Talk:Unite the Right rally

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

PLEASE CHANGE THE WORD "PROTEST" TO "PROTEST AGAINST" OR "PROTEST FOR" IN ORDER TO BE CLEAR WHICH GROUPS ARE PROTESTING "FOR" THE REMOVAL OF THE STATUE AND WHICH GROUPS ARE PROTESTING "AGAINST" THE REMOVAL OF THE STATUE. THANK YOU. WildRose13 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Question: This is mainly for those that regular the page, but was this why the page was protected in the first place? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. per below. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification about which group of protesters people are from would be good. How to describe them should probably be based on how sources do. Incase of conflict, go with most neutral. Some sources might simply generalize so this will be hard. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The wording definitely needs improvement. "Hundreds of protesters and counterprotesters were in attendance and several violent clashes between protesters and counterprotesters occurred." is a very poorly-written sentence. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Police ordered to stand down

This was originally confirmed by ACLU of Virginia at Twitter [1] but I had trouble finding any RS convering it except for HuffPost's Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville and DenverPost crticism of the slowness of the police [2]. Someone more articulate than me could easily add this component to the article. It is interesting because in Europe the police tactics will include keeping protestors and counter-protestors away from each other by any means, while in the US it's common at one point the police are just ordered to stand down and let the carnage begin. --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not them ordered to stand down, it's just them not ordered to stand between. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

If you are a police officer sworn to enforce the law and protect the public and you witness laws being broken and people being injured yet you do nothing, then you are most definitely "standing down". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There's doing nothing because you'd rather not, and doing nothing because you were told to. The latter would be far more noteworthy, but there's no mention of an order in those sources. That's all I meant. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I really don't think you know very much about how law enforcement deals with mob unrest. The endgame is not confrontation, but rather containment. TheValeyard (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's an article which partly covers the lack police action.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ryan M. Kelly's photo

Ryan M. Kelly's photo seen here is garnering more and more media attention. I know wikipedia normally doesn't do fair use of AP photos, but this could be an exception, as the photo itself is becoming an increased topic of interest. Perhaps it could be put in the infobox under that reasoning or given its own article? We might have to wait to see how that pans out, but something tells me that we will here more about Kelly's photo in the future and this is something worth keeping an eye on.-Indy beetle (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The photo is becoming iconic. However, this is really up to the fair-use policy so need to ask people who are familiar with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In particular, the relevant policy is WP:NFCC. Here are the conditions which must be satisfied for use (only listing the relevant ones for brevity):

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
2. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

IMO, I think these conditions are satisfied. There are other images of the rally, but there are no other equivalent images of the attack. And it does "significantly increase readers' understanding". But like I said, it'd be best to get an editor who has more familiarity with NFCC issues to opine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia File Upload Wizard allows one to tag an image under fair use as per the following: "This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article. The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows." I think that would support the inclusion of the photo in at the least in its own article, or if there's a section of the article that discusses it. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In its own article, obviously. Not in a section of the article simply discussing the attack though, I think. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline says the rationale must include "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media." I guess someone could ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think part of the issue is that the attack itself had its own article but then it got merged here. I think in an article on the attack one could justify its use. Here it's not as obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Identification of the driver

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

---

I have now twice removed the identification of the driver as an obvious violation of WP:BLPCRIME. @WWGB: re-added it despite the requirement to obtain consensus for edits challenged under BLP. I'm therefore starting a discussion here, as he ought to have done, though I can't see any realistic interpretation of the policy that would allow this to be re-added. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - the policy has the qualifier of "For relatively UNKNOWN people" - the <redacted per BLP> is most certainly NOT relatively unknown. Twitbookspacetube 11:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Twitbookspacetube: Am I missing something? For what is he known? If it's only for this crime, then that's 'relatively unknown'. GoldenRing (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• 1. Don't ever ping me again, It's extremely annoying, reeks of WP:BLUDGEON and I have this page watchlisted - I WILL KNOW WHEN YOU REPLY!
• 2. Lots of people become known for one event - and there are lots of reliable sources showing that this <redacted per BLP> is not just another face in the crowd. Twitbookspacetube 11:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Twitbookspacetube, I urge you to reconsider everything you said in this recent comment. Nowhere have you received a barrage of comments trying to force you to change your mind. So it does not, in any sense of the term, "reek of bludgeon". Please re-read that essay. On top of that, a ping is a curtesy extended to notify a user that they have been mentioned in a discussion and augment[s] (rather than replace[s]) the Watchlist. It is not a demand to reply immediately and with due haste. You're being unnecessarily hostile in response. Think for a second: How, precisely, would GoldenRing have known you had this article on your watchlist if you don't tell them (yell it at them)? given that watchlists are private affairs to which no-one excluding yourself has access to. And yes, I am intentionally pinging you to this comment. It's so that you don't have to scroll through the entire 150k byte talk page to find it. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The article does NOT suggest he is guilty of a crime, merely that he is facing charges. That is a big difference, and there is no breach of WP:BLPCRIME. Also, where is the BLP challenge? If you mean this, it was a concern over use of the word "attack" in the title of another article, not over using the name of the charged person. Quite a misrepresentation of the concern! WWGB (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per WWGB and Twitbookspacetube, and same reasons. Rockypedia (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per other editors above. Earthscent (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per discussion above. At this point, his arrest and murder charge are a major part of the story that will be included in the article even if he is found innocent. Dlthewave (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion The person's name has been widely reported by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME. Were the driver a person notable enough to warrant consideration of an article, I might feel differently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME Arrests and charges are not convictions. We're not here to be part the mob. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't seem quite relevant, since the text does not say that he has been convicted. We say only that he has been arrested and charged, which is what the reliable sources reflect. Neutrality^talk 13:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You should read the whole section. We're all but explicitly calling them a criminal. In fact, we're including information that he is accused of commiting a crime which is a WP: BLPCRIME violation on its face. This person is a largely unknown person, and we're acting as part of a lynch mob on this article. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I've read the whole section and do not see any place where we call anyone a criminal. It is not a violation of BLP to simply state that a person is accused of a crime, so long as we are clear that it is just that: an accusation. Neutrality^talk 13:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Really? This is right from BLP policy "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured.[d] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[e] include all the explanatory information." (emphasis mine). This is just another media lynch mob that Wikipedia is getting involved in. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added the word, "alleged", but his name should stay. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It is doubtful whether than man is "relatively unknown" at least now. But even if he was, the policy says "seriously consider"; it doesn't say "must not." Where the man's name has been very widely disseminated, an individual is key to the story, and the text is be worded to make clear that these are charges and not convictions, BLP does not require or even suggest exclusion. As to "media lynch mob," I think that criticism of the media is not particularly salient. Is the BBC part of a lynch mob? What about PBS? These are not tabloid newspapers. The policy calls for us to exercise our editorial judgment and discretion. I hold the position that we should follow the BBC, PBS, etc. Neutrality^talk 13:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Seriously go re-read Blp policy. What's meant by relatively unknown is defined there, and it is not characterized by being thrown in the limelight by the media. The individual isn't key to the story. The actions are key to the story. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First, the policy does not define "relatively unknown" - that determination is based on the individual facts of each situation in light of common sense. Second, the man was not "thrown in the limelight by the media." The attention was a result of the arrest and charges, not (for example) pundit speculation or gossip. The latter is the kind of the thing that would be omitted; the former is not. Third, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the man is relatively unknown, the policy does not say that his name must automatically be excluded, as I wrote above. Neutrality^talk 14:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And how many arrests and charges make headlines. Go read WP: LPI It's the supplement to BLP policy that defines it. For your reference, WP: BLPCRIME refers to WP: NPF, which in turn refers to WP: LPI. Relatively unknown is defined the same way as non-public figure. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME uses WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE to define "relatively unknown". It specifically applies to people who fit into WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know (that's why I linked WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE above). My point is that WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE does not further define the term (it merely refers to "people who are not well known"). Neutrality^talk 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't provide a clear definition, however it does outline a group; people who are mentioned in article but are not notable (a word that has a specific meaning here) themselves. The driver clearly falls into this category. So the way I see it, BLPCRIME suggests we should be carefully weighing the pros and cons of adding his name. Right now, the only pro I see is raw inclusionism (it's an extra tidbit of information). The driver's identify doesn't change the narrative one bit. Now, if the driver gets significant coverage in the coming months, I can see adding them in then. But we have no tangible gain from adding it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I very much agree with you that "BLPCRIME suggests we should be carefully weighing the pros and cons of adding his name." This is indeed a balancing test, and reasonable people can come to different conclusions on where the balance comes out. My main objection was to the idea suggested by some others that BLP somehow bars us from naming people unless they have actually been convicted of crimes, which has never been our policy. Neutrality^talk 14:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Right now, I think it's very (very) clearly in favor of exclusion for the reasons given in my last comment. But of course, the consensus seems to be heading the other way here. Let's see where the BLPN discussion goes, as it's likely to attract some outside views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The current text is appropriate and very well-sourced, and the man's name has been widely reported. The claim that WP:BLPCRIME mandates hiding the identity of those arrested is simply not supported (1) by the text of the policy; (2) by the reason for the policy; or (3) by our past practice (for example, Anders Behring Breivik and Dylann Roof were both named before they were convicted). It is, of course, true that we must be careful not to imply guilt, that we must be precise with language, and that we must be stringent with sourcing. But we can do that simply by tracking what the reliable sources say on the subject. Neutrality^talk 13:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per discussion above. Also the reason why the common law tradition, which applies in the US, places so much stress on "innocent until proved guilty" is exactly that the identity of arrested and charged persons is made known. (The alternative being secret arrests and we know where THAT leads...)Daithidebarra (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per BLPCRIME for now. Let's see how this progresses, in the case that this person is convicted of a crime. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note that, while it was not my intention, this discussion has been superseded by one at WP:BLPN#2017 Unite the Right rally. Please comment there. I have removed the offending material again pending the outcome of that discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per Dweller. His name can be added later if need be.Changed to Support. Subject has been arraigned as reported by reliable sources. This ain't a newspaper.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion: enough sourcing to bring down a proverbial elephant. My experience with these sorts of topics is that if Fields wasn't white, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sceptre (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. BLPCRIME requires that we consider excluding the name of the accused, it does not mandate it. In this case, the widespread international coverage of the name of the person who has been charged is such that I think we ought to include it. Indeed, the current omission of the name looks rather odd. Suitable language can be used to clarify that he is the alleged driver and has been charged, not convicted. Our readers will understand what that means. WJBscribe (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion -- the name has been widely reported, and its omission looks rather odd in the article. "Alleged driver" and other qualifications are appropriate and this has already been done, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in due time, but not before a proper WP article on the perpetrator himself has been developed. By the time of writing, the current article on him has already proved him guilty, which is obviously against WP guidelines. Editors should direct some of their attention at this issue. I suppose the article could be reestablished temporarily as a #REDIRECT page until it is developed to a satisfactory level. Question: Why don't I fix it myself? Answer: Because my primary objective here is to draw other editors's attention to this article in order to have it developed! I think we need that article. Gaeanautes (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Question How does this interpretation of BLPCRIME jive with the common practice of naming accused terrorists on related pages (e.g., 2017 Portland train attack)? We have a practice of naming the alleged attackers in other places. If this interpretation of BLPCRIME is sustained here, we'd need to scrub dozens of articles of alleged attackers. This seems like something that might be good for WP:VPP to consider as we do not follow the letter of BLPCRIME when it comes to major crimes like murder. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

good question. While I oppose inclusion for now (has he been arraigned yet?) we should look to precedent on other articles. Osama Bin Laden is a notable example. The Wikipedia fight over naming him a terrorist was epic. Admittedly that was a long time ago, but on articles like these passions seem to override good editorial judgment.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Of the couple dozen terrorism or murder-related articles I have on my watchlist, the issue of BLPCRIME was never raised when the alleged terrorist or murderer was named, even if they weren't famous like Osama bin Laden. It seems that there is a de facto exemption to BLPCRIME is the arrest was for murder or authorities have named a now-dead attacker in relation to a major event. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to naming him, especially now that he has been officially arraigned. But I am opposed to (as some of the comments here seem to indicate) to calling him a terrorist.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - This is not a borderline case, the man's name has been widely reported by essentially every reliable source on the planet. It is, of course, merely alleged that he committed the crime, but the alleged perpetrator of a terrorist attack on peaceful protestors is, rightly, now infamous. This is not a minor, unremarked crime - the President of the United States has now had to make multiple remarks on the white supremacy that allegedly drove it. His name, identity and the reasons for his alleged radicalization are encyclopedic and relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support inclusion: On grounds of precedent, given the pseudo-murder exemption; notability, given statements from the Attorney General of the United States and the President of the United States; widespread coverage in the media, including in Charlottesville city statements, in the Washington Post and the New York Times (along with other outlets); the discussion above; etc. WP:CRIM allows for this, given the notability and documentation surrounding the rally itself. However, we indeed must be cognizant of WP:BLPCRIME: no article should be created bearing his name, and the presumption of innocence must stand at all times, until and unless he is convicted in a court of law. Furthermore, once the indictment is drawn up, a link to it (either through a source or an external link) would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Javert2113 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Injured people

The article states: "One protester plowed a car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing a woman and injuring 19 other people, including five critically. At least 19 people were injured in street brawls and other violence at the rally".
Are we sure that 38 people were injured? or is it 19 but counted twice?. Is it just coincidental that 19 were injured in fights and 19 injured by the car?.
An (incorrect maybe?) report says 3 dead, 35 injured. what are the official stats? : http://www.ajc.com/news/dead-injured-after-unite-the-right-rally-sparks-violence-charlottesville/a0503KqRkdC7clVDkkCjEP/.
A Guy into Books (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a good question. I've been wondering that myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The usual source of injured statistics is ER reports. I suspect the 19 injured in the car crash were documented. I would expect the number injured in street brawls has not been documented or totaled. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nit to pick re: the procession Friday night, August 11, on the Lawn. Marching?

First, a disclaimer: I have not watched hours and hours of video of the event. I've seen only a few still photos from the Daily Progress and a few snippets of cellphone video. From what I have seen, though, the crowd making the procession up the Lawn (or "The Lawn," which seems to be the Wikipedia style) from the Old Cabell Hall end north to the Rotunda were not marching. They were walking as a group. I think it is not correct to say that they were marching. Anyone who has been through basic training or boot camp will recognize the difference. To say that they were marching implies an added level of organization. I was not there, so all I have to go on is what I've seen on the internet. The procession looked like a peaceable assembly until the group went around the Rotunda and got to the statue of Jefferson between the Rotunda and University Avenue. At that point, they encountered a group of counter-protesters (or counterprotesters; style not yet determined) surrounding the statue of Jefferson, and the situation changed. 65.196.107.197 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't "walking as a group" the definition of "marching"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

They were clearly "marching"; pls see 2017 Women's March. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"March" in the context of a demonstration does not require militaryesque synchronized walking. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they were marching. Doesn't necessarily require military formation. --Javert2113 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I remember protest (political demonstration) marches from the 1960s (and marching drill in basic training); the protest marches were crowds making a procession from point A to B. I did not take "protest march" here to mean a cohesive formation in step marching in "unicy" as our drill training instructor put it. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a pet peeve of mine, when people organize a march yet shamble along instead, talking to each other or looking at their phones. But if I can begrudgingly accept that's what "marching" means today, anyone can. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Where was the quote about open carry

There was a quote in the NYT that suggested '80%' of protesters were engaged in open carry of firearms, and the lack of firearms problems, but it's gone now.

The Business Insider related the quote: "“It’s easy to criticize, but I can tell you this, 80% of the people here had semiautomatic weapons," McAuliffe said."

Does this mean that the NYT memory hole has eaten a primary source and it can no longer be used as a reference, or is the businessinsder considered adequate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.241.13 (talk • contribs)

References

Don't look now, but this morning at the Lee statue was a guy in CSA uniform with the Stars and Bars and an AR-15. {http://www.dailyprogress.com/gallery/confederate-confronted-in-emancipation-park/collection_760b64c8-81dc-11e7-858a-7f670b780c79.html} Rhadow (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Protesters and counter-protesters

Wow, this is a hot mess of a section to read. Can someone convert this to a bullet point list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bad, but a box would work best, a table, that is, delineating the protesters and counterprotesters. I would do it, but I'm busy right now, and I don't know how. --Javert2113 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a mess, hopefully it will improve in the next day. Bullet-point lists in these types of sections are discouraged; I'm certain it would be reverted if I made that change. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Potential acid-attack

An alt-right profile named Tim Gionet but more known by the nickname "Baked Alaska" (he has a page here on wikipedia and a link to it at the bottom of the very page about the rally) was attacked and sprayed in the eyes with some kind of corrosive (unclear exactly what) during this rally - he's hospitalised and supposedly he may become blind. Surely relevant and worthy of mention somewhere? 81.229.205.162 (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources would be required first. And even then it would need to have due weight. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any RS for this. He did tweet about it here however, Hospital has sent me to the ER, I was told there's a large possibility I'll have permanent eye damage. Keep me in your prayers thank you fam. Nothing to do with corrosives or anything though.  Seagull123  Φ  23:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else find his use of AAVE ironic? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The probability that he's lying is too high to include this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's on video, all over youtube for starters. Of course, the footage of the vehicular attack was private footage of that nature too.

But when a news outlet that you approve of (or disapprove of) on some arbitrary basis, without really adding anything uses such footage as a story, it's "reliable" - it happened as per a "reliable source". And so if they don't - the very same footage is not reliable. "Funny" how that works. What a joke... 81.229.205.162 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Even you say it's "unclear" what was sprayed, so calling it a "corrosive' liquid is WP:OR. And without any sources (his own tweet doesn't count, nor does a YouTube video), there's nothing to discuss here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that something was sprayed and it is clear that he's hospitalised. And you're right - there's nothing to discuss. Your double standard is blatant as is your arbitrary "calculations" of reliability based on nothing. (there is nothing as to the guys reliability or unreliability) You might as well deny the vehicular attack too, that was nothing but private footage until MSM picked up that very footage. Good job though, you two (especially Evergreen making jokes about political violence, do she also have something "witty" to say about the police officers who died, or the vehicular attack?) have convinced me it's time to simply can my donations and give wiki a middle finger salute. Seeing as people like you are allowed to run the show according to your own wishes, agendas, whatever and the "un" more and more has fallen away from "unbiased". Wikipedia can simply live off your blatant activism. 81.229.205.162 (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So do we need to point out that the man screaming "BIAS BIAS BIAS" who was an obvious liar from the beginning was an obvious liar? Or does that go unsaid?

I'd gladly read a RS reporting this. That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)96.253.29.162 (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've often argued against leftist bias on here, but this is different. We don't know what happened exactly, it could easily have been mace (which is highly unpleasant, but doesn't do permanent damage). It's important to stick with documented facts and reliable sources. The purported acid attack in particular is something that definitely happened or didn't, without much room for interpretation, and it's something that should have hard proof (police reports, etc). Bigdan201 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I found a reliable source about this.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That source merely says Gionet claimed he was pepper-sprayed, so it's probably a good reliable source that lets us close this discussion, as there's nothing in there about acid or hospitalization. Rockypedia (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a local paper repeating Giornet's claim that he was pepper-sprayed, is all. Unverified, and certainly not "potential acid attack" as this IP account claims. TheValeyard (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the source just says Baked Alaska is an alt-right provocateur named Tim Gionet, who reported on Twitter that he was pepper-sprayed in Charlottesville. It's just repeating, without verifying, Gionet's unverified story. Contra the anon, it is far from "clear that something was sprayed." Until there's more to this than Gionet saying something, it doesn't belong here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, at least I found something! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I found something else. Earlier in the day, Baked Alaska was crowing about how awesome Bashar al-Assad is for using barrel bombs on his own people. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Reactions: Cillizza

The juxtaposition of Chris Cillizza's statements, given that he is a political commentator on CNN (which only covered this story), with those of the Daily Stormer (one of the publications involved in the creation of the rally itself, through its editor) gives him undue weight. Still, it's preserved here, all the same. —Javert2113 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Images and video

More images of a vigil in Santa Barbara here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/louisepalanker/

and more videos that might be copyvio-free from the organizer of the rally here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC68k9B1W2GTDZv9e10ySrxA/videos

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The photo currently in the info box is NOT a VOA photo but an AP Photo and is protected by copyright and licensing. Even lists it as AP in the metadata and on to VOA website.. Photo needs to be removed.Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

David Duke comment

I commented out David Duke remark regarding Trump's condemnation because the sentence is unclear without context (especially when the person is referred as ex-KKK leader). It can meant that:

a. These are the guys that supported you, clean up the mess.

Or, the more likely one:

b. These are the people who put you into the White House, don't think of condemning us.

SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

His remark should be included to represent the varied responses from individuals involved with the rally to Trump's statement. So long as it is quoted as fully as possible and there is a reliable secondary source, it's fine.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course he had something to do with it though, so he needs to be mentioned, these are nazi white supremisist Trump supporters who he is very vocal in supporting 203.1.238.56 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Trumps TWO statements condemning these sort of groups means he is supporting them. Please troll elsewhere.

Videos by Jason Kessler

I'm funding these videos to be undue -- they have been posted in full, which is unnecessary IMO. Would there be any objections to removing them? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't viewed their content, but if they're posted in full, then it's likely they're unnecessary. Go ahead; be bold! --Javert2113 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I removed both; pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Run them down", more context for the car attack

This Slate article[5] popped up on my iPod this morning. It says running over protestors is " a long-running right-wing fantasy of running over protesters, especially members of Black Lives Matter who have blocked intersections and highways during rallies " and "“Run them over” is a popular anti-BLM catchphrase" Seems popular with the police also. Slate gives a number of examples ending up with one about this attack: "After news broke that a woman had been killed at the counterprotest, a Massachusetts patrolman commented on Facebook: “Hahahaha love this, maybe people shouldn’t block road ways." It also lists some failed legislative attempts. " Across the country, Republicans legislators have attempted to codify the idea that protesters surrender their rights when they stand in the road." Although this incident is mention at Vehicle-ramming attack none of the rest is. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody needs encouragement or instructions to hit someone with a car. They're fast, heavy and protective. Every driver has had the thought cross his or her mind, if not tempt them. Many do it without even trying; a car is that effective a weapon. Attributing inspiration for such a generic method is foolish. Just as likely got the suggestion from CNN.com. White people read that, don't they? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Until James Fields gives testimony, or his writings or his conversations with others becomes evidence, there is no knowledge of what his specific motives and intents were. It OK to talk about it in Talk, but until Fields' motives and intents are clear it does not belong in the article. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If not here, I definitely believe that it should be included in the article about vehicle-ramming attacks. Sceptre (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. There, too, we should avoid pinning anything on this particular untried case. But generally, it's good info. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Of relevance: Tom Kludt, "Fox News, Daily Caller delete posts encouraging people to drive through protests", CNN (August 15, 2017). bd2412 T 02:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

southern poverty law center

Are we just going to be ok with citing them like they're a neutral party in this? Their page description is legit outlined as bringing an end to hate groups: https://www.splcenter.org/about Gvstaylor1 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not NPOV, but I'm going to let someone else make whatever changes are necessary as I'm fully in support of bringing an end to hate groups and probably not neutral either. Natureium (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source; sources are not required to be "neutral," they are required to be reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ditto what North said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying the information shouldn't be used, I'm saying it should probably be noted in some way that this is the opinion of a clearly biased (not necessarily in a negative way) organization, rather than an objective fact or observation. Natureium (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It is enough to identify the organization; we do not need to say "SPLC, which opposes white supremacy," in part because all people of good will and faith oppose white supremacy. If more detail is needed, people can click the handy wikilink and look at their Wikipedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

<rushes off to add "which opposes white supremacy" to every mention of every BLP, group and organization that isn't white supremacist> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

will they tho? People that come just for a quick read wont. Let's just avoid by putting a note about what they do, it's no more than 10 words tops... doesn't hurt anything except add clarity Gvstaylor1 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Gvstaylor1 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It does hurt by implying that the SPLC is untrustworthy for this citation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to know more about them, click the link. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Page name

Does @Surtsicna: or anyone else care to discuss this? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Most sources refer to the rally without the year. Malinaccier (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I was bold. Anyone is free to revert it, of course, but an explanation in favor of the old title would be nice. "2017" seemed redundant as well as misleading, because this is the only Unite the Right rally to take place. Sources are also much more likely to refer to "Unite the Right rally" than to "2017 Unite the Right rally". Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's probably an improvement, but it's still not a great title. I'd rather have discussion here than have anyone else start a page-rename war. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think that there were a few rallies in Canada that took place with a different "Unite the Right" organization. (Same name, different purpose.) Though, this should be what most people think of nowadays that it would only matter if that organization returned. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think 2017 Unite the Right rally is more clear, similar to 2017 Berkeley protests and other incidents. I don't know that it's an ideal name though. Have other suggestions been put forth? Charlottesville Unite the Right tally? Natureium (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Berkeley is a city with a population of over 100,000. There must have been other (though non-notable) protests there. Nothing else called Unite the Right rally ever took place, however. Not in any other year, not in any other town. "Unite the Right rally" is thus unambiguous (precise), succint, and verifiable. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

And if there are more with the same name? Doug Weller talk 19:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Then we could move the page at that time. Neutrality^talk 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna's bold move. No need to include the year. It is unnecessary. WP:CONCISE. Neutrality^talk 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• I say we rename it to [[That time a bunch of idiots cosplaying as two regimes famous for getting their asses kicked got their asses kicked by groups famous for opposing violence until one of the idiots crashed a car into a bunch of people because he was too butthurt to just drive home]]. But that's just me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

apparently, there is a maximum length for wikilinks. Interesting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a much more descriptive name, but I request that you provide a reliable source for cosplaying, idiots, famous for violence, and being too butthurt to drive home. Natureium (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Damn, you caught me! And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Unite the Right Rally" is a pretty obscure name, at least outside the alt-right. Charlottesville is the name people know it as. --GeicoHen (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I will mention that we also have a few redirects to this article that might be more known, but also less accurate to the article. (As an aside note, this does remind me that the redirects should be checked to see if a few should be deleted, mine included.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Online Response" Section: Should we put the names of those falsely accused of attending the rally?

The article states "There was at least one case of mistaken identity; one University of Arkansas engineering professor received threatening messages from Twitter users who mistook him for a similar-looking man at the rally who wore an "Arkansas Engineering" T-Shirt."

Should we put his name in here? (It's easy enough to find, but I'm not going to list it until a consensus is formed). I don't want to doxx the guy more than he already is, but it could be helpful to clear the record to "name it and UNshame it". We go 95% of the way, is outright naming the guy appropriate, safe, and beneficial to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostjackal (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hell no. It brings no encyclopedic value and invites vandals to change the article to state that he was there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No per WP: AVOIDVICTIM --Kyohyi (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The details in that sentence should likely be reduced further. "There was at least one case of mistaken identity where an individual received threatening messages from Twitter users." is probably enough Power~enwiki (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Good points, the way the article reads is a "one foot in, one foot out" tone. Although it still really stinks this guy has to put up with all this.. Could someone make the edit and reduce it to the above suggestion? GhostJackal 19:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostjackal (talk • contribs)

No, as long as the individual isn't named, a description of the mistake does add encyclopedic value. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

But the way the article reads all but names the individual. If we want to protect someone's identity then the description should be truncated. As it reads it's basically "well who is this guy, better google it". It is a more descriptive narrative, but it reads rather vague/awkwardly redacted in regards to the actual individual. 50.226.108.234 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I read it several times, and I have neither any inkling of who he is nor any desire to find out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Try reading it in the frame of someone with an inquisitive mind. I read it once and was like "who is that?" Besides, another contributor to this discussion also thinks this is far too revealing. If there is going to be "half way" descriptors it should either be all in (name) or all out (impliment above suggested edit). Here, two clicks. I highlight the sentence, Google it, then the first article (BBC) has his name in it. Either we protect his privacy or we don't. GhostJackal (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Try reading it in the frame of someone with an inquisitive mind. Try at least looking at an editor's user page and contributions before making hilariously ignorant assumptions about them. Hell, 80% of all editors are naturally inquisitive almost to a fault. The other 20% are POV pushers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

hilariously ignorant assumptions Are you mad? You sound mad. Try being not mad before posting next time. Anyways nice job dodging the arguments made by Power~enwiki GhostJackal (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The word "hilariously" should have served as a fairly obvious clue as to my emotional state. Was it too subtle? If so, then understand that I found your comment extraordinarily vapid, to the point of being funny. I decided to respond by pointing out the absurdity rather than reminding you of our civility policy, but based on your latest comment, I see that was a mistake. Please read that link and try to internalize the information contained therein.

Also, I never dodged any argument by power-enwiki. Power never offered any arguments. They offered their opinion, an opinion which I respect, but with which I disagree, as should be obvious by my response to your agreement with it, above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

{od} I don't think I made any comments or arguments that I could have expected User:MPants at work to respond to. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Donald Trump?

I started a discussion here re: whether or not this project should be associated with WikiProject Donald Trump: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Donald_Trump#2017_Unite_the_Right_rally. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Proud Boys

I hope i'm responding right, kind of new to this. First, Gavin McInnes has stated that you can't be alt right and a Proud Boy, directly targetting alt righters like Kessler in Virginia in this tweet: https://twitter.com/Gavin_McInnes/status/887497671208038401

Also, here is something that I think works as a statement, it is in the official Proud Boys website: http://officialproudboys.com/columns/clusterfuck-extravaganza-unite-right-embarrassing-everyone/

Proud Boys had no part in this rally. 172.102.231.42 (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Jason Kessler is a member of the Proud Boys.[6] McInnes did say he stayed away because he "saw that thing going white nationalist, white power.”", so I'm not sure if it should be removed or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Does "Proud Boys" have a website where they could make a statement? The reference appears to refer to "a wing" of the group. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove any mention of Proud Boys. They were not at the event, and the event had been disavowed by Gavin McInnes before and after it occurred. ColoradoProudBoy (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC) (comment moved from a separate thread by Power~enwiki (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

The only current mention appears to be: The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that the rally was "shaping up to be the largest hate-gathering of its kind in decades in the United States" and that it was "expected to draw a broad spectrum of far-right extremist groups – from immigration foes to anti-Semitic bigots, neo-Confederates, Proud Boys, Patriot and militia types, outlaw bikers, swastika-wearing neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Ku Klux Klan members." . It's somewhat problematic, but not so problematic that I'm going to remove it before a brief discussion. We list the actual attendees in later paragraphs, perhaps the quote should be truncated after "far-right extremist groups". Power~enwiki (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Three links as proof that Proud Boys are not in support of Unite the Right: http://officialproudboys.com/columns/clusterfuck-extravaganza-unite-right-embarrassing-everyone/ https://twitter.com/Gavin_McInnes/status/887497671208038401 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8DhmEunckg

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Javert2113: Power~enwiki (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping me, friend. I have this page on my watch list. Fair enough. I withdraw my objection and apologize. Javert2113 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This section was mis-named so you were unlikely to see it. I'm not certain if the "Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights" should be considered the same group as "Proud Boys" or not. The leadership of Proud Boys clearly wants no part of this, but I don't know about sub-groups / affiliated groups / etc. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's partly why I put them back in: sub-groups and other affiliates, granted, aren't the main group, but there may still be significant overlap between the two. Javert2113 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I added two sentences on it, see here. That should make things clear. And yes, the "Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights" (can't get much more absurd/ridiculous than that) is associated with the Proud Boys - the Washington Post referred to them as "a wing of the Proud Boys" (article), the NY Times says that they were "initially conceived as a paramilitary wing of the Proud Boys" (article); the SPLC calls them an "affiliate" (article). Neutrality^talk 21:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging another new user to discuss their changes here: @Roryreddington: Power~enwiki (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I moved this template from the top of the page to a section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw chatter about Proud Boys on image boards and found it confusing. Had no idea what it meant. Even if they were not involved, makes me wonder what number of sources are making then claim and if it is notable. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

license plates and car brands

If any sources reported on the plate code of the gray Dodge Challenger or the vehicle it made contact with (or the 3rd behind that) would it be relevant to list them? It seems useful for identifying them in pictures of the incident.

Also wondering: have any sources reporter on the color/company/brand of other two vehicles? I have no eye for this thing and if a source did identify these it would make discussions about the incident easier to understand, so I would like to see that included. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Car attack coverage - victim v. suspect

@Synesthetic: in his edit summary said "Not notable - please add more details on the victim not the suspect" when removing information on the suspect in the vehicle attack.

Is there a guideline that requires this? If not, what is the consensus among editors as to coverage here? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, but for its own shadiness and unimportance, regardless of how we cover (or don't cover) the victim. It's not a contest. If we're talking about her, we should also avoid nameless classmates; high schools are full of drama. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

what if classmates are named? Would "schools are full of drama" exclude statements from former HS teach of driver accusing him of views based on a mysterious unreleased project? ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant to a discussion of an alleged white supremacist murderer that people are coming forward to say that he has long held white supremacist and Nazi-sympathizing views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mace deployment

Reporter from site "Rebel Media" Faith Goldy, in a Youtube video titled "Charlottesville, In My Own Words", claims that there were "countless instances of illegal deployment of mace" but I did a CTRL-F search and found no mention of that in the article. What do other sources say about it? I know it happened because I saw a couple of periscope from reporters covering it, but they were from Infowars and Rebel Media, and I am not aware of more reliable media mentioning it.--Forich (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

“There was a guy holding both arms with his thumbs on mace triggers spraying everywhere and no one could breathe.” Probably doesn't literally mean "no one", but it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, the entry states "deploying chemical sprays", so it IS mentioned. --Forich (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Should maybe be clear, though. "Deploying chemical sprays" makes them sound like Syrian warplanes or skunks. These people are demonized enough already. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's a quote. Guess we're stuck. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? Does this help?[7]

“ Washington Post reporter Joe Heim: “Counter-protesters fought back, also swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals. Others threw balloons filled with paint or ink at the white nationalists. Everywhere, it seemed violence was exploding. The police did not move to break up the fights.” ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Content

What should be in the infobox? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an infobox change such as [8]. It seems more detailed and has more information. Also, considering pages such as 2015–16 protests in Brazil, 2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests have this infobox, "civil conflict" seems appropriate for me. --2804:14C:33:9AC7:801:6C9C:9D97:72E1 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

1:45 v 4:49

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

---

Discrepancy exists regarding time of day the Challenge hit happened. Can we discuss what different sources have said about the timeline?

Also related: when was Heyer pronounced dead at hospital? Useful to know time lapse between car hitting and death affirmation.

I read she is being buried. Have any sources reported that an autopsy has been done? Or when it was done and who did it? Would assume this is standard for deaths associated with murder charges. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

At 4:49, TIKI® Brand denounced "the events" on Twitter, indicating they'd already reached deadliness. Maybe they're just really on top of their image control, but The New York Times says "before 1:45", and that's generally a trustworthy brand. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

hm okay, can you alias those next to the time w/quote? Any idea what happened at 4:49 then? Could the source I added be referring to time of death in hospital? ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what your first sentence means, but many ABC affiliates repeat "Police say the crash happened at around 4:49 p.m." All the same story, though, so they don't add up to something more than one guy getting it wrong. Even someone as upstanding as myself can be off by sixteen years or so. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

This article first mentioned the crash at 2:09, so that's a pretty big disqualifier. Wikipedia has seen the future before, but there was a citation this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

This nitpicking over negligible minutiae, along with the ponderous and borderline crass comments about the victim's autopsy, is becoming concerning. It is the kind of zeal one finds in the reddits and -chans. This talk page here is for discussion of actual article content, such as reliable sources, what we can use, how much should be written about different aspects, and so on. It is not for fishing expeditions or tossing out various conjectures to see what will stick and what will not. TheValeyard (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion directly led to the correct time in the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

We sure? Are we taking time zones into account? If we decide on a best-sourced time, I think we ought to mention in parenthesis the sources which reported the wrong times. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

when an event happened is not negligible minutia, I relish stuff like this because it is something we can generally come together and.discuss with less heatedness. We are just checking the math of what sources provide to see how consistent they are. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

James Fields' Birthdate reliable source

April 26, 1997 https://ohioresidentdb.com/person/OH0023482569/james_alex_fields_jr 142.197.9.91 (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Trump really relevant to this, or vice versa?

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

---

I'm not being facetious with that question.

Did he cause it? Was he affected by it, or have reason to be? Did any aspect of any of this have anything to do with him or his policies, or is it purely a matter of his opinion on it, after the fact, and the media's heavy analysis of that message? I get that he's the President, and the President is inherently important, but unless there's some indication of his importance being relevant to this topic, I think the lion's share of what we have should be said in Donald Trump#Presidency. We should helpfully point to it there as the Main Article and retain a brief summary paragraph here.

Alternatively, we should clearly explain whatever it is that makes this event relevant to this person whose own article doesn't mention the event at all, perhaps in a new subsection. Otherwise it just looks like we're featuring him because the news currently is, and Wikipedia is not a news channel. Wikipedia is organized by topic, not theme.

Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

• Aye – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: In times of great national stress, the American public tends to look toward its President for guidance and authority: take, for instance, the Boston Marathon bombing or the Attack on Pearl Harbor — and given that he is, one could argue, one of the direct causes of the proliferation of neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideas in the United States, he is more than relevant. Factually, the necessity of three statements is, in and of itself, remarkable; and though I agree that WP:NOTNEWS should be followed, the enduring notability of the statements and reactions to them, given that the persons involved are core followers of the President of the United States (see, for instance, David Duke's statement) makes him relevant, totally and completely. (Also, it places this under another one of his controversies.) — Javert2113 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Attack on Pearl Harbor led to the President entering World War II. The Boston Marathon bombing briefly mentions Obama's response as a part of the National Reactions subsection. This article contains an entire section with three subsections dedicated to Trump's statements. There is definitely an issue of weight in this article. I'd suggest moving most of this content elsewhere and incorporating Trump's statements into the Reactions section, possibly as its own subsection. Cjhard (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If the American public tends to look toward its President, that seems more reason to have his statements in his article, since people looking for the President online will find that page sooner. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

Both of you are correct (sorry about the wait, something went kaput on Wikimedia's end), and I agree with Cjhard: there's a serious issue of weight here, but your solution is perfect, Cjhard! Javert2113 (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course trump is relevant to the attack! He is the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S.! It seems like nearly all of the racists traveled from out-of-state to get there, so interstate federal concerns are sure to arise. His statements about it reveal his lack of character, and since he's the oval office occupier, that is hyper-meaningful! His choices & decisions can heavily influence who, if anyone, gets prosecuted for what! He is involved and the outcomes can swing heavily based upon whatever he does or does not do.

♠Ace Frahm♠^talk

04:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

His statements, his character, his office, his choices and decisions. I can see how he could potentially do something to affect the issues that affected these people, but I don't see how continuing to not do things about it is reason to continue including news about nothing happening. Thanks for your input, though, I don't mean to seem pushy. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

You can't blame the media for his decision to hold a press conference and have a meltdown or for saying there were some fine people on both sides.[9]. Doug Weller talk 05:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not blaming the media. Or the President. They have their own relationship, and it seems to work. My problem is only that they're the only link between him and this event, so far, and that's just ephemeral. The substantial stuff is about him and them, but winds up here. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

David Duke: "This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back, we're going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump, and that's what we believed in, that's why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he's going to take our country back and that's what we gotta do." – Muboshgu (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a shaky connection, but compared to absolutely nothing, it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's so shaky. Do you want me to link to photos of Tiki torch wielding White supremacists wearing MAGA hats? There were lots. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I brought my own.

But (unless I'm missing something) they voted for Trump, expecting him to ethnically cleanse the country. Trump fooled them (or took too long), so now Duke is taking it upon himself to fulfill his own wish on Trump's behalf, without Presidential approval or assistance, and Trump's still responsible because they chose him. The way my Canadian brain works, the voter supports and empowers the votee, and thereby takes some blame (or credit) for the things the elected do in power, but it's absolutely not reversible. To hold one candidate accountable (even morally) for the actions of tens or hundreds of millions of people he's never met, seen or heard of is unfair and unreasonable. Surely Americans can grasp that, too? Maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

Ohh you're Canadian. That explains it. :P

Given the way Trump has stoked xenophobia over the course of the campaign, has been unwilling to denounce White supremacists for years, I'd say he's accountable for this. Plus, there's his personal history with racism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You say "stoked", I say "exploited". You say "unwilling to denounce", I say "wanting to keep handy". You say he's a "racist", I say he's a "racist". But most Presidents have been. He's just racist nowadays. That's not to say he's hardcore racist. Just casual. All irrelevant to why a helicopter should suddenly stop flying, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, August 16, 2017 (UTC) 17:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing here. Trump benefited from these racists, who are emboldened by his presidency. That means he's more than relevant, he's integral to this story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This helps me understand how American presidents are expected to act in "times of crisis", and a bit about why some citizens might find this a reaction unfashionably and exceptionally late. So the lateness in condemning what they wanted to hear condemned is noteworthy. But it's still way too long, especially relative to the weight we give Obama's similar faux pas, and that was two days without any official condemnation whatsoever. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

It's not that he was too late, that was Monday. Yesterday changed it again. NPR:[10] "I'm not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I'm saying is this — you had a group on one side, and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch," Trump said. "But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left, you've just called them the left, that came, violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is." Pointing out that one group had a permit, "the other group didn't have a permit." "So I only tell you this, there are two sides to a story." Explaining his delay ""I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct. Not make a quick statement," the president said. "The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don't make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts. And it's a very, very important process to me. ... I want to know the facts." NPR contrasts this with the rapidity at which he reacted to other incidents eg the Pulse night club and his criticism of the London Mayor after the London attacks. NPR also has the complete statement. He says businessmen leaving his council are leaving "Because they're not taking their job seriously as it pertains to this country." Doug Weller talk 08:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but I can't even see how this is notable in the context of Presidency of Donald Trump#Relationship with the media. They're just rehashing the same points they started on. Trump's (reportedly) unsuited becase he's racist, the media's (allegedly) deceptive because they're sad. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:32, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

You might see it this way:

1. Wikipedia has to reflect the sources. All these sources are media of some sorts. If many sources make a connection between Event A and Event B, we have to reflect that.
2. There is no separation between presidency and politics. Politics is a process of the devising of, debating on, and convincing others about policy. The debate and convincing take place through media. There can be no strict separation between the media image of a politician and the "real" politician. His image is part if his being a politician.
3. Yes, the media can be totally unfair towards a politician. This does not free us from the obligation to report the media coverage. We can only apply the NPOV-principle by carefully also reporting media that express themselves positively about him.--MWAK (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I definitely see it that way, when editing a political biography. My only gripe here is that isn't. The politician is only Point B, the main event is the rally. As a connection himself, you can't just connect Point C to him and expect it to relate to A. What the media thinks of Trump's reaction, what regular Joes think of Trump's reaction, how your great-grandchildren will remember this day...all seemingly very important to Trump, yet mysteriously absent from his very own story and doesn't affect the already-happened primary event at all. It's basically synthesis, combining connections like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:34, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

An article as massive as Donald Trump can't be expected to contain details on everything relevant but not central to him. At a quick glance, I do see an entire paragraph in the 2016 campaign section about White nationalist support. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The president's statements about this event and the controversy surrounding them are obviously related to this event. I don't think there can be any real doubt on this point. Neutrality^talk 16:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess it's settled. Everybody have a pleasant Wednesday. I don't know how to make the "Resolved" checkmark, but anyone who wants to is free to. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved

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

Independent Trump section

I made a split off article for Trump's speeches on the matter, due to the significant amount of media attention, notability, and reactions.

Article is called Trump Speeches on Unite The Right

Thanks! MaineK (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC) (This was posted in the archive, and I am moving it here as a courtesy. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC))

Also, it needs a split off link in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaineK (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, they needed that. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

That page is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trump_Speeches_on_Unite_The_Right. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from foreign leaders

As it is the norm in Wikipedia to include reactions from foreign governments to terrorist attacks, I added Angela Merkel's comment, and provided the news article in the citation, but it was removed by User:WWGB (along with something I didn't add, a leader of world churches), who said "the opinions of uninvolved people thousands of kilometres away is irrelevant":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&type=revision&diff=795784043&oldid=795783878

I think User:WWGB did this in good faith, but I was under the impression that we generally include reactions from foreign governments to terrorist attacks. Am I wrong?--Beneficii (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, they inevitably end up in a spinoff article called Reactions to the Unite the Right rally with lots of small national flags! You can see them all listed here. WWGB (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've restored Angela Merkel's reaction, because that is definitely relevant; those from other countries may not be. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've suggested reworking the Trump Speeches on Unite The Right page into an all-purpose reaction dump (Trump's could still have their own section and subsections). Might happen, might not. But nobody start a new one till we see what goes with that one. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:30, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

I share the distaste for lengthy, flag-laden "reactions to..." articles. I oppose the idea that we should have any "all-purpose reaction dump" anywhere. We should keep reactions concise and in this article. A brief mention of foreign reactions (see, e.g., NBC News, Trump’s Latest Charlottesville Remarks Are Condemned Abroad) would be sufficient. Maybe 3-4 sentences. Germany is certainly relevant, for obvious reasons. It is worth mentioning that "The situation has also sparked renewed calls for the British prime minister to withdraw her invitation for Trump to come to the U.K. for a state visit...." (see NBC article) Neutrality^talk 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Why? I think it would be helpful to the reader to be able to see the reactions of foreign states, so they can get a sense of how international relations are being affected. Of course, we won't editorialize on that, but we can allow readers to make up their own mind.--∼∼∼∼

Robert E. Lee V reaction relevant or trivial?

Robert E. Lee's Direct Descendant Denounces Charlottesville White Nationalists: 'There's No Place For That Hate' (August 15, 2017) Mapsax (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACLU: Police told to stand down and allow violence to create pretext to shut down rally

From the Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia:

"It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an 'unlawful assembly' and clear the area."

Of course, everyone already knows that this is exactly what happened because the event was recorded in real time, but that hasn't stopped the mainstream media and Wikipedia from presenting a surreal, Orwellian alternate reality—and then acting shocked and horrified that President Trump would accurately describe reality. Come to think of it, I'm sure the ACLU is WP:UNDUE, or something.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Where in the articles does it say that police were "told to stand down"? By whom? It is quite a remarkable charge against police to assert that one of them would give such an order and that all of them would follow it without question. bd2412 T 18:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It says "seeming to". Wording is important. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's clearly the use of hyperbole by the author, who is explicitly attempting to place part of the blame for the violence on the city. To attempt to represent that as an established claim of fact in the article would be a gross disservice to the article.

Also, I don't see anything in that passage which would support any of the claims Trump made, so I really don't see where the "Trump accurately describing reality" bit come from. From all I've seen from RSes, Trump's just as wrong about this as he has been about almost everything else he's ever voiced an opinion on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Confederate statue destruction and removal

Besides the section here about incidents which followed the rally is there an article discussing either of these on a broader scale? An issue which precedes (and in fact caused UTR) would seem to call for a "main article" link from that section. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If you find such an article, feel free to be WP:BOLD and add the appropriate link. Dlthewave (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There probably should be an article about that. I might make it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather, I proposed a split at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America#Split? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Article from Southern Poverty Law Center on Jason Kessler

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

Jason Kessler

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

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

Why was the assembly declared unlawful?

Does Virginia law allow the police to declare such things unilaterally after the governor declares a state of emergency? It is not clear why the police did such thing, and I cannot find sources to expand on this. Any help? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is more of a question for the Wikipedia:Reference desk, but since you asked: It was due to the violence that occurred before the declaration. The Code of Virginia, section 18.2-406 ("What constitutes an unlawful assembly; punishment") provides:

Whenever three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order, and the assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order, then such assembly is an unlawful assembly. Every person who participates in any unlawful assembly shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. If any such person carried, at the time of his participation in an unlawful assembly, any firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

And § 18.2-407 ("Remaining at place of riot or unlawful assembly after warning to disperse") provides:

Every person, except the owner or lessee of the premises, his family and nonrioting guests, and public officers and persons assisting them, who remains at the place of any riot or unlawful assembly after having been lawfully warned to disperse, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

--Neutrality^talk 20:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Neutrality: thanks, but is that your interpretation or do we have a reliable source to back that up? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think any secondary sources have discussed the law on it. Hence why we don't discuss it in our article. Neutrality^talk 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I just added a link to the Commonwealth of Virginia law about unlawful assembly. This should answer any questions. --Crunch (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Crunch: can you please provide a source to back up the claim that the police declared the asembly unlawful based on said law? Otherwise, it's just WP:SYNTH. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Come on. It's obviously implied that the police were acting in accordance with the law or their best faith interpretation of the law. Is there any evidence to the contrary? This is Wikipedia not a place for investigative original research doubting the police actions. Are we going to now question every stated action? --Crunch (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but on Wikipedia we must use reliable sources. For instance, the law states that an assembly is unlawful if "three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order, and the assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order." Do we have a reliable source that establishes (i) that the police acted based on said law or (ii) that three or more individuals associated with the protesters shared the common intent to use unlawful force? See the problem now? We have no sources that can back up either statement. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We have completely reliable and sufficient sources stating that the police declared the gathering an "umlawful assembly" and what an unlawful assembly is by definition of Virginia law. We have multiple links defining what an unlawful assembly is. What more do you want? Perhaps you are confused by the verb "declared" when describing the police actions and are confused that this declaration is a random or whimsical decision. If you read the law that's posted conveniently above, you should understand why the police declared the gathering as an unlawful assembly. Is it possible that the police did not apply the law properly? Sure. Just as it's possible that the police arrested the wrong guy in the car ramming incident. But it's not our job to debate whether or not the police applied the law correctly, only that they applied the law. --Crunch (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do have sources evidencing the declaration and yes we do have sources that define what an unlawful assembly is. But we do not have sources linking the two. What you propose is what we call WP:SYNTH: we have A+C and you state B in the prose, but we can't do that on Wikipedia. From reading different articles the only thing that we can conclude is that the state police declared the assembly unlawfu. But I have not been able to find a single reliable source explaining why they did so, nor has such source being provided. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturing council

This is new so I'll wait, but WSJ is reporting that Trump didn't dissolve the council. They decided themselves to quit, he then tried to take credit for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not surprising at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

But does it need to be in here? Drmies (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering the CEOs dropped out because of Trump's response to the rally, I think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Trim sections and fork

I made an independent article for Trump Speeches on Unite The Right.

I suggest we trim the reaction sections and move it to another article, but I don't have permissions. MaineK (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no point, as that article is likely heading towards a deletion. TheValeyard (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It was empty for most of it. I'm adding a lot more detail. MaineK (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Why were the far-right groups objecting the removal of the statue?

Can someone provide a source explaining why they were objecting the removal? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• You are welcome to add a source, but there is no valid reason for the tag: it is not a given that this should be explained. (Seriously, it's somewhat obvious.) Drmies (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I disgress. It's not obvious why far-right groups would object the removal of statue memorializing a Confederate general. Could you please explain the connection backed up by sources? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah. The far right likes the Confederacy, possibly because they admired the Confederacy's essential racist stance. Look it up. As far as your tag is concerned, "why" is not imperative for the article to answer, so your tag isn't warranted. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I disgress, the tag is warranted. It is imperative to maintain the tag because you yourself said "possibly," meaning that there could be another possibility. Thus, it's not clear why they were doing such thing. Can you please provide a source that explains why the protesters were objecting the removal of the statue? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm saying "possible" because I'm trying to be nice. Honestly, I don't understand why anyone who knows anything about this matter would ask this question. Does the pope shit in the woods? Drmies (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• For once, because not everyone who reads this article is someone "who knows anything about this matter." You and I can link the two due to our background. But can someone from a different background do the same? What about in ten years when the article falls into history and a new generation of readers stumbles upon the article? Will they be able to connect the two too? See the problem I'm trying to solve here? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ahnoneemoos: I think you're bordering on disruptive editing with your insistence on adding "why" tags to the article and repeatedly asking the same questions. There is a reference to an entire NY Times article [11] on the subject. Suggest a wording or something. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The constant "why?" by Ahnoneemoos when clear factual references and definitions are included in the article is becoming disruptive editing and shows either a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is or simple vandalism. --Crunch (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I read the entire NYT article. It doesn't mention why these groups in particular objected the removal of this particular statue. Please remain civil and assume good faith. I'm being inquisitive because it's not clear to me at all why they objected the removal of this statue. For instance, I myself could not care less becaue it's a statue and statues are meaningless to me. But to them this statue was not. Why was keeping this statue in place important to them? I have been unable to find a reliable source explaining this and no one has been able to provide one either. Yet, the tag was removed. I do not understand why, we are building an encyclopedia and we must explain this historical event to our readers clearly. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to provide either the reader or you with basic education on the ideology of white supremacy and their continued reverence of Confederate iconography, I'm afraid. It is enough to inform the reader that these groups opposed the statue's removal, and that they clashed violently with counter-protesters. That is all. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Media coverage controversy

A major narrative I noticed was left out. Conservatives have been very critical of the media's narrative of the attack and thus the leftist perspective of it. The ANTIFA violence was ignored or even justified this way the media can attack Trump, and that anyone denying the narrative would be labeled a racist. GeicoHen (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources? Or is that your personal interpretation? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's an article about Antifa violence.[12] AQFK (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Mentions Antifa violence occurred along with Nazi violence. But didn't say what GeicoHen said. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one about Antifa violence and does touch upon biased media coverage though doesn't go into much detail.[13] AQFK (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Online responses only has misidentifications

I noticed the online responses section only has examples of misidentifications. But Shawn Kind and others have made apparently correct identifions (which, allegedly, will lead to aren't warrants soon). If that does happen, I think we need to include the examples of "the Internet" identifying these perpetrators as well as the instances where they messed up. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Statue name

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

How can we add to the lead some context about the push to remove monuments nationwide?

Every Wikipedia article should stand alone on its own. What is missing from the lead is context to the backlash against confederate monuments and symbols after the 2015 shooting in S.C. Context is missing. Why was the statue even going to be removed? Why were they so upset over this particular statue? That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In this particular article, the general backlash should be mentioned but kept short for WP:DUE reasons. There is a List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America article/list and you could add some stuff there. Or maybe even start a separate, new, article on the removal of these monuments? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please check the lead and see if this is DUE.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the source explicitly links the removals to the rally, I think it's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The reference is unclear - who is "they"? The people who want the statue removed, or the ones that are upset over the removal? If the first, it suggests that you've fallen into a mental trap. There is no unified "they" here. There is an increasing understanding that the boy-scout version of history (white man, right from Adam, struggling to civilise the world) is not the most enlightened and enlightening view, and that there is a darker side to many heroes. Different groups show a spectrum of reactions to that understanding, with some of them deciding to remove monuments celebrating particularly ambiguous characters (note that the default state for most people is not to have monuments dedicated to them ;-). But there is no unified "them", unless it's humanity on its slow way towards a better understanding of the world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)And I self-award myself an invisible barnstar for the "most bombast in one paragraph" category!

As exemplified in Brooklyn and North Carolina. In Brooklyn[14] a plague honoring Lee was removed: "“Given all of the circumstances that we as a nation have experienced over the past week and several months, … it became very clear to all of us that this reminder of the oppressive nature of a time in our history that really needs to be righted, should be removed from the church property,” said Bishop Lawrence Provenzano, of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. “No one should walk by here, particularly members of the African American community, [descendants] of those who were victims of slavery, should be reminded of this past,” he added." In North Carolina[15] the Governor called for the removal of Confederate monuments from state property and their relocation to museums or historical sites. He also called for the legislature to reject a law being considered that would grant immunity to drivers who strike down protestors. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

arrest warrant for Cantwell?

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