Jump to content

Talk:Unite the Right rally: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
RfC of interest
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 271: Line 271:
There's an RfC at [[WT:NOT]] that would change that policy, and I think would have wide implications for all articles relating to recent events, including this one, which has come up in the discussion. See
There's an RfC at [[WT:NOT]] that would change that policy, and I think would have wide implications for all articles relating to recent events, including this one, which has come up in the discussion. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_commentary] [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_commentary] [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

==Staged event?==

People keep ruling out adding a section reporting some commentators describe the riots as a staged events, saying Infowars alone is not a sufficient source. Other sources report the same, in particular the Executive Intelligence Review, one of the world's leading private intelligence networks. See https://larouchepac.com/20170818/charlottesville-was-staged-event [[Special:Contributions/2601:703:2:27B0:B997:FE:A1B9:14B7|2601:703:2:27B0:B997:FE:A1B9:14B7]] ([[User talk:2601:703:2:27B0:B997:FE:A1B9:14B7|talk]]) 00:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:50, 26 August 2017

Template:BLP noticeboard


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Reliably sourced article.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Robert Edward Lee Sculpture seems to be what it's commonly and officially known as. Appears to return the greatest number of Ghits using that search term than any other combination of those words. But "statue" seems to be a perfectly good descriptor of what it is, as far as I can tell. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting. WP:NOTAFORUM. Jdcomix (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possibly Reactions to white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, VA? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The problem with the latter is that there have been speeches, not just one :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Neutralitytalk 22:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

allegations of assault of female reporter

Noticed this in some pieces.

Fox mentions two:

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

More coverage

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
There's a WaPo story on this [1], also mentions a journalist being attacked with Tiki torches.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree that it would probably be prudent to wait it out for more sources to bring this up themselves; great points. However, failing more reports of other reporters being attacked being published in the near future, will it be safe to assume that other reporters were not in fact attacked? I'd wager that reporters comprise one particular demographic for whom incidents of being attacked are not likely to go under-reported.
As a side note: is it just me, or does "attacked in the head with a tiki torch" seem like a really odd combination of very specific and very vague wording? What does "attacked" mean? Bludgeoned? Prodded? Burned? Was contact made, or was it a swing and a miss? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Because it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:FOC ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, her death is the subject of the attention, but not the minutiae of the injuries or of the positions of the cars and assorted bullshit. John F. Kennedy was a President of the United States, whose assassination was the subject of much scrutiny and controversy owing to semi-credible evidence of cover-ups and such. There's nothing even in the ballpark of comparability here. TheValeyard (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether she was hit by the initial forward-ramming or the subsequent backing-up is not minutiae/bullshit. Group A wasn't hitting the car, group B was. It's an issue of context so I'd like to know if anyone recalls mention of this in any sources. If you're not aware of any, why input at all? I'm not going to add anything about it unless a source actually mentions it, in which case notability would be established. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are wasting everyone's time by casting out wide nets for information and wild speculation on things that have not been reported on. This is why there's a section below calling this behavior out. TheValeyard (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are choosing to waste your own time for condemning a request for information instead of just ignoring it when you have no intent of helping. It is your bad-faith engagement here which is disruptive, not my request for sources. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason it would be preferable to intentionally exclude this information if it exists, Valeyard? I'm not sure I fully understand the nature of the online relationship between you two (you seem to have some history), but I don't think I'd be so quick to throw out that kind of information as being of no interest to anyone. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). Neutralitytalk 20:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Neutralitytalk 22:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The sources cited say the following
  • "Dozens of white nationalists marched through the University of Virginia campus on Friday night carrying torches..."
  • "...scores of white nationalists holding torches..."
  • "...a group of about 100 white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-Nazis marched...carrying tiki torches"
"Many" is an accurate descriptor of the events. This over-pedantic approach is becoming disruptive. TheValeyard (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you had actually read the sources that you claimed to have examined... On Friday night, a group of about 100 white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-Nazis marched on the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia, carrying tiki torches. I'm done with this for now, other editors can deal with the disruption caused by your revisions. TheValeyard (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are being dishonest calling changing "many">"scores" (sources say latter, nor former) "disruption". We should avoid vague terms wherever it is possible to use more specific terms from sources. Whether or not 100 is "many" is a subjective issue of scope. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors find that your edits either verge on or are disruptive. I'll add my voice to that opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"rearranging quotes"

I think this edit did a lot more than its summary stated [[2]]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I agree that including this phrase is unnecessary, not supported by the source, misleading, and just plain weird. Neutralitytalk 21:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandydancer:'s contention that "dozens of..." holds no water. I just went back to the NYT article that is sourced, and besides McAuliffe and some journalists, only an ex-VA congressman (who the NYT bizarrely informs us happens to be Jewish) is quoted. I'm puzzled at @Neutrality:'s stance, and would ask him or her to retract his or her entire sentence as it contains a howler, "not supported by the source", and devolves from there. Blatant misrepresentation in this forum ought to earn a temporary block. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is old -- the one I used is current (August 22). Here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/22/us/politics/trump-rebukes-charlottesville.html Gandydancer (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My source is the source that had been, was and is still cited in the article before I arrived on scene. To characterize it as "old" is fanciful. My original contribution was to investigate what the source really wrote. I stand by my "some journalists and McAuliffe" characterization. You are welcome to add a sentence to the paragraph in question. Like as in, "Later on Tuesday, the New York Times asked for responses to its inflammatory and reckless story, and was met with 'Dozens of Republican lawmakers, as well as business and community leaders, have distanced themselves from President Trump'" or words to that effect. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that the opinions of three editors that disagree with you would be sufficient but you have again reverted. Please read our article and note that public protesters, the religious community, politicians, the online community, world leaders, and others have all spoken out to disagree with the president's comments and not merely the governor and journalists. I know that the president would like us to believe that it is merely the journalists who have ganged up on him, but that is not factual. I have again removed the misleading wording. Gandydancer (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Neutralitytalk 22:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose whether or not you view article REPAIR (to abide by WP:BLPCRIME) as construction or not is a matter of perspective. Sources calling it "attack" mean we report that sources call it an attack, or call it an "alleged attack" as I have seen put in before.
My alteration of simply "car attack" when presented out of context is in line with WP:BLP which you ought to study up on. We have here a person who has been charged with a crime, but whom has not yet stood trial and been convicted. Policy is clear: we do not allege he committed any crime, such as a car attack or attempted murder or terrorism, in an authorial tone.
You can certainly say alleged attacker / alleged murderer / alleged terrorist since "alleged" is reporting on the allegations and not conveying it as a statement of fact.
I wonder why you are criticizing me for bringing the article in line with BLP and ignoring the people who keep introducing these policy-disregarding descriptions? ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you have done in this article has been in the name of BLP, but rather to water down an act the US Attorney General has labeled "domestic terrorism". Fields has been charged with several serious crimes; we can and do reflect that in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be shifting the goalposts into straw man arguments here Valeyard. I completely agree with retaining the Sessions quote and the murder charge. I have never removed this information from the article. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best source saying Heyer was hit by Challenger

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

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

Specific (mentions brand or driver)

Unspecific (only says 'car')

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

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

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

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

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

IMHO, you should be looking at the indictment sheet. As public information, it should be available on justia.com or similar. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sounds like it would be a useful primary source. The names of the charges alone don't clarify it but a summary of details from something like this might. I'm afraid I don't know how to navigate this Justia site though... If anyone does find it and it's public domain, would love to see the PDF to see if it can reinforce the claim. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accident language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shrouding of Statues in Charlottesville

Although the statues were covered in black shrouding today. I am looking for a consensus as to whether the momuments in Charlottesville, Virginia are significant to be noted directly in this article. [1] Theoallen1 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Are you asking about the monument, or the covering of the monument?
Since the shrouding is a recent, temporary action, it seems a bit premature to me. Maybe it could be mentioned briefly at Robert Edward Lee Sculpture. "Shouding" is technically accurate, but since that word is associated with death, "covered" is probably both clearer and more neutral. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.fox5ny.com/news/275601305-story

RfC of interest

There's an RfC at WT:NOT that would change that policy, and I think would have wide implications for all articles relating to recent events, including this one, which has come up in the discussion. See [3] Coretheapple (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Staged event?

People keep ruling out adding a section reporting some commentators describe the riots as a staged events, saying Infowars alone is not a sufficient source. Other sources report the same, in particular the Executive Intelligence Review, one of the world's leading private intelligence networks. See https://larouchepac.com/20170818/charlottesville-was-staged-event 2601:703:2:27B0:B997:FE:A1B9:14B7 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally&oldid=797275018"