Jump to content

Talk:Portland, Oregon/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Survey

I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdwtalk 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Add Links to good article on Neighborhoods

The following article on Portland Neighborhoods is very good and the site is a good resource. I thought is would be a good idea to include the link in "external links".

Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkovars (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't look like it passes WP:EL. Katr67 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayor

Why exactly does this page list Randy Leonard as a mayor under Sam Adams? I was under the impression that he was a commissioner, am I wrong? Randy Leonard should probably be moved down in the infobox so as to be a commissioner. The Grand Rans (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the infobox source, Mr. Leonard is listed as the first commissioner, and it displays properly on my browser. tedder (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Weird. I checked the source, and it was correct (although it still does not display properly). Sorry about that, and thank you for the correction. The Grand Rans (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Just chiming in to mention that my browser (IE7) also displays this oddly, with Mr. Leonard above the "Commissioners" line and thus apparently another Mayor. The problem appears to be that "-Commissioners" doesn't fit in the available space, so it splits into 2 lines, whence the confusion. If I reduce the text size from normal to smallest, it all fits on one line and looks fine. Not the biggest deal, but perhaps it would be possible to put in some more space between the items?--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
People still use IE? just kidding, of course they do... I checked this page with safari, firefox and camino on a mac and it looks good to me. --Travis Thurston+ 06:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If the sexual status of the mayor is added we should also include his proclivity to , not just that he is, as claimed, openly gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.131.126 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Entertainment: too many listings!

This section is turning into a laundry list. I don't know if it should be split into another article, but it would be nice if it resembled a paragraph, rather than a list that is impersonating a paragraph. tedder (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This section drives me crazy. Everyone feels they have to add their favorite band, etc. We already have several list type articles (e.g. Music of Oregon) that we can refer folks to. What we need to decide, as if we were a real encyclopedia (gasp), is the top 3 or 4 representatives of each genre, cut everything else, and add a stern edit note along the lines of our "notable persons" disclaimer to not add further names to the paragraph without discussion. Didn't we discuss this before? Sorry, too busy to find relevant posts right now... Anyway, maybe the first step is a !vote about who should represent River City in the entertainment section. Katr67 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Dunno if we discussed it before, but it reminds me of the nicknames thing. Here's my take on the bands that should remain:
My 'maybe' list:
I'm probably biased away from the newest music and the singer-songwriter genre, but it's a start. I think it's pretty easy to argue these bands should remain while others like Lifesavas or The Thermals shouldn't. tedder (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy with the above artists in paragraph form with a link to an overflow list "List of entertainers and performing artists in Portland" or something along those lines. Also some comments embedded into the source to keep help detour people from adding their favorite bands. (<! --) --Travis Thurston+ 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this started getting nuts again, I went through it with a rusty machete blade. I'm confident in the music selections we made above, because nobody really complained, but I'll be honest- I'm not the best person to judge the relative notability of filmmakers and authors, so I (mostly) left the ones I am familiar with. I'm sure I made the wrong choice, but at least I was bold, dammit. Let me know, and it'd be nice if someone composed a good comment to keep the list from getting unwieldy again. tedder (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice job: It inspired me to go further. I added some material as well as a wikicomment intended to deter promoters and drive by spammers. I removed Katr67's tag since it seems fairly clean now. I won't be the least bit bothered if it's readded. —EncMstr (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice work! tedder (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
No need to restore the tag. I was going to sharpen my machete before tackling this, but I like the bold approach much better. I linked to the Portland section of Music of Oregon, which at least is partially a list and isn't masquerading as prose so upkeep is a bit easier. I could argue for inclusion of The Thermals on this page, but I think they're still "up-and-coming" and I'm old and uncool... Katr67 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

On exactly what the 'criteria' are for inclusion, in this case. So far I see a list above from a few editors based primarily on WP:ILIKEIT. A new user - Jettblack777 - added a bluelinked band with its own, sourced, article here on WP but this was reverted by Tedder. I reverted since it was a good faith edit and apparently notable, and was myself reverted. The WP:BRD cycle doesn't apply here (the initial inclusion was the 'bold', you reverted, and I reverted you - you ought to have brought it to discussion not reverted a second time). WP:BITE issues aside also - exactly what is the basis for inclusion then? ColdmachineTalk 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Coldmachine. I thought I'd listed the guideline above, but I'd only referenced the "nicknames" discussion, which doesn't outline it for nicknames very specifically, either. My bad. The intent of the consensus on bands to be listed is more than simply meeting notability of music guidelines and the bluelink shortcut. There are too many bands to list all of them that way, and that's why {{main}} points to Music of Oregon#Portland.
To put the consensus and intent into words, the idea is this: only bands contributing significantly to music or to Portland should be included. In other words, it's a strengthening of general notability guidelines intended to highlight music in Portland, not to become a laundry list of all bands (or even all notable bands) from Portland.
I mentioned WP:BRD because the discussion had already taken place- this section, which was supported by community consensus. I'm having trouble seeing how/why you feel it doesn't apply. As it suggests, "A revert of your edit may mean your edit broke an established consensus". Finally, the intent was certainly not to bite- I'd hope it is possible to maintain an article and not bite. If you have suggestions of how I could have communicated this to the new user better, please feel free to share on my talk page. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this all makes a great deal of sense. I was just surprised that, since I've this article and talk on my watchlist, if this could slip by me then no wonder it slipped by a new editor. I think a quick note on their user talk page might have improved things; the edit summary field can be a bit too short at times. Otherwise the consensus as spelled out makes sense and I've clarified it in the article proper in the comments area. Hope that looks okay. ColdmachineTalk 07:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks great. Taking your lead, I added a little more to the disclaimer, then put an inline disclaimer next to the band listings, which should (hopefully) make it even more obvious. tedder (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion for article on MLS team

There is currently a discussion on whether the new Major League Soccer team for Portland should be located at Portland Timbers (MLS) or Major League Soccer Portland 2011. If you wish to participate in the discussion, please do so here. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Portland

There is currently a move request at Talk:Portland aiming to move the Portland dab page, currently at Portland, to Portland (disambiguation), and then redirecting "Portland" to this article. Interested editors can take part in the discussion here. Cheers, Rai•me 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Viewing problems

I noticed that there's something weird going on with the climate chart. It extends down below the line under the "Cityscape" heading is. If you then click "show" to see the metric conversions, the chart goes over the image. I'm no good at CSS yet, so I thought I'd bring it to attention here. --Mintrepublic (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC) : How unusual. I just tested in FF3 and IE8, across different screen resolutions, and it seems fine. What browser/resolution are you using? ColdmachineTalk 08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that; it's definitely resolution related. I tested on 1024x768 and this seems to be the only resolution where the chart overlaps the image (lower resolutions work fine, such as 800x600). Will take a look but there are probably others with more experience. ColdmachineTalk 08:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

Related to the above section: while fixing the climate chart I realised the placement and choice of images (and the number, overall) was overwhelming the article content. Images really are there to provide a pertinent illustration of the article content and it was looking more like a tourism handbook or a repository of images. I've moved duplicated or less pertinent images to a Gallery section at the bottom of the article for now (i.e. we don't need a photo of every park or garden in Portland to illustrate the Parks & Gardens section, and we don't need three photos of the MAX LR to illustrate the transportation section when one will do). I also moved the placement to the right-hand side per Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement which states that "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement", and moved the placement within the article text to the top of each section so that it doesn't break the layout which was happening in a few instances. It might be worth thinking about which images are worth keeping and which aren't. This could be a step towards restoring GA status, which I see the article unfortunately lost. ColdmachineTalk 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it never was a Good Article. It was nominated (when definitely not ready for primetime) and was not approved as GA. Katr67 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Demography & Race

A recent series of edits by has been changing the American Community Survey race/ethnicity information betwen two versions.

Date P T Edit Summary // with YBG's commentary in italics
8/23@21:12 T
8/25@02:47 P Cool Stuff Is CoolTC // A good-faith edit
8/25@03:14 T Katr67TC Rv unexplained changes. // A reasonable desire that changes be explained
8/25@03:29 P Cool Stuff Is CoolTC My edits on the racial composition provide more information than that table // A good-faith explaination for the changes
8/25@03:35 T Baseball BugsTC POV-pushing. // An unfortunate comment; it is not clear what POV Bugs thought was being pushed
8/25@03:48 P Cool Stuff Is CoolTC There's nothing wrong with my edits; they contain more information. // Seems a reasonable response, but it would have been better to take it to the talk page.
8/25@04:20 T Baseball BugsTC Racial POV-pushing. // I fail to understand this comment.
8/25@18:50 P Cool Stuff Is CoolTC: When you click on the links, it tells you the number of people in that racial category. There's nothing wrong with substituting "black" for "African American". There's nothing racist about it. // Cool stuff apparently thought the objection was to a change in nomenclature -- but there was no change (see below)
8/25@19:37 T HenryodellTC: Undid revision 310018952 by Cool Stuff Is Cool; Rv per what Baseball Bugs said // Again, I don't understand what Baseball Bugs meant
8/25@20:48 P Cool Stuff Is CoolTC: How is this racist? What the **** is wrong with it?! Calling European Americans "white" isn't racist! // Cool Stuff continues under the mistaken view that he had changed some of the nomenclature
8/25@21:11 T Cool Stuff Is CoolTC: Undid to avoid being blocked.
8/25@22:19 P More correctlyTC: Please discuss on talk page before changing // Apparently More Correctly thought Cool Stuff was re-inserting his changes when in fact he was taking them out.
8/25@22:23 T EncMstrTC: Reverted edits by More correctly to last version by Cool Stuff Is Cool
Comparison of presentation style and the data included
Prose
Tabular		 P
 
T		 Presentation format
Includes P T Population percentage of each race group
Includes
Excludes		 P
 
T		 Non-hispanic percentages for each race group
Excludes
Includes		 P
 
T		 Population of each race group
Includes
Excludes		 P
 
T		 Links to WP articles on each race category
Comparison of terms used to refer to each race category
P
 
T		 White Americans
White
P
 
T		 Blacks or African Americans
Black or African American
P
 
T		 American Indians
American Indian and Alaska Native
P
 
T		 Asian Americans
Asian
P
 
T		 Pacific Islander Americans
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
P
 
T		 Individuals from some other race
Some other race
P Individuals from two or more races
T (Not listed separately, but double-counted in multiple categories, though the chart does not make this clear)
P
 
T		 Hispanics and Latinos
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

My comments

  • I strongly prefer a tabular format (can you guess from the above???
    • Full disclosure: I'm the one that originally reformatted this information as a table here and then I did some additional formatting to eliminate the double-counting of Hispanic Whites in the data column here.
  • Cool Stuff is not completely correct in saying that his version has more information than the table
    • He does have more information about the non-hispanic component of each racial group.
    • He omits the actual population of each racial group
  • I don't understand what Baseball Bugs means by POV or Racial POV.
    • Is he saying that Cool Stuff is intentionally valuing the detailed non-hispanic data as more important than the population numbers?
    • If anything, this detail seems more of an oversight than a POV issue.

Conclusions and first request for comments

  • My conclusions:
    • I find the prose presentation of information like this to be really unreadable.
    • The nerd in me finds it troublesome that the table glosses over double-counting in non-White Hispanics
    • However, I recognize that adding all of the information to make a complete cross-tab showing Hispanic and non-Hispanic of every group probaly would only appeal to data nerds like me.

Anyone else have some ideas? YBG (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably like a table with the non-hispanic info in it. I'd need to understand what the POV issue is to be sure, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll work on trying to come up with proposal for a table including the non-Hispanic information -- maybe over the next few days I'll get around to it. Then I'll solicit specific input, especially from the three editors involved - Cool Stuff Is Cool(t/c), Katr67(t/c) and Baseball Bugs(t/c). YBG (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for considering me, but I don't really have time right now to properly research the issue and form an opinion. I simply dislike unexplained changes like the above. I also believe that the editor in question may have done some similar work as an anon, might be good to check the page history. Whatever is decided, edit warring certainly isn't the way to do it. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I have added to the table above -- yesterday by completing the history of the edit wars and today by adding the terms used to refer to each racial group and commentary on the edit war. My conclusion: I am more puzzled than ever at the claim that there was a POV being pushed, much less a racial POV. But it does seem that people on both sides of the edit war jumped to conclusions too quickly. I hope that we can all learn to be more careful to assume good faith and recognize that it is all too easy to jump to conclusions. Of course, I may well have done this myself, please feel free to correct me. YBG (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The original & reverted options

Here is the original tabular version that was restored and the revised prose version that got reverted. YBG (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Tabular presentation (original/restored)

Please compare the options (Orig, Rev, 1, 2, 3, 4, x) then evaluate in the comments section.

Historical population
CensusPop.Note%±
1850821—
18602,874250.1%
18708,293188.6%
188017,577111.9%
189046,385163.9%
190090,42694.9%
1910207,214129.2%
1920258,28824.6%
1930301,81516.9%
1940305,3941.2%
1950373,62822.3%
1960372,676−0.3%
1970382,6192.7%
1980366,383−4.2%
1990437,31919.4%
2000529,12121.0%
[1]

As of 2008, there are 575,930 people residing in the city, organized into 223,737 households and 118,356 families. The population density is 4,228.38 people per square mile (1,655.31/km²). There are 237,307 housing units at an average density of 1,766.7/sq mi (682.1/km²).

2005-2007 American Community Survey Estimates (Race)[2][3]
74.1% (401,053) non-Hispanic White
8.5% (46,296) Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
7.9% (42,665) Black or African American
7.9% (42,589) Asian
2.9% (15,804) Some other race
2.8% (15,074) American Indian and Alaska Native
0.6% (3,220) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *

Prose presentation (inserted/reverted)

Please compare the options (Orig, Rev, 1, 2, 3, 4, x) then evaluate in the comments section.

Historical population
CensusPop.Note%±
1850821—
18602,874250.1%
18708,293188.6%
188017,577111.9%
189046,385163.9%
190090,42694.9%
1910207,214129.2%
1920258,28824.6%
1930301,81516.9%
1940305,3941.2%
1950373,62822.3%
1960372,676−0.3%
1970382,6192.7%
1980366,383−4.2%
1990437,31919.4%
2000529,12121.0%
[4]

As of 2008, there are 575,930 people residing in the city, organized into 223,737 households and 118,356 families. The population density is 4,228.38 people per square mile (1,655.31/km²). There are 237,307 housing units at an average density of 1,766.7/sq mi (682.1/km²).

As of the 2005-2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, White Americans made up 78.6% of Portland's population; of which 74.1% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 6.6% of Portland's population; of which 6.5% were non-Hispanic blacks. American Indians made up 1.3% of the city's population; of which 0.6% were non-Hispanic. Asian Americans made up 6.7% of the city's population. Pacific Islander Americans made up 0.5% of the city's population. Individuals from some other race made up 2.7% of the city's population; of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 3.6% of the city's population; of which 3.0% were non-Hispanic. In addition, Hispanics and Latinos made up 8.5% of Portland's population.[5][6]

* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *

It might be useful to have a category for European Americans. Much of the diversity in Portland is first generation Ukrainian or Eastern European.

Four new options

Here are four new options for consideration. YBG (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus:

Each has been included with sufficient context (e.g., the census table and opening paragraph) so you can see it how it will appear in the article.

Option 1: Multiple columns

Please compare the options (Orig, Rev, 1, 2, 3, 4, x) then evaluate in the comments section.

Historical population
CensusPop.Note%±
1850821—
18602,874250.1%
18708,293188.6%
188017,577111.9%
189046,385163.9%
190090,42694.9%
1910207,214129.2%
1920258,28824.6%
1930301,81516.9%
1940305,3941.2%
1950373,62822.3%
1960372,676−0.3%
1970382,6192.7%
1980366,383−4.2%
1990437,31919.4%
2000529,12121.0%
[7]

As of 2008, there are 575,930 people residing in the city, organized into 223,737 households and 118,356 families. The population density is 4,228.38 people per square mile (1,655.31/km²). There are 237,307 housing units at an average density of 1,766.7/sq mi (682.1/km²).

2005-7 American Community Survey Estimates[8] (NH) (DC)
425,535 78.6% White 74.1% 81.9%
36,495 6.7% Asian 6.7% 7.9%
35,853 6.6% Black or African American 6.5% 7.9%
6,999 1.3% American Indian, Alaska Native 0.6% 2.8%
2,521 0.5% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander 0.5% 0.6%
14,438 2.7% Some other race 0.2% 2.9%
19,709 3.6% Two or more races 3.0% 104%
541,550 100% Total of all races 91.5%
46,296 8.5% Total Hispanic/Latino (of any race)
(NH) Total non-Hispanics by race
(DC) Total, double/triple counting 'Two or more races'
* * *

Option 2: Multiple lines within cells

Please compare the options (Orig, Rev, 1, 2, 3, 4, x) then evaluate in the comments section.

Historical population
CensusPop.Note%±
1850821—
18602,874250.1%
18708,293188.6%
188017,577111.9%
189046,385163.9%
190090,42694.9%
1910207,214129.2%
1920258,28824.6%
1930301,81516.9%
1940305,3941.2%
1950373,62822.3%
1960372,676−0.3%
1970382,6192.7%
1980366,383−4.2%
1990437,31919.4%
2000529,12121.0%
[9]

As of 2008, there are 575,930 people residing in the city, organized into 223,737 households and 118,356 families. The population density is 4,228.38 people per square mile (1,655.31/km²). There are 237,307 housing units at an average density of 1,766.7/sq mi (682.1/km²).

2005-2007 American Community Survey Estimates (Race)[10]
425,535 78.6% White
74.1% non-Hispanic; 81.9% with those in 2+ races
36,495 6.7% Asian
6.7% non-Hispanic; 7.9% with those in 2+ races
35,853 6.6% Black or African American
6.5% non-Hispanic; 7.9% with those in 2+ races
6,999 1.3% American Indian and Alaska Native
0.6% non-Hispanic; 2.8% with those in 2+ races
2,521 0.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
0.5% non-Hispanic; 0.6% with those in 2+ races
14,438 2.7% Some other race
0.2% non-Hispanic; 2.9% with those in 2+ races
19,709 3.6% Two or more races
3.0% non-Hispanic; (counted above 2+ times)
541,550 100% Total of all races
91.5% non-Hispanic; 104% (including overlap)
46,296 8.5% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

Option 3: Multi-cell formatting

Please compare the options (Orig, Rev, 1, 2, 3, 4, x) then evaluate in the comments section.

Historical population
CensusPop.Note%±
1850821—
18602,874250.1%
18708,293188.6%
188017,577111.9%
189046,385163.9%
190090,42694.9%
1910207,214129.2%
1920258,28824.6%
1930301,81516.9%
1940305,3941.2%
1950373,62822.3%
1960372,676−0.3%
1970382,6192.7%
1980366,383−4.2%
1990437,31919.4%
2000529,12121.0%
[11]

As of 2008, there are 575,930 people residing in the city, organized into 223,737 households and 118,356 families. The population density is 4,228.38 people per square mile (1,655.31/km²). There are 237,307 housing units at an average density of 1,766.7/sq mi (682.1/km²).

2005-2007 American Community Survey Estimates (Race)[12]
425,535 78.6% White
74.1% non-Hispanic 81.9% with those in 2+ races
36,495 6.7% Asian
6.7% non-Hispanic 7.9% with those in 2+ races
35,853 6.6% Black or African American
6.5% non-Hispanic 7.9% with those in 2+ races
6,999 1.3% American Indian and Alaska Native
0.6% non-Hispanic 2.8% with those in 2+ races
2,521 0.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
0.5% non-Hispanic 0.6% with those in 2+ races
14,438 2.7% Some other race
0.2% non-Hispanic 2.9% with those in 2+ races
19,709 3.6% Two or more races
3.0% non-Hispanic (counted above 2+ times)
541,550 100% Total
91.5% non-Hispanic 104% (including overlap)
49,296 8.5% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

Option 4: Extra cell for divider

Please compare the options (Orig, Rev, 1, 2, 3, 4, x) then evaluate in the comments section.

Historical population
CensusPop.Note%±
1850821—
18602,874250.1%
18708,293188.6%
188017,577111.9%
189046,385163.9%
190090,42694.9%
1910207,214129.2%
1920258,28824.6%
1930301,81516.9%
1940305,3941.2%
1950373,62822.3%
1960372,676−0.3%
1970382,6192.7%
1980366,383−4.2%
1990437,31919.4%
2000529,12121.0%
[13]

As of 2008, there are 575,930 people residing in the city, organized into 223,737 households and 118,356 families. The population density is 4,228.38 people per square mile (1,655.31/km²). There are 237,307 housing units at an average density of 1,766.7/sq mi (682.1/km²).

2005-2007 American Community Survey Estimates (Race)[14]
425,535 78.6% White
74.1% non-Hispanic 81.9% with those in 2+ races
36,495 6.7% Asian
6.7% non-Hispanic 7.9% with those in 2+ races
35,853 6.6% Black or African American
6.5% non-Hispanic 7.9% with those in 2+ races
6,999 1.3% American Indian and Alaska Native
0.6% non-Hispanic 2.8% with those in 2+ races
2,521 0.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
0.5% non-Hispanic 0.6% with those in 2+ races
14,438 2.7% Some other race
0.2% non-Hispanic 2.9% with those in 2+ races
19,709 3.6% Two or more races
3.0% non-Hispanic (counted above 2+ times)
541,550 100% Total
91.5% non-Hispanic 104% (including overlap)
49,296 8.5% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

Option x: Anonymous editor's work

Please compare the options (Orig, Rev, 1, 2, 3, 4, x) then evaluate in the comments section.
(The work of 24.18.228.140TC who reverted option 1)

Historical population
CensusPop.Note%±
1850821—
18602,874250.1%
18708,293188.6%
188017,577111.9%
189046,385163.9%
190090,42694.9%
1910207,214129.2%
1920258,28824.6%
1930301,81516.9%
1940305,3941.2%
1950373,62822.3%
1960372,676−0.3%
1970382,6192.7%
1980366,383−4.2%
1990437,31919.4%
2000529,12121.0%
[15]

As of 2008, there are 575,930 people residing in the city, organized into 223,737 households and 118,356 families. The population density is 4,228.38 people per square mile (1,655.31/km²). There are 237,307 housing units at an average density of 1,766.7/sq mi (682.1/km²).

American Community Survey Estimates - 2005-2007

81.9% - White (74.1% - non-Hispanic White)
8.5% - Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
7.9% - Black or African American
7.9% - Asian
2.9% - Some other race
2.8% - American Indian or Alaska Native
0.6% - Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander[16]


* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *

Comments

Please compare the options (Orig, Rev, 1, 2, 3, 4, x) then evaluate in the comments section.

Please consider which of these is best for (a) appearance (b) understandibility (c) editability.

Add your comments below. YBG (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • #Option 1: Multiple columns is also my favorite option. It's well organized and easy to read. I think that layout and format should be used to provide data on race for all articles on American cities. However, the layout of the numbers looks kind of awkward. Maybe it could get a separate column for itself. All the others look weird. I'm going with option 1. Cool Stuff Is Cool (talk) 1:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The changes have now been made to the article. YBG (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Third largest?

According to the population figures on the Portland and Vancouver pages, Portland city proper is larger than Vancouver city proper; and Portland Metro is larger than Vancouver Metro. So why does this article say Portland is third largest in the Pacific Northwest? Ehurtley (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's because Vancouver actually is larger if comparable years are examined. Vancouver's population of 578,041 is for 2006; Portland's of 582,130 is a census estimate for 2009. —EncMstr (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I dislexicised the 6 and 9 as the same... That makes perfect sense. 174.47.84.201 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this problem should go away with the 2010 census, which won't be an estimate. It'll be easier to fairly rank cities in the PNW and in Oregon, which has been a problem for the last few years. tedder (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Except Vancouver doesn't participate in the 2010 Census, Canada's next one comes in 2011. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Doh! Good point. I assumed all of The Doug participated at the same time, even if their controlling countries didn't. tedder (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You are being sarcastic, and I'm missing it, right (I hope)? You do know that Vancouver, Washington is across the Columbia River, and is in the USA; it's not the same one as the Vancouver, B.C? And that all USA census counts are in the same time-frame, and have nothing to do with Canada? anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.17.126 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, no real sarcasm, you just don't get the entire thread. I'd suggest you follow the first link in the thread Vancouver and see where it takes you, as it is the topic of the entire thread - and it ain't my neighbor to the immediate north that I pass by on my trips to Seattle from Hillsboro. And I would have hoped that you would understand we are discussing the Canadian one as Vancouver USA doesn't even make the top five for cities in the Northwestern United States, let alone the Pacific Northwest. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
From the 2010 census data, city population upped to 583,776. Citation:http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ Request to update sidebar, nix third largest suggestion in text.Sailingfanblues (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to up the population, but since Vancouver was estimated to be at 642,843 in 2010, not sure how Portland's rank would change. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
fair enough! didn't realize that! I do still think it's weird to list Vancouver as it's not in the Pacific Northwest, it's in the Southwest of Canada. That can be left for another day...Sailingfanblues (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
See Pacific Northwest. Wikipedia doesn't define the terms, it reflects common usage. tedder (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Universities

Regarding the recent revert, I scanned back through the archive, and the only discussion I saw was basically "don't list all the high schools". Reed is one of the top schools in the nation; it would be like not listing Stanford in the article on Palo Alto. Now, calling PCC and PSU research institutions is laughable; PSU tries to pretend that it is, but it's not there yet, and PCC is nothing of the sort. Vertigo Acid (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This once again has come up; if you're going to defer to the "talk page consensus" or whatever, then point it out: I don't see it here or in the archives. Also, it's not as if the recent edits adding the major private colleges in the city have been excessive. It's not like someone is trying to add NCMN, or any of the other numerous minor institutions. This is the internet, not paper, so unless someone makes an argument why we *shouldn't* list some of these other colleges, then I don't feel that reverting the edits is proper Vertigo Acid (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You're right on a couple of counts: first, I thought there was a consensus about limiting the number of universities listed. Second, I missed your original note (the threadstarter on 24 June). My thought is there should be some dividing line- instead of including all postsecondary institutions in Portland, perhaps just include the top N by school population? That's what we did with musical performers, and it seems to have worked quite well. I don't think anyone said universities listed should be measured on their research abilities. tedder (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
First, Vertigo Acid, nobody has tried to say PCC and PSU are research institutions, so I'm not sure what exactly is laughable (they are listed as being the largest). Secondly, I vaguely recall a discussion somewhere about colleges and this page, but I think it was more about not listing schools like Pacific here since that is not in Portland. Now, as to Reed, it is one of the best small liberal arts colleges in the nation, but it is not Stanford, or Harvard or the like. Now Lewis & Clark has one of the best law schools in the country with a ranking in the top 100, but we don't bother listing them.
RE: PCC and PSU being "research institutions", I was referring to a specific edit (369966640) that was reverted Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
So what do we include? By selecting the largest, that seems fair and less subjective than selecting the best. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is going on here, the discussion is a little hard to follow. But if anyone is suggesting that Reed and Lewis & Clark, two of the most verifiably well-known Portland institutions of higher education, shouldn't be included in the article, I'd say you're totally off your rocker. Including only the biggest and/or public universities is a ridiculous notion. The section is tiny anyway, it's not a question of undue promotion, and there are scads of sources to back up the claim that Reed and L&C are iconic Portland schools. Steven Walling 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well, so it looks like consensus to me. Reed and L&C should both be there, and Reed more than L&C. Msalt (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI for everyone, I added an in-article hidden comment about this, as it seems to me we've been doing a lot of reverting on this issue.Vertigo Acid (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Population

The Portland page says that Portland is the 28th most populous city in the US, yet that link shows Portland as the 30th and Las Vegas as the 28th. Clearly the sources cited are different; shouldn't we use the same source as the list of cities page if we are going to link to it? Bdc101 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably an effect of updating census numbers. It is confusing, but by early next year, we can use strictly the 2010 numbers. —EncMstr (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Beer names

Considering Portland's well-established beer culture & business, shouldn't the beer nicknames go before some of the other less cited ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.225.167 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be before Little Beirut, but not any of those before it. Stumptown and Bridgetown are very well established—the former for 150+ years and the latter for at least 80. I've never heard anyone call us Soccer City: that seems lame considering all the other cities in South America and Europe which are far more heavily into soccer. —EncMstr (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The 'Soccer City USA' nickname is sourced from the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and USA Today. You can also find Oregonian and Eugene Register-Guard articles referencing it from the 1970s. I've heard it plenty. Here's a more recent example of the use from just a couple of months ago: [1] DemonJuice (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be very common among the Timbers fans, but I'm not finding much of it elsewhere. I mean, Chuck Palahniuk's book mentions "Little Beirut", travel guides mention "city of roses", but those general sources don't mention Soccer City. tedder (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course it is popular among Timbers fans. ;) So now only general sources are acceptable? I'd say the NYT is a reliable third-party source. DemonJuice (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
My point is that it's like listing every notable person and notable band- it's too much for the main article. So a good way to limit the nicknames on the Portland, Oregon page is to raise the bar. NYT is a good ref, but if we limit it to the most common nicknames, I don't think Soccer City makes the cut. tedder (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems your bar is whether you personally have heard it as much as the others and not what can be verified and sourced. I don't think I'll ever get Wikipedia because I'm told by one editor to do one thing and another editor to do the opposite. I don't care anymore. DemonJuice (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong side of the bed this morning. Ignore me. Your argument about the main page getting cluttered with every single sourced name is valid. DemonJuice (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Diversity and racism" section

Even though this section is relatively short, I agree that there are some "poorly-worded" issues, and I'm wondering how best to fix this while keeping the information pretty much exactly the same. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

diversity article to integrate

Thanks, tedder (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked some things including integrating the last of the related information from NPR, and I've tried to fix the wording problems. What do you think? --Jsayre64 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks great, Jsayre. tedder (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

the following sounds little strange: "Portland not only remains white, but migration to Portland is disproportionately white, part of the "beer, bikes and Birkenstock" crowd." I think it would be improved by simply deleting the "beer, bikes and birkenstock crowd" mention. This sounds alot like the language that news media use and I think it's inappropriate here. It's a catchy quote but it doesn't really mean anything. If you look at the oregonian article sourced, immediately prior to beer, bikes, and birkenstocks, is the main point of the paragraph omitted here, "But college-educated Americans are overwhelmingly white, and those who migrate to Portland are disproportionately so." I think that idea is way more interesting, and it deals with facts, so I'm changing it. I hope that anyone who has a good reason do disagree will not hesitate to tell me why. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I reorganized the section and changed alot of the wording. I think it reads much better now but it could probably use some further polish. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting inclusion of "Little Beruit" nickname in infobox

My removal of the nickname Little Beruit was reverted because it "has been discussed". I checked through all the archives, including a useful chart by EncMstr (which perhaps he could replicate and update), and can find no compelling reason to keep this uncommon nickname in the infobox. As a piece of interesting trivia, it certain merits inclusion in the separate Nicknames of Portland, Oregon article, but I believe it has aged out of significance as of 2011. I realize it is original research, but I think the nicknames referencing beer are much more common now. I think Little Beruit should again be removed from the infobox. Note I have no investment in cleaning up Portland's image or any other COI like that, I just think Little Beruit has been reduced to the level of triva. Thoughts? Valfontis (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the Little Beirut nickname, but in from an objective standpoint it isn't in common usage. It might be time to revisit what the common nicknames are- I wonder if "Portlandia" is now common (ah, recentism) and both Little Beirut and P-Town are not common. tedder (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep - I lived in Portland for 13 years ('97-'09) and during that time, no one referred to the city as "Beer-anything" and many people were very proud of the nickname HW Bush gave the city. I know that my experience is nothing more than OR, so I did a little google on the term and found several recent articles referring the the nickname. 7/2010 article, 7/2010 on CNN Money, 7/2011. But my true reason for voting to not remove it? I believe it adds a historical context to the city and that readers will perhaps see the reference here and learn a little side note of the city's history. There was a healthy discussion at Talk:Nicknames of Portland, Oregon where I thinkOrlady summarized it pretty well. --Travis Thurston+ 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Are we considering BlueOregon a reliable source? The CNN article mentions "Beervana" before Little Beruit, and also says that the nickname is merely a rumor. Though I respect Travis Thurston's perspective, I really think we are giving this nickname undue weight and perhaps overstating its importance by putting it in the infobox. I don't think the infobox is for providing historical context, it is for summarizing the most common and noteworthy facts about the city. BTW, I'm not planning to add any beer nicknames to the infobox, I suspect those are the product of marketing and not the people of Portland. The bottom line is--what are the most-used nicknames by Portlanders? Note that Little Beruit isn't mentioned in the above-linked discussion, and that the discussion is about including names in that article, not in this article's infobox. Valfontis (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the infobox because of the constraints of the format, should only include a few of the most common nicknames. As such, my vote is against "Little Beirut", there are plenty of other more common nicknames, like Rip-city which someone just added. I'd also support removing "P-town" from the infobox. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My curiosity was piqued, so here is the updated stats with the previous information at right.

Nickname Portland-specific
Google hits		 Portland-specific
Google search		 Unrestricted
Google hits		 Unrestricted
Google search		 Portland-specific
hit relevance		 June 2008
specific hits		 June 2008
unrestricted hits		 June 2008
hit relevance
Rose City 9510000 [2] 3550000 [3] n/a 9510000 1430000 9.1%
Stumptown 634000 [4] 368000 [5] n/a 81800 368000 22.2%
Stump town 165000 [6] 143000 [7] n/a 551 7390 7.4%
Bridgetown 998000 [8] 10200000 [9] 9.8% 274000 7250000 3.8%
Rip City 1850000 [10] 735000 [11] n/a 7090 82600 8.6%
Beervana 44400 [12] 260000 [13] 17.1% 9370 27400 34.2%
Brewtopia 81200 [14] 75400 [15] n/a 757 27600 2.7%
Beertown 31800 [16] 94700 [17] 33.6% 13300 124000 10.7%
Mayberry on Mushrooms 5 [18] 5 [19] 100% 1 2 50%
San Francisco run by Canadians 6 [20] 8 [21] 75% 2 2 100%
Little Beirut 85600 [22] 112000 [23] 76.4% 2790 20100 13.9%
P-Town 3470000 [24] 1990000 [25] n/a 27400 1080000 2.5%

The relevance column divides the specific hits by the non-Portland specific hits. Unfortunately, Google now has a geographical relevance feature specific to my Portland IP address which cannot be turned off, so the totals are warped due to that. It is especially noticeable with the specific hit counts mostly being larger than the non-specific hits. —EncMstr (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, for those who haven't seen it, I note with great amusement that we have to be careful about these things, as the USGS is using Wikipedia as a source for "variant names" for Portland. See: "Portland". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. Valfontis (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I propose the following nicknames: Sam's Place; Seattle's Portland; West Gresham; East Beaverton; The Poop Deck; North Tigard; Columbiamette; Sewer Overflow Riverland; MAX; WikiLand; Coffeetopia; and the City of Farmer's Markets. If any of those make it big, I'm trading marking them and selling bumper stickers. Maybe coffee mugs too. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So, shall we use the top 5 as nicknames? (Rose City, P-Town, Rip City, Bridgetown, Stumptown). Clearly Travisthurston and I are both wrong- Beervana and Little Beirut are rare. If we're adding in personal opinion, I like Columbiamette and Seattle's Portland. tedder (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that "Little Beirut" is so specific to George Bush, it seems reasonable that this recentism will only become less and less relevant/popular with time. It is already pretty rare. shall we remove it then? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Little Beirut is out of favor, at least until the next conservative president appears (assuming the unprofessional, agenda-pushing liberal press remains in place).
It occurs to me that Beervana, Beertown, P-Town, etc. are internal nicknames: they are found in WWeek columns and the like. They would not appear in a national advertisement, at least to refer to Portland. So while they are "nicknames", they are not widely recognized unambiguous nicknames. I'm not sure how to look for citations for that, even if they were somehow noted in the two articles. —EncMstr (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced! good work guys :) Motion to remove "Little Beirut" and "Rip City" from infobox, maintaining "Rose City", "P-Town", "Stumptown" and "PDX"? --Travis Thurston+ 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing Rip City but others have mentioned including (or retaining) it. I'm old and not into sports. Do people still refer to PDX as Rip City? Or is that a 1970s thing? Like Schludwiller. Valfontis (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
To me, Rip City was circa 1977 to circa 1995, with maybe a slight revival in 2009ish. But I don't think it should be in the infobox as it is far more a Blazers reference and a Bill Schonely thing than a nickname for the whole city. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I generally agree, and support removing both from the infobox. Given the rather subjective nature of this discussion and the difficulty citing sources, it would be nice if we could avoid repeating this discussion in the future. Any ideas? I think a fairly arbitrary limit would accomplish that. If we agree that we're only going to include the four most generally prominent examples in the infobox, I think that would help everybody. I bring this up because I can imagine in five minutes someone making a case for "Bridgetown". We could argue over nicknames all day, there are plenty to choose from, but the best move in my mind is to avoid any such discussion and referring readers to the article on that subject as much as is practical. Any takers on a Limit of 4 examples？ We could alter the existing editor's comment in the infobox to match. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the top four. I think it's a subjective way to choose what gets included. I said "top 5" a few replies up- but I don't really care- just that it's the best way to include it. That means we include Rip City even though Aboutmovies isn't a fan of doing so. However, the data reigns supreme, and further changes (like what started this discussion) have the burden of supplying updated counts. tedder (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if anyone had a strong opinion about 4 vs. 5 examples, I don't. i said 4 but 5 is also good, but it could be useful to pick a number and stick to it. If someone wants to make a case for Rip City then they ought to do so, until then， I‘m not convinced that Rip City belongs in the infobox as per Aboutmovies' comment. It's common but it seems restricted to basketball related contexts. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect source attribution in Economy section

The first paragraph in this section discusses a Mercer quality of living survey and says that Portland was ranked 42nd in quality of living. The source links to the 2010 survey, and Portland is not on the list of the top 50 at all. The source needs changed to one that actually supports the claim if a 2009 version can be found or removed if it can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.208.45 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Archival bot

Are there any objections to adding an archival bot to this talk page? VQuakr (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No - Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The most breweries in the whole multiverse

The article currently states that Portland has 28 breweries, more than any other city in the country. The Oregon Brewers Guild claims that number to be 40, therefore most brewery-rich city in the world, if not the galaxy.[17] The number we use is from the NY times in 2006, the Oregon Brewers Guild cites themselves in August 2011. Oregon Business magazine from 2008 likes the number 38.[18] Entrepreneur magazine in 2011 cites the Oregon Brewers Guild and says its 40 plus another 10 within metro limits[19] I'm changing the statement to reflect the Oregon Brewers Guild numbers since they are more recent than the NY Times article and other reliable sources cite them. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding important groups to Arts & Entertainment

I am curious why the following acts have been overlooked/omitted from the Arts & Entertainment section: Black 'N' Blue, Storm Large, Poison Idea, Quarterflash, Dan Reed Network, Wild Dogs TomYears (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  • There have to be some limits on the number of bands listed in that paragraph (a broader collection can be found at List of people from Portland, Oregon and in Category:Musicians from Oregon and its subcategories. But,having said that, I actually agree about Quarterflash: they were very big for a short while, and, as I recall, their connection to Portland was mentioned constantly in the media coverage. In my opinion, there's at least as good a case for their inclusion as some of the more critically acclaimed but less successful groups already on that list. I don't know if the case is as strong for the other bands listed above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Racial history" section

This section seems to suffer from a bad case of correlation fallacy - namely:

A = There's historically been racism and racist policies in Portland, and there still is some racism in Portland today.

B = Portland is more predominantly White than most other American metro-areas of its size.

Therefore, A caused B.

Yes, I have no doubt that there's historically been racism and racist policies in Portland, or that there's still racism in Portland today. But is this what caused Portland's demographics?

I think it would be useful to compare with other cities. For example, on the West Coast one could look at Los Angeles and Oakland in California. Were these cities historically less racist that Portland? Is there less racism in these cities and their police forces than there is in Portland and its police force today?...

My sense is that the answer to these questions is no. And I would be surprised if anything in Porland's history were found to be significantly more racist than what was happening in other American cities of its size at the same time.

My understanding is that the primary reason there aren't more Black people in Portland is that there was never slavery in Oregon, and there weren't as many industrial jobs available during the periods of the Great Migration and Second Great Migration.

And in the present day, causal factors would include the fact that a higher percentage of White people middle to upper class and more readily able to relocate to another part of the country, and also an element of self-segregation - many Black people feel more comfortable living in areas with more Black people, and many Whites tend to feel more comfortable (whether consciously or subconsciously) living in areas with more White people. Now, one could make the case that these are the result of racism too, and there's certainly some truth to that, but it's not in the way that the article implies - namely that Portland is and has historically been significantly *more racist* than other American cities and that this is why there are fewer minorities.

-Helvetica (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While, as basically the whitest major city in America, I think there should be a critical study of this subject, I agree that there is an imbalance here in POV. It is obviously undue weight to have a section that long, and some of the contents are ridiculous – the quote from Time being especially so. I think if you want to clean it up you should go for it. Steven Walling • talk 21:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
How is the Time quote rediculous? It speaks to the (large) skinhead movement that prevaded Portland in the 80s and early 90s. In any case, the section doesn't use synthesis of material to reach conclusions; it presents information from sources without commentary. (disclaimer: I originally wrote it) tedder (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It's just sensationalist, especially considering that in the years since then, Portland has in fact not become known for some kind of big skinhead movement. It was clearly a reaction to the incident that the piece is about, not a data-backed piece of commentary about the long term racial history trends. Steven Walling • talk 23:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding racist skinheads and other racist extremists, the article states: "In the 1980s and 1990s, radical skinhead groups flourished in Portland." What exactly does "flourished" mean here in terms of their prevalence relative to the general population? Are we talking dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?...

How did the prevalence of racist extremists compare to the prevalence of say hippies or punk-rockers during that same period?...

Perhaps more relevant, how did the relative prevalence of racist extremists in Portland compare with that in other metro areas like LA and the Bay Area?

To the point, can a clear and compelling case be made that Metro-Portland's racist extremists were so prevalent in the 80s and 90s and committed so much violence and intimidation to the point where they had a noticeable impact on the region's demographics? -Helvetica (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Helvetica, while you potentially raise some good issues, I'm not sure how they are directly related to the section on racial history in the Portland article specifically. I don't see what you mean by correlation fallacy (the section doesn't argue that, for example, skinhead violence is what causes the demographics today). I also don't see how it is relevant that cross-city comparisons are necessary for discussing racial history of a city (does the fact that say Portland not having an equivalent to the LA Watts riots make a history of housing discrimination any less pertinent?). It's possible that many of the issues you first brought up may have been addressed since you wrote them (I know I personally edited a statement that was overstating a claim from its source), but as it stands now, unless you have a strong argument otherwise, I don't think there's a neutrality issue (anymore). (Simulcra (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

I agree with the people opposing this section about racism. The information is superfluous based merely on the percentage of whites (keep in mind the United States is 80% white, which means Portland, Oregon actually has more African Americans than the national average). If the mentioning of the "skin head" movement in Portland is important, then surely it's equally important, if not more so, to mention the skin head movements in nearly every european city (particularly German and British cities and most eastern European cities), and especially in Vancouver, Canada and Calgary, Canada, where the Aryan Brotherhood (a white supremacist group) is far more popular than any white supremacy group in Portland, Oregon (perhaps anywhere in the United States). If anything Portland, Oregon is one of the most "liberal" cities in the United States (no shock that the most "liberal" U.S. cities happen to be also the whitest?). Wiki writers do seem to place an overabundant emphasis on racism in articles pertaining to the United States, as if it's a circumvented topic in the United States. That's almost as funny as this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSmario (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The European cites skinheads argument is irrelvant, we aren't talking about Europe, feel free to add such info to those pages but lack of information in some unrelated articles is not relevant to this discussion. Racism is included in this article because it is relevant to the topic, it has nothing to do with whether or not people are "liberal." I would recommend MarioSmario read the section more closely, the sections states several relevant facts in a Neutral and concise fashion, without relying on the percentage of whites for anything other than directly discussing the past and present racial makeup of the city. I would also argue, in ways similar to Simulcra above, that the argument Helvetica claims is a correlation fallacy is not actually present in the article. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire section should be deleted. This topic is not standard for discussion of cities. Anything mentioned in it that needs to stay on Wikipedia would more appropriately be in an article on racism in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.89.93 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposing new external link to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article

I have just transcribed the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article for Portland and added it to Wikisource (here) as part of their EB 1911 project. What say ye to listing it somehow under the "External links" section? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 11:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, thanks for asking. Valfontis (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrections and comments

I read the entire article and fixed a few things like minor misspellings and improved the layout. I think a few comments are needed.

1. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Penny, Portland was incorporated in 1849 and not in 1851 like this article says.

2. "The league hosts two formats." What's the meaning of format in this sentence? I assume it's sport jargon.

3. "In the 2008 presidential election, Democratic candidate Barack Obama easily carried Portland, winning 245,464 votes from city residents to 50,614 for his Republican rival, John McCain."

I think the above information is a pointless and biased.

4. "In the early 1960s, the PDC led the razing of a large Italian-Jewish neighborhood downtown, bounded roughly by the I-405 freeway, the Willamette River, 4th Avenue and Market street."

What is the point of this?

5. The section on "Racial history" appears to provide a racially biased view of Portland.

6. "OMSI is located at 1945 SE Water Ave. OMSI is built right up next to the river and is also conveniently located near the entrance to the Springwater Corridor and Eastbank Esplanade pedestrian and bike trails."

Is this a joke? This is seriously ridiculous. Either way, who cares? All of this should be deleted.

7. I don't think the museums should be listed under the "Education" section. They should have their on category (art and museums).

8. "This museum has many topics, and many of their exhibits rotate, to keep the information fresh."

This doesn't sound good and it should be fixed.

9. The photos in the "Geography" and "Cityscape" sections should probably be placed in the "Gallery" section.

ICE77 (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


Go for it. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Taxes

This article and, frankly, all others focusing on specific cities, need a delineation of the tax bills faced by residents of various economic circumstances living within its bounds. One could do breakdowns for a typical member of each economic stratum and familial situation i.e. a single person, a married couple, a single mother with two kids, a couple with two kids, say, and then show each of those under different economic circumstances i.e. living below the poverty line, working class, middle class, upper middle class, and independently wealthy, for example. The breakdown would show typical state income, sales and property-tax "bills" faced by taxpayers in each of the aforementioned circumstances, possibly offset by government assistance received, or at least eligible for.Epischedda (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a guidebook, but if you can find a reliable source detailing the tax rates, then feel free to add it. David1217 What I've done 20:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The only pertinent thing about taxes should be the property tax measure in the 90's that put a cap on it. Research that and you will see why our schools are broke. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear Epischedda, you can start with what is the local/city sales tax rate, if any, then the state sales tax rate. Then, find out the rate per $1,000 on residential and commercial property. Just put it under the Economy section. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

For those bickering over whether racism caused Portland to be white

Yes it did. In fact it is still becoming whiter by the day. Most of the black folks who used to live in North Portland are moving further away from the City proper n/ne (Mississippi, Alberta, Killingsworth, PCC) to places like Gresham. I notice others also do not seem to differentiate between Portland and the Portland Metropolitan Area, and Oregon as a whole. Not only did we not have slavery in our state it was illegal from blacks to live here for a long time according to our state constitution. The Portland Metro extends as far as Camas Washington and even Vancouver, wa is a part of it. So you can not talk about racist policies in Portland and then start talking about the whole area. Because currently the black people have shifted further out of Portland but not out of the Metro area. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/08/racist_graffiti_on_north_portl.html http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/visualculturesymposium/files/2011/02/Milo_Petruziello_2010_Project.pdf PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Linking Gone Bad

On the Portland, Oregon what links here page it lists the page "List of bridges in the United States ‎ (links)". The Link on that page for "Portland" goes to Portland, Conneticut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricStruble (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks right to me. There are several Portland's listed (and linked), but all 14.5 proper mentions are at List of bridges in the United States#Oregon. Can you point more specifically where you see the problem? —EncMstr (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. There are several "Portland" links on the page and one of them is correct.

Tone issues with good-faith opening paragraph edits

"The city is also known for its abundant outdoor activities, liberal political values and passionate beer and coffee enthusiasm. Portland is home to a vast collection of independent microbreweries, microdistilleries and food carts which has helped forge a unique identity downtown and contributes to the unofficial but widely utilized slogan "Keep Portland Weird"."

Does not read as encyclopedic and is stylistically problematic. "Liberal political values" is unsourced, as is "abundant outdoor activities". "Unique identity downtown" is also unsourced and the claim that microbreweries, microdistilleries, and food carts contribute to the "Keep Portland Weird" slogan is original research. Moreover, a reference to "Keep Portland Weird" belongs in the nicknames subheading, not opening paragraph. Reads like an advertisement and has WP:NPOV, WP:TONE, and WP:PEACOCK issues. These edits are grounds for reversion. --Aeranis (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI: how this article's big ref problem was miraculously fixed

See this VPT section. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Portland metropolitan area

There is currently a requested move at Portland metropolitan area that may be relevant to this topic.--Cúchullain t/c 17:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Art section

Is there anything in the culture section about portland's art scene, galleries, First Thursday and stuff like that? EDIT nevermind I found it but I don't know why is it in the Tourism section??? Dudanotak (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternative music is HUGE in Portland, is this relevant to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.210.111 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Portland's 2013 ParkScore Ranking

I think that there should be a sentence about Portland's ParkScore ranking. In its 2013 ParksScore ranking, The Trust for Public Land, a national land preservation organization, reported that Portland had the 7th best park system among the top 50 most populous U.S. cities.“City Profiles: Portland 80% of Portland residents are within a 10-minute walk to a park - which is much higher than the national avereage of 64%. Portland also stands out as having a fairly large percentage of its city area as parkland (16.32%).“City Profiles: Portland

Could any of this information be included in the parks and recreation section?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpograd (talk • contribs) 11:28, July 3, 2013‎

Portland's Climate

Not sure why someone has been dead-set on giving Portland an entirely oceanic climate, but at the very least the Mediterranean similarities should be present in the article. Contrary to popular belief it does not rain all the time in Portland, and the climate at the very least is borderline Mediterranean and oceanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antipex (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, the only time when it is NOT raining in Portland is during the summer, or on days where we get an amazing number of what I call "Oregon Clouds" which are rainclouds with huge holes in them deep enough to see the sky. The only clear days are during the summer. Portland as a VERY damp and cold climate, even during the summer, where there is VERY little rain temperatures range around 70F to high to even the hundreds, we have hugely variable temperature in the summer, and we have cold wet Falls, cold, wet Winters, and cold, wet Springs. It is almost constantly raining in Portland. 76.27.210.111 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2013

Please change the sister city of Tallin, Estonia to Utrecht, Netherlands. Tallin is not a sister city to Portland, but Utrecht is. This fact can be found on the Facebook page of Portland-Utrecht Network (PUN) https://www.facebook.com/pages/Portland-Utrecht-Network-PUN/246777382015479

AshleyWatkins94 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(Replied below.) BryanG (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 July 2013

Please change the sister city of Tallinn, Estonia (currently a "friendship city") to Utrecht, Netherlands. Tallinn is no longer a sister city, but Utrecht is. I work for the City of Portland, and am hoping to have this changed in the near future.

AshleyWatkins94 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Facebook generally isn't acceptable as a source per WP:USERGENERATED. (By the way, by my count once you make another edit you'll be able to edit semi-protected pages, so once you have a reliable source feel free to just edit the article rather than going through the edit request process again.) BryanG (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2013

Please change the sister city of Tallinn, Estonia to Mutare, Zimbabwe. Tallinn is no longer a sister city, but Mutare is. Here is a link to the website that states this http://www.africaaidsresponse.org/sub-who/PMSCA/pmsca.html

AshleyWatkins94 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: That page says that Mutare is one of eleven sister cities to Portland. It does not say that Tellinn is not a sister city. RudolfRed (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October

Moved here from Talk:Portland, Oregon/to do, nowiki tags added -- John of Reading (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In demographics this articles cites a 2005 sudy that says portland public school enrollment is declining. Today's Oregonian newspaper states that the district has had 5 straight years of growing enrollment. <ref>http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/10/portland_public_schools_enroll_1.html#incart_m-rpt-2</ref> Cissellus (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)cissellus October 10, 2013

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Population ranking

In the fourth paragraph, the text says, "Portland is Oregon's most populous city, and the third most populous city in the Pacific Northwest region, after Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia." This makes it the fourth most populous city in the Pacific Northwest region, although it seems rather odd to include Vancouver in the "Pacific Northwest region", which, as far as I know, is a region of the United States. (Vancouver is the south-west of Canada, in any case.) Unless anyone objects, I shall remove Vancouver from the list and perhaps clarify that we are talking about the United States when the city is ranked third in its region. Ondewelle (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking up. See the Pacific Northwest article. Wikipedia is a world wide resource and we take a world view for the context of the PNW.
I am confused by your mention of "fourth". Did you mean third? —EncMstr (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, third is correct as the text stands.
As to Vancouver being in the Pacific North-West, do Canadians consider it to be in the "Pacific North-West"? If they do, then obviously it is reasonable to mention Vancouver in this context. Ondewelle (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the first paragraphs of Pacific Northwest should answer your question. —EncMstr (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It suggests that that whoever wrote that article considers Vancouver as being in the Pacific North-west, although it still strikes me as a somewhat US-centric point of view. Ondewelle (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Living just outside of Portland (in Vancouver, WA on the way to Vancouver, B.C.), I can say that most of us that live here (and we're all very proud of the NW) consider parts of Canada to be a part of it. Some people consider it to be as much as Northern CA, western Idaho, WA, OR, BC, and even AK. Most everyone agrees it is at least OR, WA and SW BC. PrairieKid (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Commute

It said, “Some Portlanders use mass transit for their daily commute.” I changed “some” to “many”; “some” is too weak a word; every major U.S. city has at least a few people who use transit for their commute; even in Houston, about 9% of residents don't have a car. In fact, Portland ranks 28th of about 297 U.S. cities of over 105 in terms of popularity of commuting to work on public transit. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but don't agree with your conclusion. Perhaps I was a bit hasty reverting your edit, but I believe the consensus will be that some is more accurate than many as transit usage in Portland is around 10%. Many would be accurate for New York City, but since U.S. transit usage is quite low compared to Europe and Asia—where many would be apropos—I think some is better. —EncMstr (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence of opening

"Portland is home to a large number of independent microbreweries, microdistilleries and food carts that contribute to the unofficial slogan "Keep Portland Weird"."

In what way to microbreweries and food carts make the city "weird"? This is stylistically strange. Many cities are home to breweries and food carts. I believe that "Keep Portland Weird" refers to the city's reputation for eccentricity, not its dining and drinking options.--Aeranis (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Racist

PORTLAND, Ore., February 7, 2014– According to local media outlet, The Oregonian (Highlighted by the Associated Press), African American activists and politicians forced the Trader Joe’s grocery chain to drop their plans for a new store in a predominately black community because the store would “increase the desirability of the neighborhood,” for “non-oppressed populations.” “We run neighborhood stores, and our approach is simple,” said the grocery chain. “If a neighborhood does not want a Trader Joe’s, we understand, and we won’t open the store in question.”

The Portland Development Commission offered a substantial discount to the grocery chain for a two acre parcel of land that appraised for $2.9 million. The land, which sat undeveloped for years, was offered to the chain for $500,000 in an attempt to bring high paying jobs and prosperity to the neighborhood. The construction project, which was to include a two large anchor buildings and 10 retail shops, was promised to an African American owned construction company. The Portland African American Leadership Forum, along with the Mayor Charlie Hales, sent letters to Portland Development Commission citing that they were “contributing to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement of the African American community.” They also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesn’t solely benefit African Americans..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.2.208 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Updating MSA population estimates to 2013 numbers

Hello, I have updated the Portland MSA wiki page with the latest 2013 population numbers from the Census Bureau. It appears I do not have permission to edit that content here. How can I go about having the MSA population updated to reflect the 2013 estimate of 2,314,554?

LCB2013 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)LCB2013

Hi, do you have a link to your source for the latest figures? - Lawsonstu (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The March 2013 edits...

...by an unregistered user did some weird stuff to this article. I don't think that's what we mean by "keep Portland weird". I don't have time to follow up on this right now--the edits can't be rolled back because of intervening edits. Valfontis (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Largest?

In reference to my original edit which was then reverted, then I redid with explanation. There was a concern about whether it needs to be stated that Portland is the largest city by population in Oregon. I think it is absolutely unambiguously clear without stating that exact detail. Here's my point: It is unhelpful to specify Portland as the largest city by population in Oregon since it is the largest in every other measure as well. There is no measure by which it is not the largest. By later saying that it is the third highest population in the region after Vancouver and Seattle, all of the information is available to know with certainty that there cannot be any other city in Oregon with larger population, and thus the first sentence's "largest" statement must at least be valid for population but probably by other measures as well (which is true). If we add "by population" to the first sentence, it implies that it is not the largest by other measures, which would be false. I returned it to just saying "the largest" without the qualifier. The current version has no ambiguity whatsoever and reads clearly to anyone. I didn't think this was worth discussing on the talk page, it's a minor copy-edit issue, but I didn't want to keep doing back and forth edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backfromquadrangle (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comparison to NYC?

Did I read that right? Portland has stages similar to New York's Off-Broadway and Off Off Broadway stages? [[26]] lol As someone who has been a part of both the theatre worlds in New York and Portland, I can honestly say that the two do not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. Puh-leeze! One is the real thing; the other is a back-woods provincial scene for hobbyists. Portland truly has delusions of grandeur if it thinks it is in league with the Big Apple. Mention "Portland" in New York City, and people will think you are referring to a city in Maine. Copy Editor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For someone involved in stage theatre, your esteem for mainstream tastes and trends is a little bit sad. You imply that you are the authority who determines what is "real" art and what is simple "hobby". Sorry to bring you back to reality, but I've seen much more compelling stage plays at small, intimate venues that don't cost $200 a ticket to attend, compared to the neurotic and self-important productions on Broadway. Now go back to being a cog in the tourism machinery in Manhattan and leave the artistic creativity to people who haven't been brainwashed by corporate mass-media. -92.24.83.71 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with personal opinion. It has to do with fact. New York City is an international alpha city with a renowned theatre district rivaled only by that of London. Portland cannot be compared to New York in any regard, least of all with regard to theatre. This is a moot point to anyone with any education on the topic. My perspective is not shaped by the "mass media," but by the fact that I've lived in both cities, performed in both cities, and even knew a Portlander (Shoshana Bean) who became a Broadway star. There is no comparison between the two cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.32.219 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Not to be snarky, but Copy Editor and the 2nd ip editor have some salient points. Portland, while it does have a vibrant theater (I have a friend in the Shakespeare company up there), is not on the same level as NY. In terms of Broadway theater, there are 2 (as the ip editor stated): NYC and London. Period. One item I will take issue with Copy Editor is that this is dealing with non-Broadway theater (off and off-off), in that respect there are at least 2 other US cities which have very important communities: Chicago and LA (although as David Dukes said, the difference between off-Broadway theater in NY and LA is that in NY it is a way of life... in LA it is a way to get into films). But those are the only two other US cities which can be compared to NYC in terms of non-Broadway theater. Onel5969 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I grew up in the performing arts community in Portland. I've performed on every major stage in the city (including the Rosegarden and the studio at Oregon public broadcasting), and have been involved with many of the theater companies mentioned on this page -- some of them from their inception. Growing up in this community we were always very clear about what Portland was: a small provincial town with a little bit of charm, that on a national level ultimately amounted to a cultural backwater. We knew that if we truly wanted to make it we had to go to New York, which is what Shoshana, and many other friends, did. Even I did, briefly. (And after leaving New York, Shoshana didn't head back to Portland but went to Los Angeles.) The small amount of media coverage that Portland has gotten recently, such silly shows as Portlandia (TV series) (a show that represents a very small subculture in Portland, one that I had nothing to do with while growing up there) has gone to Portland's head. Despite the fact that it has a population of less than a half 1 million, is the only major city in the US to still be majority white, frequently has hate crimes against gays, has an active Aryan nation brotherhood, a police force that systematically targets, harasses, and sometimes kills African-Americans for things like minor traffic infractions, Portland thinks it's cutting edge and a major cosmopolitan area. Portland has in reality become a very white middle-class city that feels more like suburban sprawl. Portland is not New York. It isn't even Seattle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.233 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we bring this back to how we can improve the Wikipedia article specifically? ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Here's how: ditch the grandiose reference to New York City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.32.229 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedily closed and not moved. There are two huge reasons why this goes down in flames. First, the last move request to establish the Oregon city's primacy at Portland did not achieve a consensus. Even if it were clearly the primary topic, this move request violates the admittedly absurd but also-still-reigning standard at WP:USPLACENAMES. FWIW, it's also a malformed move request. My advice? Look up lots and lots of sources proving that the Oregon city has claim to both major criteria up at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and then propose a move of the disambiguation page, repurposing Portland itself to redirect here. One thing at a time. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Portland, Oregon → Portland – Portland, Oregon is the most notably "Portland" in the United States. I think the page should just simply be named Portland. Then create a page "Portland (disambiguation)", listing other Portland's CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I've never set foot in Australia. I'm a longtime member of WikiProject Oregon. Proud American. Even prouder native Oregonian (hence "'our' Portland"). I have even lived in Portland a couple of times. I work there. It's a great city. But what I am trying to say is that I used a workaround to get a global perspective, that is I fooled Google into thinking I don't live in Oregon (or that the server to my ISP isn't in Oregon), then I get a different search result. To reiterate, since I guess I'm not being very clear, what I was trying to show is that not everyone who uses the English Wikipedia lives in the U.S., and thus "Portland, Oregon" isn't the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of "Portland". Since I asked for evidence I was showing how one might find evidence to the contrary, based on the imperfect metric of using Google. See WP:WORLDVIEW for more idea about what I'm going on about. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons already pointed out by Valfontis, Lugnuts and Calidum. Onel5969 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Valfontis. ----Another Believer (Talk) 00:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I tend to think that I've only seen this let's not consider places in the rest of the world in US related topics. GregKaye 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it snowing yet? --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Oregon city is the primary topic in the western United States, but not globally. ONR (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First, I would need to see evidence that the city in Oregon is more notable, more significant, and more used on a worldwide basis than the isle in England. The Oregon city was named after the Maine city (by a coin toss no less), which in turn was named after the isle -- thus long-term significance would tilt in favour of the isle. Second, a rename would also violate the WP:USPLACE guideline on the naming conventions for articles on U.S. cities, which typically defaults to the comma convention of "city name, state". Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It doesn't matter one bit whether it's the Primary Topic or not, as it's not one of the few cities listed as exempt from "city name, state" per WP:USPLACE. I don't agree with the exemption rule, as it should be one way or the other, but that's the guideline. In this case, the issue of Primary Topic is debatable, which generally means it probably isn't the primary topic anyway, so there's no need to try to get an exemption the guideline. - BilCat (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Climate

For a long time the lead said this about Portland's climate: Located in the Marine west coast climate region, Portland has a climate marked by both warm, dry summers and wet, cool-to-chilly winter days. That sentence was just changed to this: Portland has a Mediterranean climate (Köppen climate classification Csb), with cool, wet winters and very warm, dry summers.

Can we talk about this? For starters, I find it hard to believe anyone would characterized Portland summers as "very warm".

I've been checking for sources and I find:

  • This sources says Although not as hot as most Mediterranean climates, western Oregon has what most scientists agree is a cool summer Mediterranean climate, or oceanic climate.[28]
  • This source says the area is in Climate Division 2, adding The climatic conditions closely resemble the Mediterranean climates, which occur in California, although Oregon's winters are somewhat wetter and cooler.[29] and [30]
  • This source says mediterranean climate with dry warm summers and mild winters.[31]
  • This source confirms Csb classification and says Portland, Oregon has a warm mediterranean/ dry-summer subtropical climate that is mild with dry, warm summers and moderate seasonality. Regions with this subtype of the Mediterranean climate closely resemble an oceanic climate with generally cloudier and damper conditions than typical Mediterranean climates tho they are still susceptible to fire in the warm dry summer months.[32]
  • The Wikipedia article about Mediterranean climates mentions the cool-summer variant of Mediterranean, which it says may better be described as oceanic. That's what this article previously called it: Marine west coast, which redirects to Oceanic climate. That article lists synonyms: Oceanic climate (also known as marine, west coast and maritime). It also says The oceanic climate exists in an arc spreading across the north-western coast of North America from the Alaskan panhandle to northern California, in general the coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest. It includes the western parts of Washington and Oregon, the Alaskan panhandle, western portions of British Columbia, and north-western California. Also Under Köppen-Geiger, many areas generally considered to have Oceanic climates are classified as cool summer, dry-summer subtropical (Csb) climates. These areas are not usually associated with a typical Mediterranean climate, and include much of the Pacific Northwest, ...

I wonder if we can reach some kind of compromise, such as "Cool-summer Mediterranean (Köppen climate classification Csb), also sometimes called west coast oceanic" ? --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah Portland, it always has to be a little different. I like your compromise but I'm not much of a climate expert. I was thinking that we should ask over at WikiProject Geography but it doesn't seem very active. I've always been a bit puzzled by the climate additions as there seems to be little consistency across articles. I'll drop a note on at WT:ORE and see anyone not only wants to talk about the weather but also do something about it. Valfontis (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology seems a more likely choice than Geography though it too is not very active. At least not like us.
It is amusing to describe Portland's weather as being similar to the Mediterranean, though I have been well sunburned in both locations. The heat can be pretty oppressing in the latter as can the mosquitoes. —EncMstr (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally I also had trouble with the description "dry summers", but that's because I'm from California, where "dry summer" means DRY - as opposed to "less rainy". But Reliable Sources mostly seem to support "dry summers" so I won't object to that one. Before reaching any conclusion we should wait to hear from the person who made the changes. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Keep Portland Weird"

What is "weird" about microbreweries, food carts and distilleries? How do these things contribute to the slogan "Keep Portland Weird"? The sources for this assertion come from a Daily Mail article that does not connect Portland's food scene with this unofficial slogan.

Personally, I thought Portland was considered "weird" for its many non-mainstream subcultures and Bohemian reputation, not its dining options. In any case, this is a weakly-backed claim that does not belong in the introduction. --Aeranis (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

East Portland Secession movement, March 2015

A group called East Portland de-Annexation Secession has filed a measure with the City of Portland, and are now looking to take their secession plea to the state level. Please update the article with this latest breaking information. Petition for East Portland to secede from the rest of the city -- November 2016 General Election Initiative Petition Log, East Portland de-Annexation Secession movement --CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tool to generate publicity. If this initiative becomes notable as reflected in extensive coverage in reliable, independent news sources that can be cited, it will be discussed in this article. Until and unless that occurs, it will not. See also WP:RECENT. Dwpaul Talk 01:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Also note that per your second link, the Portland City Auditor found on March 4 that the "petition does not meet the requirements of Section 1 (2)(d) and (5), Article IV of the Oregon Constitution." Dwpaul Talk 01:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Please read the news story. Many news outlets are covering the topic :) But i do understand what you mean Dwpaul CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hardly seems worth mention at this point. It will get more media attention if it makes it onto the ballot, but we shouldn't anticipate that per WP:CRYSTAL. VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Aye, I understand. Wikipedia is defiantly not a crystal ball. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Portland, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Min-max elevation locations

I have restored the min/max elevation locations in the infobox and per WP:BRD suggest discussing it at WT:WikiProject Oregon § Min-Max elevation locations in Portland article. YBG (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Portland, Oregon

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, there seems to be a dispute between @50.206.176.142 and Drown Soda: and I about whether it is appropriate to say that Portland was founded at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia. Any comments from others? YBG (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

At a point ten miles from the mouth of the Willamette, however, one finds a great bend in the river [...] Here has been formed the site of Portland.

Harvey Scott, History of Portland, Oregon: With Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Prominent Citizens and Pioneers

I am with you, and so is history. I've added this to the article. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
My main thing was just that it sounded syntactically weird to me when I read it. I suppose it makes sense either way. While the city may not have been literally founded right along the Columbia, the Columbia River does border it from the state of Washington—the city is very much located in the vicinity of where the rivers meet. —Drown Soda (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Today it does, yes, no argument there. Yet the detail here is that the lead specifically refers to the 1840s, at which point the city had not yet expanded to the Columbia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a RS, but if my elementary school memory serves, the key to Portland's development was not its proximity to the mouth of the Willamette, but its location at the head of deep water navigation. YBG (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm contributing to this thread late, but the beginnings of Portland's development are (at least) two fold. On one hand, Portland was located at the head of navigation; it was thought that Oregon City, at the base of Willamette Falls was it, but it was discovered that a ship could only anchor there at exceptional high tides or flood stages. On the other, Portland had access to profitable hinterlands, unlike Milwaukie -- the fertile Tualatin Plains & its many farms, via Canyon Road, now Sunset Highway. Milwaukie's hinterlands were covered with old growth woods & even cleared are not as fertile as the Tualatin valley. These two factors favored Portland over its other rivals -- those mentioned here & others I haven't mentioned. The standard source for this is Eugene E. Snyder's Early Portland: Stump-Town Triumphant (Portland: Binford & Mort, 1970). -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Demographics" - "In the 1980s and 1990s, radical skinhead groups flourished in Portland."

This language is ridiculously over the top - it reads like something the New York Post might've printed to antagonize New York City hipsters and discourage additional New Yorkers from joining their ranks and heading west, or that author Elinor Langer might've written to pimp her book by trashing Portland.

I lived in Portland during the referenced time period, beginning in 1986. There may have been a couple of groups there then whose membership and dedication to their cause was highly flexible; at their height these generally feckless cliques might've been able to pull together fifty people combined at most if the gathering promised free beer. They pretty much fell away from the public eye when their ostensible leader, t.v. repairman Tom Metzger, was driven into bankruptcy by Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The noted profoundly disgraceful death of Mr. Seraw was not the result of any premeditated and focused racist attack but instead originated with a traffic confrontation between Mr. Seraw and a beat-up compact car filled with a handful of racist and violence-prone punks who admittedly were followers of Mr. Metzger (who, interestingly, wasn't in Portland at the time of the murder and hadn't set foot in Portland in years); three of those in the car were subsequently convicted of murder or manslaughter and assault in Mr. Seraw's death.

The skinhead presence in Portland only became visible after this incident and pretty much dried up and blew away within a few years afterward, after Mr. Metzger was tried civilly by Mr. Dees and found liable based on the testimony of a confessed Metzger emissary-turned-informant, Dave Mazzella. In other words: the convictions had their intended effect on Portland's mini-subculture of racist skinheads - an agglomeration that that was never noted for its diligence, competence or numerical strength.

Much information about this episode was printed at the time in the Portland daily Oregonian and the local alternative weekly, Willamette Week; as this episode occurred during the pre-internet days, the relevant articles may or may not be accessible on-line now. None of these or any other reliable sources reveal any "flourishing" of radical skinhead groups in Portland - they were a minute presence invisible to all but the police except during the Seraw matter. BLZebubba (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Portland, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Portland, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portland, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Portland, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Portland, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Settlement" subhead

Just wanted to make a suggestion that I feel like this subhead under history would be more accurate as "White Settlement" or "European Settlement," since, as the previous subsection notes, there were American Indian settlements in the area going back thousands of years. Thfump (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo Collage

One more suggestion, while I'm at it. I feel like the photo collage could be more representative of the best the city has to offer. The US Bank Building and the Wells Fargo Tower aren't nearly as significant, I don't think, as the Int'l Rose Test Garden, the Japanese Garden & the Chinese Garden in fall color, the South Park Blocks & PSU in springtime, or even Hawthorne Blvd. Also, the St John's Bridge and Pioneer Courthouse Square certainly deserve to be there, but there are far better photos of both -- including many of the latter that feature large gatherings in the square and/or the Pioneer Courthouse in the background. When I find good ones that I've taken, I'll try and upload them, but I'm sure there are already many out there and not under copyright. Thfump (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thfump: I made the collage a few years ago and honestly feel now that a simple cityscape photo would suffice for the infobox if I'm being perfectly honest. The problem I have with these kinds of collages is that it's difficult to agree on what belongs there—if I remember right, I chose photos of places that had historical significance along with key locations (Pioneer Square, St. Johns Bridge); another problem is that a lot of these photos don't show up well when scaled down and made into a collage. For example, I did try to include a the Rose Test Garden in this collage, but the problem was that the photos showed virtually no detail when scaled down—they looked like an indecipherable red & green blob. The only alternative was to include a close-up of a rose from the garden, but does that really show anyone anything about the city itself? I think it's too nondescript. As far as your comment about place with large gatherings—I think this should be avoided by and large. The goal is not to show large groups of people in the city (esp. in infobox photos), but more the physical properties and locations of the city itself. --Drown Soda (talk)
Drown Soda makes a good point about the need for subjects in an infobox collage to look good when scaled-down, and I agree that it's too difficult to include the Rose Garden or other notable green spaces in such a collage, for that reason.
A past discussion of this (in September 2016), with comments from five editors, can be found on this page. SJ Morg (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sound spelling

Do you people really think people have a hard time pronouncing Portland? I mean, where do you get off being so condescending? There is no other way to pronounce the name of this city, but there you go, thinking your readers are illiterate jerkoffs. Please share with me how somebody might pronounce Portland another way. You really need to stop treating us like children.--2601:5C0:4280:3D40:8536:4081:2874:E3C7 (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that not all Wikipedia readers are native speakers of English, and pronunciation information is useful to them. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Portland, Oregon is known the world over and it is spelled in a way that could not be misinterpreted by even the most remedial speaker of English. Some exotic sounding city in Mexico I would sort of understand, but Portland is spelled in a way that is perfectly idiotproof. You can spare the condescension. You people had a sound spelling for Hank Williams Sr. for a while. Come on, stop the insults.--2601:5C0:4280:3D40:8536:4081:2874:E3C7 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course there's more than one way to pronounce Portland, and I lived in a country where it was pronounced differently, with an emphasis on the "land", and pronounced that way. Don't assume everyone on Earth has heard of Portland, because many haven't. - BilCat (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
All well and good. Your bold edit is appreciated, but it has been WP:Reverted. Per WP:BRD (Bold/Revert/Discuss), once it has been reverted, the status quo should be preserved until a consensus is reached. To do otherwise constitutes edit warring. YBG (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The pronounciation has now been removed by User:Maczkopeti, who was not involved in this discussion. As the edit summary contains a reference to an applicable policy (MOS:LEADPRON) and it is apparent from their contributions that this is not an attempt to circumvent this discussion, I am quite convinced that this this edit in no way violates WP:BRD. Furthermore, I think that unless we reach a concensus that MOS:LEADPRON does not apply, we should not revert this edit. YBG (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "State & County QuickFacts". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
  2. ^ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US4159000&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Portland&_cityTown=Portland&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
  3. ^ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4159000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
  4. ^ "State & County QuickFacts". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
  5. ^ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US4159000&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Portland&_cityTown=Portland&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
  6. ^ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4159000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
  7. ^ "State & County QuickFacts". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
  8. ^ ?http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4159000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
  9. ^ "State & County QuickFacts". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
  10. ^ ?http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4159000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
  11. ^ "State & County QuickFacts". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
  12. ^ ?http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4159000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
  13. ^ "State & County QuickFacts". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
  14. ^ ?http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4159000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
  15. ^ "State & County QuickFacts". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
  16. ^ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4159000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on
  17. ^ http://oregonbeer.org/facts/
  18. ^ http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/20/251
  19. ^ http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220319
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portland,_Oregon/Archive_5&oldid=1199603042"