Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

POV material re. homelessness

See this article under Portland Gathering Places

"Pioneer Courthouse Square downtown (on the MAX line, between Yamhill/Morrison and Broadway/6th Ave) is the city's semi-official Meeting Place - a red brick square where little events are staged, bands sometimes play, etc. Workers downtown can sit on the steps on a nice day and eat their lunch - a great place for people watching, also (just watch out for the mostly harmless homeless people inhabiting corners of the square).

See? I could find many more sources to back this up. Now stop with your biased deleting of a statement that is completely sourced. I have even slightly changed the original wording in the article to make it sound less "bad." YOU, in fact, are the POV pusher if you delete verifiable information just to make Pioneer Courthouse Square sound better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.73.179 (talk • contribs) 06:29, October 29, 2006

First of all, please consider getting a username so you aren't editing Wikipedia anoymously--it makes it somewhat difficult to carry on a real conversation and deal with these issues you're bringing up. The problem with the way you're putting it is that "negative reputations" are extremely subjective things. What you've written, in my opinion, is a little like "Israel has a slightly negative reputation because of the many Jews who congregate there, although most are harmless" or "Payday loans places have a slightly negative reputation because of the many poor people who congregate there, although most are harmless". Do you not see why this is POV and bad "scholarship"? What might be appropriate in this context is a mention, somewhere else in the article (not the lead!), that homeless people tend to gather in and around Pioneer Courthouse Square. Describing this gathering, however, as "negative", or these people as "harmless", is an extremely POV thing to do, and I think you ought to be able to recognize that. What do other people think of this issue? --Makaristos 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please check out WP:POV#Other_areas_where_POV_comes_into_play, which I shall quote here:

A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one. When writing something such as "the park has had a lot of problems with the homeless," consider that these "homeless" are people and would not want to be described this way. An improvement might be something such as "after the park was renovated, park officials began taking steps to show that individuals who were homeless were not welcome there."

I hope this is instructive. --Makaristos 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have listed the page under Category:Articles which may be biased so that we might get this resolved. --Makaristos 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not POV material. Some have indeed said it. It is a fact that homeless people congregate at the square and it is a FACT that most are harmless. Stop your assinine reversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.12.144 (talk • contribs) 11:53, December 16, 2006

Cite a source, then. WP:RS --Liface 20:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source on the homeless people. Anyone who has been to pioneer courthouse square knows that it is full of homeless bums. A smart person also is aware that most are harmless bums. It is not POV to state this fact you idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.51.131 (talk • contribs) 07:36, December 19, 2006

That website has already been posted, and we've looked at it. It does not qualify as a reliable source--please do yourself a favor and review that link so you know what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the statement is non-NPOV! I fail to see why you can't appreciate that. Also, please consider getting a username so we might have this discussion properly. Until you make an effort in good faith to contribute to this discussion productively, I am going to revert this statement when you add it and possibly call for administrative review and/or action. Good day. -Makaristos 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule that says I have to get a user name. Secondly, have you ever been to pioneer courthouse square? It is filled with homeless bums! Have any of them hurt you? NO, THEY ARE MOSTLY HARMLESS! Taking out FACTS is like saying the earth is flat, which you probably would believe since you are obviously retarded for changing FACTS. Or maybe you are some idiot flack for the city of portland who wants to make everything look beautiful. Hey portland is a great city but it is not perfect, so just deal with it. There are bums in pioneer courthouse square. Go ahead and get an admin to punish me for doing the right thing and making this article FACTUAL. The source I gave you is perfectly reliable and unless you are mentally retarded (which we have already established you are) you should not change this. thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.51.131 (talk • contribs).

so insulting someones intelligence calling them an idiot,retard, and you don't understand why they won't accept your side of the arugment...yea. The admins can and will punish you for personal attacks that is a BIG no-no with wiki so cool your jets. Even if you said "facts" were true. They don't belong in the introduction of the said place. Why not add the rest of what you pulled from that article about workers eating lunch there etc. picking and choosing your info like that to skew a POV making it non-netural. If anything a simple compromise and use different wording than your source but type up a section like that detailing the types of people who use the area and for what. Rather than insulting be constuctive. Also till you add the cited article to main article with a footnote it needs citation technically. So get your ducks in a row before calling people names. About the user ID your gonna learn fast if you want to be taken seriously and not given the opinion of a anon IP address your going to want one. Also please sign your posts to.--Xiahou 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. Also, please read Wikipedia:Resolving NPOV disputes and Wikipedia:No original research to try to acquire some understanding of what exactly we are objecting to here. I also echo the sentiment that nobody will take you seriously unless you get a username. --Makaristos 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect all of you are just sock puppets. Get a life. And Xiahou: learn proper English grammar. Most of your sentences don't make sense. I have changed the phrasing to make it more "acceptable" to you. But the phrase is staying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.51.131 (talk • contribs).

I am calling for an administrator to take some action here, since we don't seem to be able to resolve this problem. --Makaristos 06:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess, but really it's just a bunch of registered users versus one anon that doesn't seem to understand how wikipedia works. --Liface 10:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's wasting our time. --Makaristos 20:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this issue. From what I can see, a small number of (or perhaps single) IP editors are trying to insert some information that is neither encyclopedic, nor in accord with our content policies. Given the combative and insulting nature of the IP editor, and the policy-violating nature of the edits, I would see no issue in semi-protecting the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be optimal, as it would enable the editors (i.e. glorified reverters of perpetual vandalism) and the relevant IP address(es) to disengage for a while. --Makaristos 21:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Makaristos is trying to make it something more. He is emailing all his wikipedia-editor friends to blackball me and constantly revert my fully legitimate edits. I think Makaristos needs to get over it and just accept that FULLY APPROPRIATE edits need to stay. I even have some supporters on this, so cut it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.51.131 (talk • contribs).

Whatever, man. --Makaristos 07:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, stop your ridiculous squabbling. This can easily be worked out. The anon is correct here, however. Let's leave each other alone and let the appropriate revision remain. Thanks. Pioneercourthouse 15:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that you just appeared and have no edits other than those to this page and the Pioneer Courthouse Square article, I have to assume that you are in fact 70.58.51.131. This is absolutely ridiculous. I am simply at a loss for what to do, and I would really appreciate it if you would read everything we are saying about why this particular bit of text is inappropriate. For convenience's sake, here are the links again: WP:NOT, WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia:Resolving NPOV disputes. Otherwise, you may be blocked for edit warring, personal attacks, and vandalism. I entreat you. Please become a productive member of this community. Let's not keep this going—I'm really, really tired of it. --Makaristos 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of being a sockpuppet! I am merely a concerned user with no connection to the IP person. Stop with your personal attacks or you will be banned, they are uncalled for. I have not personally attacked anyone, so you can stop warning me on my user page too. -- Pioneercourthouse 20:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't seem to be able to get anywhere on this issue, I have placed the POV tag on the page in question. Hopefully some administrator will be able to sort this our. For now, let me register my absolute frustration and disgust with what is going on here. This is a silly dispute and a huge waste of time. You, Pioneercourthouse and/or 70.58.51.131, can end this dispute right now by removing the offending bit of text. You are already in violation of WP:3RR regarding it. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please read the links that we have already provided for you and try to participate constructively in this discussion. I am just sick and tired of this whole thing. --Makaristos 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, CheckUser shows that you are indeed 70.58.51.131. Given your trolling and now lying on this page, I'm going to block you permanently and semi-protect the article, as I have no patience for POV pushers who refuse to read and abide by Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Makaristos 23:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This has been protected for a while . . . is it still necessary?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

this page ought to be unprotected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.73.179 (talk • contribs) 20:08, May 5, 2007

Agreed. I have made a formal request. -Pete 05:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)