Talk:First Unitarian Church of Portland

Outside In
Per this edit summary, I'm posting a talk page comment about my removal of the Outside In clinic illustration, which I don't think is necessary in an article about the church. The poor-quality image does not reflect the history, architecture, etc, of the church in general. There are better ways to illustrate this article, in my opinion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm offended by your frequent generally dismissive comments towards edits you don't agree. Once again, it's you removing my stuff. It is on the church's property for one, and the church and that organization has a long standing relationship. Is there a legitimate reason beyond "I just don't like it?" Graywalls (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Feel free to seek a third opinion, or post at WikiProject Oregon, but I feel very strongly -- the image you've added is not great for illustrating this Wikipedia article about a historic church. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll source a better picture soon. On this, you don't want it included, I want it other way around. With this disagreement, is there a policy based justification that excludes its inclusion? It's a "feature" that is actually on the church and given this church's long working relationship with that organization, it's more than just a random tenant. Graywalls (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to let you know that it's extremely frustrating when you jump the gun and revert within minutes and sometimes seconds without giving others any chance to react especially with dismissive comments like "unnecessary", "it was better before" that comes across to me as superiority. Graywalls (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Ok, well there's now a discussion here so let's see what other editors think. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.firstunitarianportland.org/outside-in/ <-this should support some relevance.

http://stevenreedjohnson.com/stevenreedjohnson/pdx.outsideIn.html this is a gist of something that's also in a reliable source somewhere, but I'm not able to find web accessible link at the moment. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of this poor-quality image strikes me as quite odd, since there is no prose in the article supporting its inclusion, and the photo and caption are not sourced. Article content is supposed to be supported by reliable sources. I recommend adding sourced prose first, then considering whether an image would help illustrate that prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree, not to mention, this article is relatively short at just 2 paragraphs long (+lead). There are already 2 images which do a better job at illustrating the subject. We don't need a third, poor-quality image that is related but not great at illustrating the subject of the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So I'll work on getting a better quality photo within the next couple of days. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Photo quality is not the only problem here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , a better photo does not help the current article; the inclusion of a photo within the current article is unjustifiable. Before the photo's inclusion is justifiable, the article needs sourced prose about Outside In and its relationship to the subject of this article. I recommend removing the photo until that prose is added. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with and share three objections to inclusion of this particular image in the First Unitarian Church of Portland article:
 * The image quality is appallingly bad.
 * The clinic is given no context in the article, so the picture seems out of place,
 * Support of this clinic is but one of many social justice outreach efforts of the historic Portland congregation, so even if a better image is provided, that context should be developed, preferably before the image is uploaded. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Are you comfortable removing the image? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I request, I find it troubling that you are talking people to take the specific action yourself. If he/she wanted to act on their own, that is fine. What I find objectionable is that you're instructing others to take specific actions you want done. Graywalls (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm asking because I feel like if I remove again then you will accuse me of edit warring. I'm looking out for myself here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Still constructive warring. Graywalls (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Ok, well, based on consensus, the image should be removed. So, tick tock. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 's third concern is my main concern: the church has many organizations it supports and has outreach with. It seems odd, as mentioned above, to focus specifically on just one organization. I do not support inclusion of this (terrible) photo. And a higher resolution one wouldn't address the above concerns. --Kbabej (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Four editors now agree the image should be removed. Are you willing to please remove the image, per consensus? Edit: Never mind, the image has been removed. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 17:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, just to point out, Outside In is a social service and medical organization, not a "intravenous drug addict's clinic." That description seems very POV. I think it should be changed on the Outside In org page as well, but perhaps that's a discussion for that page. --Kbabej (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , For sure, and please see Talk:Outside In (organization) to see ongoing discussions there as well. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a division of its own housed at the church a block away. So it's not in the same facility as the "medical and social service" building. It's a drug addict clinic that serves specifically that purpose at the second location. The location attached to the church building exists solely for drug addicts. Does that make sense? Graywalls (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Graywalls (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * [citation needed] --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I realize this is an old discussion, but I'd like to endorse the apparent outcome, that the picture included in this old revision was not appropriate to the article in its present state, and it would take a significant expansion of the article, providing broad coverage of the church's social service programs, before it would make sense to start talking about including a picture of Outside In and/or any other programs it has participated in its history since 1924. I'm actually confused why there was ever any disagreement on this point, but I won't poke the bear too hard. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)