Talk:March for Our Lives Portland/Archive 1

Coupla thoughts...

Just a few ideas... The names of the student participants -- wonder if you might include them in the infobox, listed, with references; that might work better than having so many of them in the body of the article. You realize that if you float it, a possible AfDer might say, why is this march so different from the others? And they'll make a case for merging it into the main March for Our Lives page. So maybe if you focus on the uniqueness of the Portland demonstration, that might help. Generally, shorter, tighter, better honed content works; it's almost like the more you write, particularly if it's rather boring material (eg the march started at 10am and went to 2pm; the march started on time, etc) it causes eyeballs to roll around in the skulls of deletionists. Your references look solid; good job. I guess I'd say, emphasize the crowd size, and if possible, more of the content of what they were saying. Another thing a possible AfDer will say: is this a WP:BLP1E? I think you can counter this by focusing on impact -- particularly if you go into the planning and the consequences afterwards (any estimates of how many young Portlanders are registering to vote?) etc. One other thing: the band name with the period in the middle -- how about italicize it, to prevent confusion. Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC) One other thing: if you have more images of the march, I'd add them, maybe an image gallery at the bottom.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Good advice, I trimmed the Portugal. The Man blurb as suggested. It's no BLP, and WP:BLP1E should be not directly applicable. The four external links are still dubious, the EL section could be temporarily reduced to {{commonscat}} until a future Wikidata item links the future article with the commons category in a site-link. –84.46.53.38 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, BLP1E doesn't apply, maybe I'm too immersed in biography articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: I did add the names of organizers to the infobox, per your suggestion, but I've not yet removed mention of them in the article's prose. I thought the details were helpful, but there's also an ongoing discussion below re: privacy, so I invite you to participate there if you're interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for me, I would leave them in the main body as well as the infobox. In the article you have added cites and some ages - useful info, but if you tried to put it in the infobox it would clutter it badly. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I like having the names in the body and infobox, but the ages are not needed in the infobox. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

More than 10,000

The given more than 10,000 source mentions Portland only in and as a link to the Oreganian, but the Oreganian confirms 12,000. Maybe drop this estimation in The Hill. –84.46.53.38 (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I included "more than 10,000" as a confirmed number, then followed with other estimates, as reported by various sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert

I just reverted to a previous version of the article, but wanted to share this diff as a reminder to see if there's sourcing for Alyssa Diaz, Sophie Rupp, and Kien Truong. For the record, this diff shows the changes I reverted, though I did removed "reportedly" and correct the spelling of bell. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@MarchforOurLivesPDX: I invite you to discuss your edits to this article, if you're interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alyediaz: Same as above. Can we discuss your edits here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I was one of the organizers for the event, check the facebook page for hosts and Youth Manifesto on Oregon Live for Alyssa Diaz. I was trying to correct the students names that were involved and those that were not. I know there is a risk for being bias but I literally am just trying to write the correct facts. Also there have been some weirdos out there and the students didn't want their schools and ages on the wikipedia page

@Alyediaz: First and foremost, thanks for your work on the demonstration. I attended and support the cause. That said, all information at Wikipedia needs to be sourced appropriately. If there is an inaccuracy in the current text, I invite you to click on the inline citation and view the source verifying the claim. Hopefully this will explain why the article reads the way it does. If you have specific requests, can you present them here for us to discuss? Keep in mind, if we're going to change text, you should be able to explain your proposed changes by providing sourcing as evidence. Does this make sense? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: thank you for coming and your support

@Alyediaz: For sure, and just FYI, you can "sign" your messages by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) or clicking on the little pencil icon in the edit toolbar above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@PDX Kim: You're invited to discuss this article here as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

How much detail should we include for student organizers?

Based on Alyssa's concern above, I invite editors to discuss how much detail we should include about student organizers. Sourcing confirms most of the students' ages, names, and schools, but I do also want to respect privacy. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Savannah Jennings and Tatum Miller were not involved in the planning of the event, they were interviewed by press at the event I believe but were not involved. Kien Truong translated press releases for the team into Vietnamese, Sophie Rupp was the blonde female at the beginning of the march with a blow horn and she gave a speech and led the march with Ryan Tran and again Alyssa Diaz started the organization of the march on facebook, was a speaker, wrote an article for The Oregonian and did tv interviews

@Another Believer: I will try and locate sources for Sophie and Kien

Update: The current version of the article (following these trims) does not include which high schools the students attend. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@MB298: What do you think we should do about some of the inaccuracies identified above? I want the article to be accurate, but also based on sourcing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd support specifying, first of all, that the ages of the students were at the time of the march. Second of all, I'd think there would be some media inaccuracies as to who was an "organizer" of the march, as the lines can be fairly blurred. Maybe described in at least two different sources as an "organizer". MB298 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Savannah

Regarding Savannah: The article does not describe her as an organizer. It only says she spoke at the rally. Is this incorrect? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Savannah did not speak at the rally, the article was incorrect

@Alyediaz: I took another look at sourcing and I agree, she did not speak on stage (I misinterpreted this article). I removed mention of her name with this edit. Does this address your concern re: Savannah? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Tatum

Resolved

Regarding Tatum: This source says "Miller, a March for Our Lives organizer..." What do other editors think? I want to be accurate but also base on the article on sourcing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Tatum was not an organizer either, the article was incorrect

I see User:PDX Kim removed mention of Tatum. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Since I cannot find another source confirming Tatum as an organizer (and per User:MB298's suggestion above), I won't add their name back. I'll mark this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Kien, Sophie, Alyssa

Resolved

Regarding Kien and Sophie, yes, please find sourcing. And for yourself (Alyssa) as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

the last three sources have Alyssa Diaz in them and the Fox one was a tv interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyediaz (talk • contribs) 00:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• http://www.kptv.com/story/37798569/students-in-portland-preparing-for-saturdays-march-for-our-lives-rally ---Alyediaz
  •  Done Thanks for providing. I've added this source and your name to the article and infobox. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• https://www.glamour.com/story/37-students-why-march-matters ---Alyediaz
  •  Done Thanks again. I've added this as a supplemental inline citation, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• http://katu.com/news/local/organizers-make-final-preps-for-portland-march-for-our-lives-event ---Alyediaz @Another Believer: this source mentions Sophie Rupp
  •  Done @Alyediaz: I made some additional updates to the article based on this last source. Does this help? Have your requests re: Sophie and yourself been addresses? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alyediaz: I added Kien Truong to the article and infobox per this source. Does this address your concern re: Kien? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: yes thank you for all your help getting these things corrected! 209.210.19.44 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you're Alyediaz or not, but I'll go ahead and mark this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Background?

Extended content

Should the "Further information" link be replaced with an overview of the March for Our Lives article? Not sure how much detail include. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Actually, why recreate the wheel? Here is the current lead for March for Our Lives: March for Our Lives was a student-led demonstration in support of tighter gun control that took place on March 24, 2018, in Washington, D.C., with over 800 sibling events throughout the United States and around the world. Student organizers from Never Again MSD planned the march in collaboration with the nonprofit organization Everytown for Gun Safety. The event followed the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, which was described by many media outlets as a possible tipping point for gun control legislation. Protesters urged for universal background checks on all gun sales, raising the federal age of gun ownership and possession to the age of 21, closing of the gun show loophole, a restoration of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines in the United States. Turnout was estimated to be between 1.2 to 2 million people in the United States, making it one of the largest protests in American history. References Should we just use this for the start of the background section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi. I was just passing and noticed a couple of things. If I were to be assessing this for GA - I won't be, it's outside of my speciality areas - I would expect to see a citation for "making it one of the largest protests in American history" and one immediately after the in quotes "rousing" describing the Dylan cover. (There are also copy edit issues, but GOCE should sort them out.)

Nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Re: the protest size, I went ahead and added a source, the same one used in the lead of the March for Our Lives article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: "rousing", inline citations are generally preferred at the end of sentences, unless the claims are particularly controversial. In this case, we're talking about a description about a musical performance, so I'd say the inline citation is fine at the end of the sentence, in order to make the prose more readable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging into parent March for Our Lives article

Based on the current AFD the March for Our Lives Albany is likely to be merged into the parent article. Is there any reason why this article should remain stand alone? It's content and structure seem to mirror the Albany article. There isn't an issue with length in the parent article as most of the length is consumed with a needlessly long list of every march location. That isn't needed based on their being a child article of march locations. Springee (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'd argue the topic is independently notable and the current content sufficiently covers the local event. This article is in line with Women's March on Portland and March for Science Portland, the latter of which has been promoted to Good status. Just because some other articles about local events don't make the cut doesn't mean this one should be merged. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

There are four sections in the article. One is the lead, one is background that is common to the parent article. The remaining two sections could easily fit into the parent article as a logical subsection. Springee (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you expand on what makes it independently notable apart from the main March for Our Lives event world wide? What sets it apart from the rest, or what individual makes it notable by itself? WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient secondary coverage and article content to justify a separate article. Merging this content over to March for Our Lives, which is plenty long, should just make the article heavily skewed toward one local event. The parent article should remain general, and standalone articles are appropriate if there's enough secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: this is a well-developed article on a significant public event. The sourcing is sufficient for a stand-alone article and the amount of content that would need to be merged would be undue in the parent article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the same arguments are being made at the Albany version of the article. So why is it better to have information about local versions of a national event in separate articles? Springee (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge as per above. But there's also an apathy element here, like, is it really worth our time to fuss with merging this article -- whether it's here as a standalone, or merged into the March for Our Lives article, does it matter? My sense is this is a non-issue. Anybody voting merge should be ready to do the merging.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I think that's probably the best reason to keep it thus far. Really there isn't much information that is unique to this article. As I said before, two sections are entirely redundant if included in the parent article. The Local Organizers and Planning section is mostly trivial details such as traffic impacts, that permits were pulled, what times things were planned for etc. Other information such as the band that offered to play is redundant when in the next section it's stated that the band did play. The entire article could be reduced to a single paragraph within the parent article with no loss of encyclopedic content. I'll see how the Albany version of the article turns out then go from there. Springee (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Details in the "Local organizers and planning" are not trivial. Again, this content is similar to March for Science Portland and Women's March on Portland, and describes the organizers and impact a major event had on the city. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

All the details? No. But way too much is. Below I've quoted the section and struck through the trivial or material that was covered later (thus redundant).

Local student organizers included: Eliana Andrews, age 15 at the time of the march; Alyssa Diaz;[15] Zoe Dumm; Alexandria Goddard, age 18;[16][17] Finn Jacobson, age 14; Calum Nguyen, age 18;[18] Sophie Rupp;[19] Ryan Tran, age 17; Kien Truong;[20] Tyler White, age 17; and Ellie Younger, age 17.[21][22][23][24] [This material is of questionable weight but not outright trivial. ]

According to the Portland Police Bureau, organizers obtained proper permits for the demonstration.[25] The rally was scheduled to start at 10 am and end by 2 pm.[20][26] The Portland-based rock band Portugal. The Man reached out to organizers and offered to help.[23][21][27] Leading up to the event, around 9,000 people indicated plans to attend,[20] and approximately 20,000 people had expressed interest in participating, on the event's Facebook page.[21][28] [This is basically a useless paragraph. "The Man's involvement isn't trivial but is covered later. The number who planned to show up is trivia given we have attendance numbers later. ]

The Portland Bureau of Transportation planned to close all lanes of West Burnside Street from Broadway to 9th Avenue, as well as Southwest Broadway from Burnside to Yamhill Street, from approximately 10:30 am to noon. The agency and event organizers also encouraged attendees and other downtown visitors to use public transit, and to expect delays within the vicinity of the march route.[28][29] The MAX Light Rail stations Pioneer Square South and Pioneer Square North were temporarily closed, and several bus lines had detours for a few hours.[19] Lyft offered march participants free rides in Portland and 49 other U.S. cities.[30][31] [Nothing encyclopedic here... nothing]

The march route was determined by event organizers and police, and plans were made to have safety monitors present.[19] [Same as last section]

What's left is the names of the organizers. The final section is, as a percentage, less trivia but is still mostly trivia. Springee (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the results of the Albany page[[1]] and the reasons above I've created a AfD page for this article. [[2]] Springee (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Apologies on my part for the AfD. It was my failure to understand the correct process for getting wider consensus for a merger. The article should be merged so I will look at getting community input to that end. Springee (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:SPINOFF #1. wumbolo ^^^ 21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Spinoff would apply in this case because there is very little content here that is both unique to this article and is off encyclopedic value. But, absent the effort needed to creat a RfC I don't think local consensus would support the merge. I would oppose GA status for the same reasons this should be merged into the parent article. Springee (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

... not according to consensus. I recommend accepting and moving on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There was only a consensus to end the AfD early as malformed since it was the wrong tool to address a disputed merger. A RfC or AfM are still open options. Springee (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Articles about major nationwide and international protests should generally not contain lists of every single march location, but should rather branch them off to "list of..." articles and stand-alone articles. Keeping everything in the main article would make it incredibly massive, and prevent succinct summarization. March locations should generally be placed in the "list of..." article when only a few sentences of content can be derived from reliable secondary sources. This article has many paragraphs worth of text that are derived from reliable secondary sources, so it fails this requirement and should stay as a valid spin-off article. (The Albany article contained a bunch of lengthy quotes that should have been summarized, a lot of "reactions" that did not connect to the Albany March for Our Lives protest, and many claims that were either uncited or linked to primary or clearly biased sources. These issues are not present in the Portland article). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:March for Our Lives Portland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 13:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Another I'll pull for review this afternoon. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe it would be better to say that all of the listed organisers were teenagers at the time, rather than age each one individually?
  • May I ask why? Is this for privacy purposes? I certainly want to follow Wikipedia's standards re: privacy of people (especially minors), but I also think they elected to share their names with press as organizers of a major public event. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The names are fine, as public press record, but the ages strike me as too much detail about minors. It's not oversightable or anything like that, of course, but IMO, it is trivia when a more general statement would work and flow better. Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Alright, I've removed their ages. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• "The Unpresidented Brass Band also marched." The who now? If they don't have an article, they might not be notable enough to mention.
  • Removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Images are all fine.
• Do we have an event logo that could be used? I think [3] would be PD-ineligible?
  • I'm not sure. Is this URL appropriate for uploading the logo here at English Wikipedia under fair use, just in case? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That works fine as an image source for a logo, and I'd suggest it's just as PD-ineligible as the main March for Our Lives logo is, which is hosted on Commons. Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Courcelles: I am not comfortable uploading this image to Commons. I don't mean to pass along the work to someone else, but are you willing to upload the image? If not, I'd be willing to upload under fair use here at ENWP. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Also, I believe only one image can be added to the infobox, so would the logo replace the current image? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh, good point. And I'm way beyond the actual GA criteria anyhow. Courcelles (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Sourcing looks good.

Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• The article contains a lot of information which is either trivial (not WP:TRIVIA) or redundant to the parent article. This article was twice nominated for deletion. My nomination was the first but it was improperly done as my intent was to propose it be merged into the parent article. The second nomination is here [[4]]. I would note the number of editors (and the closer), especially ones not involved with the article, who felt the article violated WP:NOTNEWS, and would really be better as a part of the parent March for Our Lives article. The March for Our Lives Albany article was merged away for basically this same reason. Springee (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Springee, two previous deletion discussions and this clear preference not to merge the article show other editors disagree with you. I don't feel a need to say more. Thanks for the review, Courcelles. I will address your concerns as soon as I can. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I would not say that we have a clear consensus not to delete. The AfD was clear not to delete. The first one was closed early as malformed. The local consensus was to keep but we haven't actually posed an open RfC. It also doesn't address the large amount of trivial or redundant content in the article. Perhaps the best way to handle this is an open RfC since AfM is not likely to get much traction beyond those who have edited the article. Springee (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Interesting discussion, however, notability isn't part of the GA criteria as written. It seems odd, but, indeed, it isn't something I'm supposed to worry about. Sources I have checked, and the sources support the content, and there's enough of them to support all the content, that's as far as GA worries itself about sourcing, not whether they add up to notability for a stand alone article. Personally, I think they do, but that's irrelevant to whether this review passes or fails. Accordingly, it passes as the GA criteria are satisfied. 16:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Interesting. Kind of odd that but that's also good to know if people say "it's a GA" as a reason not to merge the content or remove a lot of the trivial information. Springee (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.