Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where was the quote about open carry

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

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

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

References

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

Potential acid-attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found a reliable source about this.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions: Cillizza

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

David Duke comment

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

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

Or, the more likely one:

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

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

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

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

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

Videos by Jason Kessler

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

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

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

WikiProject Donald Trump?

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

Proud Boys

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

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

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

Jason Kessler is a member of the Proud Boys.[2] McInnes did say he stayed away because he "saw that thing going white nationalist, white power.”", so I'm not sure if it should be removed or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

license plates and car brands

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

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

Infobox Content

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

I suggest an infobox change such as [3]. It seems more detailed and has more information. Also, considering pages such as 2015–16 protests in Brazil, 2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests have this infobox, "civil conflict" seems appropriate for me. --2804:14C:33:9AC7:801:6C9C:9D97:72E1 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

This Slate article[4] popped up on my iPod this morning. It says running over protestors is " a long-running right-wing fantasy of running over protesters, especially members of Black Lives Matter who have blocked intersections and highways during rallies " and "“Run them over” is a popular anti-BLM catchphrase" Seems popular with the police also. Slate gives a number of examples ending up with one about this attack: "After news broke that a woman had been killed at the counterprotest, a Massachusetts patrolman commented on Facebook: “Hahahaha love this, maybe people shouldn’t block road ways." It also lists some failed legislative attempts. " Across the country, Republicans legislators have attempted to codify the idea that protesters surrender their rights when they stand in the road." Although this incident is mention at Vehicle-ramming attack none of the rest is. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Car attack coverage - victim v. suspect

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

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

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

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

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

Images and video

More images of a vigil in Santa Barbara here

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

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

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

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

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

southern poverty law center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does it hurt? They are a clearly Bias citation. That's like saying "Per Black Lives Matter, "Cops are killing more blacks" " on their website. Anything that is posted by a group that's sole purpose is destroying Alt-Right groups, should have a proverb. I forgot who they were until I clicked the link after reading it 5 times thinking they were some organization that reports boths sides... But they're not. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It could be best to mention it then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Because BLM's website is a reliable source... But its clearly bias... It's not like the UCLA. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIASED. Whether or not you think they are biased is not important. In addition, as has already been pointed out to you this bias which you are harping on about is a bias that more than 95% of the population shares. It is a bias that is based on an accurate knowledge of genetics, history and evolution and a logically sound standard of ethics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

95%?? WTF did you get that number? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you contending that more than 5% of the population openly supports white supremacy? Otherwise, if you're suggesting that I'm underestimating opposition to racist, hateful ideology, then you might be on to something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am asking where did you get that 95% at? Where are your datasets. If you actually ran the numbers came up with a 95% confidence level, so be it. But, if you just pulled it out of your ass, stake claim to that as well. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've already answered your question. Are you going to answer mine? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

No. I want to see your datasets.Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You Can't Always Get What You Want. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

^^^^^ Just because you don't think it should be added, doesn't mean it shouldn't. Why do you care so much?Gvstaylor1 (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please tell that to every liberal and republican in America that its not important then... Cuz we always get reliable and accurate information from them that's not skewed at all to fit their agenda right? This is the problem with Wikipedia, and we wonder why its not a "reputable" site for research. Also, read the First sentence of WP:biased you shared. The article should be unbias, but here we are relying heavily on a bias source. Oh... read the end of the same article " Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." explain to me why we aren't? Gvstaylor1 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The main problem with the quote in the "protesters" section, that I think requires modification, is that it is factually inaccurate (and very biased, though quote bias has already been covered) when it characterizes "immigration foes" as a hate/far-right extremist group. What about taking out the quotation marks and summarizing the quote without the inclusion of "immigration foes," an ellipsis, or some other restructuring of the quote that removes "immigration foes"? Joeparsec (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I made the changes to correct this, and upon a second reading I'm still finding factual inaccuracy with this SPLC quote in the same vein as the "immigration foes." Again, it's about using "hate-gathering," and "far-right extremist groups" to inaccurately characterize "militia types" as well as "white nationalists." I think characterizing "white nationalists" as such is more debatable so I will skip this for now to focus on "militia types," a phrase that is too general to to be accurately described as such. As you all know militias are mentioned in the US Constitution and they are not necessarily hate/far-right extremist groups. For example, the Black Panther Militia inspired the New Black Panther Party; militias can also be left-leaning or a-political. Maybe this SPLC quote contains enough established factual inaccuracies, as well as debatable ones, that it's more trouble than it's worth to include? Can we at least come to a consensus to replace "militia types" with an ellipsis? Joeparsec (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose replacing "militia types" with an ellipsis. When we directly quote a source, we don't get to cherry-pick the parts that we like and delete the "inaccurate" parts.
• The SPLC piece was written before the event, so it's just a prediction of who was expected to show up. It's outdated and needs to be replaced with a discussion of what actually took place.
• Like many sources, SPLC publishes both POV commentary and objective statistics. Unless their data is shown to be unreliable, we can include their observations of who showed up and what took place.Dlthewave (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dlthewave If you don't want to cherry-pick the quote then it shouldn't be included because it is not factually accurate to say "immigration foes" constitute far-right extremism, let alone a hate group. Would we include the quote if it said, "includes far-right extremist groups - from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to anti-Semitic bigots, Proud Boys...etc." No, we wouldn't include it because it's not accurate, nor is "immigration foes." For now, until someone updates it with current information as you suggested (and I agree), I propose we at least cherry-pick out the "immigration foes" as I previously did.Joeparsec (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I support deleting the SPLC paragraph altogether. The next paragraph contains an up-to-date list of which groups actually attended. Dlthewave (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that, for the same reason you pointed out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Done! Dlthewave (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Lets also do this, Apple just donated millions of dollars to this org in response to the violent rallies... How about we make a section for SPLC then explaining it there?Gvstaylor1 (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Please read WP:STICK. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

lol... good talk Gvstaylor1 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Page name

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You fire off the phrase "hilariously ignorant assumptions" and call me "vapid" then you have the gall to verbosely cite civility? Tut tut. I don't appreciate your aggressive tone and posturing. Please keep discussion on point to the article. GhostJackal (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't call you vapid, I called your argument vapid. Because it was. It was utterly worthless from a logical standpoint, possibly one of the most useless arguments you could have made. Furthermore, don't presume to lecture me about staying on topic when you decided to personalize the discussion with your previous few comments. You are still new here and that grants some leeway, but continuing to push this will almost certainly result in sanctions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop being so aggressive and inflammatory towards me. I personally did not see the suggestion as "worthless" or "useless", hence why I made it. The discussion was civil until you first personalized it by saying making hilariously ignorant assumptions, at which point you changed the tone, not me. I didn't find that very professional or polite, actually belittling and bullying, and quite contrary to the civility code you posted. Or are you actually are upset about me suggesting to read the sentence from a secondary point of view outside of your own. It was your own opinion of how you personally read the sentence that lead to you making a seemingly objective conclusion, and that's why I responded with that so called "useless" "vapid" argument, to soft prompt you to also see how it could be read another way. If that is the crux of the matter, I am sorry for incidentally and accidentally upsetting you. Either way, I still hold that the description in the article is too leading and revealing of personal identifiers and does not protect the privacy of the person to which it alludes. And it was not even my suggestion, in fact it stems from a suggestion that changed my original point of view. GhostJackal (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Drop the stick before you hit yourself with it. Seriously. I'm not even reading your comments beyond the point where I realize that you're still taking it all way too personally. And don't throw wikilinks at the regulars: It's rude and condescending and makes the less charitable among us start wondering if this isn't your first rodeo. There's not a wikilink you can find that anyone with a few years experience hasn't already read a dozen times. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine, if you can't drop the stick, I will. You win, I concede, whatever you need to hear to let this go. I don't even know what you want but you can have it ._. GhostJackal (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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

I was referring to your original comment that the details should be reduced further, which I think is a very good suggestion. Well it's not an argument, but it is part of the discussion and a reasonable opinion. GhostJackal (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Mace deployment

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

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

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

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

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

What exactly are you looking for? Does this help?[5]

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

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

Is Trump really relevant to this, or vice versa?

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

---

I'm not being facetious with that question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♠Ace Frahm♠^talk

04:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

You can't blame the media for his decision to hold a press conference and have a meltdown or for saying there were some fine people on both sides.[6]. Doug Weller talk 05:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nah, I brought my own.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not that he was too late, that was Monday. Yesterday changed it again. NPR:[7] "I'm not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I'm saying is this — you had a group on one side, and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch," Trump said. "But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left, you've just called them the left, that came, violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is." Pointing out that one group had a permit, "the other group didn't have a permit." "So I only tell you this, there are two sides to a story." Explaining his delay ""I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct. Not make a quick statement," the president said. "The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don't make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts. And it's a very, very important process to me. ... I want to know the facts." NPR contrasts this with the rapidity at which he reacted to other incidents eg the Pulse night club and his criticism of the London Mayor after the London attacks. NPR also has the complete statement. He says businessmen leaving his council are leaving "Because they're not taking their job seriously as it pertains to this country." Doug Weller talk 08:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

You might see it this way:

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

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

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

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

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

 Resolved

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