Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square/Archive 2

Protection

This page should not be semi-protected. People (like me) want to edit it. Please unblock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The recent "edit war" was over issues directly discussed on this page. Therefore, this discussion is manifestly relevant and should under no circumstances be "archived." I have moved the relevant discussion back onto the talk page in a spirit of trying to resolve differences.

I have requested that these issues be mediated. Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_courthouse_square . Please do not delete anything until these issues have been mediated. You are acting extremely inappropriate and contrary to the aims of Wikipedia. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square hbdragon88 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear..well said Katr, I agree completely with what you've said. -Pete (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I had previously had no involvement in this article - my only edit to it has been to revert what appeared to be a partial restore on the talk page that only restored part of the discussion, leaving the counter-arguments safely hidden in the archive. As it turns out, it may have been a full restore of the text, but without the formatting, so it was not easilly readable. After that I researched some information about the article and placed it on my watch list. However, as I was named in the mediation request, I searched deeper through the article history and found the following issues of apparent sockpuppetry and trolling. Given the quantity of this, I've placed it in a collapsible section that can easily be expanded for viewing.

I had initially posted this information at AN/I, but am also posting it here as documentation of the SPA sockpuppet accounts which have been attempting to insert the text involved over the past two years, despite it being removed by multiple established editors and admins. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I do not appreciate being called a sock-puppet of someone else. I am merely an interested observer. It was YOU who was wrong to attempt to delete this entire talk page. Shame on you. Let us now discuss these edits and how to solve this legitimate dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:SOCK.

As to your complaint, nothing was deleted - it was properly archived. The additions lack WP:RS and are WP:OR and are not WP:NPOV. Unless a reliable source can be provided (as has been pointed out, the prior mentioned reference does not meet the requirements of a reliable source), there's little to discuss here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing previous edits to the discussion board, it is my opinion that the previous discussion should not be archived. Clearly there continues to be a dispute about the precise issues that have been discussed here previously. I have reverted appropriately. Fairedit99 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss

I am willing to discuss the issue of how homeless people should be portrayed in the article. While this discussion is going on please do not revert. Please be sensible and discuss this issue with me rather than punitively banning me and being highly rude as some people have been with so many editors. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns22 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you say you are willing to discuss, you should discuss BEFORE reinserting the controversial content. Since the concencsus on this talk page seems to be AGAINST your inclusion, you should DEFINITELY discuss before reinserting it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's Pretend

Let's pretend to assume good faith about the pack of timewasting and disruptive sock/meat puppets who insist on inserting material into the lead of this article against consensus.

The disputed material is this:

There are lots of people that go to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Some are businessmen stopping for a bite to eat. Others are families out to see Portland. And some say that the square has many homeless persons who congregate there although most are harmless.

OK, first, there is a tone issue with these sentences, as they are written as if for a kindergarten primer. Second as we have stated many times, as if we were assuming good faith, these sentences need to backed up with reliable sources so as not to be original research. So, if we were to take the inclusion of these sentences seriously, I would propose that they be rewritten like this (Note that "Foo" is a stand-in word for a figure or name of a source that we don't have yet, and note also that each of these facts would need to have a citation using <ref></ref> tags):

It has been estimated that Foo people visit the square each day. According to Foo, Foo percent of visitors are businesspeople buying lunch from the food kiosks there, while Foo percent are out-of-town tourists, and Foo percent are local families. In a Foo (year) study, it was noted that Foo percent of the visitors to the square are homeless. Though a small percentage of visitors indicated that they were uncomfortable with the homeless presence at the square, according to Foo, the homeless population causes very few problems and crime rates remain low.

Of course, depending on the sources found the passage would not end up being written exactly this way, and I'd suggest that unless there has been a lot of press on the homelessness issue in the square, that the homelessness issue doesn't belong in the lede at all. So just in case any new editors who aren't sock or meat puppets feel that the previously blocked editors are being treated unfairly, note that this is a concrete example of the kind of encyclopedic writing and fact-based information that we are suggesting would be better than the puerile and weaselly sentences that are being edit warred over. So, go find those references, and let me know if you need help formatting the citations. P.S. Note also that the stale discussion that I archived is not adding anything to the current dispute, and should remain archived, per WP:TALK, but that the material is easily read by clicking on one of the two "1" links, either in the "archive box" or below the "talk header". Happy editing! Katr67 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs for expansion

• Google News search for "Pioneer Courthouse Square"+homeless. Katr67 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of homeless inclusion?

Regardless of whether it can be verified in a reliable, third-party source, I question the relevance of mentioning homeless people at Pioneer Courthouse Square at all. There are homeless people everywhere, on every downtown street and at every civic square in the nation. The area under the Burnside Bridge and Old Town has many more homeless people than the Square. Unfortunately, I don't think that the fact that homeless congregate in a certain place deserves mention in said place's article, unless that fact is somehow newsworthy. Articles such as Times Square and Seattle's Pioneer Square make no mention of homeless. Perhaps the information regarding types of places where the homeless choose to congregate would be better included in the homelessness article, specifically under the Refuges for the homeless heading. pinotgris 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)