Talk:Unite the Right rally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text at issue

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

References

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

Article from Southern Poverty Law Center on Jason Kessler

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

Jason Kessler

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

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

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

Manufacturing council

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is new so I'll wait, but WSJ is reporting that Trump didn't dissolve the council. They decided themselves to quit, he then tried to take credit for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Not surprising at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC) But does it need to be in here? Drmies (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Considering the CEOs dropped out because of Trump's response to the rally, I think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) @#Muboshgu "Considering the CEOs dropped out because of Trump's response to the rally," -- I respectfully disagree. Which of the three responses are you referring to? For most of the "protesters" against Trump, nothing he said would have been good enough. And if you think the CEOs did not withdraw for financial and safety reasons, you are naive. Quis separabit? 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC) @[email protected]: I don't respond to personal attacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @Muboshgu: -- My comment was not a "personal attack" in any way as anyone who looks at it can tell. But that's an effective way to get out of engaging and replying constructively. Quis separabit? 03:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @[email protected]: How am I supposed to interpret "And if you think the CEOs did not withdraw for financial and safety reasons, you are naive" other than a personal attack? The Merck CEO mentioned "expressions of hatred, bigotry, and group supremacy" and the Intel CEO mentioned Charlottesville by name in their resignation letters. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @Muboshgu -- Being called "naive" by someone who is much older than you is never a personal attack. Maybe when you're my age you'll realize that. As to how you are "supposed to interpret 'And if you think the CEOs did not withdraw for financial and safety reasons, you are naive'" -- you are to take it literally and ponder it and expand your reading and not accept the politically correct narrative. Quis separabit? 15:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) @[email protected]: You don't know how old I am. I might be older than you, not that it's relevant in any way. I take your statement as calling me naive, ergo a personal attack. If you're so old and wise, you should know better than to continue your behavior in this section (and the other behavior that lead to you being taken to AN/I). Quit while you're behind. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC) My understanding is that Volunteer Marek is correct, and I strongly agree that it should be in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Rms125a, members of the council directly and plainly cited Trump's lack of condensation condemnation of the events of Charlottesville, stating that they cannot support a President "who tolerates bigotry and domestic terrorism" [1]. They did not resign for financial or safety reasons. Also, it is extraordinarily petty to take jabs at another editor via blank edit summary, please stop doing that. TheValeyard (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC) a) ''"Also, it is extraordinarily petty to take jabs at another editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally&diff=796329122&oldid=796328649 via blank edit summary], please stop doing that."'' I was merely trying to reply to his silly comment about me without having to traverse this mine-ridden thread. But traverse it I have and I left him the same message directly (see above). I don't think he will be any more likely to reply. Quis separabit? 03:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC) b) @TheValeyard -- "members of the council directly and plainly cited Trump's lack of condensation" -- Ummmm, you mean POTUS didn't do a rain dance and cause a downpour from the skies? Quis separabit? 03:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC) There are several mature ways to point out that someone has made a typo or has been subject to an unfortunate auto-correct. Sadly, you chose none of those ways and opted for the infantile, thereby dodging the discussion (curiously/amusingly doing the same thing you accused another editor of via edit summary). TheValeyard (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Statue name

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

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

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

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

Arrest warrant for Cantwell?

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

He's crying in the video here.[2] Doug Weller talk 17:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Should there be a content fork?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

car and copter categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

allegations of assault of female reporter

Noticed this in some pieces.

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

Fox mentions two:

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

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

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

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

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

More coverage

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

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

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

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

There's a WaPo story on this [3], also mentions a journalist being attacked with Tiki torches.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Symone Sanders

From Symone Sanders' article

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

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

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

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

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

Name-dropping and media naming

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

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

Section on Trump's Third remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death description in Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Protesters included"

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

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

Proposing subsection for traffic collision's allegations

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

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

Actually a "casualties" subsection would also make sense.

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

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

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

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

Timeline mixed with aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

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

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

Content

Was the content restored?[4][5] QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

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

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

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

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

Aftermath article

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

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

In the aftermath of R

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

clarifying Heather Heyer location during Challenger incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

many

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"rearranging quotes"

I think this edit did a lot more than its summary stated [[6]]. One thing that jumps out in particular is that now, the way it is, it actually has the ADL source saying something that it didn't say. The ADL source was just to explain the meaning of "you will not replace us" as it is not intuitively clear but it is well documented by the ADL. It didn't cover the rally itself. The other sources for those phrases being used at the rally were thus actually deleted, which seems bad to me. Now it just links to this "Identity Evropa" page, which is confusing at best, and the explanation of what the phrase means has basically been deleted from Wikipedia as it is not discussed there, leaving readers confused. Also, in general, a lot of the coverage of slogans and whatnot was effectively deleted. I'm not sure what the intention was here, but I really didn't find this edit to be helpful so I am reverting it.--Yalens (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wording in the lead

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

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

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

ScratchMarshall and edits at odds with sources

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

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

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