:*'''Support inclusion''' - the policy has the qualifier of "For relatively UNKNOWN people" - the terrorist is most certainly NOT relatively unknown. [[User:Twitbookspacetube|Twitbook]][[User talk:Twitbookspacetube|space]][[Special:Contributions/Twitbookspacetube|tube]] 11:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
:*'''Support inclusion''' - the policy has the qualifier of "For relatively UNKNOWN people" - the terrorist is most certainly NOT relatively unknown. [[User:Twitbookspacetube|Twitbook]][[User talk:Twitbookspacetube|space]][[Special:Contributions/Twitbookspacetube|tube]] 11:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::*{{re|Twitbookspacetube}} Am I missing something? For what is he known? If it's only for this crime, then that's 'relatively unknown'. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 11:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
::*{{re|Twitbookspacetube}} Am I missing something? For what is he known? If it's only for this crime, then that's 'relatively unknown'. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk: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 terrorist is not just another face in the crowd. [[User:Twitbookspacetube|Twitbook]][[User talk:Twitbookspacetube|space]][[Special:Contributions/Twitbookspacetube|tube]] 11:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Revisionasof11:56,14August2017
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofVirginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
"The rally has been criticized by some civil-rights organizers..."
That needs an edit. I don't want to be in ridiculous "both sides" edit war so I won't do it. But it needs an edit. This is not a "both sides" issue. This is will a notable and sickening Nazi rally in the United States in 2017.
You personal sense of outrage does not translate into verifiable fact, especially when WP:BLP is involved. There remains a small chance that this was not actually a terror attack. DoctorPaveleer(talk)15:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-Nazi groups should be so named
That's well sourced. These are all part of the Nationalist Front which includes among other groups the National Socialist Movement; the Traditionalist Worker Party; and the League of the South, which are allied under the umbrella of the Nationalist Front." See the National Front's website.[1]The LOS itself says it's part of this[2] as does the National Socialist Movement (United States) "On Saturday August 12th. the National Socialist Movement will join Our Allies the Traditionalist Workers Party, League of the South and other Nationalist Front Members in Charlottesville, VA"[3]. The ADL says it was formed at a meeting to celebrate Hitler's birthday.[4] Its led (oops, "Commanded" by Jeff Schoep, leader of the National Socialist Movement and Matthew Heinbach leader of the Traditionalist Youth Network. The LOS page doesn't say neo-Nazi but should, obviously the Daily Stormer page does as does National Socialist Movement (United States). Unlike some white supremacists who say they are just white nationalist, these people are pretty open and this should be made clear. Doug Wellertalk18:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't you using the section discussing the infobox? This section is about naming the neo-Nazi groups. And where are your sources for riots? I'm keeping up with the media and they aren't making that claim. Doug Wellertalk19:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The adl has been connected to the SPLC which has been related to domestic terrorism
So yeah, unless you defend terrorism like that or the terrorism of the BLM at that place, which by Wikipedia law you are free to do, however if its true that said terrorist groups and connections to Louis Farrakhan and other neo Nazi groups that met with Iranian leader, well then yeah it should be named too that the BLM is a hate organization like the SPLC or similar, so it seems terrorists getting attacked by car is kinda ironic here.79.138.2.20 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thought about this for a moment and realize you fail to distinguish from any plain-old national-socialist political group and those who are that PLUS against Jews. There is a world of difference. Jews themselves may be national-socialist themselves indeed. But that doesnt mean they are also against their own kind. I.E. There is pure and plain NAT-SOC political ideology (which is just the 2 combined, nothing more), then there is Hitler's nat-soc which adds anti-semitism/etc. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, we got some uneducated, uninformed rightists here, don't we?
First of all, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) & SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) don't have ANY connection to domestic terrorism. If anything, they have been fighting against the attacks the uneducated, uninformed right-wingers (like you, 79.138.2.20) are soo well-known for engaging in. Not to mention, ANY organization has the right to criticize anyone, whether it be a politician, Supreme Court justice, or someone who supports a political party well-known for publishing & pushing CONFIRMED political propaganda (hint: it's NOT the Democrats that do it).
Oh, and for you to use a biased, right-leaning site, like PJ Media (which well-known for being right-leaning) for your blatantly unsourced attack against the ADL & SPLC shows you are already admitting you've lost the argument; by using such a site, you are hereby admitting defeat in this discussion already. In fact, I dare you, I double-dog dare you, to point to ANY websites articles that CONFIRM the ADL & SPLC being linked to ANY domestic terrorism, as in what they've said and/or done contributed to someone engaging in domestic terrorism (I HIGHLY doubt you'll be able to, as no LEGITIMATE articles of such exist). If anything, it is the people attacking the ADL & SPLC that are the ones engaging in domestic terrorism (like the driver of the car down in Charlottesville that killed an innocent woman, said driver now facing 2nd-degree murder charges).
Oh, and as far as Black Lives Mater, when have they EVER used firearms, or any other weapon, for that matter, to intimidate people. Oh, that's right.....THAT'S the All/White/Blue Lives Matter crowd that likes to intimidate others because they're inferior at being able to discuss things with people intellectually superior to them.
Oh, and so far, the ONLY people that have engaged in domestic terrorism are those attempting to use firearms & other weapons to intimidate counter-protestors, as well as using vehicles to kill innocent protestors. So far, at least four domestic terrorists from that "alt-right" rally have been arrested, with one of them now facing 2nd-degree murder charges.
So, as it would seem, the ONLY terrorists down in Charlottesville are those branding guns & other weapons, as well as those using vehicles to mow down innocent protestors.
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.
Support merge: Said attack was in the immediate aftermath of the rally, during the time which the rally was to have taken place. Thus, said attack was inexorably part of the rally. Javert2113 (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge for now: The rally was not that notable until the violence occurred. I think that keeping them as separate events will help sort out what is going on. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying that the article was not notable before the attack, but more that the attack itself made the rally more notable on a national scale. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to Support Merge to 2017 Charlottesville attack: Since everyone wants just one article, then that is fine. However, the more notable article at the present time is the attack article. I do have the position that if either merge does take place, then the resulting article will likely end up overwhelmed by what I believe are now two seperate, though related, situations. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - Support the merge of these articles into one, until such time that information about the attack overwhelms the rally article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge- Car attack took place during the riots, thus should be included in the article about the riots. There were other clashes as well where people got injured.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article already had quite a bit of info. The "attack" article only has a few sentences total, all of which can be merged here if not already covered. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to 2017 Charlottesville attack – It is attack what make this story international. Rally can be described in Background paragrph. Also attack did not happen at Unite the Right Rally but at counter–demonstration. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge Same story, and what LukeSurl just wrote. Can an admin please merge it now? I see only two Opposes and an ocean of Supports.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. There's no discernible reason why the car incident would merit a separate article from the rest of the overall event it happened at. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. However, I would say to rename/merge into "2017 Charlottesville attack." The protest itself was notable, but the attack incident has overshadowed the protest (in the media and public conscious). People searching for this article most likely won't know it's located at "2017 Unite the Right rally." Enter Movie (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge: Doesn't meet notability at all to justify the event having its own article. These types of hit and runs have happened at US Rallies before and none have had their own article either, despite receiving similar media coverage (which is minimal).Spilia4 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge Both the rally (which attracted massive media attention even before the attack) and the attack (which is now being widely described as a terrorist attack) are independently notable. Have a section about the attack in this article, with a "see also" link to the full article. CJK09 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with "2017 Charlottesville Attack" as page title. The rally was non-notable, the terrorist attack certainly was. HOT WUK (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - There is nothing useful or convenient about having two separate pages. The attack article should be merged and redirected here to the event itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with conditions - Support, however, only on the basis that "rally" be taken out of the article's title. This incident has become more than just a rally. In fact, the tragedy overshadows the original purpose of the rally. Kent State shootings is a good example to compare to. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, either this into that or that into this, the former more preferable since this article was created first. There's simply no reason why there should be two articles. SkyWarrior04:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge and keep as independent page, this incidence is entirely notable independent of the rally. The rally article can both mention the attack and still also link to the attack article. Jacarandacounsel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge These two articles are symbiotic. The rally itself wouldn't be a leading story around the world if nobody had died, and this attack specifically took place at the rally. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge: Violent criminal act taken as part of another major notable event should be listed on that page unless information comes up leaving a reasonable person to believe that attack was preplanned and entirely separate. Oathed (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge of car attack to this article. The rally was already very notable, even before yesterday. The car attack was part of it but not a separate preplanned incident. I have no doubt that the rally would have (and already was) a major story internationally. Aljazeera is one instance of coverage before the attack.[5] The car attack was tragic indeed but was a result of the rally, it is still the rally that should be the major focus and the name. Doug Wellertalk08:41, 13 August 2017 (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.
Neither of these should be called attacks yet. Barely a day has gone by. There have only been arrests. Have charges been pressed? Convictions secured?
Neutrally we should be reporting the crashes and their fatalities but not frame either as an attack until more evidence exists. We can report a witness saying the car crash "looked" intentional but certain sensationalist sources screaming "attack" does not mean we should do so as well. We have BLP concerns here, this could harm the driver undeservedly if it was not intentional. For example, if people were hitting his car with bats and he was trying to escape. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, regarding the car incident, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. There have been dozens of vehicle-ramming attacks in just the last few years and so far there's absolutely nothing to suggest that this is any different. Also note that the incident has been widely described as an attack by those who were there to witness it (which is not just counterprotesters, but also various journalists). CJK09 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to bring this up, actually. I've seen the footage: it seemed mighty deliberate to me, what with the driver speeding away afterward and all. In addition, I'd like to note that the New York Times states『a car plowed into a crowd near the city’s downtown mall, killing a 32-year-old woman,』[9] while other sources note the car "ram[med]" the crowd, and so on. While I do have concerns about the helicopter crash being called an attack (for now), I'm confident that this was an attack in the fullest sense of the term. Nevertheless, I'll ultimately agree with the consensus of the editors. Javert2113 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree to hold off on calling the helicopter crash an attack. "Crash" is probably fine in the mean time while we wait for more info. CJK09 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. 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.
terms like plow/ram are neutral and simply convey interpretations of speed, not intent. Remaining neutral is important here. How it looks to us s irrelevant, that would be OR. The tabloids are engaged in that but we can be better. Like the many news sources who are not calling it I tentional or an attack. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your claiming that there are many that are not calling this an attack or not calling it intentional, but is it a majority of them? I think that is the more important issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ScratchMarshall: I commend you for upholding WP:BLP guidelines in the face of editors who want to blatantly ignore it. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and speculation by the media does not/will not change that. I think the video clearly shows this was intentional but my opinion -- and everyone else's -- means absolutely nothing when it comes to BLP. When this man is found guilty of the incident or an official statement is made by the authorities, then we specify this was an attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to violate BLP, but am just confused on if it even applied if the person is not named, though I do current note that the name has appeared on the article. Though, you seem to be confused as well since you claim that an official statement would be enough. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
editors are violating BLP calling this an attack
Folks the BLP guidelines say nothing about requiring the person be named. The man arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder has been widely named, so this impacts him regardless of whether or not Wikipedia does so.
We are not presenting NPOV by parroting the less professional media sources calling it an attack. Police file charges when enough evidence exists to explore an option, not because it is an absolute certainty.
Merging the car crash article into the rally article would skirt what to call it but we would still need to decide in what to call the section.
Reporting that some media is calling it an attack, what what interviewed witnesses say, and that charges are pressed is enough. There is no need to go further and infringe on BLP by playing jury to the driver. We have a public duty to be neutral here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have removed the name, I do have to ask if that is enough under your claims regarding BLP. As I have already said, I am confused on what portions of the article are currently in violation and I am not trying to violate BLP. Since the name is currently gone outside of history, does that satisfy the issue or does it need to go further? Additionally, due to the claims, do you have a rebuttal to any potential counter-claims? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the videos show a antifa and BLM attacking the car. after it stopped. so the driver obviously backed away in self defense. now whenever he was attacked before on the car should be researched. if that is the case then antifa and BLM were the terrorists.79.138.2.20 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that would have been after the car stopped after it struck people in the crowd, resulting not only in injury to those struck by the vehicle (bringing a charge of attempted vehicular manslaughter), but the death of a 32 year old woman who was struck by the car (bringing in a confirmed charge of 2nd-degree murder). So, in this case, it is the individual in the car (who has so far been IDed as James Fields Jr., a registered Republican) who is the terrorist, NOT the members of Antifa or BLM. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:A884:D314:E280:5DF9 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Video to migrate
Here's a video that can be migrated, I'm on mobile otherwise I'd do it myself:
Original research concerning riots and civil conflict
The tag is about the article having "original research or unverified claims", specifically the claim for riots and the infobox. There are no sources for either in the article and the lead mentions "street brawls", not riots. Nor are riots discussed in the article which would be necessary. Before anyone starts citing any headlines (the WSJ has one) mentioning riots, headlines are not reliable sources. They are written by special headline riots and are designed to catch the readers' attention but don't necessarily accurately reflect content. I've even written a few for the Miami Herald in my youth. A riot is mobs running through the street looting and vandalising. For instance, see 2017 G20 Hamburg summit or the 2017 Rinkeby riots. As for civil conflict, the same issue came up at 2017 Berkeley protests and was resolved by an RfC with a clear conclusion against including it.[10]Doug Wellertalk09:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, upon re-reading: do you additionally object to the use of the {{Template:Infobox civil conflict}} at all? The template documentation says that the infobox "may be used to summarize information about a particular civil conflict (for example, protest, clash with police)" — the example given is 2011 Wisconsin budget protests; it's also used on articles ranging from Baltimore police striketoEast L.A. walkouts. Because "civil conflict" is such a broad term, it would seem to apply here. Or are we missing something? Do we want to use Template:Infobox event instead? Neutralitytalk09:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: thanks for restoring the tag. Yes, I think the civil conflict infobox is inappropriate here. For one thing, where are the sources showing that this label passes WP:UNDUE? And inevitably calling it a conflict means you need at least two opposing sides, so people would add in groups that they consider were on the "other side" inappropriately. I see no reason for it to be at any of the others either unless we are going to call all protests and strikes civil conflict, which I think would be ludicrous. Yes, the Boston strike was preceded by " a campaign of intentional misbehavior and silliness" but I don't see that or a strike as a civil conflict. Doug Wellertalk09:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that important to me whether we use Template:Infobox eventorTemplate:Infobox civil conflict, but I don't see what this has to do with OR or DUE. A "civil conflict" just means some sort of non-military conflict. So a violent protest like this one would seem to qualify. (Note that the City of Charlottesville declared a state of emergency based on an "imminent threat of civil disturbance, unrest, potential injury to persons, and destruction of public and personal property."). We use it for 1999 Seattle WTO protests, too. And there is a way to display the template so that it doesn't show two opposing sides: an example is at 2010 G20 Toronto summit protests. Neutralitytalk10:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the article appears to have been posted to the front page a bit hastily, I think it's pretty blatantly obvious that there were "at least two opposing sides" here, i.e. the protesters and the counterprotesters (who according to sources were battling in the streets outright), as well as law enforcement, headed by local and and state officials who have expressly condemned the right-wing protesters. The inbox has been updated accordingly and only continues to be updated with reliable sources. No one said that we should call "all protests and strikes civil conflict", but this obviously wasn't simply a "protest", as confirmed by every single source; on the contrary it appears to be one of the more significant civil conflicts in recent American history. The inbox is being used in accordance with standard practice and its own documentation, and the claim of OR is a bit confusing, especially since it's been unilaterally tagged without a specific content concern... Which specific unsourced claims in the article do you feel are only supported by original research? If the inbox issue is the only concern, that is simply a formatting issue rather than a sourcing issue. Swarm♠10:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that it is a civil conflict is unsourced. @Swarm:, whatever we think about it, that needs sourcing. This is one of the issues with infoboxes, they can be used, as in this case, to label an event or person without a source and all I see so far is original research (which is ok here on the talk page, but not in the article. Maybe the state of emergency was to ward off a potential civil conflict, and it seems to have worked. And yes, there were street brawls. Battles seems a pretty strong word to use. Doug Wellertalk10:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doug- please make sure you take any discussions on sourcing to the appropriate venues, and don't waste too much time here. Unfortunately, 'Swarm' is an open partisan on the matter of the War of Northern aggression, and he seems strongly committed to suppressing sources that show his views to be of no value. 27.252.28.26 (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The civil conflict infobox needs to go back up. As mentioned above, this was one of the most important civil conflicts in recent memory, and the infobox was well cited. Of course it played out very different from Bundy standoff, Ferguson unrest and Dakota Access Pipeline protests, given the street battles and the vehicular homicide. It's worth noting too that Heather Heyer was a member of the (erratum) Industrial Workers of the World, and was marching as such when she was martyred. Political street battles in America, à la Weimar Germany or otherwise, require their infox. kencf0618 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a more informative way to describe this than a 'vehicular collision', which I read as implying there being no intent or it being an accident. Vehicular homicide might work, but it's hard to work that into 'with counter-protesters'. Thoughts, suggestions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right- there was a 2017 Charlottesville attack article that was merged into this one, and if you look at the discussion on the relevant talk page it is CLEAR that there was no real consensus for this. I suggest we should describe the incident in question as '2017 Charlottesville Israeli apartheid'. 27.252.28.26 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant talk page is this one, and the overwhelming consensus here rendered the proposals on the other page moot. Swarm♠10:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be rather committed to this idea. I would suggest that people who are not in agreement with your strongly expressed personal views should take things to the appropriate venues for full discussion. 27.252.28.26 (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Jews will not replace us"?
Are we sure that the protesters chanted "Jews will not replace us"? I haven't seen any videos or news coverage showing the protesters chanting "Jews will not replace us". I've only seen them chanting "You will not replace us". Is it possible that the reporter misheard what they were saying? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I thought it wasn't the role of Wikipedia editors to decide if a reliable source is right or wrong, if they have reported on an issue, then editors are bound to report it? TheValeyard (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a video which says in the title that "Jews will not replace us" but a comment says it's "You will not replace us". Another video of the same event (the Friday night thing) is clearly "You will not replace us"[11] but I think the comment that someone shouts "Jews will not replace us" at 16:37 is probably correct, particularly coming after a comment on "race traitors". It seems inevitable that some people would be shouting Jews. Doug Wellertalk13:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the jews are statistically disproportionally leftist so its not wonder they chant it, though you pose a good question that should be included in the article:Were they fighting against anti-non Semitism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.2.20 (talk • contribs)
@TheValeyard: But we do get to decide whether a source is reliable or not, and there seems to be a lack of collaborating sources. If 10 sources say A, and 1 source says B, you go with the majority. Also, read the disclaimer at the top of the article: "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you think you get to decide that the New York Times is unreliable just because no one else has reported on this? How curious. Regarding 16:37? I'm not hearing it. Someone might have said it at 16:31, but it's hard to tell above, you think your lone opinion is important while a Times reporters is not? TheValeyard (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Washington Times and New York Times, other RS are reporting the phrase: NBC ([[12]]), Times of Israel ([[13]], [[14]]), Haaretz ([[15]], also [[16]]). Forward also has an entire article on the targeting of Jews in the rally, including the phrase "Jews will not replace us" -- [[17]] -- but also where the Jewish reporter was assailed with Holocaust denial, "you look like a Shlomo", "take down that wall in Israel" and other lovely gemstones. Haven't found anything by the ADL for this yet. However the ADL did note earlier that "You will not replace us" is also [linked to anti-Semitism and white supremacism].--Yalens (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we have corroborating sources but it could just be an echo chamber, one reporter repeating another report's mistake. Supposedly, this video[18] shows the white supremacists chanting "Jews will not replace us" but I've watched the video three times and all I can discern is "White lives matter" and "anti-white" (I think?) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought I heard "anti-white" also. I didn't hear "Jews will not replace us" or even "You will not replace us", so I don't understand the title. Doug Wellertalk18:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is discussion suddenly redirected to this one video, while all the sources are ignored? Echo chamber in this case? [citation needed]. If RS criticize this later as a case of an echo chamber, then you have a case to make, but this is premature at best. We have five different sources (NYTimes, WaPo, HaAretz, ToIsrael, Forward) noting the phrase-- and even the (original?) variant "you will not replace us" was noted earlier as anti-Semitic/white nationalist (ADL:[[19]]) -- reflecting the fear that whites will become a powerless minority in the face of changing demographics due to an alleged “rising tide of color” purportedly controlled and manipulated by Jews (commentary by the ADL). In fact, rn this is not reflected on the page.
AsTheValeyard already excellently pointed out, it isn't the job of Wikipedia editors to fact-check RS reporting (or speculate that the reporters engaged in an echo chamber), especially when there are no sources presented as of yet that dispute that it was said. Listening to one youtube video and reporting that you fail to hear it seems like literal "original research".--Yalens (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false equivalency. In the case of the alleged Russian interference, there has been an official investigation by the FBI over the course of the past year or so. If I recall correctly, 16 differently federal agencies agreed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. In the case of this article, the topic is barely a day or two old. It's already been pointed out to you that it says at the top of the page "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable". To the best of my knowledge there are zero federal agencies that have conducted an investigation which concluded that white supremacists chanted "Jews will not replace us". Further, unlike the Russian interference, which was conducted in private, these protests were held in public with numerous witnesses and videos recording the protests. Honestly, I'm not sure why you find this confusing. Please don't take my words out of context; I know what I said, and the situations are completely different. I ought to know; I'm the one who said them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not at all a false equivalency, it is shifting from demanding inclusion of sourced statements to demanding exclusion of sourced statements, where the only difference in the two cases is political. That is using the Wikipedia for further political advocacy. TheValeyard (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, of course, it's a false equivalency, for all the reasons I've described and for all the reasons you are ignoring.
Second, nobody is demanding exclusion. I am simply asking a question. A question, I note, you haven't been able to answer. Please see straw man.
Third, what is political about factual accuracy?
Fourth, it clearly says at the top of the article, "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable" This is the third time this has been pointed out to you, but you still seem to have trouble grasping its meaning. Which part of it don't you understand? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions have spoken volumes, so trust me, you've been understood perfectly; multiple sources that paint a far right issue in a good light are good (Russia), while multiple sources that paint a far right issue in a bad light (allegations of antisemitism at a white supremacist rally) are bad. Consider this the proverbial "last word". TheValeyard (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What actions? I asked a question - a legitimate question. Do you see the title of this post? There's clearly a question mark in it. You are casting aspirations where none exist. Why would I want to paint the far right in a good light? That makes no sense. You don't know me IRL, and I'm not going to out myself, but just this morning I authored an article condemning the racism and violence in Charlottesville. But as much as I would love to include the accusation that the white supremacists chanted "Jews will not replace us", I would never say something that I cannot substantiate. Believe it or not, honesty and integrity matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing that you like everyone else would love to have the fact that white supremacists chanted "Jews will not replace us" in the article. Luckily for you, while it is true as a wiki editor you can't substantiate it, you don't have to, as there are now at least 5 sources doing that quite well for you :). Cheers all. --Yalens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quest, at some point this becomes a problem that cannot be resolved. If we answer "Yes" to all of you questions from earlier and now, you still run into one major problem; that there is not a source that discredit what was believed to have been chanted. Not to mention that even with a single source, you would have a hybrid sentence of, 'X was widely reported to have been chanted, though disputed by Y' or such. Is there a reason to continue this further? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that some of the protestors were using anti-Jewish phrases/slogans, is it also worth mentioning in the article that the Mayor of Charlottesville, Michael Signer, is Jewish? Were they targeted at him? Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also--somehow I missed this before-- And when the white supremacists got their act together and gathered in McIntire Park, they shouted “Jew” every time the name of Charlotteville’s Jewish mayor, Michael Signer, was mentioned. [[20]]. Still probably too early to say his personality in particular was targeted as its also just a thing far right types are known to do for any and all Jewish people. --Yalens (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Death Toll
It's incredibly disingenuous to include the two police officers in the helicopter crash as part of the death toll, as this number is being used to imply that people were murdered by neo-nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.17.168 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you are being facetious, but if not, are you seriously suggesting the alt-right people were using anti-aircraft weapons? Who is even speculating that this was connected to anyone on the ground? I agree with the OP, there should be more clarity. DoctorPaveleer(talk)15:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The crash was associated with this rally: had the latter not occurred, the former might not (if ever) have occurred, given the nature of the mission the two state troopers were on. Simple cause and effect. --Javert2113 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone on MSNBC today was playing with the thought that many of the "protestors" were armed and that thus, well, you know. This was nipped in the bud very quickly, fortunately. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose revival of subpage (split) : 2017 Charlottesville attack
I saw that this page was merged to the overall Unite the Right page. While I was hasty (and reverted myself) in undoing the merge (I had looked on the wrong talk page), the conversation here appears to have missed the fact that RS media seem to be reporting mainly on the vehicular attack as a notable in its own right and indeed highly reported on incident, and it is the focus of their discussion. Thus they treat it as an event in it's own right and the rally as merely the context. Examples: [1][2][3][4] Furthermore, before the merge, this page had plenty of information which was effectively deleted by the merge as it does not exist on the Unite the Right rally page. At the very least, the material should be rescued. Lastly, given the amount of information that is pouring about this attack-- and the perpetrator-- the material may ultimately be too much to fit on this page. --Yalens (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support undoing merge both events (the rally and the attack) are independently notable and their descriptions on Wikipedia will only grow in size as more reliable-source information continues to pour in, and as we get a better sense of the aftermath. Having both events on one page will quickly become unwieldy and cumbersome. CJK09 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose undoing merge At this point, all of the encyclopedic information we have about the attack fits easily into a section of this article. We can do a split in the future if it becomes unwieldy. There was a very strong consensus to merge the two articles but some disagreement about which title it should go under. I would lean towards changing the title to an umbrella term like "2017 Charlottesville civil unrest". Dlthewave (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support reversing merge. The merge was clearly a colossal mistake. Already, news outlets and commentators are calling the attack an act of domestic terrorism. See, e.g., today's Meet the Press. Furthermore, the attacker's Nazi leanings are becoming known. See, e.g., [21]. Domestic terror inspired by Nazi sympathies certainly trumps (pardon the pun) any "rally." This is going to be known as domestic terrorism. Readers will be searching for things like "Charlottesville terror attack," not "2017 Unite the Right rally." The rally will become known simply as the background context, a historical footnote of sorts. We need to come to grips with that. Editors jumped the gun on this merger—very, very badly. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both this article and the merged one have been edited far too quickly for fast-moving news events. This can wait a few days, there's no rush. I'm pleased to see it called domestic terrorism, whether that label will hold I guess depends upon what's uncovered. Fields was involved with neo-Nazis, definitely. He'd also had treatment for a psychotic disorder. Is the car attack terrorism if the perpetrator was mentally ill? Doug Wellertalk16:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whether or not the attack was domestic terrorism is a valid conversation to have, but I don't think it's equivalent to the question of whether it should get its own page, which is based on notability, coverage by RS, and whether it can fit here, among other things. I think it is much better for conversation if we keep it focused. --Yalens (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Give it a few days, at least: things are currently moving too quickly to justify any major changes, including undoing a merge. Javert2113 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The merge closed as an overwhelming decision per WP:SNOW. The act of domestic terrorism (the car attack) was part of the larger act of domestic terrorism (the unlawful assembly). It's perfectly contained here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The car attack is an inseparable part of the unlawful assembly. Given that it's a group of KKK/fascists/whatever else you want to call them, I consider them all terrorists, terrorizing those who aren't part of the Master Race. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is a car attack an "inseparable part" of the unlawful assembly? I haven't seen anything saying it was planned as part of the assembly event (indeed, if I did, I might have to change my position). --Yalens (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every American public killer attended the church, school, restaurant, jobsite, nightclub, theatre or mall his bystanders and victims did, just for a different reason. Same deal here. It might feel better to find this crowd guilty, given their presentation, but it's no less illogical. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:23, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
Support undoing merge - I find it a bit troubling that we can have articles about car ramming attacks by Muslims but not of non Muslims. This attack was not a planned part of this rally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: Your comment suggesting that those opposing undoing the merge are opposing on religious or racial grounds is , to put it mildly, nonsense. Of course it wasn't a planned part of the rally. Most of what happened during the rally/protest was unplanned. But there is no reason to think it would have happened if the rally hadn't taken place, which is the major difference between this car attack and the premeditated Muslim ones you mention. Doug Wellertalk08:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the material on the vehicular ramming becomes too large to contain in this article. The guideline for content forking recommends splitting articles "as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Until this is necessary, I think it should stay here. Malinaccier (talk)21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per that after the previous discussion, I no longer have much of an opinion on where it should go. However, I do feel the need to point out that the references at the talk page of the "2017 Charlottesville attack" article were not converted over especially since the RefIdeas template is still up on that article's/redirect's talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aug 13 2017 Network Coverage on Sunday talkies
Interesting lineups for coverage. A summary of Sabatos, Folkenflik and others is need to reflect the reactions. Sabato called for firing of white nationalist's Steve Bannon. --Wikipietime (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead paragraph innacurate; does not reflect the source; needs to be edited.
The lead paragraph states that "Attendees described the violence as having originated from white supremacists.[4]" It is true that this is what the source says, but the statement refers to the pre-event torchlit rally on 11th August, not the "Unite the Right" rally itself. Here is the quote from the article;
"Last night, the alt-right protesters initiated the violence … The neo-Nazis surrounded them with lit torches and started macing and beating the students," he told Al Jazeera, explaining that police arrived after clashes started.
I think you're interpreting the source incorrectly. "the alt-right protesters initiated the violence" is referring to the alt-right people who are protesting re removal of the Confederate statue. It doesn't refer to to the people who showed up to protest the alt-right. TheValeyard (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the claim of the source is that the alt-right people initiated the violence. The article reflects this accurately. What I am saying, is that the source refers to a very specific incident, which took place the night before the rally itself, which should be clarified. DoctorPaveleer(talk)17:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a platform for what is quite frankly conspiratorial bullshit. Unless the conspiracy itself becomes the subject of media coverage in reliable sources (which Infowars is not) it does not belong in the article, and even then it would be described as a conspiracy, not an "alternative point of view". CJK09 (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and add it. Newsweek reported on it. [23] You can say that Infowars is alleging a conspiracy. That's what they're saying-- that this is all a deep state conspiracy. 72.64.128.19 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonicsoundtracks1: I see that you added this. I have removed it as per the discussion here. If you wish to do so again, please first read the discussion above, and try to seek consensus here on the talk page. Currently most editors are against this. --Yalens (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already hear from notable "kooks" like David Duke, Andrew Anglin and Donald Trump in Reactions, not because their bullshit is the correct bullshit, but because it's been covered in secondary sources. Alex Jones should be no different. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:08, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad he did. But if the millions of opinion pieces written about him since he did are any indication, he's known for holding unorthodox views. The other two are less famous, but also rather "alternative". InedibleHulk(talk) 18:23, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
Your feelings on Trump aside, the difference between Jones and those three is that Trump is the President of the United States so pretty much anything he says is highly important, and the other two were responding directly to Trump's statement. Jones was not responding to Trump's statement, but instead alleging a completely irrelevant conspiracy theory. CJK09 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no feelings on Trump, I just needed a third example. Jones responded directly to the event, which is what the Reactions section is meant to be about, not reactions to reactions to it. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:00, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
OK, now it's meant to be about reactions to the reaction. But it wasn't before. Maybe before I'm done typing, that reaction will have its own article. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:10, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
The issue is the conspiracy theory, not the speaker. If we reversed what D Duke and A Jones said so that David Duke was the one who alleged the "deep state" horsecrap, then we'd still have a situation where it isn't something we should report. --Yalens (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should add it back. What Alex Jones is saying has now received widespread attention in the 'mainstream' media sources everyone here seems to take as gospel. By the way, why the bias against alternative media versus MSM here? After the MSM got the whole 2016 election wrong while alternative media like Infowars, Breitbart, Drudge, etc. reported correctly on the mood of Middle America, what gives all of you the right to write off Alex Jones as a kook while still treating the mainstream discredited media as gospel? Also, how is Alex Jones fringe in the Trump era? Jones had Trump, then the future president and leader of the free world, on his show. 2601:703:2:27B0:8003:F5D0:8BC7:7EE3 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor 2601, this article talk page is not the right place to change Wikipedia's agreed definition of what is and is not a reliable source. The mainstream media reported polling results predicting that Clinton would get several million more popular votes than Trump and that is what happened. Discussion about whether a given source is reliable for use on Wikipedia belongs at the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Jones has taken inflammatory positions that are contrary to all known fact before, and while I do not discount his viewership, his show often seems to be a mechanism for him to sell Alex Jones-branded items, the profits from which seem to be going to into his pockets. Furthermore, if we legitimize him through his viewership, we allow his stances on particular issues to become legitimate, when they are anything but. --Javert2113 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that Alex Jones is not a reliable source, under the WP:RS and WP:NFRINGE guidelines; thus, his reactions, though they may be heard by many, have not been included, and should not be. --Javert2113 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Those guidelines censor a lot of alternative media; and I get it. What Alex Jones is saying, however, should be included in the article, even if we follow the guidelines against use of alternative media, because it is being picked up in secondary mainstream sources the site permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:2:27b0:8003:f5d0:8bc7:7ee3 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"has now received widespread attention in the 'mainstream' media". Has it, though? I've seen one article on Newsweek and that's it. And by your logic, everything that comes out of Michael Moore's mouth should now be reliable because he predicted Trump would win. Besides, the "discredited" mainstream media actually got the election more accurately than Infowars, since they prediced Clinton would win the popular vote by a small margin and I recall Alex Jones said in a video that Trump had won "by a massive landslide", which is false. And not to mention that, elections aside (which are all about predictions and are never 100% accurate), the reporting of the MSM is generally more reliable than fringe conspiratorial paranoid sources. But there's better quality alternative media out there like Heat Street. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Mr. Jones' theory should be placed under the Alex Jones article, but until and unless other sources also discuss his false-flag theory in an authoritative and significant manner, and there are more sources than just two, I would ask that his ideas not be placed on this page, no matter how widespread they may be. --Javert2113 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox photo
Why is the infobox photo of the counterprotesters? Shouldn't the "main" protesters themselves be pictured (in addition, at least)? --Yalens (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're still waiting on them. Despite the ubiquity of smartphones, not that many people know about Creative Commons or Wikimedia Commons. There's nothing yet whatsoever on them, or on Flickr for that matter. That said, the police have asked for video footage of the vehicular homicide in particular, and that ipso facto becomes a matter of public record once it hits court. kencf0618 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least 30 attacks by white terrorists since 9/11
Why is this relevant? We cannot yet list this event as a terror attack, even though it seems very likely; we can perhaps report that others have called it this, but it is a developing situation and we cannot violate WP:BLPDoctorPaveleer(talk)18:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should not violate it and should not include this. But as long as editors are looking at the news for answers, anything's possible. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:11, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
If your just pointing out the reference, then I would recommend adding it to the RefIdeas template at the top of the page to make it easier. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A New Yorker article says "There have been at least thirty attacks carried out by white terrorists since 9/11; the victims of those attacks constitute the majority of people killed on American soil in acts of terrorism."
The New Yorker article reads like an angry opinion piece or editorial.
The cited Slate.com article uses the SPLC list of 33 deadly attacks carried out or believed to have been carried out by white extremists since Oklahoma City with a total of 71 victims 9 Oct 1995 to 20 Mar 2017.
72 total when you add 1 killed by James Fields on 12 Aug 2017 at Charlottesville VA.
Lookingat acts of terrorism on US soil:
49 killed by Omar Mateen on 12 Jun 2016 in the Pulse Nightclub Shooting in FL
14 killed by Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik 2 Dec 2015 at a holiday office party in San Bernardino, CA
13 killed by Nidal Hasan on 5 Nov 2009 at Ft Hood army base in TX
76 total in three of the more prominent attacks on US soil by non-white extremists.
Pick one and stick with it. I like "counterprotesters" myself, and American English sources seem to agree. But consistency in either is also good. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:16, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
PLEASE CHANGE: "One month later, on July 8, 2017, another Ku Klux Klan rally was held in Charlottesville's Jackson Park (which was since renamed Justice Park)." TO "...RALLY WAS HELD IN JUSTICE PARK (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JACKSON PARK)." THANK YOU. WildRose13 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fight caps with caps. Just leads to more caps. Give tolerance a chance. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:23, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
Removing "Antifa", and 'Showing Up for Racial Justice"
I removed these two from the list of counter-protesters. There is no group called "Antifa", it is a movement or belief/ Beliefs and movements can't show up to a protest. Also "Showing Up for Racial Justice" does not seem to pass the notability test, they are only receiving passing mentions in sources about the protests today, otherwise they are just listed in Facebook groups, Twitter, and such. TheValeyard (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no group called "neo-Nazis" or "white nationalists" either, yet the reliable sources are clear that members of those movements showed up en masse. The same is true in the case of antifa - it may not be an explicit organization, but it's a movement that has received considerable RS coverage over the past year especially. See this Google News search. CJK09 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you both failed to read the actual sentence in question. It begins with "Specific groups...". You can't list things that aren't groups in a sentence that talks about...groups. Neither "neo-nazi" or "white nationalist" appears in this section either. TheValeyard (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Antifa is loose & so forth, yes but certainly exists and ascribers do indeed congregate and showed themselves here. That they have no official organization/etc is immaterial. OR You must then claim the same for things like the alt-right. Central to WP is non-favoritism/bias etc. I.e. to apply your reasoning universally and without passion nor prejudice. Then this: "You can't list things that aren't groups" That they are disparate and loose/ad-hoc does not a non-group them thus make :). Also this: "unless and until they commit direct action." Plenty of incidents fit this bill one can easily bring up in any news search, either meta or focused.Sinsearach (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please read what we'r actually taking about here. Too many editors are knee-jerking and not listening. The passage in question begins with "Specific groups...", as it is a listing of specifically literal and verifiable organizational entities that took part in the counter-demonstrations. There is no organizational entity called "Antifa", thus listing the term there is simply nonsensical. TheValeyard (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Once again, please read what we'r actually taking about here. Too many editors are knee-jerking and not listening." indeed. Fear not, Ive given up editing except for grammar and punctuation. I'm just here to toss ideas back and forth in the hope of productive discourse. ""Specific groups...", as it is a listing of specifically literal and verifiable organizational entities" Ok yes, but "specific groups" does not at all necessarily mean they have to pass some arbitrary litmus test, least of all for anything "official" in terms of organization/etc. Besides, they can be verified to be groups that are just perpetual ad hoc movements with foundational motivations/methods that are quite unchanging but upon which the groups' "change" is almost entirely just ADDING to these. Finally: "There is no organizational entity called "Antifa", thus listing the term there is simply nonsensical." I finish thusly: indeed, but only if one holds your specific standard of existence of such a thing as a necessary metric to judge this contextual meaning by. Yes?Sinsearach (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hold this standard. Antifa's a network of groups, not a group. I wouldn't call the World Wide Web a website for the same reason. InedibleHulk(talk) 21:53, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not we list these in the body of the article, can we agree that these don't belong in the lead section? The sources indicate that the array of counterprotestors was broad, and there is no reason to think "antifa" was more prominent than, for example, college students or clergy. Neutralitytalk22:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they don't belong in the lead: for example, we don't list all the protesting groups in the lead section, either. (Not that the two are necessarily equal.) --Javert2113 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would not lump "college student, clergyman or even a dormouse [who] promotes antifascism" with Antifa; Antifa is more akin to the white supremacist "leaderless resistance" movement or the ISIS/ISIL inspired lone wolf soldiers (although they seem to prefer street brawls over killing), except Antifa members do meet and plan with each other where to go and what to do. The Coup Clutz Clowns showed up to mock KKK in Knoxville 2007 without engaging in mutual combat the equivalent of throwing water on a fire; Antifa shows up spoiling for a fight like throwing gasoline on a fire. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A FOLLOW UP TO "The city's leaders cited safety concerns and logistical issues associated with holding the event at Emancipation Park, adjacent to the densely populated Downtown Mall.[37] Kessler refused to agree to relocate the rally, and the City relocated the rally anyway, a decision praised by the Downtown Business Association of Charlottesville.[37]
Kessler, supported by the Rutherford Institute and ACLU, sued the City of Charlottesville and Jones on First Amendment grounds in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. On the evening of August 11, the night before the rally, Judge Glen E. Conrad granted an emergency injunction declaring the Unite the Right rally could go forward.[38]"
There has not been any third-party commentary on the "lack of wisdom of" the judge's decision. At Wikipedia we do not write original research or opinions into articles. This Vox article discusses the ACLU support for the White Nationalist's right to rally, but this does not provide any commentary on the wisdom of the decision, etc. Until we have third-party commentary from a reliable source, there is nothing to say. Malinaccier (talk)21:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I love you wikipedia, showing your true colors. Is this REALLY front page news? Seriously.
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.
Putting this in the front page news box, as though it was major enough, about a guy separate from the rally either losing it or escaping at all costs in self-defense from a surrounding mob attacking his vehicle.Sinsearach (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is front-page news, and no, this clearly wasn't in self-defense: the man was charged with murder, which, as you well know, requires an element of deliberation. Good day. Javert2113 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1st "Yes, it is front-page news," ok, yes.....lets go with that, now.... why is that so? 2nd: " the man was charged with murder," yes, charged, nothing more. 3rd: "traveled Charlottesville from Ohio" indeed, doesnt necessarily mean then that he took part in the rally. 4th: "The lack of taking responsibility among some White supremacists is astounding." This fails reason/logic on several accounts. This is an ad-hom, appeal to motive, poisoning the well, among others (collective guilt also, assuming you I can be grouped with them) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) It is not a difficult thing to remain dispassionate. Like I could (likewise fallaciously) assume you are a leftist, but that is not even nearly assured until you explicitly state it, and even then not a certainty.Sinsearach (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not an "ad-hom". I was just looking for this link to add. White supremacists are blaming the cops for the violence. The same cops that kept things as orderly as they could. It's not dispassionate to label what James Fields did as murder. That's what the courts did when they charged him, though of course he is innocent until proven guilty, which is why the article says he's charged with murder, rather than a murderer. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2017 (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.
Users who are saying "this was an accident" or "this was intentional" should both recuse themselves from editing the article until they calm down. You are engaging in OR and not in a proper mindset to present NPOV or abide by BLP guidelines. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Police have already determined they believe it was intentional - otherwise the alleged perpetrator would not be sitting in jail charged with murder. Until convicted in a court of law, it certainly must be described as an "alleged" attack, but there is no mistake or dispute in reliable sources about what happened or who is responsible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's also charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Thus, it's an alleged accident, too. Can't cherrypick. InedibleHulk(talk) 21:57, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
No. "Leaving the scene of an accident" applies to any traffic collision, intentional or not. It implies nothing about fault or intent of the crash. Murder, on the other hand, is a crime of specific malicious intent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in any case law that said a person was not guilty of "leaving the scene of an accident" because they'd admitted to causing the collision deliberately. But that's beside the point; we have oodles of reliable sources describing it as an "attack" and a murder charge already laid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I run someone over, I'll see how that goes. In the meantime, you might ponder how intentionally turning a wheel might result in accidental injury. It's not a steering wheel or a car wheel, but it's close. I'll defer to your oodles for now. InedibleHulk(talk) 22:25, August 13, 2017 (UTC)
Um, NorthBySouthBaranof, "leaving the scene of an accident" when you're the one that caused the accident actually IS against the law. It also shows that the fault of the crash is with the individual who left the scene, as well as their intent on causing the crash, then making sure they evade justice. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:F0A5:3588:6754:D8D7 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People who got backed into
reversing at high speed, hitting more people.
I didn't see the ones who got hit by the forward drive doing anything, but we should mention how the people who got backed over were chasing the vehicle and clubbing it with various implements. Is there no source mentioning that? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I called OR for making assumptions of motive, not describing obvious events on the video. Ramming with cars and beating with bats is obvious. The motive behind either is not ours to say. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The driver was taken into police custody right after the incident. Police say the car was covered in dents prior and apparently hit by a bat
— Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) August 12, 2017
His car was being swarmed by protesters and some of them were getting violent (like the guy who punched me/threw me down) {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 121 (help)
I'm not sure it's really relevant that someone who murdered a woman and injured more than a dozen others by driving his car at high speed into a crowd of people had their car window broken with a bat in an apparent effort to stop them from feloniously fleeing from the crime scene. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see one video but there are multiple video of that. For balance I think we should show all of them. Otherwise how do we choose which video? Each can possibly sbow details the others miss. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... but not that useful unless we organize them. Can we get a tally for the number of unique view we can reference that way? We should come up with names for them, probably based on where camera is in respect to car. Should we use nautical terms? ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is no way of voting so long as no one contest the deletion. Additionally, I believe such a review would need to occur in Commons since this photo is being shared by five Wikis. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally confirmed by ACLU of Virginia at Twitter [25] 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 [26]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Infobox organizer
The court record is very clear that Jason Kessler was the permittee (see injunction).
permit previously issued by the City, which granted Kessler the right to hold a demonstration in Emancipation Park on August 12, 2017.
The text of Permit and court cases describes Kessler as the organizer (without reference or argument). His name should appear in the infobox. Rhadow (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I seem to recall that it appeared in an earlier version of the article; I didn't think it had been removed. I'll add it. Thanks! --Javert2113 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
attributing witness testimony by name like Today and Gilmore
In any case where we include witness testimony, if mainstream media is releasing their name then I believe we should be including that so we know who is saying what.
Brennan Gilmore, who was amid the protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday and witnessed a driver plow a car through a crowd of protesters, tells Sunday TODAY’s Willie Geist that the atmosphere was tense since “the beginning of the day.” Gilmore adds that “from the very first moment, it was very clear” the car incident “was a deliberate act of terrorism.”
In this case since Today has mentioned that the witness calling it deliberate terrorism is Gilmore, it would be prudent to come forward with that.
One value in doing this is it allows us a better idea of the number of witnesses making similar statements. Without names it is unclear if it is a small number making multiple statements or a large number making 1 apiece.
Obviously if witnesses are uncredited in MSM they should stay that way. Named ones should get priority though as they are easier to organize and more verifiable. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is not a newspaper though, this article does not need to include a list of eyewitnesses, especially if they are just private citizens. TheValeyard (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Joe Q. Public shouldn't be teaching encyclopedia readers what's clear and deliberate terrorism. There are trained professionals for that. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:38, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
',More recently, Mr. Kessler became involved in the fight against renaming Lee Park — one reason for the “Unite the Right” rally this weekend. The rally was by far Mr. Kessler’s largest undertaking yet. Last week, he won an injunction in federal court against the city, which had voted to revoke a permit for the rally',
OK, Rockypedia, then adjust the edit: it is valuable information, and it was news to me. Seriously--we're all friends here. And while you're at it, please format the man from Nantucket's citation template properly, and change their "it's" to "its". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's problematic to include it in the lead as if it's a major point in the conflict. There's one article that says that was one reason (I've searched for others, haven't found any) - does that rise to the level required to put it in the lead? I don't think so. Meanwhile, I've got the editor telling me in his edit summary "Quit being a dick" - is that what friends do? Excuse me if I mistook him for another vandal. It's not like there haven't been a ton of them hitting this article all day. Rockypedia (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's leadworthy or not--that's a matter for discussion. I think its placing was a bit too prominent for my taste. We are all friends here, though, and friends can call each other dicks sometimes, even if they shouldn't: Nantucket man, it was dickish to call Rockypedia a dick. Now, Rockypedia, you have experience and some judgement--perhaps you can stick that comment where you think it fits (and fix that template--maybe your Refcite toolbar works, mine doesn't), and then we'll take it from there. And then I'll go back to looking at the work of those who are definitely not friends of our beautiful project. Thank you to both, Drmies (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, where the Nantucketer placed it, it really follows quite logically from the sentence. "The participants protested the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials from public spaces, specifically the Robert Edward Lee Sculpture in Emancipation Park, a park which until recently had named for General Lee", or something like that. If we can do it concisely, I can see it. Also, I have no doubt that this lead will grow over the next few days, so relatively speaking this one will be less ponderous. And I can see the point of adding "renaming" to the first part of the sentence. Anyway, I will gladly leave that up to y'all. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs in the "background" section at best. I'm also looking for another source that says the renaming was a reason for the rally. I have not found that yet. I don't know that one offhand sentence in one article is enough to single that out as a reason, when there were clearly many other reasons for the rally being called, which are already in the background section with multiple sources. Rockypedia (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. The problem is naming Emancipation Park in the lead without the fact that it's renaming was the straw that broke the camel's back. The organization of the rally started in earnest after that. That is a sourced fact. Fort Sumter as it were. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source that says it was "the straw that broke the camel's back", or "Fort Sumter", or anything remotely similar to that, I'd be more than happy to add it and source it properly. I've been looking for the past 20 minutes. I have yet to find that anywhere. Rockypedia (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Did you not read the quote at the beginning of this section? more recently, Mr. Kessler became involved in the fight against renaming Lee Park — one reason for the “Unite the Right” rally this weekend. The rally was by far Mr. Kessler’s largest undertaking yet. Last week, he won an injunction in federal court against the city, which had voted to revoke a permit for the rally',. When one says "a catalyst" that does not mean all the catalysts. And The NY Times says so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs)
"Wow"? It says "one reason". You're literally quoting a sentence that makes a case against your addition. It's also the only source that says that, while there's hundreds of sources that mention the removal of the statue as the reason for the rally. Rockypedia (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One reason". And I said "a catalyst ". You are arguing over a word you seem not to understand. Have you read any definitions yet? Whatever, fuck "catalyst". Just say "a reason" then. As for calling you a dick, someone advised me to not call people dicks, even when they are acting like one.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rockypedia, it is silly to require someone to ask for sources to verify their own comments; you know they are commenting, not proposing article content. I read the entire NYT article again, and it seems clear to me that the Nantucketer's proposed statement should stand, one way or another. Both of you, BTW, are in 3R territory; Rockypedia, you really don't want to be cited for "removal of verified content", and the argument that "the article didn't say 'catalyst'" is very meager, "catalyst" being a fairly reasonable term to paraphrase the article content. It may be only one source (right now), but it's a really, really good one, which looks in-depth at the involvement of one of the prime actors. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a "really really good one"? It doesn't say that the renaming was the main reason for the rally. That's what Nantucket is arguing. It says "one reason". Rockypedia (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...are you serious? Because it's from the NYT. I don't care if that man says "the main reason", incorrectly--adjust the text. It was a reason. It is a good article. It is a valuable edit, even if it needs to be tweaked, and it's verified. You seem to be trying to find all kinds of little ways to keep valid content out, for reasons I can't fathom, instead of accepting the hand of collaboration and improving the article. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, and it's sad. It's why I rarely edit. But I often read articles, and sometimes fix them. Today I read this article, and noticed that Emanicpation Park was mentioned in the lead°, but not Lee Park. Whatever, park names change all the time. But in this instance, it is extremely relevant to the article. The government tried to remove the statue but the courts have stalled them. They could and did rename the park, to give the finger to the those supporting confederate monuments. The NY Times gives this renaming some credit for the rally. So instead of using my salty language, I put a short neutral statement in the article. It gets removed because it was unsourced. FIne, I use a perfect source. Now complaints arise because they don't believe that "reason" = "catalyst ". Fine, change the word. Now it doesn't belong in the lead. This sort of behavior by regular editors is needling and bullying, plain an simple. This editor admitted to showing bad faith by assuming I was a vandal. How many IP and noobie editors have been chased off by this sort of behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reason as reported by the organiser
Comment -- the content struck me as undue in the lead, being just one of the reasons. It also came across as POV, as in: the white supremacists were provoked ("catalyst") into hosting a rally, as if they needed other reasons besides their ideology to hold a neo-Nazi / neo-Confederate / far-right gathering. If included, it belongs in the background section, and with attribution (i.e. Kessler stated that the renaming was one of the reasons... -- along these lines). But then the questions of DUE come up again; some sources have stated that they picked a largely liberal, university town because of the likelihood of counter-protests and the resulting media attention. So the reasonvspretext may need to be explored. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was behind times -- I was commenting on the "catalyst" statement as was present in the lead earlier ([27]. The above version diff by Drmies is much better. BTW, a statement from Kessler's attorney does not add much as he's not an independent source. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was reported by a reliable source. They felt it was important enough to quote it. This and the NYT article certainly grants us editorial oversight to make a statement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs)
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)[reply]
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):
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, she's a NYT reporter. But her tweet hasn't been discussed in the media, so I don't see why it should be in our article. And she's misquoted. She first said ""The hard left seemed as [violent] as alt-right. I saw club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park." Then she corrected herself: "Rethinking this. Should have said violent, not hate-filled. They were standing up to hate." In any case, it doesn't belong unless it's given major media coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 terrorist is not just another face in the crowd. Twitbookspacetube11:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, uploaded by FallingGravity, see: File:Altercations at Charlottesville Rally.webm. Seagull123 Φ 22:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
* the photo in the infobox, File:Charlottesville counterprotest.jpg, has been tagged for speedy deletion, as it is from Flickr, but licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic licence. Seagull123 Φ 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] 
