Talk:2016 Sacramento riot

No candidates are involved.

This isn't anti-Trump violence or Sanders violence or Hillary violence. It's straight up extremists on the left and right. There are no candidate that supports any of them. Mentioning any of them is not NPOV as the candidates are not the cause of the violence nor were any in the proximity. Even mentioning more mainstream groups that were present such as NAACP or ADL or more recently BLM, would be UNDUE and cast them in a unsubstantiated negative light. None have advocated violence and oppose it.[1][2] --DHeyward (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, but you were ignored just as I was in the RIOTS section. The people who rule us are both on the right and the left, but they push only one ideology - communism. You and I who raise germane questions are to be first ignored, then mocked, then if we do not shut up be personally attacked, then if that does not work we are to be called "extremists", charged with "hate speech" and incarcerated. It is already happening and the leftists of Wikipedia can accurately be called war criminals. 47.137.185.87 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

BAMN on FBI terror list

The relevance between BAMN's FBI terror listing and BAMN's involvement in the Sacramento riot needs a reliable source. The subject of this article is not BAMN, it's the Sacramento riot. The BAMN article would be a more appropriate place than this article to talk about the FBI terror list. Any edit on this article that associates the FBI terror listing and the Sacramento riot would be original research if it's not supported by a source that specifically makes that association. A previous edit used INFOWARS as a source, but this was rejected as unreliable. Another source would be needed. KinkyLipids (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The ACLU news release cited was from 2005, and also states the the FBI "acknowledges in the report that the Michigan State Police has information that BAMN has been peaceful in the past." The fact that the anonymous editor left out these key pieces of information shows that he/she has an axe to grind. It also shows that there isn't much substance to this. Oh yeah, Infowars. Hilarious. Ground Zero | t 01:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Then we'll be needing to take out the references to the SPLC, and their views on the TWP, by the same reasoning. Klortho (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The reference to the SPLC's views of the TWP was from a source that associated its views with the Sacramento riot. As I said, the FBI terror listing would be appropriate if there was a reliable source that associated the terror listing with the Sacramento riot. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't even begin to make sense. The information is clearly relevant, regardless of whether or not the source connected the dots. And the source is reliable. Klortho (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I had the same reaction as you when an editor first pointed me to WP:SYN after reverting one of my edits. It's seems like it should be fine to connect the obvious dots, but the policy says editors should leave the dot-connecting to the sources. I didn't write the policy, but I want it to be enforced equally. As I said, the FBI terror listing is already on the BAMN wikipedia article anyways, and it can be included here as well once a source other than INFOWARS connects the same dots that you and INFOWARS have connected. As to whether INFOWARS is reliable, I'll leave that question to you and Ground Zero to discuss. I was the one who found it and added it, but I don't know enough about INFOWARS to defend it. KinkyLipids (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I balanced the 'Participants' section by adding BAMN's involvement in violence and looting at BLM and Occupy protests. At this point, mentioning the FBI terror listing would only be icing on the cake, and in my opinion, icing causes diabetes. KinkyLipids (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYN does not apply ... there was no synthesis. As it was written, it was just a statement about the nature of the group. The question of whether or not it belongs in the article is an editorial decision -- including it, or not, has nothing to do with "synthesis". Klortho (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That said, I agree that it's dated material. Makes me wonder what they've been doing these past 11 years. Klortho (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The FBI comments were misrepresented in the last edit, and were made 11 years ago. The FBI does not appear to have made any further comments to that effect since 2005, so there is no evidence that the FBI continues to be concerned about BAMN. I have reverted this misleading edit. Yesterday, I revised the BAMN article to accurate reflect what the sources provided reported on what the FBI said. Readers can get accurate information there. Ground Zero | t 10:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ground Zero (talk · contribs) asked editors who intend to reinsert a third-party opinion of BAMN to do so in a way that does not mislead. Based on this discussion, I am inserting a reworked paragraph that Ground Zero has agreed is "factually correct." --Eightofnine (talk)

I reverted that edit based on its own merits, but I see now that it's already been mentioned that Infowars is not a reliable source (holy cow, not even close). If that's the best that can be found, it's a good indicator that this detail, from over a decade ago, doesn't belong in this article about a recent event. Even if that were somehow reliable, and even if it belonged at BAMN, not every obscure mention of the group belongs here. Using such material to characterize the group as "terrorists" or similar is not neutral or encyclopedic. See WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, et cetera. Ideally every source should specifically mention the Sacramento riot, or be a supplement to sources which do by providing uncontroversial but obviously relevant details. While this may not be synthesis in the strict sense, it's still strongly implying a specific conclusion which isn't made by any one source. It doesn't need to be underlined in red to be non-neutral, and editorializing content can easily be presented as factual. Providing a bit of recent context, such as BLM, makes sense, but anything beyond that seems like it's trying to prove a very contentious point based on very flimsy sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The citation could have easily been replaced with a link to the document that is available on the ACLU website. But it's clear you did not revert my edit primarily because of a questionable reference (you admit as much yourself). Your allegation that this paragraph amounts to Wikipedia characterizing BAMN as terrorist is absurd. That's not how Wikipedia works. Our goal is only to report what others have said — not to substantiate or refute claims or push certain interpretations. The "Participants" section of this article is intended to provide readers context, and context is achieved by discussing the participants' history and goals. Please explain how reporting what the FBI alleged about BAMN in a section titled "Participants" amounts to original research, violates neutral POV, or unfairly represents a viewpoint? --Eightofnine (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not useful context for the 2016 Sacramento riot article because it was indefinite and it was 14 years ago. You are trying harder to push the "terrorist" label into this article than you are trying to find something recent. If the FBI had any reason to still think that BAMN is involved in terrorist activities , or even that it was at the time, you'd be able to find something. Ground Zero | t 23:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your fallacious argument amounts to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." This argument would be valid only if there were reason to expect the FBI to publicly reveal which potential domestic terrorist organizations it was monitoring. The lack of recent statements by the FBI about BAMN is not surprising, because the FBI is a domestic security service and does not habitually reveal who or what it is monitoring. This is why the allegation the FBI made about BAMN was only revealed publicly by the ACLU, not the FBI, and only after a document was obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act.--Eightofnine (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

And you still don't have anything more recent to add to an article on a 2016 event than something from 2002, do you? I've added some context that is useful and not from George W. Bush's first term. Ground Zero | t 00:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It is your claim, not mine, that an allegation the FBI made about BAMN in 2002 is too "outdated" to mention. The person making the claim is the person who must shoulder the burden of proof. It is your responsibility to make an argument to defend your claim, and then I will have something to respond to. --Eightofnine (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting take on it. The sources you have presented for the changes you want to make are far too weak. Find reliable, independent sources of substance linking this to the recent riot. Even the ACLU press release only mentions that it was one of several groups "thought to be involved in terrorist activities", which is pretty mild as far as allegations go. The ACLU only mentions it to label it a threat to legitimate dissent, and most of that source isn't even about BAMN, it's about federal government overreach. Grayfell (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Greyfell. I have been engaged in a discussion on my talk page with an anonymous editor, who seems likely to be the same person as User:Eight of nine (but correct me if I'm wrong). I have mein making much the same point. The FBI raised the "terrorist activities" issues as a pipelinking 14 years ago, and had said nothing to that effect since. And that claim was contradicted by Michigan State Police information. I have added this information to BAMN's article because it's kinda maybe relevant to that organization's history even though it amounts to nothing. It is not relevant to the 2016 Sacramento riot. And the editor threatened to take me to arbitration. Nice. Ground Zero | t 21:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration is a recognized step in the dispute resolution process. I'm sorry you find protocol threatening. --Eightofnine (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It is, but using it as a threat in the middle of an active discussion is not constructive. It is aggressive. Ground Zero | t 23:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you have misread my intentions. I am happy to continue discussion, which is why my so-called "threat" was carefully worded: "If you remove my edit without explanation, my attempt at dialogue will have failed and I will initiate the arbitration process." An editor who deletes content without explanation is not an editor interested in discussion. With this in mind, realize that if this dispute is resolved in your favor, it will only be on the force of your arguments, not your privileged position as administrator. --Eightofnine (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't lecture me on what it means to be an administrator. I protected the article for three hours on one occasion because user:142.254.26.9 had repeatedly removed sourced material. If another adminstrator disagrees with that, they can contact me and I would be happy to discuss it. I have not used my administrator privileges in order to gain an advantage in this dispute. Your lecturing is tantamount to using "when did you stop beating your wife" to try to get me to back down from the legitimate concerns I am raising -- concerns that are record by other editors. You will not Hector me into letting you get your way. I have added relevant context to help the reader understand BAMN better, instead of the out-of-date vague and contradicted bit your are determined to force in. Ground Zero | t 00:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Good grief. You should sit down before you hurt yourself. --Eightofnine (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that you keep implying that I have abused or may abuse my position as an administrator without making any complaint about actual abuse shows that you are not dealing dealing in good faith here. You're just trying to get your way. Ground Zero | t 02:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, again! I'm inclined to agree with this assertion of @Wikitopian below, "You're obviously finding the worst framing of our organization and the best framing of their organization because you are indulging in naked editorial bias". While it's true that the FBI's listing BAMN as possibly terrorist is old, that's balanced by the fact that the FBI is much more credible than the SPLC. Also, it wasn't just a "passing mention", as its been characterized. In fact, it was only revealed because of the ACLU's FOIA, which makes it, actually, more credible. If the FBI had engaged in a public attempt to discredit the group through these kinds of accusations (as the SPLC does) then their assertion would be more suspect as being politically driven. @GroundZero's description of it, "even though it amounts to nothing", is very revealing of his bias. How can anyone claim that the FBI investigating a group for terrorist activities "amounts to nothing". Can you possibly imagine anyone making a claim like that if the group were a neo-nazi group? Klortho (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

But the FBI didn't say they were investigating BAMN, did they? Through this dispute, some editors have been misrepresenting and extrapolating to try to cast BAMN in a more negative light that the facts support. That is bias. I have added the description "a militant left-wing civil rights activist group" from the BAMN article, and added the facts around the FBI report from 2002 to the BAMN article. This is a ba!ended approach. I have no dog in this race. I am just looking for WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Ground Zero | t 02:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The entire mention is a single two-sentence paragraph: "Detective [        ] presented information on a protest from February 8-10, 2002 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, by the group Any Means Necessary. Michigan State Police has information that in the past demonstrations by this group have been peacful."[3] That's it. That's the entirety of the mention. There were nine groups discussed in total. The entire meeting took one hour. Context matters, and in context, the FBI document is a supremely minor mention in a WP:PRIMARY source. It is of no use here. The ACLU press release was issued to make a point about federal government overreaction, which has nothing to do with this riot. If any reliable outlets picked up this press release, that would be a step in the right direction, but it still doesn't necessarily belong in this article. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I re-read it, and I concede you guys are right. Klortho (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems the consensus among the three editors who have participated in this discussion so far (Klortho, Ground Zero, Grayfell) is against inclusion of the paragraph in question. I disagree with the consensus, but because recent edits by other editors have shifted the article toward what I consider a more balanced view of the participants, I will yield in this dispute and move on to more productive pursuits. Thanks to everyone who participated. --Eightofnine (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

How can a demonstrably violent organization like By Any Means Necessary NOT be called a terrorist group? 47.137.185.87 (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Aftermath" section / reason for the threats

@KinkyLipids: have you read this article re: what you added in the "Aftermath" section about Yvette Felarca - http://www.eastbaytimes.com/breaking-news/ci_30067746/fbi-investigates-threat-against-berkeley-school-after-teachers "The threats came after Yvette Felarca, a social studies teacher at Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School, was identified not only as a participant in the counterprotest of the rally, but one of the people who initiated the violence, pushing and shoving a man to the ground, according to videos of the incident posted online." and "In one video of the incident, a woman who appears to be Felarca is captured yelling at rally participants, then shoving and punching a male marcher. Other counterprotesters can then be seen pushing the protester and kicking him repeatedly." 208.44.84.138 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The 'Riot' section of the Wikipedia article already addresses Felarca's involvement in the group that initiated the violence, but I have added other information from this news article to the Wikipedia article. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The section includes the text "no action can be taken against her unless the police file charges against her, which they did.[18]". The document referenced at 18/"Ioffee" https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/06/28/fbi-investigates-threat-against-berkeley-school-after-teachers-counterprotest-at-neo-nazi-rally/ does not include any reference to police charges being filed, just "But that could change if charges are filed against her, Coplan said. The California Highway Patrol, which protects the state capitol, is investigating the incident, said spokesman Officer George Granada.". IOW citation needed for the ", which they did" part, introduced https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Sacramento_riot&oldid=828988898. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:12A9:5500:8323:D4BC:63C6:E472 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"White Supremacism"

Our organization explicitly rejects the White Supremacist label, and categorically do not believe that Whites are superior to or should dominate other races. While there are "credible" sources which label us as such, the most "credible" sources, the ADL and SPLC, label our organization "White Nationalist." Deliberately relying on inferior sources for the "supremacist" label while holding the fact that BAMN is a registered terrorist organization to an inappropriately high burden of proof is clearly and systematically biased. Matt Parrott, Director, TradWorker Wikitopian (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

BAMN isn't a "registered terrorist organization". It just isn't. Your organization's self-description isn't at issue here. It is how others define you that is the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for organzations of any type to promote themselves. Ground Zero | t 22:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask for you to promote us. The FBI is quite "credible" and claims BAMN is engaged in terroristic activities. If an organization is called several things, then there's an editorial obligation to discern which thing they're called is the most credible and accurate. You're obviously finding the worst framing of our organization and the best framing of their organization because you are indulging in naked editorial bias. Wikitopian (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This is already discussed above. The FBI comments are out-dated passing mentions. Multiple reliable sources call it a white supremacist group specifically in relation to this event: the BBC, The Washington Times, USA Today, and many more. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to change the "riot" section's into to replace "white supremacist" with "far right". The place for characterizing the groups is in the participants section. And, the "white supremacist" label is highly charged, and inherently conveys a strong POV, and this article, prima facie, suffers from serious POV issues, considering the fact that the other group organized and carried out a premeditated violent attack on a group that had a lawful permit to meet. Klortho (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"Far right" is less specific than "white nationalist", which is not controversial, per the comments above. I propose to change the description accordingly. Any objections? Ground Zero | t 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with changing 'far-right' to 'white nationalist', since TWP appears to be against globalization, which is right-wing economics. 'Far-right' would imply that they're in favor of globalization. KinkyLipids (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess the lede would also have to be changed to 'white nationalist groups and anti-fascist groups'. KinkyLipids (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue comes up over and over again whenever the term 'white supremacist' is used. Many sources, including academic ones which cover the issue in-depth, use supremacist and nationalist interchangeably. Many, (maybe even most who touch on the issue) also consider 'white nationalist', 'white separatist', 'racialist', etc. to be euphemisms used by these groups to cast the ideology in a more reasonable light, which is basically just public-relations. NPOV and the manual of style (WP:EUPHEMISM) call for avoiding these kind of word-games. I would prefer using supremacist, since that's used by sources and is the clearest language, but it's kind of silly to pretend that there's any great difference between the two in practice, so I would accept either. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The party's website clearly and explicitly rejects supremacy and there isn't a single action or statement by our party in favor or support of supremacy. White Nationalist is the neutral term, not a euphemism. It's the one most frequently and officially employed by the ADL and SPLC, which I assure you is not biased in our favor. A term which is implicitly biased in our favor, which we prefer is, "identitarians." If I were seeking special treatment, I would insist we be referred to as "White Advocates." I'm not arguing for bias in our favor. After all, the popular connotation of "white nationalist" is overwhelmingly negative. But it's not counter-factual. I am Matt Parrott, a Director of the TWP. I'm also an open source hobbyist and a true believer in the mission of wikipedia. Labeling us "supremacist" as if that's an objective description is clearly against the letter and spirit of the rules. Wikitopian (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Quibble: "Far right" is less inaccurate than "supremacist," and the Party won't dispute that as biased, though KinkyLipids is correct that our anti-colonialist, anti-globalist, socialist, and localist platform doesn't really jibe with what is generally conveyed by the term "right." Wikitopian (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Changed 'far-right' to 'white nationalist'. —KinkyLipids (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected

Because of the repeated removal of sourced content by an unregistered editors I have protected this article from editing by unregistered and new editors. Ground Zero | t 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What counts as a "reliable source."

I can't figure out how to send messages so I'm asking here. In what way are direct quotes from an interview supposedly not reliable, especially when some unsourced material hasn't been removed? Or is the only issue how it was cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.50.99 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. That means that rather than use Wikipedia to repeat something from a involved, unreliable website such as Radio Aryan, we use comments from a reliable source to establish significance. Primary sources can be used used for some information, but only with restraint, and it's always better to summarize, especially when the information is controversial. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that third party interpretations (be they from oneself or from external articles) are more reliable than direct quotes from a primary source? I fail to see that that's possible in this type of case. Maybe it could be true if the question involved independent facts but here the topic is the TWP's and Matthew Heimbach's motivations and reasoning which should come directly from their own channels.

I've also restrained myself and remained "neutral" on a lot points such as who brought the knives that were used in the stabbings (I think it was the TWP but they're claiming it was the counter-protesters) but right now Wikipedia is being used as a Soapbox on the issue of the TWP's intentions by including Matthew Heimbach's statement of peaceful intentions made after the fact but disallowing his endorsement of confrontation prior to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.43.137 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources must still be reliable. Citing oneself would be original research, which is flatly unacceptable. I see what you're saying, but Wikipedia does prefer secondary sources, and for good reason. This is about neutrality, yes, but also about verifiability. I've modified the quote to explain that they planned for the event to be peaceful but expected violence. That seems like an absurd definition of "planning" to me, but that's what he said, so... If you want to propose changes on this talk page, please do, but reliable sources are needed. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually understand his claim about planning for violence even though they supposedly wanted things to be peaceful. I take issue with the accuracy of this claim, with the interview it came from taking place after the fact while prior to the event he said and agreed with things that clearly indicated a desire for confrontation as evidenced by another interview. How is an interview about their intentions conducted before the event less reliable than one conducted afterwards when they've had time to modify their claims based on what actually happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.42.7 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Leading figures

There is disagreement on whether Yvette Felarca should be added as a leading figure. She is a leading figure for the BAMN presence at the riot because she is their primary North California contact and organizer, but that does not mean she was a leading figure for the entire riot. If "leading figure" refers to leading the riot rather than leading the organizations present, then that raises the question on whether Matthew Heimbach should be added as leading figure too because he was never charged with any crimes associated with the riot. To avoid controversy, confusion, and to avoid defaming either person by associating them with a riot they may have not lead, I propose removing the leading figures field from the info box. A press release, from the District Attorney, said they had over 100 criminal charges but they could not locate the identity of the perpetrators, so it may not be fair to label either person as a lead figure of the riot when there were many other perpetrators that couldn't be identified. Waters.Justin (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The comparison is not 1:1, and we need to be cautious of false equivalence. Heimbach is chairman of the Traditionalist Worker's Party, and is quoted in that capacity regarding the TWP's plans and expectations for the event. Heimbach is the leader of two notable organizations, one of which is directly involved in planning the protest/riot. This does suggest a leadership role in the event at a level that doesn't apply to Felarca.

Felarca is described as an organizer, but isn't clearly established as having a leadership role at the same level. Further, she is only notable for this event, according to sources. This is a separate BLP issue, per WP:BLPNAME, and tangentially supported by WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. Elevating her prominence because of a high-profile criminal allegation is misrepresenting both her role, and the significance of these allegations. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources state that Felarca is a leading figure.

• From the Guardian. "Felarca, a Berkeley teacher and longtime leader with the organization By Any Means Necessary (Bamn), was part of a group of activists gathered in Sacramento, California, on 26 June 2016 to protest a white nationalist rally."[4]
• From Berkleyside. "Yvette Felarca, the Berkeley Unified middle-school teacher who is also a leader of the group By Any Means Necessary."[5]
• This exact phrase is from the Associated Press and used by the Seattle Times, Washington Post, ABC News, and Ledger.. "Yvette Felarca is the name used by the leader and spokeswoman for the group By Any Means Necessary, but public records show her given name is Yvonne Capistrano Felarca."[6],[7], [8], [9] Waters.Justin (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Waters.Justin: Sources do not support this, and you have not answered either of my concerns. This is still false balance. Yes, she is a leader of BAMN, but this article isn't about BAMN. The article BAMN doesn't even mention her as a leader of any kind. Traditionalist Youth Network mentions Heimbach often and prominently, with context provided by many sources. This article must explicitly explain Felarca's lead position in this riot, with sources, before it's included in the infobox, but none of those sources actually do so in any depth. The article explain Heimbach's leadership role in this protest which became a riot, and it also explains that he understood this was likely to become violent. Additionally, and just as importantly, Heimbach is himself somewhat noteworthy. He is chairman of Traditionalist Worker's Party, which organized the protest. Matthew Heimbach redirects to White Student Union (Towson University)#History. Listing Heimbach's name provides more information. There is a wikilink which proves some additional context, and his role here suggests it's an R with possibilities. Nowhere does the article explain Felarca's role in inciting this riot. Listing Felarca doesn't provide any more information. She is otherwise not notable, at all. There is no article readers can go to gain more context on who she is, nor is there any reason to suspect that will happen in the future. Without that context, it's a BLP issue to name her here. If this is because the DA charged her with instigating a riot, then this is a criminal issue, and we have to handle this much, much more cautiously, per policies already linked.

If this is about 'leaders' of the riot, Heimbach is at least supported as an organizer of the event. It's plausible from content already in the article that this riot would not have happened without him. Being generous, Felarca's role is suggested by some sources, but never clearly stated. Suggested isn't good enough for an infobox, which removes context and nuance. If this is about 'lead figures', then Felarca isn't notable and cannot be a lead figure without well-sourced information on why her activity was vitally significant to the riot. She was there, she said some things to some cameras, and she punched a guy. None of these define the riot, and this doesn't mean her name belongs in the infobox. If she is found guilty, the article could explain that, and (depending on sources) I'll drop it. Until then it is unacceptable to use Wikipedia's voice to insinuate she incited a riot. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell:

You wrote "the article BAMN doesn't even mention her as a leader of any kind;" however, that is due to you and others deleting the content.[10] There is currently a discussion on that page on whether she should be added as a leader of BAMN.

You wrote, "nowhere does the article explain Felarca's role in inciting this riot." If there are notable secondary sources that explain Felarca's role in inciting the riot, would you support adding her as a lead figure? Waters.Justin (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that I'd removed that, but I stand by that edit. Edit warring aside, it was, as others have pointed out, a WP:BLPCRIME violation. Naming someone based entirely on a contested criminal accusation without any other context is absolutely unacceptable, and this is especially true when the sources are brief and routine, as that Associated Press blurb was. I do not see an active discussion on Talk:BAMN, but I do see a lot of edit summaries supporting this. The AP blurb merely names her as 'a spokeswoman', while listing Shanta Driver as the national director. Driver wasn't mentioned in those contested edits, and it's clear, even from that blurb, that Felarca isn't the leader of BAMN, making her inclusion as the sole named individual in that article heinously undue weight. The blurb also clearly explains that Felarca and BAMN deny the charges, which we cannot ignore.

Maybe this could belong before the verdict, but it would depend on context, due weight, and other factors. We cannot say that she incited the riot. Since this is a criminal accusation, we can at most say that she has been charged with inciting the riot. Any expansion of that should be handled with caution for multiple reasons. I cannot say if I would support this until context and sources have been provided. If you have a reliable source in mind, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Antifa source?

I can't find any contemporary source in the citations that mentions 'antifa', and the even happened before antifa was in common usage to refer to groups. Is claiming that the groups were antifa original resource supported by the sources, or is it a claim made by a credible source? Treedel (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The Antifa Sacramento source currently cites an inactive website, but they have an active article in response to the aftermath.[11] This SPLC article states that it was a conflict with "antifascist."[12]. The SACBEE wrote that ANTIFA was present at the riot.[13]. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Riot?

Why is this fully permitted protest called a riot but when blacks are involved it is termed "unrest"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.185.87 (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess that the liberal fascists (a redundancy) want to ignore the question in the interest of furthering their totalitarian political agenda. 47.137.185.87 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's because at this "rally" there was a conflict where people were critically injured, majority being counter-protestors stabbed by neo-Nazis rallying, and if you'll note Wikipedia has many articles using the term "riot" to describe protests-turned-violent involving "Blacks" as the main demographic among protestors, too. I'd also be interested to get you two's definition of "fascism" and why it doesn't more accurately describe, I don't know, the people who call themselves neo-Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:F042:5B36:4839:BE78:E222:928 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)