This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 6, 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Oregon Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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). Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Should we include an image of the Perpetrator? Some articles about attacks do, others don't. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the mug shot, probably. Perhaps if a PD image is available of him being in court. I'd say no for now, but would be curious what others might think. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no-- much rather find images of the heroes of this event rather than give the perpetrator any publicity. This CNN piece today has much more info on the three stabbing victims. I've run out of time today to work on it, but perhaps some of the images in that article could be justified as "fair use" for the two slain men. --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer, K.e.coffman, Grand'mere Eugene: I'm down for adding pictures of both personally. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article, in some reliably-sourced manner, discusses the appearances of those killed, there's no rationale for including copyrighted images of them. Now, if images are available (or become available) under a libre license or are entered into the public domain, then I'm all for using them. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a libre-licensed or public-domain image of him, then I'd argue its inclusion as an improvement to the article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we using File:Portland stabbing.png? It's purpose of use is claimed to be to "serve as the primary means of visual identification of the subject." Nothing in the article reliably describes Mr. Christian in a manner that requires the use of copyrighted, long range, indistinct imagery to understand. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the see also section includes: 2016 Minneapolis shooting, 2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting, and Stabbing of Timothy Caughman. These seem arbitrary without any context. Should we change these links, or adds reasons for their inclusion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: They're just some notable incidents that kept popping up on social media when the news about the event was first coming out, seeing as they had similar racial motivation. In the 2016 Minneapolis shooting, someone shot at a Somali-American group, and was recently convicted of a hate crime. The 2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting involved a man shooting two Indians who he thought were Middle Eastern, and the Stabbing of Timothy Caughman was classified as terrorism by the FBI due to the perpetrator's similar "white supremacy" background. However, some need to changed, or an explanation needs to be added to any of them, I'm fine with that. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If any reliable sources compare, allude to, or mention these other attacks in context with this article's subject, then keeping/adding them to the "See also" section seems reasonable. They don't need a citation, but I'd add a hidden comment explaining that it's inclusion was per "such-and-such source". — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this addition appropriate? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed it. - Bri (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think it's necessary either. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Olathe, Kansas, killings were similar to the Portland attack, the product of rage from an armed and dangerous, mentally unstable xenophobe who shot an intervenor who thought he was out of bullets in his weapon. Activist (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally titled 2017 Portland train attack but JBergsma1 moved to 2017 Portland stabbing incident. I appreciate the bold move but I've moved it back to the original title for a few reasons:

1. "Stabbing incident" is unduly wordy (WP:CONCISE) - even if we were to use a title similar to that I'd use "stabbings" instead.
2. The "Stabbing incident" title is imprecise because presumably there have been other stabbing attacks in the city of Portland in 2017.
3. The train title matches other article titles, e.g., 2016 Würzburg train attack, 2015 Thalys train attack.
4. JBergsma1 moved because "There was no targeted attack. It seemed that the suspect began stabbing out of rage" - but that doesn't really matter. The definition of attack is simply "an aggressive and violent action against a person or place" - an attack can be targeted or random. (That's why newspapers occasionally use the phrase "random attack" (e.g., example, example 2, example 3).
5. This article title matches how the reliable sources treat what occurred. E.g., Washington Post ("suspected attacker"; "The attack comes as Portland has weathered rising tensions...").

So a full requested move should be opened if there is further discussion on the title. --Neutrality^talk 17:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality My apologies for the bold move. I decided to change the title because a 'train attack' seemed to me more close to terrorism, which is not the case in this incident. With stabbing incident I meant that this was rather an apparent act of manslaughter than a well planned and executed stabbing attack. I don't support the idea that the train title matches other article titles, e.g., 2016 Würzburg train attack, 2015 Thalys train attack. Those incidents were in fact acts of terrorism. I suggest to not involve 'train' in the title as it is not relevant. In the other incidents a train was deliberatly targeted, so that would be fitting. But this incident coincidentally occured in a train, commuters were not the target but a group of muslims but others were attacked by the suspect as they intervened. As to whether this incident is a hate crime or an act of manslaughter, I think it is better to change the title to 2017 Portland stabbing. This title might seem to be unfitting as there are many incidents like this occuring every day, it fits better than to call it an 'attack', which makes this incident bigger than it actually is.JBergsma1 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JBergsma1: I could use the exact same logic and flip it around to say that naming the 2016 Würzburg train attack and 2015 Thalys train attack as "attacks" makes those "incident[s] bigger than [they] actually [are]." After all, more people died in this attack than both of those combined. Wikipedia relies on what WP:RELIABLE sources refer to an event, and as previously mentioned, this was discussed as an attack in this BBC article, ABC articles, this Guardian article and so on. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalthebest I understand what you mean, but I was refering to the fact that this is not a terrorist attack and if the word 'attack' is in the title it might still give the idea that it is a terrorist attack. The use of 'bigger' was indeed quite a misfit but I ment 'bigger' in the sense of motivation, like the 2016 Würzburg train attack that was motivated by islamic terrorism. This stabbing was prehaps motivated by islamophobia but the murder of the two men had nothing to do with the suspect's intended target. If sources are saying that this is an attack you also have to look at what context is mentioned in the sources. Is it an act of agression or is it a terrorist attack.JBergsma1 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Attack" doesn't imply terrorist attack. "Attack" just means attack. Neutrality^talk 23:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the basis for the title now, nevermind. But categorically, as to fit this article with other train attacks, this title seems quite odd when it comes to what this article is about.JBergsma1 (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Kamalthebest I suggest we change the title to 2017 Portland train stabbing. This might fit better to the article itself and it is a more detailed title.JBergsma1 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was more than one stabbing. Three people were stabbed. Neutrality^talk 19:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, then it will be 2017 Portland train stabbings.JBergsma1 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JBergsma1: No, I still disagree. We can't have a double standard. "Terrorism" is a notoriously ambiguous word and even still, not all attacks are terrorist attacks. Plenty of WP:RS blatantly refer to this an attack. For instance, this CNN article released less than an hour ago has an entire section called "New details of train attack" and in that section they say "Court documents obtained Tuesday reveal new details about Christian and the train attack" and "Christian was maced the day before the deadly attack'." They do, however also refer to it as a stabbing so If you want, we could phrase it in the lead to say "The 2017 Portland train attack or 2017 Portland train stabbings occurred on May 26, 2017 when a man fatally stabbed two people and injured a third..." Kamalthebest (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamalthebest: I'm fine with that. The 2017 Portland train attack isn't an unsuitable title, but the 2017 Portland train stabbings is just a more detailed title for the incident and also gives a better overview of the scale of the event. An attack could also be a bombing, shooting, chemical warfare etc. This is just like with titles for articles about major terrorist incidents in Europe like the Charlie Hebdo shooting instead of Charlie Hebdo attack. Charlie hebdo shooting is more detailed, because it shows the method of attack involved in the incident. But I'm fine with the title you suggest and if sources mention the incident as an 'attack' as well, then there is no issue of using it in the title. I'll also put 2017 Portland train stabbings in the lead.JBergsma1 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JBergsma1, there are sources that describe the event as Portland stabbing. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubert loup Thanks, yes there are indeed sources that use 'stabbing' instead of 'attack', but because many sources either use 'stabbing' or 'attack' it becomes quite difficult to establish a fitting title. I'm still for the use of 2017 Portland train stabbing as it is a more detailed title per WP:PRECISION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBergsma1 (talk • contribs)

@JBergsma1, Rubert loup, Neutrality: So, is everyone okay with changing the lead to say "The 2017 Portland train attack or 2017 Portland train stabbings occurred on May 26, 2017 when a man fatally stabbed two people and injured a third..." and leaving the article title as is? Or maybe, if that's not enough, change the title to 2017 Portland train stabbing attack per WP:PRECISION. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamalthebest I'm fine with the title 2017 Portland train stabbing attack. It uses both 'stabbing' and 'attack', so i'll go with that.JBergsma1 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with 'train attack' is that it's ambiguous and misleading. It sounds like an attack against a train or an attack using the train as a weapon. 2017 Portland stabbings or 2017 Portland killings would be better. Jim Michael (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that is what I said above in this discussion as well. The train was not the target nor the weapon. But I changed my mind because the title 'train attack' is used for many articles as well and it depends on the context of the article rather than the title if it should be used or not. A train attack could also be interpreted as an 'attack on a train' rather than the 'train as a weapon'. But a 'train attack' is quite vague for a title as it could be interpreted in scale of a mass casualty bombing like the 2004 Madrid train bombings or like in this case a stabbing incident that killed two people. So I'm for the title 2017 Portland train stabbing attack as it is more detailed and closer to the content of the article. JBergsma1 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael, JBergsma1: Well neither the 2016 Würzburg train attack or 2015 Thalys train attack were "an attack against a train or an attack using the train as a weapon" so if using "attack" in this article is misleading, we should remove that label from those articles as well. I agree with JBergsma1 on 2017 Portland train stabbing attack, or just leaving it how it is. Kamalthebest (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Madrid bombings were attacks against trains and the commuters on them, so that's a good title.

The Thalys and Wuerzburg articles should be renamed as well as this one. They happened to take place on trains - the attackers didn't plan to target trains or the victims because they were passengers. In each case, the train isn't an important part of the story - it would be very similar if they'd happened in parks, offices, restaurants etc. instead.

Having train in the title is an extra, unneeded disambiguation. The most relevant points are what, when and where - so 2017 Portland stabbings/killings covers that. We don't make titles longer than they need be, which is why we don't include the day or month.

Portland is ambiguous, because it's not the only place with that name - but it is the largest, most populous and well-known.

We can't use murder in the title, because we don't want to prejudice a trial.

Jim Michael (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: Well, we can't say that "Having train in the title is an extra, unneeded disambiguation" because this was covered in the media as a "train attack." So, if we have to add "stabbing" in the article title, I still think that naming it 2017 Portland train stabbing attack would be best, or we could just leaving it how it is. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title doesn't need stabbing and attack in it. We wouldn't have an article about a self-inflicted or accidental stabbing. Many article titles don't include the method of attack. Most of the titles of the refs in this article don't include train in them, so I still don't think it important or relevant enough to be part of the article's title. Jim Michael (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: Ok, that's fair but if we have to choose between having "stabbing" in the title or having "attack" in the title, I think attack is better since that seems to be the model looking at other articles. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles about attacks have shooting or bombing in them rather than attack - there doesn't seem to be a rule/guideline to determine which should be used. I think it better to specify stabbing/bombing/shooting when only one method was used. Attack is better when more than one method is used, such as the 2017 Westminster attack. Jim Michael (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: You're right that there doesn't seem to be a real pattern regarding titling. However, certain incidents that only involved one method of attack such as the 2017 Paris machete attack also used the term "attack" which goes back to my original desire to rename this to 2017 Portland train stabbing attack so that we don't lose any disambiguation.

P.S. Please ping me in the future so that I know you have responded. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kamalthebest: Some article titles include attack, some include the weapon, some include the type of location (train, restaurant etc.) and some include various combinations. The example you gave in your comment above doesn't include the type of location - it includes the year, the city, the weapon and attack. Your suggestion has too many words in it. It's not a very fair comparison, because Paris has suffered many terror attacks, whereas Portland hasn't. Jim Michael (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: WP:RS have referred to this using the terms "train," "stabbing," and "attack" so I don't that it's too verbose to include all of those words but at this point, I feel like we're just talking in circles so would you like to have an WP:RfC to move forward? That way, others could voice their opinions on what the title should be. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamalthebest: Different sources use different wording. We shouldn't use all the words and details in the title. Many recent crime articles have short names such as 2016 Berlin attack and 2017 Heidelberg attack. Disambiguation with more words tend to be when a city has suffered many notable attacks (such as Paris, London, Kabul, Baghdad). We don't have this need with Portland. We've had similar issues with people wanting to insert words such as terror and Islamist into titles of Islamist terror attacks. There's no point in using more words in the title than needed.

Yes, I think it best to put this to the community, because this conversation has reduced to just us two - but I don't know how to start it. Jim Michael (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: I'm going to pose the question "What should the title of this article be?" with the options of "2017 Portland train attack," "2017 Portland train stabbing," and "2017 Portland train stabbing attack"? Is there any other option we should include? Kamalthebest (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamalthebest: 2017 Portland stabbing (my choice) and 2017 Portland attack. You could also include Portland train attack and Portland train stabbing. Three words (or a number and two words) is adequate to disambiguate. Jim Michael (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: Ok, so we'll have "2017 Portland train attack," "2017 Portland train stabbing," "2017 Portland train stabbing attack," "2017 Portland stabbing," and "2017 Portland attack." Kamalthebest (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: I have opened up an WP:RfC below. Please leave your comments in the section titled "survey." Kamalthebest (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we all agree that only a court can convict a suspect, so I've changed some of the wording to include "suspect" and "alleged". Please stick to the old saying "innocent until proven guilty."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Is this standard practice? I'm not doubting it is but I just don't see that level of nuance being given to the perpetrator of the recent 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, where the suspect is simply referred to as "perpetrator," "attacker," and "bomber" or to the perpetrator of the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, where the word "alleged" doesn't appear once in the entire article. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." I've only read about 2 news stories on this incident, but check the sources - do they really say that xxx did it? Not being an eyewitness, it is impossible for me to say who was the murderer, and I'll assume you are in the same position. This is not to say that I think the police didn't do a good job. I have a high degree of confidence - say 90% - that they arrested "the right guy". But the 10% chance that they got the wrong guy is much more important for us. Also please consider the chance that the suspect is innocent by reason of insanity. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "innocent by reason of insanity". Insanity is an affirmative defense. - Bri (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually predicted an outcome of "not guilty by reason of insanity the day after the attack. "Alleged" is a term of convenience for a media concerned about litigation. Jack Ruby died unconvicted, so he too was the "alleged" murderer of Lee Harvey Oswald, by those standards, though millions saw his photographs taken in the act on the day of the killing. Activist (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the photo and video in that police garage were faked.47.137.183.192 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent IP has been adding stuff about voting and removing sourced stuff about increase in islamophobia. Starting discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about 99.229.196.227, he seems like a troll just trying to take the blame off the Rebranded White Nationalism and other extremist "free speech" groups. The stuff on the attacker's votes isn't really important, but the islamophobia is, since this entire attack was based on islamophobia. --TheGnerd (talk) 7:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The "alleged" perp engaged in hostility toward a train conductor just a day earlier, which was recorded on a cell phone by another passenger, and was maced at the time. It may be why he lethally armed himself. On April 29th, he had a baseball bat taken from him by police at an alt-right rally at which he spoke and gave Nazi salutes. He was so agitated, the organizers expelled him from the rally. His violence was in no small part a product of psychosis, in my estimation. We shall see as the the legal proceedings grind onward. Activist (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the fact that Fletcher wrote a poem condemning anti-Muslim hate is directly pertinent to the event and Namkai-Meche's last words are, of course, directly related to the incident, and one could argue that Best running for office is an indication of public service for Best, I don't see how him declining campaign contriutions is relevant and noteworthy. Editor said it is to 'humanize a dead hero', but that is not the purpose of this page. Agricolae (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best's past political pursuits have absolutely nothing to do with his stabbing. We are not writing a biography or a human interest story. WWGB (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article from The Oregonian based on the Probable Cause Affidavit that provides an entire account plus many new details - such as that the first person to try to calm down Jeremy Christian was a man identified only as "Mr. Forde."

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/man_accused_in_max_attack_cont.html Psalm84 (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The probable cause affidavit can be found here:

http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/PCAFFIDAVIT2JEREMYCHRISTIAN.tif-2.compressed.pdf Psalm84 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubting the heroic actions of Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche. It could be speculated that Namkai-Meche's desire to intervene was his understanding of other people. An educated man no doubt! While attending Reed College, he undertook Introduction to Islam course. His former professor Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, is an Associate Professor of Religion and Humanities at Reed College. He is also the author of A History of Islam in America From the New World to the New World Order - isbn: 9780521849647
Professor GhaneaBassiri said that Namkai-Meche's desire to see how others view the world made him stand out. This was in online magazine Bustle (magazine). You can read it here - Who Was Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche? The Portland Stabbing Victim Was Only 23 By Lani Seelinger My point is that this is important to the article because it may in part explain the enthusiasm exhibited by Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche in his bid to help others in distress. Karl Twist (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression that this gentle victim's world view was very much a product of his accepting family and his choice of environmentalist employment was consistent with that. He was reflexively protective of those two young women who were being threatened and harassed, but so were two other passenger-victims, including the 53-year-old veteran and family man who was killed. I suspect they had no way to anticipate the savagery and rapidity of the attack upon them. Taliesin (named after a 6th Century Welsh bard) was a gentle soul, much in love with his girl friend. Activist (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Activist, you would be right and his "his accepting family" and his outlook on life is probably why he undertook the Introduction to Islam course. A decent caring man wanting to improve his understanding of others. A true brave hero and real gentleman. Karl Twist (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

Hello, everyone, I had a question regarding the "categories" that this article is currently in seeing as MillycoverAshley has recently added "Terrorist incidents involving knife attacks" and "Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2017." While some WP:RS secondary sources and politicians have called this a terrorist attack, the suspect has not been formally charged with terrorism so is this appropriate? Kamalthebest (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would err on the side of caution and keep it out. I've seen the coverage refer to it as such too, but if authorities aren't we probably shouldn't. ansh666 04:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansh666: Sounds good. Kamalthebest (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "terrorist" would be a very inappropriate label. The Wikipedia definition of that term is clear:

"Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim."

The "alleged" perpetrator in Portland gives the impression that he is a psychotic loner, of fluid but generally of alt-right leanings, but his behavior was so extreme he was somewhat excluded from organized groups where he might have otherwise have found an ideological affinity. There was no broader aim at any sort of a goal. His recent history of attacks and threats have been somewhat spontaneous. A xenophobe, he described himself as a "pagan," with a Nordic pre-Christian era perspective. Activist (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked this section as unresolved, since the terrorism-related categories remain... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged the section according to the following scheme:

• First paragraph: previous felony convictions, general political views. Add a more recent Oregonian source for mental instability.
• Second paragraph: a sampling of various posts on social media.
• Third paragraph: Real-world events, including participation in various events. Some reactions from the organizer of the "free speech rally" using the source above, and one of the sources already in the article.
• Fourth paragraph and later: Misc stuff, stuff he did after the arrest etc.

Feel free to edit/revert/discuss etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chive Fungi, why do you keep removing this edit? The song "On This Train" was directly inspired by the last words of Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche and is dedicated to Taliesin and Ricky Best. It is a response from the community. Why do you not think this has any merit? This isn't about self-promotion. It is about responding to a real life event through music and helping to cultivate love and healing. Here are three published articles that attest to that plus a syndicated podcast, Paradigms that airs today. I don't understand what the issue is.

Victorsings ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

Self-promotion? So you're Victor Johnson? Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest, but please don't make edits about yourself. See WP:COISELF for more about that. --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yes. Again, my intention is not self-promotion. But if those are the guidelines, them someone else could make the edit, such as yourself, as this is certainly relevant. I even made contact with a mamber of Taliesin's family the other night, and they were deeply grateful. I've been writing songs for victim of violence for three years - this isn't something I just started doing. Reading the guidelines below, my edit was certainly relevant, and was not excessive at all, simply stating that the song was written. Honestly though, I'm super concerned about it as the song exists whether or not it is stated on this page.

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it.

VictorsingsVictorsings (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned linking Christian to Patriot Prayer, and by extension Joey Gibson so far ahead of Gibson saying he had Christian ejected from the rally is a BLP violation, it is pure guilt by association, this I believe is neutral, factual and avoids any BLP issues. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The facts do not support your opinion: http://www.kgw.com/news/local/tracking-the-white-supremacy-movement-in-oregon/464415792C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The magnetic draw of soft-alt-right groups like Patriot Prayer attract those of the more fanatical inclination can not be overstated as it give them a safe place they did not have before. This includes such people as Allen Pucket with his homophobic views, the Proud Boys, the three precenters and others that are well documented attendees of Patriot Prayer events. It is the way British Ukip drew out those BNP types, that were in hiding. Nothing happens in a vacuum and we are not islands, but part of a social fabric that needs to be references to fully understand. This pages are linked in the real world of the murdered victims and of Portland, Oregon, so you can unlink them all you want but it will not change relative nature of the events in the minds of those in the area Portland, Oregon area. The rise of groups like Patriot Prayer has given cover to those like Jeremy Christian to come out and act out in public. It is shameful to try to hide the connection. http://katu.com/news/local/patriot-prayer-rally-to-go-on-despite-calls-to-cancel http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/suspect-in-portland-stabbings-built-life-around-hate-http://katu.com/news/local/patriot-prayer-rally-to-go-on-despite-calls-to-cancelspeech/ http://www.npr.org/2017/06/04/531314097/alt-right-white-nationalist-free-speech-the-far-rights-language-explained https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-train-stabbing-suspect-thats-what-liberalism-gets-you-docs/ Even at the Patriot Rally of September 10, 2017, in Portland, the counter-protesters held signs saying, "Joey, you have blood on your hands"; https://www.facebook.com/pg/katunews/videos/ so obviously they in the Portland area see the connection, that you do not. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the hate speech link to hate speech to save those interested from having to hop around so much. The previous link would take you to a page that then had another link to hate speech in the USA, so I changed it to link directly. In the USA, many forms of speech that are banned in other countries are allowed, including some speech that most would consider 'hate speech' so it is best to go directly to the USA page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/376753-262502-trimet-announces-max-stabbing-memorials
• http://koin.com/2017/10/26/trimet-to-install-plaque-honoring-victims-at-hollywood-max/
• http://katu.com/news/local/trimet-announces-plans-for-tributes-at-hollywood-transit-center-after-max-attack

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the trial nears, there will be more court drama, motions and hearings before the start next summer. In preparation for that, it might be wise to begin a sub-section on 'Pre-trail' hearings and then add a sub-section for the 'Trail' later. Any thoughts? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the quote be retained, or the "(expletive)" former parenthetical term be used? What are the Wikipedia rules? Activist (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is that Wikipedia is not censored. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Activist (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read beyond the "not censored" policy to the linked materials, and "...that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Clearly, given all that, the vulgar quote should absolutely be retained. The irony of the discussion, of course, is that the description of the horrific attacks is not the subject of censorship, as if profanity might somehow be found more offensive or revolting to readers than the descriptions of the actual murders themselves. I should note that it was not me who substituted the parenthetical "(expletive)" but rather another editor, and I don't have any particular objection to obscenity: My inquiry was rather a response to the original inclusion, the subsequent censoring, and then the restoration of the original language in the quote from the admitted perpetrator. I was looking rather for a clarification of policy and this certainly has amply accomplished that. Activist (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Investigation" section has just 3 sentences. Wondering if this should be merged into another section? Perhaps "Prosecution"? Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]