Talk:Unite the Right rally

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)

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.- MrX 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.[1] O3000 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, A Quest For Knowledge, according to the chief law enforcement officer in the United States.- MrX 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.- MrX 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.- MrX 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.- MrX 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.[2][3][4][5][6] 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] 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)

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)