Talk:2017 Portland train attack

Image of perpetrator?

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

See also section

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

"Suspect" and "alleged"

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

Politics

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)

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)

Campaign contributions

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)

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)

Oregonian story about the attack - some different pieces of information

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)

Also the probable cause affidavit

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)

Namkai-Meche's desire to intervene. Some important background on him

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)

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)

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)

Categorization as a terrorist attack?

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)

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)

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

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)

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

"Suspect" section

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)

On This Train

@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

References

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)

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)

Memorials

• 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)

Vulgarism acceptable ?

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)

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

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

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)

"Investigation" section

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)

"Theft from a victim" section

What does this have to do with this article--aside from obviously absolutely nothing? It's completely incidental. -- 2600:8802:5913:1700:1CA5:B1A2:19BD:26E3 (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)