Talk:Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse

current events
Why is there no mention of the violence going on at the courthouse entrance nightly? Just a couple nights ago someone set off an IED (giant firework or pipebomb) on the courthouse door. That definitely has to be notable. The occupants are at risk from lasers, projectiles hitting windows, molotov cocktails and fires, nightly. That's certainly unusual for a US courthouse.
 * Also notable that a a fulcrum for conflict between Portland mayor and Trump administration/feds, where the mayor fined the feds for erecting a barricade to protect the building and the people inside from violence, arson, and vandalism. But perhaps this isn't relevant for the building itself? Ketil (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
The architecture of the Hatfield courthouse is not "modern". Another term should probably be used to describe it, such as "current" or "contemporary". Used in reference to architecture, "modern" has a very specific meaning which should not be applied here. 69.30.112.10 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Source for expansion/citations

 * New U.S. Courthouse a $106.6 million buy, The Oregonian, November 12, 1997 Aboutmovies (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

appears not to have been named "U.S. Courthouse"?
I noticed this courthouse listed on U.S. Courthouse (disambiguation) but am dropping it from there, because it appears to me that this never had that name. Other places on that dab page were listed on the NRHP as "U.S. Courthouse" so it can be explained on the dab why they are included on the dab. For this one, it appears no reader would be looking for it under "U.S. Courthouse" name. If this place has in fact been named that, please speak up! --doncram (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

GSA material and attribution
I noticed the GSA building template's attribution statement in this article was deleted. Editor AboutMovies is correct that the statement itself was not correct. In fact this article existed and was in quite good condition before GSA material was added by editor BD2412, creating History and Architecture sections. But current attribution is not correct either, because although there is reference at the end of each paragraph, the passages are copy-pasted without full credit for wording. It is not clear that the wording was from the other source.

Would the following, revised language work? Some material on this page incorporates or is adapted from public domain text from the U.S. General Services Administration, an agency of the United States government. The original text source produced by the General Services Administration is available here.

Of course it would also be good if anyone would do an entire rewrite, rewording into our own editors' words, and/or using explicit quotations for any phrasing specifically from that source. The attribution statement that BD2412 does apply properly in many new courthouse articles that BD2412 has started, but it doesn't work properly here. --doncram (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)