Talk:Government of Portland, Oregon

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Expansion source[edit]

Fred Leeson. THE BEGINNINGS: CITY ORGANIZATION BORN IN TEXAS STORM'S AFTERMATH. The Oregonian, June 23, 2005. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Leonard[edit]

Just found out he is an ex state senator and house member for anyone looking for an article to write that passes WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More specific details on Portland’s Commission structure needed[edit]

This article currently fails to mention the titles of commissioners and the power of the mayor to assign their areas of oversight. This page on the City of Portland’s website gives some info on the process though not the titles. Larrybob (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced and such[edit]

An editor removed long standing edits I have made that is actually part of the this article that is properly sourced saying it is undue to one specific issue. That is understandable if it is not properly sourced. When the contents reflects what multiple independent reliable sources say, I don't believe that's a reason to smother it as undue, especially not an entire section blanking. A stubby article like this could benefit from addition of other contents, not removal of properly sourced, secondary sourced materials. Graywalls (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless camp sweeps, or lack thereof[edit]

The topic of this article is a description of the political structure, elected officials, and bureaus that make up the city government. Not the history of every problem the city has or hasn't tackled. That's what History of Portland, Oregon is for. Steven Walling • talk 06:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaredscribe: This smacks of recentism to me. Are we really going to change the article to focus on one hot button issue? Two years ago we could have had a huge section about Black Lives Matter protests and unrest downtown, but there's nothing here. There's also nothing about the increase in crime. Why not? Because this isn't a history article, it's a description of civic structure. There should either be a section in History of Portland or an entire article about Homelessness in Portland, Oregon, but having more written material about that one issue makes no sense when we don't even have sections for all the city bureaus here. Steven Walling • talk 04:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]