This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chloe Eudaly article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This is currently in the article:
@ Graywalls: and @ Andymcmillan: disagree on whether it should be included. Please continue to discuss rather than reverting. tedder ( talk) 15:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Andymcmillan:, it comes across as white washing, because you removed contents you apparently don't like twice, first without any explanation the first time, then the second without reference to the removal. I specifically undid the "criticism" header, as I've explained previously
here some time ago. Reorganizing structure in line with other similar articles, moving criticism to appropriate section.
what other similar articles? It is my understanding that title "criticism" section is not recommended. What is your justification for re-inserting it in that manner?
Graywalls (
talk)
16:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
(moving back left). I'm going to avoid weighing in from a content perspective, but I'll post about it on WP:WPRE because I think there are likely some interested parties. tedder ( talk) 04:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Graywalls that this item (the threatening email) should be included, since it was covered as significantly outside of the norms of a city commissioner's usual behavior, and also that it should be presented with more/better context. I am too close to this issue to want to write it up myself, but Andymcmillan seems to have the right general idea about how to contextualize it. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the subsection heading. We don't need this for a single sentence. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Since it seems like explaining why an article is tagged COI is a suggested practice, here is my explanation. EAOC97 ( talk · contribs) made substantial edits to this article and a lot of their contents remains and their edits are exclusive to two highly related articles, which is this article and PBOT, a bureau she oversees/has overseen. DOB insertion without a reliable source is also a suggestive clue to connected contribution as I haven't come across her DOB reliably published. Graywalls ( talk) 08:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
My justification for including it is that EAOC97's edit pattern is highly indicative of connected contributor. They've edited nothing but Eudaly and her bureau, and their reliance of substantial amount of contents on the City Government of Portland's website (beta.Portland.gov) which would tend to cast the article in the light the city government wants its project to be seen. @ Kbabej:, you pointed out "unconfirmed", however there's no expectations of high burden of proof just as the labeling "article appears to have..." suggests. Otherwise, it'd be impossible to tag undisclosed paid editing or covert public relations/reputation management editing attempts and the system would be gamed. Graywalls ( talk) 16:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The tag at the top of the article says, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Do editors think this tag is necessary? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Truflip99: I'm curious, do you have a sense of whether or not the Rose Lane Project may deserve an article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chloe Eudaly article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This is currently in the article:
@ Graywalls: and @ Andymcmillan: disagree on whether it should be included. Please continue to discuss rather than reverting. tedder ( talk) 15:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Andymcmillan:, it comes across as white washing, because you removed contents you apparently don't like twice, first without any explanation the first time, then the second without reference to the removal. I specifically undid the "criticism" header, as I've explained previously
here some time ago. Reorganizing structure in line with other similar articles, moving criticism to appropriate section.
what other similar articles? It is my understanding that title "criticism" section is not recommended. What is your justification for re-inserting it in that manner?
Graywalls (
talk)
16:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
(moving back left). I'm going to avoid weighing in from a content perspective, but I'll post about it on WP:WPRE because I think there are likely some interested parties. tedder ( talk) 04:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Graywalls that this item (the threatening email) should be included, since it was covered as significantly outside of the norms of a city commissioner's usual behavior, and also that it should be presented with more/better context. I am too close to this issue to want to write it up myself, but Andymcmillan seems to have the right general idea about how to contextualize it. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the subsection heading. We don't need this for a single sentence. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Since it seems like explaining why an article is tagged COI is a suggested practice, here is my explanation. EAOC97 ( talk · contribs) made substantial edits to this article and a lot of their contents remains and their edits are exclusive to two highly related articles, which is this article and PBOT, a bureau she oversees/has overseen. DOB insertion without a reliable source is also a suggestive clue to connected contribution as I haven't come across her DOB reliably published. Graywalls ( talk) 08:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
My justification for including it is that EAOC97's edit pattern is highly indicative of connected contributor. They've edited nothing but Eudaly and her bureau, and their reliance of substantial amount of contents on the City Government of Portland's website (beta.Portland.gov) which would tend to cast the article in the light the city government wants its project to be seen. @ Kbabej:, you pointed out "unconfirmed", however there's no expectations of high burden of proof just as the labeling "article appears to have..." suggests. Otherwise, it'd be impossible to tag undisclosed paid editing or covert public relations/reputation management editing attempts and the system would be gamed. Graywalls ( talk) 16:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The tag at the top of the article says, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Do editors think this tag is necessary? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Truflip99: I'm curious, do you have a sense of whether or not the Rose Lane Project may deserve an article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)