Jump to content

Talk:Ted Wheeler

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

Relationship status

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public safety

[edit]

Added information regarding Wheeler's use of Oregon National Guard. I don't know if the proper nomenclature is Oregon Army National Guard or Oregon Military Department, but as Oregon National Guard redirects to the latter I use that. Eric Fraker (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the neutral middle ground on George Floyd protest language

[edit]

Hi, I just reverted the language to try to find a nice neutral point of view to discuss events about Wheeler. That means "DHS agents" instead of "paramilitary units", "joined nightly protesters outside" instead of "joined nightly protesters besieging". There's plenty of sources speaking loudly for and against Wheeler; this is a textbook example of needing to find that dispassionate voice. Having said that, I'm going to go in and change "Portland Police's own disproportionate responses" to simply "PPB's response". The text, as a whole, allows the reader to come to their own opinions based on the facts presented, rather than putting our thumb on the scale. tedder (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to represent the facts without opinion. Let's describe them as they are. Protesters were besieging the courthouse thats not disputed. I think it makes people uncomfortable. Ok, we can use a less charged word, perhaps "surroudning". However it's important to note that when police officers came out of the government building they were attacked, and thats why the word besieged has presumably been used. I'm not going to revert the edits to that version yet as we need to discuss it a bit, however I will revert the sourced word of "violence" as it's been reported widely, amongst bombs, incendaries and stabbings. That is important for the context. So if users could refrain from removing the adition of "amid violence" that would be fantastic. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV does not mean that we gloss over facts (on either side) just to please everybody equally. The "nightly protesters" weren't just protesting (shouting, waving banners, singing, etc.) but have been for two months engaged in acts of violence. And we even have the statement of the Portland police calling the event a riot. The word is not in violation of NPOV as the matter of POV would be whether riots are acceptable or not. But riots they are. Str1977 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PPD has been calling the protests riots more or less nightly. We aren't going to uncritically repeat that characterization in Wikipedia's voice. "Besieging" is an overly dramatic term for the protests, which have overwhelmingly though not exclusively nonviolent. VQuakr (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think its important to characterise the nature of the protests, which late at night (as opposed to the day time) are taking a more aggressive tone. Besieging is unnecessarily evocative although in the dictionary sense the use isn't wrong. The fact that the protesters were encircling and were trying to actively remove the barricades is note worthy in my opinion. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandre8: first definition I see is "surround (a place) with armed forces in order to capture it or force its surrender". Connotation aside, that doesn't seem literally accurate. The barricades were on non-federal property and were not the barrier to entry to the building. But rather than splitting hairs we should be observing the golden rule - is there a term or description that the preponderance of sources is using? While most of the violence (from both sides) has been after dark, the vast majority of the protesters have been non-violent (though a protest can be both non-violent and aggressive in tone). I should ask - why is it important to capture the tone of the protests in this article about Ted Wheeler? We have a separate article where we can provide a more nuanced description. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point I'm all for not surmising things that aren't necessarily universally accepted. I may well be wrong, but I was under the impression that the protestors wanted to capture the precinct in a similar way that had happened in Seattle in which case beseige would be correct but I'm not arguing for its use as imho it's too emotional a word and adds the idea that it's an army not a group of protesters. My vote is to add the word "encircle" and leave the rest before it was changed. The two paragraphs read fairly well as it is. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of the protesters is doubtless varied. I would say the overall goal, such as there is one, is to enact societal change using a diversity of tactics. I am deep in the weeds of NOR now, though, and it sounds like we agree that there are better words to choose than "besieged." VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Do we add the word "encircle" to the paragraph? Alexandre8 (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be argumentative, but is "encircle" literally true either? I have seen footage of protesters on the park side of the building and blocking entrances, but I'm not sure I have seen sources that indicate if the block was ever really surrounded. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Besieging" might sound dramatic but "encircling" is hardly enough. These "protesters" tried to enter the building, used explosives against it etc.
Is WP supposed to call these people just "protesters" sweeping all the violence under the rug, thereby also making the deployment of federal agents incomphrehensible? "Overwhelmingly non-violent" clearly does not correspond to the facts.
"PPD has been calling the protests riots more or less nightly. We aren't going to uncritically repeat that characterization in Wikipedia's voice."
So now the Portland Police (not the Feds) is supposed to be a party in a conflict that "we aren't going to uncritically repeat"? If the PPD has spoken of riots (not just, as this article suggests, of this night and only after Wheeler had left) this is no reason to simply disregard it.
What we shouldn't do is uncritically repeat the spin put on these riots by the "defund the police" crowd. Str1977 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember this is an article about Wheeler. Description of the protests are going to be high-level. By explosives you mean the fireworks that were set off? Yes, that was illegal but why call them "explosives" other than to sound dramatic? Correct, PPD are definitely not a neutral assessor of protests regarding their own behavior... their escalatory and violent tactics were why Wheeler was booed by protesters. The fact that the protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful is readily sourceable: [1], [2], [3]. So what makes you think "encircling" is "hardly enough"? Just your opinion? The "spin" being put on the protests is by the US executive branch ahead of an election. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure this is about Wheeler. But his actions and reactions can only be properly understood by providing the context. There are various ways to do this, some taking more words and others taking fewer words, but brevity cannot come at the expense of - basically intentionally - avoiding context to uphold a certain, skewed picture of events, i.e. the idea that the protests are "mostly peaceful".
I said "explosives" because "fireworks" is again downplaying what is actually happens. So is putting the blame on PPD for "their escalatory and violent tactics" - if that's your opinion, fine. (others might call PPD negligent and overly passive) But you are trying to favour this opinion by downplaying the violence that actually, undeniably actually occured?
"Encircling" is hardly enough because a group might encircle something but when they are not doing a dance around the building but violently attack it, even tried to break into it, the "encircling" is incidental. Would you say that those cops in LA in the 1990s encircled Rodney King? Of course not.
What makes me oppose the spin? I have eyes to see and what I see isn't "mostly peaceful". That wording increasingly sounds like "separate but equal" - everyone uses it but everyone knows it's a lie. Str1977 (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both have valid points! I'm geared towards finding what we can all agree on and present it as self evident as possible. I think its fairly well attested on video and sources that some were attempting to remove the barricade and break into the federal building. I don't see why we couldn't list it as such. The reader can make their own opinion into the significance of that. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a barricade and entering a building are both nonviolent activities. Defacing a building is illegal but still a nonviolent activity (you "violently attack" a person, not a thing). Str1977's "I have eyes to see" to see is telling; we don't need to entertain their personal bias in the article just because they disagree with what the RSs say. VQuakr (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that actions against buildings can't contain violence. Interesting to also note this description from the New York Post ″"The demonstration then turned violent just before midnight after federal officers moved outside the courthouse to protect the building and were met by protesters who used slingshots to launch projectiles at them, including large rocks and bottles, police said."″
My position is to leave the article as it is. I think it perfectly captures the neccesary information. I don't think we need to add any or remove anything further. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that finding a neutral ground without any POV pushing is possible.
However, sentences like "Removing a barricade and entering a building are both nonviolent activities" pretty much leave me flabbergasted. Both, in this context, clearly are violent activities. Next time, we'll hear that setting fires is not violence either. And then probably attacks against will only be violence if they die. (Sarcasm end)
If I re-read this discussion I see VQuakr basically rejecting any wording that could cast even a glimmer of doubt on the angelic nature of the protesters.
In any case, the POV problem is with such an approach is obvious. Str1977 (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Str1977: speculating about other editors' POV or motivations is less likely to be productive than focusing on content (if you'd like to continue healthy debate about the role of disruption in nonviolent protest I am happy to do that on either of our user talk pages). Similarly, going back and forth with our own impressions/analysis of the protests (which I am absolutely guilty of in this thread) isn't going to develop content that is usable in this article per WP:NOR. However, I've also provided RSs for the assessment that the protests have been mostly peaceful, while you have focused solely on your own impressions/analysis. The wording that I support in the section does include mention of the violence: "federal DHS agents were deployed to protect US government buildings and personnel amid violence in Portland." In the context of what the sources say, can we restart with you clarifying what you see as the POV problem with the section as written? VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't speculating about anyone's motivations but merely stating two items:
1. that the ommission of any language reflecting the violence - which indisputably existed - or the placing of language that downplays it creats a POV issue.
2. that - and anyone reading this thread can follow this thought - some editors have repeatedly argued against each and every language that suggests violence and wrongdoing. To borrow your words, you have been "absolutely guilty" of this.
The behaviour of editors is not a subject of this article so, we can skip any obfuscating reference to WP:OR in this regard. Str1977 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I sympathise with both your positions I do feel that 1) violence is mentioned in the paragraph quakr just quoted 2) the second paragraph is a direct continuation of that. If Ted Wheeler knew before that there had been violence, he probably knew when he attended the rally that where would be violence. I think we all agree that there was some violence, and thats why it's noted. I don't necessarily see the necessity to repeat it in the second paragraph. What I do recommend is including a description of what they were trying to do. Here is mentioned "barricading the courthouse" and "setting fire" https://nypost.com/2020/07/22/portland-protesters-barricade-courthouse-with-federal-officers-inside/. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better source than the Post quoting a high school reporter? VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear the Post are going more off the video footage included than swearing by the tweets of the high school. If you have a times subscription https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/portland-protest-tactics.html this would be insightful Alexandre8 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the word "attacked" as the "protesters" not merely barricaded the building but also attacked it with the means at their disposal. The referenced source says at much. If that were to find acceptance here, I would remove the NPOV tag from the passage. 12:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just seen the reports of the events from August 7. Look's like Wheeler has had enough. I've incorporated his response to the violence reported. There are other sources. If anyone feels 2 isn't enough I can add more. But I dont want WP:OVERKILL Alexandre8 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good apart from the word "claims". I'm sure we can get by without using the ultimate weasel word, which I however think was placed in good faith. How about "report" as I'm sure PPD did file an official report on this. Str1977 (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinally I'd agree with you as the police department is usually the source of indisputable evidence but since the police ARE the party involved and this whole protest is intrinsically linked to them I don't think it's a weasel word. Reported is also fine imo. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point here was not that the police is necessarily neutral (though I think it more neutral than any other involved party) but that the word "claims" suggests that the claim is wrong while the word "report" is an improvement as it 1. does not suggest that the report is right, 2. names the form of text, which transported the idea to Wheeler and his speech. Str1977 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Alexandre8 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of poor source

[edit]

I have removed a citation to the New York Post and text cited to it. The NY Post is a low-quality source (it is a sensationalist tabloid), and it is especially dubious when used on a BLP (like this article) for politically charged topics. Use of this source is particularly senseless because there is not shortage of higher-quality sources (local and national) on Wheeler's life and career.

The challenged content must not be reinstated per the usual rule that the onus to obtain consensus to include challenged content is on the proponent of the content (WP:ONUS), which is doubly important on a BLP ("To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material").`` Neutralitytalk 05:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely rewritten the entry and removed any mention of the deployment of federal police. You've also removed the USA today article. I don't mind you taking objection to sources but please make a more comprehensive effort to rewrite sections in good faith and present the accounts neutrally. Why have the USA today and CNN sources been removed? Alexandre8 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN cite is still there. It was a duplicate in before. Neutralitytalk 21:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)::[reply]
with usa today and independent, two sources should remove this particular issue. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Neutrality, you not only removed the citation, you also removed the undisputable fact, amply discussed above, that the "protesters" were barricading and attacking the court house. Pointing to BLP is a bit strange as the removed content did not actually refer to anything Wheeler - the LP in question - did. Str1977 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally, totally, unacceptable for you to insert (with a citation needed tag!) a claim that "Wheeler joined protesters barricading and attacking the federal courthouse." First, as you acknowledged by adding the citation-needed tag, this claim is not tied to a source, and the CBS source cited at the end of the sentence does not refer to "attacking and barricading." Second, the violence n Portland is also already mentioned referenced above, so this is redundant and also undue weight. Finally, and most significantly, this text directly, and falsely, suggests that Wheeler himself engaged in "violence or barricading." You need to read, and comply with, the BLP policy, and you need to not re-insert challenged content, especially on a BLP. If you want to propose specific wording changes, you can propose them, but as of now there is zero consensus for this. Neutralitytalk 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is actually, actually unacceptable is to first remove a source on a technicality and then claim that a fact lacks a source. YOU removed the source that was there. That doesn't seem like "neutrality" to me.
The fact that there has been nightly violence for months is totally lost in this section. The one (!!!) occurence is buried in complaints (by the same rioters) that others are violent. I don't care where in the section this is covered but it needs to be covered and not buried.
And no, the sentence never suggested that Wheeler himself attacked the building with physical violence. Str1977 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You restored unsourced text saying that "Wheeler joined protesters barricading and attacking the federal courthouse." You think that inserting this baseless, uncited claim into an encyclopedia is acceptable? You somehow think that this text doesn't state or imply that Wheeler himself joined violence? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," you should really not be editing in article space, because both responses would betray a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policy and the English language. (And no, our reliable source policy is not "a technicality." It's the core of what being an encyclopedia is all about). Neutralitytalk 17:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it is you who made this information "unsourced", the other problem rests with the ambiguity of the word "joined", which I did not introduce and which you interpret in way different from how it was understood thus far. Hence, I have replaced that word.
I have also rephrased an earlier passages to reflect the chronological sequence of events. Since you are all about Neutrality, you will certainly approve.
Finally, it is not for you to dictate whether anybody else can edit article space. I have more than enough experience on WP. Thank you very much! Str1977 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite dissapointed that two decent sources were removed and not replaced when you initially rewrote the section Neutrality. I thought it would have been replaced but 24 hours later I had to find another source of much the same content whose reliability is not disputed. Might I urge you in the future, that if you remove sources on a technicality, to find a suitable replacement instead of glossing over the events. Many thanks Alexandre8 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Eve 2020 to 2021

[edit]

What happened on NYE and Wheeler's response have gotten a lot of news coverage and might warrant entry in this article. See, e.g., https://www.newsweek.com/portland-mayor-blamed-trump-unrest-get-tough-antifa-1558526. 67.209.133.37 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Wheeler&oldid=1256334522"