Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article Title

The rally itself wasn't worthy of a Wikipedia entry. There are rallies all the time, many by right-wing extremists, and they don't merit Wikipedia entries. What is worthy of an entry is the ensuing riot. That being the case, the entry should be entitled Charlottesville Riot, or something like that. 191.7.176.148 (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the name for this disturbance in verifiable sources has to match the article, i doubt this will be changed. if the president says its called something else, maybe. if most media outlets call it something else, maybe. if most wikipedians get into a edit war over the title, maybe. otherwise it stays as is. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

new section for those distancing from the administration

Ken Frazier and others need to be included. --Wikipietime (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Frazier bit added. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph innacurate; does not reflect the source; needs to be edited.

The lead paragraph states that "Attendees described the violence as having originated from white supremacists.[4]" It is true that this is what the source says, but the statement refers to the pre-event torchlit rally on 11th August, not the "Unite the Right" rally itself. Here is the quote from the article;

"Last night, the alt-right protesters initiated the violence … The neo-Nazis surrounded them with lit torches and started macing and beating the students," he told Al Jazeera, explaining that police arrived after clashes started.

This should be fixed. DoctorPaveleer (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC) [The changes have been made by other editors.] DoctorPaveleer (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're interpreting the source incorrectly. "the alt-right protesters initiated the violence" is referring to the alt-right people who are protesting re removal of the Confederate statue. It doesn't refer to to the people who showed up to protest the alt-right. TheValeyard (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I know that the claim of the source is that the alt-right people initiated the violence. The article reflects this accurately. What I am saying, is that the source refers to a very specific incident, which took place the night before the rally itself, which should be clarified. DoctorPaveleer (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Effect on politics section (which has nothing about its effect on politics as it's too early)

Of course it's incomplete, the article is incomplete, and the tag looks silly, especially as it is too early to find sources assessing what its effect on politics has been. Worse, neither paragraph is about its effect on politics. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I deleted it. The two points it tried to make were "some people say" quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

A FOLLOW UP TO "The city's leaders cited safety concerns and logistical issues associated with holding the event at Emancipation Park, adjacent to the densely populated Downtown Mall.[37] Kessler refused to agree to relocate the rally, and the City relocated the rally anyway, a decision praised by the Downtown Business Association of Charlottesville.[37]

Kessler, supported by the Rutherford Institute and ACLU, sued the City of Charlottesville and Jones on First Amendment grounds in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. On the evening of August 11, the night before the rally, Judge Glen E. Conrad granted an emergency injunction declaring the Unite the Right rally could go forward.[38]"

WAS THERE ANY LIGHT SHED ON RESPONSES FROM THE CITY RE: THE MAYHEM RESULTING FROM THE LACK OF WISDOM OF CONRAD'S DECISION? WildRose13 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@WildRose13: Please stop using all caps in your post. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There has not been any third-party commentary on the "lack of wisdom of" the judge's decision. At Wikipedia we do not write original research or opinions into articles. This Vox article discusses the ACLU support for the White Nationalist's right to rally, but this does not provide any commentary on the wisdom of the decision, etc. Until we have third-party commentary from a reliable source, there is nothing to say. Malinaccier (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox organizer

The court record is very clear that Jason Kessler was the permittee (see injunction).

permit previously issued by the City, which granted Kessler the right to hold a demonstration in Emancipation Park on August 12, 2017.

The text of Permit and court cases describes Kessler as the organizer (without reference or argument). His name should appear in the infobox. Rhadow (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Strange. I seem to recall that it appeared in an earlier version of the article; I didn't think it had been removed. I'll add it. Thanks! --Javert2113 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

PLEASE CHANGE: "One month later, on July 8, 2017, another Ku Klux Klan rally was held in Charlottesville's Jackson Park (which was since renamed Justice Park)." TO "...RALLY WAS HELD IN JUSTICE PARK (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JACKSON PARK)." THANK YOU. WildRose13 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And please stop TYPING IN ALL CAPS. It's annoying and unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You can't fight caps with caps. Just leads to more caps. Give tolerance a chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Why is the infobox photo of the counterprotesters? Shouldn't the "main" protesters themselves be pictured (in addition, at least)? --Yalens (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Because we're still waiting on them. Despite the ubiquity of smartphones, not that many people know about Creative Commons or Wikimedia Commons. There's nothing yet whatsoever on them, or on Flickr for that matter. That said, the police have asked for video footage of the vehicular homicide in particular, and that ipso facto becomes a matter of public record once it hits court. kencf0618 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

At least 30 attacks by white terrorists since 9/11

A New Yorker article[1] says "There have been at least thirty attacks carried out by white terrorists since 9/11; the victims of those attacks constitute the majority of people killed on American soil in acts of terrorism." The list of such attacks is [http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/white_extremist_murders_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html?cq_ck=1486485587473 here. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? We cannot yet list this event as a terror attack, even though it seems very likely; we can perhaps report that others have called it this, but it is a developing situation and we cannot violate WP:BLP DoctorPaveleer (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Should not violate it and should not include this. But as long as editors are looking at the news for answers, anything's possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorPavleer: I wasn't suggesting including this yet. And I've already said above that we shouldn't list this as a terrorist attack. It's just here in case it becomes relevant. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If your just pointing out the reference, then I would recommend adding it to the RefIdeas template at the top of the page to make it easier. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A New Yorker article says "There have been at least thirty attacks carried out by white terrorists since 9/11; the victims of those attacks constitute the majority of people killed on American soil in acts of terrorism." The New Yorker article reads like an angry opinion piece or editorial.

The cited Slate.com article uses the SPLC list of 33 deadly attacks carried out or believed to have been carried out by white extremists since Oklahoma City with a total of 71 victims 9 Oct 1995 to 20 Mar 2017. 72 total when you add 1 killed by James Fields on 12 Aug 2017 at Charlottesville VA.

Lookingat acts of terrorism on US soil:
49 killed by Omar Mateen on 12 Jun 2016 in the Pulse Nightclub Shooting in FL
14 killed by Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik 2 Dec 2015 at a holiday office party in San Bernardino, CA
13 killed by Nidal Hasan on 5 Nov 2009 at Ft Hood army base in TX
76 total in three of the more prominent attacks on US soil by non-white extremists.

This an an example of why op-eds with laxer standards than actual journalistic articles should not be considered WP:RS -- Naaman Brown (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Arabs are marginalized, socially, but still white, chromatically. And legally, at least till 2020. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sheryl Gay Stolberg tweet - cherry-picked, misquoted, & WP:UNDUE

Ok, she's a NYT reporter. But her tweet hasn't been discussed in the media, so I don't see why it should be in our article. And she's misquoted. She first said ""The hard left seemed as [violent] as alt-right. I saw club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park." Then she corrected herself: "Rethinking this. Should have said violent, not hate-filled. They were standing up to hate." In any case, it doesn't belong unless it's given major media coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Choice of video for Challenger conflict

I see one video but there are multiple video of that. For balance I think we should show all of them. Otherwise how do we choose which video? Each can possibly sbow details the others miss. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: We cannot show all of the videos unless they are licensed with a free license and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.  Seagull123  Φ  21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

But we can link to any news stories with the videos embedded. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... but not that useful unless we organize them. Can we get a tally for the number of unique view we can reference that way? We should come up with names for them, probably based on where camera is in respect to car. Should we use nautical terms? ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not great at counting, but like the nautical idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Addressing Trump's Aug. 14 response to criticism?

Trump has within the last hours made another speech where he specifically condemned the white supremacist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, etc. groups that he has been criticized for not specifying initially. Should we incorporate this into the article? If so, where should it be placed? I have a feeling this could be contentious so I thought it best to bring to the table here first. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 18:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be incorporated somewhere. Chronological order is best and clearest, so: (1) initial statement; (2) backlash to initial statement; and (3) revised/more specific statements. Neutrality^talk 18:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

Remove any mention of Proud Boys. They were not at the event, and the event had been disavowed by Gavin McInnes before and after it occurred. ColoradoProudBoy (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Morphdog^{what did I do now?} 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Article for Heather Heyer

I thought it may be a good idea to add an article on the victim of the car attack at the rally after seeing the following article about how to stop bullying: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/health/finland-us-bullying-prevention-trnd/index.html Here's a quote from the article: "If you can get the bystanders to focus on the victim and not the bully, then bullying isn't a very rewarding thing to do,"

I would say that Heather Heyer meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines since she was the subject of an international news story. Here is a sample article I found just when reading the local newspaper of a city I am going to be vacationing in in a few weeks.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article167229392.html

I added a starter link before but it looks like it got reverted. It would be nice to try Finland's approach to see if it could work here.

Synesthetic (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It goes against WP:VICTIM. Mention in the rally article is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB. It's against WP:VICTIM. —Javert2113 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. The notability guidelines themselves would have to be changed to give victims more focus through articles. Synesthetic (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that an article has been started anyway - I tried WP:PRODding it, but that was challanged - it is at AfD here Twitbookspacetube 05:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay so I am behind my time. Yes there is a whole article Heather D. Heyer with tons of references to other articles but it doesn't appear notable per the guidelines. Synesthetic (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

People who got backed into

reversing at high speed, hitting more people.

I didn't see the ones who got hit by the forward drive doing anything, but we should mention how the people who got backed over were chasing the vehicle and clubbing it with various implements. Is there no source mentioning that? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You reproached other editors in the above section for engaging in WP:OR, then comment this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I called OR for making assumptions of motive, not describing obvious events on the video. Ramming with cars and beating with bats is obvious. The motive behind either is not ours to say. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Peter, what I mean:

• rt.com https://www.rt.com/usa/399496-charlottesville-car-attack-violence-facts/. The vehicle stopped only after colliding with another car. Several counter-protesters attacked the vehicle with bats, smashing its windows {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Hot Air http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/12/violence-charlottesville-driver-slams-crowd-1-killed/. Meanwhile, there is still some confusion over whether this was intentional or not. From a reporter who was on the scene:
  The driver was taken into police custody right after the incident. Police say the car was covered in dents prior and apparently hit by a bat
  — Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) August 12, 2017
  His car was being swarmed by protesters and some of them were getting violent (like the guy who punched me/threw me down) {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I am inquiring if any other descriptions of the bat attacks on the car exist already to be quoted from. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really relevant that someone who murdered a woman and injured more than a dozen others by driving his car at high speed into a crowd of people had their car window broken with a bat in an apparent effort to stop them from feloniously fleeing from the crime scene. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, these are not reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean, Taylor Lorenz might be but I'm not clear on how exactly they're being invoked here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. RT and a blog? Come back with reliable sources if you want this added. --Yalens (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Counter-protesters or counterprotesters?

Pick one and stick with it. I like "counterprotesters" myself, and American English sources seem to agree. But consistency in either is also good. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I also prefer "counterprotesters". CJK09 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

While I'm generally a fan of em-dashes, "counterprotesters" is the best way to go here. Javert2113 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

KKK crimes?

As the KKK are participating in the rioting and fighting, would the category Ku Klux Klan crimes be appropriate? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. Unsure if KKK presence can be confirmed. Still, do it, and boldly. Javert2113 (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? KKK members have been found guilty of crimes already? Doug Weller talk 09:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything saying that the KKK attended the rally. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can post this yet, they haven't really committed their typical "crimes"... Just basic crime like everyone involved right now Gvstaylor1 (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

August 15th

I removed this paragraph:

On August 15th, many protested Trump's handling of the situation and the speech. In response, at least 16 Trump supporters yelled Make America White Again with others saying similar quotes.

I don't see why it should be in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

attributing witness testimony by name like Today and Gilmore

In any case where we include witness testimony, if mainstream media is releasing their name then I believe we should be including that so we know who is saying what.

https://www.today.com/video/charlottesville-car-attack-witness-the-driver-had-intent-to-do-harm-1023577155868 for example

Brennan Gilmore, who was amid the protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday and witnessed a driver plow a car through a crowd of protesters, tells Sunday TODAY’s Willie Geist that the atmosphere was tense since “the beginning of the day.” Gilmore adds that “from the very first moment, it was very clear” the car incident “was a deliberate act of terrorism.”

In this case since Today has mentioned that the witness calling it deliberate terrorism is Gilmore, it would be prudent to come forward with that.

One value in doing this is it allows us a better idea of the number of witnesses making similar statements. Without names it is unclear if it is a small number making multiple statements or a large number making 1 apiece.

Obviously if witnesses are uncredited in MSM they should stay that way. Named ones should get priority though as they are easier to organize and more verifiable. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a newspaper though, this article does not need to include a list of eyewitnesses, especially if they are just private citizens. TheValeyard (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And Joe Q. Public shouldn't be teaching encyclopedia readers what's clear and deliberate terrorism. There are trained professionals for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is saying witnesses are there as authorities, they are more like evidence that is weighed. Also, is Brennan Gilmore just a Joe Q. Public private citizen? I heard he worked for the U.S. government in some capacity. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The government hires countless private citizens. Some identify and analyze terrorism, some bring IT jobs to underserved communities in rural Virginia. Gilmore's the latter. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That sort of "discussion" is taking place on fringe nationalist places like the Daily Stormer, not legit media. There is no need to name non-notable people in this article. TheValeyard (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2017 Charlottesville attack

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.

---

This is an unnecessary content fork. A car attack at a notable rally/protest doesn't need its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. There is no way a rally is more notable or prominent than a terrorist attack. HOT WUK (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge: There is no display notability that dictates a separation of the car attack from the protesting and rioting. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge: Said attack was in the immediate aftermath of the rally, during the time which the rally was to have taken place. Thus, said attack was inexorably part of the rally. Javert2113 (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely support, the car ramming is definitely a part of the...whatever is going on there. ansh666 21:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge for now: The rally was not that notable until the violence occurred. I think that keeping them as separate events will help sort out what is going on. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I saw plenty of coverage of them with their Pier 1 tiki torches last night. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Not saying that the article was not notable before the attack, but more that the attack itself made the rally more notable on a national scale. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Amended to Support Merge to 2017 Charlottesville attack: Since everyone wants just one article, then that is fine. However, the more notable article at the present time is the attack article. I do have the position that if either merge does take place, then the resulting article will likely end up overwhelmed by what I believe are now two seperate, though related, situations. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - Support the merge of these articles into one, until such time that information about the attack overwhelms the rally article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - media coverage is already overwhelming the rally itself, hence the reason for its creation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - Support the merge of these articles into one. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge- Car attack took place during the riots, thus should be included in the article about the riots. There were other clashes as well where people got injured.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge when concensus is reached by editors - 2017 Charlottesville attack is a skinny article and relies heavily on 2017 Unite the Right Rally for context and sources, so right now it looks like it should be merged unless more content and background becomes available to justify a standalone article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Octoberwoodland: Actually, this article borrowed its material mostly from 2017 Charlottesville attack. When I started the Charlottesville attack article, there was literally just a sentence and two citations on this article concerning the attack. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • This article already had quite a bit of info. The "attack" article only has a few sentences total, all of which can be merged here if not already covered. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - Per above. Wikipedia:Notability (events) for the attack will unfold with time, but non-routine coverage is likely to be of the attack as part of the rally. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - event not notable outside of its main article about the riots. XavierItzm (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge to 2017 Charlottesville attack – It is attack what make this story international. Rally can be described in Background paragrph. Also attack did not happen at Unite the Right Rally but at counter–demonstration. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - this incident is considered by sources to be a part of the events of the rally. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge Same story, and what LukeSurl just wrote. Can an admin please merge it now? I see only two Opposes and an ocean of Supports.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge per nom – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 22:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge. There's no discernible reason why the car incident would merit a separate article from the rest of the overall event it happened at. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge. However, I would say to rename/merge into "2017 Charlottesville attack." The protest itself was notable, but the attack incident has overshadowed the protest (in the media and public conscious). People searching for this article most likely won't know it's located at "2017 Unite the Right rally." Enter Movie (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge: Doesn't meet notability at all to justify the event having its own article. These types of hit and runs have happened at US Rallies before and none have had their own article either, despite receiving similar media coverage (which is minimal).Spilia4 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Both the rally (which attracted massive media attention even before the attack) and the attack (which is now being widely described as a terrorist attack) are independently notable. Have a section about the attack in this article, with a "see also" link to the full article. CJK09 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Merge, this has more value placed within overall timeline. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge with "2017 Charlottesville Attack" as page title. The rally was non-notable, the terrorist attack certainly was. HOT WUK (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - There is nothing useful or convenient about having two separate pages. The attack article should be merged and redirected here to the event itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - Currently not enough information in the other article that warrants its own article.F2Milk (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge: The car attack is a significant part of the protests and should be part of the main article. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 02:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merging. It's an integral part of the rally. Not necessary to create a new article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - event would not have been notable had the attack not taken place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsmith123456 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge with conditions - Support, however, only on the basis that "rally" be taken out of the article's title. This incident has become more than just a rally. In fact, the tragedy overshadows the original purpose of the rally. Kent State shootings is a good example to compare to. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge, either this into that or that into this, the former more preferable since this article was created first. There's simply no reason why there should be two articles. SkyWarrior 04:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - events are inseparable. Neutrality^talk 04:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge and keep as independent page, this incidence is entirely notable independent of the rally. The rally article can both mention the attack and still also link to the attack article. Jacarandacounsel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The rally is also notable in and of itself due to its obvious controversy Jacarandacounsel (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge These two articles are symbiotic. The rally itself wouldn't be a leading story around the world if nobody had died, and this attack specifically took place at the rally. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge: Violent criminal act taken as part of another major notable event should be listed on that page unless information comes up leaving a reasonable person to believe that attack was preplanned and entirely separate. Oathed (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge of hyperbolic content fork--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge: all the same subject, sub-page is unnecessary.Chimino (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge: Concur with Alexsmith123456. nihlus kryik (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge of car attack to this article. The rally was already very notable, even before yesterday. The car attack was part of it but not a separate preplanned incident. I have no doubt that the rally would have (and already was) a major story internationally. Aljazeera is one instance of coverage before the attack.[2] The car attack was tragic indeed but was a result of the rally, it is still the rally that should be the major focus and the name. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 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.

Original research concerning riots and civil conflict

The tag is about the article having "original research or unverified claims", specifically the claim for riots and the infobox. There are no sources for either in the article and the lead mentions "street brawls", not riots. Nor are riots discussed in the article which would be necessary. Before anyone starts citing any headlines (the WSJ has one) mentioning riots, headlines are not reliable sources. They are written by special headline riots and are designed to catch the readers' attention but don't necessarily accurately reflect content. I've even written a few for the Miami Herald in my youth. A riot is mobs running through the street looting and vandalising. For instance, see 2017 G20 Hamburg summit or the 2017 Rinkeby riots. As for civil conflict, the same issue came up at 2017 Berkeley protests and was resolved by an RfC with a clear conclusion against including it.[3] Doug Weller talk 09:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The "riot" word been taken out of the infobox (these words are, indeed, not really used by the sources), so I've removed the tag. Neutrality^talk 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait, upon re-reading: do you additionally object to the use of the {{Template:Infobox civil conflict}} at all? The template documentation says that the infobox "may be used to summarize information about a particular civil conflict (for example, protest, clash with police)" — the example given is 2011 Wisconsin budget protests; it's also used on articles ranging from Baltimore police strike to East L.A. walkouts. Because "civil conflict" is such a broad term, it would seem to apply here. Or are we missing something? Do we want to use Template:Infobox event instead? Neutrality^talk 09:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: thanks for restoring the tag. Yes, I think the civil conflict infobox is inappropriate here. For one thing, where are the sources showing that this label passes WP:UNDUE? And inevitably calling it a conflict means you need at least two opposing sides, so people would add in groups that they consider were on the "other side" inappropriately. I see no reason for it to be at any of the others either unless we are going to call all protests and strikes civil conflict, which I think would be ludicrous. Yes, the Boston strike was preceded by " a campaign of intentional misbehavior and silliness" but I don't see that or a strike as a civil conflict. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not that important to me whether we use Template:Infobox event or Template:Infobox civil conflict, but I don't see what this has to do with OR or DUE. A "civil conflict" just means some sort of non-military conflict. So a violent protest like this one would seem to qualify. (Note that the City of Charlottesville declared a state of emergency based on an "imminent threat of civil disturbance, unrest, potential injury to persons, and destruction of public and personal property."). We use it for 1999 Seattle WTO protests, too. And there is a way to display the template so that it doesn't show two opposing sides: an example is at 2010 G20 Toronto summit protests. Neutrality^talk 10:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

While the article appears to have been posted to the front page a bit hastily, I think it's pretty blatantly obvious that there were "at least two opposing sides" here, i.e. the protesters and the counterprotesters (who according to sources were battling in the streets outright), as well as law enforcement, headed by local and and state officials who have expressly condemned the right-wing protesters. The inbox has been updated accordingly and only continues to be updated with reliable sources. No one said that we should call "all protests and strikes civil conflict", but this obviously wasn't simply a "protest", as confirmed by every single source; on the contrary it appears to be one of the more significant civil conflicts in recent American history. The inbox is being used in accordance with standard practice and its own documentation, and the claim of OR is a bit confusing, especially since it's been unilaterally tagged without a specific content concern... Which specific unsourced claims in the article do you feel are only supported by original research? If the inbox issue is the only concern, that is simply a formatting issue rather than a sourcing issue. Swarm ♠ 10:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The statement that it is a civil conflict is unsourced. @Swarm:, whatever we think about it, that needs sourcing. This is one of the issues with infoboxes, they can be used, as in this case, to label an event or person without a source and all I see so far is original research (which is ok here on the talk page, but not in the article. Maybe the state of emergency was to ward off a potential civil conflict, and it seems to have worked. And yes, there were street brawls. Battles seems a pretty strong word to use. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Doug- please make sure you take any discussions on sourcing to the appropriate venues, and don't waste too much time here. Unfortunately, 'Swarm' is an open partisan on the matter of the War of Northern aggression, and he seems strongly committed to suppressing sources that show his views to be of no value. 27.252.28.26 (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I took it to WP:NORN and forgot to mention it here. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The civil conflict infobox needs to go back up. As mentioned above, this was one of the most important civil conflicts in recent memory, and the infobox was well cited. Of course it played out very different from Bundy standoff, Ferguson unrest and Dakota Access Pipeline protests, given the street battles and the vehicular homicide. It's worth noting too that Heather Heyer was a member of the (erratum) Industrial Workers of the World, and was marching as such when she was martyred. Political street battles in America, à la Weimar Germany or otherwise, require their infox. kencf0618 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not like Weimar Germany at all. I don't see how you can compare them. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Others have. Tiki Weimar, one might say.

http://tracinskiletter.com/2017/05/16/weimar-america/

https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/learned-nazis-came-charlottesville/

https://padresteve.com/2017/08/13/bloodshed-in-charlottesville-the-nazis-are-the-enemy/

kencf0618 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"Jews will not replace us"?

Are we sure that the protesters chanted "Jews will not replace us"? I haven't seen any videos or news coverage showing the protesters chanting "Jews will not replace us". I've only seen them chanting "You will not replace us". Is it possible that the reporter misheard what they were saying? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

But I thought it wasn't the role of Wikipedia editors to decide if a reliable source is right or wrong, if they have reported on an issue, then editors are bound to report it? TheValeyard (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The source does not contain that statement so I have removed it. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a video which says in the title that "Jews will not replace us" but a comment says it's "You will not replace us". Another video of the same event (the Friday night thing) is clearly "You will not replace us"[4] but I think the comment that someone shouts "Jews will not replace us" at 16:37 is probably correct, particularly coming after a comment on "race traitors". It seems inevitable that some people would be shouting Jews. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

16:37? I'm not hearing it. Someone might have said it at 16:31, but it's hard to tell. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the jews are statistically disproportionally leftist so its not wonder they chant it, though you pose a good question that should be included in the article:Were they fighting against anti-non Semitism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.2.20 (talk • contribs)

The original citation of the Washington Post was incorrect, so I have restored it and pointed the citation to this New York Times article, which says both "you" and "Jews" were used. TheValeyard (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: But we do get to decide whether a source is reliable or not, and there seems to be a lack of collaborating sources. If 10 sources say A, and 1 source says B, you go with the majority. Also, read the disclaimer at the top of the article: "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable ". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So you think you get to decide that the New York Times is unreliable just because no one else has reported on this? How curious. Regarding 16:37? I'm not hearing it. Someone might have said it at 16:31, but it's hard to tell above, you think your lone opinion is important while a Times reporters is not? TheValeyard (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We need multiple sources, see WP:UNDUE. I suspect the ADL will have reported it. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Aside from Washington Times and New York Times, other RS are reporting the phrase: NBC ([[5]]), Times of Israel ([[6]], [[7]]), Haaretz ([[8]], also [[9]]). Forward also has an entire article on the targeting of Jews in the rally, including the phrase "Jews will not replace us" -- [[10]] -- but also where the Jewish reporter was assailed with Holocaust denial, "you look like a Shlomo", "take down that wall in Israel" and other lovely gemstones. Haven't found anything by the ADL for this yet. However the ADL did note earlier that "You will not replace us" is also [linked to anti-Semitism and white supremacism].--Yalens (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So we have corroborating sources but it could just be an echo chamber, one reporter repeating another report's mistake. Supposedly, this video[11] shows the white supremacists chanting "Jews will not replace us" but I've watched the video three times and all I can discern is "White lives matter" and "anti-white" (I think?) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I heard "anti-white" also. I didn't hear "Jews will not replace us" or even "You will not replace us", so I don't understand the title. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is discussion suddenly redirected to this one video, while all the sources are ignored? Echo chamber in this case? . If RS criticize this later as a case of an echo chamber, then you have a case to make, but this is premature at best. We have five different sources (NYTimes, WaPo, HaAretz, ToIsrael, Forward) noting the phrase-- and even the (original?) variant "you will not replace us" was noted earlier as anti-Semitic/white nationalist (ADL:[[12]]) -- reflecting the fear that whites will become a powerless minority in the face of changing demographics due to an alleged “rising tide of color” purportedly controlled and manipulated by Jews (commentary by the ADL). In fact, rn this is not reflected on the page.

As TheValeyard already excellently pointed out, it isn't the job of Wikipedia editors to fact-check RS reporting (or speculate that the reporters engaged in an echo chamber), especially when there are no sources presented as of yet that dispute that it was said. Listening to one youtube video and reporting that you fail to hear it seems like literal "original research".--Yalens (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I find it a bit concerning that at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections an editor said "It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that WP:Reliable sources are wrong. If numerous reliable sources have reported on this (which they have), it's our duty as Wikipedia editors to report this." (cite). Yet in this discussion, the same editor sees fit to dispute the numerous reliable sources because they "can't hear it" in the video links. TheValeyard (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a false equivalency. In the case of the alleged Russian interference, there has been an official investigation by the FBI over the course of the past year or so. If I recall correctly, 16 differently federal agencies agreed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. In the case of this article, the topic is barely a day or two old. It's already been pointed out to you that it says at the top of the page "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable ". To the best of my knowledge there are zero federal agencies that have conducted an investigation which concluded that white supremacists chanted "Jews will not replace us". Further, unlike the Russian interference, which was conducted in private, these protests were held in public with numerous witnesses and videos recording the protests. Honestly, I'm not sure why you find this confusing. Please don't take my words out of context; I know what I said, and the situations are completely different. I ought to know; I'm the one who said them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not at all a false equivalency, it is shifting from demanding inclusion of sourced statements to demanding exclusion of sourced statements, where the only difference in the two cases is political. That is using the Wikipedia for further political advocacy. TheValeyard (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First, of course, it's a false equivalency, for all the reasons I've described and for all the reasons you are ignoring.

Second, nobody is demanding exclusion. I am simply asking a question. A question, I note, you haven't been able to answer. Please see straw man.

Third, what is political about factual accuracy?

Fourth, it clearly says at the top of the article, "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable " This is the third time this has been pointed out to you, but you still seem to have trouble grasping its meaning. Which part of it don't you understand? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your actions have spoken volumes, so trust me, you've been understood perfectly; multiple sources that paint a far right issue in a good light are good (Russia), while multiple sources that paint a far right issue in a bad light (allegations of antisemitism at a white supremacist rally) are bad. Consider this the proverbial "last word". TheValeyard (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What actions? I asked a question - a legitimate question. Do you see the title of this post? There's clearly a question mark in it. You are casting aspirations where none exist. Why would I want to paint the far right in a good light? That makes no sense. You don't know me IRL, and I'm not going to out myself, but just this morning I authored an article condemning the racism and violence in Charlottesville. But as much as I would love to include the accusation that the white supremacists chanted "Jews will not replace us", I would never say something that I cannot substantiate. Believe it or not, honesty and integrity matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Good thing that you like everyone else would love to have the fact that white supremacists chanted "Jews will not replace us" in the article. Luckily for you, while it is true as a wiki editor you can't substantiate it, you don't have to, as there are now at least 5 sources doing that quite well for you :). Cheers all. --Yalens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It could just be an echo chamber, one reporter repeating another report's mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Quest, at some point this becomes a problem that cannot be resolved. If we answer "Yes" to all of you questions from earlier and now, you still run into one major problem; that there is not a source that discredit what was believed to have been chanted. Not to mention that even with a single source, you would have a hybrid sentence of, 'X was widely reported to have been chanted, though disputed by Y' or such. Is there a reason to continue this further? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We're under no obligation to repeat something that might not be correct. We can simply omit this from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

But, are we under obligation to do our own research and accuse sources of being less than honest? All I see are five different sources saying what they heard. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Marchers used both

I posted a link to the Vice News documentary to external links:

• Charlottesville: Race and Terror, news report by Vice News, via Vice.com

It's clear that some marchers were chanting "You ..." and some were using "Jews..."; see segment from 0:15 to 0:30. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thanks. That clears up my concern. AQFK (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Death Toll

It's incredibly disingenuous to include the two police officers in the helicopter crash as part of the death toll, as this number is being used to imply that people were murdered by neo-nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.17.168 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

After all, only one person is confirmed murdered by neo-nazis, the other two are just suspected, yeah? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you are being facetious, but if not, are you seriously suggesting the alt-right people were using anti-aircraft weapons? Who is even speculating that this was connected to anyone on the ground? I agree with the OP, there should be more clarity. DoctorPaveleer (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

103.9.43.7 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC) This attempt to blame the protesters for a helicopter crash is blatantly racist. I wont be donating to wikipedia ever again.

• OK, it can be wrong, but there is no way in which it is blatantly racist. Das just stupid. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The crash was associated with this rally: had the latter not occurred, the former might not (if ever) have occurred, given the nature of the mission the two state troopers were on. Simple cause and effect. --Javert2113 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• No. It is not simple cause and effect until the cause it discovered. If for example, the cause was maintenance linked then the crash would have happened on the next journey anyway and the rally is no more than the reason for the fatal flight.Tinyhelper (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Someone on MSNBC today was playing with the thought that many of the "protestors" were armed and that thus, well, you know. This was nipped in the bud very quickly, fortunately. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The officers will be reported as a line of duty death to this incident, since they were responding to the call... Just like if a fire truck crashed going to a fire, they are reported as deaths of that fire. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Propose revival of subpage (split) : 2017 Charlottesville attack

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.

---

I saw that this page was merged to the overall Unite the Right page. While I was hasty (and reverted myself) in undoing the merge (I had looked on the wrong talk page), the conversation here appears to have missed the fact that RS media seem to be reporting mainly on the vehicular attack as a notable in its own right and indeed highly reported on incident, and it is the focus of their discussion. Thus they treat it as an event in it's own right and the rally as merely the context. Examples: Furthermore, before the merge, this page had plenty of information which was effectively deleted by the merge as it does not exist on the Unite the Right rally page. At the very least, the material should be rescued. Lastly, given the amount of information that is pouring about this attack-- and the perpetrator-- the material may ultimately be too much to fit on this page. --Yalens (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

References

• Support undoing merge as proposer. --Yalens (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support undoing merge both events (the rally and the attack) are independently notable and their descriptions on Wikipedia will only grow in size as more reliable-source information continues to pour in, and as we get a better sense of the aftermath. Having both events on one page will quickly become unwieldy and cumbersome. CJK09 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support reversing merge - the vehicular act of terrorism is clearly notable in it's own capacity. Twitbookspacetube 15:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose undoing merge At this point, all of the encyclopedic information we have about the attack fits easily into a section of this article. We can do a split in the future if it becomes unwieldy. There was a very strong consensus to merge the two articles but some disagreement about which title it should go under. I would lean towards changing the title to an umbrella term like "2017 Charlottesville civil unrest". Dlthewave (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support reversing merge. The merge was clearly a colossal mistake. Already, news outlets and commentators are calling the attack an act of domestic terrorism. See, e.g., today's Meet the Press. Furthermore, the attacker's Nazi leanings are becoming known. See, e.g., [13]. Domestic terror inspired by Nazi sympathies certainly trumps (pardon the pun) any "rally." This is going to be known as domestic terrorism. Readers will be searching for things like "Charlottesville terror attack," not "2017 Unite the Right rally." The rally will become known simply as the background context, a historical footnote of sorts. We need to come to grips with that. Editors jumped the gun on this merger—very, very badly. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Both this article and the merged one have been edited far too quickly for fast-moving news events. This can wait a few days, there's no rush. I'm pleased to see it called domestic terrorism, whether that label will hold I guess depends upon what's uncovered. Fields was involved with neo-Nazis, definitely. He'd also had treatment for a psychotic disorder. Is the car attack terrorism if the perpetrator was mentally ill? Doug Weller talk 16:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment whether or not the attack was domestic terrorism is a valid conversation to have, but I don't think it's equivalent to the question of whether it should get its own page, which is based on notability, coverage by RS, and whether it can fit here, among other things. I think it is much better for conversation if we keep it focused. --Yalens (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose undoing merge the page isn't so long as to justify the split, the previous consensus was clear, and it's WP:TOOSOON to make any clear case to separate the articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose undoing merge. The two events are inseparable. Just wait. Neutrality^talk 18:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Undo in two weeks Seems long enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Give it a few days, at least: things are currently moving too quickly to justify any major changes, including undoing a merge. Javert2113 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The merge closed as an overwhelming decision per WP:SNOW. The act of domestic terrorism (the car attack) was part of the larger act of domestic terrorism (the unlawful assembly). It's perfectly contained here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Unlawful assembly may be unlawful, but it's more disturbing the peace than terrorism. Hitting people with a car is closer to the grey area. Nothing in the First Amendment about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The car attack is an inseparable part of the unlawful assembly. Given that it's a group of KKK/fascists/whatever else you want to call them, I consider them all terrorists, terrorizing those who aren't part of the Master Race. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

How is a car attack an "inseparable part" of the unlawful assembly? I haven't seen anything saying it was planned as part of the assembly event (indeed, if I did, I might have to change my position). --Yalens (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Because this individual was an attendee of the rally. His act is not separate from the rally. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Every American public killer attended the church, school, restaurant, jobsite, nightclub, theatre or mall his bystanders and victims did, just for a different reason. Same deal here. It might feel better to find this crowd guilty, given their presentation, but it's no less illogical. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support undoing merge - I find it a bit troubling that we can have articles about car ramming attacks by Muslims but not of non Muslims. This attack was not a planned part of this rally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Knowledgekid87: Your comment suggesting that those opposing undoing the merge are opposing on religious or racial grounds is , to put it mildly, nonsense. Of course it wasn't a planned part of the rally. Most of what happened during the rally/protest was unplanned. But there is no reason to think it would have happened if the rally hadn't taken place, which is the major difference between this car attack and the premeditated Muslim ones you mention. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Doug Weller: In general I mean... We have far too many articles that can easily redirect to "List of terrorist attacks in x month" but are split off into separate articles because "abu Akbar". The fact is that this suspect was captured alive, meaning that there is going to be a public trial with additional coverage beyond the scope of the rally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose until the material on the vehicular ramming becomes too large to contain in this article. The guideline for content forking recommends splitting articles "as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Until this is necessary, I think it should stay here. Malinaccier (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - we just finished debating this and the consensus was merge. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the merge discussion above -_- ansh666 06:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral per that after the previous discussion, I no longer have much of an opinion on where it should go. However, I do feel the need to point out that the references at the talk page of the "2017 Charlottesville attack" article were not converted over especially since the RefIdeas template is still up on that article's/redirect's talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose split for now - Until the attack overwhelms the article, or until the article grows above 100 kB, the two articles should remain merged together. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:21, 14 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.