bridge and/or Cottage Grove? The latter has even the nickname "Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.120.73.227 (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information about covered bridges 

message: The article says: In the 1880s, railroads enabled marketing of the state's lumber and wheat, as well as the more rapid growth of its cities. The Great Northern Railroad was the first railroad to cross the Cascade Mountains, thus connecting the Pacific Northwest with the rest of the Union. But unless I'm mistaken, the Northern Pacific Railway was earlier, "crossing" the Cascades via the Columbia Gorge, no? Pfly 07:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have a reference work on railroad history handy, but I think the SP&S line on the Washington side of the Columbia and the UP lines on the Oregon side were first operated by smaller carriers long before BN and UP absorbed them.  But at this point I am going on hazy memory of stories of my railroading family members (three uncles and a grandfather) who all worked those lines in the days of The Dalles Roundhouse and Wishram Station.  I don't think we want to open this kettle of worms in an article on Oregon.  The story of the railroads is too vast, and mostly beyond its scope.  It should go in an article of its own, and the more general statement here left as is, in my opinion.  Also, there are still no railroads "over the Cascades" in Oregon, where the east-west lines run through the gorge, and I am not sure it is an accurate description of the northern Washington line either, which traverses a pass "through" the mountains.  Work on this subject has already begun at Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.. I think the sentence struck me as awkward in its apparent claim that before a railroad crossed the Cascades, the Pacific Northwest was not connected to the rest of the Union. Not only did the SP&S predate other rails tapping the lands east of the Cascades, and rail connections from Portland to California's transcontinental rail existed early on, but the Pacific Northwest includes the Willamette Valley and Puget Sound, which were connected to the whole world by ocean shipping. Just an overly grand claim here, it seems.. Pfly 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please to not be forgetting the east-west line over Willamette Pass 161.222.160.8 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, definitely another case of the "two Oregons" problem rearing its ugly head.  The original sentence should probably be replaced with a clearer and more accurate paragraph.  I am still uncomfortable with the reference to the Burlington Northern, which it seems did not even exist in Oregon in the specified decade of the 1880's.  -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Railroads over the Cascades

message: Trying to address the bits with "citation needed"s.  On this one: The Oregon Country functioned as an independent republic[citation needed] with a three-person executive office and a chief executive until August 13, 1848, when Oregon was annexed by the United States, at which time a territorial government was established. -Wasn't Oregon Country held jointly by the US and Britain. There may have been an American "de facto" independent local government, but then again, there was a "de facto" independent British one too, the Hudson Bay Company. The claim of independent republic reminds me of similar claims of the Watauga Association in Tennessee, which was only "independent" in the sense of being on the distant frontier beyond effective jurisdiction by the national government. This was true of a great number of frontier regions and would only be exceptional, I think, if the frontier government actually proclaimed independence, like Texas. In any case, with no citation here, or for the same claim on the Oregon Country page, I'm inclined to simply remove it, perhaps replacing it with something about joint US - British occupancy. Thoughts? Pfly 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  Whatever replaces it needs to be authoritatively cited, nonetheless.  -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: After clicking "save" it occurs to me that the author of the sentence in question may have been making reference to a provisional government being established before federal authorization to do so.  (I'm too old to be remembering 5th grade civics lessons at Joseph G. Wilson Elementary.)  Although, I suspect it is a cut and paste artifact from the California article which someone may have used as a template and failed to delete all the inapplicable bits. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The context of this, as it appeared on the Oregon Country page, was that it had been allegedly established in 1818; somewhere here or there there were also dates in the early 1840s.  I think parly here is that there's an effort to retro-fit regional history to suit separationist/regionalist biases/agendas of various kinds, whether Cascadian/Ecotopian or of the State of Jefferson variety.  Sure, a bunch of Americans sitting around the card table or church hall declaring a provisional government in Oregon City (so-called at the time, for it certainly wasn't a city, nor anywhere near as "metropolitan" as the HBC's Fort Vancouver, or indeed any number of very large native villages/fortifications throughout the territory they claimed to be the "provisional govenment" of can do that if they want, but it doesn't mean anybody else has to notice, or recognize them as legitimate; and saying "the twenty of us are a republic and we "govern" everything from here to 54-40 and over to the Rockies and down to Shasta" is a pretty nice boast, but there's no demonstration of effective control or other actual government; the HBC didn't presume to be a "government" (and in fact when confronted with a new, rival colonial administration on the Colony of Vancouver Island in 1843 the conflict was resolved only by replacing the governor and giving his job to the HBC boss - Douglas - and the issues of company vs. colony never quite went away until his retirement).  Effective rule in the Oregon County/Columbia District/Pacific Northwest remained in First Nations/Native American hands until the Oregon Treaty; and the only thing in it resembling a govenment, but still wasn't a government, was the HBC's administration of its trade monopoly/license; but it was a very spare presence, only a handful of forts/posts (some well-populated, though), though not as spare as the non-presence of Ameicans as was the case in reality, vs. the myth which says there was "a flood".  It wasn't until something like 1844 that there were more Americans than British subjects/employees in the region ("employees" because the Kanakas and certain others weren't necessarily British subjects; the First Nations/Native American population weren't subjects of the Crown until the declaration of the colonies in 1849 and 1858...and they of couse grossly outnumbered everyone else even after the great smallpox epidemic of 1862....).Skookum1 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All of this is fascinating as a discussion, but in terms of editing the article, it seems only to reinforce the necessity of enforcing the policy of requiring statements of fact to be properly cited.  The reader can then judge for him or herself the nature of any cardtables and who may have sat around them.  --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent republic

message: I have removed the unreferenced tag as there are a number of references in the section tagged so it would be neccesary to put an individual citation tag on questionable statements cheers --Matt 10:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove reference citation tag 

message: Anyone want to mention Oregon's liberalism that has lead it to be one of the leaders in the nation on my issues.  Like Death with Dignity, Medical Marijuana, and though the passing of Measure 36 in 2004, its refusal to allow discrimnation against homosexuals, and it current state of having Portland being the leading city in Green initatives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.72.243 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're not familiar with how diffs work, but anyone who's interested can check your contributions or the page history and see that you amended the first comment and claimed Joshbzin had misread it in the same edit.    -- Vary | Talk 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism and Leadership 

message: The Government section of the article does not currently have any citations in it (I'll try to find some). Now the parts about how the government works is not a big issue since cites are really only needed if it is something likely to be challenged (i.e. we don't have to cite that gravity exists). But the area that discusses politics certainly should. And though I agree that the state is a moderate leaning democratic state, that doesn't mean everyone thinks so.
But more importantly we need to avoid assigning value to info, just add the information and let readers draw conclusions. For instance I removed the part about Kerry winning "significantly more" votes in Oregon that Gore. One, why is that relevant to this article (and balance would call for some info on Bush), and two "significantly" is a value judgement. Significant to one is negligble to another. Put the actual numbers in if you think they are relevant to the article. I doubt any current WP:WPOR members were responsible for this, so this is just a friendly reminder for all those who come accross the article to edit it.
If we don't police ourselves, we'll never get the article up to FA status. Aboutmovies 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government section 

message: The state symbols section includes a note, "State rock: Thunderegg (like a geode but formed in a rhyolitic lava flow; since 1965)," which is misleading. This implies that the difference between a thunderegg and a geode is that thundereggs forms in a rhyolitic lava flow, and could be read to suggest their formation is an igneous process. A more correct and precise way to identify the difference is to note that the term "geode" implies an open space at the center but doesn't imply any particular type of crystal. Thundereggs, in contrast, often don't have a void and are usually filled primarily with silica, although zeolites, calcite, and other minerals are sometimes found. In fact geodes are often found right along with fully filled thundereggs (I have a thunderegg geode sitting next to me) and are still called thundereggs. Fully filled or not, thundereggs form from silica rich water that infiltrates cavities in rhyolitic rock, not necessarily lava flows, depositing the thunderegg as a sort of nodule after the parent rock has cooled -- a process that may take a very long time. This is easy to see when you look at a thunderegg that has been sliced open and polished: there are often concentric bands and/or parallel layers of agate, and in rare cases partially fluid filled voids. When the layers are parallel their orientation represents a level surface at the time when the silica (typically agate/opal) that fills the thunderegg was deposited. In some rare cases tectonic forces may reorient a thunderegg while it is forming, resulting in two different parallel layers of agate at an angle to one another. Sometimes you can find the channel that allowed the mineral laden water to enter the thunderegg. Given as much, it's very clear that although thundereggs do form in rhyolite and similar rocks, their formation is an unambiguously sedimentary process NOT an igneous one. 
The fact is, the definition of a thunderegg is pretty soft but most people who have seen thundereggs know one when they see one. On the outside they're usually golf ball to grapefruit sized grey to reddish brown spheroids, and on the inside they're (often) filled with a wonderful display of agate, opal, etc.
Given as all that, I'd recommend removing all or part of the explanatory comment next to Thunderegg, or completely rewrite it in a way that I can't quite manage at the moment. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.9.146.66 (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Symbols section 

message: Let's discuss external links here.
For starters, I don't like that "Oregon Newspapers" link one bit - it's mostly advertising. Still, the value of a link like that is undeniable; so let's try to find a similar one, that's from a more reputable source. -Pete 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that link was ghastly. I was going to suggest changing it to the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association website, but the other link was so content-free, I just went ahead and did it. I think it's what you were looking for. And there's always List of newspapers in Oregon, which if we added a media section to the article (just noticed we don't have one), we could link to and perhaps eliminate the external link altogether, if we took care of the redlinks. Katr67 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links discussion 

message: I'd like to see a page for Oregon and popular culture (perhaps with that as a name.) For instance, the list of movies filmed in Oregon seems moderately useful, but I don't think it belongs on this page; so let's give it a home. I'm sure there is other pop culture trivia that would end up there, so I don't think it should be super-specific like "list of movies filmed in OR." Thoughts? -Pete 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Portland, Oregon in popular culture. It's stopped lately but people were always trying to add anything within 100 miles of Portland to that list. In light of that, it seems redundant to also have "Oregon in popular culture". Would the Portlanders be upset if we combined the two? Maybe just call it "Culture of Oregon" (check out Culture of New York City, for an example to emulate). I actually started and abandoned a more-inclusive List of films shot in Oregon (not an article--this a temporary sandbox page in my user space--contact me if you'd like to edit it). Many states have one, see: :Category:Lists of films by location, so perhaps it can stand as a separate article to be linked from the main culture article? Speaking of that, while I'm at it, I'd like to make a plea for a music-inclined person to clean up the related Music of Oregon. Katr67 03:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon and popular culture 

message: Let's convert the following text into a table :
Any thoughts before I get to work? -Pete 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: I removed a line in the Naming section which said that Oregon has a lot of rappers and that you should not go there or they would murder your family.
Omega65 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rappers killing people 

message: An administrator who has not recently participated in this talk page just semi-protected this page, which I believe does significant damage to our efforts to make Wikipedia:Wikiproject Oregon a welcoming place for newcomers, and thereby damages Wikipedia as a whole. I have explained this on his/her talk page, and hope that others will join me in requesting immediate un-protection. -Pete 20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo Wales is, at present, appearing on the Colbert Report. It was on the suggestion of him and other users that I protected the page, which has been a past target for Stephen Colbert related vandalism. You might not have been active then, but last August we had some significant difficulty with Elephant following mention on the Colbert Report. I realize that this type of thing can hurt your article slightly (I'm familiar with all of the arguments), but this is clearly in the best interest of Wikipedia. alphachimp 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That justifies an unannounced, unexplained, pre-emptive semi-protection for a week?? OK, I'm glad to see it's not entirely random, but it doesn't seem a whole lot better. And I'm giving you a D- for communication. -Pete 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Protection policy states unambiguously that page protection should not be used preemptively. I would still like to see the semi-protection reversed, and am willing to put my own time into dealing with vandalism on a case-by-case basis. I will be offline for a couple hours, but will return before the show airs on the east coast. (I cannot, however, cover the entire 4-hour period while the show airs across the nation, so assistance would be appreciated.) -Pete 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having sufficient reversion sentinels during the hours of the show isn't much of a problem.  At least during the Colbert Portugal vandals, the problem was they wore me down by persisting for weeks, at a rate of 20-25 per day, at least when I appealed for semi-protection at that time.  After it was granted, another administrator rescinded it a week (?) later, and it was immediately resoundingly pounded.  Besides, newbies seeing that there are some visible protection mechanisms is more likely to be welcoming than a corrupted article.  —EncMstr 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the history lessons from Katr, Aboutmovies, and EncMstr, and their contributions to keeping the Oregon editing community on track is invaluable. However, it seems to me that Colbert viewers generally have a reasonably good sense of humor. Despite the experince reported above, assuming that they will put the same kind of effort into a joke that is nearly a year stale strikes me as overly cynical. I may be wrong, but I would much rather be proven wrong than simply declared wrong. A couple points of clarification: (1) I would not oppose a semi-protect once a problem has erupted, and (2) the presence of the explanatory tag that Katr mentioned a while back would be a massive improvement, and I don't understand why we should wait until the show airs to put it up. -Pete 22:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unprotected. It wasn't mentioned on colbert. alphachimp 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. So much for your assurances that this would "actually improve" the page, and is "clearly in the best interest of Wikipedia." Omegachimp. -Pete 07:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well that was unwarranted and unnecessary. If there is a credible threat that someone is going to attack someone, just like a page -- why wouldn't you want to protect it just in case. The page has been unprotected, give the guy a break. Bring it to Jimbo if you really want to ask why WP:IAR was essentially used to protect the pages. It didn't disrupt anyone from editing the page for such a short time. No reason for the attack. MrMacMan Talk  07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unwarranted, no. Alphachimp made assertions that were stronger than necessary to explain his/her position, and they turned out to be untrue. He/she also expressed boredom with "all the arguments," rather than consider them in light of the specific situation. This approach came across to me as patronizing, an impression that was compounded by the lack of acknowledgment of his/her error; so I believe some words in my own defense were warranted. Unnecessary, yes; just like pretty much everything we all do here. As I've said before, I think this entire exchange has not been good for Wikipedia; but I entirely disagree that it's me who crossed a line. -Pete 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hey Pete, what is up with the disparaging personal attacks against an admin doing his or her best to protect all wikipedia articles, not just this one from vandalism in the middle of a major concerted attack by vandals?  Were you on RC patrol last night, having to repeatedly revert "librarians are hiding something"?  Its pretty obvious that alphachimp was trying to do the right thing here, even if a little prematurely.  In general, as is stated below, protection should be used sparingly.  In the middle of a massive concerted effort, however, things might be different. This is being discussed on  the policy section of Village Pump as well. —Gaff ταλκ 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *It looks like the article was blocked before the Colbert show even aired!  Pre-emptive blocking of the page does seem totally excessive.—Gaff ταλκ 23:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  arbitrary (?) semi-protection 

message: Look at the quality of this vandalism. They couldn't even get the insult right. =P akendall 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Curious about the removal of Sexton Summit from the climate chart. The notability of the exact location doesn't seem too important, if it's the only place listed in the Klamath Mtns (or is it Southern Coast range?), then shouldn't it be included? Maybe with a name that makes it more obvious where it is? -Pete 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mikevegas40 added the climate infobox to all the states, using info gleaned from this commercial website. Since the infobox created lists the locations as "cities" and Sexton Summit (which apparently is in the Klamath Mountains on I-5 between Myrtle Point and Grass Pants) isn't a city, I took it out. Now, I said it was obscure because I'm not familiar with the location except to note that Oregonlive has a traffic cam there, and I don't get south much, so maybe it's wildly famous and I've been living under a rock? And why that pass and not Siskiyou, for example? In any case, it's not a city, and I think that's probably the kind of information for which an encyclopedia reader is going to be looking--a general comparison of cities. The website only has info on those cities provided, so if we want to add another location we'll have to find it somewhere else. Can we rename The Sexton Summit bit as Grants Pass or try to find the info somewhere else? I assume there's a elevation difference which means the figure would be pretty different? On the other hand, since this is just an overview, (we're not the weather channel and what we really need is Climate of Oregon) is the coverage broad enough without it? We do already have Medford... Katr67 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an occasional I-5 driver through the Siskiyous, the only thing you need to know about Sexton Summit is that it's cold and quite remote. It's definitely not a city, and in fact, I would be so bold as to say that *no one* lives there. (Apologies to any wikihermits in well-insulated caves with wifi.) If we want to add Ashland or Grants Pants, I'm all for that, but I don't think we need to report the climate of a remote mountain pass as it is only of value to geeks (like me, sadly) with thermometers in their cars who go "oh, look how cold it is *now*!" when they drive through. (By way of comparison, I note that Donner Pass is absent from California's climate page.) --Sprkee 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point I was trying to make (and yes, it occurs to me that maybe I'm being too pointy) is that the notability of the "city" isn't necessarily the best reason to choose what does or doesn't go in. Seemed to me that all regions of the state should be included, and that Sexton Summit might represent a place that's inadequately represented. It is too bad that the only source that's come up is a limited, commercial site…anyway, I think I'm convinced by your arguments, or at least, don't see much use in further horse-beating! -Pete 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: I checked the recent edit that added Vermont to the list of states with the largest percentage of people stating they are non-religious. When I was checking the citation to make sure it backed up with fact, I noticed that Colorado matches the 21% figure of Oregon (WA is 22 and VT 25). Looks like we might want to revisit this statistic. Is Oregon third or fourth? If it falls down to fourth, is this still notable enough to have in the article, or should we find more sources that back up Oregon's non-religious status? Latr, Katr 14:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, because I looked at the cited source as well, and can't find anything mentioning Vermont or Colorado. Is that site in the middle of an update? -Pete 15:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section 10, Exhibit 15 (the table). The text below the table states that Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Wyoming have "no religion" as the largest percentage as compared to other religions, but when just comparing across the no-religion category, it's VT, WA, OR and CO as the top four. I note that Oregon seems to have the biggest "point spread" between no-religion and the next most popular religion, Catholicism. I'm no number cruncher, so I don't know which statistic is more significant. I know the "godlessness" of Oregon has been written about in other sources so now I'm thinking we definitely need some outside analysis besides this one paper... Latr, Katr 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, more/better sources should be sought out. In the meantime, how about simply: "Oregon, like neighboring Washington, ranks among the top four states in percentage of "non-religous" residents." (Basically, avoid getting into specifics where we don't know/understand it for sure, and where it's not directly relevant to Oregon.) -Pete 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like that wording--simple and yet regional. Adding the names of other states does start to stray off-topic... Latr, Katr 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-religious" 

message: I read here: International Pole dancing Day that pole dancing originated in a performance by one Miss 'Belle Jangles' at 'Mugwumps Strip Club' in Oregon in 1968. Can anyone confirm this and tell me exactly where this world-historical strip-joint is situated? Colin4C 12:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mugwumps 

message: Why is it that the in the sports section in Oregon that the article directs to "sports in Portland"? Shouldn't direct to an article titled "Sports in Oregon?"
Additionally, the section doesn't make any mention of college sports. Dabomb87 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Article mistake 

message: Hi everyone. As my first real act of membership in the Oregon Wikiproject, I've created a stub for Oregon Forest Resources Institute. So that's one down, and several more to go... --GoodDamon 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-redlinked [[Oregon Forest Resources Institute]] 

message: * a good item to see about using for our symbols. Aboutmovies 01:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somthing to steal 

message: Nothing about Bartolomé Ferrelo first european to discover Oregon, Cape Orford and others places in 1543.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.4.227 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, but there's nothing currently in the Ferrelo article about Oregon. Do you have any sources? Katr67 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it back. I didn't realize "Cape Orford" linked to Port Orford, Oregon. But apparently Ferrelo's claim is disputed?  
  Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History