Talk:Friends of Bull Mountain

Context and duplication

This needs a better explanation about the different annexation methods in the two ORS chapters, with links to the relevant chapters. Also, most of this content duplicates that in the Bull Mountain article, so it needs either removal from that article or a rewrite in one or both places. If there isn't enough material on the group to have a separate article, it might be best to redirect this back to Bull Mountain. Katr67 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The duplication is unfortunate, I originally posted a shorter article, but one of the self-appointed censors deleted the entire page saying it did not explain why the group is notable. The explanation of why the group is notable does duplicate the Bull mountain article by its very nature. I suggest the Bull Mountain article be shortened by removing duplicated content from there.

Why do you feel more explanation is needed for the different ORS'es? It is a complicated area of law, and the essential points have been highlighted already, i.e. combined voting method versus double majority. Is the existing content not clear? There are thirteen different methods of annexation in Oregon this could become a never ending discussion which would be rather pointlessCharles 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure like the throw the words "censor" and "censorship" around a lot, don't you? Have you read about notability? In the grand scheme of things, one local grassroots organization may or may not be notable and it's up the the article's editors to prove that it is. Not being an admin, I don't have access to the version that was deleted, but I'm sure the content justified whoever did delete it as they acted in good faith. I'm glad you agree that the Bull Mountain article should be shortened--that seems like the best solution. As far as the ORS chapters, I used to work editing ORS, and I cannot make heads or tails of what that paragraph is trying to say--yes, the existing content is not clear. A link to the relevant ORS chapters would help. Here's the ORS page to get you started. [1] Katr67 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and the Wikipedia ~~censors~~admins are overzealous in this area. I have edited articles on other topics without anything like this much trouble. I am trying to put in stubs where content will be added later, which is reasonable as I understand it. They are being very unreasonable and not acting in good faith, my opinion of them is declining daily.

Changing state law is clearly notable. Have you ever done that? FOBM has!

I am fully aware of the ORSes, the testimony submitted by FOBM supporters numbers in the thousands of pages, with multple ORS citations. I have already provided links to the testimony at the hearings, I suggest you download it and read it if you are really that interested, there are about 600 pages in the one link I provided. Charles 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors and admins aren't trying to give you trouble, just make the article comply with wikipedia policy. I don't know about the other subject areas you contribute to, but WikiProject Oregon keeps a pretty good eye on articles relating to Oregon. Speaking for myself, I'm proud the Oregon articles are generally of such high quality. BTW, stubs are fine, but they still have to say why the subject is worthy of an encyclopedia article. You don't have to argue with me about notability, however, my above statement about previous versions and notability still stand. I have no idea what the article said before you improved it. And I do consider it improved--that is what this process is for--not for censorship or harrassment. Personally I think this article now meets the notability critera, but I don't speak for all editors. Good for you for changing state law. I've done my part in that as well, but that has nothing to do with you and me as editors of this article. And I'm not asking for multiple ORS citations, just a clear, simple explanation of the situation so that a casual reader of this article, who might not be familiar with Oregon, or the United States for that matter, can understand.

And FYI, if you feel you are being treated unfairly, there is a series of things you can do. You can read about them here: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Oh and just a heads up, another reason you might be having a bit of trouble with your additions is conflict of interest, so you might want to read up on that. Thanks. Katr67 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changes to state law

FOBM has worked with legislators in Salem to modify state law. That information is only covered in this page, and is not specific to the Bull Mountain article. Hence there is clearly a need for a separate article on FOBM. It would not be appropriate to include the FOBM work in Salem in the Bull Mountain article.

These changes to state law affect the citizens of the entire state, not just Bull Mountain or Tigard.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrjlr (talk • contribs) 02:29, February 13, 2007

Gerrymandering

Per the Gerrymandering article, there needs to be an manipulation of boundaries to qualify as gerrymandering.

"Gerrymandering is a controversial form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage."

Therefor using one counting system versus another it is not a "variation" of gerrymandering. Similar to it in that the goal is to dilute the vote of one group, but not a variation of it. So unless someone changed the district boundaries it is not gerrymandering. Aboutmovies 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this article with Bull Mountain

Reading this, I'm of the opinion that this article should be completely merged into the Bull Mountain article as it is going to be difficult prove notability in some people's minds. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]