Talk:Oregon State Board of Geologist Examiners

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Content

Since the material in this article is pretty much a rewrite from the agency's webpage, can we get some more info added from another source? Katr67 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some history to this article. Geohumphrey (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed from article

I removed the following text from this article:

The OSBGE adminstrator is not a professional geologist and many Oregon geologists feel this is a problem. A committee of geologists has approached the Oregon Legislature to request changes be made in the board's makeup and authority. The Oregon Association of Independant Consulting Geologists cite questionable and possibly inappropriate actions on the part of the board under its current administration as reasons for making the requested changes.

This discussion provides little to the article, other than "griping". It may help if you include how many geologists have approached the Oregon Legislature, and how many members the "Oregon Association of Independent Consulting geologists" represent. Last time I checked there was only one, maybe two members of the association (but I could be wrong). I don't believe that this is an actual concern for the majority of Oregon Geologists.

-GeoHumphrey—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geohumphrey (talk • contribs) 21:26, May 29, 2007

I agree, having removed the same material from the article once myself. It's not a matter of the material being controversial. If this is notable, it will have been covered in a reliable source (newspaper, committee hearing transcript, ???) and can be cited in the article. Otherwise it either reflects personal opinion and/or original research and does not belong in an encyclopedia, or else has not reached a level of notability. Katr67 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two comments above are from authors of the article being disputed and their removal of edited content is evidence of non-neutrality. There is a dispute in Oregon over the legitimacy of this organization. A member of the current board is named Humphreys and it may be assumed that "GeoHumphreys" is that person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemrox (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in this article does not indicate non-neutrality. Please read the links I've provided to understand my concerns about the article. Until I edited Wikipedia I never even heard of the OSBGE. Please read about assuming good faith. And if Geohumphrey has a conflict of interest, it's always good to state that up front. You can read more about COI disclosure in the link I've provided. Katr67 (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am unaware that there is a dispute in Oregon over the "legitimacy" of OSBGE. The existence of OSBGE is mandated by Oregon State Law, and therefore I assume that makes OSBGE "legitimate". Like all boards, OSBGE has come under fire from time to time for it's actions and decisions. Some of these are warranted and some are not. I think that past actions of the Board can be discussed in this article provided that citations are provided, and personally grievances are left out. The section I deleted appeared to be a personal attack on OSBGE. I did not hide the deletion but rather posted its text here and discussed why I deleted it. If you can provide citations or supporting information, and a history of the issue, the deleted section may be salvageable. Geohumphrey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]