Talk:Unite the Right rally

Color of other 2 vehicles

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 believe these are useful additions to put in to supplement the "gray" challenger, knowing the color of all 3 vehicles allows people to better match up discussion of them with the images/video of the scene. I managed to find a source discussing the color of the minivan:

• "Charlottesville, Va.: Drone video shows chain reaction after a car plowed into pedestrians". KLEW-TV. 13 August 2017. This drone video provided by CNN Newsource illuminates the chain reaction as the car -- registered to suspect James Alexander Fields, Jr. -- plowed into the crowd, killing a 32-year-old woman and pushing the red minivan pictured in the footage into a crowd of pedestrians.

I'd like to know if anyone knows alternative sources. I found a discussion forum saying the sedan was white (my first instinct too, looking at the footage) but it described the minivan as purple instead of red, and anyway, forums don't work as sources.

Hoping we could find someone besides KLEW reporting on this, it's pretty simple/basic info to enhance description of the Challenger>Sedan>Minivan event, if people can also envision it as Gray>White>Red.

Edit: part of the confusion here is that it seems like the 2010 Dodge Challenger might be a sedan? I found a couple of the sources which describe the ramming car as a sedan, as opposed to the car the driver hit:

• Tesfaye, Sophia (12 August 2017). "UPDATED: Terror in Charlottesville: Woman killed as car rams into anti-racist protesters at white nationalist rally". Salon.com. After the rally at a city park was dispersed on Saturday afternoon, following a series of skirmishes between competing bands of protesters, a gray sedan drove directly through a crowd of counter-protesters near Charlottesville's downtown mall.
• Gunderman, Dan (14 August 2017). "Alex Jones attributes Charlottesville unrest to 'Jewish actors' meant to silence far-right". New York Daily News. James Fields Jr., who is reportedly a neo-Nazi white supremacist, plowed a gray sedan through a crowd of counter-protesters in the Virginia college town

Another source says it was a SILVER sedan which backed over people:

• "Trump condemns 'hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides' in Charlottesville". WPTZ. 14 August 2017. Matt Korbon, a 22-year-old University of Virginia student, said counter-protesters were marching when "suddenly there was just this tire screeching sound." A silver sedan smashed into another car, then backed up, plowing through "a sea of people."

Dodge_Challenger#2009_model_year has pictures of a couple 2010 models, the "2010 Dodge Detonator Challenger R/T Classic" and "2010 Dodge Challenger SRT-8" so I'm wondering if we could possibly get a more specific model name for the ramming car? By knowing the specific model it may be clearer whether the Challenger was also a sedan as reported above, in which case we're really talking about a sedan hitting a sedan hitting a minivan, which would make color/model all the more valuable in discerning between them.

Given that some sources have reported the sedan driving/plowing, if it turns out the Challenger was not a sedan I think it would be good to add (not a sedan) after it. If it turns out they are both sedans, we should note the challenger is a sedan and say "another sedan" or "a second sedan" or something like that, to acknowledge there are two.

I'm not familiar enough with cars to be able to just look at the picture and say whether the Challenger was or not (I have no idea what sedan specifications are) but figure if we knew more about the model, sources could explain that.

Update: found another source! Not sure how reputable, seems like a small publication, but it at least makes comment on the colors:

Rothrock, Millie (15 August 2017). "Rural Retreat graduate injured in Charlottesville". swvatoday.com. Archived from the original on 16 August 2017. Fields' car rammed into a white car, which then hit a burgundy van. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

If the minivan was burgundy (color) this might explain why one source says red but some people are saying purple in forums, as it is "a dark red tending towards purple". I am curious if SWVA Today (appear to be called Community Newspapers of Southwest Virginia) might be important enough a publication to qualify for a Wikipedia article or not, how do we evaluate that? ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I find this revised text to be now overly-weighed down with detail, making it less readable and informative. We shouldn't, as encyclopedia editors, be repeating excessive detail about this or any event. Describe the events broadly and cite sources so readers can read more if need be. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ValarianB is right on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I also don't see how it is encyclopedic. How does color or say hatchback vs sedan matter? Doug Weller talk 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored the pre-detailed version. I get that the OP is enthusiastic about this crash chain of events, given this and earlier conversations above, but this just wasn't a net positive. ValarianB (talk) 19:20, 30 August 20

Valarian regardless of two circumstantial cheers you had no grounds for removing the information. Sources were provided. Individual Wikipedians' personal dislike for the presentation of facts are not grounds to exclude them. Abusing reversion and dogpiling onto a topic to promote vague and hazy accounts of events when we have more details is what is contrary to the goals of encyclopedia. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The excessive detail was removed appropriately after a talk page discussion. These are trivial facts that do not add to the quality of the article, and being sourced does not necessarily warrant inclusion.

There may be certain cases where small details help the reader understand the article, such as if there was uncertainty about which driver caused the crash. However, in this case, it is unambiguous that the driver of the Challenger caused the death and injuries. The nature of the chain reaction has no bearing on the overall outcome. Additionally, the photos and video are understandable without an in-depth explanation. If we state that the Challenger plowed into a crowd of people and two other cars, the reader can look at the images and easily see which vehicles are involved. Dlthewave (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Marshall, seriously, stop beating the dead horse. Virtually none of your edits to this article have stuck, and coming back every few days to attempt the same thing is going to be viewed very dimly by others, if complaints are ever filed about this article. TheValeyard (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Censoring the gray/white/red colors does not make it "more informative" and a few extra words do not make it illegible. Added them back. This is a net positive. I don't buy that any of you are having trouble reading this because of a couple adjectives. You all seem intelligent and collected. Is aesthetics your last refuge for trying to keep information out? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source saying color does not matter? Sources we do have giving color says it is. Color of Challenger would be pointless if others were sale color. The benefit is when there is contrast. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Drop the WP:STICK. This is trivia, and spending two weeks fixating on trivia is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 11 September 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.

Recent edit

Re: this edit, I concur with the previous editor: "Not 'others'. just national review. not widespread stance." If there are any concerns about this edit, please discuss on Talk. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it also a bit odd to call antifa an "organization"? ValarianB (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A single editorial by the New York Times has been deemed a sufficient citation for the original claim. Two have been provided for the counter-position. If you prefer to seek out more, then by all means, do so. Regardless, please refer to WP:NPOV and refrain from actively deleting all contravening sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium103 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Organizations listed under the Protesters section

Various organizations, specifically the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, the New York Light Foot Militia and the Virginia Minute Men have been listed as members of the "Protesters" section. The sources for each of these are (respectively) Rewire.com, TribLive.com, and theguardian.com. Each of those sources fails to state these groups as part of the protesters, but that the groups themselves claimed to be have been present as "neutral" parties. There is probably a place to list these groups (such as "neutral groups") but without a source explicitly stating a group is protesting, it does not belong under this section. I'm removing these groups from this section as "not per sources". I'm seeing conflicting reports about another group, the "Oath Keepers". I think we should review each group mentioned in the entire article to see that they have been identified accurately as possible. I'm not sure how to handle the conflicting reports.

Any suggestions as to what to call these groups? That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Good work to pick up on this. I've been doing some reading (the Guardian article is a good one) and watched a few videos including the one by Katie Couric. Still thinking about how to include it... Gandydancer (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, no input on this subject. I have not forgotten about it but to some extent hoped that perhaps we could just avoid any mention. Though in my heart of hearts it seems that we should try to find some way to include a mention. I've read what I could find -- Wash. Po. also has an article. A quote from that article: Jacka---s,” was how [a spokesperson] described both sides, meaning the white nationalists, who billed the gathering as Unite the Right, and the counterprotesters, many marching under the banner of Antifa, for “anti-fascist.” Yingling also criticized police, saying that officers were poorly prepared for the violence and not assertive enough in combating it and that they should have enlisted the militiamen to help prevent the mayhem. (When I read that I really did wonder how a supposedly rational adult might actually believe that the police should ask heavily armed volunteers for assistance. Very weird.)

I've known about these militia groups for many years and my impression of them has, in all honesty, not been very good. On the other hand, I accept that in their view they are upholding the Constitution in a very patriotic manner, using arms as (in their opinion) we are supposed to do. Anyway, from my reading they came (armed to the teeth :O) to support free speech on both sides and did not take part in any violence but merely stood by and observed...I guess? Do you have any more thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Their stated position is similar to the ACLU, protecting constitutional rights even if they disagree with what is being said. The media and government officials didn't really distinguish the militias from the protestors, so there's not a lot of coverage beyond Yingling's statements.

I think it would be appropriate to list these groups in a "Militias" section. Even if they didn't participate in the protest itself, the fact that they were heavily armed significantly changed the tone of the event and was a significant point of discussion afterwards. I'm curious how many of the rally participants carried weapons. Dlthewave (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A "militias" section would be welcome. I'd support moving "Oath Keepers" and possibly a few others there.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death

According to Heyer's mother, she died of a heart attack.

This has been added four times and reverted three of those times. Please discuss any changes here, not in the edit summary, and remember that this article is under 1RR. A few thoughts:

- In general, I would be OK with including a medical professional's opinion repeated by a layperson in her own words. Although she might be paraphrasing something that a doctor said to her, this is more of a personal commentary than a reliable/verifiable source.

- The statement wasn't meant to explain the cause of death. She was using a small detail to show that there wasn't prolonged suffering.

- Reliable sources make it clear that Heyer was killed by the vehicle ramming attack without going into detail about the mechanism of death. This is standard practice for reporting fatalities. Although it may be technically accurate, it is (perhaps deliberately) misleading to describe this as a "heart attack" without including the trauma that caused the heart attack. The current phrasing does not directly connect the death with the attack, so readers might assume that she was an uninvolved bystander who suffered a heart attack upon witnessing the event. Dlthewave (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with Dlthewave. Gandydancer (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also point out that Fields is still being charged with second degree murder. If it had been shown that she simply dropped dead of a heart attack the charge would have been dropped. Not surprisingly the far right has run with this trying to show Fields is innocent, but that's no surprise. Doug Weller talk 05:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If it had been shown that she simply dropped dead of a heart attack the charge would have been dropped

Going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Weller's assumption here. If the prosecutor thought they could make a case that the terror induced by a car's movements caused a heart attack, they might still carry forth. IE if someone kidnaps me and holds me at gunpoint saying "I'M GOING TO SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD" and then shoots a bullet past my ear to scare me, even if they didn't do any direct physical damage their actions still caused a fatal amount of fear if that caused a heart attack. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that definitively assert that she was struck by the car? I've reviewed the videos multiple times in slow motion and based on where she was laying when she received CPR and the clothes that she was wearing it appears that she was standing near the passenger side of Fields's car near the point of impact, wasn't struck by the car itself but was inches away, and was knocked over either by people who were struck or others who were attempting to flee. She was wearing all black and was not the woman who was wearing green who was struck and flung over the top of the car in front of Fields' car. I didn't add any of this to the article because there aren't credible sources which state or confirm this, but the evidence is out there for anyone to review. But that's all somewhat beside the point because I only added the sentence that according to her mother she died of a heart attack. That's a true statement as the video that I cited shows. There's speculation that her health conditions contributed to her death but I didn't insert anything speculative into the article. The media has been completely silent on the details of the case for weeks. 70.209.198.29 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant and we go by what the mainstream sources say. It's not surprising that the media has been silent about it, there's really nothing more to report and the fact of the court case means it unlikely that anything not official would be reported. Doug Weller talk 05:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

So are you asserting that nbcnews.com is not a "mainstream source"? And what is the harm of adding the detail that according to her mother, Heyer died of a heart attack? That doesn't preclude the possibility that she was struck by the car, though it's not clear that she was struck. It doesn't say anything about Fields's guilt or innocence. It only says that she died of cardiac arrest, according to her mother. I'm confused as to why it's controversial for this detail to be added. Perhaps it could be worded less tersely but adding the detail itself doesn't detract from anything else in the article or shine any light onto whether or not Fields is guilty or innocent. This is a disappointing but entirely expected example of political bias among Wikipedia admins. Adding this detail shouldn't have political implications. 70.209.198.29 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug, please respond as to whether or not Wikipedia admins officially consider nbcnews.com not to be a "mainstream source" so that I can know if I should never use NBC as a source on Wikipedia. 70.209.198.29 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I know this IP is clearly trolling, but in an overabundance of feeling like a response should at least be given to close this out, I'll address it. You, Mr. IP editor, are clearly not interested in establishing whether or not NBC should be used as a source. Your edits to the article and this talk page are a clear indication to any reasonable person that you are interested in pushing the POV narrative, popular on alt-right/white supremacist blogs/forums (go ahead and Google "heyer heart attack"), that Heyer wasn't killed by a vehicle attack, and actually died of a heart attack. Your attempted use of Wikipedia policy to justify your additions is not even close to valid - we don't just add random quotes from any video clip that happens to be on a news site to an article. You would need a news report from a reliable source that actually reported on said quote that indicated the significance of it. I searched, and there is no such report. Therefore, your attempts to push this POV will continue to be reverted. Hope that clears things up - not for you, because I know your real motivation - but for anyone else that happens to stumble across your trolling questions. Rockypedia (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to write something similar but you said it better than I could have. Gandydancer (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It isn't whether NBC is reliable or not, it is. But we don't just use sources because they are there. Rocky's right, we'd need reliable sources discussing what she said. Context, as usual, is vital. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing what somebody's "real motivation" for adding objectively correct information is. What if when the trial comes around this detail actually become significant? It may be, it may not be, but your reasoning for not wanting it on the page is because you don't like the google results that come up if somebody searches for more information about it. That shouldn't be a relevant consideration. 70.209.202.131 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Indirectly, that's actually the only consideration. More explicitly, the only relevant consideration is whether or not you can find a reliable secondary source that asserts the significance of the text you're trying to add. And you haven't found one. As for your "what if", see WP:CRYSTAL. Anything else? No? Okay, thanks, bye. Rockypedia (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Is www.rawstory.com a relevant source for wikipedia ?--93.15.102.4 (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but I see they are using Media MattersFringe media are furiously trying to absolve the white nationalist who allegedly killed Heather Heyer so we could go with that. Thanks for finding it. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I like your idea of using this Kaplan article. If we cite it we should also cite the NBC video's dialogue to provide context though. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Using Media Matters? LOL That's funny. Almost as funny as how the only photo of Heather being used is the one glamour shot and not they one of her in all black with her pack-a-day Newport habit and all her girth. Was she struck by the car or not. She might have died of a heart attack because of her lifestyle and the immediate action of trying to get out of the way of the car and throngs of people was just was too much physical activity for her that she gave up the ghost Rule #1-Cardio. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Defenses of Trump

The Defenses of Trump uses the majority of its space to attack the defenses.

The attacks are dubious as well: The statement 'Beinart noted that unlike the alt-right, the members of Antifa are not practitioners of an ideology that advocate the ethnic cleansing of other racial and religious groups nor do they "celebrate regimes that committed genocide and enforced slavery", and Antifa promotes egalitarianism unlike the alt-right' is false. Antifa supports Communism and leaders like Che Guevara and Castro, which have killed millions of people, many because of religion or in ethnic minorities, and put millions in forced labor. Who are the Antifa?

He says "and Antifa promotes egalitarianism unlike the alt-right". In truth they support forced egalitarianism, i.e. taking other people's property, quite different from mere "egalitarianism".

It states as a fact "right-wing terrorism was far more common than left-wing terrorism". This is not at all clear--it doesn't count recent assassinations of policemen, for example. How media misleads public about domestic terror threats Tomtul2 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please cite more objective sources than the National Review. "Taking other people's property"--that's the kind of thing you can argue in debate class, but this is not a forum. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Antifa promotes egalitarianism unlike the alt-right' is false. Antifa supports Communism... Communism is an egalitarian economic system. In fact, it's pretty much egalitarianism interpreted as an economic system. Besides which, Antifa is named for "Anti-Fascism". It's not Procom, for "Pro-communism". They negatively approach an ideology, they don't officially or de facto support communism, even though many of their members may be communist. It's akin to suggesting that the United States supports obesity.

He says "and Antifa promotes egalitarianism unlike the alt-right". In truth they support forced egalitarianism, i.e. taking other people's property, quite different from mere "egalitarianism".

It states as a fact "right-wing terrorism was far more common than left-wing terrorism". This is not at all clear--it doesn't count recent assassinations of policemen, for example. You seem to prefer right-wing sources, so how about letting the Cato institute make it clear: Right-wing terrorists have killed almost ten times as many people in the US as left-wing terrorists in the period from 1992-2017, and injured more than 20 times as many people in that same time period. In fact, if you discount 9/11 to look entirely at the period from 2002-2017, then right-wing terrorists are the single deadliest group. Even including 9/11 and prior Islamist terrorists attacks in the US, right-wing terrorist launched far more attacks. The fact that they are less competent than Islamists is merely a happy coincidence. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

In 2016 left-wing terrorists have killed more people in the US than right-wing terrorists. Retired terrorists don't matter.--Barbanegre (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not even remotely true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The "Aftermath and reactions" section documents various opinions and responses following the event. For example, the phrase "Beinart noted that unlike the alt-right, the members of Antifa are not practitioners of an ideology that advocate the ethnic cleansing of other racial and religious groups nor do they 'celebrate regimes that committed genocide and enforced slavery'" factually states that a certain person expressed a certain opinion. We are not presenting that opinion as the truth in Wikipedia's voice. Rather than analyzing the accuracy of each statement, we should give due weight according to how common/notable each point of view is. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

statements from Heyer's mother

Presently two portents on the article from two sources:

Heyer's mother said she wanted Heather's name to become "a rallying cry for justice and equality and fairness and compassion."

• Calfas, Jennifer. "Charlottesville Victim's Mother: I Want Her Death to be 'a Rallying Cry for Justice'". Time. Archived from the original on August 13, 2017. Retrieved August 15, 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Heyer's memorial service was held at Charlottesville's Paramount Theatre on August 16; Heyer's mother spoke to hundreds of mourners, asking them to honor Heyer by acting against injustice and turning "anger into righteous action."

• Associated Press (16 August 2017). "Heather Heyer remembered at Charlottesville memorial service". Mercury News. Archived from the original on 17 August 2017.

NBC News at https://www.nbcnews.com/video/heather-heyer-s-mom-delivers-message-about-karma-to-white-nationalists-1028340803735 has a video interview of the mother making this statement, as best as I can hear it:

For the record I know that those who are evil are going to rejoice in my grief and I understand that. That's their issue. Karma's a you-know-what. So I'm just grieving my child. She died pretty instantly, she didn't suffer, she died of a heart attack right away at the scene. They revived her briefly, not consciously, just got her heart beating again and then her heart just stops so I don't feel like she suffered. That's been a blessing, that's been a real blessing.

To verify if that's transcribed correctly perhaps there is a source which has transcribed it, in case I mixed up a word?

I'm thinking it would be valuable to the article to include this quote from the mother. To clarify that she died on the scene and not hours later in the hospital where the pronouncement was made. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fuck no. This is very obviously part of the fringe conspiracy theory to imply that the attacker was innocent because of the heart attack. Get out of here with that garbage. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Quoting the mother about the heart attack does not in any way imply Fields was innocent of causing the heart attack. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, and you're intentionally dodging the point. Is this supposed to be clever? As is already explained above on this talk page, it's a fetish of the far-right to repeat and emphasize this quote for that reason. If she was declared dead at the rally, just say that. If she was declared dead at the hospital, just say that. Wikipedia isn't a platform for spreading WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories, and fixating on this one quote is absolutely 100% in line with that motive as is already discussed and documented above. This is conspiracy theory which originated on far right/neo-nazi forums. Cherry picking the exact same quote, from an otherwise obscure news clip, favored and endlessly repeated by those sources, is far too convenient to be plausible. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell you have prompted a realization here: these theories are getting a lot of coverage, meaning they are probably notable and worth reporting on, since we have major impartial media outlets reporting on them to condemn them. Here is your source and another I found which could be cited for that:

• Kaplan, Alex (8 September 2017). "Fringe media are furiously trying to absolve the white nationalist who allegedly killed Heather Heyer". Media Matters for America. Trolls and anonymous message boards are pushing the story that she died from a heart attack and health issues -- and not because she was hit by a car
• Helm, Angela (10 September 2017). "Fringe Media Outlets Smear Heather Heyer, Alleging She Died by Heart Attack, Not a Raging White Supremacist". The Root (magazine). these platforms are now trying to once again revise the truth by saying that Heather Heyer's death was caused not by raging white supremacist James Fields, who mowed her down during a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 12, but because she had a "heart attack."

It is clear though, from the NBC video, that "she died of a heart attack right away at the scene" was spoken by the mom, so perhaps us actually putting that in context (using the full quote) is the best way to prevent people from using it out of context? ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, there is already a discussion about this above. Did you actually read that discussion? You are still very clearly trying to cast this in a specific light which favors a WP:FRINGE perspective. This isn't "teach the controversy" because the only sources which think this is a legitimate thing is the extreme-right fringe fever swamp. "Context" in this case is a naked attempt to legitimize an especially despicable conspiracy theory. A Nazi-sympathizer rammed a car into a crowd of innocent people and one of them died. This isn't Finnigans Wake we're talking about, here. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not proposing just the heart attack bit, but to simply cite the entire statement, unaltered, unparaphrased. Please WP:AssumeGoodFaith here, wanting to quote the mom is not a fringe-supporting light-casting. I'm even proposing that we can quote the 2 cites I presented above which are critical of those who take that out of context. Quoting the mom DOESN'T legitimize the silly theories, because people can be criminally at fault for causing another person's heart attack. For example: if someone punched me in the mouth and then I had a heart attack, they still caused my death. I think omitting this quote simply gives it power through suppression. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for neo-Nazi conspiracy theories. The only reason to including this obscure quote in its entirety based on a single primary source is to legitimize this conspiracy theory. This interview is only emphasized and discussed by either extremist sites, or those attempting to debunk those sites. To include this interview like this would be offensively irresponsible without dramatically better coverage of the interview. You don't even have a source which transcribes this interview, you had to do it yourself. You also don't have reliable sources which explain why this is significant to the larger incident. All you have is sources, which I had to prompt you to find, of this one comment feeding depravity by "brain-dead" (as The Root calls them) who're threatened by scrutiny over their own abhorrent behavior. It's far too late for those sources now, though, you hand has been tipped. There is no non-offensive plausible reason for you to want to include this is in such lascivious detail. This interview is not treated as significant by reliable sources, but it's been fawned-over by T_D, Daily Stormer, Inforwars, etc. which are all unreliable and counter to Wikipedia's goals. This one obscure part of an interview is heinously undue weight. "Power through suppression" is utter nonsense. Not every seeping conspiracy theory deserved attention or legitimacy. Grayfell (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

After looking I'd say that your proposal for inclusion fails WP:N with WP:BLP issues regarding a relative. From WP:BLPNAME: The post-event comments of relatives of people who were at the event, or were otherwise loosely involved are not necessary for a complete understanding of the subject. Fails WP:TOOMUCH for the previous reasons as well as that the details you want to include affect neither the outcome of the event or have WP:LASTING effects of their own. I'm sure these post-event discussions are really important to some people on what ever message boards these reports are being passed around but Wikipedia is neither a platform for WP:CIVIL-ing Nazi WP:CIVIL-tards, or the bereaved relatives of their victims. Edaham (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Searching various sites today via the victim's name and "heart attack" does show a disconcerting movement by alt-right, far-right, neo-nazi whatever you one wants to call them, to talk up the heart attack and cast the victim's death in a false light. I have no special insight into another editor's mind, so talk of motives and mindsets are beyond me. However, when an editor makes the same kind of arguments as those fringe sites do, especially when it stretches over weeks and involves revert-warring (not recently, but there were tussles over categories a few weeks ago), that editor will be viewed in the same dim light. All in all ,this is overly-detailed material with questionable motivation for inclusion. Leave it out. ValarianB (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed in an earlier thread on this page so I'm not going to reiterate the reasons for not including the heart attack quote. If the conspiracy theory has grown into a notable part of the event, it might be appropriate to include it in a "conspiracy theories section", but under no circumstances does this justify repeating the conspiracy theory itself at face value. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of a better way of creating a IP driveby dragnet for useless information, with no bearing on an understanding of the event, than by creating a conspiracy theories section. The existence of conspiracy theories would have to have some kind of wp:EFFECT beyond a bunch of people discussing them and the occasional editorial news report remarking on the ludicrousness of the discussions - i.e. some noteworthy event happening as a result of the theories or some serious scholarship which investigates them. The above tripe fails utterly on BLP privacy issues before we even get into how trivial the details actually are. Edaham (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It depends. I mean, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories has its own article, but that was fueled by Alex Jones and covered extensively by national media. We're far away from that here right now, thankfully. The Root, Alternet, and Media Matters are the only ones I see debunking this nonsense atm. ValarianB (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories

There seems to be some disagreement over whether this belongs in Category:Homicides by motor vehicle, Category:Murders by motor vehicle or neither. Please discuss any changes here, not in the edit summary. I personally have no opinion one way or the other. However, some backstory is needed in order to understand what's going on:

- Before today, the article was in Category:Homicides by motor vehicle.

- Scratchmarshall sucessfully requested that Category:Homicides by motor vehicle be speedily moved to Category:Murders by motor vehicle, on the basis that the criteria for inclusion in the category required a murder conviction. A bot subsequently made the appropriate move.

- This reignited the debate over whether or not we can refer to this as a murder per WP:BLPCRIME.

- One edit actually moved the article back into the recently-deleted Category:Homicides by motor vehicle. This is definitely wrong and has been reverted, since this category should be an empty redirect.

Again, I have no preference. This is an effort to end the edit war and open a productive discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 23:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So let's see if I got a handle on this. This Scratchmarshall guy has been agitating over murder and terrorism categories for weeks and getting zero support for their assertions and arguments for removal. So this editor went and asked for "Homicides by motor vehicle" to be changed to "Murders by motor vehicle" at some page that does not appear to engender much discussion. Now that the category is "Murders by...", the argument is that that is a higher bar to meet than "Homicides..."? This a stronger case for removal? Unless I'm missing something, this feels super-shady and the epitome of goalpost-moving. TheValeyard (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Scratch has acted unilaterally and poorly in this regard. It still remains that a "murder" category here is premature, sub judice and prejudicial to the alleged perpetrator. While the "homicide" cat is appropriate here, the murder cat most certainly is not. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about which category (as long as it actually exists). I agree this seems like gaming the system, especially compared to the absurd and offensive nonsense Scratchmarshall has already tried to include. It's now far, far beyond WP:AGF to ignore the common thread in these edits, and would be insulting for Scratchmarshall to pretend this isn't a tactical move to either paint the driver in a more flattering light or paint the victim in a less flattering one. With that in mind...

"Murder" is discussed and central to the incident, and that influences categorization. I don't really agree that the distinction between homicide and murder are salient in this case, but since this is a BLP issue, caution is called for. If this is literally the only candidate for a 'homicide by...' category which isn't also in 'murder by...' than, for pragmatic reasons, moving the categories back is slightly better than making this a subcategory. Removing this completely would be unacceptable in the context of this move having been done tactically and disruptively for non-neutral reasons. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Scratch does bring up a good point: The Homicides by motor vehicle (now Murders by motor vehicle) category states

"This category is for people who were convicted, or were victims, of murder by using a motor vehicle as a weapon (Vehicular homicide), including in the furtherence of stealing one. This also includes deliberate airliner crashes, which should be put their respective subcategory (though they could also be considered murder-suicides as well). Do not include accidental deaths, even if they were convicted of "manslaughter or similar."

This closely matches the narrower definition of murder and isn't appropriate for this article, regardless of the name assigned to the category. Any issue with the name and criteria should be discussed at the category's talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 04:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was a mismatch between category title and text, but it would have been much simpler to just modify the text to agree with the title. I have had to waste time today removing the "modified" category from articles where it no longer applies. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Should the category renaming be undone? TheValeyard (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)