Talk:Bull Mountain, Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Vote breakdown

[edit] Section contributed to article by User:Cfrjlr

The incorporation votes by precinct were published Monday November 27, 2007, and the breakdown is below:

There were three precincts in the proposed city boundary (397, 410 and 414),

The incorporation ballot measure would have passed but for the votes of one small precinct. Here are the raw numbers:

Incorporation of Bull Mountain Measure 34-129. Vote for 1

Code Votes Percentage
01 = Yes 1,734 47.89
02 = No 1,887 52.11
03 = OVER VOTES 1
04 = UNDER VOTES 60
Precinct Precinct Vote codes
Number Name 01 02 03 04
397 BULL MOUNTAIN 947 742 0 25
410 BEEF BEND RD 494 660 0 14
414 BARROWS RD 293 485 1 21

The largest precinct (397) voted overwhelmingly in favor of incorporation, that is the area to the east of 150th Avenue.

Then, add together the numbers for the two precincts, 397 and 410:
Yes votes: 947 + 494 = 1441
No votes 742 + 660 = 1402

Therefore, the combined precincts of 397 and 410 would have voted in favor of incorporation by a margin of 39 votes. Precinct 410 is west of 150th and straddles the length of Roy Rogers Road.

Only the smallest precinct, Number-414 (the northern Barrows Road area) was heavily opposed to incorporation.

[edit] Discussion

I have some concerns about this addition 1) It has a level of detail that seems unencyclopedic, 2) It uses the incorrect voice (2nd person) 3) It is not sourced/seems like original research, 4) It doesn't assert the significance of the small precinct voting differently other than the way it made the election turn out. Katr67 09:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

whatever. Thank you for your censorship.Charles 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith--accusing other editors of censorship borders on incivility. All my concerns are based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines--I don't have any investment either way in Bull Mountain being annexed/incorporated or not. If I had wanted to censor your additions, I simply would have blanked them--moving them to the talk page is the way these things can be worked out. Can you address any of my concerns please? Also, I unlinked "Friends of Bull Mountain" because it didn't seem notable enough to have an article. If it you think it is notable, please write an article. Thanks! Katr67 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The chart was originally presented as "raw data." Thus, no assertion of notability. I agree the chart should be kept off the page, unless at least two things are done: some exposition is added to explain why the numbers are notable, and the source for the chart is cited. See also WP:NOTE -Pete 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This section looks like something that may be of interest to users of a Washington County centric wiki, but here it just doesn't fit with what Wikipedia is. Same with a link to Friends of Bull Mountain. If the article is made, it'll probably be hit with a nomination for deletion because who outside of Tigard or Bull Mountain really cares about or has heard of it? I think a link to Friends of Bull Mountain would be appropriate though at the bottom or put in to replace the current redlink. --Billdorr 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A summary of the voting behavior in various precincts within BM may have been useful; the above detailed breakdown isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Though I agree with Katr, what is the relevance? If voters in the north part along Barrows were more opposed to annexation than the rest, so what?

We should annex them into Beaverton instead. That would teach 'em a lesson, all them voters would only wish they had joined Tigard, instead of being stuck with the most obnoxious municipal government in the world.

Just kidding, of course.  :) --EngineerScotty 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


The article is a bit light on reliable sources—or sources of any kind for that matter. While the length of the controversy is extreme compared to the rest of the article, that's probably about right for the balance of notability: one would hope a bedroom community would just quietly sit there.

It seems to me the controversy section should be something like:

“ The Bull Mountain community has been working to maintain its independence from annexation by Tigard since 2004. Several elections and a pending legal action have yet to decide the matter. ”

Followed by several references where the full bloody story can be found, if one is interested. —EncMstr 19:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourgrapes

Looks like an attempt at sour grapes to include this much analysis. If just for that one precinct we would have our city! And had Seattle not stolen the railroad from Tacoma then Tacoma would be great! Booooo, hoooooo. Not only is it sour grapes, but does not in anyway belong in wikipedia. The most important reason is that it is original research. Second it is NPOV. I don't have a problem with the detail (at least the pure numbers), but the analysis is not neutral. You are supposed to let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide. Me, looking at the numbers and I see two of three precincts saying no city. So my conclusion comes out, try again with just the one area, not those darn people over there spoiled my city! And for the record I was hoping the city would be formed, that way people in neighboring areas would jump on the bandwagon and form other new cites around Beaverton to stunt their expressed land grabbing schemes, like maybe a city of Nike (Philtown?) or city of Bethany. Aboutmovies 19:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC) PS: 56% is not overwhelming. 60% maybe, more like 66.6% (2/3) in my opinion. Aboutmovies 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-merge cleanup

The merger from Friends of Bull Mountain has created a great deal of duplication. Katr67 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I just did a quick text dump and didn't do any major clean-up myself. I saw a merge comment on the (now orphaned) talk page regarding notability that I agreed with and felt like doing it. Jason McHuff (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)