Talk:Champoeg Meetings

table format

I find the tables of voters visually a bit jarring. I just found a set of templates that might be an improvement, like this: -Pete 04:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pleasant M. Armstrong
• Ira Babcock
• Dr. William J. Bailey
• Alanson Beers
• J.C. Bridges
• Hugh Burns
• Charles Campo
• William Cannon
• Harvey L. Clark

• Medorem Crawford
• Amos Cook
• Allen J. Davie
• William M. Doughty
• George W. Ebberts
• Francis Fletcher
• George Gay
• Joseph Gale
• William H. Gray
• John S. Griffin
• Webley John Hauxhurst
• David Hill
• Joseph Holman
• John Howard

• Gustavus Hines
• Thomas J. Hubbard
• William Johnson
• L.H. Judson
• George W. Le Breton
• David Leslie
• Reuben Lewis
• Étienne Lucier
• François X. Matthieu
• Joseph Meek
• William McCarty
• Charles McKay
• Robert Moore
• John L. Morrison

• Robert Newell
• James A. O’Neil
• J.L. Parrish
• John Edmunds Pickernell
• James R. Robb
• Osborne Russell
• Robert Shortess
• Alvin T. Smith
• Sidney Smith
• Solomon H. Smith
• Calvin Tibbetts
• David Weston
• Caleb Wilkins
• A.E. Wilson
• W.H. Willson

Works for me, the original didn't look great but a long single column list would have looked worse. Aboutmovies 07:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Names

The final list of those chosen to implement things ends with a "Doty", but that name is not on the lists of those voting above. Given all the other names are on the list of those voting in favor, I suspect (but do not know) that this name should be "Doughty". Was this an entry typo, or is there an issue in the historical record? -PeteJacobsen 02:36pm 7 October 2007 (PDT) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this post. The thing is with the early period is records are scarce, and mispellings abound. Unlikely it was just plain Doty, but both a William Daugherty and William Doughty appear in the records, though I'm sure it is the same person. As to which of those is correct, I'm not sure, but the Men of Champoeg book is propably a good place to look. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Champoeg name

Anyone have an Oregon Geographic Names book by chance with some name origin theories? Personally, I think it was Native American and Champoo-ick, but the pronunciation slowly changed to Cham-poo-ig. Then the Americans thinking it was French bastardized it by pronouncing it Champooee. But I don;t think I've seen that exact theory out there. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?" Katr67 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Supposed influence on historical events

I am entirely new to editing so I hope someone can guide me on this matter. The claim "The meetings would have a great influence on the shaping of the modern country of Canada as well as on the Pacific Northwest of the United States" appears in the beginning with a now invalid citation link, which isn't terribly surprising given it was listed in 2006. The issue is the cited material does not back the quoted claim in any fashion and nor does any historical narrative I have read. The diplomatic wrangling between the Americans and British for a few decades was over the Columbia River as a border (or not). Eventually the British agreed to an American proposal for the continuation of the border along 49th the parallel.

Where does the PGO fit into this? It stated the 54'40 was the northern border despite having no control over any land north of the Columbia River. In 1845 an agreement with the local Hudson's Bay Company was established, with the company "joining" the government. Theoretical control was extended by the PGO, but the majority of the offices for the northern districts were held by the British. I don't see this event holding "great influence" over both Canada and the United States. About the only matter that the PGO was to create that influenced (only America) was the Cayuse War.

So what should be done about this exactly? The claim is simply far too bold to be considered historically accurate. In the meantime I updated the link, but it is worth repeating it doesn't validate the claim. Voltaire's Vaquero (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The usual thing to do is remove the incorrect text unless you think another citation can be found which supports it. In the latter case, it can be left and tagged with {{cn}}. —EncMstr (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Just remove it. I never believed it did, but due to issues we've had with nationalistic Canadians, I left it in when it was added two years ago to avoid conflict and allegations of hating Canada. Also, it was added by a now banned account.

On a separate note, I think you underestimate the impact of the PGO and its legacy. It is the one that set up what later became to the donation land claims, which still has an impact on the land to this day, among other legacies. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)