Talk:Oklahoma/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Shorelines

There is no way Oklahoma could possibly have more shoreline than the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts as the article says. It's just physically impossible. Any comments on this?

I think they are taking into account to man made freshwater lakes.

Its not only the article that says it... look at any Oklahoma travel brochure or any OK state tourism web site.

It is based on technicalities such as counting the shore of rivers, man made lakes. Texas actually has more coastline (shoreline) than any other state. The term should be just pertain to oceans and seas. I dont think fluffy facts such as this are going to improve the image of the state, Dont try to decieve people into thinking we have more shoreline than any other state. It is a deceptive as selling a lemon car, dont sell Oklahoma as a lemon.

So that would mean that the Oklahoma brochures are incorrect as well?

That would mean that the Oklahoma brochures are trying to sell Oklahoma to tourists. That is not our task on Wikipedia. 194.82.121.38 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This website states differently, and I think it is more believable http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10319-121638--,00.html. To answer your question, yes the brochures are wrong.

I wish that link stated the exact length in miles of Michigan shorelines. I found this link that doesn't claim Oklahoma has the most but does give a number:11,611 miles.--Nmajdan 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no way Oklahoma has the most shoreline of any state, it a lie. Alaska has the most shoreline in context with Saltwater oceans and Michigan has the most freshwater shoreline. And I would think that Minnesota has more than Oklahoma too, they have 20,000 lakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.154.33 (talk)

You are right, Oklahoma doesn't have the most shoreline out of all the other states. But the travel brochures don't say more shoreline than any other state. It states that Oklahoma has more shoreline than the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Not all the states that are on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, just the coast lines themselves. So while Michigan, Alaska, and Texas may have more shoreline than Oklahoma, Oklahoma still has more shoreline than the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. I don't know how the statement that Oklahoma has more coasts and shores than the Gulf and Atlantic turned into, "No it doesn't, Alaska has more," but whatever.

Oklahoma has more shoreline than the East and West coast combined? That has to be a lie too.

I can not believe that a state would claim to have more coast than all other countries of the world combined, that has to be fabricated!

Oklahoma can't have more coastline than the east and West coast combined, this is physically impossible.This site states that Oklahoma has more than the East West and Gulf combined. [1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.154.105 (talk)

It appears to be true, but only by virtue of the number of manmade lakes and reservoirs. By the way, it is entirely possible to have more shoreline in one state than along all major coasts, because you can pack shoreline tightly into a closed space around lakes and rivers, vs. comparing it to the (mostly) convex perimeter of North America [2]. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is every river, lake and reservoir of the coastal states being accounted for?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.187.154.105 (talk • contribs) .

Nope, because that's not the claim being made. They're pulling a marketing trick by comparing two different things: the ocean shoreline of the coasts, with all available land-water interfaces in the state. At least, that's the only way I can figure that they come to that total. It's probably not encyclopedic, except to note that they're saying something that seems false on the face of it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma, you should be ashamed, I know it is flat and boring, but don't try to make into something it is not.

It's called boosterism -- attempting to elevate one's community into something that it isn't. It's a prescription for disappointment for outsiders who fall for it. "We have these wonderful lakes" is less likely to cause disappointment than is "We have more coastline".

No, parts of Oklahoma are flat and boring (like much of Illinois and Ohio) -- but the Ozarks are anything but flat and boring in terrain. The contention that Oklahoma has "lots of shoreline" reflects that Oklahoma has constructed enough reservoirs to create some large artificial lakes suitable for recreation. But the claim that Oklahoma has more shoreline than any other state is as artificial. After all, both Michigan and Minnesota "10,000 lakes" have more internal shoreline... and Michigan has the huge shorelines of Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie.

Are Oklahoma's shorelines, artificial as they are, well managed for recreational purposes? Far better, I suppose, than the Gulf Coast of Louisiana. Texas' Gulf Coast lies aside some numbingly-dull terrain. California's shoreline in some places is spectacular -- but ugly in its commercial development. Need I mention Long Island or any part of New England south of Portland, Maine?

Most of Alaska's coastline isn't the sort of shoreline that one wants to visit for any recreational purpose due to climate alone. So one is less likely to run into the banaliity of suburban-like developments along the many lakes of southern Michigan, the commercial kitsch of the urban America, or oil rigs off Louisiana on one of the "lakes" of Oklahoma. Because most of those reservoirs are in hill country, they are more striking than the Gulf coasts of Texas or Florida.

Shorelines and coastlines are beautiful if they are rugged -- which distinguishes Lake Superior from Lake Erie, or Maine north of Portland from Maine south of Portland. Oklahoma seems to have gotten its waterfront property right. Paul from Michigan 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

McVeigh Christian

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)

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)

Demographics

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)

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)

Obviously that's distinct from Native American. That's weird.--Appraiser 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I suspect it is white Americans using that as their ancestry rather than "european" or white. Gacole 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be great...

if this would be featured on November 16, 2007, Oklahoma's 100th anniversary. Miranda 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ask Raul, he has a kind heart. You might have to beg, though. :-P Miranda 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And, I was right. :-D Miranda 02:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning for removing mention of survey

The health section already makes it clear the state ranks fairly low in terms of healthcare, but my main concern was when reading this new survey, it apparently judges states based on five counts, and each rationale is pretty questionable:[3]

• "Access", which is described as the percentage of population insured
• "quality", which is described as how often people received recommended care
• "avoidable", described as the rate of re-admissions to hospitals
• "equity", described as state performance by income and race/ethnicity
• "healthy lives", described as deaths before age 75 from certain conditions

Reading what this survey decided was indicitive of each of those 5 categries, it is obvious that something is factually wrong. The category "healthy lives", for example, is apparently judged to be deaths before age 75. How is that a valid way to judge the health of people's lives? And the criteria for each of the five categories is similarily vague, off-point... rediculously off point. For example, how is the quality of medical care determined by how often people recieve care? Obviously, the survey is not valid scientific material, and the corresponding USA Today article has this to say:

"Efforts to measure and compare quality can be controversial. Medical providers question whether the data were adjusted properly to account for variations in age or sickness or whether the items measured are an accurate reflection of performance. The Commonwealth Fund report will likely garner the same kind of concern."[4]

It then goes on to explain that while the survey is probably not accurate, it may have some merit since there is some limited research that, for example, the number of insured people may correspond to access to healthcare. Okay... but not worthy of being encyclopedic for sure. This is one of thousands of health surveys that each has different rank for each state, so editors in the past have purposely avoided these. Which is why this article generally has included only government-sanctioned surveys for education and healthcare state rankings, etc. We should certainly not keep this lone health survey in the article as if to imply that it is the most reliable, factual, or worthy to be included in an encyclopedia - a Featured article, nonetheless. There's my take on it. Please feel free to not agree with me, I have an open mind. Okiefromokla•talk 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was the one that originally included mention of the survey, as it just happened to come to my attention in the course of my normal news media consumption. I'm not going to make a big issue about its inclusion or exclusion in the article, but the Commonwealth Fund that conducted the survey is a pretty respectable, well-known group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund It's current president is a native of Oklahoma with a Ph.D. in economics from Rice University, so I don't think it can be said that the non-profit charitable organization is trying to be purposefully unflattering to the state. And in my opinion the general criticisms you raise about the statistical validity of the survey could be used to argue against any survey, i.e., what does the data really indicate? Personally, I think surveys and statistical data from non-profit charitable foundations are at least as credible - if not more so - than any government-compiled statistics, as those numbers get fudged fairly systematically by bureaucrats with various funding-related agendas.

As a general observation on the current Oklahoma article, it reads like it was written and edited by the state Chamber of Commerce Association with an exclusive eye toward trying to attract businesses, new residents, tourists or whatever to the state. It has a very "promotional" tone to it overall, in my opinion. It is almost relentlessly upbeat in its portrayal of the state in all of the article sections that allow a degree of editorial viewpoint to be expressed in them, however subtly, either by inclusion or omission of material. Once again, just one person's opinion. I won't belabor your removal of the survey, but I would not have bothered to include it had I not thought it relevant and informative to the average Wikipedia reader looking up "Oklahoma" for the first time. An unattributed source 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think just the government provided average lifespan measure could be used instead. I believe the "Generosity Index 2003" sentence should probably be removed as well if we are clearing out possibly dubious reports. There are actual published articles claiming the generosity index is out of wack [5] -Ravedave 21:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have reservations about this article similar to User:An unattributed source's concerns. It could almost be tagged with the "advertisement" template. My other concern is the attitude of ownership that User:Okiefromokla has concerning this article. The value of Wikipedia is that one hundred editors can create an article superior to what any one of us can produce. If you don't let go a little, it will never grow (not in size, but in perspective). You mentioned that you couldn't inspire a team to work on it, and therefore had to write it all yourself. I suspect that would-be contributers were turned off by your attitude and relentless reversions to versions you liked better. Eventually, editors will just go away and focus their efforts elsewhere.

Back to point - as I read the Health section, I don't get the impression that OK might rank 50th in health care. If one study shows this, I'd be willing to bet that others rank it 48th, 49th, or 50th. If you don't like this study, find one that you think is valid, and replace the questionable one with a better one. Deleting it without offering an alternative just discourages productive contributions. If I had added the Commonwealth Fund information and you had replaced it with another survey that had similar results but perhaps better methodology, I would think, "great - between the two of us we added value to the article using a source that a reader won't take issue with, while still making the point I was trying to make." Alternatively, whitewashing the issue would just discourage me from working on the project. Just my .02 - and congrats on the FA status.--Appraiser 22:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there is a lot to respond to, so here it goes:

I fail to see any significant NPOV problems. The article just passed FA not two weeks ago! There is no opinionated tone, and every single fact is sourced - there are more than 170 references! Look through them all if you wish, but I assure you they are valid. Yes, there are positive facts, but also negative facts. And both positive facts and negative facts are well documented and warrented. For example, the second thing mentioned in the education section is that Oklahoma is ranked near the bottom of states in expenditures per student, and goes on to say that the state is near last in high school graduation, etc. The health section, for another example, makes clear Oklahoma is in the top states for obesity, ranks near last in doctors and nurses per-capita, and is one of two states without physical education requirements in schools. The state is among the worst for usage of renewable energy, lost 90,000 jobs in the energy sector between 1980 and 2000, the state has the worst bridges in the nation (I actually added just now when I was thinking about negative things about the state). As for the NPOV concerns, feel free to point out anything that may be unwarrented or anything that should be included.

As for your concern that I am displaying ownership... "relentless reversions"??? Frankly, I am a bit shocked you would even suggest it, and I am pretty offended; prior to this, I've never removed anything posted by anyone else on this article, aside from a few instances of obvious violations and vandalism. You mention editors were probably turned off by my attitudes - I'm not going to address this. I rewrote the article in about a week so it could be promoted to FA status and be ready for the main page in time for its centennial, and nothing more. Why would I actively seek help in making this article if I intended to revert half of the edits? I would appreciate if in the future you did not accuse me of such rediculous things without proof. Now that we have that out of the way, I think I made a good case for removing the health survey, and I didn't simply remove it without a good reason. I was fairly sure there wouldn't be any objections once other editors read the description of what the survey was - it's just so obvious that it is a flawed study. In fact, I was going to ask if there was consensus to remove it, but then I read the USA Today article about the survey, and it confirmed by doubts, stating outright that the survey's validity was controversial and questioned by medical professionals. So, in short, I felt removing it and then giving my reasoning was the most prudent course of action.

As for your concern that I should have just found another survey: the reason I did not is because of the USA today article, which questions the validity of such health surveys. And I myself have looked at maybe 7 or 8 such surveys that ranked Oklahoma's healthcare with other states, and each survey had a different number. I believe there was one that ranked Oklahoma as high as the low 30s, and others around 45 - which one to choose? What's for sure is the survey that I removed today was obviously flawed and not appropriate for the article - in my opinion. As I said before, I have an open mind, so feel free to disagree with me (not that its totally up to me, but if you wanted to convince me I'm open to it).

As for the Generosity Index, I question the logic of the Boston Globe's article. It reads more as if complaining rather than non-bias research. However, I will certainly support the use of the Philanthropy study being removed if other editors feel it is unencyclopedic or not trustworthy. Okiefromokla•talk 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I apologize for offending you; I was too harsh with my words. I believe that the article is well sourced for the statements made, but it may be a selectively flattering portrait in some cases. In the case of health care, the article mentions obesity, physical education, and number of doctors and nurses. However, it fails to address how well health care is delivered to the residents. These factors would include numbers insured, equity across the population groups, and the quality of care, for example. (Here's an HHS site that shows that OK ranks 5th in percentage of people 18-64 who are uninsured at 24.8%.[6]) Perhaps something like that could be put in in lieu of the survey whose methodology you have an issue with.--Appraiser 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, and I apologize for probably overreacting. Good source too, thanks. It has some other things besides insurance that will also be beneficial to the article and I'll insert them if I get the time in the next couple days, unless anyone wants go ahead and do it before then. Also, I welcome any help (actually I would implore you to help) in correcting any NPOV issues you think the article may have. Like I've said, it’s been hard getting significant help in the short period of time I was working on the article, so it would be nice to have some other experienced editors around. Any suggestions are equally as welcome if you feel discussion is prudent before making big changes. Thanks again for taking an interest in the article! Okiefromokla•talk 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets make something clear

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)

OK (no Oklahoma-related pun intended), I apologize for my edit summary with the "ownership" remark. But it was the preceding edit summary of yours which contained this phrase: "...no need to say 'western individualism and southern religiosity': the bible belt mention is enough to convey that it is conservative ..." that provoked an overly-twitchy edit finger. Why "no need to say?" The phrase was added by another editor earlier today, and it is an accurate way to describe the intersection of cultural influences that shape prevailing attitudes in the proverbial "Bible Belt." I am concerned that other editors (perhaps including myself) are going to be discouraged from even trying to make minor edits to this article. It is a very finely-tuned, well-produced article worthy of its "feature article" status, but the way that it currently reads it is only going to be attractive to additional "civic boosterism" type of contributions. All "in my humble opinion," of course. An unattributed source 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, (pun minnimally intended) you're right, there really wasn't enough room to adequately explain my objection. In my opinion, the phrase in question would be good in the culture section, though "southern religiosity" is vague and awkward wording. Its just that defining the Bible Belt as conservative due to western individualism and southern religious tendencies is not addressed in the body per WP:Lead, so in the lead is the first and last time we hear of it. But I also feel that it is probably not necessary to define the Bible Belt's cultural background in this article. It should be sufficient to say that Oklahoma is part of the conservative Bible belt, and readers can click on the wikilink to learn what makes the Bible Belt conservative. But regardless of my opinion on that subject, the lead should be as concise as possible, and by simply saying "the Bible belt," Oklahoma becomes fully established as conservative and no more detail is necessary to convey that. The lead should be as less detailed as possible, and the more detail explaining what was in the lead should be in the body. Okiefromokla•talk 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Health spending

I don't know what they're smoking at [7], but there is NO WAY that annual per capita state spending on health care is $64, or that Oklahoma ranks 7th in that category. This site [8] ranks Oklahoma at 40th, spending about $1000 annually per capita ($.10 * 1,000,000 / 100), which although still woefully inadequate, is much more believable. I have no idea who is backing these two sites, but I don't put any credence in the one that has such ludicrous numbers.--Appraiser 20:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know anything about healthcare spending, but it seems to me that the Trust for America's Health, a registered non-commerical entity (.org), is probably more trustworthy than statemaster.com. However, I have been doing some off and on looking when ever some free time presents itself and have found other, conflicting sources. So far, I haven't found a single source that agrees with any other. In fact, I've seen sources rank oklahoma both very high and very low in this field during the past couple days of looking. The problem is I cant find a source that is within the last year or two and seemingly more reliable than the Trust for America's Health... The best so far is [9], which ranks Oklahoma 29th. The only problem is this is from 2003 data, but I would think the United Health Foundation is the top of the totem pole in terms of reliability. It even cites the information with government documents. Again, its from almost 5 years ago, though... Okiefromokla•talk 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S: Actually I'm pretty excited about this source now because although it says its based on 2003 information, it claims to have the 2006 state rankings correct. See what you think but I think I finally found a winner. Okiefromokla•talk 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the major difference in the expenditure figures are due to whether the state spending on Medicaid is included. The $131 per capita per year does not include that cost; it only includes public health initiatives, clinics, vaccinations, education programs, screening, outreach, etc. according to the UHF website.[10] The $1000 in statemaster.com includes the $830 per person per year that Oklahoma spends on Medicaid ($2,972,933,888 spent divided by 3,579,212 population).[11] To say that the state spends $x on healthcare while omitting the largest expenditure is misleading. Here's another source that says OK spends $3,439,000,000 (or $960 per capita) on spending including "state-funded health care expenditures for Medicaid, the State Childrens Health Insurance Program, state employees health benefits, corrections, higher education, insurance and access expansion, public health-related expenditures, state facility-based services, and community-based services. Sources of state expenditures include general funds, other state funds, and federal funds. Figures may not sum to the national total due to rounding. Sources: Milbank Memorial Fund, National Association of State Budget Officers, and The Reforming States Group. 2002-2003 State Health Care Expenditure Report, Table 14, Milbank Memorial Fund, Copyright 2005 . Available at http://www.milbank.org/reports/05NASBO/nasbotable14.pdf."[12].

My conclusion: the current text is misleading and switching to the $131 per capita figure citing UHF would also be misleading. The state spends somewhere in the vicinity of $1000 per resident, depending on which year of the spending and population figures are used. I don't care which source is cited as long as the number is reasonably close to reality, without omitting important categories of spending.--Appraiser 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that millbank.org source is valid because that figure includes "higher education", "corrections", and some other things that are very very loosely tied to healthcare. The united health foundation website only claims "Public Health Spending" and that can be specified within the article. I think we should stick with this source rather than second guessing every other source. Public health spending should be sufficient. Frankly, I do not buy the $1000 per person figure (and especially not in light of the millbank source, which seems to include higher ed, corrections, and other things that aren't directly related to health spending). This:[13] says that oklahoma's total budget expenditure is about $6 billion. It is asbolutely absurd to claim that Oklahoma spends $1000 per person on health care (as you point out, this is somewhere around $3,439,000,000). That's over half of the state budget, and from my knowledge education usually the largest expenditure for states, not to mention room for everything else, like transportation. And it should be pointed out that statemaster.com claims its source is statehealthfacts.org, which then claims its source is millbank. So obviously both of those other sources are going to have bolstered figures since millbank does. Okiefromokla•talk 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Milbank source says: "Includes state-funded health care expenditures for Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, state employees' health benefits, corrections, higher education, insurance and access expansion, public health-related expenditures, state facility-based services, and community-based services." They're not talking about higher education and corrections—they're talking about health care within those institutions. The bulk of the difference between the UHF source and www.statehealthfacts.org is Medicaid, which is $2,972,933,888, and partially funded by the federal government. That is why the total is out-of-whack with total state revenue; they're not counting the portion reimbursed by the Feds. You can do whatever you want to your article, but if you leave it at $64 or $131, I think you'll lose credibility.--Appraiser 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey now! I'm just pointing out my concerns. Don't feel like you have to go through me to get this changed. Just trying to make sure this is right. I obviously misunderstood the description of millbank's source. I agree with you now that its probably way more likely they are meaning to say healthcare within higher ed than overall higher ed. But I am confused why the state rankings would be so different if the only difference is medicaid. Does this mean Oklahoma's health spending is ranked 29, but it has such low medicaid funding compared to other states that it drops all the way to 40 when factoring this in? I hate dealing with these kinds of things because its so hard to find sources that agree with one another or one that is more valid than the rest. Don't worry about the $64 figure, I agree with you after all this discussion. I was just waiting until we reach a agreement on a new source to add, but we can just remove it or change it right now. Okiefromokla•talk 04:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

65% in Metro Areas

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)

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)

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma&diff=prev&oldid=149656244 and http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)

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... [14]. This reference can be (and has been) placed after the "nearly 60%" fact as well. Okiefromokla•talk 21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S... that ref is actually number 8 now that I moved it. Okiefromokla•talk 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.[15] This U.S. census page has this definition of a CSA: [16] "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:[17], or "Tulsa Metropolitan Area" and "Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area". Okiefromokla•talk 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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. [18] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have modified the lead and changed Metropolitan area to the more accurate Combined Statistical Area. This appears to better represent where the numbers come from it lieu of the Metropolitan area that does more to describe a metro area as the area of influence and does not do a good job of linking it the the statistical area of the US Census where the 60% number was generated. -- Xltel 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Native American state claim

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)

Seattle SuperSonics

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. Okiefromokla^{talk to me} 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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. Okiefromokla^{talk to me} 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Coincidence?

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)

No coincidence. Look above. Talk:Oklahoma#This_would_be_great... Kablammo 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection...

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)

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)

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)

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)

Uh...

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)

What's the problem? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

fixed with proper nouns. Miranda 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

is it just me....

it seems that in the opening paragraphs where its says somthing like "it is not the third fastest ecomony" is that vandalism or not?

OK's Illegal Alien Laws

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)

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)

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)

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)

Climate -- and the "Texas Border"

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)

Breakdown of edits during Main Page stint

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)

Thank you, Wikipedia

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)

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)

Article size

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)

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)

Vertebrate Species

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dust Bowl image

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(outdent) Lists are to be avoided if possible, the percentages of religions could be turned into prose relatively easily or just include it after the numbers in the paragraph before and what's the point of having List of Oklahoma state symbols if the list is going to be in this article. I'd reference only the big hitters like bird, flower, song, and mammal and leave the minor state symbols to the list article. I'm not sure you want me making changes to the images, since the first thing I'd do is cut the number of images in half --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just to let everybody know, I changed the Dust Bowl picture, as it seems I'm the only one who feels the other one was better. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Info Box

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)

Also the article gives the percentage of foreign born in 2006 as 4.5%. The source cited, however, only gives the 2000 figure, which was 3.8%. What is the source for the 2006 figure? Dsmdgold (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Aerospace

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)

fixed Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Commons

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)

Churches of Christ

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)