Jump to content

Talk:End Domestic Terrorism rally

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

Sources for background

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

Not sure these are ideal, but...:

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More pre-event sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much detail to add to the article, but this source confirms quite a few business closures:

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Almost none of the sources seem to use the Proud Boys' self-description for the event, so I don't think the current title fits WP:COMMONNAME. We should come up with something more neutral and, ideally, something that reflects the terminology the sources actually use. --Aquillion (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion, Huh? Plenty of sources mention the event's official title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it. Most of the more recent national coverage doesn't have it; CNN, Fox, CBS, Rolling Stone. It's mentioned in some but not given much weight. Even some of the sources that do use the term are equivocal about whether it's an official name or just the title of the facebook event - eg. [1][2]. These don't show the level of WP:COMMONNAME necessary to use what's clearly a non-neutral title. Also, most of the coverage is of the event as a clash between the Proud Boys and Antifa; framing it as a Proud Boys event at this point seems misleading, since that's not the primary focus of the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, Just Google search "End Domestic Terrorism"+"Portland" and you'll see many sources use this name. The rally was officially organized by Proud Boys, and many sources describe the event as a Proud Boys rally, so I don't agree "framing it as a Proud Boys event" is misleading. Also, I am not bothered by the "non-neutral" title because this was the official name of the event. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"End Domestic Terrorism":

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: I've shared some sources for you to consider. We might need other opinions on the article title and event description. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beyond My Ken moved the page to End Domestic Terrorism rally. Not sure "rally" is needed, but I'll let other editors help decide. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the model of Unite the Right rally. "End Domestic Terrorism" was simply too naked and looked odd. I've no objections to another title if there is a consensus for one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, But "rally" is helpful for Unite the Right rally because Unite the Right is a disambiguation page. There are no other pages called End Domestic Terrorism. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And "rally" is useful for "End Domestic Terrorism", because without it, the article could be about a book, an organization, a meme, a propaganda film and many other things. "Rally" makes it specific for the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, Well, obviously, but that's true of many Wikipedia article. We don't add "album" at the end of every album article just because the name of the album could suggest the article is about something other than an album... I'm not following your reasoning. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'll let others weigh in below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbsyl, Nblund, and Doug Weller: Pinging you as talk page contributors. Thoughts on whether or not "rally" is necessary in the title. I see how "rally" is helpful for Unite the Right rally since there are other articles called Unite the Right, but there are no other articles called End Domestic Terrorism, which is the official name of this event. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think almost all of the sources call it a rally.[3] - sometimes as ""End Domestic Terrorism" rally" - if you understand my attempt at punctuation. Without the word rally the title really doesn't make sense. I guess it could be End Domestic Terrorism (rally) although of course there's no other article with the title. I think most searches would include the word. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^Agreed. I'm not overly-familiar with the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, but article titles can be ambiguous or imprecise even if there is no other article with the same name, and the proper name of the event is such a generic slogan that I would be surprised if there wasn't some previous work that used the same title. "did you hear about End Domestic Terrorism?" sounds unnatural. Nblund talk 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok! I don't agree (I think the official name is fine) but I'm not overly bothered with keeping "rally" if other editors find helpful. Thanks both for weighing in! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Tarrio

[edit]

@Aquillion: I added back mention of Enrique Tarrio. Seems worth mentioning to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What do you feel it adds, specifically, compared to the things elsewhere in the paragraph? I'm extremely cautious about "chest-pounding" quotes like that because they push an article towards becoming a WP:QUOTEFARM where dueling sides add whatever fiery quotes they feel represent their point of view; if Tarrio's opinion is so noteworthy, we should be able to summarize it using secondary sources discussing it rather than quoting him directly. --Aquillion (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, I'm not opposed to summarizing, but you removed mentioned of him altogether. I think he should be mentioned as an organizer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-event sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer attack

[edit]

The article says antifa attacked a bus with a hammer. The video clearly shows antifa swinging the hammer inside of the bus at the people within. It appears that antifa took the hammer from one of the conservatives, which should also be noted. Mbsyl (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite Twitter videos. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mbsyl, I welcome text adjustments based on secondary coverage. Feel free to propose something. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current text is based on this Willamette Week article, which says, "Antifascists were seen on videos throwing rocks and using a hammer to shatter the bus windows." ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources based on a quick Google search, which may or may not be incorporated in the article yet:

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These sources don't add much clarity. Williamette Week says that antifascist protesters were seen shattering the bus windows with the hammer. Vice says that someone on the bus threw the hammer in retaliation after protesters started smashing windows on the bus. The Guardian says one of the antifascists seized the hammer from someone on the bus and doesn't mention anyone using it at all. That's three different versions from three different sources. All of these look like exactly the sort of WP:BREAKINGNEWS coverage that should be avoided. Nblund talk 18:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund, I'm totally open to text changes based on sourcing, but I wanted to explain why I added the current text and share other sources for consideration. Thanks for contributing to this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting this text removal by Nblund for the record. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we needn't mention this incident at all. If all we have is a few sentences in reliable sources that interpret a bit of video in a variety of ways, there's not much we can say. (Vice appear to have actually been there, unlike the Guardian and Willamette Week, but they're also the weakest of the three sources.) If we were going to try to draw up a more detailed timeline of events (like that in the Unite the Right rally article, for example) there could be room for this kind of detail, but in the absence of that context it's hard to see the value of including it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^ Agreed.To be clear: I don't think there's consistent enough sourcing to justify including this at all. Per WP:RSBREAKING, initial reports like this are often inaccurate, and documenting minor events like this is probably WP:UNDUE at this point anyway. We have enough sourcing to say that the protest was about as unruly as one would expect, but documenting specific events doesn't seem warranted unless something really serious comes out of this. Nblund talk 18:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund, Sounds good!, thanks both. I hope you'll review the accuracy and neutrality of the rest of the article as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so if there's a video where we can clearly see someone attacking someone else with a hammer, and the media reported it incorrectly, we can't correct things based on what everyone can see with their own eyes??? sorry for the noob question, but i don't get how you can deny or ignore what we all can see clearly in the video. Mbsyl (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What part of this is "clear", exactly? It's a cell phone video of an unruly protest. It looks to me like the guy on the bus is swinging the hammer around 1 second in, and then a counterprotester takes it from him and swings it at him - which would be consistent with The Guardian's reporting and with other photos. But different people will have different interpretations of the same video, which is why we need to rely on reliable sources rather than our own WP:OR. In this case, there's simply too much inconsistency to make a call and it's probably not that important anyway. Nblund talk 20:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PSTS. Videos posted on social media are primary sources, whereas Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources (not necessarily exclusively so, but especially so in articles about contentious topics and circumstances where the primary source is open to interpretation). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you all this this article in Oregonlive.com?[4] Doug Weller talk 10:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
looks like they agree with what i said, i.e. you can clearly see that the hammer is being used against people (not just the bus) and it was originally being used against antifa. Mbsyl (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that's consistent with the coverage from the Guardian as well. This still seems fairly trivial to me, and I'd prefer to wait to see if there's more coverage. Nblund talk 16:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: arrests

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: lawsuit

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: economic impact

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More post-event sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may be useful if it is unique (or if it's a duplicate of existing content then please disregard). Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness?

[edit]

@Arms & Hearts and Beyond My Ken: Thank you both for your contributions here thus far. I've done a post-event Google search and found some sources (see above) to incorporate into the prose. Otherwise, I'd say the ~70 sources currently used form a pretty solid overview of the event. I plan to do some reference formatting, then request a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Then, I'm considering a Good article nomination, unless you can identify any concerns or content gaps? Any and all feedback and/or article improvements are welcome at this time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism?

[edit]

Should this article be added to WikiProject Terrorism and/or any terrorism-related categories? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, "End Domestic Terrorism" was merely rhetoric. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, The article's prose does mention domestic terrorism, but if you think the topic's tangential for something like Category:Terrorism in the United States, no worries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can be convinced otherwise, but that's the way I see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, I don't feel too strongly either, so let's see if anyone else weighs in. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't belong in the categories. "Domestic terrorism" is in this context essentially an unsubstantiated allegation of criminal behaviour – if the event is notable we're obliged to discuss that allegation but not to lend any credence to it, which we would be doing by suggesting that the event had anything to do with actual terrorism. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rally had nothing to do with ending domestic terrorism, it was purely an attempt to get Antifa etc seen as terrorism (and as we know, most domestic terrorism comes from the right, and I don't think I missed the rally supporters condemning it, did i?). Doug Weller talk 12:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Should the article have a "Background" section which explores the political attempts to have Antifa designated "domestic terrorism". There have been bills introduced in Congress, etc. It would serve to explain why an organization such as the Proud Boys would call a rally "End Domestic Terrorism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, Perhaps, or maybe some brief background info can be incorporated into the "Planning" section to give insight into the organizers' motivations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:End_Domestic_Terrorism_rally&oldid=1212742036"