Talk:Lutz Tavern

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lutz Tavern. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304060352/http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-23764-permalink.html to http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-23764-permalink.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117064027/https://www.racc.org/about/portland-will-add-six-new-public-art-murals-its-collection-summer to https://www.racc.org/about/portland-will-add-six-new-public-art-murals-its-collection-summer

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent addition
hello, I have been adding SOURCED content and have added 2 new sources, please review. Thanks. More sources being added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.68.119 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

All claims in this new paragraph (that has been repeatedly removed) are sourced in the referenced articles if one reads the articles. it is widely stated in many of those referenced articles that this bar served as a waiting room for the Delta Cafe and 17 Nautical Miles. It is also stated in the linked articles what the opening dates were for each of these businesses as well as their notoriety citywide. It is irrelevant whether or not an article that is being cited to support a statement of the appeal of one of these businesses references The Lutz Tavern or not. the statement is not specifically about Lutz Tavern however supports the larger fact put forth in this new paragraph; which is to say that the increasing popularity of the Lutz was triggered by the existence of these two ancillary businesses -- which is both a true statement and widely supported by the many references that we added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.68.119 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in an edit war and I've asked for temporary page protection. Thank you for starting a talk page discussion here, though. I strongly prefer the article not use sources which do not even mention Lutz. Please propose a paragraph using sources which discuss Lutz. I will be reverting the recent additions again, once I feel the 3 revert rule has expired. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not understanding which statements you are finding fault with. It is also absolutely not required that every reference specifically mention the larger topic, if that references necessary to support the statement it is referencingm Which statements in the paragraph are you debating? It's pointless to engage in discussion with you without specific references to what facts you are challenging. for what it's worth at this point this article contains more exactingly referenced and sourced material than any other paragraph in the article. we're not trying to engage in any kind of "war" whatsoever, we're simply trying to add correct and pertinent information to public record and knowledge base, which both is factual as well as widely supported by press coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.68.119 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's what you've added:


 * Ref. 1 does not mention Lutz.
 * Ref. 2 is about Delta and says, "The location is great, though. It occupies the corner of a block of SE Woodstock, around 49th Ave. or so, that is also home to 17 Nautical Miles, an all ages club for bands, and a bar called the Lutz tavern, which serves up cans of Pabst for a buck apiece." Ok, so Lutz is located near 17 Nautical Miles, just like it's located by other places, too.
 * Ref. 3 does not mention Lutz.
 * Ref. 4 is already used as a citation appropriately, but I will try adding mention of 17 Nautical Miles.
 * Comments from Ref. 5? Seriously? Wikipedia relies on vetted journalism.
 * Ref. 6 is already used as a source appropriately in the article's text.
 * I still object to most of what has been added and intend to revert. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And, yes, you are engaging in an edit war by definition. See Edit warring. If you continue to be disruptive, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I suggest not reverting and only adding content back to the article once you've gained a consensus opinion here on the talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this wording? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)