Talk:Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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!"[2] 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)

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.

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[3] 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.

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)

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.[4][5] No mainstream publications seem to have mentioned it as far as can see. My problem was searching for Nathaniel Dingess. WaPo [6] 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)

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)

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)

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 [7], 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)

@Bjorklund21: @MelanieN: "The Sun" is a tabloid newspaper, deprecated on Wikipedia for a complete lack of reliability. "References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article..." Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources IHateAccounts (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts: Yes, that's quite true. And the Sun is not quoted anywhere in this article, nor should it be. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I mention it because Bjorklund21 tried to use the Sun as his support for the claim that the article "does not include pertinent facts above. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE concern

I am concerned with the overall amount of time the article seems to spend on sources vilifying Reinoehl, and the lack of even a mention - until I added it - of his interview shortly before he was killed when he claimed the shooting of Danielson had been in self-defense.

Given that he will now never have his day in court, I'd like to solicit opinions from readers on how to fix this balance issue in the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we already have this in the last paragraph of the “Michael F. Reinoehl” section: “In an interview aired by Vice Media, Reinoehl stated: "I felt that my life and other people around me's lives were in danger, and I felt like I had no choice but to do what I did.” (Reference #32) And we have this in the “Shooting of Danielson” section: “In an interview with a freelance journalist that was aired by Vice, Reinoehl said he acted in self-defense as Danielson was about to stab another protester with a knife.[32][33] However, no knife was found on Danielson.[27]" And you just added this to the “Danielson’s killing” section: “Hours before he was killed, Reinoehl gave an interview to VICE News in which he claimed that the shooting had been in self-defense because Danielson had been wielding a knife with intent to stab either Reinoehl or a nearby friend of Reinoehl's.[58]” So that says it in three places. What else do you think needs to be said? (References 32 and 58 are to the same article so I will combine them.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN. Reinoehl's claim to have acted in self-defense was very much undermined by the surveillance camera footage showing that he had concealed himself, waited for Danielson and Pappas to pass by, and then followed them, together with an associate, after they had passed. That's something even the Washington Post described as "chilling": [8] As a result, and bearing in mind that no knife was found on Danielson, sources generally haven't given much weight to Reinoehl's self-defense claim. As MelanieN mentions above, the Vice interview and the self-defense claim made in it has already been mentioned, twice, and it definitely does not belong in the "Reactions" section, which is for third-parties' views. --Andreas JN466 18:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump's comments

Should Trump's comments, last month and again this week, describing Reinoehl's death as an execution be more prominent in this article? While there are certainly areas where his views are no more significant than those of someone's crazy uncle, in this case Trump is the de facto commander-in-chief of the U.S. Marshals and FBI (the people who killed Reinoehl), and is speaking in that capacity when he describes their actions. That is to say, it's not the same as if he were talking about a local sheriff's department or police department – when he says "we sent in the U.S. Marshals ... we got him" he's talking about actions by people ultimately under his command. As such, aren't we burying the lede somewhat by confining Trump's comments to the article's penultimate paragraph? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump’s comments were originally in the lead, and should be returned there. He’s the president of the United States and his comments were widely reported. -Darouet (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I had no recollection of those comments ever being mentioned in the lead. They were deleted here. I agree a similar mention in the lead is warranted. --Andreas JN466 09:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts: Note [9]. The two sources cited said:

1. 'Mr. Trump on Thursday said that days had gone by without local officials in Portland arresting Mr. Reinoehl. (The authorities in Portland got a warrant for Mr. Reinoehl’s arrest on the day he was killed.) “They didn’t want to arrest him,” Mr. Trump claimed. “We sent in the U.S. Marshals,” he went on. “It took 15 minutes, it was over. We got him.”' (NYT)
2. 'It’s not clear if Trump is referring to the officers in the U.S. Marshals Service task force that shot Reinoehl or Portland police when he says: “They didn’t want to arrest him.”' (OL)

So the New York Times positively interprets "they" as referring to the "authorities in Portland" (they actually changed the sentence order compared to the video), while OL says it's ambiguous. What we can't do, on the basis of those sources, is say that Trump meant the Marshals. --Andreas JN466 23:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is reasonable. I should have looked at the sources more closely rather than applying Occam's razor in summarising what was already in the article. Do you think it's worth trying to summarise the different interpretations, though? Rolling Stone and Oregon Public Broadcasting both think he was referring to the Marhalls. (For what it's worth the Times' manipulation of the quote strikes me as very questionable, especially coming a few months after they published an editorial calling for anti-racist protesters to be killed, and I wonder if we might be best not citing them on this at all, though that might an overreaction.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I must say that when I first heard him say it on the video, I thought he was referring to the marshals as well. Only afterwards did it strike me that he was probably just complaining, once again, about the authorities in Portland, as he has been doing. When I added his statement in the body of the article, I thought it best to just add it the way he said it, as going into the different interpretations (including the possibility that he meant to be ambiguous) would quickly turn into a messy warren of rabbit holes and end up taking up a lot of words. Also, I thought the word "retribution" is clear enough in itself to indicate the sentiment projected. But yeah ... --Andreas JN466 00:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this deserves some mention. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-endorses-extrajudicial-executions-retribution-reinoehl.html "...the U.S. Marshals killed him,” Trump told Pirro. “And I will tell you something—that’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution.”" IHateAccounts (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It already is mentioned ... quoted verbatim, in fact. Can you please check the article before claiming that something is missing? Regards, --Andreas JN466 18:54, 27 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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcervelli (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, very few if any sources use the wording you are suggesting: [10]. All that comes up for me is three articles, in the Indian Express, Fox News and Breitbart. --Andreas JN466 10:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I support the proposed change. Having announced himself "100% ANTIFA all the way!" Reinoehl clearly supported the organization, making "a supporter of the far-left group antifa" (better Antifa – when did people forget what a proper noun is?) an indisputably accurate and neutral description, whereas "anti-fascist activist" seems visibly flattering no matter who's picked it up. I don't see how or why anyone would revert the change unless they want to insist on so flattering the subject. I see the same thing in the David Ray Griffin article, where Chip Berlet – in my mind a suspicious figure – is likewise positively presented as an "activist". –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: Then find Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to support that wording.

1. NY Times says: Activist. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/us/michael-reinoehl-antifa-portland-shooting.html
2. Oregon Public Broadcasting says: Activist. https://www.opb.org/article/2020/10/13/new-eyewitness-accounts-feds-didnt-identify-themselves-before-firing-on-portland-antifa-shooting-suspect/
3. Washington Post: Activist. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/10/reinoehl-portland-antifa-killing-police/
4. The Guardian: Activist. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/14/activist-portland-shooting-michael-reinoehl-police
5. Rolling Stone: Activist. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/eyewitness-disputes-federal-killing-accused-portland-shooter-barr-reinoehl-1058049/

From a cursory glance it seems that the reliable sources generally use "activist". And a reminder, Breitbart is not just considered unreliable, but fully deprecated from Wikipedia use: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources IHateAccounts (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That's great list of reliable sources you've got there. Classic, even. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Four of them are listed green at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and I'm sure Oregon Public Broadcasting would qualify too. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

How impressive. –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: I suggest you read the policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you assume I already have. It doesn't change the fact that I've seen a lot of horse manure from the NY Times, NPR, WaPo, the Guardian, and Rolling Stone recently. Wikipedia can slavishly rehash these, sure; but neither does this change the fact that "a supporter of the far-left group [A]ntifa" is a completely appropriate, neutral, and basically uncontroversial description here. I suggest the change be made. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I always head for a search engine in situations like this, because neutral point of view is defined as reflecting published views "proportionately", i.e. in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources.

• A Google News search for Reinoehl "anti-fascist activist" with date range from Aug. 28 2020 to now shows me 60 hits.
• A Google News search for Reinoehl "far-left antifa" with date range from Aug. 28 2020 to now shows me 18 hits. Using Reinoehl far-left antifa and the same date range, this increases to 90 hits; however this is where it gets messy, as a substantial number of those hits are not cases of the publications using far-left as a qualifier of antifa and Reinoehl. A good few are comments by readers, some are Trump quotes saying people should be more concerned about the far left, etc. But there are some weighty sources in there applying the label to antifa (Reuters, NPR, Washington Post), while others are conspicuous by their absence (New York Times; the closest it comes to it is this opinion piece, which allows that there is obviously an "overlap between antifa and violent and destructive elements on the far left"). Importantly, though, the recently published CSIS report includes this killing as a case of "far-left" terrorism [11]; they refer to Reinoehl as an "extremist antifa supporter", which it's hard to argue with, given that it's the first and only time in 25 years an antifa supporter has been reported to have killed someone [12]. Brian Levin too has apparently referred to Danielson's killing as "the first homicide from the far left in many, many years" [13].

By all means check whether you get the same or similar results with Google and/or other search engines. I'm open to being corrected. But on the basis of the above search results, I'd be against deleting "anti-fascist activist" (it seems quite common) and for describing Reinoehl as a "far-left antifa supporter" in the lead (I would take that label then to apply to the person, rather than the group), as well as adding the "far-left" label in the sentence on the CSIS report in the Reactions section.

As for the spelling, beats me. That's how the papers tend to spell it. --Andreas JN466 16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that Google (in particular – I suspect the others are similarly so, though generally less managed because fewer people use them) doesn't present finds proportionately, but rather with a marked and observable slant. It also, to a significant extent, doesn't present them at all, currently limiting finds to only approximately 100-450 even though it says there are hundreds of thousands or even billions of them. It seems a simple method of censorship: eliminate everything undesirable from the first couple of hundred of approved finds, and then everything else has effectively disappeared. Bingo!

Aside from this, I'm not sure what user:Jayen466 is proposing as the designation for Reinoehl. He says he's against deleting "anti-fascist activist", but for describing him as a "far-left antifa supporter". Please clarify, thanks. I support "far-left antifa supporter" as well as the earlier proposal. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

We currently have in the lead: On September 3, 2020, Danielson's suspected killer, Michael Forest Reinoehl, an anti-fascist activist[4] and antifa supporter,[3][6] was shot and killed by a federally led fugitive task force near Lacey, Washington.[7][8] I'm in favour of leaving the sentence just as it is, except for the addition of "far-left" before "antifa supporter", based on academics and a good number of media sources classifying it as a far-left killing. --Andreas JN466 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not, as they're not separate things and as "far-left" is omitted. But I won't have anything else to say about it. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Roy's derisive comments about the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy and sources make me concerned. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should file a report and have me blocked, then. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather you started following the policies? Is that too much to ask? IHateAccounts (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If it means saying that I haven't recently seen a lot of horse manure from the NY Times, NPR, WaPo, the Guardian, and Rolling Stone when in fact I have, yes.

I don't know who you are or how long you'd been editing anonymously before you registered, but your named editorship has been in existence for less than a week. That doesn't seem like enough time to be ordering other editors around and trying to whip everybody into shape. There are serious moral issues here that can't be escaped by hiding behind WP:RS and insisting that everyone else do the same. –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Roy McCoy: Just to be sure that we're not talking past each other – I propose to add "far-left" before "antifa supporter", so "far-left" would no longer be omitted. --Andreas JN466 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Good show, and justified by sources. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

False or Misleading causality in parade.

The article claims: "On August 29, 2020, hundreds of Trump supporters took part in the "Trump 2020 Cruise Rally", a caravan of more than 100 cars and trucks displaying pro-Trump flags and signs which drove through downtown Portland. In some cases, the participants fired paintball guns and pepper spray at protesters, who responded by throwing various objects at the caravan.[5]" Thus, this expresses a statement as to the order of the events, and strong implications as to the causality: The parade participants are implied to have acted first, and only then did protesters 'respond'. However, the cite 5 does not appear to support this in any way. https://www.kptv.com/news/hundreds-show-up-for-trump-2020-cruise-rally-in-clackamas-county/article_e5112422-ea6e-11ea-a394-6f4d7667cd50.html So, it appears that this wording was written so as to be biased. Allassa37 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: Which part needs to be removed? Wareon (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Anything not supported by "Reliable Sources". I have found the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl&diff=prev&oldid=977436267 This editor, "MelanieN", should document where this material came from. Allassa37 (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Why politic on WIkipedia??

This is not a WP:FORUM for debating the subject, nor for attacking other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is clearly and obviously writing in the way that Danielson is only a far-right member (and this is not true) who deserved the dead and Reihnoil appear to be the "victim" of the bad policy agents. Sorry but this ideolgized use also on a murder is disgusting. First Reinohil is the killer and not probably, the videos show him kill Danielson and allo of us know that he was the killer. Second he was obviously a far-left activist and antifa, i know that this fact can discredit antifa but this is the true. Stop to deny the truth on wikipedia and stop use it as an ideology platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.100.238 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources for all facts. Please have a look at those links and provide an appropriate source for your assertion that Reihnoil is a murder. As far as I can see from a quick online search, there has not been a trial, but do correct me if I'm wrong. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC) sorry man obviously there's not a trial because Reihnohil is dead. Also un the article you explain that the videos show Reinhoil kills Danielson. I don't understand this willingness to deny the facts. I think all people in USA have seen the footage of Reinhoil that walk near Danielson and the videos in which he kills Danielson, but my suspect is that the Wikipedia self described "Impartial" admins are defending the murderer and justify the dead of Danielson. In this shameful article it seems that you're more worry about the death of the murderer rather than the death of the victim Danielson. Is bad and sad the world when the ideologized people are everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.100.238 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Danielson's killing marked the first time since 1993 that a self-identified anti-fascist activist had been charged with homicide"

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how this can be easily, and briefly (since it's in the lead), reworded so it doesn't mispresent the reference. That wording implies there was such a charge did happen in 1993, when the reference doesn't say that. The reference only says that the database goes back to 1994, which is a different thing entirely. The previous charge might have been in 1971, or any other year prior to 1994, if there even was one at all. FDW777 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Amended. If anyone can improve further, go ahead. FDW777 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It is hilarious how political you people are.

Homicide

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.

---

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)

That's not relevant here. And the snide tone is unwarranted; see https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx/Default.aspx?selected=881 which uses the word "another" while also stating the suicide is a form of homicide. And see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide which cites https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/homicide which says "Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another." so it's not at all clear that suicide is a form of homicide. -- Jibal (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2021 (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.

Category addition reverted

My edit was reverted by HandThatFeeds for being POV even though the article is clear on this point In October 2020, Danielson's killing was added to the CSIS terrorism database as a deadly "far-left" attack, the first such incident in over two decades. The killing is also referenced on the Anti-Defamation League's page on antifa, as the only "suspected antifa-related murder" to date; and the New America Foundation's tally of killings during terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, as the first recorded fatality in a far-left attack.

All of those are RS. This is not in question. To be clear, the edit was to add category "Far-left terrorism". Nweil (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus of reliable sources describing the act as terrorism; contemporary news accounts do not call it such. Categories are not nuanced, and therefore there needs to be a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal demonstration in reliable sources that something is true before adding something to a category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

OK lets start here. New America Foundation. It is referenced twice on the Right-wing terrorism page, using the same article (this one). So presumably you believe that article is reliable, yes? You, yourself said the other day that The Chronicle of Higher Education is a gold-standard reliable source and here they are calling the New America Foundation "experts". Here is more evidence they are experts. And we both know that scholarly analysis is more relevant than news articles on Wikipedia. The exact article cited on the Right-wing terrorism page refers to this as left wing terror. So either its reliable or its not and if it's not it should be removed from the right wing page. If you really want a news article referring to this as terror, here is one. So please stop reverting this edit.Nweil (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The New American Foundation list contains all kinds of incidents, including hate crimes. For example the Murder of James Craig Anderson is on their list, is that really a terrorist incident? FDW777 (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

yes the project is described as “A comprehensive, up-to-date source of online information about terrorist activity in the United States since 9-11.” Nweil (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

They can call themselves and their project whatever they like, it doesn't make their opinion a fact. FDW777 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

as I said, they are cited in other places without question so if you disagree perhaps an RS notice board discussion is necessary Nweil (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked at your attempts to reference bomb the reliability of New America, I can only guess you haven't read them properly. But the reliability of it's an irrelevant discussion, as one reference's raw dataset does not equal a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal demonstration in reliable sources. FDW777 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The spreadsheet is literally called “terror-plots” so that’s pretty unambiguous. Whether they are reliable or not sure matters. And we haven’t even talked about ADL and CSIS yet. Nweil (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You want to talk about ADL? Go right ahead, as it says nothing in support of your case. FDW777 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You linked to an article tagged as "EXTREMISM, TERRORISM & BIGOTRY". Given that there is no "left wing extremism" wikipedia page or "left wing bigotry" page, yes, the left wing terrorism page is exactly where it belongs. Nweil (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you actually think a tag references? FDW777 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nweil: Just because we don't have an article or categories on the other 2 concepts doesn't mean we add it one where it doesn't fit. Either create categories for the other 2 or just accept that not everything is going to be suitable for categorisation. I'd note even if had cats on the other 2 we still couldn't add it to any of them based on this since putting aside whether the ADL's view is sufficient for categorisation, we don't know which one it should go in. If you can find a source where the ADL explicitly call the killing terrorism then we can discuss the relevance of this in categorisation but a source which only says it's at least one of extremism, terrorism or bigotry is frankly irrelevant for anything other than possibly mentioning this in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The term terrorism isn't consistently defined among experts and scholars. A terrorist incident to one individual or group could be nothing more than an act of violence to another. Being listed by several groups/databases as terrorism is significant, but is it defining? Consensus in academic circles can take years to reach. I would argue that the listing by New America is merely a piece of ongoing research. There may be other pieces at play (i.e. CSIS), but it seems premature to imply that a consensus has already been reached, which the act of categorizing the article does. If "terrorism" was a widely-accepted label, then it should appear in the article's lead as such and be supported by sources that discuss the specific analysis in prose (the why and how behind the label matters). Until then, I would refrain from applying the proposed categorization. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thurston Co Sheriff Investigation

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/31/investigation-federal-police-shooting-wanted-portland-activist/ "The Washington State Patrol Crime Lab matched a .380 casing found in Reinoehl’s vehicle after the police shooting to the .380 pistol in his possession. Reinoehl was the only person with a .380 caliber weapon on the scene" ", we were not able to find the actual round from (Reinoehl’s pistol) to definitively say, ‘absolutely’ that he fired from that car,” Simper told OPB. “Based on our investigation, based on the witness statements, the casing in the car and officers statements, it is highly likely.” Mbsyl (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've repeatedly directed you to where, if anywhere, this information might be added. I suggest you take notice of that. FDW777 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Title change

Title should be changed to "Murder of Aaron Danielson" and there should be a section mentioning that Reinoehl was killed later in the article. Putting it in the title equates the shooting of Reinoehl with Danielsons murder. History Man1812 (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

This is a perennial request. See the Archives for previous discussions. Is there anything new that would indicate we should change these? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Weird response for an article that hasn't even existed for a year. Arkon (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that was poorly phrased as I was in a hurry (and the Archives comment was out of habit). People keep wanting to switch this article's name to declare one or the other a murder, focus on one individual, etc. The discussions have gone back and forth on that topic, so unless there's something new that's come out about these deaths, we'd just be rehashing the same arguments again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Danielson's killing was the first time in over 26 years that a self-identified anti-fascist activist had been charged with homicide. -- Bias?

Self-identified anti-fascist activist...why does such a narrow and specific title here matter? If we remove the "self-identified" title does that change this fact? It seems as though this fact has been manipulated to put out a specific political message. These combined, in my eyes, read to essentially frame the article in the context of a man belonging to a violent group vs a man belonging to a peaceful group. If anything this should go into the background and a sentence about political rally violence should be here -- it would actually frame the context quicker and seem far less partisan. 2603:6080:D742:100:7D92:CA0C:C02D:734 (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Because it's actually pretty complicated. He self-identified as an anti-fascist activist, but never had any ties to any antifa group & never claimed to be part of any antifa group. The citations support this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance. Seems like it was a crafted string of descriptors to lead to a specific conclusion, but beyond that why does it belong in the introduction? Seems irrelevant. 2603:6080:D742:100:207B:5990:ED34:E0FD (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)