Talk:Chloe Eudaly

should the "threat to colleague" content be on the article?
This is currently in the article:


 * On September 18, 2019, Willamette Week reported that Commissioner Chloe Eudaly had sent an angry email to her colleagues on City Council for not backing her plan to rewrite city policy on how neighborhood associations function and their relationship with the City.

and disagree on whether it should be included. Please continue to discuss rather than reverting. tedder (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW it was inserted in February, 2020 and stably remained. As suggested in Criticism, I retitled it to something more specific. Then, Andymcmillan removed it without any edit summary on October 8th, then again removed it on October 27th while only describing it in edit summary as "reorganizing" not making any mention of removal of the very same contents that is under dispute. It is properly sourced and was noted by a reliable source as mention worthy and I believe it is worthy of remaining here. Graywalls (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

, 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)


 * I originally removed it as it wasn't in keeping with the tone of the rest of the section. It wasn't directly related to Eudaly's policy history during her time on City Council, and it was oddly positioned at the top of the section.


 * It would make way more sense if it was part of a section about Eudaly's work on revamping the Office of Neighborhood Involvement / Office of Community & Civic Life. It appears to have just been dropped in—granted, yes, with a citation—by someone who is upset that Eudaly sent an angry email. Just because it has a citation doesn't mean it's worth keeping. It's editorializing, and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.


 * IMO, the resolution to this is to write up Eudaly's history with revising the Office of Community & Civic Life, perhaps keeping the mention / citation of the email in that section, but in context.


 * FWIW the similar articles I'm referring to are other Portland city councilors like Charlie Hales, Steve Novick, Randy Leonard, etc. who have articles with their career highlights in a section, followed by a brief section covering their personal life. If there is a style guide for articles of this nature, I'd be happy to revise these articles to bring them in line. Andymcmillan (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I strongly encourage fully reverting almost everything that occurred in these string of edits by EAOC97, because it is quite evident that it's a single purpose edit and very probably public relations/reputation management editing from someone with perhaps connections with the commissioner Eudaly's office. Graywalls (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay but, that wasn't at all related to what I said. I proposed a solution. And you just went ahead and reverted the page back, again, without us reaching an agreement. Can we please discuss before you keep reverting these changes back? Do you want to weigh in here? Andymcmillan (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The likely public relations editing is very relevant, because a lot of the contents and ordering was imposed onto the article by the single purpose editor. I brought it back to the version that was in place before you came along. What suggests your version should prevail in the meanwhile? Graywalls (talk) 07:08, 31 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 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 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)

Possible public relations editing by connected contributor
Since it seems like explaining why an article is tagged COI is a suggested practice, here is my explanation. 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. , 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)

Tag
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)
 * Given these tags are used to combat introduced bias in the article, I don't think it's needed any longer. The article has been overhauled - a few times - since the (unconfirmed) COI editor made changes. I'd be in support of removing the tag. --Kbabej (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Curious if either of you have thoughts, as previous talk page discussion participants? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Rose Lane Project
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)
 * I don't think it does, at least not yet. It's not unique to Portland, in fact we were slow to adopt it compared to other US cities. I would say once history is more established and the built network is much bigger, I would reconsider. The only existing US article I could find is Bus lanes in New York City, which has quite the extensive network and history. --truflip99 (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, was curious based on your work on the Division Transit Project. (Keep up the fantastic work, by the way.) Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Funnily enough, I don't think the Division Transit Project will be getting any rose lanes. (clownface) --truflip99 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)