Talk:Oregon's 5th congressional district

Another source

Kraushaar, Josh (February 12, 2008). "GOP Strong for Oregon Seat". Politico.

Every office holder in OR-5 divorced while in Office

Don't know if it belongs in the article or not... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/23/978400/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Morning-Digest:-5-23 Naraht (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Formatting help

I added the 2012 election results but need some help formatting for the Constitution Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.198.52 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The Oregon Constitution Party is separate from the national party as of 2006. --Esprqii (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oregon's 5th congressional district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Divorces while in office

A recent edit removed an interesting bit of trivia: Every representative in the history of this district has gotten divorced while in office. See revision here:

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1111329159

I'd like to open up discussion on whether this fact is worth including in the article. I think it's worth keeping in. The fact was reported by local media and, while not directly pertinent to governance in the district, adds some interesting texture and detail to the article.

Thoughts? PxBx (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I like it, it's interesting, and I don't think it applies to any other district. Also got it featured on Depths of Wikipedia. Wilh3lm^Talk 12:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is interesting piece of trivia about the district and is probably unique to this congressional district.

As was mentioned above it was reported on in local media by both Oregon Live and Portland Monthly.

https://www.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2011/05/schraders_continue_divorce_cur.html

https://www.pdxmonthly.com/news-and-city-life/2019/01/in-this-oregon-congressional-district-every-representative-gets-divorced Mgfroyo (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@PxBx I agree that this flavourful piece should be kept in the article. It is interesting and mostly pertinent. VETBAITEDNV (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Since there's some coverage about this so-called "curse", I agree it should be kept. --Deansfa (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's whole thing is random facts. At least this one is interesting. ZCoupon (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of Wikipedia, but given that this is supported by coverage in WP:RS it probably warrants inclusion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept. It's a really fun and niche piece of trivia that, as stated, has been reported on by multiple local sources Rwpardey01 (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)