Talk:Unite the Right rally

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)

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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] 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)

Trump calls to Bro

Presently under the 'third statement' section:

In an August 18 interview with ABC's Good Morning America, Heather Heyer's mother, Susan Bro, stated that she has not "and now ... will not" meet with President Trump after hearing about his statement. Bro said, "I'm not talking to the president now. I'm sorry, after what he said about my child. It's not that I saw somebody else's tweets about him. I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the protesters, like Ms. Heyer, with the KKK and the white supremacists

I noticed something in http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/365020-heather-heyers-mom-hiding-daughters-grave-at-unmarked-location which seems related:

Bro has reportedly blocked President Trump's attempted calls to console her family, following his controversial comments saying there were "very fine people" and blame on "many sides" of the rally, and said she holds him partially responsible for her daughter's death.

Should we mention this part about blocking multiple call attempts? I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Am curious if we can find any other sources discussing this first. Bro saying she will not meet with Trump is one thing, but blocking calls is another, if it can be verified. Not sure where Josh Delk got the info. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is where Delk got the info. The source, which is based on an interview with Bro, states "President Trump blamed “many sides” for the Charlottesville violence, and said there “very fine people” on both of those sides. After seeing these remarks, Bro would not take his calls." –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hm.. having trouble discerning how Josh Delk of The Hill got "blocked President Trump's attempted calls to console" from Tim Teeman of The Daily Beast's "Bro would not take his calls." Teeman's comment sounds like it could merely be describing a "if he called me, I wouldn't talk" situation, whereas Delk seems to be clearly asserting calls were made. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Delk mentions Teeman as the source in the second paragraph, and all of the quotes match what Bro said in the original Teeman interview. You can take it or leave it. I can't tell you why Delk chose to paraphrase that particular sentence the way that he did. –dlthewave ☎ 13:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

OR regarding triviality of Toyota Camry

Grayfell in special:diff/817498505 removed the information about the car which was hit being a Toyota Camry, calling it "trivial details". This information was reliably sourced:

Duggan, Paul (December 14, 2017). "First-degree murder charge for driver accused of plowing into Charlottesville crowd, killing Heather Heyer". Charlottesville, Virginia: The Washington Post. Retrieved December 14, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

As for it being Trivial, well, let's read the article:

A maroon van then stopped on the street in front of the crowd, and a Toyota Camry stopped behind the van.

Fields’s Dodge approached the Camry from behind at a moderate speed.

It then backed up, traveling more than a block, before accelerating forward at a rapid clip, ramming into the back of the Camry.

Camry is mentioned 3 times, it is clearly not a trivial detail, it is a useful way to identify the different vehicles when discussing them. Grayfell's unsourced claim that this is "trivial" does not stand up to examination. Grayfell has provided no reliable sources which have called the car's make "trivial", this is purely his own personal opinion which is unbacked by sources.

Paul Duggan who wrote the article, considered this detail important enough to include, and to re-use twice more as an identifier when discussing how the collission happened.

Removing this information appears to be just spiteful and petty, to redact any edit I make, no matter how minor, rather than any actual problem with the content. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You've already tried this nonsense at least twice now. You've been trying to drag-out this out for months, but nothing has changed. We do not include every single detail included by a source. The color and make are still trivial. You should not have restored this content after it was challenged, as this article is under 1RR, and you should've known from past discussions that this was going to be controversial. Again, nothing seems to have actually changed regarding coverage. This lengthy newspaper recap of the event is not proportional to the entire event, and even in a dedicated article, the colors and makes of the cars would only belong to clarify the order of event. Your addition was significantly less clear, and the introduction of irrelevant details only made it more tedious and confusing than it needed to be. Drop the stick! Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

ScratchMarshall's attempts to cover car colors

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6#Color_of_other_2_vehicles

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_5#what_is_brand_of_white_car_which_Dodge_Challenger_hit_then_pushed

Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_4#license_plates_and_car_brands

This is #4. When does this become actionable? TheValeyard (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Noting for history navigation that 13 minutes after this comment, TV posted similar claims at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ScratchMarshall, my replies are in the middle paragraphs of Special:Diff/818220962. I am for now avoiding re-posting them in full, but in summary, regarding these 3 links: archive 4 (Aug 15) received no reply at all, archive 5 (Aug 18) received a reply from Jethro who did not object to my discussion of color, and said that relevance of white car's make was dependent on a source discussing it. Archive 6 (Aug 30) which you closed on September 11 (ie you allowed less than 2 weeks of input on it) was me following up with the sources Jethro asked for, and the first actual instance of disagreement I've seen, since Jethro and I were in 100% consensus that sources were necessary for a car's make to be notable. You received support from Gandydancer, Doug Weller, DItheWave and Grayfell. While 5v1 is certainly outnumbering, for an issue of this importance I think we should have had more than 6 people's viewpoints weighed. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I bring it up when new details surface, since that is an entirely new discussion. I'm not really sure why you would try to punish someone for conveying a desire that we use these details when they are reliably sourced. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• @ScratchMarshall: How many people have to tell you that it's an inappropriate level of detail before you accept it? If the answer is anything more than "as many as have already told me", then you're going to end up topic or page banned really soon here. You escaped the AE based on a technicality; an ANI report wouldn't have that technicality. So just drop it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Very fine people on both sides"

I think this statement is just as important as "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides", and should therefore be in the lead. @MPants at work: reverted, I wonder what others think. zzz (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think my edit summary summed up my views pretty well, but for clarification, Trump also attributed violence to "both sides", a statement which was absent from your edit. The nature of the edit made it seem as if the only controversial part of Trump's statement was his praise of "both sides", when in news coverage, they focused mostly (in my experience) on his assertion that the violence was bipartisan.

Also, as I mentioned, I don't think that level of detail needs to be in the lede. But I agree that it's best to see what others think. If there's consensus to reinstate this edit, I'll abide by that, and if there's (more likely and desirable, IMHO) consensus to reinstate this with the "full" quote about both "fine people" and violence, then I'll be perfectly happy with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the "full quote"? In the source in the lead it just ends there.[11] zzz (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I kinda think either both parts (pro- and anti-both sides) or neither part of his initial statement should be in the lead. Important in the lead is that the president’s initial statement was criticized for implying moral equivalence and was followed by a string of additional statements – well explained in the body. But, this rally was about differing brands of hate going back centuries and more. I don’t like the concentration on Trump in the lead, even though he may have played a part in enabling these groups. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the Trump paragraph could certainly be expanded per WP:DUE, if you compare the amount of weight both in the article, and in the media generally. What is your objection based on? zzz (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m OK with it that paragraph now. But, to answer your question -- Trump certainly inserts himself into everything. And, because he does so controversially, the media naturally follow. But, this wasn’t a Trump rally with folks chanting MAGA. The demonstrators were from long-standing groups carrying Nazi and Confederate flags, and symbols from other hate groups, yelling anti-Semetic chants. Just want to make sure we don’t dilute the article with too much concentration on the president’s inept commentary. An article cited in the first paragraph was specifically about Trump’s reactions. Most of the in-depth RS articles are about what occurred at the rally itself – which is where should concentrate. O3000 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Just re-reading the paragraph and I noticed that it already mentions the violence. D'oh! Feel free to use the trout button on my talk. So Signedzzz, as far as I'm concerned, you should go ahead and revert me. But would you do me the kindness of adding "also" to the text? I.e. in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides,". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, I added "also". zzz (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks great, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be too detailed, but "many sides" and "both sides" seem to be separate ideas, as "both" implies 2 sides (ie for and against rally) whereas "many" sides by contrast would suggest at least 3, no? I'd be surprised if we couldn't find a source dissecting the POTUS' choice of numerical adjective in these two excerpts. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2018 (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)

RfC: Should the article include mention of Trump/Pence signs?

The first paragraph of this article currently contains mention of Trump/Pence signs sourced to one analysis article in a highly reliable source. The issue with inclusion is WP:NPOV with particular attention to the following exhortation in WP:WEIGHT: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Also note that NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Earlier discussion can be found at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Trump/Pence_signage.

Should the text "Trump/Pence signs" be included in the lead and/or body? Please respond with:

Yes, Yes – Include in the lead and body
Yes, No – Include in the lead only
No, Yes – Include in the body only
No, No – Do not include
O3000 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No, Yes As I explained above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, No as originator. A single article on a subject which has generated huge press coverage does not a prevalence make. The text in the first paragraph of the lead suggests a connection that does not appear to exist. Trump’s reactions certainly belong in the body. WP:UNDUE. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, Yes - Inclusion in the lead seems a little much (lacks WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT), and appears to be an attempt to tar Trump/Pence through "guilt by association". I don't think we ought to exclude from the body though. The fact that even a single high-quality source finds it fit to mention the Trump/Pence signs, makes me think that a single line in the body of the article would not be WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I too, am of the "single line" opinion with regards to the weight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ambivalent, Yes' The lead could stay or go, but it should be mentioned in the body definitely, yes. ValarianB (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes. All the signs are cited to the same source, and the other sources for that section similarly emphasize the fact that the rally's organizers were Trump supporters (eg. from the Washington Post, "Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, a Trump supporter who was in Charlottesville on Saturday...") I don't see how it can be WP:UNDUE to weight that aspect of the source equal to other parts that we're giving the same weight. The fact that the rally was broadly in support of Trump seems well-sourced and widely-reported, and deserves the same weight as other aspects. --Aquillion (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, Probably Not per O3000. zzz (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to the second. High quality source, relevant to article. Easy include. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes - The connection seems unmistakable and if well sourced, it adds context to the events that unfold. Nothing happens in a vacuum. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes agree 100% with Aquillion's points above; he said what I was basically going to say anyway. Rockypedia (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes The overlap of Trump supporters and white supremacists that supported the rally is broad, and has been covered extensively by reliable sources. Noting that said supporters were seen in Trump hats is not giving undue weight to a minor opinion, it is an acknowledgement of the prevailing point-of-view these people hold. This silly argument against reality has been a time sink from the start. TheValeyard (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - definately perWP:LEAD and think No per WP:UNDUE The mentioned signage is not a significant part of the article so should not be part of the lead. And looking at basic websearch --- it does not seem a significant part of the story at all. I can see images and mentions of a motley crew of militia, racists, and neo-Nazis, and some who said they simply wanted to defend their Southern history. Lots of group flags, Confederate flags, American flags, Nazi flags, emblazoned shields, even frog posters. But the only "Trump/Pence" seen was on a RefuseFascism.org sign, alongside "killing Nazis is my heritage" and anti-fa shields and such. Simply not seeing Trump signage in images or print as described let alone prominent or the major part of the events. Markbassett (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, yes - well-supported by cited sources. I don't find the "single source" argument to be at all persuasive since other sources say similar things; e.g., Time ("Trump’s comments on the violent rally were especially scrutinized since some of the white supremacists who attended wore red 'Make America Great Again' hats and claimed to be promoting Trump’s agenda."). Neutrality^talk 20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, Yes - per Markbassett and NickCT "Inclusion in the lead seems a little much (lacks WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT)" also per NickCT a line or two in the body about hats and maybe signs (attributed if NYT is only source). Pincrete (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes,Yes - well sourced, informative and encyclopedic. Mark Bassett's comment appears to be his own fantasy which is contradicted by reliable sources. Reliable sources is what we base our articles on, not one particular editor's wishful thinking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, Undecided Putting it the lede would be a gross violation of WP:UNDUE. Putting something that isn't widely covered by reliable sources is the very reason why WP:WEIGHT exists. I'm undecided on whether it even belongs in the article. I would need to further research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, Undecided (leaning "no"). I think it needs stronger and/or wider sourcing to even be in the article in the first place, let alone the lede. --Calton | Talk 18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Le's not forget that there are multiple reliable sources that mention, prominently, the presence of MAGA hats at the rally. Those are unmistakably associated with the Trump/Pence campaign, and should also be mentioned. Signs/hats supporting the campaign basically fall under the same umbrella. Singling out "signs" and saying "oh there's only one reliable source" just because the other articles didn't specifically mentions "signs" is cherry-picking. Rockypedia (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I singled out nothing. I cherry-picked nothing. I read scores of articles and looked at hundreds of images. I put serious effort into finding evidence that these signs existed. I repeatedly asked other editors to find ANY evidence in any of the hundreds of other articles that these signs existed, to no avail. Hats are clothing and worn everywhere. The lead says signs. Signs are used at Trump rallies. There don't appear to have been any Trump/Pence signs present at this event. Instead, there were large numbers of pro-Nazi, KKK, etc. signs. Ignoring all of the speakers, leaders, and organizers of the rally, the first paragraph, in Wikivoice, only mentions two people that did not organize, speak at, or attend the rally. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Rockypedia - So... you are agreeing the lead language ‘“Trump/Pence” signs’ is incorrect? Or suggesting that hats saying “Make America Great Again” are well described as signs saying “Trump/Pence” ? This thread is on whether those exact words about signs belong in the lead as being a major part of the article. If you wish to propose alternative phrasing or have cites to offer, please do so. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be saying of the sort so you might want to stop putting words in his mouth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It might well be coincidental in nature, if it were not the mutual admiration that Trump and White nationalists have shown, one for the other. This well documented support is more than tacit approval for each other as it is arguably a contributing factor for the rise of President Trump and the rising viability of the alt-right, White nationalists, and others. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)