Talk:Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl

Unjustified

This article is absolutely unjustified. If anything, we might have an article "Killing of Aaron Danielson", but not this - an apparent attempt to make a victim out of Danielson's alleged killer. Reinoehl being killed is not even the most notable thing about him; that was incidental to the attempt to arrest him for killing Danielson. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Let's talk about this. I have wondered why there wasn't an article about the killing of Aaron Danielson, when there have been articles about other deaths during the protests. I have just been adding a little about these two deaths to the article George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon because I was shocked there was so little mention of the incident in that article. Can you think of a way to combine these two people into a single article? What would we call it? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protest related deaths? Killing of Aaron Danielson? Deaths related to Portland, Oregon protests? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon. My own preference would be to expand the coverage of the subject at that article. Alternatively, to make an article covering both people. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MelanieN: sorry, just seeing your comment now. I'm totally open to a discussion about this! In favor of keep: there's been a ton of news about Reinoehl's death, there's already been protest, and between the Portland protests, the killing of Danielson, and Trump's tweet, this already looks like a significant cultural event. I think that's why it's getting so much press. On the other hand, I understand that the event could be theoretically subsumed under a different article, including something related to Danielson, or the Portland Protests, etc. I think we should wait at least 2-3 days though before deleting, to see if it remains a big deal in the news, as it is now. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, please note that while it seems fairly certain that Reinoehl killed Danielson, we don't know that for certain. And while I personally do believe that Reinoehl killed Danielson, this article very much is not an "attempt to make a victim out of Danielson's alleged killer." I have noted in the article Reinoehl's likely killing of Danielson, his previous arrest, the warrant, and so forth. I'm a little perplexed by the jumble of witness statements and statements from officials, which seem to report different things. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, Reinoehl allegedly told a freelance journalist that he did kill Danielson - allegedly in self defense, that he feared he and a friend would be stabbed. So I wouldn't consider the fact of his being the killer to be controversial, although we should probably still say "alleged" since it's not a legal judgment. What I find surprising is that there could be any protest about the police killing him. By all accounts he was armed - highly conflicting reports whether he had a handgun or an automatic weapon, and ranging from whether he fired the weapon at all or 40 times. But of course the police shot him. He had a weapon and was pointing it at them; they would shoot in that situation 100% of the time and it would be judged as justified. Anyhow, between "a ton of news" (the day it happened) and "Trump's tweet" (probably one of 40 or 50 he will send out today like he does every day), I'm not finding a case for notability; more like WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not suggesting the article be deleted outright, since you have done good writing and referencing; I just think it needs to be folded into a broader article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment about the writing. I add the qualifier to Reinoehl's admission because other papers, like the NYT, do the same: Reinoehl appears to confess, but the NYT also states that he doesn't admit guilt outright. Presumably if there's footage from Danielson's killing, and with witness testimony (e.g. Reinoehl's friend, whom he said he was protecting), we might know for certain. As to Reinoehl's shooting, the extraordinarily diverse witness reports demonstrate just how unreliable these can be. I suppose if the police had been using ordinary police vehicles, there would be video footage that would verify what exactly Reinoehl did when confronted by police. But in this case the task for was in unmarked vehicles. By the way, with so many people (including Reinoehl!) running around highly armed and in unmarked cars, I don't know how someone in such a situation would know if they were about murdered or abducted by a far right or left gang, or were instead about to be lawfully arrested. -Darouet (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I am also dubious about this article, and it shows the problem of creating an article immediately after an event - it seems to be a part of the George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• 1. I think the title is off. Why not just have it be titled the fellow’s name. His acts are notable. And his death is notable. But I agree that is secondary.

2. This information is notable and worthy of an article - whatever the name. 3. The fellow he killed should likely have his own article. 4. More information will I expect come out in this fellow. Leading to the possibility of a more robust article. 5. The different witnesses having different stories is probably not atypical. 2604:2000:E010:1100:15B2:6BA1:319F:7C2A (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed expansion and retitle

I continue to think that this article should be expanded to include Danielson. The two are indelibly linked. How about a title "Shootings (or Killings) of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl"? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be of the opinion that this article should be merged into a sub-section in a broader article about the 'Killing of Aaron Danielson' Adauchi (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we move this article to that title? --Andreas JN466 07:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, would you be prepared to do the move? I find the present state of affairs untenable, and unhelpful in the real-life context. Regards, --Andreas JN466 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jayen466 and MelanieN: I oppose this move, though I had initially considered it a possibility. Some of my rationale can be found here on talk, but I'll explain more shortly. -Darouet (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

After doing more research and thinking on this topic, I think that moving this article to "Killing of Aaron Danielson" would be a highly partisan and inappropriate decision. Reinoehl's death cannot be understood only in the context of his likely killing of Danielson. In particular, the manner of his killing by law enforcement — in a hail of bullets, from officers in unmarked SUVs from multiple law enforcement agencies who were either spurred on by Trump or shortly afterwards congratulated — is itself controversial.

Using Nexis Uni, which you both may have access to, I can see that Danielson's killing was referenced 29 independent times in the five days after his death by national and global news sources. Reinoehl's killing was referenced 50 times in the five days after his death. At the least, his death then received more coverage, though both received quite a bit. It's also possible that Reinoehl's death received more coverage because it was so closely linked to Danielson's.

For that reason, perhaps the title that MelanieN proposed, "Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl", is justified. I found an interesting article published in Australia on Sunday that probably supports such an article title:

Flashpoint of a Nation, by the Courier Mail, Australia, September 6, 2020 Sunday:

[Protests] have mutated into something far more that has left the progressive city the frontline of battles between the far right and far left and the centrepiece of a bitter presidential election. The fact that it is highly unlikely there will be any winners in the Portland battleground was highlighted by two deaths. One was a far-right activist, the other a member of the far-left Antifa movement. Both men paid with their lives after getting drawn into the anti-racism demonstrations that have shaken the US for the last three months.

The article includes ominous commentary from a political scientist about further volatility and civil conflict that we might expect in the American elections ahead.

If you both agreed to such a move, I'd support it too. Otherwise, I think we should host a requested move to argue for various article name possibilities and get wider input from the community. -Darouet (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, here's where we stand:

• I proposed expanding the article to "Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl" to be about both of these intimately related killings. Darouet agreed. "Killing of Michael Reinoehl" and "Killing of Aaron Danielson" would be redirects.
• Adauchi proposed just "Killing of Aaron Danielson" (with a subsection about Reinoehl). Jayen agreed.

I think it is vitally important to link the two cases in a single article and to do it now. @Jayen466 and Adauchi: Could you accept the title naming both people? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. For the record, I find more Google News hits for "aaron danielson"|"aaron jay danielson" portland than for "reinoehl" portland (it's 81 vs 60), but a title with both names is an option I'd considered as well, and at any rate infinitely preferable to the present situation. Thanks, Darouet and MelanieN. --Andreas JN466 18:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do the move a little later today when I have time to undertake the expansion. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I started the merge but have to leave the house for a while. Can somebody find more information about Danielson? Darouet? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I tried adding some material on Danielson, but it's hard — the newspapers that reported on his funeral note the kind things his friends said, but say nothing about his work, his family, etc. I find that surprising! -Darouet (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. What baffles me is that I couldn't even find the basic information - age and where he was from - that is ALWAYS reported in connection with any death. I'll try again. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for re-doing the lead, that's a much better way to handle it. I did find Danielson's age and where he was from. I wanted to find his occupation; his parents claim he taught for 25 years at an alternative high school but I found that impossible to believe (he was only 39, he would have had to start when he was 14), and how many high school dropouts get hired as teachers? I included the claim but attributed it to his parents and left out the 25 years. I'll keep looking, our information on him is still pretty thin. I'm still unclear where he was living at the time of his death. I saw one source (can't find it now) that he spent the last 20 years of his life in Portland, but that wouldn't square with what his parents said. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW this is the kind of thing I love about Wikipedia. You wrote an article; I came here opposed to its very existence; and we wind up collaborating on it! Nice working with you. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: thanks, I love collaboration as well. And it's especially satisfying when it appears to work after initial disagreement or conflict! Note that I'm going to try to add back one sentence on Trump / Barr to the lead: I think they commentary is important here and it's been widely reported on. -Darouet (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations aside, I am puzzled by the categorization aspect. One man was killed in Oregon and the other in Washington, requiring categorization for both states. One was killed by law enforcement officers, and belongs to the category about such deaths. The other was killed by a private individual, and I wonder whether his death belongs in either a crime or murder category. Any suggestions? Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say that Danielson's death was almost certainly a crime, and so would argue yes. -Darouet (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

These should be two separate articles. Arguing about the semantics of the title is lipstick on a pig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.238.25 (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to remove the notability tag. It's certainly possible that this article, or any new article, might not survive an AfD nomination. But even given this possibility, the tag at the top of the article is inappropriate because it is inaccurate. The tag states,

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

However, the topic of the article has been the subject of dozens of major US and international newspaper articles that are considered "reliable secondary sources independent of the topic". Furthermore those articles do not provide a "mere trivial mention" of the subject, but are instead wholly dedicated to it. For this reason I believe this article would most likely survive an AfD. But at a minimum those sources demonstrate that the notability tag does not apply in this case. I write this acknowledging that MelanieN's concerns that this content should not be given its own article are reasonably articulated, even if I disagree with her, due to the extent of coverage Reinoehl's killing has received. -Darouet (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

Just a quick note that additional sources should probably be added here: CNN, Fox News, the BBC, another Reuters piece (check it's not a duplicate), and another NYT piece. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

And here's a useful article about the original shooting of Danielson: [1]

Thanks. I now use it as a citation in the article. -Darouet (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Which type of weapon?

To add to article: which specific type of automatic weapon did Reinoehl pull? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Unclear if it was a handgun, an automatic rifle, or what. The guy was a vet so presumably he was comfortable with all kinds of weapons. -Darouet (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Police are now stating that Reinoehl had a semi-automatic handgun in his possession. -Darouet (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, do you have a source for "semi-automatic"? We should include that description if we can source it to the police. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Yes! This AP report has it [2], and the statement is sourced to the police. -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to hold off on that. The attribution is so vague - just "authorities said" - and all of our other sources just say a handgun. Hopefully we will get more detailed information later. In addition to a more precise description of his gun (we already know what kind of gun Danielson had) I assume we will eventually get forensics comparing Reinoehl's gun to Danielson's wound. For that matter maybe we'll find out where he had been for five days (apparently that was not his apartment) and where he lived. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Police report also states the Danielson died with his hand gun still in his waistband and that Reinoehl stalked him and was lying in wait as shown on video and ambushed him. That puts an entirely different light on the event where this article makes it seem like it was a "clash" of two armed equals. This article is hopelessly biased as written now and does not include pertinent facts. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12591075/antifa-killer-lying-in-wait-aaron-jay-danielson-portland/ Bjorklund21 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The article has been completely rewritten since these comments were made, and is now balanced between Danielson and Reinoehl. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Footage showing Reinoehl holding/pointing weapon

Does there exist footage showing Reinoehl holding or pointing a weapon prior to his death? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Footage of his death may exist, but none that I know of has been released. -Darouet (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the question is the fact that some witnesses may have claimed that Reinoehl was empty-handed (unarmed) at the time of his killing. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

And some have claimed he had a semi-automatic rifle and fired it. The witness reports are all over the map. The police reports are that he had a handgun, although they have not said whether he fired it. "Handgun" is likely to be the most reliable, since whatever weapon he had would have been found on him after he was shot. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Details of shooting

Details to add to this article: how many officers fired their guns at Reinoehl, how many shots were fired, and how many shots hit Reinoehl? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The police have stated that four officers fired at Reinoehl. I do not know how many shots were fired altogether, nor how many hit Reinoehl. -Darouet (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

new information claiming Danielson was targeted

there is an article from Oregon Live that indicates Reinoehl lay in wait and "targeted" Danielson. why is this not mentioned in this article? 173.85.192.32 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw that. I’m not sure how much about Danielson’s killing should be here. Perhaps you’re right that this detail - which is also hypothetical - should be in this article. But as it’s not known that Reinoehl was indeed waiting to kill Danielson, the detail might be superfluous here. Willing to hear what others think. -Darouet (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not "hypothetical as video has been released showing it. Also Danielson died with his gun in his waistband so how can it be self defence? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12591075/antifa-killer-lying-in-wait-aaron-jay-danielson-portland/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorklund21 (talk • contribs)

i would only point out that the article as it is now, sees fit to include his claim of self-defense. it seems Wikipedia would want to present this article from a neutral point of view. 173.85.192.32 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw that report too, but it doesn't seem to have been picked up by many other sources (in a search, it is only covered by publications like the Daily Mail and the Sun - not the usual mainstream sources). So I think we should wait for more confirmation or wider reporting before using this. There is other interesting stuff in that Oregon Live report besides the lying-in-wait allegation: Reinoehl has claimed he was afraid he and a friend were about to be stabbed, but it doesn't appear that Danielson had a knife, and there isn't any "friend" in the video. Also, the police seem quite clear in their reporting Reinoehl had a handgun, not the semiautomatic rifle reported by several witnesses; we might want to work on that section of the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

laying in wait is not the only way to target someone. there are many more results for a search for 'Reinoehl' and 'targeted' (i didn't try "ambushed" or "assassinated"):

• https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/09/arrest-warrant-against-michael-reinoehl-for-2nd-degree-murder-unlawful-use-of-a-firearm-unsealed.html
• https://nypost.com/2020/09/05/antifa-shooter-michael-reinoehl-appeared-to-target-victim-photos/
• https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/09/04/portland-police-search-warrant-includes-new-details-about-fatal-shooting-of-aaron-danielson/
• https://www.foxnews.com/us/portlands-antifa-gunman-appeared-to-target-victim-police-say
• https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/479188-387167-records-sugggest-reinoehl-targeted-danielson?wallit_nosession=1

hopefully some neutrality can be introduced into this article, which is heavily biased as noted several times on this talk page. also, Reinoehl's claim to be "I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!"[3] is conspicuously absent. NYT also tried to hide his affiliation with Antifa but changed their minds. 173.85.192.32 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of this is in the article now. Further detail on both the targeting and other aspects is available in another New York Times article; quote: In an affidavit from Mr. Reinoehl’s arrest warrant, released Friday, authorities describe surveillance footage showing Mr. Reinoehl and Mr. Danielson first walking along a sidewalk, apparently without confrontation. Mr. Danielson was already carrying a can in one hand — possibly mace — and what appears to be an expandable baton in the other. The footage shows Mr. Reinoehl turned into a parking garage, reached into a pouch or waistband, and waited for Mr. Danielson and a friend to pass, according to the documents. Authorities said Mr. Reinoehl followed the two men as they crossed the street in the seconds before the shooting. --Andreas JN466 22:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The Willamette Week article reviews the court document, which states clearly that Danielson had no knife (though he did have a gun, which had not been fired): 1. In an interview shortly before police killed him, Reinoehl told Vice News that he shot in self-defense after a man threatened him and another protester with a knife. "Had I stepped forward, he would have maced or stabbed me,' Reinoehl told Vice. But in the 19-page affidavit, there is no mention of a knife found on or near Danielson. The warrant does say that when a medic provided medical treatment to Danielson, there was an expandable metal baton found near him, along with can of "bear attack deterrent" that appeared to have been hit by a bullet. The medic also discovered a loaded Glock 17 pistol—still holstered and not fired—at Danielson's waist, along with three extra magazines in the pockets of his cargo shorts. (It occurs to me that Reinoehl may have mistaken the baton for a knife in the dark.)

Washington Post: In one chilling detail contained in the affidavit, a Portland police detective wrote that surveillance footage showed Reinoehl looking back toward Danielson and walking into a garage entryway to conceal himself as he watched Danielson walk by. Danielson is seen on the camera walking by, apparently holding a can in his right hand and an expandable baton in his left. Seconds after he passes, Reinoehl emerges, reaching toward his waist. Shortly after, the detective writes, the gunfire rang out but the shooting was not captured on the video. So there are plenty of good sources to be had about this sorry event. (Searches for "Reinoehl" and "garage" will yield more.) --Andreas JN466 22:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Beniga's affidavit, the primary source all of these media articles drew on, is here: https://www.mcda.us/index.php/documents/state-of-oregon-vs-michael-forest-reinoehl-affidavits-warrant-da-info.pdf/ --Andreas JN466 22:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

But we can't use it as it's a primary source, as you say. I'm not getting involved with the article right now, just pointing out policy. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Hi @MelanieN: I don't want to jump into the lead right now, or any other part of the article, since I think you'll be actively working on it for a bit. However, I'd like to request that we have a somewhat more integrated lead, where Danielson and Reinoehl aren't presented wholly separately.

This could be achieved at least in part with a first three sentences along the lines of the following:

On August 29 2020, Aaron Danielson was shot dead during protests in Portland, Oregon, in the United States. The principle suspect in his killing, Michael Reinoehl, was shot and killed by US law enforcement agencies five days later, on September 3rd. Danielson was a member of the far-right group Patriot Prayer, while Reinoehl described himself as antifascist.

Or something along those lines. I'm sure you could word it better. Let me know what you think. -Darouet (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually I like this version - it's a big improvement - and I'm glad you added it to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing says for definitively he was a member, therefore it's imperative that we don't assume supporter is the same as member. Graywalls (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Aaron J. Danielson?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Almost all sources refer to him as Aaron J. Danielson[4] so we do also. But I am dubious, wondering if that is really his name, or if sources assumed the initial J. from hearing Aaron "Jay" Danielson. I wonder if we can find any source that shows a full middle name? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to just change our name for him to "Aaron Danielson"; see this reference for instance. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, well, this says "The Multnomah County Medical Examiner’s Office is conducting an investigation into this death and the decedent has been positively identified as 39-year-old Aaron J. Danielson, of Portland." I guess that's pretty authoritative. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eyewitness accounts

@Graywalls: Can you explain in a bit more depth why you think the material you removed here and here doesn't belong in the article? Why do you think Dingess' account is substantially different from the other summaries of eyewitness accounts in the article? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe it'd be a BLP thing, because it's about criminal activity that's not completely confirmed. So it's hearsay. I could check with BLP/N just to be sure if it's appropriate if you'd prefer. Graywalls (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts:, I've inquired there, because I'm not fully confident on this. If you want to restore it back, well that's your decision. Graywalls (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts and Graywalls: I've added information on Dingess' testimony. I've also removed the statement that Reinoehl may have fired an assault rifle, since not even the police are claiming he had a weapon of that kind. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet, Arms & Hearts, and Graywalls: I disagree with naming Dingess (we generally try to avoid using the names of private citizens who are peripherally involved, and especially since he now claims to fear for his safety), or describing him as an "ordained minister" as if that gives him some kind of special credibility. And I totally disagree with devoting an entire paragraph to his testimony. There is no reason to give his version so much priority and precedence over everyone else's version. Summarize what he said in a sentence or two, as with all the other witnesses. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I've removed his name, per your concern, but I do think the fact that he's a minister should be mentioned, since it's mentioned in sources. I've removed the word "ordained," perhaps softening this point. I've also tried to shorten this — removing two sentences? — but the remaining three contain crucial information. -Darouet (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I also worked on a condensed version:

A resident of the apartment complex who says he witnessed the shooting said that Reinoehl was holding only a cellphone when officers arrived at the scene, and that officers opened fire without any verbal warning, then briefly paused their initial shooting to order "stop!" before continuing to fire. He said Reinoehl tried to duck for cover behind his car but his path was blocked by police vehicles, and he never saw Reinoehl reach for anything.

Sources

I still object to calling him a minister (would we pay less attention to his testimony if he was a grocer?) and to making his testimony a separate paragraph. And I will confess that I personally find his testimony unconvincing, or no more convincing than anybody else's. He saw only a cell phone in Reinhehl's hand; OK, but multiple other witnesses say he had a gun and one says he fired it. Two witnesses say Reinoehl was IN the car, while this person and others say he was outside it. This person says the officers didn't give any warning or say anything before they started shooting, and that's possible; the officers haven't issued any narrative of what happened when. But I have to wonder: how come he was already watching Reinoehl walking to his car holding a cell phone, BEFORE the officers arrived or any shots were fired to attract his attention? Was he outdoors or otherwise in a position to hear everything that was said, even if it wasn't shouted but said in a normal tone (for example, to hear an officer say in a normal tone "you're under arrest"?) I submit that he is unlikely to know if the officers said anything before the shooting started. My bottom line: he should be given no more coverage, and no more credence, than the other witnesses. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, his testimony as a witness has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles that are wholly dedicated to it. Unlike other witnesses, he provided his testimony via an attorney, stating that he fears retribution, possibly from the police. Furthermore, I do think that the fact that he's a minister is significant. Yes I think that influences our view of his credibility, and whether we agree with that or not, I think it has contributed to the newspaper articles on the topic. Lastly, unlike other witnesses he appears to have a birds eye view of what occurred. That's a big deal, since other witnesses were viewing or hearing this event from the ground and at a distance. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, his testimony as a witness has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles that are wholly dedicated to it. Really? Cite a few, please. My own searching found only the Oregonian, and everybody else cites the Oregonian, so we really have only one independent source. Business Insider cites the Oregonian. In a Google search for Nathaniel Dingess I found the Oregonian, the New York Post (not a reliable source and also cites the Oregonian), and a few extreme partisan sources like the World Socialist Web Site and Democracy Now.[5][6] No mainstream publications seem to have mentioned it as far as can see. My problem was searching for Nathaniel Dingess. WaPo [7] did report on it but called him Nate Dinguss. They apparently had independent access to his story. They may have seen his statement, or they may have gotten info from his lawyer; that's kind of ambiguous.

Yes, his statement certainly makes it sound like he must have had a “birds eye view”, but how exactly? Where was he, why was he able to see and hear the entire confrontation from the moment the police arrived, or actually even before? The reports say nothing about that. Maybe his actual statement explains that, but that’s a whole new question: Has anyone seen his actual statement? The Oregonian may (or may not) have seen it, but has anyone else? The Oregonian report contains only paraphrases, not actual quotes from the statement, so it's possible the contents were just summarized to them by the attorney. The attorney has refused to answer questions and so has Dingess.

So, we don't know how he happened to be in such a perfect situation to see all these things that nobody else saw. Excuse my cynicism, but as a sometime journalist myself I evaluate all reports with two questions: who says so and how do they know? We know who says so; we don't know how he knows. Here we have somebody who apparently had a far better view of the proceedings than anyone else, but held his tongue for a week while all kinds of accounts were published that he knew to be completely inaccurate, and then "came forward" via his attorney telling the Oregonian what he says happened. And not a single mainstream source except the Oregonian has chosen to report what he said. I'm sorry, but this deserves to be treated just as we have treated all the other witness reports - summarized in a sentence. Not dignified with a full paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Here's how unreliable this reporting is: Three different publications refer to him as Nathaniel Dingess, Nate Dinguss, and Nathan Dingus. Also, the information that he is an "ordained minister" came from his lawyer. I could be an ordained minister too; I could purchase an ordination online, say if I wanted to perform a wedding. If he was actually an active pastor somewhere, that would be easily evident online. Look, I'm not calling him a liar or a phony; I'm just not willing to take his testimony as more valuable than anyone else's. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your version in the article: I removed "overlooked the shooting" since that does not appear in the sources. I would like your permission/agreement to remove the statement that he feared for his safety; to me that is like putting a target on him; but you may interpret it differently. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at BLP/N to evaluate appropriate inclusion against larger consensus. Graywalls (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the witness's view of the shooting, the OregonLive article says he lives in that apartment complex: "Nathaniel Dingess, 39, lives in the apartment complex near Lacey, Washington, where Reinoehl apparently was hiding." https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/09/witness-says-officers-never-gave-commands-before-firing-at-michael-reinoehl-outside-wa-apartment.html A story in Rolling Stone provides even more detail: "The eyewitness, his attorney describes, saw the task force ambush Reinoehl, whom Dinguss had seen “walking toward his car with his cellphone in his hand chewing on a gummy worm when two unmarked law enforcement vehicles suddenly converged from different directions and began firing at Reinoehl.”" https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/eyewitness-disputes-federal-killing-accused-portland-shooter-barr-reinoehl-1058049/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Homicide

Wasn't Reinoehl's killing just classified as a homicide? I don't see the word "homicide" mentioned in this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"Homicide" just means a person was killed by another person. There's no ambiguity in the article as to whether it was a homicide, whether or not we use the word. But if you think it needs to be in the article and you can cite a reliable source, go ahead and add it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no. Suicide is a form of homicide. Aeroview854 (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Danielson's defense of the 2017 Portland train attack

Shouldn't information about Danielson's vigorous, notable public defense of the 2017 Portland train attack be added to the section about his background? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any reliable sources supporting this claim. Heavy.com says it's a case of mistaken ientity, though it's not entirely clear how they've reached that conclusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer "right-wing" or "far right"

Darouet, Davide King, 80.7.76.37, we have had a couple of to-and-fros going on in this article over whether Patriot Prayer should be described as "right-wing" or "far right". Today I did a quick Google News search for "right-wing group" + "Patriot Prayer" and then for "far-right group" + "Patriot Prayer", for news reports published over the past month. The result I got is 69 hits for "far-right group", and 76 results for "right-wing group", and that includes left-leaning publications like CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times. URLs if you'd like to check for yourselves:

• www.google.com/search?q="far-right+group"+"patriot+prayer"&tbs=qdr:m&tbm=nws&start=60
• www.google.com/search?q="right-wing+group"+"patriot+prayer"&tbs=qdr:m&tbm=nws&start=70

So I don't think we should take is as read that only one of these monikers is appropriate (also bearing in mind that "right-wing" of course includes "far-right"). For a few days or weeks we had "far right" in the lead and "right wing" in the section on Danielson (the source cited there is one of those that says "right-wing"), and I actually thought that was not a bad compromise. What do you think? --Andreas JN466 15:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"Patriot Prayer" is not the Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party, though of course there are overlaps. It is distinct in that it is a far right group, and that distinction should be made in the lead and body. If there are sources arguing that such a designation is wrong, I want to read and discuss them. As it is, I haven't seen that. -Darouet (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, at present it is only a (slight) minority of reliable sources published over the past month that have designated them as such, while a (slight) majority has called them a right-wing group. What NPOV calls on us to do is representing not just one opinion that we share, but "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Do you see what I mean? We can't ignore, or fail to represent, those sources that call them a right-wing group, without falling foul of NPOV, which is policy. --Andreas JN466 16:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that the wording used in this article to describe Patriot Prayer should follow the wording in the Patriot Prayer article. The consensus there at present, after several discussions, is in favour of using "far-right". Why would the description in this article differ from the description used there? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Arms & Hearts. Furthermore, even if only 40 %, or 30 %, or 25 % of sources described Patriot Prayer as "far-right," it would still make sense to describe it as such, provided that the sources doing so were of high quality. The reason is that some sources, like the SPLC, might go out of their way to carefully evaluate the group's political beliefs, and conclude it is a far-right group. Other high quality media like The New Yorker, which is well known for fact-checking, might then use that description as well. If a media source writes "right wing" and omits the phrase "far right," that doesn't imply they disagree with the "far right" designation. Now, if a reliable source contests the designation "far-right," then we have to evaluate things differently. For example, in Europe there are many far-right groups, and sometimes media or scholars will contest the designation "far right" to one of them. In that case there's controversy, and we need to evaluate how different scholarly or reliable sources assess that controversy. But I don't see any such controversy here. -Darouet (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, since you mention the New Yorker, they wrote on Sep 1:

• "Even before right-wing groups reappeared on Portland’s streets a few weeks ago, the situation downtown was a high-anxiety game of Waiting for the Awful Thing to Happen ... Then, in mid-August, an old threat reëmerged: right-wing groups, long agitators at Portland protests and counter-protests, returned to antagonize those who were peacefully assembling for Black lives. Patriot Prayer, Proud Boys, and other right-wing factions had been fixtures at local demonstrations since at least 2017 ... This summer, the right-wing cliques had been conspicuously absent during the protests for George Floyd ...

They wrote on Sep 6:

• Aaron J. Danielson, a supporter of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, was shot dead; the suspect, Michael Reinoehl, an Antifa supporter, was fatally shot by law-enforcement officers last Thursday, as they attempted to apprehend him south of Seattle. --Andreas JN466 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV policy does not care about WP:OTHER articles but requires editors to reflect "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I think I have shown that top-quality sources on this topic viewing Patriot Prayer as a "right-wing group" are about as numerous (actually slightly more numerous) as those presenting them as a "far right group". So, it's a significant view that can be found in The New Yorker, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, etc. that according to policy has to be represented, just like the "far right" moniker. Hence my suggestion to use "far right" in the lead, and go back to "right-wing" in the section on Danielson.

Please base any further arguments on a review of the sources relevant to this article, as otherwise we're deep into WP:OR territory. --Andreas JN466 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, here are two archived Google News searches, looking for articles published between 28 August 2020 and now and containing –

• Aaron + Danielson + "right-wing group Patriot Prayer":
  • https://archive.is/vuh1p
  • 69 hits, incl. Insider, CNN, The Columbian, New York Times, NPR, Reuters, BBC News, Chicago Daily Herald, Voice of America, ABC News, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The Philadelphia Inquirer, CBC, The Guardian, Business Insider, Los Angeles Times, The Independent, New York Post, Fox News, LBC News, The Week Magazine, The Oregonian, Salon, Willamette Week, New York Daily News, The New Republic, Yahoo News, etc.)

• Aaron + Danielson + "far-right group Patriot Prayer":
  • https://archive.is/Bfwho
  • 77 hits, incl. CNN, Vox, Washington Post, NBC News, The New York Times, TechCrunch, OPB News, Salt Lake Tribune, BBC News, Rolling Stone, Forbes, The Guardian, The Spectator, Deccan Herald, New York Daily News, Times of India, Salon, The New Yorker, The Sun, Portland Tribune, New York Review of Books, NPR, TIME, The Intercept, Boing Boing, Fox News, Newsweek, Seattle Times, Truthout, AlterNet, KOIN, msnNOW, Yahoo Money, etc.

Again we have virtual parity, with substantial overlap between the two groups. Both include a broad spectrum of top-quality publications.

Editors should please bear in mind that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions, so policy compliance is essential. If we only represent sources that say "far-right group Patriot Prayer" in the article and leave equally good sources speaking of the "right-wing group Patriot Prayer" unrepresented, then we have clearly not gone as far as possible to represent all of these two significant published views proportionately, but instead exercise editorial bias. We give the reader a skewed and selective image of what reliable sources have said and open Wikipedia up to well-founded charges of bias (and speaking personally, I would argue that in times of social and political unrest, unbiased reporting is key to de-escalation, something that's perhaps more easily appreciated when you turn it around: biased reporting serves to ratchet up tension).

So unless editors come up with policy-based arguments why I should not do so, I plan to revert this edit by Davide King sometime tomorrow, and hope that I will have your support in doing so. This will reestablish the status quo, so we have "far-right group Patriot Prayer" in the lead, and "right-wing group Patriot Prayer" in the section on Anderson. That will represent both types of sources, proportionately. --Andreas JN466 14:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayen466, I didn't think much about it, I was more concerned about being consistent, whether it was far-right or right-wing (i.e. I changed to right-wing and far-right whenever it was changed in the body by another user or IP), but I think your compromise is perfectly fine. :-) Davide King (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought as much. :) Thanks for tidying up the dangling refs and creating the redirect for unlawful use of a weapon. --Andreas JN466 10:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I realised only now you are Jayen466 (your signature is fine, do not worry); yes, I did not notice that when I pinged you. ːD So I wanted to thank you, too. :) Davide King (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Another option is to write something like "...the group Patriot Prayer, described as right-wing or far-right by media and the SPLC." But I know that's clunky. I'm fine with the present text as well: we can come back to this later if you both would like. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In the Hans Christian Anderson story, The Emperor's New Clothes, everyone agreed that the Emperor's New Clothes were beautiful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes Except for one kid, who didn't know he was supposed to be Politically Correct. I'd say that we should find out if there is some objective, agreed-upon definition for "far-right group", perhaps a list of agreed-upon distinguishing characteristics, and figure out if the news organizations that call Patriot Prayer a "far-right group" have determined that based on a study of such a list. We might find that the label "right-wing" has simply gone out of fashion. Aeroview854 (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

New reporting

There is important new reporting from the NYT. Should we add to or revise our witness accounts based on this new reporting? Should we mention the police shots that went through civilian property or narrowly missed civilians? In this discussion last month we discussed the testimony of a witness variously called Nathaniel Dingess, Nate Dinguss, and Nathan Dingus. We decided not to name him. At that time he was just described as a resident of the apartment complex. Now it's reported that Reinoehl was staying in Dinguss’s appartment. No wonder he hired an attorney and waited a week before making any statement! Still without naming him, should we mention that the unidentified witness listed fifth in our article lived in the apartment where Reinoehl was staying? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-fascist

The second sentence of the article describes Reinoehl as an "anti-fascist activist". Is this a fair and an accurate description? I would argue that it isn't, especially in comparison to how the article describes Danielson in the first sentence. To address this imbalance, I suggest replacing "Michael Forest Reinoehl, an anti-fascist activist" with "Michael Forest Reinoehl, a supporter of the far-left group antifa".