Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Murder and Terrorism categories

I just removed these again. Valeyard added them back in special:diff/797601566 and should not be allowed to edit this article anymore due to a recurring habit of violating WP:BLPCRIME. Policy dictates regardless of what sources allege that we do not call a living person a murderer or terrorist unless they are convicted in a court of law of said crimes. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources refer to the events as terrorism and the car killing as murder, so it's perfectly appropriate to place the article under these categories. The article does not call the car rammer who killed an innocent person a "murderer", so there is not BLP violation that I can see.- Mr X 21:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing the rally as murder does exactly that. No, it is not appropriate to call a living American citizen a terrorist before their trial is done. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. No one has called anyone a terrorist.- Mr X 02:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

False. Certain people have and we should report their accusations. Siding with those accusations by categorizing the rally as terrorism is a step too far. ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of "blpcrime", and moreover, seem to want to use it as a tool to remove material with which you do not like. Many editors have opposed your reversions on this, and many other things. TheValeyard (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You have not supplied proof to support this allegation that I do not understand BLPCRIME. I am aware that many editors oppose enforcing policy, that does make it hard to enforce, but those who respect it will continue to do so. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your shaky argument rests on the premise that a category implies guilt. Many reliable sources have described the incident as an act of terrorism, it doesn't presume that James Alex Fields will be found guilty of it. TheValeyard (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making pleas to block editors. Go to WP:ANI if you really think they should be blocked, otherwise this just looks like a personal attack. I note your request at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#more warning templates needed which I also think is inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Doug I am not surprised that you oppose creating a template highlighting WP:BLPCOI. After all, look at what it says...

editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

Now if we were to look at your own history at special:diff/795773955:

Any discussion needs to be in the context of the rise of neo-Nazism in the United States. The groups they oppose resort to murder - not just the unlucky woman who died at the recent rally, but others.

You have a strongly negative view of the subject. You have expressed a belief he is a murderer and a neo-nazi. Thus such a template would be perfect to use on someone WP:INVOLVED who jumps in acting like a neutral party. ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not call anyone a neo-Nazi and I don't see how you can get that out of my edit. At the time I wrote it did appear clear that the ramming/whatever was deliberate. But of course you are right about that, I should have said death, not murder. But even if it were deliberate, I'm not convinced about his mental health. Don't you know about the anti-psychotic medicine he was prescribed several years ago and his statement that he'd been diagnosed as schizophrenia? But you are confused if you think that anyone is allowed to ignore WP:NPOV. And there's no way we are going to stop editors from editing articlew where they have strong viewpoints. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Valeyard, by describing the act as terrorist you are implying someone is guilty of it, and there is nobody else accused of driving the car at this point. Terrorism is for courts to judge, as is murder. It violates BLP neutrality to say he did this pre-conviction. ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

drop the stick. This reads like a forum chat which is going round in circles. Let another editor handle it. You've already attracted the attention of several experienced editors. Maybe try asking them to explain the policy and/or validate your position. You aren't going to get any further repeating your arguments to the same editor over and over again. Edaham (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Fields is not charged with terrorism, hence it is not a matter for the courts to determine. Murder, on the other hand, is a judicial decision. I have some sympathy with removing the murder category for now, but I expect the weight of numbers is against such an outcome. WWGB (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with dropping the murder category. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the murder category should go, it's a poor fit. That said, there is no prohibition on describing an event as murder, terrorism, etc. in a category when it has been described as such in reliable sourcing, but we may not describe an individual as such (at least without "alleged" in the absence of adjudication or some other form of investigatory resolution). Otherwise, ScratchMarshal's attempts to impose their interpretation of BLPCRIME has been a form of POV pushing when reviewed in the context of their other edits and statements. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I see "murder" has been removed and there is consensus for that here--that's fine with me. Scratch Marshall, you are walking a very thin line; I had hoped you would be more careful, not less, after I pointed out that this is a delicate area. And looking over this again, I'm again puzzled by this, "it is not appropriate to call a living American citizen a terrorist before their trial is done"--do American citizens have some kind of special status? If I had been driving, you could call me a murderer and that would be fine? That's a rhetorical question, really, and maybe it's just a slip on your part, but it points to an odd partiality. Drmies (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I think even the murder category is fine, as someone or someones is/are responsible for the woman's death, but if others want to remove just that one so be it. The others that appear to have been warred over earlier should remain. ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The 2017 murder in US category is utilized for suspects as well as convicted persons, and terrorism categories are also commonly utilized well before conviction based on the nature of the crime. The category says that a murder occurred, not that the suspect, if any, is the perpetrator. It is well-sourced that this was a murder. Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That a murder occurred is a matter for the courts. For now, we have a homicide. If the accused is found guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty by reason of insanity etc, then murder did not happen. Murder is established by the judiciary, not the media. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the category should be retitled. All or virtually all murder suspects in the 2017 categories would not be convicted. Perhaps it should be "Accused" murders. Any change should affect all in that category. (by the way, this is yet another example of how categories are often more trouble than they're worth) Coretheapple (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Coretheapple: the problem with that is separating the fact of a murder, which in some cases must surely be undisputed, with the guilt of a particular person. I'm not sure how this would work. An article about an alleged murderer wouldn't have the category but an article about a murder would? But that's messy. Categories are navigational tools, so if a definite murder is involved, the article should have the category, just not a "murderer" category. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  - True, but I can see the other side of the argument, which would invoke BLP. There have been horrific terrorist incidents which have been correctly placed in the terrorist category. But "murder" in ordinary usage involves a criminal act in which someone has been duly convicted. Hence my hesitancy. Right now I favor using the murder category simply for the sake of uniform usage, but we may want to rethink what the category is called so as to incorporate BLP concerns such as raised by WWGB directly above. Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What about something like category:murder charges? People charged with murder can be notable even before a verdict is received or even if the verdict is "not guilty". It would be appropriate to have a category acknowledging situations where murder charges have been pressed. You could even enhance neutrality by having category:murder convictions instead of "murders". We can always be more sure about a conviction occurring than a murder occurring. It is more reality-based and would keep us neutral even in situations of overturns/exonerations. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The categorizes appear to be fine as they are now, I have reverted your most recent edit to them and ask that you do not re-add or change anything without consensus of other editors. Several came together to support the removal one one part above. ValarianB (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

superfluous parent

I would like to propose the removal of Category:Terrorism in the United States because of the presence of the following two subcategories:

Both already communicate the idea. Generally policy as I understand it is to not clutter articles with parent categories when a child category is present. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

photos

Uploaded some pix from Heather's memorial on 4th Street, if they're needed. APK whisper in my ear 00:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

'Reaction' article fork

I see that there is a reference in the article to spinning off that entire section as a separate article. I see no discussion on this page. Is that still being considered? Also I am seeing a lot of less than notable and extraneous reaction in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Spinning this off, or expanding it into silliness in the first place, should be discouraged. We still live in a world where reality is more important than the reactions of talking or tweeting heads, at least for now. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Core I think that came up when the article changed from one about the rally to one about the death and Trump's reaction to it. IMO it should not be split. As for trimming, it seems like a timely idea to me. Others can always disagree and return stuff. Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Reactions sections (complete with flagicons for decoration) are the bane of articles on current events. An entire article would be unbearable. Acroterion (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a fork is a bad idea, but I broached the subject because there is a template reference to a possible fork within the text of the article itself. Since there is no active discussion I'll remove. Coretheapple (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would love it if you restored it, I want to see a "reactions to Unite the Right rally fork. This page is suffering from bloat and is getting progressively harder to load for those of us using data-limited browsers such as on tablets. Based on the title we should really just cover what happened during the rally itself. Given that the 3 deaths happened after the rally ended, even that could be aftermath of Unite the Right rally or deaths following Unite the Right rally. Or maybe death of Heather Heyer because of all casualties this got the most attention. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Restored. My point is simply that if it says in the article there is a discussion, there should be one. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed here about a week ago and archived without removing the tag. Most comments supported either splitting immediately or waiting a week to see how things pan out. Most of the responses just don't seem notable. We don't need a list of every public figure who condemns violence, hatred and racism. Dlthewave (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any fork is necessary. It would impede navigation. Better to work on the existing article. Neutrality^talk 04:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No. I just realized what this thread is about! The reactions section is basically a trivia section, or compilation of miscellany. People want to use a section (the nature of which is discouraged by WP:TRIVIA), which has been dubiously expanded within the article to make another article?! Reactions sections - (and I will check to see if policy exists on this, because it should) - Should describe reactions or aftermath events which have extensive repercussions of their own, i.e. a victim support group being set up as a reaction by an involved party, or a counter protest in response to a protest etc. If you take quotes from every notable figure who opines on a subject you are 1) being WP:INDISCRIMINATE 2) creating a platform for potential WP:UNDUE additions and WP:SOAP boxing. The info in the existing article should be pruned, never mind creating a new one! additional - there is an essay on this, which gives example and guidance. Edaham (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Organizations listed under the Protesters section

Various organizations, specifically the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, the New York Light Foot Militia and the Virginia Minute Men have been listed as members of the "Protesters" section. The sources for each of these are (respectively) Rewire.com, TribLive.com, and theguardian.com. Each of those sources fails to state these groups as part of the protesters, but that the groups themselves claimed to be have been present as "neutral" parties. There is probably a place to list these groups (such as "neutral groups") but without a source explicitly stating a group is protesting, it does not belong under this section. I'm removing these groups from this section as "not per sources". I'm seeing conflicting reports about another group, the "Oath Keepers". I think we should review each group mentioned in the entire article to see that they have been identified accurately as possible. I'm not sure how to handle the conflicting reports.

Any suggestions as to what to call these groups? That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Good work to pick up on this. I've been doing some reading (the Guardian article is a good one) and watched a few videos including the one by Katie Couric. Still thinking about how to include it... Gandydancer (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, no input on this subject. I have not forgotten about it but to some extent hoped that perhaps we could just avoid any mention. Though in my heart of hearts it seems that we should try to find some way to include a mention. I've read what I could find -- Wash. Po. also has an article. A quote from that article: Jacka---s,” was how [a spokesperson] described both sides, meaning the white nationalists, who billed the gathering as Unite the Right, and the counterprotesters, many marching under the banner of Antifa, for “anti-fascist.” Yingling also criticized police, saying that officers were poorly prepared for the violence and not assertive enough in combating it and that they should have enlisted the militiamen to help prevent the mayhem. (When I read that I really did wonder how a supposedly rational adult might actually believe that the police should ask heavily armed volunteers for assistance. Very weird.)

I've known about these militia groups for many years and my impression of them has, in all honesty, not been very good. On the other hand, I accept that in their view they are upholding the Constitution in a very patriotic manner, using arms as (in their opinion) we are supposed to do. Anyway, from my reading they came (armed to the teeth :O) to support free speech on both sides and did not take part in any violence but merely stood by and observed...I guess? Do you have any more thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Their stated position is similar to the ACLU, protecting constitutional rights even if they disagree with what is being said. The media and government officials didn't really distinguish the militias from the protestors, so there's not a lot of coverage beyond Yingling's statements.

I think it would be appropriate to list these groups in a "Militias" section. Even if they didn't participate in the protest itself, the fact that they were heavily armed significantly changed the tone of the event and was a significant point of discussion afterwards. I'm curious how many of the rally participants carried weapons. Dlthewave (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A "militias" section would be welcome. I'd support moving "Oath Keepers" and possibly a few others there.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Re: this edit, I concur with the previous editor: "Not 'others'. just national review. not widespread stance." If there are any concerns about this edit, please discuss on Talk. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it also a bit odd to call antifa an "organization"? ValarianB (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A single editorial by the New York Times has been deemed a sufficient citation for the original claim. Two have been provided for the counter-position. If you prefer to seek out more, then by all means, do so. Regardless, please refer to WP:NPOV and refrain from actively deleting all contravening sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium103 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Defenses of Trump

The Defenses of Trump uses the majority of its space to attack the defenses.

The attacks are dubious as well: The statement 'Beinart noted that unlike the alt-right, the members of Antifa are not practitioners of an ideology that advocate the ethnic cleansing of other racial and religious groups nor do they "celebrate regimes that committed genocide and enforced slavery", and Antifa promotes egalitarianism unlike the alt-right' is false. Antifa supports Communism and leaders like Che Guevara and Castro, which have killed millions of people, many because of religion or in ethnic minorities, and put millions in forced labor. Who are the Antifa?

He says "and Antifa promotes egalitarianism unlike the alt-right". In truth they support forced egalitarianism, i.e. taking other people's property, quite different from mere "egalitarianism".

It states as a fact "right-wing terrorism was far more common than left-wing terrorism". This is not at all clear--it doesn't count recent assassinations of policemen, for example. How media misleads public about domestic terror threats Tomtul2 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please cite more objective sources than the National Review. "Taking other people's property"--that's the kind of thing you can argue in debate class, but this is not a forum. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Antifa promotes egalitarianism unlike the alt-right' is false. Antifa supports Communism... Communism is an egalitarian economic system. In fact, it's pretty much egalitarianism interpreted as an economic system. Besides which, Antifa is named for "Anti-Fascism". It's not Procom, for "Pro-communism". They negatively approach an ideology, they don't officially or de facto support communism, even though many of their members may be communist. It's akin to suggesting that the United States supports obesity.

He says "and Antifa promotes egalitarianism unlike the alt-right". In truth they support forced egalitarianism, i.e. taking other people's property, quite different from mere "egalitarianism".^{[citation needed]}

It states as a fact "right-wing terrorism was far more common than left-wing terrorism". This is not at all clear--it doesn't count recent assassinations of policemen, for example. You seem to prefer right-wing sources, so how about letting the Cato institute make it clear: Right-wing terrorists have killed almost ten times as many people in the US as left-wing terrorists in the period from 1992-2017, and injured more than 20 times as many people in that same time period. In fact, if you discount 9/11 to look entirely at the period from 2002-2017, then right-wing terrorists are the single deadliest group. Even including 9/11 and prior Islamist terrorists attacks in the US, right-wing terrorist launched far more attacks. The fact that they are less competent than Islamists is merely a happy coincidence. I hope this helps.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

04:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

In 2016 left-wing terrorists have killed more people in the US than right-wing terrorists. Retired terrorists don't matter.--Barbanegre (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not even remotely true.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The "Aftermath and reactions" section documents various opinions and responses following the event. For example, the phrase "Beinart noted that unlike the alt-right, the members of Antifa are not practitioners of an ideology that advocate the ethnic cleansing of other racial and religious groups nor do they 'celebrate regimes that committed genocide and enforced slavery'" factually states that a certain person expressed a certain opinion. We are not presenting that opinion as the truth in Wikipedia's voice. Rather than analyzing the accuracy of each statement, we should give due weight according to how common/notable each point of view is. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Color of other 2 vehicles

Consensus is that is trival and not to be included in the article. Time to let this section archive. TheValeyard (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe these are useful additions to put in to supplement the "gray" challenger, knowing the color of all 3 vehicles allows people to better match up discussion of them with the images/video of the scene. I managed to find a source discussing the color of the minivan:

"Charlottesville, Va.: Drone video shows chain reaction after a car plowed into pedestrians". KLEW-TV. 13 August 2017. This drone video provided by CNN Newsource illuminates the chain reaction as the car -- registered to suspect James Alexander Fields, Jr. -- plowed into the crowd, killing a 32-year-old woman and pushing the red minivan pictured in the footage into a crowd of pedestrians.

I'd like to know if anyone knows alternative sources. I found a discussion forum saying the sedan was white (my first instinct too, looking at the footage) but it described the minivan as purple instead of red, and anyway, forums don't work as sources.

Hoping we could find someone besides KLEW reporting on this, it's pretty simple/basic info to enhance description of the Challenger>Sedan>Minivan event, if people can also envision it as Gray>White>Red.

Edit: part of the confusion here is that it seems like the 2010 Dodge Challenger might be a sedan? I found a couple of the sources which describe the ramming car as a sedan, as opposed to the car the driver hit:

Tesfaye, Sophia (12 August 2017). "UPDATED: Terror in Charlottesville: Woman killed as car rams into anti-racist protesters at white nationalist rally". Salon.com. After the rally at a city park was dispersed on Saturday afternoon, following a series of skirmishes between competing bands of protesters, a gray sedan drove directly through a crowd of counter-protesters near Charlottesville's downtown mall.
Gunderman, Dan (14 August 2017). "Alex Jones attributes Charlottesville unrest to 'Jewish actors' meant to silence far-right". New York Daily News. James Fields Jr., who is reportedly a neo-Nazi white supremacist, plowed a gray sedan through a crowd of counter-protesters in the Virginia college town

Another source says it was a SILVER sedan which backed over people:

"Trump condemns 'hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides' in Charlottesville". WPTZ. 14 August 2017. Matt Korbon, a 22-year-old University of Virginia student, said counter-protesters were marching when "suddenly there was just this tire screeching sound." A silver sedan smashed into another car, then backed up, plowing through "a sea of people."

Dodge_Challenger#2009_model_year has pictures of a couple 2010 models, the "2010 Dodge Detonator Challenger R/T Classic" and "2010 Dodge Challenger SRT-8" so I'm wondering if we could possibly get a more specific model name for the ramming car? By knowing the specific model it may be clearer whether the Challenger was also a sedan as reported above, in which case we're really talking about a sedan hitting a sedan hitting a minivan, which would make color/model all the more valuable in discerning between them.

Given that some sources have reported the sedan driving/plowing, if it turns out the Challenger was not a sedan I think it would be good to add (not a sedan) after it. If it turns out they are both sedans, we should note the challenger is a sedan and say "another sedan" or "a second sedan" or something like that, to acknowledge there are two.

I'm not familiar enough with cars to be able to just look at the picture and say whether the Challenger was or not (I have no idea what sedan specifications are) but figure if we knew more about the model, sources could explain that.

Update: found another source! Not sure how reputable, seems like a small publication, but it at least makes comment on the colors:

Rothrock, Millie (15 August 2017). "Rural Retreat graduate injured in Charlottesville". swvatoday.com. Archived from the original on 16 August 2017. Fields' car rammed into a white car, which then hit a burgundy van. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

If the minivan was burgundy (color) this might explain why one source says red but some people are saying purple in forums, as it is "a dark red tending towards purple". I am curious if SWVA Today (appear to be called Community Newspapers of Southwest Virginia) might be important enough a publication to qualify for a Wikipedia article or not, how do we evaluate that? ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I find this revised text to be now overly-weighed down with detail, making it less readable and informative. We shouldn't, as encyclopedia editors, be repeating excessive detail about this or any event. Describe the events broadly and cite sources so readers can read more if need be. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ValarianB is right on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I also don't see how it is encyclopedic. How does color or say hatchback vs sedan matter? Doug Weller talk 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored the pre-detailed version. I get that the OP is enthusiastic about this crash chain of events, given this and earlier conversations above, but this just wasn't a net positive. ValarianB (talk) 19:20, 30 August 20

Valarian regardless of two circumstantial cheers you had no grounds for removing the information. Sources were provided. Individual Wikipedians' personal dislike for the presentation of facts are not grounds to exclude them. Abusing reversion and dogpiling onto a topic to promote vague and hazy accounts of events when we have more details is what is contrary to the goals of encyclopedia. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The excessive detail was removed appropriately after a talk page discussion. These are trivial facts that do not add to the quality of the article, and being sourced does not necessarily warrant inclusion.

There may be certain cases where small details help the reader understand the article, such as if there was uncertainty about which driver caused the crash. However, in this case, it is unambiguous that the driver of the Challenger caused the death and injuries. The nature of the chain reaction has no bearing on the overall outcome. Additionally, the photos and video are understandable without an in-depth explanation. If we state that the Challenger plowed into a crowd of people and two other cars, the reader can look at the images and easily see which vehicles are involved. Dlthewave (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Marshall, seriously, stop beating the dead horse. Virtually none of your edits to this article have stuck, and coming back every few days to attempt the same thing is going to be viewed very dimly by others, if complaints are ever filed about this article. TheValeyard (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Censoring the gray/white/red colors does not make it "more informative" and a few extra words do not make it illegible. Added them back. This is a net positive. I don't buy that any of you are having trouble reading this because of a couple adjectives. You all seem intelligent and collected. Is aesthetics your last refuge for trying to keep information out? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source saying color does not matter? Sources we do have giving color says it is. Color of Challenger would be pointless if others were sale color. The benefit is when there is contrast. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Drop the WP:STICK. This is trivia, and spending two weeks fixating on trivia is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cause of death

According to Heyer's mother, she died of a heart attack.

This has been added four times and reverted three of those times. Please discuss any changes here, not in the edit summary, and remember that this article is under 1RR. A few thoughts:

- In general, I would be OK with including a medical professional's opinion repeated by a layperson in her own words. Although she might be paraphrasing something that a doctor said to her, this is more of a personal commentary than a reliable/verifiable source.

- The statement wasn't meant to explain the cause of death. She was using a small detail to show that there wasn't prolonged suffering.

- Reliable sources make it clear that Heyer was killed by the vehicle ramming attack without going into detail about the mechanism of death. This is standard practice for reporting fatalities. Although it may be technically accurate, it is (perhaps deliberately) misleading to describe this as a "heart attack" without including the trauma that caused the heart attack. The current phrasing does not directly connect the death with the attack, so readers might assume that she was an uninvolved bystander who suffered a heart attack upon witnessing the event. Dlthewave (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with Dlthewave. Gandydancer (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also point out that Fields is still being charged with second degree murder. If it had been shown that she simply dropped dead of a heart attack the charge would have been dropped. Not surprisingly the far right has run with this trying to show Fields is innocent, but that's no surprise. Doug Weller talk 05:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If it had been shown that she simply dropped dead of a heart attack the charge would have been dropped

Going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Weller's assumption here. If the prosecutor thought they could make a case that the terror induced by a car's movements caused a heart attack, they might still carry forth. IE if someone kidnaps me and holds me at gunpoint saying "I'M GOING TO SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD" and then shoots a bullet past my ear to scare me, even if they didn't do any direct physical damage their actions still caused a fatal amount of fear if that caused a heart attack. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that definitively assert that she was struck by the car? I've reviewed the videos multiple times in slow motion and based on where she was laying when she received CPR and the clothes that she was wearing it appears that she was standing near the passenger side of Fields's car near the point of impact, wasn't struck by the car itself but was inches away, and was knocked over either by people who were struck or others who were attempting to flee. She was wearing all black and was not the woman who was wearing green who was struck and flung over the top of the car in front of Fields' car. I didn't add any of this to the article because there aren't credible sources which state or confirm this, but the evidence is out there for anyone to review. But that's all somewhat beside the point because I only added the sentence that according to her mother she died of a heart attack. That's a true statement as the video that I cited shows. There's speculation that her health conditions contributed to her death but I didn't insert anything speculative into the article. The media has been completely silent on the details of the case for weeks. 70.209.198.29 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant and we go by what the mainstream sources say. It's not surprising that the media has been silent about it, there's really nothing more to report and the fact of the court case means it unlikely that anything not official would be reported. Doug Weller talk 05:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

So are you asserting that nbcnews.com is not a "mainstream source"? And what is the harm of adding the detail that according to her mother, Heyer died of a heart attack? That doesn't preclude the possibility that she was struck by the car, though it's not clear that she was struck. It doesn't say anything about Fields's guilt or innocence. It only says that she died of cardiac arrest, according to her mother. I'm confused as to why it's controversial for this detail to be added. Perhaps it could be worded less tersely but adding the detail itself doesn't detract from anything else in the article or shine any light onto whether or not Fields is guilty or innocent. This is a disappointing but entirely expected example of political bias among Wikipedia admins. Adding this detail shouldn't have political implications. 70.209.198.29 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug, please respond as to whether or not Wikipedia admins officially consider nbcnews.com not to be a "mainstream source" so that I can know if I should never use NBC as a source on Wikipedia. 70.209.198.29 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I know this IP is clearly trolling, but in an overabundance of feeling like a response should at least be given to close this out, I'll address it. You, Mr. IP editor, are clearly not interested in establishing whether or not NBC should be used as a source. Your edits to the article and this talk page are a clear indication to any reasonable person that you are interested in pushing the POV narrative, popular on alt-right/white supremacist blogs/forums (go ahead and Google "heyer heart attack"), that Heyer wasn't killed by a vehicle attack, and actually died of a heart attack. Your attempted use of Wikipedia policy to justify your additions is not even close to valid - we don't just add random quotes from any video clip that happens to be on a news site to an article. You would need a news report from a reliable source that actually reported on said quote that indicated the significance of it. I searched, and there is no such report. Therefore, your attempts to push this POV will continue to be reverted. Hope that clears things up - not for you, because I know your real motivation - but for anyone else that happens to stumble across your trolling questions. Rockypedia (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to write something similar but you said it better than I could have. Gandydancer (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It isn't whether NBC is reliable or not, it is. But we don't just use sources because they are there. Rocky's right, we'd need reliable sources discussing what she said. Context, as usual, is vital. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing what somebody's "real motivation" for adding objectively correct information is. What if when the trial comes around this detail actually become significant? It may be, it may not be, but your reasoning for not wanting it on the page is because you don't like the google results that come up if somebody searches for more information about it. That shouldn't be a relevant consideration. 70.209.202.131 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Indirectly, that's actually the only consideration. More explicitly, the only relevant consideration is whether or not you can find a reliable secondary source that asserts the significance of the text you're trying to add. And you haven't found one. As for your "what if", see WP:CRYSTAL. Anything else? No? Okay, thanks, bye. Rockypedia (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Is www.rawstory.com a relevant source for wikipedia ?--93.15.102.4 (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but I see they are using Media MattersFringe media are furiously trying to absolve the white nationalist who allegedly killed Heather Heyer so we could go with that. Thanks for finding it. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I like your idea of using this Kaplan article. If we cite it we should also cite the NBC video's dialogue to provide context though. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but we shouldn't be using mediamatters as a source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

FFS -- a death certificate almost always lists cardiac arrest as the cause of death. What you want to know are secondary and tertiary causes, i.e. secondary to blunt force trauma or secondary to liver failure. This is, by the way, why diabetes deaths are under-reported. The diabetes is often the quaternary or quinary cause. Cardias arrest secondary to tamponade secondary to blunt force trauma is not necessarily quick or painless. Rhadow (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Source

Useful source on rally legacy: Baumgaertner, Emily (September 8, 2017). "After Charlottesville, Colleges Vow to Do Something. But What?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.

czar 16:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

statements from Heyer's mother

Presently two portents on the article from two sources:

Heyer's mother said she wanted Heather's name to become "a rallying cry for justice and equality and fairness and compassion."

Calfas, Jennifer. "Charlottesville Victim's Mother: I Want Her Death to be 'a Rallying Cry for Justice'". Time. Archived from the original on August 13, 2017. Retrieved August 15, 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Heyer's memorial service was held at Charlottesville's Paramount Theatre on August 16; Heyer's mother spoke to hundreds of mourners, asking them to honor Heyer by acting against injustice and turning "anger into righteous action."

Associated Press (16 August 2017). "Heather Heyer remembered at Charlottesville memorial service". Mercury News. Archived from the original on 17 August 2017.

NBC News at https://www.nbcnews.com/video/heather-heyer-s-mom-delivers-message-about-karma-to-white-nationalists-1028340803735 has a video interview of the mother making this statement, as best as I can hear it:

For the record I know that those who are evil are going to rejoice in my grief and I understand that. That's their issue. Karma's a you-know-what. So I'm just grieving my child. She died pretty instantly, she didn't suffer, she died of a heart attack right away at the scene. They revived her briefly, not consciously, just got her heart beating again and then her heart just stops so I don't feel like she suffered. That's been a blessing, that's been a real blessing.

To verify if that's transcribed correctly perhaps there is a source which has transcribed it, in case I mixed up a word?

I'm thinking it would be valuable to the article to include this quote from the mother. To clarify that she died on the scene and not hours later in the hospital where the pronouncement was made. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fuck no. This is very obviously part of the fringe conspiracy theory to imply that the attacker was innocent because of the heart attack. Get out of here with that garbage. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Quoting the mother about the heart attack does not in any way imply Fields was innocent of causing the heart attack. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, and you're intentionally dodging the point. Is this supposed to be clever? As is already explained above on this talk page, it's a fetish of the far-right to repeat and emphasize this quote for that reason. If she was declared dead at the rally, just say that. If she was declared dead at the hospital, just say that. Wikipedia isn't a platform for spreading WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories, and fixating on this one quote is absolutely 100% in line with that motive as is already discussed and documented above. This is conspiracy theory which originated on far right/neo-nazi forums. Cherry picking the exact same quote, from an otherwise obscure news clip, favored and endlessly repeated by those sources, is far too convenient to be plausible. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell you have prompted a realization here: these theories are getting a lot of coverage, meaning they are probably notable and worth reporting on, since we have major impartial media outlets reporting on them to condemn them. Here is your source and another I found which could be cited for that:

Kaplan, Alex (8 September 2017). "Fringe media are furiously trying to absolve the white nationalist who allegedly killed Heather Heyer". Media Matters for America. Trolls and anonymous message boards are pushing the story that she died from a heart attack and health issues -- and not because she was hit by a car
Helm, Angela (10 September 2017). "Fringe Media Outlets Smear Heather Heyer, Alleging She Died by Heart Attack, Not a Raging White Supremacist". The Root (magazine). these platforms are now trying to once again revise the truth by saying that Heather Heyer's death was caused not by raging white supremacist James Fields, who mowed her down during a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 12, but because she had a "heart attack."

It is clear though, from the NBC video, that "she died of a heart attack right away at the scene" was spoken by the mom, so perhaps us actually putting that in context (using the full quote) is the best way to prevent people from using it out of context? ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, there is already a discussion about this above. Did you actually read that discussion? You are still very clearly trying to cast this in a specific light which favors a WP:FRINGE perspective. This isn't "teach the controversy" because the only sources which think this is a legitimate thing is the extreme-right fringe fever swamp. "Context" in this case is a naked attempt to legitimize an especially despicable conspiracy theory. A Nazi-sympathizer rammed a car into a crowd of innocent people and one of them died. This isn't Finnigans Wake we're talking about, here. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not proposing just the heart attack bit, but to simply cite the entire statement, unaltered, unparaphrased. Please WP:AssumeGoodFaith here, wanting to quote the mom is not a fringe-supporting light-casting. I'm even proposing that we can quote the 2 cites I presented above which are critical of those who take that out of context. Quoting the mom DOESN'T legitimize the silly theories, because people can be criminally at fault for causing another person's heart attack. For example: if someone punched me in the mouth and then I had a heart attack, they still caused my death. I think omitting this quote simply gives it power through suppression. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for neo-Nazi conspiracy theories. The only reason to including this obscure quote in its entirety based on a single primary source is to legitimize this conspiracy theory. This interview is only emphasized and discussed by either extremist sites, or those attempting to debunk those sites. To include this interview like this would be offensively irresponsible without dramatically better coverage of the interview. You don't even have a source which transcribes this interview, you had to do it yourself. You also don't have reliable sources which explain why this is significant to the larger incident. All you have is sources, which I had to prompt you to find, of this one comment feeding depravity by "brain-dead" (as The Root calls them) who're threatened by scrutiny over their own abhorrent behavior. It's far too late for those sources now, though, you hand has been tipped. There is no non-offensive plausible reason for you to want to include this is in such lascivious detail. This interview is not treated as significant by reliable sources, but it's been fawned-over by T_D, Daily Stormer, Inforwars, etc. which are all unreliable and counter to Wikipedia's goals. This one obscure part of an interview is heinously undue weight. "Power through suppression" is utter nonsense. Not every seeping conspiracy theory deserved attention or legitimacy. Grayfell (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

After looking I'd say that your proposal for inclusion fails WP:N with WP:BLP issues regarding a relative. From WP:BLPNAME: The post-event comments of relatives of people who were at the event, or were otherwise loosely involved are not necessary for a complete understanding of the subject. Fails WP:TOOMUCH for the previous reasons as well as that the details you want to include affect neither the outcome of the event or have WP:LASTING effects of their own. I'm sure these post-event discussions are really important to some people on what ever message boards these reports are being passed around but Wikipedia is neither a platform for WP:CIVIL-ing Nazi WP:CIVIL-tards, or the bereaved relatives of their victims. Edaham (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Searching various sites today via the victim's name and "heart attack" does show a disconcerting movement by alt-right, far-right, neo-nazi whatever you one wants to call them, to talk up the heart attack and cast the victim's death in a false light. I have no special insight into another editor's mind, so talk of motives and mindsets are beyond me. However, when an editor makes the same kind of arguments as those fringe sites do, especially when it stretches over weeks and involves revert-warring (not recently, but there were tussles over categories a few weeks ago), that editor will be viewed in the same dim light. All in all ,this is overly-detailed material with questionable motivation for inclusion. Leave it out. ValarianB (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed in an earlier thread on this page so I'm not going to reiterate the reasons for not including the heart attack quote. If the conspiracy theory has grown into a notable part of the event, it might be appropriate to include it in a "conspiracy theories section", but under no circumstances does this justify repeating the conspiracy theory itself at face value. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of a better way of creating a IP driveby dragnet for useless information, with no bearing on an understanding of the event, than by creating a conspiracy theories section. The existence of conspiracy theories would have to have some kind of wp:EFFECT beyond a bunch of people discussing them and the occasional editorial news report remarking on the ludicrousness of the discussions - i.e. some noteworthy event happening as a result of the theories or some serious scholarship which investigates them. The above tripe fails utterly on BLP privacy issues before we even get into how trivial the details actually are. Edaham (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It depends. I mean, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories has its own article, but that was fueled by Alex Jones and covered extensively by national media. We're far away from that here right now, thankfully. The Root, Alternet, and Media Matters are the only ones I see debunking this nonsense atm. ValarianB (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It's happening elsewhere too. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

casualties afterward split

How about a casualties following Unite the Right rally for car/copter and similar? There is a lot of discussion about injuries/death which happened hours after the rally disbanded. Categories applied to these casualties are wrongly being applied to the article about the rally itself. Discussion is extensive enough that a split would benefit legibility of article which should focus on what happened during the rally. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That is a ridiculously non-neutral, non-productive proposal. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't need yet another article to watch for the "but heart attack!" nonsense, thanks. TheValeyard (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is wanting to acknowledge the deaths did not occur during the rally not neutral Gray? Legibility and categorical accuracy IS productive.

If we export EVERYTHING it would still be one spot to watch Vale. Easier due to brevity too.

There would also be no worries if you simply added a "mom misreported cause of death as heart attack, it was actually... *insert*" explanation. Nature abhors a vacuum. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this isn't a good idea. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

ScratchMarshall, this is an insultingly ridiculous deflection. The article already fully "acknowledges" the time these deaths happened. This proposal is yet more trivia to try an exonerate the rally's organizers by implying that the deaths were not directly related. What is the point of this proposed new article other than creating more room for deception and trivialization?

Including neo-Nazi-promoted trivia with no obvious benefit to the article other than to undermine reliable sources is utterly contemptible. One single passing mention in an obscure interview is still being hammered over and over again as being vitally important to this article beyond any sense. The only "vacuum" is the endless sucking sound from conspiracy theory garbage dumps. This has become disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

They're back

Richard Spencer and white nationalists briefly return to Charlottesville. TheValeyard (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Traditionalist Workers Party

This group participated as we note, and I found a source describing their participation and mentioning the fact that they will be at Shelbyville on the 28th. Also, their leader, Matt Parrott aka User:Wikitopian, complained at the article's talk page about the article (which is actually about their predecessor, the Traditional Youth Network), which in turn led me to find the source. The source[1] quotes Parrott.

"The groups coming to Shelbyville for what they’re calling a “White Lives Matter” rally include The League of the South, the Traditionalist Workers Party, Vanguard America and the National Socialist Movement.

These alt-right fringe groups claimed they were innocent victims of attacks by counter protesters in Charlottesville, that they were merely trying to protect themselves and to assert their constitutional right to free speech.

This is how Matt Parrott of Traditionalist Youth Network, a white supremacist group, described their claim of self defense: “With a full-throated rebel yell, the League broke through the wall of degenerates and TradWorker managed to enter the Lee Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling. Michael Tubbs, an especially imposing League organizer towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as league fighters with shields put their training to work.”

Another view of the incident came from a news reporter, Blake Montgomery: “Most white supremacist and Nazi groups arrived armed like a paramilitary force — carrying shields, protective gear, rods and, yes, lots of guns, utilizing Virginia’s loose firearm laws. They used militarized defensive maneuvers, shouting commands at one another to ‘move forward’ or ‘retreat,’ and would form a line of shields or a phalanx — it’s like they watched ‘300’ a few times — to gain ground or shepherd someone through projectiles. It seemed that they had practiced for this."

We need an article on the TWP, by the way. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Shelbyville Rally

Is there an article on this yet? Doug Weller talk 13:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Talk:Traditionalist Youth Network#Requested move 18 October 2017

FYI on a requested move for a related article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[Redacted]

Redacted per WP:BLP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, not true: "she died as a result of blunt-force injury to the chest". Nice try. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Redacted again. --Grayfell (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your personal speculation is irrelevant and disruptive. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

DeAndre Harris section

My edits that have been reverted were correct. On my user talk page, Oswah asks: "You also added "On October 9, 2017, after verifying the facts of the incident" - why did you add the phrase after verifying the facts after removing referenced content there? Do any sources state this? This appears to be worded in a way that could be interpreted as a viewpoint. What if people disagree and don't believe that anything was "verified"? Do you see the concerns that your edits are introducing here?"

Here is the relevant text from the Vice News article that was sourced by the user claiming that the police were not involved in the decision to sign off on the warrant (https://news.vice.com/story/how-white-supremacists-got-the-black-man-they-brutally-beat-charged-with-felony): “The victim went to the Magistrate’s office, presented the facts of what occurred, and attempted to obtain a warrant,” Charlottesville police said in a statement on Tuesday. “The magistrate requested that a detective respond and verify these facts. A Charlottesville Police Department detective did respond, verified the fact, and a warrant for Unlawful Wounding (VA Code 18.2-51) was issued.”

So, based on the Vice News article, the facts were verified by a detective with the Charlottesville police. So the entire POV slant of the section claiming that the warrant was drawn up without the police being involved is false. The claim that the warrant surprised the police department is false. Whether or not "many activists" were surprised by the warrant being issued is completely irrelevant. Now that DeAndre Harris has been arrested and charged, how white supremacists or others "sought to portray" the incident is irrelevant, because a police detective and magistrate verified the facts, issued a warrant, and arrested and charged DeAndre Harris. Most of the section is trying to frame it as if Harris is being railroaded.

I may have accidentally removed some relevant sources in removing the section about how certain groups sought to portray the incident. Those should be added back, but by and large I think my edits served to remove POV language and clean-up the section. 70.209.197.196 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have initiated a deletion discussion of the standalone article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Harris. This may be of interest to editors here. ValarianB (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This section should be removed. Harris is not notable. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Make America Great Again

Someone has put their own opinion on the meaning of this phrase into the article by linking the MAGA page with the quote "Make America White again". It is highly subjective (not to mention disingenuous) to correlate the quote with the slogan. Furthermore, it is unnecessary. There is sourced evidence that people were saying "Make America White Again". Leave it at that. Remove the link. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Try a Google search. It is rather common NYT: Trump Making America White Again Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but that is not what the slogan means on its face. It has been politicized that way by anti-Trump people. An article like this should be free from political bias. Removing the link does not change the content, and it allows for free interpretation of the slogan. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Made a compromise change to make the article great again. O3000 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that the IP editor has been rightfully blocked for racist trolling: there is no need to AGF or take their statements seriously--by definition, racist commentary is irrational. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Woof. Hadn't looked at their history. O3000 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI: White Lives Matter rally

I created this as a redirect to Nationalist Front (United States), the organiser of the October 2017 rally in Shelbyville, Tennessee. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Far-right"?

What is "far-right" about wanting to preserve history? 47.137.183.192 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Your personal opinion that this is solely about "preserving history" is neither well-supported by sources, not relevant to how this article reflects the incident. "History" is not a free-pass that automatically makes something apolitical. Sources do support that some of the far-right protesters used "preserving history" as a euphemism to make their racist and anti-Semitic views more palatable, but Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR or whitewashing. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources like the NY Times where Judith Miller won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize after she repeated every false claim of Ahmed Chalabi that the Bush administration used as a pretext for the Iraq War - and ignore the Downing Street Memos. The same reliable sources that are reporting that Assad repeatedly uses chemical weapons against his own people, the one weapon that gives the United States an excuse to bomb Syria, despite the fact that Assad controls the military and an airforce. The same realiable sources that claimed the bombing of Libya was to prevent a humanitarian crisis which has been abandoned to let it fight out a civil war. Those reliable sources. Wikipedia wouldn't want to cite unreliable sources, with stellar sources like these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2017‎

That has very little to do with this article, but for comparison, Miller's own editors eventually acknowledged that she was repeatedly wrong, and we cover that. If, anywhere in the next 16 years, the New York Time's coverage of this event gets proportional critical coverage of the Chalabi thing, we can revisit. Until then, trying to discredit the New York Times in order to paint neo-confederates, Swastika-waving neo-Nazis, and open white nationalist as somehow not being "far-right", well, no. Plenty of reliable sources support this, and they all have some flaws. Reliable sources make mistakes and issue corrections. That's a sign that they are reliable. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just demonstrating "reliable sources" aren't. Just as wikipedia was infiltrated by CAMERA, it's also infiltrated by many organizations. "Reliable sources" are not exempt. Controlling the narrative is easy, you place a small number of infiltrators at the head of a group, and display symbols to vilify the entire group who is unaware of who the leader of the little parade is. The "leaders" of OWS and the TeaParty were destroyed by having people who were not leaders represented as them by "reliable sources". It's a common tactic. If you want to know what the people actually were doing there, you need to ask them. I could demonstrate this easily with two videos, but your site forbids me from sharing the information easily. So, if you care to, you'll have to look these up on youtube Unite The Right Torchlit March Towards Lee Park Through Charlottesville, VA by "The Last Stand", and "Jews Will Not Replace Us" in Charlottesville by "WorldJewish Congress". The first one was posted on August 11, the second the 17. The first one was posted before the event made national news. The first one is likely to be accurate, given that it was posted before it made national news. The second one is widely reported by "reliable sources" to be what was actually going on - which, I don't know, may have been at another time - but many people have denied it, and claimed it's doctored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a point in there somewhere? TheValeyard (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

George Orwell meets Hunter S. Thompson. O3000 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess the point is, facts don't matter - apparently. Suspect "reliable" sources, are the only thing that is "reliable" here :) I think I've pointlessly made my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Not without signing your post you haven't. Also

Not Forum!. Also sites with user generated content are generally not reliable sources. That's a policy which is written into our project. If you have an issue with that and think it is going to be an insurmountable hurdle which prevents you from writing articles you can start your own wiki here! It's fun and I'll even come over there when you get it started and whine about whatever policies you enforce so that it looks realistic. Edaham (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Title of article... no mention of location?

Interesting that this incident doesn't mention the location in its title. Looking at most terror attacks and vehicular rampage events -- which is easy to do by looking at the links at the bottom of the article -- the LOCATION is typically the primary identifier in the article name. Thoughts? 842U (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Unite the Right rally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bjpa.org/search-results/publication/19259
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170818221922/http://gothamist.com/2017/08/18/trump_superkick_party.php to http://gothamist.com/2017/08/18/trump_superkick_party.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Deliberate deletion of counter-opinions re: Unite The Right Rally

A summary of media responses citing a single New York Times editorial has been provided in the header. Two from National Review were provided to cite the relevant counter-opinion but deleted with the justification of it being "just one opinion" (as though the adjacent one were not).

Subsequently, an edit war ensued over the insertion of a quote deemed relevant for quotation by NBC which has been demanded by a consensus of politically aligned editors to be unacceptable to reprint for fear of conspiracy theorizing, even though it could be made clear that heart attack due to trauma is perfectly common, and as though that were a reason to arbitrarily obfuscate information anyhow.

Among the prevailing consensus, this WP: NPOV and WP: AGF gem:

11:58, 29 September 2017 ValarianB (talk | contribs) . . (210,798 bytes) (-187) . . (Undid revision 802934185 by TheAaliyahJones (talk) The alt right talking point will not be allowed in this article)

Regardless, and as requested, multiple sources from the likes of Newsweek and the Washington Post were added to the counterpoint in the header, but deleted on the justification that edits were not discussed, when the discussion page has devolved into referring to other users as "nazi civil-tards" without controversy.

Does there stand any coherent reason not to undo the following revision? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&diff=802961526&oldid=802960642 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium103 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to phrase the RfC in the form of two or more options for editors to comment on. Read this Wikipedia policy page for more on how to do this if you're confused. Rockypedia (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues conflated here. What was reverted was either #1, the watering down the vehicular homicide by highlighting the heart attack angle, and #2 "Anfita as bad as Nazis!", supported by a handful of OpEds and a gaggle of biased right-wing sources pushing a fringe narrative. Fringe theories don't get equal playtime as the mainstream, sorry. TheValeyard (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC tag as this isn't a proper RfC. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I was told by admin Huon in chat to bring it up in RfC, I stated the issue as lucidly as possible, and a clear choice of including the sources or not was included in the wording, so what recourse for the de-facto brigading of a page is there supposed to be?

And, no, even if you've managed to convince yourself that the Washington Post and Newsweek were "biased right-wing sources", any source that one generally disagrees with does not suddenly become non-notable, | whether it's biased or not. Equilibrium103 (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In regards to my "gem" above, I removed the passage in question and will continue to do so until/unless it is demonstrated here that there is consensus to support its inclusion. It is a fashionable talking point in alt-right/nationalist circles to highlight the "victim died of a heart attack" aspect of her death, to downplay and discredit the vehicular homicide. It is a violation of NPOV to include an extremeist point-of-view. As for "AGF", I note and highlight the bad-faith editing of "TheAaliyahJones", and reverted accordingly, an account which edit-warred this article in an 18-hour span, was blocked, has made 1 typo edit after the block expired, then silence. There are several accounts that exhibit this behavior, including this one, "Equilibrium103". ValarianB (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In regards to Equilibrium103's question on why this wasn't a properly-formatted RfC, I ask Equilibrium103 again to please read the RfC policy page, particularly #3, which states "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" - your RfC was neither brief nor neutral. Take a look at the "Example" listed below that section - it's 10 words long. Now, yours doesn't have to be that short, but you need to clearly present two choices (it can be more, but I think in this case it's two) to the commenters/voters, and you need to do it neutrally. Rockypedia (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The basic reportage of the victim dying of a heart attack is not a point of view at all. Creationists misappropriating the facts about the flagellum of the eye does not make whatever observable complexities about it change in any way whatsoever, and offers no justification for erasing any data point regarding it.

I would ask again for any justification for the exclusive and prominent inclusion of one subset of editorial opinion represented by a single journalistic source and the deliberate exclusion of any and all others regardless of how thoroughly-cited, or I will consider the "not addressed in talk" claim null and void, and any further deletion of it disruptive and overt WP:TE.Equilibrium103 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The "basic reportage" belies an alt-right narrative that seeks to discredit the vehicular homicide. If there is adequate sourcing to discuss the alt-right smear regarding the heart attack angle, then we can certainly include that, but the Wikipedia does not advance fringe narratives as if they were fact. What you "consider" addressed or not really has no relevance to the discussion, and declaring an intent to edit-war will probably not go well for you. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You've done nothing to establish that the single sentence in question carries an objectively deducible narrative, only your inductive fear of one, and this resource is not required to discuss a narrative you prefer while exterminating raw information you don't, but by all means, include the Media Matters et al citation as well.

And I'm more then satisfied to let people at the very least observe statements like that last one and determine if it's justification amounts to no more then an attempt at intimidation and argumentum ad nauseam. Equilibrium103 (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure every editor save you has more than justified this and other edits, bro. Not sure what else is left to discuss here, as their is zero consensus for your preferred edits. TheValeyard (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing to add that has not been said by others, and consider the matter settled. ValarianB (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The heart attack matter was thoroughly addressed by ScratchMarshall, and he was hounded with character attacks for the correct assertion that relaying raw facts does not forward a narrative. I leave the users to review that themselves and reflect on the personal and emotive nature of this consensus, and what, if anything, is to be done to mitigate such a thing anywhere else if not here.

However, in the matter of the journalistic counter-opinion, neither you nor anyone else have said anything whatsoever except for a dubious and swiftly abandoned assertion against the cited sources. So regarding the following outlets:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazis/2017/08/30/9a13b2f6-8d00-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.41e0aa0a7998

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450722/stop-normalizing-political-violence-use-fighting-words-instead

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/17/trump-spoke-truth-sides-charlottesville-media-lost-minds/

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporters-antifa-white-supremacists-650640

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/350946-why-president-trumps-both-sides-argument-has-merit

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/08/17/poll-despite-media-what-did-americans-think-of-trumps-charlottesville-response-n2369890

I will take it that you consider their worthwhile inclusion settled in the affirmative. Thank you for your time. Equilibrium103 (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

OpEds and fringe right-wing sources. No valid case for the inclusion of these. I would also caution against popping back up every few days to edit-war, as that has not gone so well for some of the other now mysteriously-silent user accounts. ValarianB (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC) ValarianB (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Mysterious? You are master of revert warring and bullying into silence so I frequently take sabbaticals to quell the frustration. Does not mean you are right to suppress the quote. Glad others are speaking. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Amazing. Newsweek and WaPo are "fringe right-wing sources" and now, according to Greyfell's reversion, one of the 200 highest trafficked websites in the entire United States like The Hill, a poll of the general public sourced by CBS News and one of the three most circulated newspapers in the country are all decreed as "very poor sources".

I can understand an objective concern about the Heyer quote on the basis of due weight, but this kind of collective willful obfuscation is beyond anything I've ever seen on this site. If this doesn't constitute overt WP:TE, nothing ever has, does, or will. Equilibrium103 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The reverted content was still sloppily synthesized, incredibly vague, and poorly attributed WP:WEASEL wording. Being popular doesn't make a source reliable, and all sources must be judged by context. These edits were selective and unrepresentative of due weight. Lumping in a citation to Ann Coulter as though she represented a expert opinion is just one of many red flags that this is false balance. Slow-burn edit warring is still edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Tendentiousness would be defined as edit-warring against consensus over the course of several months. TheValeyard (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"More people performing WP:TE then those who aren't = not WP:TE" Not even close.

"being popular doesn't make it reliable" Reliable? The paragraph is a notation of moral opinion, not scientific prediction. The word you're looking for is notable, and you've now conceded the scale of this opinion.

"False balance" This one is particularly rich from the person who has not only for a third time now attempted to obfuscate the number of cited journals widely considered to be left-leaning, but whose idea of true balance is the infinitely and eternally exclusive airing of a single opinion by a single source.Equilibrium103 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

At this point I've filed with the dispute resolution board. You've all been notified. Equilibrium103 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see the point, as there's nothing to resolve when a single voice wants something and at least a dozen oppose it. ValarianB (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unite the Right rally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170814113927/https://www.dailystormer.com/heather-heyer-woman-killed-in-road-rage-incident-was-a-fat-childless-32-year-old-slut to https://www.dailystormer.com/heather-heyer-woman-killed-in-road-rage-incident-was-a-fat-childless-32-year-old-slut/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Defence of Trump" section is quite strange

The mentioned section is essentially just more criticism of Trump & also a bizarre diatribe about how great Antifa (?) are. 86.147.25.114 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Medical report and chest injury

@Drmies: when you shared a link Oct 19th to this Oct 17th report, that's just the sort of thing I've been looking for to clarify the whole "heart attack" quote issue.

Per the Tom Porter article: http://www.newsweek.com/charlottesville-heather-heyers-cause-death-revealed-medical-report-686471

"died as a result of blunt-force injury to the chest, according to a medical report."

This is just the sort of thing we ought to include somewhere in the article so people will understand the cause of death. I searched for "blunt" but we don't presently use the word in the article!

Later on it does say something I find a bit confusing though:

The Central District Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Richmond released the cause of death Monday, reported The Daily Progress, with a ruling on the manner of death still pending.

So determining cause-of-death but not manner-of-death means they know a blunt-force injury caused death but not in what manner a blunt-force injury occured?

Backtracing to TDP mentioned by Newsweek is the October 16th piece from "The Daily Progress staff" (could not find a name) at http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/heather-heyer-s-cause-of-death-ruled-as-blunt-force/article_cf362edc-b2c6-11e7-bfa4-8749ed76aae2.html

"Heather Heyer’s cause of death was blunt force injury to the chest, according to the Central District Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Richmond."

BFITTC verbatim. The value of these sources is we also know they are attributing it CDO of the CME. It also elaborates though:

The manner of Heyer’s death is still pending, a representative with the office said Monday.

That part is a bit unclear, since we don't know who this "representative with the office" is.

One thing I am trying to discern here is, do we have a source which clarifies the nature of this report? Like was it a speech an office representative gave? An e-mail that went out? Is a copy of the full document freely available for the public to read or is it only privy to those with specific media credentials?

I'm interested in knowing how close Heyer's mom's early summary was. If it was "cardiac arrest caused by blunt force trauma to the chest" for example, there wouldn't be any contradiction, and there would be no harm in openly explaining how some news sites took that comment and ran with it in speculative directions. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What need is there to clarify anything? A Nazi ran into her with a car and killed her. Allegedly of course. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- What clickbait writers allege and what the coroner alleges hold very different weight. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There are five manners of death: Natural, Accident, Homicide, Suicide, Undetermined. Reliable sources agree that she was intentionally struck by a car, but the medical examiner might not officially declare it as a homicide until after the trial. –dlthewave ☎ 03:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have not seen agreement upon reliable sources that Heather was struck by a car. Reporters covering this have generally been very careful to phrase it that the car struck the CROWD (which it did) and then say that event caused the death. Feel free to tally up those papers which have directly said Heather was struck by the Challenger compared to those reporters who professionally kept it ambiguous until the coroner's report and trial clarified it better. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:STICK. Feel free to let it go anytime. TheValeyard (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist categories

Would Category:Individuals designated as terrorists by the United States government apply to this article? This mentions Executive Order 13224 and while I know individual politicians in office have made statements regarding terrorism, this category description says "any department of the United States government" so I don't know whether or not individual statements count as a "department" statement or not. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not unless a foreign individual or organization associated with the event has had their assets frozen under Executive Order 13224. –dlthewave ☎ 02:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not terrorism

There were a number of storylines tangential to this event including hate crimes, the car ramming homicide and the helicopter crash. We have a separate article, for instance on the Beating of DeAndre Harris that is more apropos for detailed categories. Otherwise this article will become a coat-rack categories of far-left and far-right groupings as well as stretches such as "terrorism." the rally itself is described properly white nationalist and/or white supremacists. Incidents within the rally include murder, assault and hate crimes. The article on the beating of DeAndre Harris shows the complicated and contentious nature of just that sub-plot. For categories like terrorism, the car ramming should be a separate article as acts of domestic terrorism are notable and can stand-alone. --DHeyward (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The rally became highly notable because of an incident of domestic terrorism. The categories are very appropriate.- Mr X 20:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As this DHeyward user has plainly violated both the "must not make more than one revert per 24 hours" and "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page" of this article" sanctions, how is that handled? Is there a special complaint board, or is there a present admin that can address this? And obviously the categories are relevant, as numerous reliable sources have described the events as an act of domestic terrorism. TheValeyard (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not worthy of going to the drama boards. O3000 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Do we know for a fact that it was terrorism? Maybe he was just pissed off because of the rioting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know nothin'. I just read the papers (RS). O3000 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Can you please be serious? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If you can find an RS that says he was just pissed off at the "rioting", use it. Until then, we will use the sources that call it terrorism. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Objective3000: I'm not saying that I know one way or another. What I am interested in is getting the facts right. If the mainstream viewpoint is that it was an act of terrorism, it should be fairly easy to be able substantiate it by citing reliable sources which call it an act of terrorism. Looking over the article, I can't help but notice that when it talks about terrorism, it seems to quote what politicians and political pundits said about the attack. Politicians and pundits are rarely a reliable source about anything but their own opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to this act, the House and Senate unanimously passed a resolution that calls on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “investigate thoroughly all acts of violence, intimidation, and domestic terrorism by White supremacists, White nationalists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and associated groups” and to “improve the reporting of hate crimes” to the F.B.I. Yes, they are all politicians. But, of many flavors. This wasn’t just a bad hair day.[2] O3000 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, A Quest For Knowledge, according to the chief law enforcement officer in the United States.- Mr X 00:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions is a politician who apparently gave false testimony regarding connections to Russia. I wouldn't consider him a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I take your point about Sessions' false testimony, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.- Mr X 13:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do you feel you can demand seriousness form others, give your own glib "maybe he was just pissed" comment? TheValeyard (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, it’s OK to present an alternative if there is no known motive or finding (e.g. the LV shooting). It’s just that in this case RS (primary and secondary) have called this terrorism. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: I apologize if my choice of words seemed glib. That certainly was not my intent. My point was that maybe he did it out of anger. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX, that is not true. Sessions said the car ramming fit the definition of terrorism, not the rally which is the subject of the article. If the ramming is terrorism, it would be able to stand alone as a terrorist attack. As it stands, despite Sessions rhetoric, no terrorism charges have been filed. Second degree murder seems to be what the latest view is in all secondary sources. Sessions as a primary source impromptu reply isn't the prevailing. In fact, we normally don't accept the police or prosecutors view in criminal cases determine the consensus view of secondary sources. If we apply the argument here to the Dallas BLM rally, we would say the BLM rally is domestic terrorism rather than make a distinction between the murders of five police officers and the rally. There were certainly contemporaneous accounts of the shooting as terrorism. --DHeyward (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Let's not parse Jeff's words to arrive at a novel interpretation. Multiple sources are very clear that he "called it" domestic terrorism. The Dallas BLM rally has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Let's just stick to what sources say about this event. Even Republican Senator Gardner called it domestic terrorism.- Mr X 00:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Im only just getting up to speed on the issue but the article is about the rally (and I do think the far right there acted horribly) but the "act of domestic terrorism" was about the person that used their vehicle to attack the crowd of counterprotesters, not the rally attendees in general. Hence my early removal of those categories. If this article was solely about the car ramming incident then those categories would be supported by the references. Casting such a wide shadow only makes the article appear unencyclopedic.--MONGO 03:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

We've talked about spinning off separate articles for the rally itself and the vehicular attack. The fact is that the two are inextricably linked and you can't really explain one without the other, we went with one article that covers the entire chain of events. Since those events include what reliable sources refer to as a terrorist attack, it makes sense to include the terrorism categories. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples where categories in this category branch are loosely applied when the article subject is notable largely because of the terrorist incident. For example: United Airlines Flight 93, 2003 ricin letters, George Metesky and Cannes-Torcy cell. The purpose of categories is to aid reader's access to related content. Someone reading about the 2016 Nice attack might be interested to know that similar vehicular terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. The catergories in question meet WP:DEFINING, as far as I can tell.- Mr X 14:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the man charged with ramming the crowd at this rally spent any significant time planning out his alleged terrorist attack as in the 2016 Nice attack. Oddly, while the U.S. Government has refused to refer to the 2009 Fort Hood shooting as a terrorist attack, it has those categories attached to the article anyway.--MONGO 12:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

What you "see" really does not matter, what matters is what the citations say. As for Ft. Hood, Hasan's act fell under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, which does not include litigate acts of terrorism. If the Obama administration had declared it an act of terrorism it could have made prosecuting Hasan more difficult. As we see with the current administration, where careless tweets have been used to block immigration orders, and possibly played a role in Bowe Berghdal receiving no prison time, rational Presidents their words with caution and see better results. TheValeyard (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Since reading comprehension is obviously a problem for you the references refer almost exclusively to the event of the car ramming not the rally itself as a terrorist act, which is a very big stretch of the terms to say the least. But thanks for the sanctimonious attempt to lecture as if you're the bastion of all knowledge and thought.--MONGO 13:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Random question: would we even be splitting hairs if the attacker was Muslim? There seems to be a rather concerning pattern of editors trying to split hairs on what constitutes terrorism when it's perpetrated by white people, even when reliable sources are in lockstep (I mean, are we seriously suggesting that the federal Department of Justice isn't a reliable source?) Sceptre (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the weakness of the argument for including the categories is that Fields isn't being charged with terrorism. If the sources can sustain that the car-ramming was domestic terrorism, it should have its own article. As it is, the article seems to imply that the rally was domestic terrorism.

Answer to Sceptre: Sure, but different people would be doing the splitting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, an editor did propose that the 2017 Barcelona attack should be referred to as a vehicle collision. They then used the resulting discussion to bolster their argument at Talk:Unite the Right Rally. –dlthewave ☎ 19:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked up 5 sources about the event, as ~~randomly~~ selected by Google and Bing. Out of the 5 ~~randomly~~ selected sources, not one describes this as a terrorist attack.[3][4][5][6][7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources "selected by Google and Bing" are not selected randomly. Volunteer Marek 14:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ether way, they are third-party independent sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my point is that I am trying to be a unbiased and neutral as possible. I'm not trying to find sources that that don't say it's terrorism anymore than I'm trying to find source which say that it is terrorism. We need to follow reliable sources where ever they lead. Agreed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tom Harrison: He can't be charged with terrorism as there is no such Federal Crime. See this website, Lawfare (blog). Don't be put off by the word 'blog', read its article. It's affiliated with te Brookings Institution and has some heavy hitters writing for it. It says " Domestic terrorism is not an independent federal crime, in part because there is no official list of domestic terrorist groups. The State Department maintains a list of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” that tells law enforcement, businesses, and ordinary citizens which groups are illicit even if they agree with the cause as a whole. One of the all-important material support statutes uses this list as part of its criteria for when support for terrorism is occurring. To treat domestic terrorism like international terrorism, the United States would need a separate “Domestic Terrorist Organization” list, presumably compiled by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation—the federal agencies that currently handle matters that might fall into the category of domestic terrorism—with input from other agencies." It points out why such a list would be tricky, and that some states have tried cases under state terrorist laws. It's a good read. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

We are not talking about the charges...we are talking about whether the entire rally or just the maniac that rammed the crowd is considered a terrorist/act of terrorism based on the references, which appear to not all be in agreement with one another.--MONGO 13:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage anyone referring to anyone in any article as a "maniac" to examine whether they hold any biases which could affect neutrally discussing it, particularly when it comes to unfinished trials. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Who are you talking to, ScratchMarshall? Trivializing this event through the pretense of emotional detachment is non-productive and alienating. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean we have to ignore the larger context of what happened. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It was a reply to Mongo and anyone else making statements like this. Impartiality (recognize innocence until proof of guilt) does require being neutral about whether or not Fields is a murderer or terrorist. It is not ignoring context to be neutral. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Federal authorities defined the act as terrorism, so did multiple medias. If sources defines the attack as terrorist, we define it as terrorist. Wikipedia's goal is to report information, not analyze and question it. Wikipedia:OR Givibidou (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

More stuff that looks like it belongs in reactions

It seems to me like we could halt the car death section at the photo of the police block and the mention of Albemarle-Charlottesville County Regional Jail. Consider what comes after:

paragraph about senators talking about it
talking about mother's reaction and memorial
a GoFundMe and a medical fund
two motorists engaging in a lawsuit

These all seem like "aftermath and reactions" not an actual description of what happened, the collision and the death. I think it would be valuable to limit that to what happened during August 12th and then for stuff afterward, fit in the rest as a new section wherever it belongs chronologically in the list of aftermath/reactions.

Edit: just noticed there is now a beating of DeAndre Harris page. Is that really a more notable event than the Challenger plowing into the crowd? This should probably lead us to examine exporting this to its own article too, this time with a neutral name.

I'm thinking death of Heather Heyer as I believe she is a more publicized casualty than DeAndre and so is at least as deserving of an article to focus on issues pertaining to that case, which would also help minimize the bloat of this 217,000 byte thing. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yet another article where we have to be on the lookout for editors (*cough*) pushing the heart attack conspiracy theories doesn't sound lke a swell idea. TheValeyard (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Porting out the entire section with a note "see X" would still leave us with 1 article to monitor, and this would be made easier by it being smaller and having less activity. I also do not appreciate your bad-faith harassment implying I am pushing theories when I have only discussed covering the mainstream coverage protesting those theories.

Before you go insulting Heather's mom's saying "heart attack", we know COD was declared "blunt-force injury to the chest", and something like that could cause a heart attack. Commotio cordis mentions how impacts can cause cardiac arrest for example. Myocardial_infarction#Other_causes shows it is not just stuff like atherosclerosis which causes it. Looking at List_of_people_who_died_in_traffic_collisions:

Steve Allen "Died from a heart attack that was found to have resulted from a condition known as pericardial effusion. The crash caused a blood vessel in his chest to leak blood into the sac surrounding his heart. "
Jerry Rubin "struck by a car. Died of a heart attack while hospitalized."

What we should highlight is that while the mom used the term, the medical office did not. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Highlight"? No. One passing mention in an obscure source passed around among conspiracy theory forums and neo-Nazi trash boards is not worth "highlighting". Presenting this as an "insult" to her mother is a ludicrously transparent attempt at deflection. Rubin and Allen are such random, dissimilar examples that this isn't even a very good example of cherry-picking. Expanding this into another article would only serve to legitimize this kind of ghoulish fixation on the minutia of her death. It is not bad-faith to point out that your activity, here on this talk page, has been consistent in accommodating and legitimizing this conspiracy theory. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: in Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#statements_from_Heyer's_mother you responded to my post citing https://www.nbcnews.com/video/heather-heyer-s-mom-delivers-message-about-karma-to-white-nationalists-1028340803735 of the source of:

She died pretty instantly, she didn't suffer, she died of a heart attack right away at the scene. They revived her briefly, not consciously, just got her heart beating again and then her heart just stops

I'm not sure how it is you consider NBC News to be an "obscure source". Something being mentioned on conspiracy/nazi forums is not grounds to include content, but it isn't grounds to exclude it either. We also have acknowledgement of the NBC statement from mainstream coverage condemning the forums you're talking about. For example:

Al-Sibai, Noor (8 September 2017). "Alt-righters pushing horrid theory Heather Heyer died of weight-related heart attack". The Raw Story. On September 5, the fringe right-wing blog Occidental Dissent published a post claiming Heyer's mother "said in an NBC interview she died of a heart attack," and went on to blame the supposed "heart attack" on her weight.

For some reason you don't even want to include sources like this though. Hiding this information and not discussing it only serves to embolden conspiracy theories. Debunking conspiracy theories does require acknowledging them, and when we have reliable sources acknowledging the notability of the theories whilst debunking them, I think that is grounds for discussing it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Heyer's mother is neither a doctor nor an informed source for medical diagnoses. It was an off-hand, inexact comment that has been seized upon by, to quote you, "conspiracy/nazi forums" in an attempt to discredit the official cause of death, namely blunt force injury to the chest. You have been told this countless times. ValarianB (talk)18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

We've already been over this many time, and Scratchmarshall's refusal to drop the stick has become disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Does not belong

@ScratchMarshall: it's a nn conspiracy theory. Please do not post such material on my talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

re special:diff/817504929 about special:diff/806167166 when you censor other people's comments I think I am right to call you out on it and justify that. I would like you to explain how that IP was violating BLP and what justified you removing the question when it looks like an honest misunderstanding re Susan Bro's comment that should simply be explained. Why are we censoring this instead of explaining Coroner official COD blunt trauma contradicts the off-hand Bro comment? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Valarian, I am not proposing that she is a doctor or an informed source. However off-hand or inexact her comment was, NBC aired it and The Raw Story documented the response it received. These attempts to discredit the official COD of Blunt Force Trauma as reported by Newsweek (though I am interested in reading the medical report they're describing, anyone able to locate it?) are notable attempts which we should report on (as Al-Sibai of TRS did) and then discredit by stating the cause of death.

If we don't actually convey the stated COD then people will just speculate, what harm is there in saying "medical report said blunt force after mom said heart attack" ?

Grayfell is is not disruptive to discuss what to include and to have a difference of opinion with you over it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to re-litigate the exact same issue over and over and over again is absolutely disruptive. Nobody is interested in what you're selling, ScratchMashall. Stop trying to drag this neo-Nazi promoted crap into the article. The source you cite calls it a fringe theory, and Wikipedia doesn't legitimize fringe theories. There is no good reason to include coverage of a fringe theory promoted by a handful of unreliable extremists. The only reason at all I can see is to lend legitimacy to a conspiracy theory. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Heritage volunteers/professionals

I added "Protesters included heritage volunteers like Gene Andrews, the "caretaker" of the Nathan Bedford Forrest Boyhood Home in Chapel Hill, Tennessee.Bliss, Jessica (August 18, 2017). "Meet the caretaker of Nathan Bedford Forrest's boyhood home in Tennessee". The Tennessean. Retrieved December 2, 2017." as a good faith edit, but it was reverted by User:Objective3000. I don't see what's inflammatory about this sentence. The only rationale for leaving it out might be that it is too specific: Andrews is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, but he marched with the League of the South, and they are already mentioned in the text. But if there were other heritage volunteers/professionals at the event, I think we should have a short paragraph about them.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So who is "Gene Andrews"? Seems utterly non-notable to me ... Deletion supported. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to determine the purpose of the dozens of edits you've made today that appear to promote one of the founders of the KKK, a terrorist organization. I'm also trying to determine the value of this addition to this article. Did this one person have some sort of personal impact on the particular event documented in this article? O3000 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

He is the the "caretaker" of the Nathan Bedford Forrest Boyhood Home. Nobody has suggested wikifying him--it's not about him--the focus is on heritage/architecture. Were there more heritage professionals?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't make personal attacks. The house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, that's why I created it. I don't like this kind of witch hunt.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Consider that asking me to AGF and then claiming I’m on a witch hunt are contradictory. I simply have no idea why you think the caretaker of one of the over one million properties in that register that a KKK founder lived in relates to this article. O3000 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Going through another editor's contributions may seem like a witch hunt. I have not looked at yours. It's irrelevant. My point is about heritage volunteers, people who care about old houses/sculptures. There was at least one. Were there more and if so, should we include a short paragraph about them? Yes, there were monsters attending this event, but were they the only ones? Or are we only focusing on the monsters because of weight of RS and impact?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable, support removal. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Do not included -- unneeded intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Placing this as the very first paragraph of the section is especially inappropriate. Is "heritage volunteer" a term with a commonly understood meaning and significance? It reads like PR. His position as a "caretaker" is, as it was explained in the edit, no more notable than all the pizza delivery guys and tech workers who attended, and we don't list all of them off by name. This was just some random guy who happened to attend. Who cares? The source is just a bland regional puff piece which barely mentions the rally, so its encyclopedic significance is not obvious. Grayfell (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I just googled that phrase and got a bunch of hits for various volunteer opportunities. There's no distinct meaning I can find, it just seems to be a very common part of larger phrases, e.g. "Appalachian Heritage volunteer," "Hilton Head heritage volunteer," and the like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unite the Right rally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170821214109/http://uscj.org/Newsroom/PressReleaseArchives/_2017/CharlottevilleStatement.aspx to http://uscj.org/Newsroom/PressReleaseArchives/_2017/CharlottevilleStatement.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump/Pence signage

A couple of recent article edits: An IP removed "Trump/Pence signs” stating that this was uncredited. TheValeyard restored it (and removed some unhelpful text in the same edit) stating that it was in the NYTimes. Valeyard was correct that there was a highly reliable source. What bothers me is that I looked at over 100 images, and found one MAGA hat and one banner that could fit this description. Much as I hate to remove anything from such a reliable source – this is probably overkill (WP:UNDUE). The IP removal may have been correct. Thoughts? O3000 (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If you found 100 MAGA signs in photos of the event on your own, that wouldn't be as significant as a strong source such as the NYT actually reporting it. It should stay, and be expanded, if anything. Rockypedia (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, not making a formal complaint or warning. Just consider that the article is under DS consensus required restrictions and you might want to self-revert. That aside, thanks for the response. My point is that in any protest involving a large group of people, you will find all kinds of signage and "screamage". I think that the lead needs to point out the general tenor, not every sign. Yes, these folks (those that could read) most likely were Trump voters. That addition is reliably sourced. But, is it DUE? O3000 (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention DS after I reverted the paragraph to a long-stable version after you unilaterally removed a piece of it. You must be joking. Rockypedia (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to err on the side of non-contentious text. Do you have a response to my argument? O3000 (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your concerns are unfounded, as it's non-contentious text as it stands. Rockypedia (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi, Confederate flags, and anti-Muslim sentiment placards alongside Trump/Pence signage is not contentious, Mr. Objective; it is their support base. TheValeyard (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, my concern is WP:UNDUE. While you and I may think this is part of Trump's base, I can only find one source that mentions Trump/Pence signs and no evidence in hundreds of Google images. I don't see how this is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. As this connects living persons to Neo-Nazi's in the first paragraph of the lead, I think there may be UNDUE/NPOV/BLP issues. O3000 (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Our goal as Wikipedians is not to trawl through google images trying to find evidence of things. We trust reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I repeat, I can only find one source that mentions this out of the large number of sources covering the event. The only reason I brought up the images is that it may be the reason this doesn't appear in other sources. We shouldn't be picking the one source that matches a particular narrative for the lead paragraph. O3000 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, have you found any sources that seem to disagree with the reporting by the New York Times? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I found numerous sources that talk of Confederate flags, neo-Nazi and KKK leaders and symbols, anti-Semitic slogans, anti-Muslim banners, white-nationalist symbols, and Identity Evropa flags. Outside of the one article quoted, the only source I found mentioning Trump/Pence signs were anti-Trump signs carried by counter-protesters. That NYT article appears to be an outlier. And, that article was specifically about Trump. I could be wrong. It’s just what I found in the preponderance of sources. O3000 (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

So... you didn't? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I found this particular NYT article to disagree with the composition of symbols. But then, the NYT article was not a news article about the rally, or for that matter a news article at all. It was an analysis piece focused on Trump and his reactions to the rally, even going back in time to his early influences, Trump's father and Roy Cohn. I'm sure there are other NYT news articles that apply directly to the rally. O3000 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If the sourcing is top-rate (the NY Times), that should be sufficient. TheValeyard (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And I've been a subscriber for decades. But, picking one source for the lead paragraph that may be at odds with others and stating it in Wiki-voice raises UNDUE/NPOV issues. O3000 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)ex

That something is reliably sourced isn't the issue being raised. The issue is that Wikipedia's coverage of this topic should accurately represent the emphasis that the aggregation of reliable sources do. Based on what I've read, my initial thoughts is that we are placing emphasis that doesn't exist in the literature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There's multiple reliable sources that mention the presence of Trump hats at the rally amongst the white supremacists. I wouldn't have a problem with changing the line to "...antisemitic banners, 'Trump/Pence' signs and 'Make America Great Again' hats." In fact, I may do this myself, when I have a minute. Rockypedia (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there multiple reliable sources that don't mention the presence of Trump hats? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the point of this question? Rockypedia (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is determined by prominence across reliable sources. Saying that there are multiple reliable sources that mention the presence of Trump hats is - by itself - a meaningless statement. How many reliable sources don't mention it? Unless we answer both questions, it's impossible to determine something's weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this text. Neutrality^talk 19:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The mention of “Trump/Pence signs” in the article is sourced to a NYT analysis of Trump’s reactions. That is, it is specifically about Trump and not a news article on the rally (the subject of this article). Hence lots of mentions of Trump. So, I did a search on the NYT site for Unite the Right articles. There are rather a lot of them. Here are the first ten: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] There are lots of refs to Nazi's, KKK, white-power, anti-Semitism, secessionist South, and white supremacist symbols. I could not find a single ref to Trump/Pence signs or MAGA hats. Among the numerous images, I saw neither. The closest I could find was someone with a Trump/Pence sign in their yard, and it wasn’t in Virginia. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, it’s been six days since "Trump/Pence signs" was re-added. Has anyone found a second source for this? I don’t see how we can claim this is reported by a preponderance of RS based on one article that is about Trump reactions; not a part of the storm of coverage directly about the event, and numerous other articles from the same source make no mention of such. Frankly, I think the claim is outright false. O3000 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Most editors who have weighed in appear to feel that the NY Times source is sufficient. Noting that such signage was witnessed at a white supremacist rally, when there is a verifiable overlap of white supremacists and Trump adherents, is not an outrageous or controversial claim that necessitates a higher level of sourcing. TheValeyard (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not a valid argument for determining WP:WEIGHT. WP:WEIGHT is determined by examining coverage across multiple reliable sources, not just one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, it's outrageous if it's false. And, that source had at least ten articles on the event itself with no such mention -- possibly because the signs didn't exist. I realize that we don't perform OR. But, our readers do. And readers may notice that of the hundreds of images on Google Images, zero include such signs. And that doesn't look good for WP since the first paragraph of the lead states they existed in Wikivoice. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You two have made this argument several times over now, and consensus does not appear to support this position. TheValeyard (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

When determining consensus, invalid arguments are typically ignored. Do you have a valid reason to oppose Objective3000's suggestion? Personally, I haven't yet examined the validity of Objective3000's proposal. I'm giving those who object an opportunity an opportunity to state their case. Then I'll look into it myself and form an opinion based on policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, as I've set yours aside from the outset. :) TheValeyard (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've expressed no opinion regarding Objective3000's suggestion. The only thing I've done is explain how policy works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you need consensus explained to you as well? TheValeyard (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, but I think that you do. Consensus is not a vote. For example, in an WP:AFD, you can have a hundred editors all !novoting to delete on the grounds that they don't like it and one editor who can demonstrate that the article meets WP:GNG. The closing admin will ignore all the WP:IDONTLIKEIT !novotes and rule with the one editor who actually had a valid argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not technically a vote, but nonetheless numbers are considered in Wikipedia discussions, afd and others. You'd need to be making an exceptionally good argument to overcome what is at the moment a 6-2 favoring of inclusion. You do not have that. TheValeyard (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

By my count, it's 1-0. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that. :) TheValeyard (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to go with the "include" side on this one. I think it's a matter of WP:SKYBLUE whether or not there were Trump supporters there, and the NYT is a plenty reliable source for the claim that said supporters brought pro-Trump signs. The assertion that it's outrageous if it's untrue is noteworthy: It would indeed be outrageous to suggest that there were Trump supporters among the right-wing protesters if there were not. It would not, however, be outrageous to suggest that if there were Trump supporters, that some of them brought pro-Trump signs. Finally, it would be equally outrageous to suggest that there were no Trump supporters among the right-wing protesters. It's a bit sad, perhaps, but those are the times in which we live. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course there were Trump supporters there. And David Duke, Jason Kessler, Augustus Invictus and Richard Spencer supporters.. But, they aren’t mentioned in the lead, even though they were among the organizers and scheduled speakers of the rally. Instead, we have Trump/Pence signs in Wikivoice, even though it’s likely false and was only in one of a hundred articles, clearly failing WEIGHT. Everything isn’t about Trump. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources stating that people were carrying signs or wearing hats that showed their support of Duke, Kessler, or Spencer? Because if you do, I'd be happy to add that to the article, as well as a brief mention in the lead, which would be appropriate. Thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course there are a massive number of signs, flags, banners and symbols supporting their organizations. The organizations actually behind the rally. But, I ask again, does anyone have reliable sources (plural) that there were Trump/Pence signs? If you do a Google search, this Wikipedia article is the only other source I can find. It’s a bad sign when you look for a source for an article and the sources found by Google are the Wikipedia article itself and dozens of sites that copied the Wikipedia article. O3000 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Plural" is not necessary, it is a threshold entirely of your own imagining. As everyone has had their say, there's nothing to be gained by continuing to repeat points. Either draft a request for comment and see where it goes or drop the stick in the nearest receptacle. TheValeyard (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m not the one that pluralized reliable sources. And yes, we do need plural sources to satisfy WP:UNDUE. This discussion is about a highly visible article and contentious wording in the lead. The discussion has not been long in comparison to other such discussions. WP:STICK does not apply and is a distraction. O3000 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Must have been someone else that said But, I ask again, does anyone have reliable sources (plural), right? TheValeyard (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia pluralized, and I responded. Your last several edits: Good to know, as I've set yours aside from the outset., Do you need consensus explained to you as well?, drop the stick, Must have been someone else that said.... Instead of trying to shut down discussion with snarks, please try to respond to the WP:WEIGHT concern. RS is not reason to include on its own. It must be DUE. Yet, no one has responded to this concern. O3000 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Weight is not a concern, as it is not a controversial statement. One source is sufficient. TheValeyard (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Do not include - The event received very widespread media coverage and practically every detail has been reported by multiple RS. We can't exactly prove that there weren't Trump/Pence signs at the rally, but I'm hesitant to rely on a single opinion piece when the NY Times doesn't even mention these signs in their own news reports. –dlthewave ☎ 19:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

People v. Fields

How do we evaluate whether or not this court case deserves its own article like all the various other All pages with titles beginning with People v. articles?

I think this would be a valuable export, as the case regained attention a couple weeks ago when the murder charge was changed from 2nd to 1st degree.

Given that this didn't even happen during the rally, but after it was cancelled, and the misleading conflation of categories applying to this case being applied to the rally as a whole, it should be considered.

This would allow the details of this case to be better discussed without having to be weighed against the rest of the article in terms of size, and make both bodies of information more legible. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A spinout article may be warranted, but it will not affect content here other than condensing it a bit and pointing the reader to the new article, nor the categorization of this article. Heather Heyer's murder is part and parcel with the Unite the Right Rally, events do not exist in bubbles. ValarianB (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Calling this a murder is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME prior to a conviction, I hope you are able to contain this bias to the talk pages and it does not affect your editing of the mainspace. That should be left to neutral parties. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Haven't you tried this Blpcrime shtick in the past repeatedly, and been shot down every time? TheValeyard (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really, any admins who lurk here obviously have chosen not to enforce it, and I suggested it on a WikiProject I think, but I can't remember if I made any formal actions to have this enforced. The process seems rather complex. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)