Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Unite the Right rally. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Airbnb

csncelling reservations.[1]. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

We need a conflict box

See Women's March, March 4 Trump, Day Without a Woman, etc. Don1182 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We already have an open discussion for this, above. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Empty sections a bad idea

Please don't add these, they are unnecessary and make the article look bad. If you think a section is needed propose it here. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we start a conflict box?

Any sort of rally falls under civil conflict to my knowledge. See the 2017 Women's March for an example. Don1182 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of the infobox on this article is inappropriate, regardless of how it's used elsewhere. Far, far more importantly, you added a ton of totally unsourced stuff to the infobox. Trying to add yet another alt-right trading card to Wikipedia is non-neutral in the extreme. Find sources and stick to neutral phrasing, then figure out how to handle the aesthetic details. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Alt-Right trading card"? The local BLM has stated they are planning to protest! Anyway, a good compromise on this would be adding it after the event, since it may not occur. Don1182 (talk)

You're using the infobox to include trivial, poorly supported details. What does BLM have to do with anything? Are BLM such a boogieman that their presence guarantees a conflict? Is it even remotely surprising that they would protest a high-profile rally attended by white supremacists? For that matter, what was the point of mentioning Berkeley in the 'background' section? If you're trying to say the 'conflict' part of the infobox is a technicality, your other edits strongly suggest that you're assuming this is going to turn into a riot or something. That's absolutely not a neutral approach. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Don1182 assumes a lot of things, it appears, given that he tried to add this to Richard B. Spencer: Spencer led [emphasis mine] the 2017 Unite The Right Rally to protest the removal of Confederate monuments... [2] --Calton | Talk 01:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

None of the sources used for the latest limited edition foil print of the ~~trading card~~ infobox are particularly great. What is Carbonated.tv? Regardless, sources which mention the anticipated presence of a group do not make them party to a conflict, nor do such sources explain at all how they participated in this future conflict. This is all hyper-aggresively trying to present this as a battle before its even happened. Hold your horses, and wait until sources report on what's happened, and then use those sources to explain in the article who these people are and how their role was important to the event. Only then should this be put into an infobox. Wikipedia isn't a news-service, and it especially isn't a news-service to promote alt-right rallies. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as the rally is in 8 hours, I guess that would be fine. Would you be fine with a compromise of not adding those parts? Also, a rally dossn't have to be violent to get an infobox. Don1182 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what parts you mean. That infobox is not going to work. Don't add anything to any infobox that isn't explained by a reliable source. Merely listing-off names (especially redirects/non-notables like Michael Hill and Brad Griffin) creates a grossly distorted picture of events, and it strongly gives the impression that you are attempting to make this rally look as big and impressive as possible. Andrew Anglin is currently being sought by at least a couple of parties for legal action, so if he's a participant in this event, that's a BFD and would need to be clearly explained by reliable sources. His name doesn't belong unless it's explained by a reliable source. This is just one example of the problems with your behavior. Do not rush to add the infobox in 8 hours because the event technically started. Discuss it and assess what sources are actually saying, first. Not a catalog of names listed in passing by sources, but context. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Don1182: I looked at the March 4 Trump article. It certainly doesn't have a "civil conflict" infobox and that's not what it is being called in reliable sources. In fact, looking at an SPLC article from this week about the League of the South,[3] I found "In one episode of “Radio Free Dixie” with the pseudonymous Charlie Stewart, who hosts another Identity Dixie podcast titled “Thistle and Briar,” Borum and Stewart identify themselves as veterans and outline the equipment — including firearms, camouflage, armor and training — Alt-Right activists will need in the event of a civil conflict in the United States." That's more of a civil conflict then your usual demo and counter-demo. Let's wait and get consensus about an infobox. Again looking at March 4 Trump, that was only done on March 15th, 11 days later. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

He replaced it and I've removed it again. It's original research and even an infobox is too soon. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

One part of the problem (among many) is that template:Infobox protest is a redirect to the civil conflict one. That's kind of weird, but I could live with that. The issue I have is that infoboxes totally obliterate context, nuance, all that good stuff. Sometimes that's okay, but not here. Far too many questionable sources (again, what is Carbonated.TV) used to support a very narrow view. Using kitchen-sink sources to describe many people and parties as exactly equal is original research. Infoboxes can become a real drag for this reason. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Images?

I think the article could use a few images. I've never uploaded images to Wikipedia before so I don't really know where to look for images that meet the copyright rules (otherwise I'd just do it myself). Is anyone aware of any fair-use images of the following:

The tiki torchlight rally from last night
The counterprotests
The car attack

Thanks! CJK09 (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Unaware of any fair-use images, but sites such as Pixabay might help you out. I don't really know, either. Sorry. Javert2113 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Discrimination

Is this under the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, as it's a militant white nationalist conflict? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple categories related to terrorism have also been added. If this is indeed deemed terrorism, then WikiProject Terrorism may also apply. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No (I don't see any similar articles at the wikiproject page and no. We never call something terrorism unless it's been called that by a state body. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to check the state bodies you rely so much on. This was a terrorist attack, plain and simple. I doubt we'd be having this debate if the attacker had brown skin and all the victims had white skin. HOT WUK (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with the categories being removed. Thanks for doing so. I am not following this story closely because I am traveling, so I wasn't sure whether or not terrorism-related categories applied. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I myself am skeptical about including WikiProject Terrorism. However, I'm still in support of WikiProject Discrimination. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ask them. There's no rus. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Replacing contentious sources

Since several of the sources used in this article (SPLC, Right Wing Watch, etc) are often controversial, I'm going through and replacing them, where it makes sense to, with less-contentious sources that carry the same information. I've already done so for the lead paragraph.

Does anyone object to this? CJK09 (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to wait until the edit rate for the article slows down. Otherwise I just get a bunch of edit conflicts. CJK09 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No objections from me, but do wait until the hubbub has died down: it's going to be a while, and in the meantime, more neutral sources will appear. Javert2113 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit boldly. Do it now. kencf0618 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an objection, but I do suggest adding your articles to the RefIdeas template in case someone else wants to assist. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

uppercase R

Resolved

Why is this not 2017 Unite the Right rally ? Where is capital R for Rally used by the organizers? ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering about that as well. We should probably move the page to the lower case "r". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That's probably my fault. Sorry! (But, yes, let's change it.) Javert2113 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The event is called "Unite the Right", and most sources refer to it as "the 'Unite the Right' rally". Dlthewave (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the page has already been moved to the location. Did you mean to suggest something else? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, please disregard. Dlthewave (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Images, recent edit

I commented out two images -- they struck me as a coat rack and / or unnecessary displays of Confederate / National Socialist iconography not directly related to the topic of the article. Pls see diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the picture of the Lee Statue should be put back in as its planned removal was one of the major causes of the protest (or at the very least the reason the protest was held in Charlottesville). However, I'd prefer for it to be placed in the background section rather than back in the infobox (blank space may be an issue though). As for the Nazi imagery, I believe you made the correct decision. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Might as well know what all the hubbub is about, right? The Lee statue should have a picture, somewhere in the article, but probably not in the infobox — that should be for an image for the rally itself, if you can find one. Javert2113 (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"The rally has been criticized by some civil-rights organizers..."

That needs an edit. I don't want to be in ridiculous "both sides" edit war so I won't do it. But it needs an edit. This is not a "both sides" issue. This is will a notable and sickening Nazi rally in the United States in 2017.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

State of emergency declared in charlottesville after protests turn violent - nytimes.com

A car was used to mow down protestors in a terror attack. For fuck's sake will somebody edit the page?

Yes, I said it and I'll say it again: fuck.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I started an infobox, we just need sourcing in it. Feel free to edit it. Also I saw it, it's sad. Don1183 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't have consensus (and didn't respond to my edit in the discussion on infoboxes and it's original research. We as editors cannot decide if something is a civil conflict. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Sickening" is a value judgment, not a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.3.41 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fucking sickening is reality - Mr./Mrs. "Unsigned".

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You personal sense of outrage does not translate into verifiable fact, especially when WP:BLP is involved. There remains a small chance that this was not actually a terror attack. DoctorPaveleer (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi groups should be so named

That's well sourced. These are all part of the Nationalist Front which includes among other groups the National Socialist Movement; the Traditionalist Worker Party; and the League of the South, which are allied under the umbrella of the Nationalist Front." See the National Front's website.[4]The LOS itself says it's part of this[5] as does the National Socialist Movement (United States) "On Saturday August 12th. the National Socialist Movement will join Our Allies the Traditionalist Workers Party, League of the South and other Nationalist Front Members in Charlottesville, VA"[6]. The ADL says it was formed at a meeting to celebrate Hitler's birthday.[7] Its led (oops, "Commanded" by Jeff Schoep, leader of the National Socialist Movement and Matthew Heinbach leader of the Traditionalist Youth Network. The LOS page doesn't say neo-Nazi but should, obviously the Daily Stormer page does as does National Socialist Movement (United States). Unlike some white supremacists who say they are just white nationalist, these people are pretty open and this should be made clear. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We need an infobox. There are riots and multiple injuries, along with 1 death. Don1183 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't you using the section discussing the infobox? This section is about naming the neo-Nazi groups. And where are your sources for riots? I'm keeping up with the media and they aren't making that claim. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The adl has been connected to the SPLC which has been related to domestic terrorism

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/22/scalise-shooter-liked-the-terror-linked-splc-which-repeatedly-attacked-scalise/

So yeah, unless you defend terrorism like that or the terrorism of the BLM at that place, which by Wikipedia law you are free to do, however if its true that said terrorist groups and connections to Louis Farrakhan and other neo Nazi groups that met with Iranian leader, well then yeah it should be named too that the BLM is a hate organization like the SPLC or similar, so it seems terrorists getting attacked by car is kinda ironic here.79.138.2.20 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thought about this for a moment and realize you fail to distinguish from any plain-old national-socialist political group and those who are that PLUS against Jews. There is a world of difference. Jews themselves may be national-socialist themselves indeed. But that doesnt mean they are also against their own kind. I.E. There is pure and plain NAT-SOC political ideology (which is just the 2 combined, nothing more), then there is Hitler's nat-soc which adds anti-semitism/etc. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Boy, we got some uneducated, uninformed rightists here, don't we?

First of all, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) & SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) don't have ANY connection to domestic terrorism. If anything, they have been fighting against the attacks the uneducated, uninformed right-wingers (like you, 79.138.2.20) are soo well-known for engaging in. Not to mention, ANY organization has the right to criticize anyone, whether it be a politician, Supreme Court justice, or someone who supports a political party well-known for publishing & pushing CONFIRMED political propaganda (hint: it's NOT the Democrats that do it).

Oh, and for you to use a biased, right-leaning site, like PJ Media (which well-known for being right-leaning) for your blatantly unsourced attack against the ADL & SPLC shows you are already admitting you've lost the argument; by using such a site, you are hereby admitting defeat in this discussion already. In fact, I dare you, I double-dog dare you, to point to ANY websites articles that CONFIRM the ADL & SPLC being linked to ANY domestic terrorism, as in what they've said and/or done contributed to someone engaging in domestic terrorism (I HIGHLY doubt you'll be able to, as no LEGITIMATE articles of such exist). If anything, it is the people attacking the ADL & SPLC that are the ones engaging in domestic terrorism (like the driver of the car down in Charlottesville that killed an innocent woman, said driver now facing 2nd-degree murder charges).

Oh, and as far as Black Lives Mater, when have they EVER used firearms, or any other weapon, for that matter, to intimidate people. Oh, that's right.....THAT'S the All/White/Blue Lives Matter crowd that likes to intimidate others because they're inferior at being able to discuss things with people intellectually superior to them.

Oh, and so far, the ONLY people that have engaged in domestic terrorism are those attempting to use firearms & other weapons to intimidate counter-protestors, as well as using vehicles to kill innocent protestors. So far, at least four domestic terrorists from that "alt-right" rally have been arrested, with one of them now facing 2nd-degree murder charges.

So, as it would seem, the ONLY terrorists down in Charlottesville are those branding guns & other weapons, as well as those using vehicles to mow down innocent protestors.

If anything, there is PROVABLE, UNDENIABLE, INDISPUTABLE evidence to state that neo-Nazis, White Nationalists, & other right-leaning group ARE indeed domestic terrorism groups. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:A884:D314:E280:5DF9 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible other attack

Helicopter crash, suspected foul play [8] [9] [10] – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 22:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Noted. I'll keep an eye on this story. Thank you. Javert2113 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I've folded this into its own subsection for now. I'll keep adding more info as it becomes available. CJK09 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither of these should be called attacks yet. Barely a day has gone by. There have only been arrests. Have charges been pressed? Convictions secured?

Neutrally we should be reporting the crashes and their fatalities but not frame either as an attack until more evidence exists. We can report a witness saying the car crash "looked" intentional but certain sensationalist sources screaming "attack" does not mean we should do so as well. We have BLP concerns here, this could harm the driver undeservedly if it was not intentional. For example, if people were hitting his car with bats and he was trying to escape. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, regarding the car incident, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. There have been dozens of vehicle-ramming attacks in just the last few years and so far there's absolutely nothing to suggest that this is any different. Also note that the incident has been widely described as an attack by those who were there to witness it (which is not just counterprotesters, but also various journalists). CJK09 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to bring this up, actually. I've seen the footage: it seemed mighty deliberate to me, what with the driver speeding away afterward and all. In addition, I'd like to note that the New York Times states "a car plowed into a crowd near the city’s downtown mall, killing a 32-year-old woman," [11] while other sources note the car "ram[med]" the crowd, and so on. While I do have concerns about the helicopter crash being called an attack (for now), I'm confident that this was an attack in the fullest sense of the term. Nevertheless, I'll ultimately agree with the consensus of the editors. Javert2113 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree to hold off on calling the helicopter crash an attack. "Crash" is probably fine in the mean time while we wait for more info. CJK09 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

per WP:BLPCRIME

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured.

terms like plow/ram are neutral and simply convey interpretations of speed, not intent. Remaining neutral is important here. How it looks to us s irrelevant, that would be OR. The tabloids are engaged in that but we can be better. Like the many news sources who are not calling it I tentional or an attack. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your claiming that there are many that are not calling this an attack or not calling it intentional, but is it a majority of them? I think that is the more important issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: I commend you for upholding WP:BLP guidelines in the face of editors who want to blatantly ignore it. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and speculation by the media does not/will not change that. I think the video clearly shows this was intentional but my opinion -- and everyone else's -- means absolutely nothing when it comes to BLP. When this man is found guilty of the incident or an official statement is made by the authorities, then we specify this was an attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to violate BLP, but am just confused on if it even applied if the person is not named, though I do current note that the name has appeared on the article. Though, you seem to be confused as well since you claim that an official statement would be enough. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

editors are violating BLP calling this an attack

Folks the BLP guidelines say nothing about requiring the person be named. The man arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder has been widely named, so this impacts him regardless of whether or not Wikipedia does so.

We are not presenting NPOV by parroting the less professional media sources calling it an attack. Police file charges when enough evidence exists to explore an option, not because it is an absolute certainty.

Merging the car crash article into the rally article would skirt what to call it but we would still need to decide in what to call the section.

Reporting that some media is calling it an attack, what what interviewed witnesses say, and that charges are pressed is enough. There is no need to go further and infringe on BLP by playing jury to the driver. We have a public duty to be neutral here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I have removed the name, I do have to ask if that is enough under your claims regarding BLP. As I have already said, I am confused on what portions of the article are currently in violation and I am not trying to violate BLP. Since the name is currently gone outside of history, does that satisfy the issue or does it need to go further? Additionally, due to the claims, do you have a rebuttal to any potential counter-claims? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed the videos show a antifa and BLM attacking the car. after it stopped. so the driver obviously backed away in self defense. now whenever he was attacked before on the car should be researched. if that is the case then antifa and BLM were the terrorists.79.138.2.20 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, that would have been after the car stopped after it struck people in the crowd, resulting not only in injury to those struck by the vehicle (bringing a charge of attempted vehicular manslaughter), but the death of a 32 year old woman who was struck by the car (bringing in a confirmed charge of 2nd-degree murder). So, in this case, it is the individual in the car (who has so far been IDed as James Fields Jr., a registered Republican) who is the terrorist, NOT the members of Antifa or BLM. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:A884:D314:E280:5DF9 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to forget that there were people, presumably antifa-thugs, chasing the car, before it hit the detectably violent crowd. And that women got hit by the car, when she was actually attacking it with several others. 105.1.219.3 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, the car hit the group at high speed, no time for anyone to hit it. Watch the video without your conservative filters! WWGB (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Remember, analysing any of the videos of the car is original research, which we musn't do on WP. If any RS say anything like this then that is different. Seagull123 Φ 13:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's only original research if it is included in the article. That said, I agree with WWGB. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Video to migrate

Here's a video that can be migrated, I'm on mobile otherwise I'd do it myself:

https://www.voanews.com/a/charlottesville-rally-altercations/3983042.html#player-set-time=14

107.77.217.225 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Done, uploaded by FallingGravity, see: File:Altercations at Charlottesville Rally.webm. Seagull123 Φ 22:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Vehicular collision with counter-protesters

I think there's a more informative way to describe this than a 'vehicular collision', which I read as implying there being no intent or it being an accident. Vehicular homicide might work, but it's hard to work that into 'with counter-protesters'. Thoughts, suggestions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely right- there was a 2017 Charlottesville attack article that was merged into this one, and if you look at the discussion on the relevant talk page it is CLEAR that there was no real consensus for this. I suggest we should describe the incident in question as '2017 Charlottesville Israeli apartheid'. 27.252.28.26 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- The relevant talk page is this one, and the overwhelming consensus here rendered the proposals on the other page moot. Swarm ♠ 10:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  - You seem to be rather committed to this idea. I would suggest that people who are not in agreement with your strongly expressed personal views should take things to the appropriate venues for full discussion. 27.252.28.26 (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    - This is the appropriate venue for discussion. Not the village pump. The village pump is for policy proposals and wider ranging proposals. Not for discussions about one article. You could at best request an WP:RfC. I highly recommend against it since no reasonable person is going to refer to this as an apartheid. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Aug 13 2017 Network Coverage on Sunday talkies

Interesting lineups for coverage. A summary of Sabatos, Folkenflik and others is need to reflect the reactions. Sabato called for firing of white nationalist's Steve Bannon. --Wikipietime (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Infowars

Infowars is not a reliable source; its conspiracy theories should be discussed elsewhere on the Internets. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Why does this keep getting removed? It is a noteworthy point of view from a source with millions of followers.

According to reports from Infowars, the riots were staged by the deep state to bring in martial law and ban conservative gatherings. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.128.19 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a platform for what is quite frankly conspiratorial bullshit. Unless the conspiracy itself becomes the subject of media coverage in reliable sources (which Infowars is not) it does not belong in the article, and even then it would be described as a conspiracy, not an "alternative point of view". CJK09 (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. Newsweek reported on it. [13] You can say that Infowars is alleging a conspiracy. That's what they're saying-- that this is all a deep state conspiracy. 72.64.128.19 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If you add it, I will revert. Newsweek just reported that Alex Jones said it. WP:UNDUE. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give oxygen to conspiracy theories. --Yalens (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This shouldn't be a platform for Alex Jones. Of course he's jumped on the bandwagon. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

My view is that deranged comments by Alex Jones add nothing to this article and should be discussed in his biography, not here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sonicsoundtracks1: I see that you added this. I have removed it as per the discussion here. If you wish to do so again, please first read the discussion above, and try to seek consensus here on the talk page. Currently most editors are against this. --Yalens (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Infowars isn't the least bit reliable on this matter, and Wikipedia shouldn't repeat their fictional rantings. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We already hear from notable "kooks" like David Duke, Andrew Anglin and Donald Trump in Reactions, not because their bullshit is the correct bullshit, but because it's been covered in secondary sources. Alex Jones should be no different. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep your leftist feelings about Trump out of this, please. WP:SOAPBOX. He won the election, move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.62 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, kinda like how the North won the Civil War? Something that rightists STILL can't seem to accept. So, to borrow YOUR wording: the North won the Civil War, move on. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:A884:D314:E280:5DF9 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad he did. But if the millions of opinion pieces written about him since he did are any indication, he's known for holding unorthodox views. The other two are less famous, but also rather "alternative". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your feelings on Trump aside, the difference between Jones and those three is that Trump is the President of the United States so pretty much anything he says is highly important, and the other two were responding directly to Trump's statement. Jones was not responding to Trump's statement, but instead alleging a completely irrelevant conspiracy theory. CJK09 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no feelings on Trump, I just needed a third example. Jones responded directly to the event, which is what the Reactions section is meant to be about, not reactions to reactions to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, now it's meant to be about reactions to the reaction. But it wasn't before. Maybe before I'm done typing, that reaction will have its own article. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we are not including the WP:FRINGE opinion of an unreliable source just because they have millions of followers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue is the conspiracy theory, not the speaker. If we reversed what D Duke and A Jones said so that David Duke was the one who alleged the "deep state" horsecrap, then we'd still have a situation where it isn't something we should report. --Yalens (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Duke and Anglin helped organize the rally, and Duke at least spoke there. Not sure about Anglin. That makes their comments relevant. Alex Jones is just spouting off. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Mr. Duke and Mr. Anglin helped organize the rally. Mr. Jones had nothing to do with it.--Javert2113 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We should add it back. What Alex Jones is saying has now received widespread attention in the 'mainstream' media sources everyone here seems to take as gospel. By the way, why the bias against alternative media versus MSM here? After the MSM got the whole 2016 election wrong while alternative media like Infowars, Breitbart, Drudge, etc. reported correctly on the mood of Middle America, what gives all of you the right to write off Alex Jones as a kook while still treating the mainstream discredited media as gospel? Also, how is Alex Jones fringe in the Trump era? Jones had Trump, then the future president and leader of the free world, on his show. 2601:703:2:27B0:8003:F5D0:8BC7:7EE3 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

IP editor 2601, this article talk page is not the right place to change Wikipedia's agreed definition of what is and is not a reliable source. The mainstream media reported polling results predicting that Clinton would get several million more popular votes than Trump and that is what happened. Discussion about whether a given source is reliable for use on Wikipedia belongs at the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Jones has taken inflammatory positions that are contrary to all known fact before, and while I do not discount his viewership, his show often seems to be a mechanism for him to sell Alex Jones-branded items, the profits from which seem to be going to into his pockets. Furthermore, if we legitimize him through his viewership, we allow his stances on particular issues to become legitimate, when they are anything but. --Javert2113 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That's your point of view. I could say the same about the New York Times and CNN. But, speaking of the facts, who got the 2016 election right? It wasn't CNN or MSNBC. 2601:703:2:27B0:8003:F5D0:8BC7:7EE3 (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact remains that Alex Jones is not a reliable source, under the WP:RS and WP:NFRINGE guidelines; thus, his reactions, though they may be heard by many, have not been included, and should not be. --Javert2113 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Those guidelines censor a lot of alternative media; and I get it. What Alex Jones is saying, however, should be included in the article, even if we follow the guidelines against use of alternative media, because it is being picked up in secondary mainstream sources the site permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:2:27b0:8003:f5d0:8bc7:7ee3 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"has now received widespread attention in the 'mainstream' media". Has it, though? I've seen one article on Newsweek and that's it. And by your logic, everything that comes out of Michael Moore's mouth should now be reliable because he predicted Trump would win. Besides, the "discredited" mainstream media actually got the election more accurately than Infowars, since they prediced Clinton would win the popular vote by a small margin and I recall Alex Jones said in a video that Trump had won "by a massive landslide", which is false. And not to mention that, elections aside (which are all about predictions and are never 100% accurate), the reporting of the MSM is generally more reliable than fringe conspiratorial paranoid sources. But there's better quality alternative media out there like Heat Street. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Mr. Jones' theory should be placed under the Alex Jones article, but until and unless other sources also discuss his false-flag theory in an authoritative and significant manner, and there are more sources than just two, I would ask that his ideas not be placed on this page, no matter how widespread they may be. --Javert2113 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Instead of bickering about this stuff, how about in the Reactions section we include reactions that of specific media outlets from both the mainstream media and alternative media to accurately and honestly illustrate the existing controversy in the interpretations of events following the protests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:400:B610:B95D:945:2CBA:6A9F (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, there's no actual "controversy" over whether the attack was a false flag by the deep state. Presenting it that way would be false balance. CJK09 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I love you wikipedia, showing your true colors. Is this REALLY front page news? Seriously.

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.

Putting this in the front page news box, as though it was major enough, about a guy separate from the rally either losing it or escaping at all costs in self-defense from a surrounding mob attacking his vehicle.Sinsearach (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is front-page news, and no, this clearly wasn't in self-defense: the man was charged with murder, which, as you well know, requires an element of deliberation. Good day. Javert2113 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lol. "Separate from the rally". So "separate" that he traveled to Charlottesville from Ohio. "Self-defense" running down a crowd. The lack of taking responsibility among some White supremacists is astounding. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

1st "Yes, it is front-page news," ok, yes.....lets go with that, now.... why is that so? 2nd: " the man was charged with murder," yes, charged, nothing more. 3rd: "traveled Charlottesville from Ohio" indeed, doesnt necessarily mean then that he took part in the rally. 4th: "The lack of taking responsibility among some White supremacists is astounding." This fails reason/logic on several accounts. This is an ad-hom, appeal to motive, poisoning the well, among others (collective guilt also, assuming you I can be grouped with them) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) It is not a difficult thing to remain dispassionate. Like I could (likewise fallaciously) assume you are a leftist, but that is not even nearly assured until you explicitly state it, and even then not a certainty.Sinsearach (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not an "ad-hom". I was just looking for this link to add. White supremacists are blaming the cops for the violence. The same cops that kept things as orderly as they could. It's not dispassionate to label what James Fields did as murder. That's what the courts did when they charged him, though of course he is innocent until proven guilty, which is why the article says he's charged with murder, rather than a murderer. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2017 (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.

Users who are saying "this was an accident" or "this was intentional" should both recuse themselves from editing the article until they calm down. You are engaging in OR and not in a proper mindset to present NPOV or abide by BLP guidelines. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Police have already determined they believe it was intentional - otherwise the alleged perpetrator would not be sitting in jail charged with murder. Until convicted in a court of law, it certainly must be described as an "alleged" attack, but there is no mistake or dispute in reliable sources about what happened or who is responsible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

He's also charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Thus, it's an alleged accident, too. Can't cherrypick. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No. "Leaving the scene of an accident" applies to any traffic collision, intentional or not. It implies nothing about fault or intent of the crash. Murder, on the other hand, is a crime of specific malicious intent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"Accident" is undefined by Virgina law. So here we've only the normal English meaning of the word to consider. Or maybe the general legal meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in any case law that said a person was not guilty of "leaving the scene of an accident" because they'd admitted to causing the collision deliberately. But that's beside the point; we have oodles of reliable sources describing it as an "attack" and a murder charge already laid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Next time I run someone over, I'll see how that goes. In the meantime, you might ponder how intentionally turning a wheel might result in accidental injury. It's not a steering wheel or a car wheel, but it's close. I'll defer to your oodles for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, NorthBySouthBaranof, "leaving the scene of an accident" when you're the one that caused the accident actually IS against the law. It also shows that the fault of the crash is with the individual who left the scene, as well as their intent on causing the crash, then making sure they evade justice. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:F0A5:3588:6754:D8D7 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that in the context of usage in automobile law "accident" refs the scene of an automobile crash resulting in death, injury or property damage as an accident scene regardless of whether the crash was intentional, negligent, reckless or purely accidental. One person was killed, many injured, and investigation and adjudication may show the intent of the driver was to use the automobile as a deadly weapon; until his intent is admitted and adjudicated, he was leaving the scene of an accident as the customary use of the word goes. Meaning of a word may change on context and customary usage. And there is the old legal adage "flight = guilt". -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be OR and is a good example of why we forbid OR. See e.g. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Note that none of these say responsibilities only apply to to the driver who caused the accident. In fact the contrary and some responsibilities apply to passengers as well. (And I suspect it does happen that drivers who are not responsible flee the scene, for example if you're DUI you're probably not going to want the police to find that out even if you're sure you're not responsible.) Anyway this isn't the place to debate the law surrounding leave the scene of an accident in Virginia. If you want our article to claim that the charge of "leaving the scene of an accident" is an indication of responsibility towards the accident, please provide a source that explicitly says that. Otherwise it's none of our business. As for IH's point, well it seems that accident isn't actually defined anywhere in the code that I could find so maybe it's defined only by case law. But again, if you want our article to claim the charge implies that the actions were not intentional, please provide a source that says that. Otherwise it's again none of our concern. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows its colors again, exactly. Where is the page on the concurrent Seattle riots? Why wasn't it headlined like this event? CsikosLo (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo in infobox

* the photo in the infobox, File:Charlottesville counterprotest.jpg, has been tagged for speedy deletion, as it is from Flickr, but licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic licence. Seagull123 Φ 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Support: Lack of attribution invalidates any and all claim we have to it. Javert2113 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that there is no way of voting so long as no one contest the deletion. Additionally, I believe such a review would need to occur in Commons since this photo is being shared by five Wikis. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's been a long 48 hours. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. --Javert2113 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)