Talk:Charlottesville car attack/Archive 1

How many injuries and deaths?

Two articles [1] [2] say 35, but everything else says 19. This confuses me, although I haven't checked with more recent sources. Even if this is updated, the 35 figure might have to be kept somewhere in the article prose. wumbolo ^^^ 15:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity, Drmies, and Rreagan007: this ought to be fixed before the article appears on the main page, and I would much appreciate it. wumbolo ^^^ 18:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If by "how many deaths?" you mean "how many injuries?", then it looks like the number 19 comes from initial coverage said "at least 19 people were injured" in the incident. Since the number 35 comes a couple months later, I'd assume it is more accurate. ^Falling_Gravity 19:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the discrepancy comes from the suspect being charged with injuring 19 others, which makes me think that 19 other people sustained physical injuries. The rest are probably people who were in the immediate area who suffered from psychological trauma. But this is all speculation. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Falling Gravity said. I changed the number in the lead from 19 to 35. I doubt that this is emotional trauma, but that's just me. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so here is the actual federal indictment [3] in which he is charged with killing 1 and injuring 28 others. We should probably go with 28 as the number of people injured in the car crash. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: Are there any secondary sources which have reported this number? ^Falling_Gravity 04:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are. Here's one: [4]. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Word "weapon" in the Infobox

Since there is no conviction, the "crime" has not yet been established, and so calling Field's vehicle a "weapon" is biased.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Word "attack" Throughout the Article

No crime has been established, and no "attack" has been proven. Fields has a viable defence that may negate the idea that he "attacked" anyone. It's entirely possible that he panicked and "floored it". Further, the protestors share a level of responsibility due to the fact that they were blocking the road illegally, a common tactic by BLM & Antifa protests, which has resulted in several incidents of protestors being struck by vehicles while blocking the road. Not all of those incidents resulted in criminal charges, nor can they all be called "attacks". At least one protestor is video recorded as carrying a AR-15 style rifle in the immediate area just prior to the incident, while another protestor is clearly seen (in video) striking Field's vehicle with a long stick or club just prior to the impact.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

relevant to mention the similar car “attack” in France?

Just found this article here, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46233560 Nobodycaresapparently (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nobodycaresapparently: That's already mentioned at Gilets jaunes protests. It's currently just a sentence, but if further news coverage which is not WP:PRIMARYNEWS covers the ramming incident, it may deserve an article and therefore a mention at the {{Vehicle ramming attacks}} footer. wumbolo ^^^ 20:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waukesha parade "attack"

Off topic discussion. If you would like to suggest changes to Waukesha parade attack, please register an account and discuss it on that article's talk page.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Waukesha parade "attack" was at least 6 times worse (6 people died), where's your keen eye for the facts in that article? No Pulitzer winning photo there? To be honest, I'm amazed you allowed the mugshot to be published there, I guess no editors rules to hide behind. Why is EVEN THE TALK PAGE protected from editing there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:B313:1800:D4F6:27B0:C167:CDE (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you are objecting to? What do you want to change in this article?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since they don't use "black supremacist terror attack" in that one, even though it was all over his social media and in his rap, you should take that example and exclude the "white supremacist" part here, which is not supported by anything else than people repeatedly stating it, some newspaper that always gets it wrong (Sandmann, Rittenhouse for example) publishing it and then Wikipedia citing it and making it "their truth".

By the way Waukesha parade attack is a new article, so it will not have had as many eyes on it yet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does its talk page look protected, so any case you want to make about that article should be made there, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typical weak human behavior, gaslighting: https://ibb.co/gTfF3Xj

NO, its called policy. If you want to make an edit on a page you discuss it on that page's talk page, not another one (see wp:talk and wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No proof that it was an attack

He was just trying to escape rioters who were blocking traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.37.206 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But he intentionally attacked them in an attempt to murder them, though. And he was convicted of it in a court case where lots of evidence was presented. So I think it's fair to call it an attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.181.71 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LEDE is a joke

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:DENY

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

why doesn't the lede mention where the "crowd of people" were? Oh, wait - I know. Because vague, incomplete language is how Wikipedia tries to manipulate the image presented to the public. Heaven forbid the public learn that the crowd had taken over an entire intersection and was in the middle of the street blocking traffic. By the way, we just had three "Charlottesvilles" in the last week; are you going to write up the articles for those incidents the same way as this one if you find out they are also a case of ~~"jogging while black"~~ "driving while MAGA/conservative/Nazi/right-wing"? Or does the script suddenly change, in entirety, if we find out the drivers are not white, male, straight, and instead just "misguided" Karens or have some position in the preordained victim hierarchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01A:F48D:AC7D:D219:5152:C9A9 (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources to back up your assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Describing points of view elaborates that "Wikipedia's official 'Neutral Point of View' (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." The article has reliable sources to back up its claims, just scroll down to the bottom of the page. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

This edit request to Charlottesville car attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like it to be included that the man who killed Heather Heyer was being chased by ANTIFA protesters who had guns. 108.207.44.121 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 22:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

This edit request to Charlottesville car attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is a lovely story about the wedding of Marcus and Marissa and the butterfly release with images that would be a nice additional resource. https://wineandcountryweddings.com/marcus-marissas-celebration-of-unity Awaters4282 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the matter that he was white supremasist relevant to this?

i was reading random articles and hit here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack after while i hit to this page (charlottesville car attack) and i noticed that while waukesha attack doesn't mention anything about black or white supremacist also lack of motives, but here the first sentence is The Charlottesville car attack was a white supremacist terrorist attack ...

while at waukesha 2nd sentence is The alleged driver of the vehicle, thirty-nine-year-old Darrell E. Brooks, was arrested and charged with six counts of first-degree intentional homicide. with no mention of race of any kind.

so why is white supremacist in first sentence in here? i just created account for this, wont most likely check later because i have forgotten this in next 6 hours.

--BadgedHunter (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Becae RS said it was significant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]