Jump to content

Talk:Red House eviction defense

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 04:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most appropriate infobox

[edit]

User:Juno used Template:Infobox settlement over at Red House Autonomous Zone, but I wonder if Template:Infobox civil conflict is more appropriate for this article which is more generally about a demonstration? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Framing

[edit]

This is a good start on a tricky topic. I've been looking into this but you found some sources I've missed. I would suggest that a title and lead section that's a little more general might be in order; the declaration of an autonomous zone is a significant part of what's going on, but it's only one piece. The article could also be called, e.g., "Red House legal dispute" or "Red House eviction protest". The declaration of an autonomous zone could be discussed in context.

Somewhat related, I'd urge using the Portland Observer coverage from November as a source in the lead section, it's a pretty good framing of the background. The dispute has been going on for more than a decade, and the AZ declaration is only a day or so old. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot going on here! Its definitely multidimensional and I've been looking for good sources on the background. I went with RHAZ mostly because it was the common name that I saw in most of the news coverage, but this could go somewhere else. Might even be worth more than one article, I view Tuesday as a clear split with what was happening before. Juno (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood

[edit]

So currently the article mentions both Albina and Boise, but actually the house lies within the boundaries of Humboldt, Portland, Oregon. I'll see if I can find sourcing specifically mentioning "Humboldt", but meantime we might consider how to present the demonstration's/house's location. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This KOIN source says Humboldt. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Albina" should be fine since that is a district (which incorporates the others) not a formal neighborhood. I'm not certain whether it's technically in Boise or Humboldt, but either way it's in Albina. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peteforsyth, I'm hoping we can squeeze 'Humboldt' in at least one section as a descriptor, especially since Category:Humboldt, Portland, Oregon has been added. I don't suggest removing mention of Albina by any means. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm getting lots of edit conflicts, and have to get to something else, so I'll leave it to you. Thanks for all your efforts on this. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added mention of Humboldt to the lead but welcome efforts to clarify the language throughout, since the article currently mentions Albina, Boise, and Humboldt. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related, the article currently says "Boise is a historically less-white neighborhood of Portland that has suffered from gentrification in the early parts of the 21st century" but the citation does not mention Boise by name unless I'm overlooking. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The house is officially Humboldt, Boise ends at Skidmore (TIL). In any case, it's not Boise or Humboldt that have been redlined and gentrified, it's the greater North Portland. tedder (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder, Agreed, and I have no prob describing the history of the wider area, but we should make it clear the house itself is within the boundaries of Humboldt. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's confusing for the article to mention in the lead that the house is in Humboldt, but then refer to "the Red House's Boise neighborhood" in the beginning of the Background section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you for cleaning up this article and trimming unnecessary detail. I do feel strongly about keeping mention of the house being within the boundaries of the Humboldt neighborhood, if you don't mind adding back. Or, is there a reason you removed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: No reason other than at the time I couldn't figure out a way around writing "Albina, Humboldt, Portland, Oregon, United States" which seemed absurd. However I've since reorganized the lead a bit and it fits in just fine now, so I've readded it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, but there's still issues here. I see two...and they probably overlap a bit.
  1. A technical issue: Boise and Humboldt are technical neighborhoods with defined borders, recognized by City code. Albina is a different kind of entity, it may or may not have defined borders in 2020 (I'm not certain). It contains Boise and Humboldt, not the other way around. So if nothing else, the lead sentence has it backwards: Humboldt is inside Albina, not Albina inside Humboldt.
  2. The second issue is not as clearly defined, and as a resident of SE Portland my knowledge is somewhat limited, but I think this is very important stuff too. The Boise neighborhood is the one that contains the bulk of the business district of Mississippi Ave. The economic and social hub of the area is in the Boise neighborhood. So, the fact that the Red House is technically a couple blocks outside the area's center of social and business gravity might eclipse something more significant, i.e. the social and economic forces that influenced the current situation may indeed be more about Boise than Humboldt. I am a little skeptical of a wish to emphasize the technical neighborhood of the Red House (Humboldt), when its neighborhood (in a more colloquial, and perhaps more relevant, sense) might actually be Boise. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Peteforsyth, Thanks for fleshing out some thoughts here. No need to be skeptical! All I've asked is to have Humboldt mentioned as well, so the category can be applied and because the house is indeed located within the defined neighborhood's boundaries. I don't object to placing emphasis on Albina and/or Boise as long as the various districts and neighborhoods and all defined and clarified appropriately. I'm sure we can come up with wording that works over time! ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer Sorry, didn't mean to suggest I'm skeptical of your motives, I hope it didn't come across that way. Just trying to map out some of the overlapping issues. I agree, we'll figure it out...just trying to be transparent about the stuff bouncing around my brain. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lives Matter?

[edit]

I see Black Lives Matter art in Portland, Oregon in the "See also" section and the WikiProject Black Lives Matter banner above, but I'm failing to find sources about this demonstration mentioning "Black Lives Matter". Do the link and banner apply? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all part of the same protest that's been going on since May. But it's odd that the more general George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon article isn't in that section. I'd replace it with that (or just add that). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peteforsyth, I agree there have been ongoing protests in Portland for months, but I'm not sure this article should mention Black Lives Matter or George Floyd unless sources confirm connections. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much additional work would be required, but are any editors interested in further improving or even nominating this entry for Good article status as part of the ongoing Black Lives Matter Q1 2021 collaboration? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Particular thanks to @Another Believer for all of that good background research on the city.

Right now, based on media coverage, the common name in use seems to a for the RHAZ. Can anyone look up the Stats on this?

I am very open to the possibility that this topic may have enough separate yet overlapping material for more than one article. Juno (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This search suggests that it's only national media outlets using the term. The Oregon Public Broadcasting article doesn't use the term itself, merely cite's the mayor's (disputed) statement about an autonomous zone. The national publications are not doing local reporting, they're basing their reporting off what they can learn from afar. It seems pretty clear that those guiding the protest disavow the term, as they stated in their press conference, and has been confirmed by reporters on social media. I do think it would be useful for the article to discuss the conflicting accounts of whether or not it's been declared an AZ, but I'm not sure there's been solid reporting on that angle yet. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add, tedder did a great deal of work on the redlining research and writing. Kudos. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Level of detail

[edit]

The article has been expanded a great deal in the last day or so, including a lot of detail about the family's background and history. Is this level of detail needed/desirable for a Wikipedia article? In my opinion, we shouldn't be trying to supply exhaustive information, so much as establish the contours of the issue, and linking enough sources that readers interested in delving in more deeply have some suggestions of where to look. Much of the information does refer to sources, but even in those, cases, it might be more detail than we should include here. Thoughts? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a lot of it isn't related to the topic at hand. tedder (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a bunch of this extraneous information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have some thoughts about how to make the background concise while retaining key elements and links. I'll share before an actual edit. Just wanted to let y'all know I'm working on it.Art to Tech (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal fo a slightly condensed history (new section title - History and Context"?) that includes links for more details. reduced from 575 to 400 words. Added important part about MERS which seems to have impacted the Kinney family's experience. (per legal docs posted by KOIN). I need to get the citations right, and then if y'all like it (or some do and no one objects) I'll copy it in. Should I have used my talk page or sandbox for sharing this?
The Red House is located in the Albina district, which is historically the home of large portions of Portland's Black population. In 1960, 80% of Portland's Black population lived in the Albina district, but by 2000, less than one third of Portland's black population lived there.[2]
Portland’s Black residents have been forcibly relocated multiple times during the past 150 years, due to discrimination and segregation, siting of shipyards and train yards, the Vanport flood, the 1905 World’s Fair, development of the Memorial Coliseum, placement of Emanuel Hospital and the I-5 freeway, and redlining. In 1859 Oregon joined the union, and was teh only state to decare that Black people could not live there (Atlantic). In 1919, The Portland Realty Board passed a rule banning the sale of property to a Black family in a White neighborhood. In 1970, 76 acres, including a key black commercial center, were condemned and cleared.
In the 1990s, the Albina district was declared blighted property and qualified as an urban renewal area. This designation and the relatively low land and housing prices attracted gentrification. Real estate values increased at twice the rate of the rest of the city from 1996 to 2010, and many properties doubled or tripled in value.[2][6] While this lifted home values for the remaining black homeowners, it also "priced out" the majority of residents who did not own a home. This was later captured in the documentary with that title (Priced Out).
Black homeownership rates continued to decline in Portland in the 1990s due in part to usurious mortgage financing. One lender, Dominion Capital, owned more than 350 area homes, selling and reselling them to unsuspecting Black residents with high interest payments, balloon payments, fake appraisals, and even without having the title. Dominion's owners were sentenced in the early 1990s for fraud and racketeering. [5]
State law requires mortgage sales to be recorded in county records. But in 1995, the banking system created their own private Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgages in the United States. Homeowners then struggled to identify their mortgage owners, and counties did not receive millions of dollars in recording fees. MERS led to confusion within the court system and foreclosure process. Eleven Oregon counties sued MERS for $50 million.
These conditions have led to development of the Mississippi Avenue area surrounding the Red House, and caused many single family houses to be torn down to make way for trendy retail shops and multistory buildings.[7][8][2]

Art to Tech (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Art to Tech: Sorry to let so much time pass. While I haven't reviewed this in great detail, I see the sense in what you're saying, and it seems like an improvement. I think it's best to make a change like this directly on the page; that way others can easily see the "before" and "after" (see Help:Diff for more on this). If there's a problem, it's always easy to revert; so there's no harm in making a significant change like this directly to the article. Also, I've been meaning to see Priced Out for a while, but now that I know how directly it relates, it's moving up on my list -- thanks for mentioning it! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small details such as style guide questions

[edit]

Should "Black" be capitalized when referring to people? If yes, I will fix all. I have started using that style in other places. Also "White" then. I poked around but didn't quickly find a Wikipedia style guide - if there is one, please LMK. Art to Tech (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge there is no guideline mentioning a standard for this. Most articles I've seen do not capitalize it, though I believe I have seen some that do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At some point "Black" was dropped to "black" in this article. There was a discussion closed two days ago in MOSCAP against capitalizing. I completely disagree and think it's a stunningly conservative "consensus". tedder (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Talk:MOSCAP concluded that MOSCAP shouldn't be changed to instruct people to capitalize "Black", which means that the guideline continues to not specify how the term should be treated. My reading of this is that it's up to individual editors to make decisions per-article, unless there is some other discussion elsewhere that I'm not aware of that has been treated as de facto guidance on the practice. I have just adjusted capitalization in the article to lowercase "Black" where it was capitalized in a few places, but I do want to be clear that my choice to lowercase those instances rather than capitalize the others was because it appeared that the majority of usages were lowercased. I have no strong opinion on whether it ought to be uppercased or lowercased, but it should be consistent within the article (except in quotes and references, where the original casing should be maintained). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be explicit, this article started and was substantially written with Black. It was dropped in a single edit. tedder (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize that but a look in the history confirms what you've said. I've adjusted the casing accordingly since that seems to be the original version, and if someone wants to begin a discussion to establish consensus to change the casing they can do so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote capitalize Black
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html
https://apnews.com/article/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a

Art to Tech (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art to Tech (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the Red House page from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Portland,_Oregon - but I can't find a function to make this appear in "your messages" helpful hint appreciated, but I can also look it up :) Art to Tech (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Art to Tech I think you are wondering how to "notify" a specific user to a comment, with an orange alert at the top of the page. That's accomplished by putting a link to their userpage or user talk page (like how I linked your page at the beginning of this comment). That's the most straightforward way of doing it; there are templates that can be used to be a little more elegant with it, such as Art to Tech or @Art to Tech: but the link is the part that matters. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link on the "Red House" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_House Art to Tech (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign citizen

[edit]

Just leaving a comment here to start a proper discussion, since discussing things via edit summary alone never goes well and details are missed.

My comment (partial): "I still think the relevance of this needs to be established, FWIW"

Crossroads' comment (partial): "The relevance of the other matter is also clear because it is mentioned in multiple sources about this topic, including others which are not listed. It would be WP:POV to exclude things that reliable sources on this topic regularly discuss and only hew to a certain narrative"

To elaborate on my inital comment, I am not against the inclusion of the information at this point, as it is well sourced. JJ McNab is certainly an expert on the topic (I have run into her work during my work on boogaloo movement and am familiar with her background). What I was trying to say, and what I realize now was not very clear in my wording, was that the information about Kinney Jr.'s sovcit rhetoric is sort of just dropped into the a section where it doesn't seem relevant. The section mentions legal conflicts but doesn't specify that it is Kinney Jr. who has written any of the legal filings. It's also not made clear in the article if/that Kinney Jr. is a prominent figure in this dispute (which I assume he is?), which would then possibly make his social media postings relevant. I hope that is a clearer explanation of my concerns with the paragraph. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good, we basically agree then. I made these edits [2][3] to try to alleviate this. On that note, there are more aspects from the sources that could be worth mentioning; for example: that William X. Nietzche is what William Jr. goes by, and/or that he has espoused specifically the Moorish sovereign citizen ideology. Crossroads -talk- 18:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

See this recent change at Cameron's Books and Magazines. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies from Mayor and police chief, random relevant twitter quotes

[edit]

Just want to capture these from a thread by Shane D. Kavanaugh; main story here:

From Mayor Ted Wheeler: "An agreement in principle we reached late Saturday evening will result in the re-opening the streets and sidewalks in the area near the Red House on Mississippi."
"We apologize & understand that following our tweets earlier this week your family received threats," Wheeler & PPB Chief Lovell wrote in a Dec. 12 letter to Kinney family. "Nobody should be subjected to this kind of stress and harm & we apologize for the role our tweets played."
"Gentrification and displacement, income inequality, and predatory lending practices continue to harm your family, others who are Black and Indigenous, and our entire community."

tedder (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From some journalists, discussing "violence against journalists":
Garrison Davis, discussing this Oregonian article:
This Oregonian article is nonsense. I’ve been at Red House nearly everyday since Tuesday. I’ve taken pictures & interviewed people without issue. You don’t need to film 24/7 to “accurately” report. Write, take notes, it’s in the name, “Journal(ism).” In all types of reporting there are instances where you aren’t able to film whenever you’d like, not unique to political events. IMO good coverage of anti-state resistance shouldn’t be akin to state surveillance. I’ll be writing in depth on Red House in the near future. Re: "Fuck Press" Graffiti Some folks aren't fond of press due to stuff like that Oregonian article & the fact that bad reporting has gotten many activists killed or locked up for stuff including giving out food, standing in a street, playing music, making barricades, etc.
Melissa "Claudio" Lewis, quote-tweeting Garrison:
I’m also going to say this is nonsense. Apart from yesterday (where we were all nearly shot) I’ve spent about 18 hours a day at RHED. Protesting against the police is of course going to be careful about surveillance. This has resulted in high tensions. If you film in war zones, or with oppressed communities, you have to follow rules, gain trust, and keep them safe. That’s not breaking codes, that’s not doing harm to your to your subjects. If you have bias, acknowledge it. I am obviously an anti fascist, I do have bias, but I do not selectively edit or deny fact. But I also do not endanger the subjects I am photographing or the community I work with.
tedder (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We would need a reliable source (published news article, for example) to challenge the claims in-article. Tweets (even by journalists) can't really be used to challenge RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. They also don't say anything about violence not having happened; their comments heavily imply that rules do exist, though apparently exceptions on photos are made for certain individuals. They're mainly just saying, 'Their rules are good, actually'. Crossroads -talk- 01:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they aren't RS. That's why I've posted them on the talk page. tedder (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Jonathan Levinson got into this issue in today's Think Out Loud / OPB interview. That's a reliable source that might cover the issues the two of you are talking about. It's in the article as "ref name=opb-tol15" -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely I added parts of it without knowing you'd added the ref. tedder (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Yeah, he covered a lot of ground in that interview...stuff that applies to many parts of this article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

I uploaded another couple dozen photos today. Probably worth including one or two of these, maybe replacing one of the barricade shots from a couple days ago, maybe replacing the main photo with a clearer shot? I'm not really tied to any of the ones I uploaded, if anybody wants to take a closer look and make replacements. commons:Category:Red House, Portland, Oregon -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to bring up to date. "Neighbor perspectives" section?

[edit]

I worked on bringing this article up to date on the events since December 11 (which seems like a bit of a watershed day) -- the negotiations among the protesters, the City, and the developer, etc. I think more work could be done here, maybe there's a better structure for the headers, to make it clear that Dec. 11 to 13 was a significant period of developments and negotiations.

One thing that struck me is that there are references to how neighborhood resident and local business reactions to the occupation, sprinkled throughout the article. Neighbors have been quoted in support, and also in opposition. This issue probably deserves its own brief section. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Oops my bad, its fine... I have a short paragraph about the history of the land that was taken from the Multnomah people and handed to white settlers, including all of Portland, which is relevant as the Kinneys are a Black and indigenous family. ... is the article seems locked? Art to Tech (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if the history of Portland's Black neighborhoods could be its own entry? Or merged with the Albina entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art to Tech (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it could certainly be pushed out (e.g., to the neighborhood pages), with this page just summarizing it. I kinda went overboard knowing it would get tightened up. tedder (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coatracking and synthesis

[edit]

The "Background" section needs to be trimmed way down, and to stick to the points that reliable sources treat as directly relevant to the Red House by discussing them in that context. Tying together material from sources that have nothing to do with the Red House is creating a WP:COATRACK as well as a violation of WP:Synthesis. Like this: If one reliable source says A [the ethnic history of Portland], and another reliable source says B [such and such about the Red House], do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C [that the Red House situation is a continuation of whatever historical patterns or injustices] that is not mentioned by either of the sources. In that vein, it's WP:POV as well. Much of that material should instead be moved to articles that talk about Portland's history or that of certain neighborhoods, and they could be linked with a "see also" hatnote in the section. Crossroads -talk- 01:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about trimming/reducing, see my comment in history. Art to Tech (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the synthesis- the "history" section has nothing to do with Red House (except generally), and isn't connected to the Kinney section at the end of the history. Can you give some examples where you're seeing this? tedder (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I said has to do with the entire Background section starting with "Indigenous land" and ending at the paragraph that starts with "By the 2000s, the trendy Mississippi Avenue area..." right before the "Kinney family" subsection. That material should be exported to other articles if it is not already covered there. That it has "nothing to do with Red House" is precisely the problem. It's a coatrack and tying all those specifics to the Kinneys and the Red House is original research (synthesis) on the part of Wikipedia editors. We need to stick to what reliable sources tie to this topic. Crossroads -talk- 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this condensed background, but will need to confirm it is accurate and cite correctly before posting - also, feedback welcome and appreciated. Several authors contributed to the longer original. The history that was gathered for the long version seems valuable to merge with other entries.
Background
The Red House is in the Humboldt neighborhood, near its boundary with the Boise neighborhood, and within the Albina district of North Portland.
The land that is now Portland was originally inhabited by many Chinookian peoples, including the Multnomah people. This land was taken from its indigenous inhabitants and distributed to white settlers, using the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850, which commandeered 2.5 million acres of tribal land, including all of Portland.
Beginning in the mid-20th century, Portland’s Albina district housed most of Portland's Black population, which has experienced systemic racism and exclusion from acquiring property wealth.
From 1960 to the 2000s, Portland's Black population in the Albina district decreased from 80% to less than one third.
The Red House eviction defense has cited land back and systemic racism as reasons to defend against eviction.
Art to Tech (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement for sure. Thanks. Could it be cited solely to articles that also talk about the Red House? I know many of them do discuss background to some extent. Then we know that there's no synthesis going on. Crossroads -talk- 07:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Giving this another look. Art to Tech (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Crossroads Condensed history/context a lot. Art to Tech (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

source missing: [1]

hello, I'm new to wikipedia comments so hopefully this is helpful to the discussion. If this source is correct, then this wikipedia article is missing a lot of legal facts from public records that seem to readily contradict the statements and implications made in the "kinney family" section of this article, which is surprising for wikipedia. The section implies a story of technicalities that lead to the family not being able to pay their creditors because of a confusing foreclosure process where they didn't know who to pay. But the source states 17 months of payments were missed and the family and the bank were in direct communication in which the family would send back bills with the forms marked "void" by the family and filled with statements to the effect that the bank had no authority over them, to quote the article: "The letter said she was “a declared living American sovereign standing with Treaty Law of God.” It said the company had no jurisdiction “without an international treaty within My republic state” and that the company was not chartered to do business in Oregon “by My republic state.”" This also seems to be the case the family repeatedly made in court. These facts, if true, seem to be in direct contradiction with the story being presented.

--Wikibable (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibable, thanks for your comment. That sounds reasonable. My advice would be wait a little while to see if anybody else responds to this. And after that, feel free to start carefully editing to include this information. You can use the "cite" button in the visual editor to provide citations to your Oregonian newspaper article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikibable, I also support clarifying this matter in the article text based on that source. Crossroads -talk- 05:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/12/familys-path-to-red-house-foreclosure-was-long-filled-with-bizarre-twists.html

Novem_Linguae thanks, understood. A more experienced editor can feel free to edit it as well as this seems like a rather charged issue. Wikibable (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibable: Thanks for posting here. I think you bring up compelling points; the Kinney family's legal argument has been unorthodox and unusual, and I agree that there may be important dissonance between the story presented to the general public vs. the story told in court records etc. But it's a pretty complex case, and there are some related points worth considering. In general, Wikipedia policy encourages us to focus on secondary sources (like newspaper or academic journal articles), rather than primary sources (like court records themselves). See WP:PRIMARY for more about this; the basic idea is that primary sources generally require expert interpretation to put them in proper context, and that's where a journalist (and their interviews with relevant experts) can help. I appreciate that you did post a secondary source, which cites an "expert" (unnamed in this public story, presumably named in the "subscriber only" story linked…I'm happy to check via the library.) However, the OPB reporting already cited in the article states another consideration, that legal experts have opined that if they had access to proper legal counsel in 2018, the Kinney family likely could have avoided foreclosure altogether. Furthermore, there's a statement in the Oregonian article you cited that (with the benefit of hindsight) gives me pause: "Portland’s racial justice protesters, who are holding the neighborhood hostage until their demands to return the Kinneys to their home are met." With the benefit of reading this more than a month later, that statement -- apparently a bit of editorializing by the reporter -- is clearly incorrect. The Kinney's home has not been returned, but the protesters did end the occupation -- and were credited with a "win" by several news organizations, and as far as I can tell, everybody but the mayor.
All of this is a long way of saying, (a) it's complex, and you're probably right that the current telling of the story misses important nuance; and (b) it's complex, so any changes have the possibility of making things worse, too. I agree with others above that changes are worthwhile, but as always -- and especially here -- we should be very careful about details and phrasing, and ensure they can be justified by the best sourcing available, as we make changes.
Given the national attention to this issue, I am frankly a bit surprised there hasn't been more thorough coverage of the merits of the foreclosure proceeding. Maybe there's something in the works out there. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyth: good points on being careful with wording and author biases, however I actually didn't source the legal records directly, only a reporter's overview of them from the Oregonian. I'm not aware of that publication being behind a paywall, but if it is I am able to view it without a subscription. Possibly turn off your ad blocker? It's notable as the only article I've read that went over the legal records in any depth. I'm not sure picking out a sentence from the article and declaring the entire article void and biased because of it is relevant however as: 1. that sentence *at the time* appeared to be arguably true. 2. I wonder if any news articles would meet such a strict interpretation of author bias (certainly not this wikipedia article either). 3. The author's opinion is not sourced, but rather the quoted facts from the legal sources referenced in the article. A discussion of hypothetical "what if" scenarios in terms of legal representation and the foreclosure process itself seems best left to another article. My original point was purely that the facts of the legal records readily contradicted the presented story. The family appeared to have many opportunities to pay back the loan either in direct proceedings with the bank or in legal proceedings, but instead chose to openly dispute authority over a very long period. Wikibable (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikibable: I had assumed from your statement that you are new that you might appreciate some general comments about how we consider stuff like this. You've responded to several (I count three) points that I didn't make, so I guess I guessed wrong :) Please feel free to suggest or make any specific edits that you think would approve the article. No point in discussing first if you're not going to pay attention to what's being stated. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibable, I think your comment was fine. I think it's time to edit the article and add the source. We can always tweak it after if needed. If sources directly contradict one another, each can be given WP:In-text attribution. Or, if one is newer and more up-to-date, maybe we would just go with that. Crossroads -talk- 06:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: thank you. I will take my best stab at impartially giving both sides and please edit as you see fit. @Peteforsyth: I absolutely appreciate any advise and thank you for taking time to comment. I thought my three points were directly referencing your comments. Thank you for the comment on citations, but see earlier response. I think my title was misleading. I may have missed your point about the sentence you quoted if it wasn't pertaining to author bias; I'm not sure it relates to the section of the article in question. Wikibable (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: I published my changes. I also moved up the existing discussion on sovereign citizen, as it also pertained to the bank communications. Proud to finally make a, hopefully positive, contribution to wikipedia and thanks for the help! Wikibable (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibable, I think it looks good. Thanks for taking the time. If you haven't already, maybe click the star at the top of the page (to add it to your watchlist). Then (at the top) click on "Watchlist" from time to time. This is an easy way to watch pages and who edits them. You can also click on the "History" tab of the main article. You can probably be a bit more assertive with your edits. You can be bold. Most pages are watchlisted by experienced editors, and they will see and fix any issues. Welcome to Wikipedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_House_eviction_defense&oldid=1208212853"