Jump to content

Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Removing "Antifa", and 'Showing Up for Racial Justice"

These groups are described and referenced in the "counterprotestors" section, and are not mentioned in the lede. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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 removed these two from the list of counter-protesters. There is no group called "Antifa", it is a movement or belief/ Beliefs and movements can't show up to a protest. Also "Showing Up for Racial Justice" does not seem to pass the notability test, they are only receiving passing mentions in sources about the protests today, otherwise they are just listed in Facebook groups, Twitter, and such. TheValeyard (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no group called "neo-Nazis" or "white nationalists" either, yet the reliable sources are clear that members of those movements showed up en masse. The same is true in the case of antifa - it may not be an explicit organization, but it's a movement that has received considerable RS coverage over the past year especially. See this Google News search. CJK09 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Antifa are decentralized and hard to track, unless and until they commit direct action. kencf0618 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you both failed to read the actual sentence in question. It begins with "Specific groups...". You can't list things that aren't groups in a sentence that talks about...groups. Neither "neo-nazi" or "white nationalist" appears in this section either. TheValeyard (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Antifa is loose & so forth, yes but certainly exists and ascribers do indeed congregate and showed themselves here. That they have no official organization/etc is immaterial. OR You must then claim the same for things like the alt-right. Central to WP is non-favoritism/bias etc. I.e. to apply your reasoning universally and without passion nor prejudice. Then this: "You can't list things that aren't groups" That they are disparate and loose/ad-hoc does not a non-group them thus make :). Also this: "unless and until they commit direct action." Plenty of incidents fit this bill one can easily bring up in any news search, either meta or focused.Sinsearach (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Once again, please read what we'r actually taking about here. Too many editors are knee-jerking and not listening. The passage in question begins with "Specific groups...", as it is a listing of specifically literal and verifiable organizational entities that took part in the counter-demonstrations. There is no organizational entity called "Antifa", thus listing the term there is simply nonsensical. TheValeyard (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
"Once again, please read what we'r actually taking about here. Too many editors are knee-jerking and not listening." indeed. Fear not, Ive given up editing except for grammar and punctuation. I'm just here to toss ideas back and forth in the hope of productive discourse. ""Specific groups...", as it is a listing of specifically literal and verifiable organizational entities" Ok yes, but "specific groups" does not at all necessarily mean they have to pass some arbitrary litmus test, least of all for anything "official" in terms of organization/etc. Besides, they can be verified to be groups that are just perpetual ad hoc movements with foundational motivations/methods that are quite unchanging but upon which the groups' "change" is almost entirely just ADDING to these. Finally: "There is no organizational entity called "Antifa", thus listing the term there is simply nonsensical." I finish thusly: indeed, but only if one holds your specific standard of existence of such a thing as a necessary metric to judge this contextual meaning by. Yes?Sinsearach (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I hold this standard. Antifa's a network of groups, not a group. I wouldn't call the World Wide Web a website for the same reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we list these in the body of the article, can we agree that these don't belong in the lead section? The sources indicate that the array of counterprotestors was broad, and there is no reason to think "antifa" was more prominent than, for example, college students or clergy. Neutralitytalk 22:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they don't belong in the lead: for example, we don't list all the protesting groups in the lead section, either. (Not that the two are necessarily equal.) --Javert2113 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
If a college student, clergyman or even a dormouse promotes antifascism, Antifa is prominent. But in spirit, not in members. There are no members. I can agree it doesn't belong. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I would not lump "college student, clergyman or even a dormouse [who] promotes antifascism" with Antifa; Antifa is more akin to the white supremacist "leaderless resistance" movement or the ISIS/ISIL inspired lone wolf soldiers (although they seem to prefer street brawls over killing), except Antifa members do meet and plan with each other where to go and what to do. The Coup Clutz Clowns showed up to mock KKK in Knoxville 2007 without engaging in mutual combat the equivalent of throwing water on a fire; Antifa shows up spoiling for a fight like throwing gasoline on a fire. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:34, 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.

Reactions: Scaramucci & more

I found the commentary by Scaramucci to be undue -- he was a WH official for just 10 days; his personal opinions are not necessary. Preserving here by providing this link. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say it is relevant. 1) He remains a relatively high profile political figure. 2) There are reports that he is still in communication with the President and members of the administration. 3) Given he has worked alongside the staffer he is criticizing, his remarks are certainly worth including.--Jay942942 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
A high profile political figure? I doubt it -- just 15 minutes of fame. Separately, I also took out the statement by Light Foot Militia. The group does not have a Wiki page and this statement struck me as undue. Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Even if it was 15 minutes, they're not over yet. He still receives considerable attention from the news media. This was also his first televised interview since he was fired, so it received a certain level of attention it might otherwise not have, and so his decision during it to criticize another staffer in relation to the events at Charlottesville is certainly notable.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree, K.e. Mr. Scaramucci was the last White House Communications Director, and though his tenure was only 10 days, his comments merit inclusion: he's already been cited in the New York Times, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2113 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

discussion regarding Proud Boys moved to separate section Power~enwiki (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Staged operation?

Infowars can never be used a source other than, perhaps, basic info at Infowars. This proposal is d.o.a. TheValeyard (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I second the previous requests to report on alternative points of view. More and more reports are coming out linking the violence to the work of George Soros and the CIA. [1] Wiki Intifada (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Infowars is absolutely not appropriate for any encyclopedic article. nihlus kryik (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not? But the fakestream media is? Wiki Intifada (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a conspiracy website not based in reality. See WP:PUS. nihlus kryik (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion; and I'm not saying the article has to say the reports are right. Let readers decide. As they say on FOX News, we report, you decide. Wiki Intifada (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a battleground. nihlus kryik (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
NPOV is the site's core policy. That means we report, you decide. Wiki Intifada (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
We? Are you part of Infowars? nihlus kryik (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No, that's what fair and balanced means. Different policy, meant to fill time rather than reflect general coverage. Wikipedia fills time with talk page discussion. If I may waste a moment of yours, I'll point out that we already cover this, using "fakestream" news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Despite coverage in two sources which aren't Infowars and the subject matter being far more media manipulation, anti-fascism and the Central Intelligence Agency, the shred of space we did briefly give this alternative view has been wiped clean for the crime of appearing next to Alex Jones' name and being imagined in his voice. Yet, if someone who wasn't the glowing red public face of crudely blunt antiestablishmentarianism and unapologetic stance toward his egregious factual errors said the same thing, it'd still be there. Stranger still, if the incredibly similar Donald Trump said it, the same people would expect it to be expanded upon. Purely because his millions of fans let him be the American President, rather than a mere highly-rated, fabulously wealthy and hugely influential entertainment figure. Neither man has any connection to this event. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Alex Jones stans confuse me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You want a really confusing one, try Stan Deyo. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

'Anti-hate groups'?

No actual suggestion for article improvement, closing. TheValeyard (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Clearly biased viewpoint. I need say no more.65.49.176.54 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want changes to the article, you do need to say more. Ideally, give a specific change to the article you want, or provide a reference to these groups being referred to in some other way. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That is self evident bias. If WP chooses to leave liberal spin in an article that is not my problem.65.49.176.54 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017

Chang it from saying "A gathering for members of the far right" to saying people with a right leaning view" 172.92.197.158 (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nihlus kryik (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
All major media sources use the term "alt-right". "Right leaning views" do not cover this kind of extremist opinion. Natureium (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

James Alex Fields

Should the article on the alleged perpetrator (James Alex Fields) be redirected to this article? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I boldly redirected given BLP1E and the ongoing discussion above EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Now we're in a situation where James Alex Fields redirects to an article that does not mention him by name per WP:BLP. Dlthewave (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been reading through the section here and on the noticeboard, The BLP argument has gained negligible traction as the majority of editors thus far do not agree with the reverter's opinion. So in due time, the perp's name will return to the article. TheValeyard (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see why we're waiting, the accused name should be included now; that's well within policy and the consensus is overwhelming. Rockypedia (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd wait for more BLPN conversation on it before re-introducing it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I don't understand your stalling on this. You have argued twice already that "We have a practice of naming the alleged attackers in other places." Why this obvious inconsistency on your part? Gaeanautes (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
He's not being inconsistent. He's being cautious, because this is a contentious topic, and it's probably better for the consensus to be firm before engaging in edit warring. It's the right call. The article isn't going anywhere. Rockypedia (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rockypedia: Now YOU are being inconsistent. You were impatient about the issue before, but now you have grown patient...? Strange development, I say. Gaeanautes (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Usually I can tell what a person is implying when they're being all passive-aggressive on a talk page, but this time, you've gotten so obtuse that even I can't figure out what the hell you're driving at. I suggest you be more like me, and get to the point. It saves time. Rockypedia (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
'Passive-aggressive,' ME?! I'm pushing the agenda of restoring the perpetrator's name into the article AND having a separate article created on the perpetrator himself! Now, THAT was to the point, thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Rocky is correct; it's caution not inconsistency. I'd rather see consensus than have this name on the article a day sooner. We all know his name and it will eventually be on there. But I'm also curious if and how we're going to deal with the BLPCRIME problem since it does seem to be against inclusion despite the common practice. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: As I have already pointed out on the Noticeboard, the WP:BLPCRIME guideline does not apply in the present case, since the alleged perpetrator is not relatively unknown anymore (as the guideline requires). The present case is much better covered by the guideline on WP:PERP, saying that "...the criminal ... in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: ... [T]he execution of the crime is unusual ... such that it is a well-documented historic event." Now, THAT is the reason why we should restore the perpetrator's name into the present article AND have a separate article created on the perpetrator himself, regardless of the fact that he has not yet been convicted. (It is regrettable that the guideline says "criminal" and not "alleged perpetrator" at this point, but that must be the subject of another discussion elsewhere.) Gaeanautes (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump: Counterprotestors should share the blame for Heyer's death

"President Trump on Tuesday said that counterprotesters at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville over the weekend acted violently and should share the blame for the mayhem that left a woman dead and many others injured. The president also defended those protesting the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue.

In a testy exchange with reporters at Trump Tower, the president called the events on Saturday a "horrible thing to watch," but he emphasized that both sides of the clashes contributed to the violence. This is a developing story. It will be updated."[2] More details here and here. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably getting close to the point of considering a "Reactions to..." spinoff article. We're at 27 paragraphs for the event, 20 for the aftermath. The latter will likely "develop" much faster. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Argh, should we make a "third statement" bit? After all, David Duke just thanked him for that. —Javert2113 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS - that said, [3] and other statements by Trump are almost certainly going to get enough media coverage that we may need to spin out "reactions / coverage of the news cycle" to some other article in a week. I agree that it shouldn't be done yet. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep, time for a "third statement" bit. I would oppose a spinoff at this time; the Trump follow-up episodes are a core part of the story and the article isn't all that long. Neutralitytalk 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
We'll spin it off as needed (and it isn't right now, you're right). Then again, we aren't a newspaper: let's wait a bit for reactions, etc.? Javert2113 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I generally hate these "reactions to" articles. It's usually Western powers/individuals statemtents condemning a terrorist attack, and terrorists praising it. This time though it might well be justified, because our president won't condemn Nazis without trying to blame the "alt-left" equally. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they're absolute crap. Which is why we started shoveling them into their own articles in the first place. Better contained in a dump than a potentially good article. But no rush. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

New section created. I assume that editors will add to it over the next few hours as secondary references emerge. I added [4] as a reference for "combative", it contains the transcript as a primary reference. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Don1184: please discuss your changes here before making further additions to the "third statement" section. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Renaming the park was a reason for the rally

Current status is that the name change is mentioned in the article but not in the lead section. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html

',More recently, Mr. Kessler became involved in the fight against renaming Lee Park — one reason for the “Unite the Right” rally this weekend. The rally was by far Mr. Kessler’s largest undertaking yet. Last week, he won an injunction in federal court against the city, which had voted to revoke a permit for the rally',

The obstreperous objection to the word "catalyst" is childish. Piecemeal reverting is the trademark of antagonists.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That source said "one reason" - you said "catalyst", which is an entirely different thing. Rockypedia (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, your edit summary, in which you said "Quit being a dick", is somewhat problematic. Rockypedia (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, Rockypedia, then adjust the edit: it is valuable information, and it was news to me. Seriously--we're all friends here. And while you're at it, please format the man from Nantucket's citation template properly, and change their "it's" to "its". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Jesus. Thank you.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I also think it's problematic to include it in the lead as if it's a major point in the conflict. There's one article that says that was one reason (I've searched for others, haven't found any) - does that rise to the level required to put it in the lead? I don't think so. Meanwhile, I've got the editor telling me in his edit summary "Quit being a dick" - is that what friends do? Excuse me if I mistook him for another vandal. It's not like there haven't been a ton of them hitting this article all day. Rockypedia (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it's leadworthy or not--that's a matter for discussion. I think its placing was a bit too prominent for my taste. We are all friends here, though, and friends can call each other dicks sometimes, even if they shouldn't: Nantucket man, it was dickish to call Rockypedia a dick. Now, Rockypedia, you have experience and some judgement--perhaps you can stick that comment where you think it fits (and fix that template--maybe your Refcite toolbar works, mine doesn't), and then we'll take it from there. And then I'll go back to looking at the work of those who are definitely not friends of our beautiful project. Thank you to both, Drmies (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You know what, where the Nantucketer placed it, it really follows quite logically from the sentence. "The participants protested the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials from public spaces, specifically the Robert Edward Lee Sculpture in Emancipation Park, a park which until recently had named for General Lee", or something like that. If we can do it concisely, I can see it. Also, I have no doubt that this lead will grow over the next few days, so relatively speaking this one will be less ponderous. And I can see the point of adding "renaming" to the first part of the sentence. Anyway, I will gladly leave that up to y'all. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It belongs in the "background" section at best. I'm also looking for another source that says the renaming was a reason for the rally. I have not found that yet. I don't know that one offhand sentence in one article is enough to single that out as a reason, when there were clearly many other reasons for the rally being called, which are already in the background section with multiple sources. Rockypedia (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No. The problem is naming Emancipation Park in the lead without the fact that it's renaming was the straw that broke the camel's back. The organization of the rally started in earnest after that. That is a sourced fact. Fort Sumter as it were. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source that says it was "the straw that broke the camel's back", or "Fort Sumter", or anything remotely similar to that, I'd be more than happy to add it and source it properly. I've been looking for the past 20 minutes. I have yet to find that anywhere. Rockypedia (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Did you not read the quote at the beginning of this section? more recently, Mr. Kessler became involved in the fight against renaming Lee Park — one reason for the “Unite the Right” rally this weekend. The rally was by far Mr. Kessler’s largest undertaking yet. Last week, he won an injunction in federal court against the city, which had voted to revoke a permit for the rally',. When one says "a catalyst" that does not mean all the catalysts. And The NY Times says so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs)

"Wow"? It says "one reason". You're literally quoting a sentence that makes a case against your addition. It's also the only source that says that, while there's hundreds of sources that mention the removal of the statue as the reason for the rally. Rockypedia (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, why did you call me a "dick" a second time on your talk page, and then remove another editor's warning about that? Rockypedia (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
One reason". And I said "a catalyst ". You are arguing over a word you seem not to understand. Have you read any definitions yet? Whatever, fuck "catalyst". Just say "a reason" then. As for calling you a dick, someone advised me to not call people dicks, even when they are acting like one.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Rockypedia, it is silly to require someone to ask for sources to verify their own comments; you know they are commenting, not proposing article content. I read the entire NYT article again, and it seems clear to me that the Nantucketer's proposed statement should stand, one way or another. Both of you, BTW, are in 3R territory; Rockypedia, you really don't want to be cited for "removal of verified content", and the argument that "the article didn't say 'catalyst'" is very meager, "catalyst" being a fairly reasonable term to paraphrase the article content. It may be only one source (right now), but it's a really, really good one, which looks in-depth at the involvement of one of the prime actors. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
How is it a "really really good one"? It doesn't say that the renaming was the main reason for the rally. That's what Nantucket is arguing. It says "one reason". Rockypedia (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Eh...are you serious? Because it's from the NYT. I don't care if that man says "the main reason", incorrectly--adjust the text. It was a reason. It is a good article. It is a valuable edit, even if it needs to be tweaked, and it's verified. You seem to be trying to find all kinds of little ways to keep valid content out, for reasons I can't fathom, instead of accepting the hand of collaboration and improving the article. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is Wikipedia, and it's sad. It's why I rarely edit. But I often read articles, and sometimes fix them. Today I read this article, and noticed that Emanicpation Park was mentioned in the lead°, but not Lee Park. Whatever, park names change all the time. But in this instance, it is extremely relevant to the article. The government tried to remove the statue but the courts have stalled them. They could and did rename the park, to give the finger to the those supporting confederate monuments. The NY Times gives this renaming some credit for the rally. So instead of using my salty language, I put a short neutral statement in the article. It gets removed because it was unsourced. FIne, I use a perfect source. Now complaints arise because they don't believe that "reason" = "catalyst ". Fine, change the word. Now it doesn't belong in the lead. This sort of behavior by regular editors is needling and bullying, plain an simple. This editor admitted to showing bad faith by assuming I was a vandal. How many IP and noobie editors have been chased off by this sort of behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 04:44, 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.

Reason as reported by the organiser

  • Comment -- the content struck me as undue in the lead, being just one of the reasons. It also came across as POV, as in: the white supremacists were provoked ("catalyst") into hosting a rally, as if they needed other reasons besides their ideology to hold a neo-Nazi / neo-Confederate / far-right gathering. If included, it belongs in the background section, and with attribution (i.e. Kessler stated that the renaming was one of the reasons... -- along these lines). But then the questions of DUE come up again; some sources have stated that they picked a largely liberal, university town because of the likelihood of counter-protests and the resulting media attention. So the reason vs pretext may need to be explored. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

'

  • FWIW, I don't care much about the word catalyst. "A reason" is fine with me. The location of the rally was central due to the name change.
But ACLU attorney Victor M. Glasberg said the Emancipation Park location is central to Kessler’s rally because it is home to the Lee statue and the controversy that has surrounded the city’s decision to remove and rename the park. It was until recently called Lee Park. McIntire Park, meanwhile, is named for the philanthropist who donated the Lee Park land and statue http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/judge-allows-unite-the-right-rally-to-stay-in-emancipation/article_9965d0be-7ee6-11e7-ab0e-f342e0cf9488.html That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I was behind times -- I was commenting on the "catalyst" statement as was present in the lead earlier ([5]. The above version diff by Drmies is much better. BTW, a statement from Kessler's attorney does not add much as he's not an independent source. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The statement was reported by a reliable source. They felt it was important enough to quote it. This and the NYT article certainly grants us editorial oversight to make a statement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs)
@That man from Nantucket: the source is now in the article; it was added by Drmies in this diff. It's much better in the section vs the lead, and with proper attribution. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Thats fine, but it doesn't alleviate the reason I added it to the lead in the first place; Put your mind into a reader and ask yourself what is a statue of Lee doing in emancipation park? Can you add to the lead "... which was renamed from the eponymous Lee two months earlier"That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Mayor?

Given the fact that some of the protestors were using anti-Jewish phrases/slogans, is it also worth mentioning in the article that the Mayor of Charlottesville, Michael Signer, is Jewish? Were they targeted at him? Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe the slogans were targeted at him specifically. General criticism of Jews is par for the course in alt-right circles. DoctorPaveleer (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Signer has been attacked for being Jewish a lot before : http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charlottesville-mayor-mike-signer-twitter-trolls-confederate-monument-protest/ . But I couldn't find anything discussing this in regard to this specific case. Maybe more will emerge as the situation clears. --Yalens (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Also--somehow I missed this before-- And when the white supremacists got their act together and gathered in McIntire Park, they shouted “Jew” every time the name of Charlotteville’s Jewish mayor, Michael Signer, was mentioned. [[6]]. Still probably too early to say his personality in particular was targeted as its also just a thing far right types are known to do for any and all Jewish people. --Yalens (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Injured people

The article states: "One protester plowed a car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing a woman and injuring 19 other people, including five critically. At least 19 people were injured in street brawls and other violence at the rally".
Are we sure that 38 people were injured? or is it 19 but counted twice?. Is it just coincidental that 19 were injured in fights and 19 injured by the car?.
An (incorrect maybe?) report says 3 dead, 35 injured. what are the official stats? : http://www.ajc.com/news/dead-injured-after-unite-the-right-rally-sparks-violence-charlottesville/a0503KqRkdC7clVDkkCjEP/.
A Guy into Books (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a good question. I've been wondering that myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The usual source of injured statistics is ER reports. I suspect the 19 injured in the car crash were documented. I would expect the number injured in street brawls has not been documented or totaled. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Protesters and counter-protesters

Wow, this is a hot mess of a section to read. Can someone convert this to a bullet point list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bad, but a box would work best, a table, that is, delineating the protesters and counterprotesters. I would do it, but I'm busy right now, and I don't know how. --Javert2113 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a mess, hopefully it will improve in the next day. Bullet-point lists in these types of sections are discouraged; I'm certain it would be reverted if I made that change. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

1:45 v 4:49

Correct time was 1:45, as shown by the preponderance of reliable sources, as well as Wikipedia edit history. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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.

Discrepancy exists regarding time of day the Challenge hit happened. Can we discuss what different sources have said about the timeline?

Also related: when was Heyer pronounced dead at hospital? Useful to know time lapse between car hitting and death affirmation.

I read she is being buried. Have any sources reported that an autopsy has been done? Or when it was done and who did it? Would assume this is standard for deaths associated with murder charges. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

At 4:49, TIKI® Brand denounced "the events" on Twitter, indicating they'd already reached deadliness. Maybe they're just really on top of their image control, but The New York Times says "before 1:45", and that's generally a trustworthy brand. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
hm okay, can you alias those next to the time w/quote? Any idea what happened at 4:49 then? Could the source I added be referring to time of death in hospital? ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what your first sentence means, but many ABC affiliates repeat "Police say the crash happened at around 4:49 p.m." All the same story, though, so they don't add up to something more than one guy getting it wrong. Even someone as upstanding as myself can be off by sixteen years or so. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This article first mentioned the crash at 2:09, so that's a pretty big disqualifier. Wikipedia has seen the future before, but there was a citation this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This nitpicking over negligible minutiae, along with the ponderous and borderline crass comments about the victim's autopsy, is becoming concerning. It is the kind of zeal one finds in the reddits and -chans. This talk page here is for discussion of actual article content, such as reliable sources, what we can use, how much should be written about different aspects, and so on. It is not for fishing expeditions or tossing out various conjectures to see what will stick and what will not. TheValeyard (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This discussion directly led to the correct time in the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
We sure? Are we taking time zones into account? If we decide on a best-sourced time, I think we ought to mention in parenthesis the sources which reported the wrong times. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
when an event happened is not negligible minutia, I relish stuff like this because it is something we can generally come together and.discuss with less heatedness. We are just checking the math of what sources provide to see how consistent they are. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:29, 16 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

Change "The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that the rally was "shaping up to be the largest hate-gathering of its kind in..."

to "The Southern Poverty Law Center, who is internationally known for their lawsuits against alt-right groups[1], wrote that the rally was "shaping up to be the largest hate-gathering of its kind in..."

discussed in the talk page. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gvstaylor1: Where is that discussed on the talkpage? Even still we can't use that citation to say that they are internationally known for their lawsuits against alt-right groups. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Scroll up? and why can't it? Its a citation from their website... Gvstaylor1 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't use self-descriptions - We are not interested in what people/organizations have to say about themselves, we are only interested in what independent, reliable sources have to say. - Arjayay (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.splcenter.org/about

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

PLEASE CHANGE THE WORD "PROTEST" TO "PROTEST AGAINST" OR "PROTEST FOR" IN ORDER TO BE CLEAR WHICH GROUPS ARE PROTESTING "FOR" THE REMOVAL OF THE STATUE AND WHICH GROUPS ARE PROTESTING "AGAINST" THE REMOVAL OF THE STATUE. THANK YOU. WildRose13 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Question: This is mainly for those that regular the page, but was this why the page was protected in the first place? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. per below. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Clarification about which group of protesters people are from would be good. How to describe them should probably be based on how sources do. Incase of conflict, go with most neutral. Some sources might simply generalize so this will be hard. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The wording definitely needs improvement. "Hundreds of protesters and counterprotesters were in attendance and several violent clashes between protesters and counterprotesters occurred." is a very poorly-written sentence. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Police ordered to stand down

This was originally confirmed by ACLU of Virginia at Twitter [7] but I had trouble finding any RS convering it except for HuffPost's Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville and DenverPost crticism of the slowness of the police [8]. Someone more articulate than me could easily add this component to the article. It is interesting because in Europe the police tactics will include keeping protestors and counter-protestors away from each other by any means, while in the US it's common at one point the police are just ordered to stand down and let the carnage begin. --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not them ordered to stand down, it's just them not ordered to stand between. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are a police officer sworn to enforce the law and protect the public and you witness laws being broken and people being injured yet you do nothing, then you are most definitely "standing down". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
There's doing nothing because you'd rather not, and doing nothing because you were told to. The latter would be far more noteworthy, but there's no mention of an order in those sources. That's all I meant. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, I really don't think you know very much about how law enforcement deals with mob unrest. The endgame is not confrontation, but rather containment. TheValeyard (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's an article which partly covers the lack police action.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ryan M. Kelly's photo

Ryan M. Kelly's photo seen here is garnering more and more media attention. I know wikipedia normally doesn't do fair use of AP photos, but this could be an exception, as the photo itself is becoming an increased topic of interest. Perhaps it could be put in the infobox under that reasoning or given its own article? We might have to wait to see how that pans out, but something tells me that we will here more about Kelly's photo in the future and this is something worth keeping an eye on.-Indy beetle (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The photo is becoming iconic. However, this is really up to the fair-use policy so need to ask people who are familiar with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In particular, the relevant policy is WP:NFCC. Here are the conditions which must be satisfied for use (only listing the relevant ones for brevity):

  1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
  2. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

IMO, I think these conditions are satisfied. There are other images of the rally, but there are no other equivalent images of the attack. And it does "significantly increase readers' understanding". But like I said, it'd be best to get an editor who has more familiarity with NFCC issues to opine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia File Upload Wizard allows one to tag an image under fair use as per the following: "This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article. The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows." I think that would support the inclusion of the photo in at the least in its own article, or if there's a section of the article that discusses it. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
In its own article, obviously. Not in a section of the article simply discussing the attack though, I think. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline says the rationale must include "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media." I guess someone could ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think part of the issue is that the attack itself had its own article but then it got merged here. I think in an article on the attack one could justify its use. Here it's not as obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Identification of the driver

Discussion moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#2017_Unite_the_Right_rally

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 have now twice removed the identification of the driver as an obvious violation of WP:BLPCRIME. @WWGB: re-added it despite the requirement to obtain consensus for edits challenged under BLP. I'm therefore starting a discussion here, as he ought to have done, though I can't see any realistic interpretation of the policy that would allow this to be re-added. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • 1. Don't ever ping me again, It's extremely annoying, reeks of WP:BLUDGEON and I have this page watchlisted - I WILL KNOW WHEN YOU REPLY!
  • 2. Lots of people become known for one event - and there are lots of reliable sources showing that this <redacted per BLP> is not just another face in the crowd. Twitbookspacetube 11:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Twitbookspacetube, I urge you to reconsider everything you said in this recent comment. Nowhere have you received a barrage of comments trying to force you to change your mind. So it does not, in any sense of the term, "reek of bludgeon". Please re-read that essay. On top of that, a ping is a curtesy extended to notify a user that they have been mentioned in a discussion and augment[s] (rather than replace[s]) the Watchlist. It is not a demand to reply immediately and with due haste. You're being unnecessarily hostile in response. Think for a second: How, precisely, would GoldenRing have known you had this article on your watchlist if you don't tell them (yell it at them)? given that watchlists are private affairs to which no-one excluding yourself has access to. And yes, I am intentionally pinging you to this comment. It's so that you don't have to scroll through the entire 150k byte talk page to find it. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't seem quite relevant, since the text does not say that he has been convicted. We say only that he has been arrested and charged, which is what the reliable sources reflect. Neutralitytalk 13:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You should read the whole section. We're all but explicitly calling them a criminal. In fact, we're including information that he is accused of commiting a crime which is a WP: BLPCRIME violation on its face. This person is a largely unknown person, and we're acting as part of a lynch mob on this article. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've read the whole section and do not see any place where we call anyone a criminal. It is not a violation of BLP to simply state that a person is accused of a crime, so long as we are clear that it is just that: an accusation. Neutralitytalk 13:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Really? This is right from BLP policy "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.[d] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[e] include all the explanatory information." (emphasis mine). This is just another media lynch mob that Wikipedia is getting involved in. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added the word, "alleged", but his name should stay. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It is doubtful whether than man is "relatively unknown" at least now. But even if he was, the policy says "seriously consider"; it doesn't say "must not." Where the man's name has been very widely disseminated, an individual is key to the story, and the text is be worded to make clear that these are charges and not convictions, BLP does not require or even suggest exclusion. As to "media lynch mob," I think that criticism of the media is not particularly salient. Is the BBC part of a lynch mob? What about PBS? These are not tabloid newspapers. The policy calls for us to exercise our editorial judgment and discretion. I hold the position that we should follow the BBC, PBS, etc. Neutralitytalk 13:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Seriously go re-read Blp policy. What's meant by relatively unknown is defined there, and it is not characterized by being thrown in the limelight by the media. The individual isn't key to the story. The actions are key to the story. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
First, the policy does not define "relatively unknown" - that determination is based on the individual facts of each situation in light of common sense. Second, the man was not "thrown in the limelight by the media." The attention was a result of the arrest and charges, not (for example) pundit speculation or gossip. The latter is the kind of the thing that would be omitted; the former is not. Third, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the man is relatively unknown, the policy does not say that his name must automatically be excluded, as I wrote above. Neutralitytalk 14:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
And how many arrests and charges make headlines. Go read WP: LPI It's the supplement to BLP policy that defines it. For your reference, WP: BLPCRIME refers to WP: NPF, which in turn refers to WP: LPI. Relatively unknown is defined the same way as non-public figure. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME uses WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE to define "relatively unknown". It specifically applies to people who fit into WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know (that's why I linked WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE above). My point is that WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE does not further define the term (it merely refers to "people who are not well known"). Neutralitytalk 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't provide a clear definition, however it does outline a group; people who are mentioned in article but are not notable (a word that has a specific meaning here) themselves. The driver clearly falls into this category. So the way I see it, BLPCRIME suggests we should be carefully weighing the pros and cons of adding his name. Right now, the only pro I see is raw inclusionism (it's an extra tidbit of information). The driver's identify doesn't change the narrative one bit. Now, if the driver gets significant coverage in the coming months, I can see adding them in then. But we have no tangible gain from adding it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I very much agree with you that "BLPCRIME suggests we should be carefully weighing the pros and cons of adding his name." This is indeed a balancing test, and reasonable people can come to different conclusions on where the balance comes out. My main objection was to the idea suggested by some others that BLP somehow bars us from naming people unless they have actually been convicted of crimes, which has never been our policy. Neutralitytalk 14:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Right now, I think it's very (very) clearly in favor of exclusion for the reasons given in my last comment. But of course, the consensus seems to be heading the other way here. Let's see where the BLPN discussion goes, as it's likely to attract some outside views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. The current text is appropriate and very well-sourced, and the man's name has been widely reported. The claim that WP:BLPCRIME mandates hiding the identity of those arrested is simply not supported (1) by the text of the policy; (2) by the reason for the policy; or (3) by our past practice (for example, Anders Behring Breivik and Dylann Roof were both named before they were convicted). It is, of course, true that we must be careful not to imply guilt, that we must be precise with language, and that we must be stringent with sourcing. But we can do that simply by tracking what the reliable sources say on the subject. Neutralitytalk 13:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion per discussion above. Also the reason why the common law tradition, which applies in the US, places so much stress on "innocent until proved guilty" is exactly that the identity of arrested and charged persons is made known. (The alternative being secret arrests and we know where THAT leads...)Daithidebarra (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BLPCRIME for now. Let's see how this progresses, in the case that this person is convicted of a crime. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per Dweller. His name can be added later if need be.Changed to Support. Subject has been arraigned as reported by reliable sources. This ain't a newspaper.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion: enough sourcing to bring down a proverbial elephant. My experience with these sorts of topics is that if Fields wasn't white, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sceptre (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. BLPCRIME requires that we consider excluding the name of the accused, it does not mandate it. In this case, the widespread international coverage of the name of the person who has been charged is such that I think we ought to include it. Indeed, the current omission of the name looks rather odd. Suitable language can be used to clarify that he is the alleged driver and has been charged, not convicted. Our readers will understand what that means. WJBscribe (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion -- the name has been widely reported, and its omission looks rather odd in the article. "Alleged driver" and other qualifications are appropriate and this has already been done, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion in due time, but not before a proper WP article on the perpetrator himself has been developed. By the time of writing, the current article on him has already proved him guilty, which is obviously against WP guidelines. Editors should direct some of their attention at this issue. I suppose the article could be reestablished temporarily as a #REDIRECT page until it is developed to a satisfactory level. Question: Why don't I fix it myself? Answer: Because my primary objective here is to draw other editors's attention to this article in order to have it developed! I think we need that article. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question How does this interpretation of BLPCRIME jive with the common practice of naming accused terrorists on related pages (e.g., 2017 Portland train attack)? We have a practice of naming the alleged attackers in other places. If this interpretation of BLPCRIME is sustained here, we'd need to scrub dozens of articles of alleged attackers. This seems like something that might be good for WP:VPP to consider as we do not follow the letter of BLPCRIME when it comes to major crimes like murder. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
good question. While I oppose inclusion for now (has he been arraigned yet?) we should look to precedent on other articles. Osama Bin Laden is a notable example. The Wikipedia fight over naming him a terrorist was epic. Admittedly that was a long time ago, but on articles like these passions seem to override good editorial judgment.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Of the couple dozen terrorism or murder-related articles I have on my watchlist, the issue of BLPCRIME was never raised when the alleged terrorist or murderer was named, even if they weren't famous like Osama bin Laden. It seems that there is a de facto exemption to BLPCRIME is the arrest was for murder or authorities have named a now-dead attacker in relation to a major event. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to naming him, especially now that he has been officially arraigned. But I am opposed to (as some of the comments here seem to indicate) to calling him a terrorist.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion - This is not a borderline case, the man's name has been widely reported by essentially every reliable source on the planet. It is, of course, merely alleged that he committed the crime, but the alleged perpetrator of a terrorist attack on peaceful protestors is, rightly, now infamous. This is not a minor, unremarked crime - the President of the United States has now had to make multiple remarks on the white supremacy that allegedly drove it. His name, identity and the reasons for his alleged radicalization are encyclopedic and relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion: On grounds of precedent, given the pseudo-murder exemption; notability, given statements from the Attorney General of the United States and the President of the United States; widespread coverage in the media, including in Charlottesville city statements, in the Washington Post and the New York Times (along with other outlets); the discussion above; etc. WP:CRIM allows for this, given the notability and documentation surrounding the rally itself. However, we indeed must be cognizant of WP:BLPCRIME: no article should be created bearing his name, and the presumption of innocence must stand at all times, until and unless he is convicted in a court of law. Furthermore, once the indictment is drawn up, a link to it (either through a source or an external link) would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Javert2113 (talk) 20:17, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_3&oldid=935332640"