Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Independent Trump section

I made a split off article for Trump's speeches on the matter, due to the significant amount of media attention, notability, and reactions.

Article is called Trump Speeches on Unite The Right

Thanks! MaineK (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC) (This was posted in the archive, and I am moving it here as a courtesy. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC))

Also, it needs a split off link in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaineK (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, they needed that. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That page is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trump_Speeches_on_Unite_The_Right. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from foreign leaders

As it is the norm in Wikipedia to include reactions from foreign governments to terrorist attacks, I added Angela Merkel's comment, and provided the news article in the citation, but it was removed by User:WWGB (along with something I didn't add, a leader of world churches), who said "the opinions of uninvolved people thousands of kilometres away is irrelevant":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&type=revision&diff=795784043&oldid=795783878

I think User:WWGB did this in good faith, but I was under the impression that we generally include reactions from foreign governments to terrorist attacks. Am I wrong?--Beneficii (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, they inevitably end up in a spinoff article called Reactions to the Unite the Right rally with lots of small national flags! You can see them all listed here. WWGB (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've restored Angela Merkel's reaction, because that is definitely relevant; those from other countries may not be. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've suggested reworking the Trump Speeches on Unite The Right page into an all-purpose reaction dump (Trump's could still have their own section and subsections). Might happen, might not. But nobody start a new one till we see what goes with that one. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I share the distaste for lengthy, flag-laden "reactions to..." articles. I oppose the idea that we should have any "all-purpose reaction dump" anywhere. We should keep reactions concise and in this article. A brief mention of foreign reactions (see, e.g., NBC News, Trump’s Latest Charlottesville Remarks Are Condemned Abroad) would be sufficient. Maybe 3-4 sentences. Germany is certainly relevant, for obvious reasons. It is worth mentioning that "The situation has also sparked renewed calls for the British prime minister to withdraw her invitation for Trump to come to the U.K. for a state visit...." (see NBC article) Neutrality^talk 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Why? I think it would be helpful to the reader to be able to see the reactions of foreign states, so they can get a sense of how international relations are being affected. Of course, we won't editorialize on that, but we can allow readers to make up their own mind.--∼∼∼∼

Robert E. Lee V reaction relevant or trivial?

Robert E. Lee's Direct Descendant Denounces Charlottesville White Nationalists: 'There's No Place For That Hate' (August 15, 2017) Mapsax (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Why was the assembly declared unlawful?

Does Virginia law allow the police to declare such things unilaterally after the governor declares a state of emergency? It is not clear why the police did such thing, and I cannot find sources to expand on this. Any help? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is more of a question for the Wikipedia:Reference desk, but since you asked: It was due to the violence that occurred before the declaration. The Code of Virginia, section 18.2-406 ("What constitutes an unlawful assembly; punishment") provides:

Whenever three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order, and the assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order, then such assembly is an unlawful assembly. Every person who participates in any unlawful assembly shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. If any such person carried, at the time of his participation in an unlawful assembly, any firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

And § 18.2-407 ("Remaining at place of riot or unlawful assembly after warning to disperse") provides:

Every person, except the owner or lessee of the premises, his family and nonrioting guests, and public officers and persons assisting them, who remains at the place of any riot or unlawful assembly after having been lawfully warned to disperse, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

--Neutrality^talk 20:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Neutrality: thanks, but is that your interpretation or do we have a reliable source to back that up? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think any secondary sources have discussed the law on it. Hence why we don't discuss it in our article. Neutrality^talk 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I just added a link to the Commonwealth of Virginia law about unlawful assembly. This should answer any questions. --Crunch (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Crunch: can you please provide a source to back up the claim that the police declared the asembly unlawful based on said law? Otherwise, it's just WP:SYNTH. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Come on. It's obviously implied that the police were acting in accordance with the law or their best faith interpretation of the law. Is there any evidence to the contrary? This is Wikipedia not a place for investigative original research doubting the police actions. Are we going to now question every stated action? --Crunch (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but on Wikipedia we must use reliable sources. For instance, the law states that an assembly is unlawful if "three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order, and the assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order." Do we have a reliable source that establishes (i) that the police acted based on said law or (ii) that three or more individuals associated with the protesters shared the common intent to use unlawful force? See the problem now? We have no sources that can back up either statement. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We have completely reliable and sufficient sources stating that the police declared the gathering an "umlawful assembly" and what an unlawful assembly is by definition of Virginia law. We have multiple links defining what an unlawful assembly is. What more do you want? Perhaps you are confused by the verb "declared" when describing the police actions and are confused that this declaration is a random or whimsical decision. If you read the law that's posted conveniently above, you should understand why the police declared the gathering as an unlawful assembly. Is it possible that the police did not apply the law properly? Sure. Just as it's possible that the police arrested the wrong guy in the car ramming incident. But it's not our job to debate whether or not the police applied the law correctly, only that they applied the law. --Crunch (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do have sources evidencing the declaration and yes we do have sources that define what an unlawful assembly is. But we do not have sources linking the two. What you propose is what we call WP:SYNTH: we have A+C and you state B in the prose, but we can't do that on Wikipedia. From reading different articles the only thing that we can conclude is that the state police declared the assembly unlawfu. But I have not been able to find a single reliable source explaining why they did so, nor has such source being provided. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read and familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTHNOT and in particular, this line, "the term SYNTH refers to Wikipedia's policy of forbidding original research by synthesis." Or this: "If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH." Or the rest of the article. There is not a shred of original research involved in drawing the obvious conclusion that because a) a law exists and b) police applied the law, then c) the police applied the law because they determined that the law had been violated. I am starting ot think that your continual badgering about this point is being done merely for sport and not for the purpose of creating a better Wikipedia article. --Crunch (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that shows that "the police applied the law because they determined that the law had been violated." That's the issue here; there is NONE. I'm baffled at how you fail to see this. You are linking A+C without having B. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You have been given this information numerous times, but for some reason seem unwilling to acknowledge that. Law enforcement in any jurisdiction is empowered to declare a gathering unlawful if the gathering is deemed a risk to public safety. That is the period, end, cherry-on-top, full-stop of this topic. It doesn't matter if you do not understand why, or if you agree or disagree with the decision...they have the authority to do so. Any citizen that has standing can of course sue the municipality or state if they feel law enforcement erred. TheValeyard (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

ACLU: Police told to stand down and allow violence to create pretext to shut down rally

From the Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia:

"It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an 'unlawful assembly' and clear the area."

Of course, everyone already knows that this is exactly what happened because the event was recorded in real time, but that hasn't stopped the mainstream media and Wikipedia from presenting a surreal, Orwellian alternate reality—and then acting shocked and horrified that President Trump would accurately describe reality. Come to think of it, I'm sure the ACLU is WP:UNDUE, or something.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Where in the articles does it say that police were "told to stand down"? By whom? It is quite a remarkable charge against police to assert that one of them would give such an order and that all of them would follow it without question. bd2412 T 18:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It says "seeming to". Wording is important. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's clearly the use of hyperbole by the author, who is explicitly attempting to place part of the blame for the violence on the city. To attempt to represent that as an established claim of fact in the article would be a gross disservice to the article.

Also, I don't see anything in that passage which would support any of the claims Trump made, so I really don't see where the "Trump accurately describing reality" bit come from. From all I've seen from RSes, Trump's just as wrong about this as he has been about almost everything else he's ever voiced an opinion on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Why were the far-right groups objecting the removal of the statue?

Can someone provide a source explaining why they were objecting the removal? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• You are welcome to add a source, but there is no valid reason for the tag: it is not a given that this should be explained. (Seriously, it's somewhat obvious.) Drmies (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I disgress. It's not obvious why far-right groups would object the removal of statue memorializing a Confederate general. Could you please explain the connection backed up by sources? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah. The far right likes the Confederacy, possibly because they admired the Confederacy's essential racist stance. Look it up. As far as your tag is concerned, "why" is not imperative for the article to answer, so your tag isn't warranted. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I disgress, the tag is warranted. It is imperative to maintain the tag because you yourself said "possibly," meaning that there could be another possibility. Thus, it's not clear why they were doing such thing. Can you please provide a source that explains why the protesters were objecting the removal of the statue? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm saying "possible" because I'm trying to be nice. Honestly, I don't understand why anyone who knows anything about this matter would ask this question. Does the pope shit in the woods? Drmies (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• For once, because not everyone who reads this article is someone "who knows anything about this matter." You and I can link the two due to our background. But can someone from a different background do the same? What about in ten years when the article falls into history and a new generation of readers stumbles upon the article? Will they be able to connect the two too? See the problem I'm trying to solve here? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ahnoneemoos: I think you're bordering on disruptive editing with your insistence on adding "why" tags to the article and repeatedly asking the same questions. There is a reference to an entire NY Times article [1] on the subject. Suggest a wording or something. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The constant "why?" by Ahnoneemoos when clear factual references and definitions are included in the article is becoming disruptive editing and shows either a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is or simple vandalism. --Crunch (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I read the entire NYT article. It doesn't mention why these groups in particular objected the removal of this particular statue. Please remain civil and assume good faith. I'm being inquisitive because it's not clear to me at all why they objected the removal of this statue. For instance, I myself could not care less becaue it's a statue and statues are meaningless to me. But to them this statue was not. Why was keeping this statue in place important to them? I have been unable to find a reliable source explaining this and no one has been able to provide one either. Yet, the tag was removed. I do not understand why, we are building an encyclopedia and we must explain this historical event to our readers clearly. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to provide either the reader or you with basic education on the ideology of white supremacy and their continued reverence of Confederate iconography, I'm afraid. It is enough to inform the reader that these groups opposed the statue's removal, and that they clashed violently with counter-protesters. That is all. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I disgress. It's not enough. An encyclopedic article must explain why they objected the removal of the statue. Otherwise the whole article doesn't make sense at all. Thankfully someone already added some background information so now it makes sense. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that's really beyond the scope of this article, which focuses on the rally. Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials can cover the background of why some want them removed and others want them maintained. People can click from here to there. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree and here's why: the governor of Virginia just said today on CBS This Morning that the rally was not about the statue at all. [2] But that it was instead about making "a show of [...] racist and bigoted views." Do you understand now why it's so important to explain why the rally took place in the first place? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The article links to Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials which clearly explains why people want Confederate statues removed. --Crunch (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Trim sections and fork

I made an independent article for Trump Speeches on Unite The Right.

I suggest we trim the reaction sections and move it to another article, but I don't have permissions. MaineK (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no point, as that article is likely heading towards a deletion. TheValeyard (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It was empty for most of it. I'm adding a lot more detail. MaineK (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Media coverage controversy

Thread is deep in soapboxing territory and not contributing to improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A major narrative I noticed was left out. Conservatives have been very critical of the media's narrative of the attack and thus the leftist perspective of it. The ANTIFA violence was ignored or even justified this way the media can attack Trump, and that anyone denying the narrative would be labeled a racist. GeicoHen (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Sources? Or is that your personal interpretation? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Here's an article about Antifa violence: What is 'antifa?' Virginia clashes bring attention to anti-fascist movement. AQFK (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Mentions Antifa violence occurred along with Nazi violence. But didn't say what GeicoHen said. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Here's another one about Antifa violence and does touch upon biased media coverage though doesn't go into much detail: Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise. AQFK (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) That source is very clear to present those claims as being made exclusively by some conservative partisans; if we include it, we also have to include the far more dominant perspective that there is zero moral equivalency between Nazis and anti-Nazis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC) That is definitely true. We should include articles about both the conservative narrative and the liberals disreputing the criticism. One of the main counter-criticisms is that while both sides were violent, only one side killed someone, and only one side lost a life.--GeicoHen (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Also, a CBS poll shows that more people believe the "zero moral equivalency" narrative than the "what about Antifa?" narrative. This should be cited too. --GeicoHen (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) What about this yougov poll where 60% of those that gave an answer besides "i don't know" stated that either both sides were equally violent or that the "anti racist" protesters were more violent. (About 45% and 10% respectively or 55% of those asked and 60% of those that gave an answer.) https://today.yougov.com/news/2017/08/16/trumps-domestic-crisis-charlottesville-and-white-n/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1C7F:C770:7CD1:56CD:C1AE:D0AC (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC) That is a grave misrepresentation of the facts. Here are the numbers: Which group do you think is more likely to use violence? 31% White nationalists 10% Anti-racism protestors 45% Both equally likely 14% Not sure Dlthewave (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC) WHat? You're literally just reposting what I reposted after saying that I "misrepresented" the facts. For those that gave an answer, 60% of people questioned believe that both were equally violent or that the left was more violent. What is FACTUALLY inaccurate about what I just said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1C7F:C770:7CD1:56CD:C1AE:D0AC (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC) You left out an important part: 76% of those that gave an answer besides "i don't know" stated that either both sides were equally violent or that the "white nationalist" protesters were more violent. Dlthewave (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC) That still doesn't make what I just said factually incorrect. THE FACT is that nearly half of those that gave an answer felt that both sides were equally violent. SO a majority of americans believe that both were equally violent or that the left were more violent. Only 40% that gave an answer felt that the right were more violent. True, a larger percentage said that the right wing protesters were more violent than said that the left was more violent, but "both equally violent" was by far the highest recorded answer, just shy of 50% of those that gave an answer. That certainly goes against the gist of what is being said here. Also, why is there no mention in this article about the police response? I can find people from all sides of the protest saying that it felt like the police wanted them to fight. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/police-response-charlottesville-trnd/index.html So just about every party to this thing believed it was a police set up, even the counterprotesters, but this is not mentioned once in this wiki article? Terry McCauliffe was also caught making multiple statements that were proven to be factually inaccurate. Why isn't this in the wiki article? https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/08/17/new-york-times-edits-out-damning-mcauliffe-quotes-charlottesville Most Americans are ignorant about how racist and anti-Semitic the far-left is because the left-wing media doesn't care about Jews, so they never report discrimination against us unless a right-wing person does it. What about the fact that the Antifa commies are just as virulently anti-Semitic as the Nazis they were fighting against? All other communist groups and Black Lives Matter hate us as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.242.252.8 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Hey IP from Yunnan, China-- please dont engage in WP:SOAP. Also, nice location you got there, I've heard it's a quite beautiful province that is a surprising place for someone ranting about the "far left" in the US :) :).--Yalens (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Online responses only has misidentifications

I noticed the online responses section only has examples of misidentifications. But Shawn Kind and others have made apparently correct identifions (which, allegedly, will lead to aren't warrants soon). If that does happen, I think we need to include the examples of "the Internet" identifying these perpetrators as well as the instances where they messed up. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I just added one from this article. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 18:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Automatically linking to the #Vehicular_ramming section

Something strange is happening to how this article is linked via Bing and Google. If you search for "charlottesville protests wiki" and click on the first link it will automatically redirect from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Vehicular_ramming

Does anyone know why its doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.125.226 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Because that is the redirect of 2017 Charlottesville attack. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also it has 3 top-links to this page... https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=unite+the+right+rally – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 20:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a false phrase or two in there, if someone with editing privileges wishes to fix it

Regarding the phrase "who demonstrated peacefully" in the section "Political responses"

Angela Merkel never used that phrase. Read the footnote. Appears to be a cleverly subtle attempt by someone to falsely propagandize with that phrase.

Recommendation, just delete the three words.

But it's even worse than that. The contributor wrote "and said she stood with the counterprotesters."

I see no evidence of that. That phrase also appears to be false. The footnote seems clear on this.

Do what you think is right. I'm unqualified to make corrections here.24.27.72.99 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is now fixed. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Other Rallies and Actions

Should we mention the removal of the Baltimore Statues overnight? [3]

And the KKK and neo Nazi are marching other places in the country following this. Should we mention this ripple rallies?

Gvstaylor1 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The statues issue has its own article at Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. The Baltimore statues removal is in the article. I don't see a need right now to mention ripple rallies, maybe in a few weeks when we have a better overview. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there's the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Deaths and helicopter crash

One editor changed "Deaths: 3" in the infobox to "Deaths: 1," stating that the two state troopers in the helicopter crash don't count as casualties because "They are completely unrelated to the rally except that the crash occurred at about the same time." This is not the case — the state troopers were monitoring the rally, and therefore they are deaths connected to the event. There deaths were likely accidental, but that does not make them unrelated.

The reliable sources reflect the idea that the deaths are linked to the rally. See, e.g., Death of 2 State Troopers Adds Another Layer of Tragedy in Charlottesville (New York Times); see also Associated Press: "The Virginia State Police helicopter that crashed, killing two troopers who were monitoring violent clashes between white nationalists and counter protesters in Charlottesville..." Neutrality^talk 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Related Wikinews article

There is a related Wikinews article: Wikinews:Ohio man charged with second-degree murder of Charlottesville, Virginia counter-protester Please link to it. (pinging @Acagastya:) -- MicahDCochran (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 20:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How can we add to the lead some context about the push to remove monuments nationwide?

Every Wikipedia article should stand alone on its own. What is missing from the lead is context to the backlash against confederate monuments and symbols after the 2015 shooting in S.C. Context is missing. Why was the statue even going to be removed? Why were they so upset over this particular statue? That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In this particular article, the general backlash should be mentioned but kept short for WP:DUE reasons. There is a List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America article/list and you could add some stuff there. Or maybe even start a separate, new, article on the removal of these monuments? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please check the lead and see if this is DUE.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the source explicitly links the removals to the rally, I think it's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The reference is unclear - who is "they"? The people who want the statue removed, or the ones that are upset over the removal? If the first, it suggests that you've fallen into a mental trap. There is no unified "they" here. There is an increasing understanding that the boy-scout version of history (white man, right from Adam, struggling to civilise the world) is not the most enlightened and enlightening view, and that there is a darker side to many heroes. Different groups show a spectrum of reactions to that understanding, with some of them deciding to remove monuments celebrating particularly ambiguous characters (note that the default state for most people is not to have monuments dedicated to them ;-). But there is no unified "them", unless it's humanity on its slow way towards a better understanding of the world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)And I self-award myself an invisible barnstar for the "most bombast in one paragraph" category!

As exemplified in Brooklyn and North Carolina. In Brooklyn[4] a plague honoring Lee was removed: "“Given all of the circumstances that we as a nation have experienced over the past week and several months, … it became very clear to all of us that this reminder of the oppressive nature of a time in our history that really needs to be righted, should be removed from the church property,” said Bishop Lawrence Provenzano, of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. “No one should walk by here, particularly members of the African American community, [descendants] of those who were victims of slavery, should be reminded of this past,” he added." In North Carolina[5] the Governor called for the removal of Confederate monuments from state property and their relocation to museums or historical sites. He also called for the legislature to reject a law being considered that would grant immunity to drivers who strike down protestors. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, you gotta be kidding me--such a law exists? In NC one can mow down protestors with impunity? OK, not forum, I understand, but really. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Not yet, just being considered. See [6] which lists other, failed attempts to pass such laws. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that much of the above is bullshit. North Carolina House Bill 330 aims to provide legal immunity from personal-injury lawsuits to motorists who exercise "due care" when driving but injure someone who blocks traffic while participating in a protest. the bill makes a point of saying that it does not apply to drivers who injure protesters through "willful or wanton" actions; nor would it apply to drivers who injure someone who has a permit to protest in the street. It also wouldn’t stop anyone from being criminally prosecuted -- it only applies to civil lawsuits. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Then why would the governor or anyone else object? Somehow I don't think it's that simple. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep the Discussion on the topic of this article. --Crunch (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I say, Let's be human and let's Stay Human. We all work here for free and need a little time together to chat. This was interesting and thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

An article talk page is not the place to get together and chat. There are plenty of places to do this. For more help about how Wikipedia Talk pages should be used, please see WP:TALK --Crunch (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, there are legitimate reasons to oppose such a bill even when one understands what the bill actually contains rather than the bullshit fake news "one can mow down protestors with impunity" version depicted here and elsewhere. For example, the North Carolina ACLU is of the opinion that the bill was intended to have a chilling effect on people that would discourage them from exercising their First Amendment right to protest, and was specifically designed to keep people off the streets. At issue is the practice of blocking traffic in order to protest. Let's say you are inching your car forward through an angry crowd that has no permit. Someone lies down in front of your car. You (slowly) run over their legs. Can they sue you for personal injuries? Does it make a difference if you don't see them (or claim that you didn't see them)? What if it is a fire truck on the way to a fire that the protesters are blocking? There are reasonable arguments on both sides. Another legitimate reason to oppose the bill is that North Carolina is one of the four states that have a pure contributory negligence rule, which means the driver is already shielded from liability if a jury finds that the protester was even 1 percent at fault for the accident. It can be argued that the existing law gives the driver enough immunity. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Three articles are available for readers to learn more about the history of Confederate memorials: Lost Cause of the Confederacy, Modern display of the Confederate flag, Commemoration of the American Civil War. Of the three, Lost Cause is the most insightful. That is, it discusses how the defeated Southerners (and following generations) sought to resolve their defeat. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Jason Kessler

There is an ongoing debate here about whether a separate page should exist for rally organizer Jason Kessler or if should information there should be merged into this article. I created the separate page because it seems this article is long enough already. His background is important to mention since the events leading up to the rally go back over a year. I'd like to get input from some more people on the deletion page.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Confederate statue destruction and removal

Besides the section here about incidents which followed the rally is there an article discussing either of these on a broader scale? An issue which precedes (and in fact caused UTR) would seem to call for a "main article" link from that section. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If you find such an article, feel free to be WP:BOLD and add the appropriate link. Dlthewave (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There probably should be an article about that. I might make it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather, I proposed a split at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America#Split? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

we'll @Miboshgu: you did at the Talk anyway... I see there is indeed a Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials now. Perfect. Although... Does that cover destruction by mobs or just when mayor decides to officially remove it legally? ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

simply Charlottesville

Lede..

(also known as the Charlottesville rally or simply Charlottesville)

Anyone find the latter a bit silly? Major events happening in a city may be referred to via the city's name in the short term by news media but... In the long term this really is never going to be a notable thing.

This wasn't Selma or Waco. This is like saying on WTC attack "or simply New York". Charlottesville is far too notable a city to suggest that just its name will be used in any great scope over time to refer to this event. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Charlottesville isn't a particularly massive city; it's mostly known for UVA. It's roughly in line with Ferguson or Newtown. GeicoHen (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Religious responses

Why is there a section for Religious responses, statement put out by the WCC is a blanket response. Really does not rate the inclusion sans someone wanting to include the statement: "peaceful people seeking justice" for which neither side was really there for anything peaceful. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm the editor who originally suggested the deletion, though its deletion is not something I feel strongly about. I'm fine with the earlier consensus to keep it, but disappointed that this discussion has veered so far away from the simple question of keep or delete. --Crunch (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Deandre Harris

Deandre Harris should be mentioned on the page by name.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@AllThatJazz2012: Please read WP: AVOIDVICTIM -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

if we did include his name we should avoid calling him a victim until relevant criminal investigations are concluded. I have seen the photos and that is a nasty head would for sure, but video only shows the conclusion of the fight so it is as yet unclear who initiated it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Which individual are you discussing here? Dlthewave (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I fouled things up: Deandre Harris.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk)

Arrest warrant for Cantwell?

Article includes "Prominent far-right figures in attendance ... and radio host Christopher Cantwell." Not sure if the following development is at the stage where it should be included in the article. Various news outlets (such as telegraph.co.uk) are reporting that Christopher Cantwell said in a recent video that "I have been told there’s a warrant out for my arrest," Not sure where the original video is (video that Telegraph links to probably isn't the original considering it is titled "American Terrorist Christopher Cantwell balls his eyes out"). --EarthFurst (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

He's crying in the video here.[7] Doug Weller talk 17:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Though that's a far cry from the title that he "bawls".That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Balls. I know it's "wrong", but it's balls. It's always been balls. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Despite the crocodile tears, there's been no news about an arrest warrant. It might as well be a publicity stunt to solicit donations. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times is reporting warrants have been issued for him. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/18/arrest-warrants-issued-chris-cantwell/ Also, The Globe. They list their source as the Virginia Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/08/17/facebook-bans-white-nationalist-accounts-over-hate-speech/0Y359546xMoKaeStccsNRP/story.html Yamada Taro (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

what is brand of white car which Dodge Challenger hit then pushed

Hard to find a good still for this. Best I could find is http://staticr1.blastingcdn.com/media/photogallery/2017/8/14/660x290/b_1433x630/the-gray-dodge-challenger-that-plowed-into-a-counter-protest-crowd-in-charlottesville-last-saturday-from-youtube-screen-grab_1507371.jpg

You can see in front of Challenger a hood or trunk (I can't remember if white car was facing same or opposite direction) and it aplears lighter in tone than the gray Challenger so for simplicity I will call that "white" until something better comes along.

I would like to know if anyone knows of any sources which had made reference to that car, like what color it was or which company makes it, as has been done with the Challenger.

Not sure why this has been left out of article. Many vids of this show that car (and I think another behind it) being pushed by the Challenger.

Update: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/james-alex-fields-charlottesville-driver-.html mentions a statement from an official (unspecified) that he hit a sedan and the sedan in turn hit a minivan. Any other sources saying this? Daily Mail drone piece I added I think mentioned 2 vehicles, probably too high up to make out type. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Until sources discuss it, it's unclear to me how the make of this white vehicle is relevant to the content of the article. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

much like the Challenger it simply allows easier discussion with unique terms. Anyway the white car appears to be sedan, not sure color of minivan the sedan hit in turn. Basically Challenger>Sedan>Minivan is described domino. I remember some soirces reporting different Dodge brand. Wondering f that is notable. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Name-dropping and media naming

There is entirely too much name-dropping of professors and their institutions, with quotes, for this article. Please make an effort to find sources that report the consensus view, and succinctly paraphrase them; that is how encyclopedic writing is done. Also, there is no need to say, "as reported in the Washington Post" etc; Wikipedia has the refs system for that. The article is getting overlong as it is. Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I am using this article to try to create the Dutch page for it, and I find it highly unreadable. And that is not just because my first language is not English in my humble opinion. AntonHogervorst (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Article from Southern Poverty Law Center on Jason Kessler

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jason-kessler

Jason Kessler

"Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016 was less than pure and seem to point to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama... Regardless of Kessler’s past politics, the rightward shift in his views was first put on display in November, 2016 when his tirade against Wes Bellamy began."

71.182.238.232 (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

So, the 21st century equivalent of Red Channels put Kessler's (paltry) info up almost as soon as his name was made public. Shocker. Always a sign of the SPLC's unbiased, considered and thoughtful deliberation. Quis separabit? 16:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

A lot of the problems with this article (too many quotes, unreadability, overlong, NPOV etc.) could be fixed by removing the material sourced only to primary sources and finding secondary or (better yet) tertiary sources that can be paraphrased more succinctly. This is what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. Abductive (reasoning) 19:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This will certainly be needed, but I guess it's so fresh that right now we only have primaries. Certainly we're seeing a lot of the positive and negative effects of WP:RECENTISM on this page. Perhaps we should encourage editors to consider the WP:10 year test. --Nanite (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Content

Was the content restored?[8][9] QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Symone Sanders

From Symone Sanders' article

=====Political views=== When Sanders spoke on [[CNN]] on November 23, 2016, about the future of the DNC and the Democratic Party, she dismissed the idea of [[Howard Dean]] returning as DNC chairman, saying, ''"Howard Dean is also on record maligning young people and millennials. Telling those Bernie folks they just need to get in line and maligning Bernie Sanders. And that is not what we need. In my opinion, we don't need white people leading the Democratic party right now. The Democratic Party is diverse, and it should be reflected as so in our leadership and throughout the staff at the highest levels from the vice chairs to the secretaries all the way down to the people working in the offices at the DNC."'' She concluded by saying, ''"I think we need a robust discussion about this and I think we need to hear more from all the candidates ... So I want to hear more from everybody. I want to hear from the millennials and the brown folks."''<ref>{{cite web|publisher=CNN|url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/dnc-leadership-diversity|title=Ex-Sanders aide: 'We don't need white people leading the Democratic Party right now'|author=Scott, Eugene|date=November 23, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|publisher=[[RealClearPolitics]]|title=Former Sanders Spokeswoman: "We Don't Need White People Leading The Democratic Party"|author=Schwartz, Ian|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/23/cnns_symone_sanders_we_dont_need_white_people_leading_the_democratic_party_right_now.html|date=November 23, 2016}}</ref>

Sanders argued that the [[2017 Chicago torture incident]] was not a hate crime.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Perez|first1=Chris|title=News commentators defend Facebook hate-crime video|url=http://nypost.com/2017/01/05/news-commentators-defend-facebook-hate-crime-video/|publisher=''New York Post''|accessdate=15 August 2017|date=5 January 2017}}</ref>

Given the above which is indicative of Sanders' (Redacted), it is both inappropriate and offensive to include comments by her regarding anyone else's racism -- real or purported. Quis separabit? 00:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not how this works; that's not how any of this works. Your personal opinion about Sanders has no bearing on how we consider whether or not to include her comments. I have redacted your personal opinion of Sanders, which violates WP:BLP as an unsourced negative claim or description — none of the sources you cite describe her views in that manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The actual problem here is that we should have a better source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Quoting what both sides said to each other makes this article less readable.

For example the events on the 11th of August. I Quote: 'White lives matter"; "you will not replace us"; and "Jews will not replace us."[3] The phrase "you will not replace us" has been reported by the Anti-Defamation League to "reflect the white supremacist world view that...' I ask myself: Is that relevant? I know both sides did not like each other. I do not want to know what they were exactly yelling at each other, just the chain of events. That chain is lost if you write this in my view irrelevant information. AntonHogervorst (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that white supremacists were yelling "Jews will not replace us," an abhorrent anti-Semitic slogan, is impossibly relevant to this article. It is not about "both sides" or "liking each other," it's about one side boasting of its virulent anti-Semitism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Even then do you have to make a few dozen quotes of it? And also, they were Nazi's. Nazi's yell Nazi things. This includes anti-Semitism. What do you expect Nazi's to yell? AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So it's basically locker room talk in your eyes? Nazis gonna Nazi? This isn't normal speech, these are people openly expressing antisemitic viewpoints. Reliable sources cover it as such, i.e. extraordinary and news-worthy, not run-of-the-mil;l political discourse. TheValeyard (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In my eyes the chain of events is buried under the number of quotes. So it is unreadable. You are covering the time line with a lot of unnecessary quotes. If you want to demonstrate that this rally was populated by mainly Nazis, fine, but do not do that in the section where you want to describe the chain of events. It took me quite a while to gist the exact time line of the events from that section. The fact that 'this is not normal speech' is not relevant for the order of events. The locker room talk reference is crazy really. Like by saying the time line is unreadable now, I would approve of these Nazi statements. That is not the issue at all.AntonHogervorst (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyway if it just might make you less 'triggered' I have the same opinion about the quotes of the Antifa that are in there. Most of these quotes can go out too in my humble opinion: 'Counterprotests in opposition to the ralliers began with an interfaith, interracial group of clergy who linked arms, prayed, and sang songs of peace. Later in the day, militant groups chanted such slogans as "Kill All Nazis."[86] The armed leftist group Redneck Revolt[87] posted on their website: "To the fascists and all who stand with them, we'll be seeing you in Virginia."[88] Some Antifa participants chanted "punch a Nazi in the mouth."' AntonHogervorst (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The quotes are essential to understanding the nature of the rally. They weren't chanting about the statue, they were chanting white supremacist slogans (and counterprotesters were advocating violence against Nazis). I think the section can be rearranged to better separate the quotes from the chain of events. Dlthewave (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I can understand your argument and would be perfectly happy to see the quotes not deleted, but indeed places separate from the chain of events. Thank you for your patience and time! AntonHogervorst (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up and rearranged the event timeline. Hopefully it's a bit more readable now. Dlthewave (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeline mixed with aftermath

Presently in the section "Vehicular attack and alleged homicide", under "August 12" under "Timeline", there are several events listed that did not happen on August 12. I'd like to move all the events on August 13 and thereafter to the Aftermath section. However it would be a fairly major rearrangement so I don't want to create a big bother. Any objections?

--Nanite (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If you mean moving Fields' court appearances away from the initial ramming, then I do not support breaking up the narrative. It is important to retain the integrity of the ramming and its consequences. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, I'm leaning towards that too, however since it's part of the timeline, I would keep every paragraph starting with something that actually happened on August 12.

• "James was arrested and charged with X. Later on August 18 he was charged with X"
• "Initial government official response on Aug 12. Later amended to X"

Paragraphs on stuff that Heyer's mom said later, Heyer's memorial, lawsuits etc. all do not belong in the subsection of 'August 12'. --Nanite (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete paragraph citing Princeton historian's view on the historical precedent of blaming both sides.

I suggest we delete the paragraph in the Third Statement section that cites Princeton University historian Kevin Kruse explaining a historical precedent to blaming "both sides" in disputes over race relations. This steers the factual narrative of the article into an historical analysis. Such an analysis is not appropriate for this Wikipedia encyclopedic report on the events in Charlotte. --Crunch (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It's an explanation of why Trump felt justified in doubling down on his initial comment, not an analysis by Wikipedia editors. Natureium (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree as well. These kind of historical perspectives are exactly the things that an encyclopedia should deal with. We don't just "report events"; we also give relevant context. Neutrality^talk 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging, as a courtesy, the editor who originally added the Kruse content: Snooganssnoogans. Neutrality^talk 16:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to keep the text. Scholarly views and historical context has high encyclopedic value for recent events. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with deletion. Mr. Kruse is a recognized historian: and the historical context is germane, given that those statements related actually occurred (Eisenhower, Stevenson, etc.), and provide a backdrop for our current events. Javert2113 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com deleted this content and some related content with the edit summary ("blatant OR, SYNTHESIS -- personal opinions and apologetics"); I have restored it given the comments here. I find the reference to OR/SYNTH puzzling - all the sources cited clearly and directly refer to the article topic. Perhaps we should trim this section, but ourright deletion is inappropriate. Historians' views are important for historical context; they are arguably as important as random senators that we quote. Also tagging previous participants in this discussion, Crunch, Natureium, Snooganssnoogans, Javert2113. Neutrality^talk 15:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Absolutely right I do. This text is deemed appropriate by those who agree with it. Otherwise it is OUTRAGEOUS. It is pure coatracking, synthetic, partisan, biased, and if we are taking opinions from eggheads in ivory towers, then get some from both sides. Please spare me the snide verbal assaults -- no, I am not pro-Nazi. I am a New York atheist Jew whose maternal grandmother's entire family was wiped out in the Holocaust as far as I know. This is about a lawfully permitted march and an assault by a group more dangerous than the ridiculous KKK and the justly marginalized neo-Nazis, because Antifa has the tacit support and condonation of many on the Left, including those who may not say so outright, although I am expecting Joseph McCarthy, I mean Jennifer Lawrence, to do so fairly soon. Quis separabit? 15:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors' religious backgrounds and political backgrounds are irrelevant here. But more specifically, I want to counter the notion that this is "synthetic." Wikipedia editors, of course, are not allowed to synthesize. But scholars and commentators are allowed to synthesize, and we should reflect what they say. The scholars' views here are explicitly attributed (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), either by name or to historians generally, which is perfectly proper, so "biased" is not a reason for deletion either.

Whether they are "eggheads in ivory towers" or not, they are prominent. We cite Kevin M. Kruse of Princeton (by name); John Fabian Witt of Yale and Annette Gordon-Reed at Harvard (through the Schuessler NYT article); Douglas A. Blackmon at U.Va. (by name). These are significant scholars, expressing a view directly on the subject. I can't see how we wouldn't include it. Now, if you have some contrary or different views from scholars, feel free to add them. Neutrality^talk 15:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality -- they are all expressing their own personal, which includes political as it is all inextricably linked, mindsets, all close to identical and with no attempt to even try to suss what POTUS, not the most articulate man in the world, was saying or trying to say. No prominent "historian" is going to try to defend POTUS's comments out of fear for their employment, reputation, safety, etc. so I am not going to bother even seeking a reliable source.

Princeton, Yale, Harvard -- all monocultural, rigidly intolerant bastions of politically correct orthodoxy. Why not quote Pravda or Granma in their heyday? (IMHO, POTUS's comments were condemning violence on all sides -- including and especially Antifa, a group about which he has evidently been warned and was reacting to, who are the cause of the escalation if not all of the violence that day in Charlottesville.) Quis separabit? 16:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did find something, by Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt University professor who is retiring this week, which is the only reason she agreed to be quoted.

''Just coming out and denouncing white supremacy, and painting everyone with the same broad brush, does not solve the problem. There are black nationalists, there are white nationalists, there are Hispanic nationalists, and so we can’t say it’s just one group. So the president was correct when he said that there were many forces involved. Had the counter-protesters not been there, maybe the entire rally would have ended differently.''<ref>[http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/religious-right-law-prof-defends-trumps-many-sides-response-to-charlottesville Carol Swain comments]; accessed August 18, 2017.</ref>

Note the snarky title of the piece from rightwingwatch.org, referring to Swain as a member of the "religious right", which is absurd and has no basis whatever. Quis separabit? 16:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors' beefs with academia is not relevant to what we should include in the article. Witt won a Bancroft Prize. Annette Gordon-Reed won a MacArthur "genius" grant. These are absolutely important historians. The bottom line is this is an encyclopedia; events happen in historical context; and well-known scholarly historians' views, published in reputable sources, are exactly the kind of thing that sheds light on historical parallels and historical fact. Neutrality^talk 18:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have another beef, infinitely more immediate, valid and concerning. My above cited quotation from Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain was promptly deleted by @Abductive (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&diff=796251945&oldid=796251616) because it does not conform to some consensus, which, even if it exists, is under the circumstances inherently unstable and evolving. This is demonstrative in the cookie cutter series of quotes from some representatives of the rigidly monolithic enforced political correctness, now known as academia in this country, and representing (poorly, unequally, and with bias) this entire issue and story. All this is OK with @Abductive, however, a pesky quote from an African-American professor who disagrees with this aforementioned undefined established "consensus" is promptly removed, and no one notices or cares. Another editor left a message on @Abductive's talk page asking them if they ever heard of BRD. Apparently not. The heart of Wikipedia is at stake in a way its creators could not have imagined given the technological and political changes that have occurred leaving a Balkanized USA. We can either be faithful to the mission for which Wikipedia was created or we can take the easy road and acquire the intolerant frictionless certitude so manifest in the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Thankfully Antifa, the Gestapo of the Left, cannot coerce us. It is up to our collective conscience. Quis separabit? 15:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Guys, the issue is the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT of putting huge quotes when paraphrasing would be better. Putting up lengthy treatments of elite opinions is also in violation of WP:UNDUE. Also, by WP:PSTS, you should not use a primary source as its own source. Finally, Quis separabit?, callling other editors "Gestapo" goes against WP:GOODFAITH. Abductive (reasoning) 18:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Abductive -- Gestapo clearly refers to Antifa; unless you are a member it should not have anything to do with you. The quotation is not "huge". I removed the blockquotes. It is a couple of sentences long. Quis separabit? 22:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Text at issue

According to Princeton University historian Kevin M. Kruse, there is a historical "false equivalency" precedent to blaming "both sides" in disputes over race relations. Kruse notes that segregationist politicians often equated white supremacists with the civil rights movement, condemning both the KKK and the NAACP. Various historians also questioned Trump's suggestion that the individuals calling for the removal of Confederate monuments would next demand the removal of figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Harvard historian Annette Gordon-Reed and others noted that Washington and Jefferson were imperfect men who are notable for creating the United States, whereas the sole historical significance of Confederate figures such as Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis is that they went to war against the United States to defend "the right of people to own other people." Other historians noted that some wanted the Confederate monuments moved to museums where the monuments could be appropriately contextualized. Slavery expert Douglas A. Blackmon of the University of Virginia told The Washington Post: "Trump either does not understand the history of the Confederacy or he's sympathetic to white nationalist views. ... [T]hese statues are offensive to millions of citizens that he governs. … When you reach a point that there are hate groups that engage in terrorist attacks, that these statues are being appropriated and used in [that] way … simply take [them] down."

References

There's nothing wrong with this text afaict.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturing council

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is new so I'll wait, but WSJ is reporting that Trump didn't dissolve the council. They decided themselves to quit, he then tried to take credit for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Not surprising at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC) But does it need to be in here? Drmies (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Considering the CEOs dropped out because of Trump's response to the rally, I think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) @#Muboshgu "Considering the CEOs dropped out because of Trump's response to the rally," -- I respectfully disagree. Which of the three responses are you referring to? For most of the "protesters" against Trump, nothing he said would have been good enough. And if you think the CEOs did not withdraw for financial and safety reasons, you are naive. Quis separabit? 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC) @Rms125a@hotmail.com: I don't respond to personal attacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @Muboshgu: -- My comment was not a "personal attack" in any way as anyone who looks at it can tell. But that's an effective way to get out of engaging and replying constructively. Quis separabit? 03:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @Rms125a@hotmail.com: How am I supposed to interpret "And if you think the CEOs did not withdraw for financial and safety reasons, you are naive" other than a personal attack? The Merck CEO mentioned "expressions of hatred, bigotry, and group supremacy" and the Intel CEO mentioned Charlottesville by name in their resignation letters. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @Muboshgu -- Being called "naive" by someone who is much older than you is never a personal attack. Maybe when you're my age you'll realize that. As to how you are "supposed to interpret 'And if you think the CEOs did not withdraw for financial and safety reasons, you are naive'" -- you are to take it literally and ponder it and expand your reading and not accept the politically correct narrative. Quis separabit? 15:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @Rms125a@hotmail.com: You don't know how old I am. I might be older than you, not that it's relevant in any way. I take your statement as calling me naive, ergo a personal attack. If you're so old and wise, you should know better than to continue your behavior in this section (and the other behavior that lead to you being taken to AN/I). Quit while you're behind. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC) My understanding is that Volunteer Marek is correct, and I strongly agree that it should be in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Rms125a, members of the council directly and plainly cited Trump's lack of condensation condemnation of the events of Charlottesville, stating that they cannot support a President "who tolerates bigotry and domestic terrorism" [10]. They did not resign for financial or safety reasons. Also, it is extraordinarily petty to take jabs at another editor via blank edit summary, please stop doing that. TheValeyard (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC) a) ''"Also, it is extraordinarily petty to take jabs at another editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally&diff=796329122&oldid=796328649 via blank edit summary], please stop doing that."'' I was merely trying to reply to his silly comment about me without having to traverse this mine-ridden thread. But traverse it I have and I left him the same message directly (see above). I don't think he will be any more likely to reply. Quis separabit? 03:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC) b) @TheValeyard -- "members of the council directly and plainly cited Trump's lack of condensation" -- Ummmm, you mean POTUS didn't do a rain dance and cause a downpour from the skies? Quis separabit? 03:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC) There are several mature ways to point out that someone has made a typo or has been subject to an unfortunate auto-correct. Sadly, you chose none of those ways and opted for the infantile, thereby dodging the discussion (curiously/amusingly doing the same thing you accused another editor of via edit summary). TheValeyard (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath article

Does anyone else think the aftermath of the rally will warrant its own article? --GeicoHen (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Some people think so --- see #Should_there_be_a_content_fork.3F above! -Nanite (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

In the aftermath of R

L demanding payments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

car and copter categories

Included some on a Charlottesville car crash redirect, we could probably make a Charlottesville copter crash redirect to host categories appropriate there too.

It seems wrong to refer to the rally as a helicopter crash or a vehicular homicide. These events happens in proximity to the rally but do not describe the rally itself, so they do not seem appropriate as categories for this article.

This will also make it easier to monitor who it is keeps adding back "murder" and "terrorism" and "rampage" categories. These violwtr WP:BLPCRIME and it is getting exhausting removing them. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the section title and he categories that you have improperly removed. James Fields' actions are being investigated as a deliberate act not an accident. He has been charged with second-degree murder, criminal wounding, and leaving the scene of a collision. Also, numerous reliable sources refer to this as an act of terrorism, so those categories are appropriate. Being included in a category is not a judgement or a conclusion, it is simply organizing this event alongside similar events. Do not remove without consensus of other editors, please. TheValeyard (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I instruct you not to add clear WP:BLPCRIME violations. Consensus is not needed to remove PoV-pushing policy violations that continually get snuck in. Being included in a category is very much a conclusion. If you want to make an "alleged terrorist attacks" or "alleged murders" category, I would not remove those. But to assert a living person did murder/terror requires a criminal conviction. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Death description in Infobox

Currently: "1 killed by alleged vehicle ramming attack".

There's been a variety of other formulations of this sentence. Any discussion? @ScratchMarshall and NorthBySouthBaranof: Power~enwiki (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Describing it as a "traffic collision" simply isn't how reliable sources describe it; the investigation is ongoing perhaps, but the alleged perpetrator has been identified and charged - police have already determined, based on the charges laid, that they believe it was an intentional act. While I agree that we must describe the acts as "alleged" until a conviction is secured, there is no suggestion in any reliable source that these was an innocent accidental "traffic collision." That is not how we describe any other vehicle ramming attack, conviction or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Our neutrality and abiding WP:BLPCRIME is more important than parroting the exact catch phrases the MSM uses. I have seen "ploughing" used just as often as "ramming" by RS. These are insensitive jazz-ups. A coision best neutrally describes what we know it to be. Allegations surrounding an incident are not relevant to the actual cause until that is solidified by conviction. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are, by foundational policy, written based on what the mainstream media says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

BASED ON, yes. We don't copy and we certainly do not violate BLP lolify just because MSM does. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't violate BLP to describe something as an alleged attack; on the contrary, what we write must be supported by reliable sources, and reliable sources don't describe the incident as a "collision under investigation." The law enforcement investigation as to whether or not it was intentional is over, and has concluded that it was, hence the murder charges laid against the suspect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Compare 2017 Barcelona attack - no convictions have been secured but the article does not say "traffic collision under investigation as alleged vehicle ramming attack." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists objection. It sounds like that article may have problems too. Edit: took a look, see Talk:2017_Barcelona_attack#Requested_move_19_August_2017, for same reasons it ought to change too. No double standards here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, there is indeed a move request for Barcelona which you opened a few minutes before pointing out its existence here. Dlthewave (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I opened that after North pointed it out. One of the arrested men is still alive and arrested andnunconvicted AFAIK so he requires same BLPCRIME policy. That said: Barcelona seems a lot more clear-cut than Charlottesville. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I will note that I agree with Marshall's removals of the terrorism categories - we shouldn't describe this as "terrorism" until a conviction is secured. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If the Attorney General, the chief lawyer of the United States, describes it as domestic terrorism, I'd think that is a pretty strong case to make for categorizing it as such now. Categorization does not mean confirmation. TheValeyard (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with categories is just that - they are not nuanced at all, and there's no way to appropriately take caution that allegations are sometimes untrue. Categorizing something as "terrorism" is a definitive, encyclopedia-voice statement that the thing being categorized is terrorism, and that has yet to be proven in a court of law. We can and should be careful to adhere to policies in this case, and perhaps especially this case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The standard of inclusion applied on other terrorist articles is of a senior official describing it thus, with text attribution if the categorisation is disputable/disputed (ie not mere speculation, not terrorist investigation and not necessarily a terrorist charge or conviction). Yes categorisation is a very crude tool. and should always be textually qualified IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

senior official description is fine if alleged terrorists are all dead, BLP overrides, terrorism is a crime. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Protesters included"

I think it's redundant to throw "the alt-right" into the list of people that are described in the lead as protesters, as the "alt-right" includes all of the groups mentioned already. Calling it an "alt-right rally" or a rally that would "bring the alt-right together" as was described on their event page (and sourced in Potter), would make more sense in a different sentence. I'm not 100% sure about that Sojourners source, either; it may well be reliable, I just haven't heard of it before. Seems like there's a wealth of more reliable sources than that available, though. Rockypedia (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, not clear all these groups identify as alt right. Thought the Proud Boys objected to label. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposing subsection for traffic collision's allegations

This section is large enough that I believe this is valuable.

The first should simply explain the known facts of what happened. Challenger hits sedan, sedan hits minivan, minivan hits crowd, 20 are injured, of them 1 dies (unclear if obscene or in hospital, we need ToD) and 5 were major/severe...

Actually a "casualties" subsection would also make sense.

The accusations of murder/terrorism and eventual Murder 2 charge (and others) make more sense in an appropriate subsection.

This also allows for less dispute over what to title the section, and briefer less confusing names. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, reliable sources do not describe it as a "traffic collision," and neither should we. Moreover, the idea that the Challenger did not directly impact victims is not in accordance with the facts- the car Fields allegedly drove impacted numerous people directly, according to the sources and according to the freely-viewable video. It may be only alleged that Fields drove it or that it was intentional, but it is a fact that the car hit people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

enough call it a car crash which directs there. Traffic collision is more inclusive since more than just a car was part of the collision. Where does it say he didn't impact anyone directly? My take on it is he pushed some people aside, sedan>van knocked down some more people, then he backed into/over some others. I agree with you that video depicts direct contact in addition to indirect contact, but we should probably rely on some quotes from sources analyzing vid to figure how to phrase it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Section on Trump's Third remarks

I noticed the section has responses from people who say why they think Jefferson and others wouldn't be removed, but no context for why Trump would think that would be a next step. A movement against "Dead White Males" is old, and there are currently plans to remove Andrew Jackson, who Trump as a portrait of in the Oval Office, from the U.S. twenty dollar bill. Is there some reason this context not included? The article makes it seems like the concept of attacking previously regarded national heroes is Trump's hallucination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.133.95 (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Because it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In my very humble opinion Marek, you are now indicating this article is not neutral or at least some contributors are not neutral and text is added or removed for use as 'opposition against Trump' rather then for its relevance and news value. AntonHogervorst (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:FOC ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

ScratchMarshall and edits at odds with sources

ScratchMarshall, your edits here are not at all constructive, and diverge seriously from what the sources say.

• The sources don't describe the car ramming attack as "Challenger collisions" - that phrase is used in zero reliable sources. The reliable sources clearly describe the car attack as such: e.g., Washington Post ("the fatal car attack in Charlottesville"); LA Times ("one of the counterprotesters was killed in a car attack by an alleged white supremacist."); USA Today ("Heyer, victim of Charlottesville car attack, stood up for what she believed in"). Please stop messing with this text.
• I'm not sure why you removed the text from the first paragraph of the relevant section that "One person was killed and 19 others were injured..." This is obviously the most significant thing that occurred in the attack. Good writing requires that we not bury important information that the sources emphasize.
• You changed "reportedly had expressed sympathy for Nazi Germany" with "later ccused [sic] by an ex-teacher for expressing sympathy for Nazi Germany." Another change at odds with the sources - the source does not use the word "accused" to describe the teacher's recollection.
• You changed "in what police have called a deliberate attack" to "A police officer called this a deliberate attack" - this is completely and totally at odds with the reality, as reflected by the reliable sources. This is not the one-off claim of "one police officer." This is what investigators and prosecutors say, which is why Fields has been charged with murder.

Cumulatively, I view these changes as borderline disruption. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose whether or not you view article REPAIR (to abide by WP:BLPCRIME) as construction or not is a matter of perspective. Sources calling it "attack" mean we report that sources call it an attack, or call it an "alleged attack" as I have seen put in before.

My alteration of simply "car attack" when presented out of context is in line with WP:BLP which you ought to study up on. We have here a person who has been charged with a crime, but whom has not yet stood trial and been convicted. Policy is clear: we do not allege he committed any crime, such as a car attack or attempted murder or terrorism, in an authorial tone.

You can certainly say alleged attacker / alleged murderer / alleged terrorist since "alleged" is reporting on the allegations and not conveying it as a statement of fact.

I wonder why you are criticizing me for bringing the article in line with BLP and ignoring the people who keep introducing these policy-disregarding descriptions? ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing you have done in this article has been in the name of BLP, but rather to water down an act the US Attorney General has labeled "domestic terrorism". Fields has been charged with several serious crimes; we can and do reflect that in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be shifting the goalposts into straw man arguments here Valeyard. I completely agree with retaining the Sessions quote and the murder charge. I have never removed this information from the article. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Statue name

For some reason I can't fathom, some editors keep using "sculpture" instead of "statue", as well as using "Edward" instead of the letter "E". While the object is named the Robert Edward Lee Sculpture, the common name (as defined by the reliable sources) is the "Robert E. Lee statue" or any variant of "statue" and "Robert E. Lee". There are hundreds, if not thousands of RS articles that use this term. Can we get some consensus on this?That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what an "RS article" is, but I assume people are using Robert Edward Lee Sculpture because that its official name. We can adjust the article to use the official name in the first mention and the common name in subsequent mentions. --Crunch (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliably sourced article.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Robert Edward Lee Sculpture seems to be what it's commonly and officially known as. Appears to return the greatest number of Ghits using that search term than any other combination of those words. But "statue" seems to be a perfectly good descriptor of what it is, as far as I can tell. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hatting. WP:NOTAFORUM. Jdcomix (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These Anarchists have gone too far. They should not take down a statue of an occupied country. Sure you can take down the lenin statues, ukraine is not the soviet union. Of course you can take down nazi germany's statues, germany did not disolve into other countries. No you can not take down the Confederate state statues. That is wrong. Its an disolved state or country. It doesn't exist, yet its heritage should. I lived in richmond for 5 yrs and to see richmond without the monument in monument square, the turnabout is absurd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.30.97 (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

many

@Neutrality: re your reversion of so-called tag bombing where you allege this is what sources say: Which?

The point of the tags was to prompt that we supply quotes from the sources which say that where they do. I don't think we should remove template:quantify until quote= is supplied in relevant source.

Presently it is unclear which statement these are derived from. In many cases multiple sources are cited and in some cases people come along and insert "many" on their own so how can we know when it is based on a source except through citation?

Even in cases where we do find a cite saying "many", we should explore if we can find a better expression of quantity. Or even concurrently something like "many (at least x)" or similar. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In each case, it appears that "many" or "several" was directly supported by the cited source or sources. Putting 15(!) tags — I counted 7 {{quantity}} + another 8 {{how many}} — is basically the definition of inappropriate tag-bombing. If you have an issue with a particular source, or think that some of the sources do not support "many," please specifically identify which statement you have a problems with. Or you can make statements more specific yourself, if there are sources for it. (I just made a few statements more specific myself). Neutrality^talk 20:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The burden of supporting a claim is on those who add them. Please restore the tags except where you add a quote from the relevant source. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The burden to support statements made in text is met by providing a reference to a reliable source or sources. That has been done here. There is absolutely no obligation to "add a quote from the relevant source" - that has zero basis in policy and in fact is just plain poor writing. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Neutrality^talk 22:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I can see this isn't getting anywhere, so I'm going to go through and check "many" and "several" statements and adjacent sources. Anywhere it is not in the source, I will remove it... can you please review special:diff/796770040 and your thoughts? I checked all 3 sources which followed and none of them describe the number of tiki torch wielders as "many". This is an example of why I believe you were in the wrong to remove template:quantify and why you ought to restore it until you can prove the words tagged.

You assumed that evidence backed it, and appear to be wrong about that, at least in regard to the sources which were cited.

It is possible non-cited sources may use 'many', but that's the whole point of quantify tagging, to encourage locating an appropriate source. Right now, this is possibly littered with a lot of similar "many" / "several" original research paraphrasing by editors based on their own feelings. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources cited say the following

• "Dozens of white nationalists marched through the University of Virginia campus on Friday night carrying torches..."
• "...scores of white nationalists holding torches..."
• "...a group of about 100 white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-Nazis marched...carrying tiki torches"

"Many" is an accurate descriptor of the events. This over-pedantic approach is becoming disruptive. TheValeyard (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't, use "dozens" (least 24) "scores" (least 40) by all means. "Many" is silly and too subjective. I find the ... before quote 3 (about 100) kinda suspicious, please provide the ENTIRE quote. Here: special:diff/796772512 replaced "some" with the more descriptive phrases you presented here. Interpreting either as "many" in relation to this rally is going to need a source though. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If you had actually read the sources that you claimed to have examined... On Friday night, a group of about 100 white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-Nazis marched on the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia, carrying tiki torches. I'm done with this for now, other editors can deal with the disruption caused by your revisions. TheValeyard (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You are being dishonest calling changing "many">"scores" (sources say latter, nor former) "disruption". We should avoid vague terms wherever it is possible to use more specific terms from sources. Whether or not 100 is "many" is a subjective issue of scope. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Two editors find that your edits either verge on or are disruptive. I'll add my voice to that opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Best source saying Heyer was hit by Challenger

I have located some sources which make the claim that the Dodge Challenger hit her, something I sought out to clarify that it was not the sedan or minivan which the Challenger struck which did this.

I don't recognize the names of all of these publications though, so I don't know how reliable they are. Some are vague ("car") and others specific ("Challenger")

Specific (mentions brand or driver)

• http://altdriver.com/news/dodge-apologizes-challenger-roadkill-tweet/
  • "Heather Heyer was hit by a Dodge Challenger"
• https://www.upworthy.com/the-mother-of-heather-heyer-charlottesville-victim-just-gave-a-must-watch-speech
  • "Heather Heyer died Saturday after being hit by a car allegedly driven by 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr."

Unspecific (only says 'car')

• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40924922
  • "Heather Heyer, 32, died after being hit by a car that ploughed into a crowd of counter-protesters"
• http://www.newsweek.com/heather-heyer-named-woman-killed-car-ramming-alt-right-counter-demo-650220
  • "Heyer was among 20 people hit by the vehicle"
• https://nypost.com/2017/08/16/victim-hit-by-car-during-white-power-rally-recounts-saving-fiancees-life/
  • "the crashing car that fatally hit Heather Heyer"

I am wanting to know if a better source can be located which could support saying something like "Heyer was struck by the Challenger" or similar.

Simply "killed by" isn't informative enough, because you can be killed directly or indirectly. Statements like these help to clarify that it was not the rear of the sedan or minivan which hit her, but rather the front or back or the Challenger.

Basically I want to add that the car hit her, so which source is ideal to rely on to express that? The problem I'm having here is the 3 sources I've heard of (BBC/Newsweek/Post) are non-specific while I haven't heard of the 2 sources (Altdriver/Upworthy) which specifically say it was the Challenger (or the car Fields drove) which hit her.

So basically what I'm trying to find is a reputable source which speaks specifically like the A/U articles. I can rely on BBC/NewsW/NYP to say she was hit by a car, but not to say which car it was (since there was also sedan/minivan involved).

I'm not sure if I should be citing Altdriver/Upworthy for the claim. Would anyone know how reliable they are? ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, you should be looking at the indictment sheet. As public information, it should be available on justia.com or similar. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC).

Sounds like it would be a useful primary source. The names of the charges alone don't clarify it but a summary of details from something like this might. I'm afraid I don't know how to navigate this Justia site though... If anyone does find it and it's public domain, would love to see the PDF to see if it can reinforce the claim. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Accident language

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/12/virginia-unite-the-right-rally-protest-violence

Col Martin Kumer, the superintendent of Albemarle-Charlottesville regional jail, told the Guardian that 20-year-old James Fields, of Ohio, had been arrested following t he attack on Saturday. “He has been charged with second degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failing to stop at an accident that resulted in a death,” Kumer said in an email.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-car-crash-suspect-idd/index.html

Fields is charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failure to stop in an accident that resulted in death.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/virginia-charlottesville-white-supremacist-rally-james-alex-fields-jr-murder-suspect-dodge-a7890636.html

Mr Fields Jr, of Maumee, Ohio, was later arrested and charged with murder, malicious wounding and failing to stop at a deadly accident, according to police.

Does anyone know if "failing to stop at an accident" / "failure to stop at an accident" is the exact language of Virginia law?

Kumer's quote (Guardian) uses "failing" while CNN phrasing uses "failure" and I'm wondering which is the proper term. Similarly as Independent raises: is it "deadly accident" or "accident resulting in death" used in Virginia law?

If Vlaw actually uses a term other than "accident" (which given the murder charge, seems contradictory) I think it would be important to substitute that.

In looking I came across http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-894 which says under Title 46.2. Motor Vehicles » Chapter 8. Regulation of Traffic:

46.2-894. Duty of driver to stop, etc., in event of accident involving injury or death or damage to attended property; penalty.

Do any sources mention section 894 as being the charge? This would support "accident" actually being in the name of the charge. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"rearranging quotes"

I think this edit did a lot more than its summary stated [[11]]. One thing that jumps out in particular is that now, the way it is, it actually has the ADL source saying something that it didn't say. The ADL source was just to explain the meaning of "you will not replace us" as it is not intuitively clear but it is well documented by the ADL. It didn't cover the rally itself. The other sources for those phrases being used at the rally were thus actually deleted, which seems bad to me. Now it just links to this "Identity Evropa" page, which is confusing at best, and the explanation of what the phrase means has basically been deleted from Wikipedia as it is not discussed there, leaving readers confused. Also, in general, a lot of the coverage of slogans and whatnot was effectively deleted. I'm not sure what the intention was here, but I really didn't find this edit to be helpful so I am reverting it.--Yalens (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Quoting_what_both_sides_said_to_each_other_makes_this_article_less_readable. There was a concern that the quotes and explanations made the chain of events difficult to follow so my thought was to wikilink each slogan to an article that included an explanation. Perhaps we can add an explanation of "you will not replace us" at Identity Evropa. Dlthewave (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well whatever happens must absolutely avoid attributing sources to things they didn't say, which is what happened.--Yalens (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore I just skimmed that section (sorry, I'm quite busy) but I really fail to see how the concerns were valid. The page is full of quotes. There are entire sections quoting the statements of different figures. I don't find it one bit hard to read, and never have. And then of course it appears at least one editor switched tactics to try to claim they weren't relevant. Weren't relevant? Of course they're relevant. They reflect the ideology of at least some of the participants, about which there has been an explosion in news coverage, and it is absolutely notable. Honestly I find this entire situation bizarre. I'm not aiming this at you-- based on that conversation it seems you actually agree with me that they're relevant. --Yalens (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed at this archive link. Not much discussion at all, basically one new editor finding it difficult to read and a quick rearrangement. There's no real consensus to do that and I'm with User:Yalens here. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

allegations of assault of female reporter

Noticed this in some pieces.

• http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/12/female-reporter-for-the-hill-allegedly-punched-by-antifa-protester-in-charlottesville/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785564/Reporter-punched-face-Charlottesville-rally.html

Fox mentions two:

• http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/17/2-journalists-allegedly-assaulted-by-charlottesville-counter-protesters.html

We mention this anywhere yet? Seem like noteworthy allegations. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart and the Daily Mail are right out as sources. Fox is generally okay for simple news, but the fact that the two non-RS articles predate the Fox article raises questions, given the political angle. I'd try to find at least one additional clearly reliable source covering it, just to be safe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MPants though I'd not include it even if there was a decent reference. I can't see that it adds much of anything to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Two instances of journalists being assaulted is borderline WP:DUE (and I'd lean more towards exclusion than inclusion), IMHO. But, if there are more instances and the only side that attacked journalists were the counter-protesters, that would definitely be worth adding. However, I doubt that's the case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

More coverage

• http://www.dailywire.com/news/19842/hidden-charlottesville-antifa-concussed-journalist-ben-shapiro
• http://freebeacon.com/politics/antifa-injures-reporter-blames-him/
• https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/08/14/local-cbs-reporter-assaulted-by-antiracism-protester-a-day-after-charlottesville-chaos-n2368235
• https://www.mediaite.com/online/one-of-the-men-arrested-in-charlottesville-was-a-counter-protestor-who-punched-a-female-reporter/
• http://www.newsleader.com/story/news/local/2017/08/14/reporter-punched-face-during-charlottesville-rally/565922001/
• http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/08/14/asheville-mayor-responds-charlottesville-riots-reporter-injured-area-protest/564737001/
• https://www.infowars.com/female-reporter-for-the-hill-allegedly-punched-by-antifa-protester-in-charlottesville/
• http://conservativetribune.com/leftist-thugs-assault-on-woman/

The coverage is consistent enough (Fox probably most notable) that it seems worthwhile to note the allegations exist and are being repeated from multiple conservative sources.

Whether other sources preceded Fox should not matter. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually found the original story about one of the assaults here. So it's pretty clearly verifiable. Still, I have a lot of hold-ups using many of the sources that have been proposed. Before we can say "conservative outlets are up in arms over this", we need a reliable source to say so. Right now, between the Fox News source and the CBS local source I just gave, all we can say is that a reporter was assaulted (I'm sure we could dig up another RS about Taylor Lorenz being assaulted, as well). That's not something I feel very comfortable adding, as it feels like a POV push right now. So why don't we give it a few days for an RS to pick up on and cover the conservative agitation about this, then use that to add something? That way, we can cover the political angle (that it was counter-protesters doing the assaulting) without engaging in any OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a WaPo story on this [12], also mentions a journalist being attacked with Tiki torches.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, WaPo has decided to hide behind a paywall. I had to edit out the scripts (shame on them for putting that stuff on the page. Seriously, guys. You can't put security/content-protection scripts on the client machine, lol) to read it. I guess the bit about the tiki torch rules out the "only the counter-protesters were attacking journalists" angle. But still, I bet if the political right works up a furor, the centrist and left sources will cover that furor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it would probably be prudent to wait it out for more sources to bring this up themselves; great points. However, failing more reports of other reporters being attacked being published in the near future, will it be safe to assume that other reporters were not in fact attacked? I'd wager that reporters comprise one particular demographic for whom incidents of being attacked are not likely to go under-reported.

As a side note: is it just me, or does "attacked in the head with a tiki torch" seem like a really odd combination of very specific and very vague wording? What does "attacked" mean? Bludgeoned? Prodded? Burned? Was contact made, or was it a swing and a miss? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

An IP user with all of 2 edits thus far insists on tagging this article with an "NPOV issue" banner, but I do not see any serious or ongoing discussion on this page regarding neutrality. There's lots of small discussions here and there and some disagreement over things, which on a politics article is probably expected. Do others feel there are any situations that are serious enough to justify that warning? TheValeyard (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Weird, the IP editor's edit summary said "User is deleting POV discussion from the talk page as an excuse to remove NPOV tag" but I don't see any deletions ... maybe they were referring to archived discussions? --Nanite (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the NPOV warning at least. I many of these discussion there is a danger that Wikipedia becomes a platform of the 'anti Trump resistance', instead of a neutral description of what happens. I saw that happening with the anti Trump protests after the election where it seemed to me that every high school pupil that walked out of class the next day, wanted to list his/her action in Wikipedia. At this moment I do not consider it not neutral, but could have this tendency, sure. AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor is obviously trolling. I feel there's a consensus to remove that tag if it is re-added. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Tags are supposed to draw attention to issues that need to be discussed, not be badges of shame. Seems to be plenty of healthy discussion already taking place here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a content fork?

There was a recent attempt at a content fork that was shot down because it not only focused on the wrong element, but the article creator is banned from Wikipedia. However, now that I look at this article, nearly half of the content concerns Donald Trump and the controversy that was unleashed. Should we perhaps look at splitting this article in half, with the new one focusing on the Trump controversy? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly Reactions to white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, VA? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Charlottesville speech controversy? But yes, this subject matter is getting increasingly unwieldy and out of control. We need a new page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the latter is that there have been speeches, not just one :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Support content fork - Trump's comments on the event has become its own substantial topic, with what appears to be significant consequences. Cjhard (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath of the Unite the Right rally or Donald Trump Unnite the Right rally controversy are my picks for pages. GeicoHen (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Support content fork - This article is getting awfully long. Forking some of the intricacies of the aftermath should help. Jdcomix (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose content fork for now -- let us wait a week, and if we decide to split we should be deliberate about what we split off. Neutrality^talk 22:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose content fork per Neutrality's comment. Many of the comments by various public figures will prove to be fairly inconsequential and can be pared down. Dlthewave (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait for now, the reactions/aftermath seems to be carrying on, Trump made another statement on 22 August, just yesterday. In about a week, this probably will be a better time to debate this, as we'll have seen what will have happened. But I probably would support a content fork later, as it does seem to be that the reactions/aftermath are getting longer.  Seagull123  Φ  22:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support I am usually the first to oppose reaction to articles, but this is one of the few occasions when it makes some sense to have one. Trumps comments in particular are still reverberating and making news around the world (The recent resignations are headlining in New Zealand). Having all this information here is approaching WP:undue territory so the best option is to move most of it to its own article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

clarifying Heather Heyer location during Challenger incident

Does anyone have any cites which do this, or a source that circles where she is during photo/vid of collision?

This is one point which I have kept an eye out for but not seen yet. There look to be several ways people could have been injured..

1. hit by front of Challenger as it went forward
2. squished between sedan Challenger hit and minivan behind it as Challenger pushed it
3. hit by back of minivan as Challenger pushed it and sedan back
4. hit by back of Challenger as it reversed
5. hit by other people in the crowd as a result of any of the above

I haven't yet noticed an explanation of Heyer's specifics. Do these exist in any reliable sources yet?

Regarding the injuroes in general: does it say how many were from the crowd behind (I saw some people get backed over) vs the crowd in front?

Also what happened to the critical/serious/moderate/light breakdown of the 19? Remember that was sourced earlier in week but it appears to be gone.

Thus might be prevented with a "casualties" subsection to give greater emphasis. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a collection of every conceivable piece of errata that one can find, none of this is of the slightest interest to this article. TheValeyard (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

you kidding? With all the attention Heyer's death gets, how/where/when she received fatal injuries is not errata. I guess it doesn't matter where Kennedy got shot either? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, her death is the subject of the attention, but not the minutiae of the injuries or of the positions of the cars and assorted bullshit. John F. Kennedy was a President of the United States, whose assassination was the subject of much scrutiny and controversy owing to semi-credible evidence of cover-ups and such. There's nothing even in the ballpark of comparability here. TheValeyard (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether she was hit by the initial forward-ramming or the subsequent backing-up is not minutiae/bullshit. Group A wasn't hitting the car, group B was. It's an issue of context so I'd like to know if anyone recalls mention of this in any sources. If you're not aware of any, why input at all? I'm not going to add anything about it unless a source actually mentions it, in which case notability would be established. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are wasting everyone's time by casting out wide nets for information and wild speculation on things that have not been reported on. This is why there's a section below calling this behavior out. TheValeyard (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You are choosing to waste your own time for condemning a request for information instead of just ignoring it when you have no intent of helping. It is your bad-faith engagement here which is disruptive, not my request for sources. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there some reason it would be preferable to intentionally exclude this information if it exists, Valeyard? I'm not sure I fully understand the nature of the online relationship between you two (you seem to have some history), but I don't think I'd be so quick to throw out that kind of information as being of no interest to anyone. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Shrouding of Statues in Charlottesville

Although the statues were covered in black shrouding today. I am looking for a consensus as to whether the momuments in Charlottesville, Virginia are significant to be noted directly in this article. Theoallen1 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Are you asking about the monument, or the covering of the monument?

Since the shrouding is a recent, temporary action, it seems a bit premature to me. Maybe it could be mentioned briefly at Robert Edward Lee Sculpture. "Shouding" is technically accurate, but since that word is associated with death, "covered" is probably both clearer and more neutral. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Wording in the lead

This sentence is in the final paragraph of the lead: "[Trump's] statement and his subsequent defenses of it were criticized as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against white supremacy, with critics such as some journalists and McAuliffe interpreting it as a sign that he was sympathetic to the white supremacists."

I attempted to delete the wording, "such as some journalists and McAuliffe" but was reversed. It is not accurate to narrow the scope of objectors to the state governor and "some journalists." The NYT opens an article discussing the president's response writing: "Dozens of Republican lawmakers, as well as business and community leaders, have distanced themselves from President Trump since his comments on the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, after which he blamed “many sides” for an outbreak of violence." Journalists are not even mentioned. Our article needs to accurately summarize the facts in the lead, considered the most important part of the article by many editors. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that including this phrase is unnecessary, not supported by the source, misleading, and just plain weird. Neutrality^talk 21:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gandydancer:'s contention that "dozens of..." holds no water. I just went back to the NYT article that is sourced, and besides McAuliffe and some journalists, only an ex-VA congressman (who the NYT bizarrely informs us happens to be Jewish) is quoted. I'm puzzled at @Neutrality:'s stance, and would ask him or her to retract his or her entire sentence as it contains a howler, "not supported by the source", and devolves from there. Blatant misrepresentation in this forum ought to earn a temporary block. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Your source is old -- the one I used is current (August 22). Here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/22/us/politics/trump-rebukes-charlottesville.html Gandydancer (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My source is the source that had been, was and is still cited in the article before I arrived on scene. To characterize it as "old" is fanciful. My original contribution was to investigate what the source really wrote. I stand by my "some journalists and McAuliffe" characterization. You are welcome to add a sentence to the paragraph in question. Like as in, "Later on Tuesday, the New York Times asked for responses to its inflammatory and reckless story, and was met with 'Dozens of Republican lawmakers, as well as business and community leaders, have distanced themselves from President Trump'" or words to that effect. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I had hoped that the opinions of three editors that disagree with you would be sufficient but you have again reverted. Please read our article and note that public protesters, the religious community, politicians, the online community, world leaders, and others have all spoken out to disagree with the president's comments and not merely the governor and journalists. I know that the president would like us to believe that it is merely the journalists who have ganged up on him, but that is not factual. I have again removed the misleading wording. Gandydancer (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC of interest

There's an RfC at WT:NOT that would change that policy, and I think would have wide implications for all articles relating to recent events, including this one, which has come up in the discussion. See [13] Coretheapple (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of revert

In this edit by Zakawer, edits may by me, Jay942942, Neutrality, Hijiri88, and Volunteer Marek have been undone. Per WP:BRD, I am assuming there is something needing discussing with all of our edits. Zakawer, your edit summary "Just because PolitiFact says that something a U.S. politician is false does not necessarily mean that the statement IS false" does not explain to me what is problematic in my edits, in which I added authors to two existing references and fixed a referencing error. If (as I suspect) you sought to undo / challenge a single edit, reverting everything back to your own last edit was very much not the right way to do it. EdChem (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted Zakawer's edit for two reasons; firstly, as EdChem notes, disagreement with a single edit is not grounds for reverting almost a dozen edits, and secondly, it is perfectly standard to note that false statements are false. Wikipedia does not traffic in "alternative facts" and it is an established fact, undisputed among reliable sources, that the counter-protestors did not need permits. Therefore, what Trump said was false, and no amount of dithering or obfuscating can be permitted to obscure that fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I must admit, it was almost certainly my "liberal bias" that led me to favour the opinions of Jewish scholars of antisemitism over the orthography guidelines of several mass media outlets and remove the hyphen from "anti-Semitic".

In all seriousness, editors who telegraph something like that on their user pages should probably refrain from writing edit summaries like that. It's just unseemly. And yes, reverting a dozen edits based on one's disagreement with one of those edits is highly inappropriate. Also agree with NBSB's other point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with NBSB and Hijiri. This is not an opinion, but a fact, supported by two citations, the PolitiFact piece and the Washington Post fact-check piece, which both unequivocally state that the statement was false. These kind of uncontested factual statement does not need in-text attribution and should not be framed as an "opinion." Neutrality^talk 15:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"Ramming" problematic

I browsed through the archives but couldn't find if anyone had already raised this issue. (If I missed it, I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to it.)
In the lede, it states "...a man linked to white-supremacist groups rammed his car into a crowd of counterprotesters..." and "Attorney General Jeff Sessions described the ramming as domestic terrorism..." Further down, under the heading of Event timeline --> August 12 --> Vehicular attack and homicide, it states "National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster and several U.S. senators described the alleged ramming as an act of domestic terrorism..." This is the correct treatment of the incident. The term "ramming" or "rammed" connotes intent, which has not been established and therefore is prejudicial. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, or believes he intended to do, the suspect is guaranteed the presumption of innocence, and due process. For him to be described as having "rammed" the crowd deprives him of that presumption and due process. It should be changed in all instances to say "alleged", or qualifying words to that effect. Bricology (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends on how reliable sources cover it. If they say "ramming" then so do we. And no, we are not "depriving" anyone of due process by doing that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree Marek. How reliable sources report it matters, but we do not repeat reliable source statements as if they were facts when it comes to accusing people of committing a crime. If the New York Times decided to publish "Trump murdered over 9000 women" it would be a violation of WP:BLPCRIME to state that. Instead we would write "the Times accused Trump of murdering over 9000 women". Statements like that only belong here if there are criminal convictions to back them up. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bricology: the reason I do not object to "ramming" is because it does not convey intent. See for example 1894's Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute page 107:

In the case of accidental ramming the conditions are different on the side of the rammer as well as on that of the rammee. Mr. Forster tells us that, in the case of accidental ramming, it is an unusual thing for the rammer, being a battleship, to do herself much harm

that is why I have been fine having that. Although "crash" would be briefer. I view crash/ramming as synonyms but it seems like to some crash feels closer to accident and ramming feels closer to attack? Makes me wonder what word could exist in the middle not feeling drawn to either side. Collision? ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Rebel Media journalist Faith Goldy not one of the protestors.

According to her own statement, Faith Goldy was not present at the rally as a protestor but as a reporter. ( See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8WPz2u1ipA ) Should that be corrected? AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Another youtube link. This one is during the rally, and shows Faith Goldy walking at the counter protestors site. (And nobody links her to the counter protestors.) Also at 5.30 in this video she already says she is not participating. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7g85VejT0c ) AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The referred article in the Washington Post does not state anywhere that Faith Goldy was there as a supporter. ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/13/fear-of-violent-left-preceded-events-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.967bd88b1b23 ) Also, on her facebook page she says: "I attended this weekend's events in Charlottesville on my own accord as a reporter and commentator, not as a supporter. At no point did I represent Rebel Media while on the ground: Ezra Levant explicitly discouraged me from attending the rally in any capacity." ( https://www.facebook.com/faith.goldy ) . So I think you can agree with me that she did not participate as a protestor and should be removed from the list? AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Since nobody reacted, nor objected I removed it, referring to this 'talk'. AntonHogervorst (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Staged event?

Enough time has been wasted on an IP editor suggesting false flag ops sourced to Lyndon Larouche. Enough. TheValeyard (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
People keep ruling out adding a section reporting some commentators describe the riots as a staged events, saying Infowars alone is not a sufficient source. Other sources report the same, in particular the Executive Intelligence Review, one of the world's leading private intelligence networks. See https://larouchepac.com/20170818/charlottesville-was-staged-event 2601:703:2:27B0:B997:FE:A1B9:14B7 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Wow, Lyndon LaRouche? Executive Intelligence Review is not a world leader in anything. There are many reasons this is even less reliable than Infowars. No thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Why is that? Why the bias against alternative or independent media? 2601:703:2:27B0:B997:FE:A1B9:14B7 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC) "Alternative or independent media" is euphemistic. There is bias against unreliable sources, not alternative media. WP:FRINGE claims require very strong sources. LaRouche and his media outlets have been discussed at WP:RSN many times and have been rejected for use supporting any controversial statement. They do not have the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required of reliable sources, and in fact, have a strongly negative reputation for publishing unfalsifiable claims. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC) What about mainstream media reporting on the conspiracy theories? "The Alt-Right Can't Disown Charlottesville". WIRED. Both 4Chan and Reddit also embraced the notion that Charlottesville was a "false flag," a staged effort by shadowy forces to effectively frame the alt-right for violence. It seems worth mentioning about the false flag accusations of Wired is reporting on them. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC) No, it isn't worth noting. Wired mentions it in passing, and only to highlight the lunacy of such an accusation. It is not being reported seriously by reliable sources. TheValeyard (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Sources do not have to take allegations seriously for them to be notable, just draw attention to them even if to debunk them. Another example: http://www.businessinsider.com/counterprotester-filmed-charlottesville-crash-victim-cia-george-soros-conspiracy-theories-2017-8 Even if media does not believe the theories it is taking them seriously by highlighting their effects. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Reiterating Greyfell, we don't peddle in WP:FRINGE nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)