Jump to content

Talk:Bitar Mansion

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

Sources

[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 03:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Another Believer (Talk) 07:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valfontis (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NPS link. The server goes down from time to time, so try back. I forget which buidling it is for, but it is an NRHP nom that mentions Brookman's style, including details regarding the Bitar place. Valfontis (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Will try again at a later date. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is working today. Valfontis (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Another Believer (Talk) 03:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entire text of info from Baruh–Zell House National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

[edit]

"Another signature Brookman element was his use of decorative wrought iron. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Mediterranean style Harry A. Green House, at 3316 SE Ankeny, which has an elaborate wrought iron entrance gate complete with a peacock, and a gracefully curving interior staircase. Most of his other commissions had more restrained wrought iron elements, such as those on the Baruh-Zell House, where they were used sparingly for window grilles and terrace railings."

"Brookman was partial to casement windows and used them on most of his designs regardless of style. In some cases, such as on the Baruh-Zell House, the Green House, and the Adrienne Arnsberg House, 1136 SW Davenport Street, three-light casements leant an air of modernity to traditional designs. Both the Baruh-Zell and Green Houses also exhibit leaded glass casements with colored glass jewels in selected windows."

Valfontis (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Did you know ... that I've nominated this article for DYK? --Jsayre64 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, although some editors have expressed concerns about the nomination (see here). Jsayre64 (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The article is still very much a work in progress. More interesting facts might be: ... that Bitar Mansion is the most expensive home ever sold in southeast Portland, or ... that Bitar Mansion was designed by architect Herman Brookman, who also designed Portland's Congregation Beth Israel and Fir Acres, the M. Lloyd Frank Estate that became Lewis & Clark College. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed your first suggestion as ALT 1 and I linked to the discussion here. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go now. Whew! Jsayre64 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

"Robert later became an honorary consulate to Lebanon and lived in the mansion until his death in 2000." Should that be "consul"? And what does that have to do with living in the house? Was that the honorary consulate? Pedantrician (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, several sources state that the house is a former consulate to Lebanon. Seems relevant to me. I hope to find more history about the mansion during the Bitar years. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's a grammar question, not a relevancy question. I think what Pendantrician is saying is that the house is the consulate and the man is the consul. (Thus the house the honorary consul lives in becomes the de facto consulate.) Hopefully that's what the sources are saying too. If they're not, it's time to find better (more grammatical) sources. Valfontis (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

[edit]

I believe that this edit was improper. It provides WP:UNDUE weight on a recent owner of a historic house, and is almost completely negative. As the house is serving as a WP:COATRACK for attacks on a living person, I believe the section should be removed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was just posting a comment about this as well. I reverted this removal of content because I believe this content is relevant to the history of the house itself. I do NOT want the article to be Fournier-centric, but I am still in the process of finding earlier history about the house and its owners. Just because this is the most recent information about the owners of the house does not make it irrelevant. The Fournier section may look heavy at the moment, but it contains information about the house itself (purchase price, search for furniture, sidewalk repair, changes made to the property, land conflict with PP&R re: neighboring Laurelhurst Park, threat of demolition, future auction). These all relate to the house. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purchase price and furniture search are probably relevant. I'm not sure about the changes made to the property -- the fencing and gate almost certainly don't apply, unless they replacing existing historic structures. The sidewalk repair, land conflict, and threat of demolition definitely don't apply -- those are owner issues, not house issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. I think changes made to the house/property and ownership during its history (Grey Gardens, anyone?) are relevant. What is the solution here? I agree that, at the moment, the article is heavy on recent Fournier content, but I am still working on expanding the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this makes a difference or not, but please note that an earlier version of the article had a separate section for ownership. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the demolition threat and auction info are needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Is irrelevant material or BLP the primary concern here? If the latter, is there a way to include the content without crossing the BLP line? My goal here is not to deface the Fourniers, but rather to inform readers of changes made to the house and property during their ownership. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan + @Another Believer: how would it work for you both if the Fourniers' name were removed? —EncMstr (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can one chronicle the ownership history without names? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not terribly well, EncMstr. As Another Believer points out, ownership of a historic house would seem to be fairly important to track. Whether they paid for the sidewalk repairs or not is another thing altogether.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This removal seems fair, but I reverted the removal of the current state of the house. Surely the current state of the house is relevant to the article about the house. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the house itself were falling apart, that would be one thing, but neglecting to mow the lawn/trim the bushes is transitory and the next thing to completely irrelevant. I suppose you could add back the half-finished gates, but they're kind of implied by the text above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. This is about more than not mowing the lawn; the statement is about the overall appearance of the house and surrounding property following foreclosure. Also, in my opinion, this statement does not cross the negative BLP line. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's transitory. Once the new owner buys it at the end of the month, the lawn will be mowed and the brush pile removed. That isn't BLP-problematic, it's just unencyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss here before removing content. I am trying to be as cooperative and civil as possible. I reverted your most recent edits for further discussion. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last comment above, I disagree, and I welcome other contributors to provide their two cents. I agree it is likely that new owners will move in and improve the condition of the house and surrounding property, but I disagree that the recent neglect is unencyclopedic. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the problematic content. The majority of it is completely irrelevant to the house. It is a shame that there has been edit warring over this, but I consider BLP issues to be very important, and WP:3RRNO applies. If you wish to retain the content then discuss it first. It is better to be without the content for a bit than leave information up which could be very damaging to the individuals involved. I am also slightly dubious over the notability of the property, but my main concern at present is BLP. Polequant (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. All, please know that I am honestly not trying to dismiss any concerns here. My intent was to discuss before removing content, but I acknowledge the preference to remove potentially harmful content then discuss whether or not it should be included. If I did not follow proper procedure, I sincerely apologize. Long-time contributor here with good intentions. Happy to discuss article further. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Polequant, to comply with BLP objections, not all of that information needs to be removed. Altercations with neighbors can (and should) be mentioned even without listing the names of the homeowners. It's still the most expensive home sold in that area of that town. It has vacillated through eras of neglect. How are those BLP issues? tedder (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To start with I was playing it safe, which I think is reasonable. As I said, things can go back in easily enough. But to say altercations with neighbours should be stated without mentioning names?? Sorry, but that is a nonsense. It doesn't make any difference to the house if some neighbours didn't get on, and is precisely the stuff that shouldn't be there. Even with names removed it is pure gossip with only one side represented. Again, I do consider it an issue that the article was saying the house is neglected, especially when the house is currently on the market. All we know is the grass has grown a bit which is hardly neglect. Unless we have very reliable sources about the condition of the property (as opposed to 'he said, she said' articles from a local paper), we shouldn't be saying anything. If the house sells for less due to what is said in this article (bearing in mind the article is now the 3rd highest on google for 'Bitar Mansion') that is a serious real world consequence. And I had left the bit about it being the most expensive property. If there are particular sections that you think would be worth having in the article then fine, lets discuss them. Polequant (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 8 revert

[edit]

Can we discuss this revert? I would like to know what exactly is problematic and why. (I am not offended of its removal because I started the article, I just happen to disagree about its irrelevance.) --Another Believer (Talk) 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's more "BLP paranoia". I've re-added the information but removed any names, which should satisfy people who are worried about BLP. This isn't the final state the article should be in, but at least it keeps non-BLP content from being thrown out with the BLP content. tedder (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an argument for content deletion or article deletion? tedder (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not encyclopedic that, for example, when the parks department told the owner to remove a greenhouse that wasn't on his property, he chose to cut it up with a chainsaw and then burn the debris. It's also not encyclopedic that she threatened to demolish it and didn't carry it through. It's also not encyclopedic that the property was neglected while the bank was trying to find a new owner for it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really helpful to say it's BLP paranoia, thanks tedder. Also to say it's been discussed "endlessly" when the discussion lasted about 5 hours, and you made precisely one edit discussing it, is completely false. It is however clear from this page and the reversions that opinion is divided on whether there is an issue. All I can suggest is that it is taken to WP:BLPN for input from others. Polequant (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about including the following, which removes all names and nearly all "negative" content: "The owners had hoped to restore the mansion to its original condition, spending nearly $150,000 on home renovations and searching for Doernbecher furniture. In 2010 the owners constructed a ten-foot wooden fence along the property boundary and erected six-foot columns for security gates along the front driveway, both of which violated city codes. When Portland Parks & Recreation informed the owners that a section of the property was actually part of Laurelhurst Park, one responded by setting a greenhouse ablaze and cutting down "ancient" rhododendrons. Due to the late-2000s financial crisis, the home was foreclosed. Willamette Week contributor Nigel Jaquiss reported that in March 2010 one of the owners revealed in an email to a neighbor plans to demolish the mansion and sell the land to the highest-bidding apartment developer. By July 2011, the plaster-patched house was reportedly surrounded by "waist-high" grass, "ancient rhododendrons chok[ing] the elegant semicircular brick driveway", and "half-finished" security gates." As of July 2011, the house remains the most expensive home sold in Southeast Portland. On August 22, 2011, the house will be auctioned off at the Multnomah County Courthouse. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again -- A BRUSH PILE IN THE DRIVEWAY OF A VACANT HOUSE IS NOT NOTEWORTHY. BURNING DEBRIS FROM A DEMOLISHED OUTBUILDING IS NOT NOTEWORTHY. NOT MOWING THE LAWN OF A VACANT HOUSE IS NOT NOTEWORTHY.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Please don't shout. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I'm sorry, but I just don't see how the majority of this is relevant, and I would question the accuracy of some of it as well:
  • How does Jaquiss know they wanted to restore it to its original condition? As he admits he hasn't spoken to the owners how can he know what their intentions were? It may be a reasonable assumption, but an assumption shouldn't be presented as fact.
  • We don't know how much they spent on renovations. It is alleged that a particular firm was paid $150,000, but we have no idea if that was it, or if there were other expenditures. I would also question how this was known, given again that the reporter didn't speak to the homeowner.
  • They built some fences and were told to take them down. So what? How is this relevant to the house?
  • The article doesn't say he burnt the greenhouse down in response to the land issue, but due to another order. It implies that this was done in anger, but again, how are we to know the motivation? Similar thing with the rhododendrons - an "apparent fit of pique" - I don't think this sort of editorializing is suitable for an encyclopedia. And yet again, what relevance is this to the house?
  • How do we know the context of the email saying it was going to be demolished? Yet again this is the story from one side. Even if the email is true, it could easily be a threat because they were annoyed at the neighbour. As it is now owned by the bank it is surely not relevant as the threat clearly hasn't been carried out.
  • The current condition of the house is relevant, but all that can be seen is the outside. The [listing http://www.bitarmansion.com/] describes it as being "very well preserved". So what is it?
All in all, I am very uncomfortable with the tone of the piece being used to talk about the owners. It only gives one side of the story. It is also mainly about the owners, not the property, which is what this article should be about. Polequant (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, the link fails both WP:ELNO (in that the sole purpose of the site is to promote commercial activity) and WP:ELPOV (in that the site is obviously only going to present good things, since the goal is to sell). It looks like there's another one that has the same issues. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes no difference to me if the external links are included or not. I thought they were real estate sites (perhaps outdated?). Feel free to remove any that should not be included in the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is important to note changes made to the property over time, so that design changes are not mistaken for the original architect's (Brookman) design. If the fence was taken down, then I agree that the detail is probably not necessary. I do think, however, that the six-foot columns (unfinished security gates) need to be addressed so that they are not mistaken as original design. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Sarek. Much like the stories of an eccentric owner complete the narrative, the house falling into disrepair says something about the property. Granted, WP:OSE, but the narrative of the Jacob Kamm House would be incomplete without mentions of the fire and its decline. Similarly, these elements paint the picture of a notable house that has been improperly maintained. tedder (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Kamm House article, it appears that the house had long-term issues that were reported on - for example, the long-term roof leak they couldn't find. The issues here hardly qualify.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tedder. This history, though recent, is relevant to the property. If I were reading this article, I believe I would find the above paragraph interesting and relevant. (Actually, I would probably want to know more about the owners, but I won't even go there in fear of another BLP issue.) --Another Believer (Talk) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about replacing the contentious portion with something at about this scope?:
The house was placed on the real estate market in 2006, the first time in 55 years, and sold for $1.825 million. The new owners began to restore the mansion to its original condition with building renovations and searching for furnishings in the original Doernbecher style. Since 2010, the house has fallen into disrepair and been foreclosed. On August 22, 2011, the house will be auctioned off at the Multnomah County Courthouse. The house remains the most expensive home sold in Southeast Portland.
—EncMstr (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support this wording. It represents the current situation without going into unnecessary detail or neighborhood gossip. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like this wording as well, however I still think the six-foot "half-finished" security gate columns and the cutting down of the rhododendrons needs to be included. The gate columns could be mistaken as Brookman's design if not addressed. Besides, the article is not about the house design alone... if fencing, gardens, etc. are included I don't see why the gates are considered insignificant. IF the ten-foot fence was taken down, then I am fine with its exclusion from the article. I think this sentence should be included, as it provides an overall condition of the property without (imo) crossing the negative BLP line: "By July 2011, the plaster-patched house was reportedly surrounded by "waist-high" grass, "ancient rhododendrons chok[ing] the elegant semicircular brick driveway", and "half-finished" security gates." Thoughts? None of this would be considered "neighborhood gossip".--Another Believer (Talk) 19:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support EncMstr's wording as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General notability concern

[edit]

The article fails to make a case that this is anything more than a particularly nice house with a lot of local-interest baggage attached. I agree with Sarek's comments above: the bulk of the article documents a series of local spats that are centered around the owners rather than the house. How is it notable that the owner did not pay a repair bill? Including the name of the particular repair company is even less relevant. And if you take away the local drama, then what's left to talk about? Most expensive house in SE Portland? That's a rather narrow scope. A past owner was an honorary consul? Again, that's about an owner rather about the house (since an "honorary consulate" is usually just wherever an honorary consul happens to live or work). Herman Brookman was a local architect who didn't really seem to receive a lot of attention beyond Portland. What makes this house truly notable? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I am not even finished constructing the article! The statement about the repair bill has been removed and I acknowledged that I was okay with its removal above. This house is included in architectural guides; the article will expand as this information is added. I am also looking into the history of the Bitar ownership. Before questioning the notability of the subject, did you conduct any research about the house and its history? There is room for this article to grow before its notability is questioned. I welcome other contributors to help with article expansion, if interested. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a believer in WP:BEFORE, I did take a look. I got ten pages deep in Google results and honestly couldn't find anything beyond the drama and its inclusion in various "I like this house" blogs. The architectural guide thing could be a good argument for meeting WP:GNG, but even then I have Classic Houses of Portland, Oregon, 1850-1950 and I would be hard pressed to claim that all houses therein are notable by inclusion. If there's more to be done, awesome; but being splashed on the front page brings this kind of scrutiny. I do look forward to learning more about this place. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, and I agree with your statement about automatic notability. For the record, I did not submit the DYK hook (I have no problem with the contributor that decided to submit the hook, but I am just making all facts known). --Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Suede Sofa: this is a NHRP house, "considered one of Herman Brookman's best", and you are truly concerned about notability? tedder (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, is it a NRHP house? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Where's it say this is an NRHP-listed house? I just searched NRHP Focus and it didn't come up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AB, please stop messing with my indent levels -- I tend to mean exactly where I place my responses.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So this is just a nomination? tedder (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is, it applies to a different property. I have not looked the document over thoroughly yet, but perhaps Val included it above because it contains details about Brookman or the mansion somewhere within? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, my bad. Wrong house. tedder (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an NRHP house (I thought my notes above regarding for what the nom form was listed were adequate, sorry if it was unclear, but for a while it was only a two-way conversation!--if it were NRHP, there would be no reason not have already added its nom form to the article!), but Herman Brookman is actually quite a notable regional architect, you just can't tell that from the dreadful and woefully inadequate article on him. If for some reason this article is not deemed able to pass WP:GNG (I have a hunch it would), please merge the info into the Brookman article. Oh and again I ask (I mentioned this long ago on the WP:ORE talk page), is it a Portland local landmark? I don't have time to look right at the moment, but it should be easy enough to find out. 23:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Valfontis, I now see the note: "... an NRHP nom that mentions Brookman's style, including details regarding the Bitar place." At first I was thinking the reason for inclusion may have been posted on my talk page or via e-mail. Will take another look at the nomination page when possible. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the house listed on the "List of Portland Historic Landmarks" found here. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion about the notability of the house or the BLP issues brought up here, but I wanted to provide a link to the DYK nomination (which I submitted, by the way) because there was a little discussion about the article that went on there. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The house was added to the National Register of Historic Places. This should settle any notability concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I was able to take a couple of additional images of the house recently. I will try to upload them soon. Hopefully one of the images currently displayed can be bumped up to the infobox, despite portraying the house in a less-than-flattering condition. I am still searching for additional images to add, preferably of the interior and the early years. If you run across any that can be uploaded to Commons, do share! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bitar Mansion (2011)
    Bitar Mansion (2011)
  • Bitar Mansion (2011)
    Bitar Mansion (2011)
  • Bitar Mansion (2011)
    Bitar Mansion (2011)
  • Bitar Mansion (2011)
    Bitar Mansion (2011)
  • Bitar Mansion (2011)
    Bitar Mansion (2011)

Update

[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitar_Mansion&oldid=1206314026"