Talk:Oregon pioneer history

message: ain't there a couple too many capital letters in the title? -Pete 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: More than half the stated historical period of this article covers the pioneer history of not just one U.S. state, but several. It is only the later developments in the narrative that are progressively narrowed to include just the history of the state of Oregon. It would to my mind be highly redundant to repeat most of the material in this article in separate articles for each state (not to mention repeating the 40 years of pre-1846 [i.e., pre-Oregon Treaty] material in a pioneer history of British Columbia). →Move that we place most of the present text into an article entitled either "Oregon Country pioneer history" or "Oregon Territory pioneer history" (or perhaps "Pacific Northwest pioneer history"), and leave the Oregon state-specific bits here (creating, as needed, separate pioneer histories for Washington, Idaho, etc.). As it stands, the present article's approach (reflected prominently in the title & lede, in contrast to much of the remaining content) is too narrowly provincial, presenting the settlement history of the whole Oregon Country and later Oregon Territory as though, just by virtue of the name Oregon, the much smaller state of Oregon somehow owns the whole settler-history of the much larger region.
Please note, this is meant as honest critique, not provincial warring. There's a lot of good work here; it just needs to be reorganized to reflect the fact that there's a common heritage, belonging to many and not just to the one, in most of this article.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect: . Many of us Oregon folks don't have time to work on such an ambitious project right now, I'm afraid. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles actually should be somewhat repetitive, that is sort of what the Featured Article criteria (b.) covers. It's also what helps make Wikipedia unique, since we are not paper we can actually do it, whereas old print encyclopedias could not do so. In order for the state specific items to make sense, you have to branch out into the earlier history that is broader than just what became the state. As covered by the "Start" rating, this article is far from complete, and needs to be expanded into mostly post-1860. Then, other states could use the broader material as a template for their own series of articles on their state's history. But from what I've read, most of the other states important historical items for this time period are simply different: BC it was more about the gold rush; more about timber in the Puget Sound area and then the Alaska gold rush; Idaho about mining including gold rushes, but also Mormons in SE; and Montana's Wikipedia entry has little overlap as it is. It's not that there are not shared aspects between the histories, but they are divergent enough (especially on important events) to be covered separately. This article itself was meant as a multi-part series on Oregon history (state) to break it down into eras, much as we do for History of the United States (and many other political divisions), and just as the history of the US would have to branch out into areas that also cover other nations, that does not mean it has to be shoe-horned into only covering US parts or expanded into covering all of the history of the world. We can, and do, split and branch out, which does become repetitive, but that's the only way for articles to be comprehensive. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is actually multi-state/-province history 

message: This article does make brief mention of Native Americans in some of the intro paragraphs, but doesn't do much beyond vague descriptions saying that they were present and then were killed off because of disease. There seems to be an underrepresentation in this particular article of the indigenous nations that were present before and during the arrival of the pioneers. Ideally, I'd like to see more specific information regarding any interactions between pioneers/indigenous people, land acknowledgments, etc. to contribute to the history of the territory and the era, if possible! --Emma.Fagan (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually part of a series including Native American peoples of Oregon. Feel free to make sourced additions, as Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Valfontis (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and  is this a general comment on this Wikipedia page, or is this part of the prep for your school assignment? (i.e. saying what you would like to see changed and then changing it) It's fine either way, just wondering what to expect here. Valfontis (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including more information on indigenous peoples