Talk:Lutz Tavern

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Another Believer in topic Recent addition

edit

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Recent addition

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Here's what you've added:
The mid and late 1990's brought the Lutz Tavern newfound citywide notoriety with the establishment on the same block of Woodstock Boulevard of the Delta Cafe in 1995[1], a kitsch-themed soul food restaurant, and 17 Nautical Miles in 1998, an all ages indie punk concert venue[2] which hosted acclaimed national and international acts[3]. Both establishments proved popular and drew large crowds to Woodstock Boulevard. As the Delta Cafe and 17 Nautical Miles both lacked lobbies and waiting rooms, and 17 Nautical Miles lacked a liquor license, their overflow crowds filled the barstools and booths of the Lutz.[4][5] Many of those patrons would return to Woodstock Boulevard solely to frequent the Lutz itself, permanently broadening the clientele and building new local and national attention for the tavern.[4][6]

References

  1. ^ Crain, Liz (December 11, 2007). "Battered and Blackened: Miss Delta packs a punch with good old southern charm". Willamette Week. Retrieved November 11, 2020.
  2. ^ Sinclair, Mark (August 23, 1999). "Cajun in Portland". Chowhound. Retrieved December 11, 2020.
  3. ^ Horton, Jay (May 18, 2016). "Portland's Most Missed All-Ages Venues". Willamette Week. Retrieved December 11, 2020.
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Foyston was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Coleman, Patrick (September 22, 2010). "Lutz Tavern to Close - comments 2, 5, 7". Portland Mercury. Retrieved December 11, 2020.
  6. ^ Cordell, Kasey; Ritchie, Rachel; Villa-Zang, Amber; Avz (March 15, 2020). "Perfect Pairings". Portland Monthly. Retrieved November 12, 2020.
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)Reply
And, yes, you are engaging in an edit war by definition. See Wikipedia: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)Reply
What do you think about this wording? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply