Talk:Timbers Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Oregon (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
The current collaborations of the month are Malcolm A. Moody & List of parks in Portland, Oregon.
WikiProject Football (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force.
 

Removed[edit]

  • sunshine goal movie (requires special software, or an add-on to a browser and potential copyright)
  • "increased coverage in the Oregonian (Portland's daily newspaper) and other local outlets" and "Later the same season, Willamette Week, Portland's alternative weekly, did a photo essay on the Timbers Army as a cover story.

" (use inline citation if sources are going to be mentioned) Cptnono (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Edits[edit]

Suggest removing the "controversy" section as the references are no longer valid. The Oregonian does not keep articles on Oregonlive.com older than 5 years, and the links are now dead. Rdpollard (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead links are still valid references- we accept the information existed in good faith. In other words, not all references and articles are online and that's okay. tedder (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps just some updated references then. The TA hasn't exactly kept quiet since 2005. John Canzano of the Oregonian posted something a little more interesting (some back and forth between Paulson & a fan) here: http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2009/05/open_letter_to_the_timbers_arm.html Rdpollard (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a new paragraph to the Controversy section using the above source. DemonJuice (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Something on 107ist and the evolution of the TA seems crucial... I know good references are light -been looking- but is http://hypervocal.com/culture/2011/portland-oregon-soccer-city-usa/ usable at all? "Since then, the organization has expanded from several dozen members to an effective lobbying organization & trust (the 107ist – without them, the MLS would not be in Portland) with thousands of supporters encompassing the entire general admission north end of the field." 64.122.192.37 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sources[edit]

I noticed that some prose was commented out because it was stated that the sources did not support it. While I disagree, I have added an additional reliable 3rd party source which explicitly states what was commented out and then restored the prose.

Some additional sentences were removed about the size of the Timbers Army which the referenced sources said quite clearly. I have also added that back. I can provide a link to the text of the offline articles which were referenced if anyone wishes to verify. The reason the links are not in the article is because they reside on message boards where the article was reproduced for a post. I have verified the text matches what was in the offline references. DemonJuice (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Online sources aren't necessary- but thanks for upgrading the references to full citations. tedder (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to bring this to the talk page so that we could get some consensus. Instead, the article was rearranged again so that it did not match the sources and an unsourced bit about paid memberships was curiously added. I don't want to get into an edit war so I hope the other editor is viewing this as a collaboration via edit as I'm not reverting his changes and keeping much of his rewording. I just want the article to be factual and to make sure the History section charts the growth of the organization, similar to History sections in articles about other organizations. DemonJuice (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The changes were most definitely intended to match the sources. With respect to the "paid membership", I'm pretty certain that was in one of the articles. I'll review my changes to see if I can either find it or see where it went wrong. --Ckatzchatspy 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your wording changes. They are much more encyclopedic. It was a bad day yesterday, apologies if that came across in my tone. DemonJuice (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No apologies necessary; we're all trying to achieve the same goal after all. Kudos to you for digging up some good, solid references, as that is often the biggest shortcoming of the various articles about fan associations. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 18:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And some more recently. YouTube videos and blogs are typically not RS unless they are from established experts in the field or from a press agency that uses those mediums. Please stop adding such sources. WP:SELFPUBLISH Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Cptnono (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Those interested in a reliable source for the article: Wall Street Journal piece here. matt91486 (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)