Talk:Portland, Oregon

	Portland, Oregon was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 26, 2005 Peer review Reviewed May 24, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former good article nominee

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Oregon may be able to help!

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. 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. Wayne Morse & Members of the Oregon House are the current Collaborations of the week. B This page is rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article is rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

Archives

Archive 1: Discussions began before July 2005 Archive 2: Discussions began after July 2005 Archive 3: Discussions July 2006 through Jan 2007 Archive 4: Discussions August 2006 through March 2008

[edit] Portland Nicknames

In the main information box, it gives the following as Portland's nickname: Rose City, Stumptown, Bridgetown, PDX, Beervana, Brewtopia, Beertown, and Little Beirut Does anyone else think that for a lead info box that maybe this should just give the main one? To be honest, I've lived in Portland my entire life and have only heard of "Rose City" being the nickname and of course in online situations, "PDX". Although I don't doubt that maybe some call Portland by these other names, but would it be more appropriate to maybe list the other nicknames in the article rather than all of them in the info box? Maybe even a reason for the nicknames. Kman543210 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I have been here for 12 yrs and have never heard anyone call it "Beervana, Brewtopia or Beertown". The rest I have heard.
Can we agree to list only "Rose City" or none at all? --travisthurston05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some googling, and found "Beervana" describing the brew industry and not the city as a whole. Also "brewtopia" and "beertown" are used by other cities and events and are now way unique to the Rose City. On a side note, Seattle has one nickname, LA and SF have, for the most part, "well-known" nicknames listed.--travisthurston 18:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree about less nicknames versus more. However, "Beervana" is common enough that PBS used it in a show about the history of beer in Portland.Tedder (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames II

Recent editing activity questions some of the nicknames presented by the article. I provide this research to help resolve the issue.

—EncMstr (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

I added a start for an economy section per a discussion around March of 2007, (now archived). I tried to find as many initial references as I could for the information, but feel that the economy section could use some extensive peer-review and expansion. It might also be beneficial if anyone is up to doing a quick copy-edit or would like to wikify any content that I did not format ideally. (I am afterall not a frequent contributer... or not frequent enough to go without some help.) JordanRL (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections

I recently added the Economy section to the article per a discussion that took place over a year ago. I'm a bit appalled that nothing had been added in the interium, and looking at the article I think there are several potential sections that could be added to provide a better article about the city, and promote this page to FA status. Here are some topics I think might enhance the Portland, Oregon article:

• Architecture
• Shanghai Tunnels (Culture)
• Portland Development Commission [This should probably be made into its own page as well, especially considering that it's linked at least once on the article and the PDC is of relatively high importance within the city; perhaps the planning a development section under Law & Government should be broken into its own section]
• City Politics (Law & Government) [This should probably include a list of mayors, and highlights from defining political moments for the city, such as the Mult. County Income Tax, the contraversy over the street renaming to "Chavez", the stark contrast of Portland politics and politics in the rest of the state, etc.]
• Free Speech [This section needs a LOT more in it... there's a lot to say on the topic for Portland]
• Parks & attractions [This section could be expanded to include nearby recreational activites; for instance it would probably be of interest to note that Mt. Hood provides year round skiing, and the Oregon Coast provides year rounds surfing and fishing, and that both are within a one and a half hour drive from city center]
• Notable residents [This section is linked to the larger article, however a brief summary of some of the more prominent members would benefit the article.]
• Infrastructure [It would add a lot to the article to have a few subsections discussing the sewer systems, utilities, police/fire/rescue, hospitals/medical facilities (as opposed to simply medical schools), and other basic infrastructure related topics.]
• Unique Climate Situations [A very small section under climate about the Gorge Effect Weather might be pertinent, as it is a situation very unique to the city and makes predicting the weather much more difficult in Portland than many other locations, particularly in the Winter.]

These are a few of my suggestions, and not all of them might be appropriate. They all, however, would provide soemthing to the article that I think is missing currently. JordanRL (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free Speech Clarification

User:Loodog asked for a clarification of why and/or how the Oregon Constitution provides more extensive free speech protections than the federal constitution. Per the linked article on the Oregon Constitution:

The Oregon Constitution is easier to amend than its Federal counterpart. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states. Oregon only requires a simple majority to vote in favor of an amendment once it has been referred to the voters either by a simple majority of the legislature or through an initiative petition.

And

• Natural rights inherent in people
• Freedom of worship
• Freedom of religious opinion
• No religious qualification for office
• No money to be appropriated for religion
• No religious test for witnesses or jurors
• Manner of administering oath or affirmation
• Freedom of speech and press
• Unreasonable searches or seizures
• Administration of justice

...

• Ex-post facto laws; laws impairing contracts; laws depending on authorization in order to take effect; laws submitted to electors
• Suspension of operation of laws

...

• Corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate
• Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature
• Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power
• Quartering soldiers

...

• Taxes and duties; uniformity of taxation (amended 1917)
• Enumeration of rights not exclusive

...

• Work and training for corrections institution inmates; work programs; limitations; duties of corrections director (adopted 1994; amended 1997, 1999)
• Rights of victim in criminal prosecutions and juvenile court delinquency proceedings (adopted 1999)
• Rights of victim and public to protection from accused person during criminal proceedings; denial of pretrial release (adopted 1999)
• Term of imprisonment imposed by court to be fully served; exceptions (adopted 1999)
• Person convicted of certain crimes not eligible to serve as juror on grand jury or trial jury in criminal case (adopted 1999)

I'm not sure how these things can be clearly conveyed within that sentence other than the link to the Oregon Constitution article, which already exists. JordanRL (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of these things are related to free speech being protected more in Oregon than from the U.S. Constitution. "Freedom of speech and press" is in the U.S. Constitution as well, is it not? Kman543210 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these tangental provisions in the Oregon Constitution enumerate what the Supreme Court sees as symbolic speech, however perhaps it would be better if the sentence talked about expanded general rights in addition to speech, instead of free speech specifically? EDIT: In addition, the cited article fromt he Portland Mercury explains the exact wording that was intended: the Oregon Constitution classifies stripping as a form of free speech, there-by limitting the ability of municipalities to regulate them like they do in other states. JordanRL (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Oregon Constitution provides much greater free speech protection than the U.S. Constitution. Recent examples include "adult" materials and strip clubs. A 1987 Oregon Supreme court decision is explained in the NY Times. —EncMstr (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of my law professors mention this, but I think this is something far better suited for the Oregon article or the article on the OR Constitution, and then maybe a sentence in this article, as obviously the situation is not unique to Portland. And the whole stronger state constitution thing is not unique to Oregon (especially given the fact that our constitution was "borrowed" from Indiana's, which was likely borrowed from another state as well). Now the interpretations (thats why stripping is speech) and the work of Hans Linde on the interpretations of the state constitution are somewhat unique. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments wanted on MAX, Streetcar maps

I have made maps of the MAX Light Rail and Portland Streetcar systems and submitted them to Picture Peer Review. If anyone would like to, feel free to comment on them there. Thanks, Jason McHuff (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's some really extraordinary work Jason, thanks for sharing! -Pete (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. As a follow-up, I have sent the MAX map to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (see the discussion on it here) and have decided to place it in the MAX article. Jason McHuff (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] use of "coined"?

It has been coined the greenest city in the United States, and second greenest in the world.

This, to me, did not appear to be the proper use of the word "coined"; I thought "called" was probably better, but I'm leaving it alone. Unschool (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Why not go ahead and change it? Coldmachine^Talk 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The dark side

Perhaps there should be a section detailing some of the negative/scandalous/controversial things that have happened in Portland. Just because reality isn't made out of 100% sunshine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.161 (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If it can be verified, and written from a neutral point of view then why not sign up for an account and go ahead? Coldmachine^Talk 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than lumping all the "dark side" stuff into one section, why not place any appropriate, verified information into the corresponding category in the article for a more balanced view? Kman543210 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep Portland Weird Festival

Perhaps a correction or addition should be made about the Keep Portland Weird Festival - "As a city with a strong tradition of bizarre festivals such as the Keep Portland Weird Festival,[31]..." The copyright for the slogan is held by Music Millennium. To my knowledge there has only been one festival under that name so far, and that was hosted by the Multnomah County Library's Central branch in Oct. 2007. The library was granted a one-time use of the slogan; this has been granted again for the 2008 festival, to be held Nov. 8th. Here's a link to the event page for reference - www.multcolib.org/events/kpw.html. 192.220.129.43 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Alison

I've never heard of this festival and I've lived here all my life. I couldn't find any sources online for it, either. Perhaps not noteworthy? pinotgris 06:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I removed two photos (barn, newspaper box) just now that were quite frankly unencyclopedic and didn't add value to the article. I'm also questioning the photo of a beer bottle ... perhaps a picture of the Widmer Brothers Brewery on Interstate would be a better representation for that section? Just a thought. pinotgris 06:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Education should have its own article. I'm proposing this. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Any consideration to creating more subarticles for the main article? Michellecrisp (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles don't get created by vote, but by research and writing. I wholeheartedly support the creation of an article about education in Portland, and a brief summary in this article. If you want to write it, I will do what I can to help. -Pete (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a vote, thanks. But aim to notify other editors of plans to improve article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my comment. If you want to split off the education section please go ahead. -Pete (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade against redlinks

Red links aren't bad- non-notable links are bad, but red links are okay- they show that Wikipedia isn't complete. Please don't delete them without a good reason. Tedder (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, as is outlined in Wikipedia:Red link. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We simply can't have articles with many red links, Wikipedia is not a list of most or every school, entity in a city etc. See WP:NOTDIR Many red links especially those that have been there for months may be considered non notable if no article has been created. If red links are to stay there should be one or two citations indicating notability, and a citation shouldn't be the website of the red link entity itself. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the red link on Portland's chinese newspaper, many cities have weekly or daily Chinese language newspapers yet don't rate a mention in the city's article: Sydney#Media , Melbourne#Media, Toronto#Media . Whilst Vancouver#Multicultural_media and San_francisco#Media has blue links. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First, with the other cities see WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why we usually do not take into consideration other stuff. Second, if you were familiar with Portland then you would know that not every school or entity in the city has a mention or even a red link in the article (see the history of the page for the continual removal of non-notables). With NOT, well then you should remove the entire list of schools/entities then and not just the red links, otherwise you are selectively applying the guideline. Anyways, those red links that remain are links the regular editors feel half a chance at becoming blue links. And there is no time limit, so there is no rush to create these articles. As Wikipedia:Red link is the only controlling guideline on this topic (removal of red links), we should follow it, which is to say that red links should only be removed if the article to be created would likely fail WP:N. As we've said, that is not the case with the red links you have removed. As sourcing to show notability, um well, per WP:N that gets done on that topics article. Otherwise we would need to provide multiple cites to demonstrate notability for everything on the page, plus then cites for what exactly it was used for on this page. Of course then there is also the whole thing that notability only controls article existence, not the content, and this goes for all your edits on this article (per edit summary of "we only need to list most notable ones"). That is, the most un-notable person in the world who does not have and never will have an article on Wikipedia can be included in another article. To quote WP:N: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Aboutmovies (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I am not from Portland I am also applying the test that Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopaedia that anyone can read to gather concise information about a city etc. I've seen many a time non notable entities added as red links that never get converted to stubs or even citations added. you say "And there is no time limit, so there is no rush to create these articles." well I am challenging the existence of these red links, no time limit sounds ridiculous to me, red links cannot simply exist forever on Wikpedia articles, there is of course nothing stopping anyone readding redlinks with citation in future. It is always good to compare with other well developed city articles in wikipedia especially good articles and featured articles. you have misinterpreted WP:NOT yes it says not a list of everything but that does not mean remove EVERYTHING. it does mean the most notable in any city, such as the most notable museums, most notable sports played, the most notable historical events. simple. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I often do look at other FA and GA articles (for instance Hillsboro, Oregon that I worked up to GA) and many of those cities do have lists like these, they just happen to be in sub articles. If these sub articles were created, then the collection of notable people/places/things can be moved there, such as has been done with List of people from Portland, Oregon, List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon, and List of mayors of Portland, Oregon. But that still would not justify removing red links just because they are red links, per WP:REDLINKS. Apparently you think it is fine to remove red links that are uncited, but just as unsourced blue links remain? The articles themselves, such as Daily Journal of Commerce may not be sourced at all. So it seems the only criteria is that they are red links, which to quote WP:REDLINKS: Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.

Misinterpret, well tell me what this means then in regards to the "most notable in any city": Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered).

Next, as to what would be the most notable in any city, I would find it difficult to image than you would have access to the paid archives of most US newspapers and other media that would be used to source these articles and thus per WP:N demonstrate notability. Without third-party, WP:RS, how are you judging notability? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpret? you didn't let me use WP:OTHERSTUFF argument with regard to Chinese times now you're using it here? If you have access to paid archives, it means it still can be citated. Please provide references to improve article. Also as per WP:Red link perhaps you would like to try converting some red links to blue links? Lastly, it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that those wanting to include info need to justify its conclusion and notability with citations, perhaps you can help in this regard? Since a number of people are claiming these red links are notable, I'd like to see some citations for it. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Michelle, it's pretty funny you're suggesting that AM convert redlinks to bluelinks, as that is all he does here. He initiated a high-priority redlink list to help out the rest of us in this regard. Wiki is slow, we're all volunteers, and the redlinks will get turned into bluelinks eventually. Check this out You've actually stumbled upon a highly-active and aware WikiProject that watches this article. I agree a great deal of it needs cleanup, like the section on knitting and such, but honestly, give us a break here. You're dangerously close to templating the regulars. I think you'd get a bit further if you discussed more of your suggested changes here on the talk page. Again, it's great you're sparking us to take a closer look at this article, I personally tend to avoid it like the plague, but give us the benefit of the doubt when we tell you certain things are notable despite being redlinks. You can check out WP:ORE for more about our project. Katr67 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to WP:OWN#EVENTS and rather than telling me it's notable, how about some evidence? by that I mean 1 or 2 reliable ctiations. I'd like to avoid original research here or in any article in Wikipedia. It is merely a suggestion to start building up some stubs from red links. That is the intention of red links. I'd appreciate if you have good faith in my edits/comments too. thanks for drawing my attention to the red link list. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping in

The Yeon bit is true, and can be cited. The Houston bit is true, and can be cited. The Chinese Times is a significant paper, and should not be removed.

There's lots of room for improvement in this article, but simply deleting stuff without discussion is not the best way to get there. -Pete (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If the chinese times is significant, please provide citation to establish notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. http://www.echo-media.com/MediaDetaiLNP.asp?IDNumber=14448 -Pete (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Michelle, as Katr has pointed out, you're dealing with three editors with a number of GAs and FAs under our belt, and who work continually to foster collaboration. I think we all appreciate the outside perspective on an important article that's needed improvement for some time, but a little irritated by the way you've chosen to present yourself. I would welcome the opportunity to improve this article, but am not enjoying the form it's taking thus far. -Pete (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portland international beerfest

A Google news search reveals only 1 story when I searched "all dates". Whilst a Google search reveals mainly self published sources. So I'm putting this up for discussion, is this event actually notable? Michellecrisp (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't much, but Lonely Planet mentions it in their Portland guide. Outside Magazine called it "America's Oktoberfest". Here's a NYT article that mentions it: "and a beer festival every July". Finally, here's another NYT article from 1999: "The Oregon Brewers Festival will bring an estimated 90,000 beer fans to Tom McCall Waterfront Park". Tedder (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I found three articles in newspapers that have more than trivial coverage, plus mentions in papers from as far away as Omaha and Seattle. And that doesn't count Willamette Week articles or those from The Portland Tribune. So I would say yes, it is notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable enough. Oregon has been known over the last couple of decades as, probably, the most significant microbrew region in the U.S. (largely attributable to the quality of Willamette Valley hops), and the Portland beer fest is, I think, the biggest event showcasing that. I suspect that now it's getting to the point that lots of regions would compete, but I think Oregon pretty much put craft brewing on the U.S. map. I do think there's often a tendency to get too many of these industry promotion events on articles like this…but this event actually is a pretty big deal.

Also, in case there's any confusion, WP:NOTE is only an inclusion criterion for articles. Often there are subjects that merit mention in an article like this one, without meeting the criterion. (In this case, though, I think the point is moot -- if somebody wanted to write an article about the beer fest, I don't think it would be deleted.)

Thanks for looking up those articles, Tedder and AM -- I'll work at least one of them in. -Pete (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for providing references. yes I am aware of Portland's reputation for brewing. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think we're confusing two events. I believe the Oregon Brewers Festival is the big event that's existed for a long time, and is mentioned in the NY Times articles, while the Portland International Beerfest is a more recent addition. I'm not 100% sure of that. I think maybe a single sentence mentioning all the beer events would be sufficient. -Pete (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pete- it does sound like there is some confusion. I'm certainly confused- I didn't know there was more than one event, and I can almost see that are of the waterfront from the window behind my desk. It's probably worth clearing that up in the article- if we are confused, some readers probably are too! Tedder (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to clear up the differences. -Pete (talk)

The Brewers festival brings up 111 articles on Google news search, definitely notable! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Hi, I would like to discuss merging Rip City into Portland, Oregon. Its just the explanation for the nickname. --DerRichter (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is already pretty long, how about Nicknames of Portland, Oregon in order to move even more content out of the main article? Aboutmovies (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a logical idea. Is there precedent on other city articles for this? If so they might help form the basis of the new article, and how to go about moving content etc. Coldmachine^Talk 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Portland, Oregon nicknames earlier, but got sidetracked by life. :-) See the first section of this talk page: A long list of nicknames were included in the article at one time. While interesting, they don't provide a great deal of information about the city, so splitting them and developing them to their logical conclusion makes excellent sense to me. —EncMstr (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of creating one of those nicknames pages. Do I have the authority to delete Rip City when doing this? All of the information in it is unsourced anyways. We could either add the nicknames to List of city nicknames in the United States or create List of city nicknames in Oregon because it seems like there are a lot. What do you think? --DerRichter (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're an admin, you can't delete pages. However, the better solution is to move Rip City, fix its problems, and expand with other names. —EncMstr (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of creating a Nicknames of Portland, Oregon article, and I will attest to Rose City, Stumptown, Bridetown, and Rip City all being extremely common nicknames for Portland. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the move. I'm sure there are some things that still need to be cleaned up. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)