Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 7

Trump calls to Bro
Presently under the 'third statement' section:
 * In an August 18 interview with ABC's Good Morning America, Heather Heyer's mother, Susan Bro, stated that she has not "and now ... will not" meet with President Trump after hearing about his statement. Bro said, "I'm not talking to the president now. I'm sorry, after what he said about my child. It's not that I saw somebody else's tweets about him. I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the protesters, like Ms. Heyer, with the KKK and the white supremacists

I noticed something in http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/365020-heather-heyers-mom-hiding-daughters-grave-at-unmarked-location which seems related:
 * Bro has reportedly blocked President Trump's attempted calls to console her family, following his controversial comments saying there were "very fine people" and blame on "many sides" of the rally, and said she holds him partially responsible for her daughter's death.

Should we mention this part about blocking multiple call attempts? I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Am curious if we can find any other sources discussing this first. Bro saying she will not meet with Trump is one thing, but blocking calls is another, if it can be verified. Not sure where Josh Delk got the info. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is where Delk got the info. The source, which is based on an interview with Bro, states "President Trump blamed “many sides” for the Charlottesville violence, and said there “very fine people” on both of those sides. After seeing these remarks, Bro would not take his calls." –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hm.. having trouble discerning how Josh Delk of The Hill got "blocked President Trump's attempted calls to console" from Tim Teeman of The Daily Beast's "Bro would not take his calls." Teeman's comment sounds like it could merely be describing a "if he called me, I wouldn't talk" situation, whereas Delk seems to be clearly asserting calls were made. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delk mentions Teeman as the source in the second paragraph, and all of the quotes match what Bro said in the original Teeman interview. You can take it or leave it. I can't tell you why Delk chose to paraphrase that particular sentence the way that he did. –dlthewave ☎ 13:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Very fine people on both sides"
I think this statement is just as important as "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides", and should therefore be in the lead. reverted, I wonder what others think. zzz (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think my edit summary summed up my views pretty well, but for clarification, Trump also attributed violence to "both sides", a statement which was absent from your edit. The nature of the edit made it seem as if the only controversial part of Trump's statement was his praise of "both sides", when in news coverage, they focused mostly (in my experience) on his assertion that the violence was bipartisan.
 * Also, as I mentioned, I don't think that level of detail needs to be in the lede. But I agree that it's best to see what others think. If there's consensus to reinstate this edit, I'll abide by that, and if there's (more likely and desirable, IMHO) consensus to reinstate this with the "full" quote about both "fine people" and violence, then I'll be perfectly happy with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the "full quote"? In the source in the lead it just ends there. zzz (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I kinda think either both parts (pro- and anti-both sides) or neither part of his initial statement should be in the lead. Important in the lead is that the president’s initial statement was criticized for implying moral equivalence and was followed by a string of additional statements – well explained in the body. But, this rally was about differing brands of hate going back centuries and more. I don’t like the concentration on Trump in the lead, even though he may have played a part in enabling these groups. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the Trump paragraph could certainly be expanded per WP:DUE, if you compare the amount of weight both in the article, and in the media generally. What is your objection based on? zzz (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m OK with it that paragraph now. But, to answer your question -- Trump certainly inserts himself into everything. And, because he does so controversially, the media naturally follow. But, this wasn’t a Trump rally with folks chanting MAGA. The demonstrators were from long-standing groups carrying Nazi and Confederate flags, and symbols from other hate groups, yelling anti-Semetic chants. Just want to make sure we don’t dilute the article with too much concentration on the president’s inept commentary. An article cited in the first paragraph was specifically about Trump’s reactions. Most of the in-depth RS articles are about what occurred at the rally itself – which is where should concentrate. O3000 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just re-reading the paragraph and I noticed that it already mentions the violence. D'oh! Feel free to use the trout button on my talk. So, as far as I'm concerned, you should go ahead and revert me. But would you do me the kindness of adding "also" to the text? I.e. in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides,". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I added "also". zzz (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks great, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this would be too detailed, but "many sides" and "both sides" seem to be separate ideas, as "both" implies 2 sides (ie for and against rally) whereas "many" sides by contrast would suggest at least 3, no? I'd be surprised if we couldn't find a source dissecting the POTUS' choice of numerical adjective in these two excerpts. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

OR regarding triviality of Toyota Camry
Grayfell in special:diff/817498505 removed the information about the car which was hit being a Toyota Camry, calling it "trivial details". This information was reliably sourced:

As for it being Trivial, well, let's read the article:
 * A maroon van then stopped on the street in front of the crowd, and a Toyota Camry stopped behind the van.
 * Fields’s Dodge approached the Camry from behind at a moderate speed.
 * It then backed up, traveling more than a block, before accelerating forward at a rapid clip, ramming into the back of the Camry.

Camry is mentioned 3 times, it is clearly not a trivial detail, it is a useful way to identify the different vehicles when discussing them. Grayfell's unsourced claim that this is "trivial" does not stand up to examination. Grayfell has provided no reliable sources which have called the car's make "trivial", this is purely his own personal opinion which is unbacked by sources.

Paul Duggan who wrote the article, considered this detail important enough to include, and to re-use twice more as an identifier when discussing how the collission happened.

Removing this information appears to be just spiteful and petty, to redact any edit I make, no matter how minor, rather than any actual problem with the content. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You've already tried this nonsense at least twice now. You've been trying to drag-out this out for months, but nothing has changed. We do not include every single detail included by a source. The color and make are still trivial. You should not have restored this content after it was challenged, as this article is under 1RR, and you should've known from past discussions that this was going to be controversial. Again, nothing seems to have actually changed regarding coverage. This lengthy newspaper recap of the event is not proportional to the entire event, and even in a dedicated article, the colors and makes of the cars would only belong to clarify the order of event. Your addition was significantly less clear, and the introduction of irrelevant details only made it more tedious and confusing than it needed to be. Drop the stick! Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ScratchMarshall's attempts to cover car colors
 * Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6
 * Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_5
 * Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_4


 * This is #4. When does this become actionable? TheValeyard (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting for history navigation that 13 minutes after this comment, TV posted similar claims at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, my replies are in the middle paragraphs of Special:Diff/818220962. I am for now avoiding re-posting them in full, but in summary, regarding these 3 links: archive 4 (Aug 15) received no reply at all, archive 5 (Aug 18) received a reply from Jethro who did not object to my discussion of color, and said that relevance of white car's make was dependent on a source discussing it. Archive 6 (Aug 30) which you closed on September 11 (ie you allowed less than 2 weeks of input on it) was me following up with the sources Jethro asked for, and the first actual instance of disagreement I've seen, since Jethro and I were in 100% consensus that sources were necessary for a car's make to be notable. You received support from Gandydancer, Doug Weller, DItheWave and Grayfell. While 5v1 is certainly outnumbering, for an issue of this importance I think we should have had more than 6 people's viewpoints weighed. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I bring it up when new details surface, since that is an entirely new discussion. I'm not really sure why you would try to punish someone for conveying a desire that we use these details when they are reliably sourced. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How many people have to tell you that it's an inappropriate level of detail before you accept it? If the answer is anything more than "as many as have already told me", then you're going to end up topic or page banned really soon here. You escaped the AE based on a technicality; an ANI report wouldn't have that technicality. So just drop it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

this is not a matter of quantity so much as quality. Some random chimer-inner of "I disagree" or "I agree with the disagreer" does not convince as well as people who explain their thinking. How can you expect to convince someone who explains their position without doing the courtesy of explaining your own? An additional problem with looking just at quantity is sampling bias. I do not know how people are led to a discussion, whether it is coincidence or coordination. What about WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and WP:WIKINOTVOTE? Every time these objections are raised, people barely bother with discussion except with throwaway insults at me, the sources I cite, or discussing impressions of feelings without providing explanations to support the feelings. To escape this voting-not-discussing behavior is why we should agree upon some general requirements for when a noteworthy-to-source detail becomes a noteworthy-to-Wikipedia detail. If this can be spelled out, we could easily apply such requirements to guide such discussions. I get a feeling like "1 source is enough for stuff I want to see" v "1 source is too little for stuff I don't want to see" for details in some articles. Not just this one.

We need something fairer, more uniform. Relying solely on votes which feign discussion to evaluate consensus is against Wikipedian spirit. It exploits flexibility and is basically embracing original research (ie Wikipedian "experts" who decide what is 'important' from a source, having their opinion counted against others') instead of the neutral conveyers we are supposed to be. Perhaps we could agree on something like 2 sources must mention a detail for it to matter? In that case I can understand dropping the Toyota Camry issue, since I had only supplied 1 source which mentioned it. I believe when I am reverted, moving to talk page discussion is the step I am encouraged to take, which I did, rather than get into an edit war of adding it back. The funny thing is: nobody will actually tell me what they would consider enough to include a detail like this. How many sources would they need to see citing it? People are not volunteering to define such boundaries, taking a general IKIWISI stance, which is frustrating because establishing agreed-upon parameters would make this all seem much fairer, and eliminate abuse of this flexibility. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You could have just written  and communicated the exact same thing without all those wasted words. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trivia. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Unite the Right rally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170814182323/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-attorney-general-evil-charlottesville-car-ramming-fits/story?id=49202191 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-attorney-general-evil-charlottesville-car-ramming-fits/story?id=49202191
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171203075143/http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/report-coming-charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally-51506215 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/report-coming-charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally-51506215
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170820235048/http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544776964/some-liberty-university-grads-are-returning-their-diplomas-to-protest-trump to http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544776964/some-liberty-university-grads-are-returning-their-diplomas-to-protest-trump

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the DeAndre Harris beating
As seen here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/black-man-beaten-by-white-supremacists-in-charlottesville-turns-himself-in-to-police/2017/10/12/2dad7a1c-af73-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.833370762ce8), Harris had engaged in a scuffle with the white nationalists prior to him being attacked. It was a scuffle for which he was prosecuted.

The inclusion of Harris being attacked in this article, without mentioning any actions leading up to it, offers an incomplete scenario. Yet my edit to include the prior scuffle (his part in it, as events leading up to the beating), was removed.

I understand this article is provocative. And I'm sure it's been fraught with abuse. But I know Wikipedia's aim is to be the best, objective source of information in the world. And when I get accusations from editors like this (I see what you're trying in the edit summaries--but please don't aim higher with your style than your prose pen can handle. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)), it reveals the degree to which this page's contention is affecting our quest for truth.

I'll ask again to have information about the scuffle prior to the beating be reinstated, as to not mention it makes the attack appear unprovoked.

ReginaldHarris (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For someone who's complaining about "misrepresentation," you're being awfully selective with what you want to portray. You've omitted the prelude to the "scuffle," which was clearly mentioned in the source you used, which has in any event been superseded by later reporting. The event is described and documented more completely in Assault on DeAndre Harris, which describes Harris being cornered and attacked. It enumerates the people charged so far with malicious wounding (a felony), and notes that charges against Harris were downgraded to misdemeanor charges. You've omitted all that. And I agree with Drmies, your edit summaries are aiming for a higher tone than they achieve.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Then let's add all that. Include the details of felonies vs a misdemeanor. I would happily add all that--which I admittedly should've done from the beginning--but if I'm reading the rules correctly, I cannot redo something that I've tried to edit and has been deleted by an editor. To leave out this context misrepresents what happened this day. Whether I'm being selective is irrelevant. The point is that I spotted something, and either we care about accurate depictions as a principle, or we pick and choose. I also don't understand what your agreement with the previous editor has to do with this. To be honest, I don't even know what exactly his/her feedback means--not achieving a high tone. My concern wasn't whether or not he/she was correct. It was that I made an edit, and an editor of Wikipedia chooses to reply with a demeaning comment instead of offering helpful feedback.

ReginaldHarris (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a separate article for all that. I suggest that you propose a concise summary, rather than "all the details," using up-to-date sourcing, that doesn't do its own picking and choosing, as your original edit did.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Valentine's day FOIA request reporting
The Freedom of Information Act (United States) was mentioned in the following source:

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)

Not sure if we have discussed the inclusion of intersection before
re special:diff/824774015 here is a source for what I'd added:

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)


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

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:

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)
 * 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)

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

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)

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

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)

Mayoral reactions


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)

RfC: Should the article include mention of Trump/Pence signs?
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.

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)

Survey

 * No, Yes As I explained above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No, Probably Not per O3000. zzz (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes to the second. High quality source, relevant to article. Easy include. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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."). Neutralitytalk 20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Yes, Yes This information is sourced, where's the fucking problem? Givibidou (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. S warm   ♠  23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


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


 * 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)

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

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)

how 'bout this?

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)
 * 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)

Moving on...

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

1 or 2 helicopters
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)
 * yes –dlthewave ☎ 19:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

President Trump's Remarks
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Problem with stating 19 pre-reverse
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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

or (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)
 * 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)

changes should be made if our paraphrasing of sources moves has risked moving away from what they say. The best step I can think is to look at August 13 where this 19 appears to originate and figure out which source released the number first and what contest it was in. I'll cite what I can see in the adjacent sources

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/james-alex-fields-charlottesville-driver-.html
 * the crash that killed one person and injured 19
 * he drove a car into a crowd, leaving a 32-year-old woman dead and injuring at least 19 other people
 * A driver smashed into a line of cars, causing a chain reaction that that killed one person and injured at least 19 others

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-car-crash-suspect-idd/index.html
 * Fields, of Maumee, Ohio, is suspected of driving his Dodge Challenger into the crowd of counterprotesters gathered to oppose the "Unite the Right" rally of white nationalist and other right-wing groups on Saturday. Heather Heyer, 32, a paralegal from Charlottesville, was killed and 19 others were injured.

CNN presents it in a follow-up sentence. It doesn't explicitly say just "driving into" caused this, there's flexibility that "driving out of" (ie the north back-out) could have contributed to teh tally.

NYT says "the crash" injured 19 in an image caption, but image captions are generally afterthoughts compared to the body. the "leaving .. and injuring" is a post-comma afterthought do "drove .. into". Most interesting is the 3rd sentence where it is actually the "chain reaction" which is credited with causing the death/injuries.

The backing-up afterward might plausibly be included as part of this 'chain reaction' concept. It's unfathomably the guy clipped on the Ford wasn't injured by that and if there had been additional injuries besides the 19 we would've heard about it, which leads me to think injuries from the reversal must've been included in that total. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Jesus, it doesn't. Fucking. Matter. James Fields drive a car into a throng of people, hitting said people and another car, the result of which was 1 fatality and 19 injuries. Period, full-stop, end of the story. This isn't CSI-pedia. TheValeyard (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 100% with TheValeyard here. You're not only proposing WP:OR, you're trying to enlist the rest of us to help you come up with that OR. No. If you can't stop hypothesizing about this, you're going back to AE and you're not going to get off with a warning, this time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong information
They were Nazis and fascists, not Republicans. The information in this is wrong and biased. They have nothing to do with right-wing people in the United States. Why do you insult conservatives?

The right-wing believes in small government, liberty, and economic/political freedom. The left-wing supports bigger government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraftingMinerMan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does the article say they were Republicans, nor does it say they were conservatives. Sources agree they were far-right, and Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Woodrow Wilson was a left-wing white nationalist. Why don't you just say white nationalist instead of far-right then? The article smear job on people who are right-wing. The far-right is the Tea Party, Rand Paul, etc. Why would right-wing people support socialism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraftingMinerMan (talk • contribs)


 * Your definitions of "right wing" and "left wing" are different than the commonly-accepted meanings of those terms. See Right-wing politics (cf. Left-wing politics).  General Ization Talk  23:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that it's a damn lie to claim that the Unite the Right rally was in support of socialism. Like, either trolling or WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you live in the United States? It's that way here. For Americans, it's confusing. We don't line up with Europe. Wouldn't white nationalist just cover it? Woodrow Wilson held similar views, but he's considered left-wing here. The fact that it lists right-wing in the lead makes it feel like the article is subtly digging at conservatives. What's wrong with my change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraftingMinerMan (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia does not use editor "experience", it uses professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Your entire argument is an Association fallacy with no sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of sources that list it as white supremacist. Why are you using far-right instead? As a Tea-Party Republican, it feels like a political attack on me and conservatism. Were there leaders who were not white supremacists/nazis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraftingMinerMan (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * CraftingMinerMan, you seem to be mixing politics with racial issues, though there can be overlaps, they do not specifically line up that way. The Alt-right is not the same as right-of-centre politics.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And there are sources that list it as far-right as well. Why are you responding by attacking "the other side"...? How is that useful or even a positive example? Why are you willing to ignore even the possibility that are extremists on the fringes of either side of the political spectrum, and that this group happens to be on the right? Why are you hiding from the prospect that you have a responsibility to call out those extremists, as you'd probably expect groups different from you to do? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with the current article if you changed far-right to the alt-right. Conservatives have called out the marchers. They don't represent us. I find their actions disgusting. CraftingMinerMan (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a conservative, and I agree that their actions are disgusting, but Wikipedia doesn't use my feelings or opinions, and it doesn't use your feelings or opinions either. What we care about is reliable sources. The two sources used for that sentence, and a huge number of other sources, specifically use the term "far-right", so... Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Changed to Alt-right Changed far-right to alt-right in hopes to end this.  If you don't agree, then please, some discussion before changing it again?  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. I'll compromise. I just saw it and rubbed off the wrong way. Thank you. CraftingMinerMan (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The New York Times article used in the lede says Over the weekend, far-right groups poured into town, representing long-established racist organizations and the newer alt-right movement. This is one of many sources supporting that rally was a far-right event, with the alt-right being a major subset. If the actions of some in the far-right are offensive to others in the right-wing, that's a problem that will need to be addressed somewhere other than Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Far-right" has more of a political overtone than "Alt-right" in the US context, it's like mixing up the BNP and Ukip; while there are some overlaps, they are not interchangeable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even remotely proper to change this, "far right" is cited by 2 sources right there in the lead sentence. We can't change properly-cited material just because of one new user griping. TheValeyard (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Far-right" and "alt-right" aren't organized groups like the BNP and the UKIP are. A closer comparison would be "Far-left" and "Marxist."  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @TheValeyard, change it back and keep fighting. I don't care that much, merely attempting to help.  "Unite the Right rally (alt-right)        You can come up with as many 'alt-right' references as 'far-right', the point is that 'far-right' has political overtones that 'alt-right' does not... C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I came to this talk page ready to criticize you and write you off, however after reading the alt and the far right articles (and the links you offered), I'm not at all sure... Gandydancer (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have two competing narratives for the use of the term "far-right" in the USA, political and racial. This creates a unique issue for the use of this term.  White Nationalists that want to water down the 'brand' use the term as well as the 'teabagger' ultra-conservative political types; this causes issues I attempted to address by switching to less political 'alt-right' term.  There are plenty of sources that call these knuckle draggers,  'alt-right' as 'far-right' and the use of the term 'alt-right' is inclusive of the racist-lite crowd that want to be seen as separate from the Aryans and White Nationalists.  It was merely an attempt to appease both types, as still stay true to the majority of the RS.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think alt-right would fit the consensus, but it would be up to you. FlowerRoad (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Vote on white nationalist vs far-right description
WP:SOCK


 * Procedural note. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. It's better to discuss this to reach a consensus; at the least, if you expect the results to be tabulated, the quality of the argument will be considered as well as just the quantity of !votes. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:SOCK


 * Far-right - Far-Right Groups Surge Into National View in Charlottesville -New York Times C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems they use "Far-Right" as an umbrella term to cover all the different types of groups like this from SPLC: "Flags and Other Symbols Used By Far-Right Groups in Charlottesville" -C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK


 * Different WP:SOCK
 * WP:SOCK


 * MichaelConnors has been blocked as yet another sock of PerfectlyIrrational.  This editor's modus operandi has been downplaying the "right" in alt-right, and this is consistent with that non-neutral perspective. I'm reverting per WP:BE. Any (non-blocked) editor should feel free to revert, but further discussion would be appreciated. Grayfell (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a few that attended do not reference themselves as "White Nationalists" or even as "Nativistst" so the broader term of Alt-right seems better suited in the lede section. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * White nationalist, someone put this in to make conservatives look bad. Right-wing people support limited government, political and economic freedom, and are opposed to national SOCIALISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraftingMinerMan (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia favors reliable sources and the article doesn't say "conservative" or "right wing people", it says "far right". Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Why don't you say white nationalist then? Is white nationalism not more accurate? Was it a Tea Party march or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraftingMinerMan (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of these groups do not want the 'White Nationalist' label and they reject it, even though their position is the same or similar. They try to 'nuance' their way around the label so we must stay with what the majority of sources state.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Who? CraftingMinerMan (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re national SOCIALISM: Any professional historian (I don't mean armchair propagandists) will tell you that the Nazi party was all about nationalism and actually rejected anything that anyone else would call socialism (they were even explicitly opposed to Marxism). To associate socialists with Nazis is about as ridiculous as associating Republicans with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.  Furthermore, it pushes a narrative meant to divide people instead of recognizing Americans with a variety of egalitarian and non-harmful beliefs as equal.
 * I'm not saying that that's your intention, I'm assuming good faith and that you've just been duped. It's your choice whether you want to hold on to a fictitious rage-totem or start to see people on "the other side" as human beings.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, this was a mix up over the politics of far-right with the racial and nationalistic issues of the alt-right. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Shortdesc
Just a note that I've replaced the automatic Wikidata WP:SHORTDESC (which said "white supremacist rally") with an enwiki native one that says "far-right". This isn't an editorial decision or a comment on what I think is right, it is solely a reflecion of the current text of the lede of the article. If there ever is consensus for describing the event as "alt-right", "far-right", "white supremacist" or anything else, the shortdesc can be amended along with the lede. Ben · Salvidrim!  &#9993;  20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image
Would this perhaps be a better image for the infobox?



--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no objections; I've swapped the images, placing "clash with police" in the body of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

James Alex Fields Jr
According to a Washington Post article, and contrary to the claims in this piece, investigators haven't found evidence that Fields was affiliated with any of the white supremacist groups at Charlottesville, though he is a self professed neo-Nazi and fascinated by Nazi Germany. Police have also admitted that Fields inquired about the well being of the crowd after the crash and appeared highly distressed upon learning of the injuries and fatality. In light of the first two points some editing of the article is probably in order. While numerous sources make the third point I'm unclear on whether they're RS, and even if true it may not be relevant. Probably need to wait 'til the trial for the truth to come out. 人族 (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reposted your comment with some additions that should help clear things up for you:
 * According to a Washington Post article, and contrary to the claims in this piece, investigators haven't found evidence that Fields was affiliated with any of the white supremacist groups at Charlottesville, though he is a self professed neo-Nazi and fascinated by Nazi Germany. Police have also admitted that Fields inquired about the well being of the crowd after the crash and appeared highly distressed upon learning of the injuries and fatality. In light of the first two points some editing of the article is probably in order. While numerous sources make the third point I'm unclear on whether they're RS, and even if true it may not be relevant. Probably need to wait 'til the trial for the truth to come out[ Conspiracy theorizing ].
 * Note that the redaction was done before my response. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 rally
Offering this link just for background, it's possible searches on some of the material might show up sources that would be useful. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What link? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"Rammed his car"
Fields is on trial for the "car ramming attack" described in the hyperlink. He has not been convicted. There are reports that Field's car was attacked by protestors, and that Fields may have panicked and ran into the crowd to preserve his own life. The crowd was also engaged in an illegal riot, and were illegal blocking the street; a common tactic used by Black Lives Matter, who routinely block roadways and attack both the cars and the occupants that attempt to pass through them. This is the very heart of the question of the charges Fields now faces, and this article seems to have convicted him in advance of his trial.2605:6000:6947:AB00:9931:7105:C547:F980 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article follows reliable sources. You're characterization of Black Lives Matter routinely attacking vehicle occupants appears to be a smear. O3000 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * maybe not routine, but not a smear either.        And from :
 * Researchers at the Rudin Center for Transportation at New York University, in a forthcoming study, counted more than 1,400 protests in nearly 300 U.S. and international cities related to the Black Lives Matter movement from November 2014 through May 2015. Half or more of the protests in that time in Saint Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., wound up shutting down transportation infrastructure.
 * That's a lot of protests disrupting traffic. Maybe you should look at reliable sources before accusing someone of smears. w umbolo   ^^^  16:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I read your first five cites and none of them said anything about protesters attacking cars and occupants. I stand by my characterization as a smear. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * they're not attacking cars, but are disrupting traffic. Stop the straw man arguments. w umbolo   ^^^  17:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No strawman. The gatuitous smear stated: ...who routinely block roadways and attack both the cars and the occupants... I saw nothing about attacking people, and it most certainly isn't "routine". O3000 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there were reports that protestors attacked his car, but these reports have been debunked: No, the Charlottesville Driver Did Not Act in Self-Defense 67.184.10.75 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have reliable sources stating that Black Lives Matter was blocking the street and attacking the car in this particular instance? –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * According to sources, counter-protesters weren't blocking the street; instead, they were walking down it. Also, counter-protesters were attacked, not necessarily BLM. w umbolo   ^^^  16:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, just for the record, that source would not be considered reliable. That's not to say that you're wrong, but the video that sites used to disprove the claim is already in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI/editing note
Only because it came up on the Discord article, I added a section about the Sines v. Kessler federal suit, which was filed in Nov 2017, and only recently has been cleared to go forward. --M asem (t) 16:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This article has POV problems
Adding a neutrality template to the page. -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We're not here to do your homework for you. Be specific, or this will be archived. --Calton | Talk 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OP is currently blocked for disruptive ediitng. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are we shying away from white nationalist?
Currently, this article comes off as pretty confusing for me. It seems to be implying that it was a far-right rally that happened to contain some white nationalists instead of being a white nationalist rally that contained different racialist far-right groups. I don't see why we are shying away from the term "white nationalist rally" when the organizers described it as such themselves. The organizers were unanimously white nationalists, they unanimously described the rally as white nationalist, and they unanimously promoted it as such. If it walks like a duck... talks like a duck... PineForst282929 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * From Far-right politics: "The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views." Describing it as far-right actually takes it farther than how you do. The purpose was to unite similar "right-wing" ideologies Liamnotneeson (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no proof that all in attendance were white nationalists. The rally was to protest removal of an historical statue, and could likely have included history buffs who heard of the Saturday event second hand. https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2017/08/17/pensacola-man-charlottesville-confederate-uniform/575178001/ (sorry, I forgot how to link)DeknMike (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying it wasn't a white nationalist rally because one guy showed up and claimed he wasn't a white nationalist is a little like saying the ocean isn't made up of water because there's some plastic floating in it. It's ridiculous on its face. Amsgearing (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2018
Change "White Supremacists" to "White Nationalists and Supremacists"

Reason for change: supremacists and nationalists are fundamentally different. ARaman3223 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. They are not fundamentally different according to reliable sources, and that's what Wikipedia goes by. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet edits
A lot of editing was done on this page by User:IcierJacks., who has now been banned as a sock of also blocked User:PerfectlyIrrational.

Perhaps someone familiar with the event should check their edits? 220  of  Borg 02:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As with previous edits from this sock, it's far too messy to warrant an easy cleanup, unfortunately. A large quantity of the information added was badly copied over other articles, which defeats the purpose of having multiple articles. Just looking at the Assault of DeAndre Harris section, we had the same information repeated multiple times in the same section, and some of it was also included elsewhere in the article. I've started to tackle removing some of the repetition, redundancy, tedium, and repetition this sock added to the article. More will be needed, though. Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look at all their edits on all articles, and reverted those that I could do easily, but, unfortunately, as Grayfell says, too many of their edits will be difficult to remove. I think we (collectively) need to be better at recognizing socks of PerfectlyIrrational, so that their edits can be removed earlier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Somebody reporting on the rally is not a protester
See the last edit by me, then reverted by MjolnirPants. I removed Faith Goldy there, I saw her coverage. She mingled among both groups of protesters. Right winged and contra. As a reporter. But I know it is useless, these articles only exists to libel right winged journalists and link Trump to Nazism. Mean goal of Wikipedia these days! Wasn't it once an Encyclopedia? AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you just want to bitch about WP, go write a fucking blog and leave the rest of us alone to actually do the work of writing an encyclopedia, please. Removing a notable neo-nazi talking head from the list of neo-nazis at a neo-nazi rally because she talked or wrote about it after the fact is a bald-faced act of POV pushing in support of neo-nazism. So, sorry, but No: Your argument for exclusion isn't even remotely convincing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So.. Other opinions are "bitching" and these people should "**** off" from Wikipedia? That kind of proofs my point now doesn't it? Let us just look at the facts: Fact is that this person did not walk in a rally, she did not carry a banner, she did not stay with one of the particular groups. She was there with a camera and a microphone. She was at the pro and the contra rally. This then does not qualify her as a protester in my opinion. Even if she might share an opinion of one site factually she is not a protester. Are facts still important here? AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say she was a protester. It says she was in attendance. How is this not a sourced fact? O3000 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then at least the paragraph leads the reader to draw the wrong conclusion. She was at the rally, sure. As a reporter. Then you could say she was attending the rally. In the fact that she was present. But as two lines above it says protesters, you let the reader conclude she was actively protesting. Holding a banner, screaming to opponents, throwing things even maybe, you name it. That is not true. I know Claire Gastañaga of Virginia ACLU was also prestent there. Would call her a protester? AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe change that sentence then, because I read it myself as she was one of the protesters. And that is why I protested! :-) It would make the sentence longer. Something like "Prominent far-right figures in attendance, either as active protester or as a journalist broadcasting the event, .." That would be fine by me and also more accurate. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Not all other opinions, but "these articles only exists to libel right winged journalists and link Trump to Nazism. Mean goal of Wikipedia these days!" certainly is. And if that is your purpose here, then yeah. See WP:NOT. That's not my opinion, that's policy. No. It doesn't "proofs" your point. Yes, and I provided you with some relevant ones, above. Observe:
 * So.. Other opinions are "bitching" and these people should "**** off" from Wikipedia?
 * That kind of proofs my point now doesn't it?
 * Let us just look at the facts: Fact is that this person did not walk in a rally, she did not carry a banner, she did not stay with one of the particular groups. She was there with a camera and a microphone. She was at the pro and the contra rally.
 * This then does not qualify her as a protester in my opinion.
 * Are facts still important here?
 * Goldy is a neo-nazi.
 * Goldy is notable.
 * Goldy is a commentator (also known as a "talking head"), not a reporter.
 * This rally was a neo-nazi rally.
 * This rally was notable.
 * Goldy attended the rally.
 * A notable person attending a notable event meets our policy requirements for due weight.
 * So, with those facts in mind: your hyperbolic, ranting argument to exclude mention of her is unconvincing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Under the header Protesters, the article says "Prominent far-right figures in attendance included ". How do you think that is read? "Oh they attended the protest, but hey, maybe they were not protesters." Nobody reads it like that, and I almost think this in intentional. She attended as a journalist at that time. That is the fact. The paragraph reads as she was there as a protester, which is not factual. Even if she is a neonazi. Also the latter is not as sure as you claim it to be. Join the discussion at: Faith_Goldy_2 Only few sources describe her as neonazi and I personally do not consider them unbiased. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For her role at the protest, you can refer to her coverage of the rally. The Rebel Media. YouTube. Of course you can find some left winged source that also claims she was there as a protester. Something like Right Wing Watch or so? Can you from your side have some genuine proof she was there as a prótester? Apart from the fact that you obviously do not sympathize with her and that she has sympathy with right winged groups. But that does not proof her rol at the protest.AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Our RS for this statement says: "At Charlottesville, Rebel Media correspondent Faith Goldy praised the white nationalists' statements about "race and the JQ" – using far-right code for the so-called "Jewish question" – and was broadcasting live when her video feed caught a driver deliberately ramming into a crowd of protesters, killing one."
 * So she showed up there, started actually protesting in addition to broadcasting live, (despite your false claim to the contrary, oh and this is what she was broadcasting: not journalistic coverage, but her heckling counter-protesters right up until the vehicle attack) and you want us to obfuscate a fact in order to falsely imply to the reader that she wasn't even there.
 * Fuck. That. Noise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Civility --Mlewan (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No I say that she was not a protester. Actually you proof my point. She was álso broadcasting the counter protest. So she was there as a reporter, not a right wing protester. And I would appreciate if you would mind your language please. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You are pushing for us to be dishonest, and you are either being dishonest yourself or incompetent in this discussion. I linked you to a reliable source describing her as participating in the rally, and a fucking video of her participating in the rally, and you claim it "proof" (the word is "prove") the opposite. Furthermore, the actual claim in the article is that she "attended" the rally, which even you acknowledge is true. We're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know you have a different opinion than I have, but could you stop swearing please! Also I would like to add, indeed English is not my first language. Happy to start a discussion with you in Spanish, German, Dutch or Korean and see who makes the least spelling errors there.AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh by the way, seriously, don't hesitate to correct my English! I can only learn from it. I make a note not to make that proof/prove error again! AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Es wird nicht Ich sein. Y soy Esponal es bueno. Watashi no Nihongo, wa? This isn't a dick-measuring contest, by the way. If you speak a half dozen other languages, congrats. Go work on those projects. If you want to work on an English encyclopedia, you need a competent grasp of English. You also need to be able to read sources and report what they say honestly, and with a great deal of accuracy. So far, your participation at this talk page has consisted of you misusing English and either not reading the sources or not grasping accurately or honestly what they say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Protester has a very broad meaning. There have been several hundred protests in my neighborhood since I moved here. Most people in protests simply mill about without signs or banners. In large marches, most people just walk and chat. A few write about them. That doesn’t mean they aren’t protesters. OTOH, the video only starts after she had clearly upset a counter protester, and she was making snarky comments to counter protesters, until one was killed. She was more active than the average protester. If you want to call her a reporter, I suppose that would fit under Gonzo journalism. But, in that form of journalism, the reporter is a participant, which in this case means that she was a protester. O3000 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First I would like to thank you that you looked at her broadcastings. I would not agree on your interpretation of the word protester. I do agree she was certainly not neutral on this subject. But you say she 'upset a counter protester'. I could also say counter protesters were being aggressive towards her. Not really uncommon in 'antifa circles'. And a real protester would have been in danger of getting beaten up if approaching the counter protest. As visa versa by the way. So I think we can more or less agree on what happened, though I choose another side to sympathize with. But I would still not write it down like that. The only problem with the clarification I suggested is that the sentence becomes longer, and that might make it less easy readable. AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The video opens with Goldy being followed by a yelling counter-protester, which does raise the question of what took place prior to the start of the footage and why Goldy is being singled out. –dlthewave ☎ 16:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Goldy's footage, backed up by reliable sources, makes it clear that she was both participating and broadcasting. These are not mutually exclusive and it's quite common for participants to record or stream events for various reasons. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you don't agree with me I accept that. Thank you for listening to my suggestion! AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article ignores the composition of the rally
Although the rally was organized by white nationalists, the vast majority of the participants were only there to protest the removal of the Lee statue. Yet, every description of the rally fails to point this out and characterizes the rally as a white nationalist rally. The rally which was organized in August only drew a few dozen participants because none of the people protesting the statue removal came to the rally. The article needs to call out these very important facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitriTUSA (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your source for this? O3000 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested content to include: Unite the Right mob generated optics debate.
Hello there everyone. I've been editing the page Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and in the talk page one of my fellow editors,, pointed out that some of the writing on that article may be appropriate in Unite the Right rally, that is, the debate over optics which apparently started after the Unite the Right mob.

I've copied and pasted the wikitext into the collapsible box below:

Shortly before the attack, in an apparent reference to immigrants to the United States, Bowers posted on Gab that "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in." According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, "the mention of 'optics' references a disagreement that has raged within the white nationalist movement since the Unite the Right rally in 2017 about how best to get their message across to the general public".

24.21.215.155 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Number of participants in intro
Shouldn't we include the overall number of protesters and counterprotesters in the intro?--Pharos (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there an agreed-upon number supported by multiple reliable sources? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article currently says An estimated 500 protesters and more than a thousand counterprotesters were on the site., cited to contemporary reports from the AP and NPR. I would suggest including that information in the intro/infobox as well.--Pharos (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems fair enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. 17:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Jury trial deletion
I'm not looking for an argument, but the clarification, "convicted by juries," seems useful to me. Most criminal cases, I'm guessing, are resolved by guilty pleas. Some are by juries, two in this case. Criminal defendants can also be found guilty in a bench trial. They can also offer an Alford plea. But knowing that the two defendants were convicted by juries composed of a dozen of the peers of the defendants, surely is useful information. I changed the location of the words in the sentence to improve its structure, but the fact had been in the article for some time, I think. I'd appreciate your reconsidering your deletion or suggest that we take it to Talk. Thanks much. Activist (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If a criminal charge was resolved with a guilty plea, it is generally described that way: "He pled guilty to the charges". not using the word "convicted", although, technically, a guilty plea is a conviction. That means that "convicted by juries" merely differentiates from a bench trial, which is quite rare in criminal cases.  To me "convicted by juries" reads very awkwardly, and since it doesn't actually convey much information, it's not at all ideal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Conviction of Fields
I don't have time, but why hasn't this been updated in the various relevant sections? He was convicted of 1st degree (not 2nd) murder on the 7th. We could used material from Charlottesville car attack which is up to date. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Iron Cross is not a Nazi symbol
The article incorrectly refers to the Iron Cross as a Nazi symbol. This is contrary to the description in Wikipedia's own article regarding the Iron Cross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Cross — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.229.173 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is, however, a neo-Nazi symbol, having taken it up from its use in Nazi Germany. (Which was, yes, a continuation of a German military tradition.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Emancipation Park
Charlottesville's Emancipation Park has been renamed to Market Street Park. Should this article reflect the change?2607:FEA8:1D9F:F8EA:B5AF:FDE6:9C2F:96FF (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like the page the links to Emancipation Park in this article are linking to has itself been renamed. One source is: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/397383-charlottesville-again-changes-names-of-two-parks 2607:FEA8:1D9F:F8EA:1875:8A26:1963:B37D (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A blog is not an acceptable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this or this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture section
The section is tagged as trivia: mention of the rally appears in various films, songs, TV and video games. While a listing of trivia is the norm, it certainly says nothing of the impact of the rally on culture - that overt racism still exists today, and there are echoes of racial discrimination in gender discrimination. It could be a nice little paragraph or two on the lessons learned there, but I don't see that. I'd be in favor of summarizing the bullet items like my statement above, and adding a textual essay. Sbalfour (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Charlottesville 'riots'?
The alternate title is Charlottesville riots. I cannot find that word 'riot' in any of the seven related sources. A 'riot' is "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd". The term fits, but it's a rather provocative or evocative term that I think we can't just invent - we need a source to say it. I originally thought it likely I'd find that term in the (some) news coverage, but I didn't. I did find coverage that 4 persons were charged with "inciting a riot", but the newsstory didn't call the event itself a riot. Not quite enough for us to label it such. I think this article needs to stay on the straight and narrow - it's already a flashpoint. I'm challenging the unsourced alternate title, with intent to remove it as per WP:V. Sbalfour (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed, though obvious, that 'riots' is plural, but there was only one event/rally right? The 2018 rally was in Washington, not Charlottesville, and was a fizzle, not a 'riot' anyway. So 'riots' should be singular even if we can source the term. Sbalfour (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's one source that uses the term, may not be sufficient if others can't be found. It's also used by tabloids, like TMZ and The Sun, but we probably shouldn't even pay attention to that. ~Swarm~   {talk}  21:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the popular press defines something as a riot, does that make it a riot? How 'popular' does it have to be?  I'd accept the Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, or The Daily Progress (Charlottesville) but I can't find any articles that called the rally a riot.  The Business Insider is a minor mag, and doesn't say who called the rally a riot.  Tabloids are the opposite of WP:RS - the Most Unreliable Sources that can be found. It wasn't a riot generally, with everyone running amuck - one nutjob caused all the violence. Sbalfour (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your objection was WP:V&mdash;that you could not verify that the term was used, and that sources are needed. That's a valid, policy-based reasoning. But, I gave you a reliable source that uses the term, thus verifying that the claim in question. Your personal assessment of the source as not being "popular" enough, or your personal opinion that "riot" is technically a misnomer, are both irrelevant. If it was just a one-off incident of a journalist using the term, then sure, that might not be enough, but more references can be found. Donald Trump used the term in a widely-covered Tweet, The Atlantic used the term, an author and professor of American studies from Wellesley College uses the term in a piece published by the Boston Globe,, and used again by a doctoral sociologist writing for Brookings Institution. I'm not saying you're wrong that "riot" is a misnomer, but it doesn't matter, when you have journalists, academics, prominent politicians, and tabloids all using the term, we can verifiably claim that it's "also known as" that term. ~Swarm~   {talk}  00:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)