Talk:Portland, Oregon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Portland v. Portland metro

I recently made this edit, relating to the appropriate scope of the article about the city of Portland vs. the Portland metro area. Listing out features of the various suburbs as well as the city belongs in athe article about the metro area, or the distinction between the two topic areas disappears and the two articles should be merged.

One needs not agree with my logic to see it as a thoughtful and good-faith contribution. I have now been reverted twice on this edit, the second time with an unnecessary and offensive accusation of disruptive editing. So I'm done. Do what you will. — Ipoellet (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ipoellet: Perhaps it was unnecessary, and it appears that you did in fact take offense. But in the future, before re-inserting text that has been reverted, please consider following the advice of WP:BRD which in short encourages editors to make Bold edits, encourages editors that disagree to Revert the edit, and then, if the 1st editor still believes the edit should be made, states that they should Discuss the matter on the talk page in hopes of achieving a consensus.

FYI, I would not have reverted you if your change had been consistent. You left the Portland Waldorf School which is in Milwaukie, and, what made the most difference to my decision, you did not change the text of the sentence which says "The city and surrounding metropolitan area is also home to ..." That was the reason for my somewhat cryptic edit summary in my revert. Had you also changed that part of the sentence, I would have let your edit stand.

The larger question is how to divide things up. Portland Waldorf has "Portland" in its name, but is located in a different city. Jesuit has a Portland street address, but is within the city limits of Beaverton.

I am more than open to having a discussion about the appropriate scope for the education section of this article. I hope you will participate. YBG (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I saw the continued reverts without changing the wording, and in spite of the edit summaries which explained the wording wasn't been changed, as disruptive. I don't really care either way if the schools include those in the Metro area or not. It just needs to be consistent, and editors need to agree beforehand to make the change or not. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

BilCat "Continued reverts" is an overstatement. Ipoellet only made one revert. YBG (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. Apparently they didn't understand your edit summary, writing on my talk page that Someone reverted my edit with no explanation whatsoever. So not purposefully disruptive, but they just didn't understand what you meant. Hopefully we can get this worked out now. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@YBG: After taking a bit more holiday-ing to calm down a little, I've come to the realization that courtesy and productive development of the encyclopedia require me to engage a little bit more, and to apologize for allowing my anger to so dominate my last contribution.

We clearly had a difference of perspective regarding this edit summary. You believed it to be a minimal but adequate statement of your reason for reverting; I felt it was so "cryptic" as to amount to no statement or reason at all. This is a normal instance of the inexactness of verbal communication, and I should have been quicker to recognize it as such, and to respond accordingly by initiating a talk-page discussion. Instead I treated you as a less-productive editor who goes around doing what they want willy-nilly without recognizing they are part of a collaboration (they exist!). This was unfair to you, and I am sorry.

I fully acknowledge the importance of BRD as a valuable best practice. However, I must point out that you deviated from BRD yourself. WP:BRD states: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." You have identified two ways you could have immediately refined my edit so that it would be acceptable to you (additionally removing Portland Waldorf, and adjusting the introductory phrase) rather than reverting it. I do not point this out as an accusation, because I'm sure you had valid subjective reasons to proceed as you did, but to highlight our communication disconnect.

My response to BilCat's accusation of disruptive editing, however, stands unchanged. It was over the top and aggressive, and my objection is appropriate.

Your identification of the "larger question" is valid. I tend to view such issues in terms of the legal/political boundaries (i.e. "city limits"), but I have long recognized that there are different and equally valid ways to identify the extent of a city. I encourage the community to pursue that question, but at this point I do not believe I will be able to constructively contribute to the discussion. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for re-engaging. I acknowledge that my edit summary was cryptic without understanding that the text within the quote marks was a direct quotation from the article. I should have said something like The section says "The city and surrounding metropolitan area is also home to ...". As to why I did not improve your edit by changing the quoted phrase and removing Waldorf, my reason is quite simple: I wanted the article to be internally consistent, and changing the clearly-stated scope of this section was a change that I felt required consensus.

As for BilCat, I suggest you assume good faith and move on expecting - and perhaps looking for - opportunities for the two of you to have a more positive interaction, hopefully sooner rather than later. YBG (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources to improve the article

The two references to Grist lists of greenest cities should be removed. The lists are essentially clickbait and have no methodology behind them. They are opinion pieces. I can find no source online for Portland ranking anywhere in the world's top cities for sustainability using metrics or methodology. I would go as far to say the statement "Portland is frequently recognized as one of the world's most environmentally conscious cities " should be removed or amended until suitable sources are located and added. The Popular Science source is much more credible, but says nothing about global rankings, only comparing Portland to other U.S. cities.

- Accwyse (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Found this while attempting to locate a source for a {dead-link} and thought it was too good to not put here. It is a HUGE list of sources about Portland. Hope a future editor finds it useful to improve this article.

• History of Portland & Oregon: A Selected Bibliography, Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, Revised 3/3/2010 Compiled by Nicholas T. Starin, City Planner II. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accwyse (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look for better sources. If after a couple of days, you haven't found anything to substantiate the claims in the article, I would support deleting the statements. YBG (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

update needed

I'm spotting many outdated things. Graywalls (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, Feel free to identify needed updates here for others to review as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just noticed things are outdated. For example, the most recent materials I find says Portland is down to 7th most breweries. Down from the first when it was written. There are probably many things involving numbers and ranking that is of out of date now. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

page length, excessive media

This page is really causing a major lag (minutes) loading up in editing. There are too many pictures and with page length nearing 200kB, some trimming would be ideal. Graywalls (talk). I checked NYC and Seattle and they both appear quite large too. Although, according to WP:LENGTH, it's suggested that >100kB should be split. I certainly had issues with severe lagging.Graywalls (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Panorama

@Graywalls: I have fixed the potential issue of long loading times for File:Portland from Pittock Mansion October 2019 panorama 2.jpg by adding commons:Template:LargeImage to the file description. Now users with a slow connection can see the image using ZoomViewer, which I've tested using my slow mobile connection. Anyways, this presumes that the user actually wants to view the photo in high res, as the thumbnail on the page will load quickly regardless. The photo which it replaces, File:Portland Skyline glow July 2017 pan - Oregon.jpg, is quite blurry (not to mention tilted and grainy) at 100% and there is very little benefit to seeing it at full resolution compared to thumbnail size, so the desire to see the full image on a slow connection wasn't really much of a benefit in the first place. Anyways, it should no longer be a problem with ZoomViewer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with replacing that picture you replaced though. It was one of the fewer nightscapes of the city. Graywalls (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the purpose of a nightscape is not simply for the purpose of having a dark sky, but to show a city under artificial lighting conditions. My new photo does exactly that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Media

What should we include in the "media" section of this article? I feel that listing out every newspaper, but barely any mention about other medium gives undue weight to newspaper, and even special group that goes beyond just printing newspaper. I propose putting a few representative major papers of the area, a few radio and news stations and putting the rest into media in Portland article. Graywalls (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Official name

The city website is indeed called Portland, Oregon - which seems pretty necessary. I'm not convinced that is its official name, it was incorporated as the City of Portland.[1] as its website says.[2] So why is this being reverted? @Dawnseeker2000: ? Doug Weller talk 09:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The city's modern documents seem to use Oregon, e.g. Financial Reports and Comprehensive Plans. The shortened form seems to be used in contracts and council bills. I think it's better to keep Oregon in the official names section if neither has an overwhelming majority in use. SounderBruce 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd/Federal Deployment

Feel like Portland's history section should include its significance as a national "testing ground" for deployment of federal law officers against protestors? Relevant articles are here and here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meangreenbeanmachine (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitely think it should be incorporated, however the extra detail under Law and Government probably does not belong there FiduciaryAkita (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests

Acknowledging the George Floyd protests have put Portland in the international spotlight, I question if an entire subsection dedicated to the protests is necessary here. How about instead having a section summarizing Protests in Portland, Oregon, linking to articles about specific notable protests? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of 2019 United States Census Bureau American Community Survey

The ACS is a reliable source so why is it being removed? The data on the page is from 2010.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Racial Makeup of Portland (2019)   White alone (77.26%)   Black alone (5.64%)   Native American alone (0.76%)   Asian alone (8.15%)   Pacific Islander alone (0.33%)   Some other race alone (2.18%)   Two or more races (5.68%)

Racial Makeup of Portland excluding Hispanics from Racial Categories (2019) NH=Non-Hispanic   White NH (70.49%)   Black NH (5.50%)   Native American NH (0.60%)   Asian NH (8.11%)   Pacific Islander NH (0.30%)   Other race NH (0.11%)   Two or more races NH (5.21%)   Hispanic Any Race (9.66%)

Racial Makeup of Hispanics in Portland (2019)   White alone (70.01%)   Black alone (1.41%)   Native American alone (1.66%)   Asian alone (0.40%)   Pacific Islander alone (0.37%)   Other race alone (21.35%)   Two or more races (4.80%)

According to 2019 US Census Bureau American Community Survey one-year estimates (which is conducted annually for cities over 65,000 via sampling), Portland's population was 77.3% White (70.5% Non-Hispanic White and 6.8% Hispanic White), 5.6% Black or African American, 0.8% Native American and Alaskan Native, 8.2% Asian, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 2.2% Some Other Race, and 5.7% from two or more races.

If Hispanics are treated as a separate category from race, Portland's population was 70.5% White, 5.5% Black or African American, 0.6% Native American and Alaskan Native, 8.1% Asian, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 0.1% Some Other Race, 5.2% from two or more races, and 9.7% Hispanic-Latino.

White Americans remain the largest racial/ethnic group at either 77.30% (including White Hispanics) or 70.5% (excluding White Hispanics).

The Asian population continues to remain the second largest group at 8.2% of the population (including Asian Hispanics) or 8.1% (excluding Asian Hispanics).

The Black population is the third largest group at 5.6% of the population (including Black Hispanics) or 5.5% (excluding Black Hispanics).

By ethnicity, 9.7% of the total population is Hispanic-Latino (of any race) and 90.3% is Non-Hispanic (of any race). If treated as a category separate from race, Hispanics are the second largest minority group in Portland. Most Hispanics self-identify as White (70.0%) with the remainder choosing Other Race (21.4%), Multiracial (4.8%), American Indian and Alaskan Native (1.7%), Asian (0.4%), Black (1.4%), and Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (0.4%).

References

Red house

Someone added a sub-section about red house. I don't believe even a mention of it is WP:DUE. It's just one of billion of things that happen in Portland and I am not seeing how it is significant enough to be considered for inclusion here. I think it's better suited for linking from another article. Graywalls (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. No need for a standalone section about this event. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jjgotshwifty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)