Talk:Oklahoma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Oklahoma is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 16, 2007.
August 25, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Oklahoma Portal This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article is of Top-importance within WikiProject Oklahoma. United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. The following comments have been left for this page: FA status on Aug. 25, 2007. Okiefromokla•talk 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (edit)

To-do list for Oklahoma:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Contribute to sub-pages, such as "History of Oklahoma" and "Government of Oklahoma"

Archives
2004-June 2007 Aug - Dec 2007

Contents 1 Steinbeck and the Okie stereotype 2 State Quarter 3 Oklahoma Today 4 Dubious 5 Native Ballerinas 6 Heavy bias 7 Tulsa Race Riots

[edit] Steinbeck and the Okie stereotype

I'm not from Oklahoma, and don't know a lot about Oklahoma, but I think it might be somewhat unfair to say that the term "Okie" is a negative stereotype introduced by John Steinbeck -- one, because Steinbeck did not portray his "Okie" characters in a negative way, they were actually the heroes of his story, and two, because if you follow the link to the wikipedia entry on the word "Okie" you can see that the word was around way before Steinbeck used it and it has a rich and varied history. -- Jillian in Nevada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.72.27 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Okie stereotype is very much a negative one, though there could be a couple of better sources to back it up in the article. However, the term "Okie" and its long hitory isn't the point. The actual negative stereotype that was introduced in the Grapes of Wrath is the focus there. Still, in many cases, the term "Okie" goes hand-in-hand with the dust bowl/hick stereotype that much of the nation still holds (again, which was popularized with the Grapes of Wrath). Again, could use some better sources, but I think the question of including the word Okie with implcations on its negative connotation is a non-issue, as this is an obvious part of American culture (at least to me, having lived on both coasts before Oklahoma). Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. I am from Oklahoma and I think it is an extreme stretch to exclusively qualify the term "Okie" as negative. I have traveled extensively in the United States and abroad and have heard the term "Okie" in negative, positive, and casual contexts... but I have to say that the positive and casual uses of the term far outweigh the number of negative uses I have heard.

Aside from that, another issue I take with this article is the following statement:

"The stereotype has shaped cultural perceptions of the state and its largest cities have been named among the most underrated travel and cultural destinations in the United States."

This statement is a massive stretch, almost to the point of being misleading. Negative stereotypes (no offense, but most of which have nothing to do with the word "Okie" or Grapes of Wrath) are secondary to other issues in the state of Oklahoma which cause a lack of tourism. Major cities in Oklahoma, above and beyond everything else, lack the tourist-friendly infrastructure and attractions we see in other successful tourist towns across the country. One mainstream opinion of the situation is that cities in Oklahoma have either ignored tourism altogether, or halfheartedly focused on regional or niche tourism... in short, cities in Oklahoma are not set up as tourist destinations... negative stereotypes aside.

Timdlocklear (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have lived in Oklahoma almost all of my life and I don't consider the term "Okie" a negative stereotype. I have also asked several people that were born and lived in Oklahoma all their life and they don't consider "Okie" negative. Some of these people, like myself are in their 50's and 60's. I am sure any term can be used in a negative way, and this one has been used that way, as well. I am also sure there may be some people from Oklahoma that consider the term is negative. But, I suspect that most don't. We as Oklahoman's "own" the term Okie. It is "ours", I love the term. As far as I am concerned anyone that thinks "Okie" is negative is not from Oklahoma or hasn't lived in Oklahoma very long. Is there anyone else from Oklahoma that hasn't commented, that would like to add their comments? - Xltel (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There really is a stereotype associated with the word "okie" outside of Oklahoma, and it's mostly negative, especially where I grew up in California. From my experience, the word has a much stronger negative connotation on the west coast than it does on the east coast, which would seem to make sense given its historical usage. But I also agree that most Oklahomans don't consider the word negative: it's a positive thing, by far. (heh, look at my name… I'm proud too :P ) The article should definitely have both views of the word. Obviously, we need to find references for the two connotations. The current refs for the negative view are not very strong. We could do better. I will note that while I was working this article to FA status I did come across a news story that spelled out something like "Oklahomans consider 'Okie' a word of pride," but for whatever reason it slipped my mind to include it in the article. But at least it's out there somewhere... I also wouldn't be at all opposed to removing the sentence that the "okie" steriotype has shaped perceptions of the state. It doesn't seem like something that necessarily needs to be there and it is hard to adequately source anyway. As Timdlocklear wisely pointed out, lack of tourism is due to a number of factors. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with having both views. Positive only please. This is an article about Oklahoma, not what Californian's think about Oklahoman's or Okie's. Okie's like to be called Okie's. If Californian's are negative about the term, then put that in the California article. (Not that I am saying Californian's are negative) The WP article Okie covers the history of the term. -- Xltel (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone else from Oklahoma that hasn't commented, that would like to add their comments? -- Xltel (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that - there should be at least some mention of the negative steriotype, as much as we don't like it. For example, the other FA state article (Minnesota) has a lot of information on how that state is viewed. This is why I've included two major views in this article (the negative dustbowl steriotype and the stereotypical "oklahoma friendliness"). It should be noted that the use of the word "okie" within Oklahoma is not how the state is viewed, because it's more of a pride term for Oklahomans. What we need is for people to comment who live outside of the state, not inside the state. Oklahomans are probably not going to have much dealing with the word as a negative connotation if they haven't lived anywhere else for any period of time (or, better yet, grew up any where else). There are sources for both and we should include both. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we should leave out the negativity of the term altogether either, particularly since it has a great tie-in to the Grapes of Wrath, but we should also point out the positives. As for getting people to comment, that's all well and good but it's not a source. We need to cite hopefully a sociological source (or more than one) in support of whatever the text will be. I'm certain that there is surely an expert opinion out there on the subject. We should also try to detail whether the negativity of the term is historic, or pop culture. As we may possibly be seeing in these comments, extreme negativity of the term "Okie" is mostly historic, with pop culture possibly seeing it as a term of endearment. I do really wish we could clarify the tourism thing, though... I think that is misleading. I might re-read the article and try to find some text to support a change, and follow up in comments here. That was my two cents for the day, LOL! :) Timdlocklear (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Oklahoma and I don't take it negatively, that's what I call myself. :) --HoopoeBaijiKite 03:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State Quarter

I wanted to know how everyone felt about adding the state quarter; sense this is a FA I thought it should be disscused.--Cal (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. The state symbols section would be a nice place. Okiefromokla ^questions? 11:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the image mentioned above with a photo of a proof quality coin. 83.89.43.14 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma Today

I am posting this here, because I am not satisfied with the situation. At the top of this page, it says, "if you can update or improve it, please do". I added a one-sentence paragraph to the Media section on our official state magazine, Oklahoma Today. It was removed immediately by okiefromokla without explanation. After I inquired, he gave me this:

"I removed your paragraph because it violated our policies on advertisements and undue weight. We generally don't mention specific businesses or publications in articles with few exceptions for very notable publications if they are the primary news outlets in the state, such as the Tulsa world and the daily Oklahoman. For anything else, such as a particular magazine, in most cases it is not even appropriate to state it briefly in an article about a state, not to mention devote an entire sentence to detailing specifics about a magazine."

I don't see how it was undue weight or "advertising" when you compare it to what else is in the section:

"Oklahoma City and Tulsa are the 45th and 61st-largest media markets in the United States as ranked by Nielsen Media Research. The state's third-largest media market, Lawton-Wichita Falls, Texas, is ranked 144th nationally by the agency.[135] Broadcast television in Oklahoma began in 1949 when KFOR-TV (then WKY-TV) in Oklahoma City and KOTV-TV in Tulsa began broadcasting a few months apart.[136] Currently, all major American broadcast networks have affiliated television stations in the state.[137]

The state has two primary newspapers. The Oklahoman, based in Oklahoma City, is the largest newspaper in the state and 48th-largest in the nation by circulation, with a weekday readership of 215,102 and a Sunday readership of 287,505. The Tulsa World, the second most widely circulated newspaper in Oklahoma and 77th in the nation, holds a Sunday circulation of 189,789 and a weekday readership of 138,262.[134] Oklahoma's first newspaper was established in 1844, called the Cherokee Advocate, and was written in both Cherokee and English.[138] In 2006, there were more than 220 newspapers located in the state, including 177 with weekly publications and 48 with daily publications.[138]

Two large public radio networks are broadcast in Oklahoma: Oklahoma Public Radio and Public Radio International. First launched in 1955, Oklahoma Public Radio was the first public radio network in Oklahoma, and has won 271 awards for outstanding programming.[139] Public Radio International broadcasts on 10 stations throughout the state, and provides more than 400 hours of programming.[140] The state's first radio station, KRFU in Bristow, moved to Tulsa and became KVOO in 1927.[141] In 2006, there were more than 500 radio stations in Oklahoma broadcasting with various local or nationally owned networks.[142]"

If public radio can have a full sentence mentioning it's awards, and be linked, I don't know how this is any different. — jbrown84

OPR and PRI are top radio news outlets in the state and are therefore notable in a summary of media of Oklahoma. Mentioning one of the state's many magazines violates Wikipedia's standard of summary style for a broadly-focused article such as this, as well as Wikipedia's policy against giving undue weight to a particular item. Is there a particular reason you feel this magazine is especially notable in a brief summary of Oklahoma media? Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it is the official magazine of the state of Oklahoma. This is not the Baptist Messenger or Edmond Monthly we are talking about. — jbrown84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown84 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but is it a primary media outlet? It's a cultural-based magazine that promotes tourism, and regardless of its awards, it doesn't seem to be one of the most notable publications in the state. Even if it were the largest magazine in the state (which I don't think it is), I would still question its notability in an article as broad as this one. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have liked to hear from others on this, but you are apparently king, so have it your way. Jbrown84 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other people too, and they may still say something. But it is iffy to set aside space in this broad article to a specific magazine that is not a major media outlet, especially given the nature of this magazine as a tourism/cultural guide. It seems like an advertisement, although I have no doubt that you are not intending it as such. However, I should have probably waited to remove it, and I apologize for the speedy revert. If you would like to re-insert it, I won't remove it unless there are no comments from others on the issue for a few weeks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla is right. WP:Summary needs to rule on cases like this, considering the scope and size of the article. The fact that the magazine is the official magazine of the state doesn't make it notable enough for mention here, on a general article about the state. The section as it's currently written strikes the right balance between breadth and depth. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

The article says:

"Oklahoma City's Devon Energy is the second-largest crude oil company in the nation, while Kerr-McGee and Chesapeake Energy rank sixth and seventh respectively in that sector,..."

I don't buy this. If they are using the Fortune 500 list, that data is FLAWED. They put ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips in "Industry: Petroleum Refining", and if you know anything about these companies they make a minority of their REVs and NI from Refining. Fortune mis-categorizes companies all the time, as do most of these publications. Please use oil & gas industry source like CERA, DOE, O&G Journal, etc.

WikiDon (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I clarified what the reference says and attributed the claims to fortune magazine, which should settle things. In case it doesn't, and you don't want to include Fortune at all, I will say that we need a definitive source to indicate that Fortune Magazine's rankings shouldn't be trusted. I don't know Fortune's criteria for placing companies in certain categories, but its rankings are one of the most definitive and prestigious in the business world, and Fortune should be treated as a very high-level expert in this realm. But I'm happier with the sentence now. It's better to attribute the statement to a trusted expert rather than present it as if it was as unequivocal fact. Does that work for you? Okiefromokla ^complaints 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you wrote this sentence with an attached reference:

"According to Fortune Magazine, three of the largest private oil companies in the nation are located in the state,^[1]"

1. ^ Three Of America’s Largest Private Companies Call Oklahoma Home. Oklahoma Department of Commerce (2005-12-02). Retrieved on 2007-08-01.

ONE: the magazine referenced in this reference is FORBES, not Fortune.

TWO: two of them are NOT "oil" companies, they are retail gas stations/convince stores. The reference doesn't refer to them as "oil" companies and neither should Wikipedia. They should be: "NAICS 44711. Gasoline stations with convenience stores"

If you want to see the REAL top producers of oil & gas in the U.S., look here:

Table A6. Top 50 U.S. Operators Ranked by Reported 2006 Operated Production Data - EIA-DOE.gov

Performance Profiles of Major Energy Producers 2006 - EIA-DOE.gov

Leading Oil and Gas Companies by Liquid Reserves in the US: 2005 in Millions of Barrels for BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp, Occidental Petroleum Corp., ChevronTexaco, Shell Oil Co., Devon Energy Corp., Anadarko Petroleum Corp., USX-Marathon Group, Apache Corp...

Leading Oil and Gas Companies by Natural Gas Volume Reserves in the US: 2005 in Billions of Cubic Feet for BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp., Burlington Resources Inc/ConocoPhillips., El Paso Corp., Anadarko Petroleum Corp., ChevronTexaco, Shell Oil Co...

Industry classifications:

NAICS 211. Oil and gas extraction (inc: ExxonMobil, Devon, etc.)

NAICS 213111. Drilling oil and gas wells (inc: Parker Drilling, Noble, Paterson-UTI, etc.)

NAICS 213112. Support activities for oil and gas operations (Halliburton, Schlumberger, Bariod, etc.)

NAICS 2212. Natural gas distribution (Arkla, etc.)

NAICS 32411. Petroleum refineries (Valero, etc.)

NAICS 486. Pipeline transportation (Williams, El Paso, etc.)

Didn't Anadarko buy Kerr-McGee? SEE: Kerr-McGee

I fixed the first sentence, it had been a while since I looked at that source. We don't need to get specific with industry details, so I changed the sentence to say "oil-related companies" rather than "oil companies." That's the main point of the sentence.

With regards to the references you provide, Forbes and Fortune have ranked companies by size ("nation's largest companies") while the Energy Information Administration's list is by oil production, reserves, etc., and not necessarily the size of the company. At least, that's what I am taking from it. Am I wrong?

Thanks for bringing up the Anadarko purchase of Kerr. The source we have is for 2006, so it wouldn't be reflected there. I don't have the time at the moment but I'm sure a quick google search would provide a source for the acquisition. We'll have to remove it if the Kerr-McGee article is correct. If you have a source right now, feel free to do it yourself if you'd like, or if I don't get to it soon enough. Okiefromokla ^complaints 19:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Forbes and Fortune have ranked companies by size ("nation's largest companies")"

By what metric? (I know, but you need to say). By the weight of the employees? You need to specify by Sales/aka Revenes; by Earnings/aka Net Income; Market Cap/shares x price. On all those measures I again contend that the EIA-DOE numbers would be the same in the same order. WikiDon (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think Fortune's rankings have a lot to do with net worth. Could you find a source for the Forbes/Fortune criteria? I wouldn't be opposed to attaching the information, but since the claim is attributed, it shouldn't really be necessary. Still, I don't have a real objection to it.

The EIA-DOE source can and probably should be used when referring to a company's rank in regards to its oil capacity/production, but that figure is not necessarily directly related to the relative size of the company, is it? I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand. Okiefromokla ^complaints 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Private v. Public:

A) In the government world public entities are owned by the state / private ones by individuals (and other companies)

B) In the corporate world public means shares are traded openly on an accessible exchange / private ones shares are closely held and not easily publicly traded

Taking this second one in to account (which is what we use here in the U.S., most companies are ranked by 1) Sales, 2) Earnings, 3) Market Cap, 4) Net equity, 5) ROE, 6) ROA, etc., (among other metrics).

The closest thing to "net worth" (which is a term used for individuals) would be "net equity" or "shareholders equity", which is assets minus liabilities (all you own-all you owe=).

On this metric it is still the shakes out about the same. On U.S. assets, the U.S. division of BP (the old Amoco) is still #1, Chevron #2 (w/the old Texaco), ConocoPhillips #3, Anadarko #4, Shell USA #5, etc. Devon doesn't make the top 10.

You are taking references at face value when those references are flawed. We can't just put in things that are wrong just because we have a source. I could find a source that says George W. Bush is a reptilian. Doesn't mean it should be in Bush's article. "Experts" make a lot of mistakes, all the time. I'll try to get to it and work up something that is more factual and more acceptable, and just not parroted public relations press releases. WikiDon (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Native Ballerinas

I don't want to revert it without discussion first, but I don't think it's appropriate to mention Oklahomans who have received an award in this article (with a few theoretical exceptions). The section in question needs to only briefly cover the absolute most important parts of Oklahoma arts and theater. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to remove the ballerinas because they don't seem to qualify as such. Okiefromokla ^complaints 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its intersting but kinda out of place.--CPacker (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not eloquent, but I strongly disagree for the following reasons:

(1) Oklahoma is different from all other states in that it was Indian Territory. The fact that these women are artistic, Native, and recognized for that fact is special specific to Oklahoma. (2) The paragraph on sports mentions Clayton Bennet buying the Supersonics, a person who's only claim to fame is that he is rich, and nobody has suggested removing him from the page. (3) The ballerinas are not just famous for their craft, they developed areas of art for the entire state of Oklahoma. In addition Chouteau and her husband established the first fully-accredited dance department in the UNITED STATES at the University of Oklahoma, Norman, putting Oklahoma ahead of every other state, including California and New York in this field.

There is more, but I think this should be enough to keep them there. If not, I will respond again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Odestiny! I was hoping you'd respond before I took action. Here is what I have to say in response to your three points:

• There are many native Americans from Oklahoma who have received awards and contributed greatly to the state's culture, and even the nation's culture, but we just can't include them all. To highlight these ballerinas says that they are so important that they qualify to be mentioned in a breif summary of a broad topic like art in Oklahoma, whereas the other influential Oklahoma artists are not worthy of such inclusion. But how can we possibly be fair and include every Oklahoman who has received similar recognition?
• The paragraph you refer to in sports isn't meant to focus on Clayton Bennett. Rather, the topic is the SuperSonics, who are poised to become Oklahoma's first permanent major league sports team — I don't think you mean to object to the importance of this?
• "The first fully-accredited dance department" seems noteworthy enough, and it could be mentioned in art or education as long as there's a source to go with it. But giving any of these ballerinas a few sentences to highlight their career accomplishments would not fit the point of this article. We don't even do that for Garth Brooks, Toby Keith, Will Rogers, or the massive number of astronauts from Oklahoma, to name a few examples. Okiefromokla ^complaints 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC

You have some valid points, and I understand the reasoning. The point that Will Rogers is not mentioned is just amazing in itself, while businessmen like Bennet and Cyrus Avery (the father of route 66 ?!)are included. But aside from this, perhaps the issue could be solved by rewording to mention the Tulsa Historical societ, then sculpture of them, in the same way Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys are mentioned in reference to Cain's ballroom. Their importance to Culture in Oklahoma is equal or excedes Clayton Bennet's position in sports due to the fact that when the Smithsonian opened the Museum of the American Indian in Washington, this is who they chose to acknowledge, these Native American ballerinas from Oklahoma. (I still can't get over he is mentioned over Will Rogers! That's insane!) Aside from this, look at the Wiki article on Georgia, it mentions The Black Crows, Wide Spread Panic, Drive-By Truckers, R.E.M, The B-52s, Opera singer Jessye Norman, James Brown, Little Richard, Julia Roberts and many more. The article on Texas mentions Blind Lemon Jefferson, Robert Johnson, Huddie "Leadbelly" Ledbetter, and Bessie Smith who simply played in clubs there. I could go on and on, but the fact that these are Native American artists in a state known for Native Americans should be included under Art and Culture if other states can list The B-52's. Odestiny (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't for detailing famous people from Oklahoma. Cyrus Avery and Clayton Bennett aren't mentioned for their fame. They're mentioned because of their direct roles in connection to important Oklahoma events (bringing route 66) or institutions (bringing the SuperSonics). These ballerinas are just a few of the Oklahomans who have received awards, but receiving an award does not determine if someone is important enough to be mentioned alongside the most important aspects of Oklahoma culture. Remember, this is a high-level article, meaning it should be very broad and written in strict summary style. Also, I will note that Georgia and Texas are not featured articles and therefore do not represent the very best of Wikipedia. Okiefromokla ^complaints 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy bias

I only went through the lead, and it reads like an advertisement. This article needs serious work. Lixy (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. The lead hasn't changed since the Featured Article nomination, and the article passed there with flying colors. Maybe you'd like to give some examples. Okiefromokla ^complaints 05:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tulsa Race Riots

A photograph of the lynching of the woman and her son was circulated as a post card and was a key point leading to the race riots, as were the other lynchings and the Jim Crow laws. All are important points in the history of Oklahoma and supported in detail in the reference cited. It is called "the" costliest in history, not "one of the costliest". Removing these details delutes the article. Odestiny (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)