Jump to content

Talk:2017 Portland train attack

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Riley Cohen (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 29 May 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50

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)[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]

Expansion

@Bri, Grand'mere Eugene, and Kamalthebest: Thank you, all, for helping to expand this article. If any of you know there are some content gaps needing to be addressed, feel free to share here. Nice to see this article building so quickly and neatly, despite the sad subject matter. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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]

Article title

This article was original 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. --Neutralitytalk 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Portland_train_attack&oldid=782904610"