Talk:Unite the Right rally

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 Also note that NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.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

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

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

Survey

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

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

• Ambivalent, Yes' The lead could stay or go, but it should be mentioned in the body definitely, yes. ValarianB (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Yes. All the signs are cited to the same source, and the other sources for that section similarly emphasize the fact that the rally's organizers were Trump supporters (eg. from the Washington Post, "Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, a Trump supporter who was in Charlottesville on Saturday...") I don't see how it can be WP:UNDUE to weight that aspect of the source equal to other parts that we're giving the same weight. The fact that the rally was broadly in support of Trump seems well-sourced and widely-reported, and deserves the same weight as other aspects. --Aquillion (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Probably Not per O3000. zzz (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to the second. High quality source, relevant to article. Easy include. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Yes - The connection seems unmistakable and if well sourced, it adds context to the events that unfold. Nothing happens in a vacuum. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Yes agree 100% with Aquillion's points above; he said what I was basically going to say anyway. Rockypedia (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Yes The overlap of Trump supporters and white supremacists that supported the rally is broad, and has been covered extensively by reliable sources. Noting that said supporters were seen in Trump hats is not giving undue weight to a minor opinion, it is an acknowledgement of the prevailing point-of-view these people hold. This silly argument against reality has been a time sink from the start. TheValeyard (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No - definately perWP:LEAD and think No per WP:UNDUE The mentioned signage is not a significant part of the article so should not be part of the lead. And looking at basic websearch --- it does not seem a significant part of the story at all. I can see images and mentions of a motley crew of militia, racists, and neo-Nazis, and some who said they simply wanted to defend their Southern history. Lots of group flags, Confederate flags, American flags, Nazi flags, emblazoned shields, even frog posters. But the only "Trump/Pence" seen was on a RefuseFascism.org sign, alongside "killing Nazis is my heritage" and anti-fa shields and such. Simply not seeing Trump signage in images or print as described let alone prominent or the major part of the events. Markbassett (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, yes - well-supported by cited sources. I don't find the "single source" argument to be at all persuasive since other sources say similar things; e.g., Time ("Trump’s comments on the violent rally were especially scrutinized since some of the white supremacists who attended wore red 'Make America Great Again' hats and claimed to be promoting Trump’s agenda."). Neutrality^talk 20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Yes - per Markbassett and NickCT "Inclusion in the lead seems a little much (lacks WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT)" also per NickCT a line or two in the body about hats and maybe signs (attributed if NYT is only source). Pincrete (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes,Yes - well sourced, informative and encyclopedic. Mark Bassett's comment appears to be his own fantasy which is contradicted by reliable sources. Reliable sources is what we base our articles on, not one particular editor's wishful thinking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Undecided Putting it the lede would be a gross violation of WP:UNDUE. Putting something that isn't widely covered by reliable sources is the very reason why WP:WEIGHT exists. I'm undecided on whether it even belongs in the article. I would need to further research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Undecided (leaning "no"). I think it needs stronger and/or wider sourcing to even be in the article in the first place, let alone the lede. --Calton | Talk 18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No per lede and undue; Probably only if supported by reliable sources and undue is kept in mind to not go overboard. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Yes This information is sourced, where's the fucking problem? Givibidou (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to know the motivations of the people at the rally. The maga hats can characterize the protesters. Givibidou (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Yes - this information is sourced and significant. Given that so many people at the rally were Trump supporters, and that's well-sourced too, it should absolutely be in the lead. Nufy7 (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, yes Reliable sources use the text to describe the scene of the event. It's important to describe the scene of the event factually to give context to who and what happened at the event. I don't think that text needs to be elaborated on and become undue, but on it's face I see no reason what that text can't be in both the lead and the body. Comatmebro (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, yes The Time magazine article that Neutrality pointed out is another example of a source that supports this sentence belonging in the lead, because even if the lead doesn't mention the MAGA hats, the fact that many people wore them shows that Trump/Pence support was a huge part of the rally. Amsgearing (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, yes - Including this would provide relevant context to this event's significant connection to Donald Trump's presidency, which is among the most important aspects of the subject. Swarm ♠ 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Re:

a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public

This sounds like a good guideline. I would like to know if we could agree upon some kind of neutral criteria or process for weighing a thing like prevalence, not just for this 'signs' issue, but for any other detail we have disagreements over the importance of mentioning in a summary. If we can agree on that, reach a consensus on say, a minimum number of mentions from separate reliable sources for something to be notable, then we could apply that evenly to all details we want to include, so that a single standard is applied across the board to all details' weighing. Without this, there is risk we apply different interpretations of this to different details when deciding whether to mention them or not. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will never get an agreement on a percentage, and it’s usually obvious. For example, in this case, the number of articles mentioning Trump/Pence signs appears to be 1 out of 100 or so. IMHO, that isn’t a prevalence. O3000 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ScratchMarshall - There is no precise way to measure WP:PROPORTION among RS, but there are various ways to get a rough notion. For example:

• Google for a rough numbers. Thats a generic web and gives some false positives but gives some idea

e.g. "Unite the Right" ~9.2 million hits, +"Trump/Pence" ~160K hits (2%)

(But on another machine with other google settings it becomes 343K vs 23.9K (7%))

• Sampling from some RS site. As O3000 demonstrated, search on the NYT site for Unite the Right articles, and look at the first ten: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Repeat on RS BBC, Foxnews, Washington Post, however many you want.
• Pick an authoritative book or three (with different authors) and scan to get a feel for if it's present and to what degree.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working with a minimum number rather than a minimum percentage seems easier, since to calculate percentages we would first need to calculate a grand total of reliable sources which mention an issue, which would be a lot of work (google tally may include unreliable sources, or repeat sources from same reporter) to tally up. I don't really like relying on a word like "obvious" which could have different interpretations and be bent to suit agendas. When reading this or other articles, if you search source placement via searching for [ you will often find just 1 or 2 things listed to support something, which conveys the idea that this is all that is needed. Rarely is there a hidden complement of a dozen sources behind every source cited. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are on the wrong page to debate Wikipedia guidelines. O3000 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• re the MAGA hats: I stand by what I said in the survey: one sentence. If that sentence includes mention of the hats, so be it. But focusing any significant attention would be to put an anti-Trump spin on the article, and that's not kosher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@MrX:respecial:diff/824774015 here is a source for what I'd added:

Higgins, Anna (13 August 2017). "'Unite The Right' rally, protests in downtown Charlottesville turns deadly". The Cavalier Daily. During the afternoon, a car plowed through a crowd of people near the intersection of Fourth Street and Water Street

I think we should review your objection that including mention of the intersection is "excessive detail". We mention the time, so why not the intersection too?

If we could find further sourcing to provide additional context that would be better though. Best as I can remember from some map drawing the Challenger was headed south-west along 4th Street NE and hit the Toyota Camry just before that road intersected with Water St. E (which runs from northwest to southeast) and the Camry ended up pushing the red minivan behind it into the 4th/water intersection, but I could be wrong, would like to double-check with any sources which make mention of the roads. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File under; Stuff that None Actually Cares About. TheValeyard (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Vale. This seems like something which particular recurring Wikipedians do not care about yet which reliable sources think is important to report on. I notice one of the sources we already have included in the article mentions these details:

• Heim, Joe (August 14, 2017). "Recounting a day of rage, hate, violence and death". Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 15, 2017. At 1:14 p.m., the Charlottesville city Twitter account tweeted: "CPD & VSP respond to 3-vehicle crash at Water & 4th Streets. Several pedestrians struck. Multiple injuries."

It even provides a numbered list overlaying this graphic

1. Not far from Emancipation Park, a car speeds down 4th Street, rams into pedestrians and rear-ends a car at Water Street.
2. The car reverses on 4th Street and crosses Main Street.
3. The car is later found nearly a mile away.

The thinner arrow is labelled "Crowd of counterprotesters" while the two larger ones (almost looks like 1 double-ended arrow but you can notice a break in the middle) represent the Challenger movements.

Why did Joe Heim think people would care about this? ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial detail that does not benefit the reader's understanding of the subject. It's also WP:UNDUE. Let's leave it out.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary. Keep out. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph is a concise overview of the ramming attack and should not be overly detailed. The next paragraph includes a detailed description of the location, including the intersection. There is no need to say it twice. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Addendum

MrX made a false statement in reason for closure:

no support for such detail except by the OP

Dlthewave clearly agrees with me that the detail should be included:

The next paragraph includes a detailed description of the location, including the intersection. There is no need to say it twice.

We both concur that the detail should be presented once. My error is simply failing to notice it was there already.

Only Valeyard ("None Actually Cares") and MrX ("trivial detail that does not benefit the reader's understanding") objected to the inclusion of the information. That's 2 vs 2.

The reason I am okay with the revert and why I am okay with closing this discussion after making this followup is for the common-sense reason that Dlthewave pointed out: the intersection is already present in the second paragraph!

I simply didn't notice it and had added it to the 1st, thinking it absent from the article. This was negligence on my part and I should have searched the street names before doing so.

MrX this was also negligent on your part because of your misleading reversion summary. Your "excessive detail" makes it sound like we don't need the information. We DO need it, and it was already there, in the second paragraph.

If you had simply been aware, as Dlthewave was, that it was present in the 2nd paragraph, and cited THAT reason for reversion, I wouldn't have started this section at all. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down as agreeing with The Valeyard and MrX, whose judgments I trust. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Peter the Fourth said "Completely unnecessary. Keep out." So if you're keeping score, that's now 4 against and 2 for. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScratchMarshall: What's your point? Are you proposing a change to the article or just pointing out who was right and who was wrong? –dlthewave ☎ 21:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Freedom of Information Act (United States) was mentioned in the following source:

• Baars, Samantha (14 February 2018). "Conspiracy theory? Petitioner wants videos of fatal crash released". C-Ville Weekly. Evans has filed a motion seeking a court order under the Freedom of Information Act that the city of Charlottesville and Commonwealth's Attorney Joe Platania unseal the videos shown in an open courtroom at Fields' December 14 preliminary hearing, and make them available to the public.

This is something we should probably keep an eye on in case any other sources can be found to report on it besides this one. At present I'm not sure if Baars' report is enough to warrant significance.

The cluttered "Aftermath and reactions" already has 15 subsections, I'd hate to bloat it further. This may be something we could postpone considering doing until after a potential article split for the People v. Fields case? Whatever the outcome, by the time there is a ruling on it I think we would be at the point of a split, if not before.

How long should we wait before considering this? Haven't other court cases gotten articles prior to a verdict being delivered? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kessler calls for Unite the Right redo". Though traveling outside the country, Mayor Mike Signer says in an email, "I believe public safety should be our paramount concern, with the benefit of the recommendations from the Heaphy report and upcoming advice from our counsel on how to reform our permitting for public events." Says former mayor Dave Norris, "The city needs to revisit its ability to manage situations where there's no assurance of peaceable assembly. This is an organizer who has clearly demonstrated a propensity for unpeaceable assembly." And because of that, Norris says Kessler has ceded his right to hold public events in Charlottesville

Would this sort of thing be appropriate for the 'political reactions' section, or are we only covering Federal-level political responses? ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unite_the_Right_rally#Prosecution mentions what the charges are but doesn't actually mention the length of the sentences individually or cumulatively. I noticed a source does this:

• "Charlottesville: James Alex Fields Jr faces life in prison". bbc.com. 15 December 2017. A man suspected of killing a woman near a white supremacist rally in Virginia in August is facing a possible life sentence after charges against him were upgraded to first-degree murder .. If found guilty, Mr Fields faces between 20 years and life imprisonment. Second-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of 40 years.

I would like Wikipedians to weigh in on how much coverage by sources you think this issue would need before it would warrant mentioning somewhere in the section. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2018

Maybe two sources, provided that we keep the material brief.- MrX 🖋 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: how 'bout this?

• Schwartz, Drew (15 December 2017). "Accused Neo-Nazi Could Do Life in Prison for Charlottesville Murder". vice.com. He could spend anywhere from 20 years to life in prison if convicted.

Shows more than one outlet discussing increase in potential sentence length via the 2nd>1st elevation of charge. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScratchMarshall: As far as I know, Vice is not considered a reliable source. Perhaps others here can opine, or you can ask at WP:RSN.- MrX 🖋 18:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on...

• Duggan, Paul (14 December 2017). "Charge upgraded to first-degree murder for driver accused of ramming Charlottesville crowd". Washington Post. prosecutor Joe Platania announced that the main charge against him had been upgraded to first-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 20 years to life behind bars

How bout WashPo? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion around 2-3 months ago that President Trump's Remarks on Charlottesville should be an independent due to length. I created one above. The Trump remarks should be trimmed down in the main article. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R should be lowercase, President Trump's remarks on Charlottesville, I would think. Presently the word for the subsection is "statements" but I do like "remarks" better for brevity. Of the "aftermath and reactions" subsection, there are only 2 with further subsections, and this one has 4 whereas "criticism of police handling of rally" only has 2. So you make a good point, if any of these deserves an export it's this one. I'm all for it, this page is BLOATED. Exporting police handling of Unite the Right rally might also be a good idea. Exporting the 3 subsections of "August 12" all of which are about events AFTER the rally was dispersed (and all 3 tied together) would also be efficient. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is suffering from some bloat, but might it be best to have all the various reactions/remarks from various sources together in that independent article? Seems we should avoid having an article dedicated to any one person's POV of an incident. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Present format:

The impact of the crash pushed the sedan and the minivan further into the crowd.

One person was killed and 19 others were injured in what police have called a deliberate attack.

The man then reversed the car through the crowd and fled the scene

It's pretty clear that a significant portion of the injuries would've been caused by the reversal at the end, the guy on the back who gets clipped by the parked black Ford truck for example. Any suggestions on how to reformat this so it doesn't imply the 19 injuries were caused by the initial forward movement and that no collisions or injuries were caused by the reversal?

I'm suggesting that the mention that the Challenger hit people and the injury tally be put at the end, after the mention of the reversal.

I don't know what portion of injuries happened during the forward movement and what portion happened during the reversing movement, but I'm pretty sure it isn't 19 and 0. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forward or reverse, it doesn't matter. We look at Fields' actions in totality, i.e. his utilization of a car as a weapon caused the event. You're delving into minutiae. Again. ValarianB (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't need to list "injuries from forward/south" and "injuries from backward/north". Especially since we do not have sources for either. The problem is that the present wording makes it sound like all the injuries happened from the forward/south movement and that the backward/north movement was injury-free. That's why I'm suggesting we list the injury total AFTER mentioning his reversal northward up 4th street, rather than before it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggestion: We write only what the sources explicitly support. If you don't like that suggestion, then I'm afraid you don't belong here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work:or@MjolnirPants: (why's your sig link to a redirect?) please show me which source you think explicitly supports implying that all 19 injuries occurred from the forward/south movement, excluding the following backward/north movement? I believe sources generally refer to the tally as a result of the Challenger's collective actions, not merely the first portion of them. I'd like to know what quote you are referring to. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting changes to the article. Since you are, please quote a reliable source that explicitly supports your suggestion. If you do, I will happily respond by re-writing the offending sentences myself and thank you for your edit here.

The problems you have had interacting with others here stem mostly from your approach. If you alter that approach such that you start with what the sources say, every time and show how that supports improvements to the article, you will quickly find yourself with fewer problems and much more collaboration. For what it's worth, I believe you about the attack. But when I'm writing here, I'm a wikipedian first and foremost, which means sources or GTFO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone able to find a source explaining whether or not the VSP copter which took the footage used in concert with the RPK footage as evidence to elevate murder 2 to murder 1 is a different or same VSP copter which crashed later? This seems like something useful to clarify. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes –dlthewave ☎ 19:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]