Jump to content

Talk:2017 Portland train attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Good article?

I suppose we should give this article more time to settle, but I think it's coming along nicely and may be close to meeting GA criteria. Do any editors agree, disagree, or have any interest in trying to promote this article to Good status? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I think that'd be cool. Kamalthebest (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality, Kamalthebest, WWGB, and Grand'mere Eugene: We're the top 5 editors of this article, according to the revision statistic. Do one or more of you have any interest in nominating this article for Good status, or participating in a co-nomination? I actually feel like I'm less familiar with this article's content, but I'd love to see the article promoted if editors feel it meets criteria. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I'm not exactly sure what the procedure is for nominating an article for "good status" but I think it earns that title. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Kamalthebest: Just in case you are interested, there are instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Ah, thanks! I will look into this. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have submitted it for nomination but I don't think it fits a category such as "politics" so I have left that blank for now. Anyone can change this if they like. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

Draft article for memorial

Too soon to create in the main space, but editors are welcome to assist with a draft article about the planned memorial at Draft:2017 Portland train attack memorial. 20:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This may be of help: [1] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I added this link to the draft article's talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Here is the Oregonian's take on the artist selection: [2] Hope this helps. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We Choose Love

FYI, I moved Portland train attack memorial to We Choose Love. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ref error

Resolved

How can we track down the ref to remove the "Cite error: The named reference OPBToAppear was invoked but never defined" warning? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Article title

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. --Neutralitytalk 17:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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)
@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)
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)
"Attack" doesn't imply terrorist attack. "Attack" just means attack. Neutralitytalk 23:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
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)

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)

There was more than one stabbing. Three people were stabbed. Neutralitytalk 19:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem, then it will be 2017 Portland train stabbings.JBergsma1 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
JBergsma1, there are sources that describe the event as Portland stabbing. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)

RfC about the title of the article

A request was placed at WP:ANRFC for a formal closure here. There was consensus at this RfC for option A, and the arguments in favour of it are supported by our naming policies. This results in the page not being moved. If someone wishes to raise the question of the article's title again, I would suggest opening a formal RM (see WP:RM) rather than an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

What should the title of this article be?

  • Option A – 2017 Portland train attack
  • Option B – 2017 Portland train stabbing
  • Option C – 2017 Portland train stabbing attack
  • Option D – 2017 Portland stabbing
  • Option E – 2017 Portland attack
  • Option F – 2017 Portland train killings
  • Option G – 2017 Portland killings

Kamalthebest (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Threaded discussion

Stabbing is more precise than attack. There's no need to include train, because it's both ambiguous/misleading and not needed to distinguish it from any other notable stabbings in Portland this year because there haven't been any. Jim Michael (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think "Portland 2017 train murders" would be a more useful and precise title. "Stabbings" doesn't inform of the fatalities. Activist (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Activist: I could be wrong but I don't think we're allowed to call this "murder" until the perpetrator is convicted of said crime. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
We can't include murder in the title because it could prejudice a trial. We could use killings - for example: 2017 Portland killings. Jim Michael (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Activist, Jim Michael: I'm going to go ahead and add "2017 Portland train killings" and "2017 Portland killings" to the list. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael:, @Kamalthebest: I think you're both right. Thanks for your input. Activist (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there an impartial way of bringing more people to this debate? Contacting individuals could be viewed as canvassing. Jim Michael (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Oregon should be added to the title to distinguish from Portland, Maine and match with Portland, Oregon. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 17:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it necessary to add Oregon? There don't appear to have been any notable attacks in any of the other Portlands this year. Jim Michael (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755: I agree that Oregon doesn't need to be added because I think it's pretty clear as it is now. Also, Jim Michael, this is already under WP:RfC so nonpartisan people can find it there. You're right that commenting on people's pages is WP:CANVASSING. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that there are too few people here to reach a consensus. Each of us wants a different article name. All we've done so far is to add to the options. Jim Michael (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: I know, this process usually takes at least a month. More people will add as time moves on. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael:, @CookieMonster755:, @Neutrality:, @Kamalthebest:, @NickCT:, if I might be so bold: Four editors supported Option A, though two of those found another option acceptable as well. Neither B, C or D got more than one vote. I'm thinking that we can recognize consensus with A and put indecisiveness aside and keep the current title: No editors seem to have difficulty finding the article. No need to dither for a month, it seems. Destiny awaits but may lose patience. Activist (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Only one of those chose A alone, so that's not a consensus. Is stating a preference for more than one option allowed? It seems like double-voting.
Many MSM articles refer to it as a stabbing or killing - they aren't agreed on attack. Jim Michael (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Activist: - I agree with your reading of the consensus. A garnered the most support.
@Jim Michael: - re "Is stating a preference for more than one option allowed" - Not sure there is a rule. Fundamentally RfC's are just a way to get a sense for which option gets the most support. I don't think one needs to do a "run-off" election in this kind of situation. NickCT (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I still think that having train in the title is both unnecessary and misleading/ambiguous. This appears to be the only notable attack of any description to take place in Portland this year, and titles are meant to be a concise as possible. Train attack doesn't sound like an attack that happened inside a train. This is similar for other forms of transport: if someone said truck attack, you wouldn't think that was an attack inside the truck. Likewise for bus attack. It makes you think of an attack against the vehicle or at attack using the vehicle as a weapon. There's no value to having train in the title - in fact, there's minus value to doing so. Jim Michael (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: - Yeah. I think I agree with you. It could be misleading. The thing is though, there are lots of things that have misleading names (think Holy Roman Empire. Not Holy, not Roman, not an Empire). On WP, the accuracy of an article title is less important than the commonality of the name. NickCT (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The Holy Roman Empire is categorised as an empire.
This incident doesn't have a common name - the MSM refer to it by various terms. 2017 Portland stabbing is sufficient and unambiguous. Jim Michael (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
What about the famous Jacob Shroyer case? Couldn't "2017 Portland Stabbing" be confused with that?
I guess if we categorize the HRE as an Empire then Voltaire got it wrong.
I take your point. But balancing potential ambiguity against potential loss of concision, I think I'd choose the latter here. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Until now I wasn't aware that there had been a separate fatal stabbing in Portland this year. However, it doesn't seem to be anywhere near notable enough to ever have a Wikipedia article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: - Well it's certainly not as notable as the train stabbing. I guess I was just trying to make the point that large cities experience "stabbings" all the time. Strikes me that "Portland stabbing" does open the door for ambiguity. NickCT (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, fatal stabbings (and shootings, beatings etc.) happen all the time. However, only a tiny proportion of them are notable enough to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. In addition, in cases where there is only one victim, we usually name the article after the victim: Death of ......., Killing of ........, Shooting of ........, Murder of ........, Assassination of ....... If it were notable enough (which it isn't), then the other Portland stabbing you mentioned would be called Killing of Jacob Shroyer or Stabbing of Jacob Shroyer. We have articles such as 2016 Nice attack and 2016 Berlin attack. No-one's suggesting that they were the only attacks that happened in those cities last year. Of course there were many others, but those are the only notable ones. That's why there's no need for the title to include the location within the city, the method of attack, the month etc. Likewise, 2017 Portland stabbing or 2017 Portland attack is sufficient. The fact that we have other crime articles with unnecessarily long titles is because our guidelines on article titles aren't clear enough and because the name of the article that's chosen by its creator is often not changed. Jim Michael (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2017 (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.

Rv, why

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)

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)
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)

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)

Prosecution section will need some work

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Portland_train_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1235089903"