Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Adding context to clarify Trump's "fine people" comment not allowed?

I attempted to clarify Trump's "fine people" comments by citing the actual transcript of his words but my edits were quickly scrubbed by your numerous leftist censors. Why is a factual edit using reliable news sources (The LA times) disallowed? Especially when the purpose is to lend much needed context to a topic which is misunderstood or misinterpreted by a large section of this site's readers?

16stumps (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I assume that you're referring to this edit.[1] Second, please don't cast aspirations on your fellow editors. Address the content, not the editors. Third, I wouldn't use the word "clarified" since this may be Trump just spinning his comments. Let's stick with a more neutral word such as "said". Fourth, you are using a transcript which is basically a WP:PRIMARY source for our purposes. However...

MrX, Acroterion, Levivich: Would any of these sources be acceptable for this content?[2][3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No. The first two sources don't say that one comments is clarifying the other. The third source is an non-noteworthy opinion as far as I can tell.- MrX 🖋 20:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quest! I don't think the addition of "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" is WP:DUE because it's really just a restatement of "very fine people on both sides". In both quotes, what Trump is saying is that the Unite the Right protesters included both good and bad people, that not all the protesters were neo-nazis/white nationalists/racists/bad guys, and not all the counter-protesters were good guys (some had helmets and bats). He made that point in a number of different ways during his statements. I agree with you that we shouldn't call it a "clarification" because the RSes don't support that characterization, and if it's not a clarification, then I don't see why we'd add it (since we already have it in the article, this point he's making about good people on both sides). Of the three sources you posted, only the contributed op-ed by John Lott, Jr. published in The Hill actually focused on that portion of the quote ("I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis ...") and characterized it as a clarification, and his opinion, alone, doesn't sway me that it's DUE, when (AFAIK) the great weight of RSes don't give this interpretation. (In fact, Lott's point in that piece is that the great weight of RSes are overlooking this quote.) I don't think this viewpoint is a significant minority viewpoint that should be included, because I don't think there's enough RSes to establish that (of course I could be wrong). Leviv ich 20:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so just to make sure we're all on the same page here... The relevant section of text currently reads as follows:

Trump defended his August 12 statement and repeated his claim that there was "blame on both sides". He also defended White House advisor Steve Bannon, and accused the media of unfair treatment of the rally's participants. Trump said: "Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch." Trump said that the push to remove Confederate statues was an attempt to "change history". Trump also said that there were "very fine people on both sides". Trump criticized what he called the "very, very violent ... alt-left",

References

The attempted change by DaveJayRave42 suggests expanding the Trump quote to "You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Trump said "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.", with a ref to the LA Times transcript. A similar change was attempted earlier by 16stumps.

Some concerns about WP:UNDUE were raised, so we should take a look at what the sources for that section of text say:

• The NYTimes ref (even though it says Washington Post in the citation? That's probably a typo...) describes the statement as follows: “I think there is blame on both sides,” the president said in a combative exchange with reporters at Trump Tower in Manhattan. “You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say that. I’ll say it right now.” Mr. Trump defended those gathered in a Charlottesville park to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee. “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups,” he said. “Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.” He criticized “alt-left” groups that he claimed were “very, very violent” when they sought to confront the white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups that had gathered in Charlottesville.. It doesn't mention the "fine people on both sides" line.
• The CNN ref says Trump said while he condemned the neo-Nazi elements of the protest, some protesters were there for acceptable purposes., and quotes the same "I've condemned many people" and "Not all of those people" lines, but doesn't mention "fine people on both sides".
• The ABC ref says Asked about his immediate response Saturday, Trump quickly went on to blame both sides of protestors for the conflict, adding that there were “very fine people” in both the group of white supremacists and white nationalists as well as among the counter-protesters. “I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame object on both sides,” Trump said during his remarks today. “You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he added.
• The Telegraph ref says Asked by a reporter in response if "what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?" Mr Trump dodged the question. He simply said: "I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups." but doesn't otherwise mention "fine people on both sides".
• The NBC news ref says Trump said those protesting the white nationalists “came charging with clubs in hands” and repeatedly said they did not have a permit to be there. He said that it was unfair to suggest that all the torch-wielding marchers at the rally were Nazis or white supremacists. “I think there is blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either,” Trump told the media. “And if you reported it accurately, you would say it.” It doesn't mention the "fine people on both sides" line.
• Also, the Time ref brought up by A Quest For Knowledge above says: “You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides,” Trump said Tuesday. “You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of — to them — a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” “You know what? It’s fine. You’re changing history, you’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, and the press has treated them very unfairly.”

I think the problem here is that the positioning of the "very fine people on both sides" quote implies that Trump considered the Nazis and white supremacists to be "very fine people", which is not what he was saying. I think any reasonable reading of the above RSs and the transcript will show that the point Trump was making was as follows:

tl;dr Trump says: Very not fine people, to blame, should be condemned: White nationalists/neo-Nazis, violent alt-left. Very fine people, not to blame: People on the right there to peacefully protest the taking down of the statue, people on the left there to peacefully protest.

I think this can be clarified even without adding new content; just reordering the existing text could do a lot. -- Ununseti (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the sudden increase in editors attempting to "correct" this quote is likely related to Joel Pollock's segment on Breitbart News Tonight this past Monday, 18 March 2019 ([5]). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• It has also been discussed recently in Scott Adams' podcast. From the transcript of Trump's statement, it is clear the "very fine people" referred explicitly to the opposing sides of the monument debate. The full quote is "But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." Trump clarifies it a few sentences later when he says "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." The article, at present, does not do a good job of clarifying this point, and in fact somewhat misleads the reader. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Context is required to understand our coverage of the quote as well: "[Trump's] statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were seen by critics as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them, and were interpreted by many as a sign that he was sympathetic to white supremacy." We are reporting the fact that Trump's statement attracted criticism, not making a judgement of whether or not that criticism was justified. If mainstream sources discuss a misinterpretation of the comments, we can certainly include that as well in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, but it would not change the fact that his statements received criticism. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - How can any description of criticism of Trump's statement be deemed fair if it excludes Trump's explicit denial of the core of critics' claims? How can it be accurate to depict the critics' opinions, on the one hand, but considered irrelevant or redundant to include a direct quote from Trump demonstrating that Trump actually said the opposite? Why not state, "Despite explicitly stating that 'neo-Nazis and white nationalists...should be condemned totally', critics persisted to assert that the phrase 'fine people on both sides' included the very people he explicitly condemned." To do otherwise is to aid in the distortion of the actual facts on record about Trump's statements. It makes it seem as though what Trump's critics claim about his words are more relevant than his actual words. Milkchaser (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia! EvergreenFir (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Milkchaser, because what is fair is that we reflect what is written in reliable sources, not an individual editor's analysis of what is fair or what they think Trump really meant. This has been explained quite well in this section, including the comment directly above yours. - MrX 🖋

Because reliable sources chose to misrepresent this comment to push a narrative that simply wasn't true. However it's quite easy to go read the quote yourself and see that the way the Wikipedia article presents it is factually incorrect. But that doesn't matter does it? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

MrX, how can a section about Trump's third statement include the phrase "fine people on both sides" without also mentioning Trump's explicit exclusion of "neo-Nazis and white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" (as well as his condemnation of violent protesters on the left who were also at the rally) from the group of fine people? If not, the reader is left to believe that "fine people on both sides" included those he explicitly excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkchaser (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is not at all a question of what is written in reliable sources as there is video of his Third statement (the subject of the disputed paragraph). We might have to go to various reliable sources to find criticism of Trump and characterizations of his words, but need only to view the video to transcribe the full quote from Trump, which explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Trump's actual words are relevant in a paragraph about his statement on the rally. To exclude them might portray bias.

• Comment - First question, what is considered a reliable source? I've had edits in the past removed because I quote The Federalist, or Real Clear Investigations. It seems like "reliable" means "not conservative". Second, I understand this quote is disputed and wikipedia needs to remain as neutral as possible. So wouldn't it be worthwhile to create a Controversy section on this page where the dispute can be fleshed out and perhaps where the entire relevant section of the transcript can be put on display? Ultimately it boils down to the question of who are the very fine people Trump is referring to. I understand that mainstream sources all take it to mean that he's referring to white nationalists, and not the people there to protest the statue getting taken down. But any honest reading of the transcript puts that characterization in dispute. You can think he's lying about it and just saying it to save face, but that's an interpretation. Wikipedia should be a place where a dispute is fleshed out. It shouldn't be a place where the editors all hide behind the New York Times and CNN. Ted Koppel said the other day that the New York Times and Washington Post are not the "reservoir of objectivity" that they used to be . Wikipedia should be the place to rise above this bias, not hide behind it. DaveJayRave42 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC) DaveJayRave42

References

• Comment - There is a remarkable amount of assumptions of bad faith, casting aspersions, and challenges to reliable sources in this section, none of which are useful on a talk page. O3000 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well said; there are fine editors on both sides. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Tom wins this thread. Leviv ich 16:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The primary challenge to reliable sources that I see if the reluctance to include Trump's full "fine people" statement in a paragraph referring to his Third statement. It is not casting aspersions to insist on accuracy and completeness. Milkchaser (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The press got it wrong here. The sources are reliable, not infallible. I don't know why they misrepresented and took out of context what the President said, but it's quite clear what he said when you look at the actual quote. The very fine people referred to the monument group, not the white nationalists. "But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." Then a few sentences later "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The neo-Nazis and white nationalists were one of the "sides", specifically the side protesting taking down the statue. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No that isn’t true. There were separate groups there for that. It was a separate protest, and there’s a couple videos from it. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, got a source for that? Unite the Right rally#Protestors lists only neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. The event was organized specifically by white supremacists for white supremacy. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I refer again to Trump's quote - "You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." There absolutely were white supremacist and neo-Nazi's at the protest. But there were also people there protesting for other reasons. Trump specifically excludes the Neo-Nazi's and white supremacists from his comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, but there was nobody there but white supremacists and neo-Nazis to refer to on that "side". You can point to Trump's quote, I can point out that Donald Trump is... less than a reliable source.[6][7][8][9] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You can make the case that people protesting the statue removal are white nationalists. You should outline that case here if you believe that. But it doesn't change the fact that Trump disavowed White Nationalists explicitly in this press conference as the transcript clearly shows. DaveJayRave42 (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

DaveJayRave42, the ones protesting the statue removal in Charlottesville at the Unite the Right rally were white nationalists. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone was there other than white nationalists, neo-Nazis, counterprotestors, police, reporters, and the city residents. I can't speak to each and every other Confederate monument, and those are not at issue here. What is clearly important to note is that Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comment was his THIRD attempt to address the situation, because his first two statements were so weak in their failure to denounce white nationalism, and that his actual statement denouncing white nationalism fell on deaf ears because it came right after the "very fine people on both sides" comment, which is what people on the left and the right (including David Duke) actually heard. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation of events was that Trump's first statement was rather lackluster in its condemnation; Trump's second statement was written by staff and was stronger in its condemnation, but Trump was unhappy about giving it; In his third statement, he went against the wishes of his advisors and completely backtracked on his second statement's condemnations, strongly defending his first statement. At a scheduled event about the permitting process for infrastructure, Mr. Trump asked for questions — contrary to the wishes of his aides, including John F. Kelly, his new chief of staff, who stood to the side, looking grim. Soon after the president was done, he wandered close to the velvet rope line which held the small group of about 20 reporters and photographers, his mood noticeably brighter. [10]

Muboshgu said: his actual statement denouncing white nationalism fell on deaf ears because it came right after the "very fine people on both sides" comment I don't disagree with you, but I think the "should be condemned totally" line has been mentioned in enough sources that it deserves a brief mention in the article. If you think the full quote is a bit WP:UNDUE, what about a short paraphrase? -- Ununseti (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ununseti,yes, I believe you're right about that Shane of events. I oversimplified it. I do think the quote can be included, as long as the context is correct, that it came after the "very fine people" remark, and the "very fine people" remark is what everyone remembers, not the denunciation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is why the full quote, wherein Trump explicitly excluded neo-Nazis and white supremacists from the group of "fine people" and called from them to be "condemned totally", should be included alongside the truncated "fine people" snippet. Leaving it out has led, as you explain, to an inaccurate and widespread misapprehension that he never drew a distinction between the two pro-monument factions. Milkchaser (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Milkchaser, there is no other pro-monument faction, at least not one that participated in this rally. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, there were "Confederate heritage groups" who had planned to be there (https://www.gazettenet.com/Hundreds-face-off-ahead-of-white-nationalist-rally-11830446). Surely, you do not believe that Trump, having a Jewish family, would be praising neo-nazis as "fine people" do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulej (talk • contribs) 16:53, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

@Paulej:, speaking as a Jewish person, yes, I do believe that Trump praised neo-Nazis and white supremacists as "fine people". Those "Confederate heritage groups" are white supremacists. (See Cornerstone Speech). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, here is one example of people who were not neo-Nazis or white supremacists who were present: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/trump-republicans-race.html

“Good people can go to Charlottesville,” said Michelle Piercy, a night shift worker at a Wichita, Kan., retirement home, who drove all night with a conservative group that opposed the planned removal of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee.
After listening to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, she said it was as if he had channeled her and her friends — all gun-loving defenders of free speech, she said, who had no interest in standing with Nazis or white supremacists: “It’s almost like he talked to one of our people.”

- Ashertg (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of the "fine people" passage

16stumps, DaveJayRave42, Milkchaser, MrX, Acroterion, Levivich: I've attempted to reword the relevant passage in a way that clarifies Trump's remarks. Here's my proposed rewording:

Trump defended his August 12 statement and repeated his claim that there was "blame on both sides". He said, "You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent." He criticized what he called the "very, very violent ... alt-left", saying that counter-demonstrators "came charging with clubs in their hands". He also claimed that they lacked a permit. The Washington Post and PolitiFact later contradicted Trump's claim about the permit. A municipal spokeswoman said that the counter-protestors did have a permit for two other nearby parks and "counterprotesters did not need permits to protest that rally" in Lee Park.

Trump defended White House advisor Steven Bannon, and accused the media of unfair treatment of the rally's participants. Trump said that it was unfair to suggest that all the protesters were neo-Nazis or white supremacists. Trump added, "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." Trump said some people were acceptably there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Trump lamented the push to remove Confederate statues, saying that this was an attempt to "change history".

References

Any feedback or thoughts on this? -- Ununseti (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I like this rewording and think it's fair. However, I still think it needs to be expanded in a way that explains the subsequent reactions we saw in the immediate aftermath of the event (that are correctly outlined on this page). While also indicating that this quote continues to be used today against the president to suggest he was saying there were fine people among the tiki-torch white nationalists when that continues to be disputed to this very day . So basically, I think we need to indicate the ongoing dispute over the intent behind these remarks. But perhaps that can be added or discussed later. DaveJayRave42 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• It's good writing and it's well-sourced (good job), and I wouldn't !oppose it. But my objection is that it is too long. The entire section is too long. The section on "Vehicular attack and homicide" is 1,500 words; the section on Trump's statement and the reaction to it is more than twice as long: 3,600 words. These proposals would make it even longer. That is soooo out of whack from an encyclopedic point of view. The rally wasn't about what Trump said about the rally–that's just mainstream news blah blah blah–the rally is about what happened at the rally (a white supremacist terrorist attack!), and that's what our article should focus on. So if it were up to me, I would reduce the entire "President Trump's statements" section from 3,600 words down to one paragraph, maybe even one sentence: "Trump was criticized for saying that there were good people on both sides." or something like that. I expect I'm in the minority on that. Leviv ich 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The rewrite does include a report "Trump said that it was unfair to suggest that all the protesters were neo-Nazis or white supremacists," and this is actually more words than just quoting Trump, "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." He went beyond drawing a distinction between "fine people" and racist groups - he condemned the racist groups. That is an important fact that seems to have gained importance over time by its persistent omission in a variety of less fact-oriented venues than wikipedia.

Since I am an infrequent editor, I defer to the judgment of more experienced editors. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to follow the suggestion of breaking out this aspect of controversy into its own section or article. Scott Adams has referred to this as "The Charlottesville Hoax" and "The 'Fine People' Hoax". He has characterized it as an example of false memories. The persistent refusal, in a variety of media, to include the entirety of Trump's characterization of the various distinct groups of protesters, has risen to a significance that really is more about Trump and his political future than it is about the original events that spurred his comments. I trust that there is a non-partisan way of outlining the facts without omitting important parts of the record. Milkchaser (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Levivich - I took a shot at shortening the addition. I don't know if I made it better or worse, but it's shorter :) Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump defended his August 12 statement and repeated his claim that there was "blame on both sides". He said, "You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent." He criticized what he called the "very, very violent ... alt-left", saying that counter-demonstrators "came charging with clubs in their hands". He claimed that they lacked a permit, but this was later contradicted by fact-checkers. and a municipal spokeswoman.

Trump defended White House advisor Steven Bannon, and accused the media of unfairly suggesting that all the protesters were neo-Nazis or white supremacists. He added, "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." Some people, he said, were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

References

@Guettarda: I think that's better! Thanks! Leviv ich 18:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• I maintain that you need the quote in there....

Trump defended White House advisor Steven Bannon, and accused the media of unfairly suggesting that all the protesters were neo-Nazis or white supremacists. He added, "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." Later clarifying "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." Some people, he said, were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

DaveJayRave42 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Oppose - This gives undue weight to the Trump quotes and leaves out critical pieces of analysis from the sources. Instead of simply using a string of he-said-she-said quotes from both sides, we should present the mainstream RS view of the situation, which is that Trump's comments drew criticism and, in some cases, were debunked. It's not accurate to say that the claim that counterprotesters lacked a permit was "contradicted"; the sources explicitly say that it was false.

If the mainstream sources got it wrong, please provide reliable sources that say otherwise. We don't just omit their analysis because you, as an editor, disagree with it. –dlthewave ☎ 01:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• By omitting Trumps quote “"But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." And I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally”.... you are perpetuating the myth that Trump said the Nazi / White Supremacist were very fine people, which he did not say. Watterg8 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

And to be clear, Trumps clarification was during the same press conference. Watterg8 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That quote is not omitted. It is included in the article, as a simple text search would demonstrate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nobody has an issue about the fact check about the permits. The controversy in this case is exclusively about the fact that Trump said white nationalists should be condemned totally and the feeling is that his direct quote should be included on this page to provide context. What I seem to be hearing from the more experienced editors here is that the mainstream Reliable Sources never included that quote or context, so therefore wikipedia should not include it either. And to be fair it makes sense because the reactions against the statement don't make any sense when the fact is included that he explicitly condemned the white nationalists so clearly. But the fact is the reactions against him were due to the fact that his reported comments excluded this fact. You have to link to the full transcript to see that he condemned them totally. So wikipedia is stuck between a rock and hard place. We have RS's that refuse to publish the full context, and yet we have the full transcript that clearly reveals the full context. Nobody is denying that Trump said the neo-nazis and white nationalists should be condemned totally. The dispute is over whether or not this direct quote should be included on the page. What does wikipedia do when the Reliable Sources aren't reliable? That is the question DaveJayRave42 (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The proposal would replace "Trump criticized what he called the "very, very violent ... alt-left", and falsely stated that counter-demonstrators lacked a permit. A municipal spokeswoman said that the counter-protestors did have a permit for two other nearby parks and "counterprotesters did not need permits to protest that rally" in Lee Park." with "He also claimed that they lacked a permit. The Washington Post and PolitiFact later contradicted Trump's claim about the permit. A municipal spokeswoman said that the counter-protestors did have a permit for two other nearby parks and "counterprotesters did not need permits to protest that rally" in Lee Park.

If you believe that the current content is not reliably sourced, you may raise your concerns at WP:RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 04:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• You are completely missing the point of the dispute on this page. It has nothing to do with the counter protester's permits. DaveJayRave42 (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with this source, but it seems to do a good job explaining both the "fine people" comment as well as the media's bogus narrative: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html Rklawton (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I would support Guettarda's shorter version. More succinct than what I wrote! I'm ambivalent about DaveJayRave42's proposal about adding the "should be condemned totally" quote. The number of quotes might be getting long at this point, and some people may be getting ansty about WP:UNDUE or WP:LONGQUOTE. Maybe a briefer paraphrased version of it would be more reasonable.

If someone can think of an better wording for "contradicted", I'd probably be okay with it. I mainly just wanted to avoid the wording "falsely stated", because that implies Trump knowingly lied, and we don't know if he did that. Jon Stewart has also made statements that turned out to be false, but we don't say he "falsely stated" it. (Though admittedly, in this case, Stewart acknowledged his error.)

Some people have characterized Trump's "they should be condemned totally" as a non-sincere backtracking; other people assert that his "should be condemned totally" line clarified some unfortunate wording in his original remarks a few sentences earlier. Some people argue that downplaying the role of the neo-Nazis/white supremacists with the "both sides" rhetoric is disingenuous. Some people argue even if there were non-Nazis in the protester crowd, they were knowingly protesting with neo-Nazis and white supremacists with swastikas in full view, and that makes them guilty by association.

None of that is relevant here. This passage is to describe what Trump said, not to analyze or condemn or criticize or debunk what he said. We have paragraphs and paragraphs later in the section that already do that.

I don't really agree with the argument that this portrayal of Trump's remarks is not supported by RS views: I've read through the NYTimes, CNN, ABC, Telegraph, NBC sources that are currently used in the article. (The Time source from above is also good.) Most of these sources do include the proper context and do make it clear (imo) that Trump was referring to the non-violent people who were there for "acceptable" reasons on both sides when he said "fine people". (Whether his argument is valid or not is another story.) I don't personally believe the media was intentionally intending to mislead people. I think the main problem is that people don't read articles, and "Nazis == fine people" is a very simple, viral interpretation, and so it spread very quickly. -- Ununseti (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand these points being made and I do believe that perhaps many people have interpreted Trump's comments as endorsing neo-Nazis and white nationalists. But some have also criticized him for suggesting that "very fine people" were participating with them and that very fine people would not participate in such a rally. I don't know how much of these people think that no very fine people would protest the statue removal simply because of the Confederacy and slavery but I understand that the particularly outrageous nature of the demonstrations were seized upon. So in these people's minds, the presence of such people, along with the rally being organized as a white supremacist event, meant that there were no very fine people participating. Personally though, I do give this guy some leniency https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/08/16/arkansas-linked-charlottesville-marcher-identified-apologizes-to-those-misidentified72.76.163.6 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant ancillary commentary in section on Trump's third statement

There is a paragraph concerning corporate reaction to Trump's various statements from James Murchoch. Following Murdoch's statement, which does bear on the subject of Trump's statements about Charlottesville, there is an irrelevant parenthetical comment about Murdoch. While this comment seems to be cited correctly, it is commentary on commentary on the original subject. Moreover, the criticisms the pundits raise about James Murdoch have more to do with Fox News and its perceived pro-Trump bias than about the subject of this section of the article, which is reaction to Trump's various statements on the Charlottesville protests and the violence there. I propose that the following parenthetical passage be stricken entirely.

"(Murdoch's statement drew some criticism from media columnists, including The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin and Erik Wemple, who have accused Fox News Channel for helping bring Trump to the political mainstream and its repeated defense of his administration as well as perpetuating a culture of exploiting female employees and using dog-whistle commentary on its opinion programs.)"

As further evidence that this kind of commentary on commentary is irrelevant, I would point out that:

• We do not see similar criticism of other people who are quoted in this section. For instance, Jerrold Nadler and Nancy Pelosi are not criticized for their perceived anti-Trump bias in the paragraphs that quote their commentary.
• We do see criticism of the inflammatory statement from Missouri State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, but that criticism is focused on the inappropriateness of her particular call for Trump's assassination. It is not criticism of other aspects of her public career, as is the parenthetical passage about James Murdoch.

The parenthetical passage would be appropriate in an article focused on Fox News or its CEO, but is out of place in an article about Trump. Milkchaser (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, if the passage is stricken, the references to the opinion articles would need to be removed as well. These are currently number 351 and 352. While the headlines to these opinion articles do reference Trump's comments that they perceive as racist, the bulk of the article is focused on aspects of Trump coverage from Fox News that have nothing to do with the rally or Trump's specific statement on the rally. They repeat criticisms of Trump for his perceived racism (citing their version of events that do not bear on the rally), but each article has very little to say about Trump's statement (other than to quote Murdoch's pointed criticism of it) nor on the "Unite the Right" rally. They are both largely general critiques of Trump coverage from Fox News as well as some of the sexual harassment issues there.

In short, these articles are classic examples of using a current event in a headline as a hook to an article voicing an opinion that does not clearly bear on the event. So not only is the parenthetical passage irrelevant to this section on Trump's third statement of the "Unite the Right" rally, but the cited opinion articles barely mention it.

• Erik Wemple (August 18, 2017). "Hey, James Murdoch: You have no standing to denounce Trump's Charlottesville reaction". The Washington Post. Nash Holdings LLC. Retrieved August 23, 2017.
• Jennifer Rubin (August 18, 2017). "To curtail hate, James Murdoch must clean house at Fox News". The Washington Post. Nash Holdings LLC. Retrieved August 23, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkchaser (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Arguable editorialising in 7.8.3

I would argue that the following two paragraphs are editorialising and should not exist in their current form:

"Additionally, President Trump's apparent condemnation of the explicitly neo-Nazi and racist contingents of those who attended the Unite the Right rally was undercut by statements he made at the Trump Tower press conference confirming that he had watched the "tiki torch march" that moved through the University of Virginia campus on the night of August 11th, an event which the president appeared not to find objectionable." "The president's observations appeared to have paid no regard to the protesters chanting of explicitly racist slogans, or to the fact that fighting broke out between protesters and counter protesters during the march."

The use of the word 'apparent' is unnecessary given what was indeed an eventual explicit condemnation, and the claims about his condemnation being 'undercut' are the opinions of the writer. The word 'apparent' should be removed entirely and the argument that his condemnation was undercut only kept if reworded as the argument of a relevant source, properly cited. The second paragraph is unnecessary and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.54.54 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Factually false edit reverted

I have reverted this edit because it's factually false and misleading. The sentence in question refers to Trump's initial statement on August 12; however, the inserted reference and wording is obviously from a separate statement at a press conference on August 15, several days later. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit

This edit was removed with faulty reasoning. The NY Times article mentions a "conservative group" and the second article included as a reference corroborates the group. Seeking consensus to have this reverted. Subuey (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Media Equalizer doesn't appear to be a WP:RS. There are WP:SYNTH issues as well. Using a comment quoted from a member of this obscure group to an unreliable source for vague, flattering details is not appropriate for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

And what would those reasons be? Like I said, they were also quoted in the NYT article. Subuey (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times doesn't mention American Warrior Revolution by name, and the article does not imply that Trump was actually talking about that group. –dlthewave ☎ 22:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your second point is fair enough, although the quote they included would seem to suggest that Trump was talking about them, so in a way it did. To your first point I don't see why it matters. I think the group still should be included in this article. Subuey (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you know any reliable sources discussing this group, other than the name of a single member? Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not see where you are getting your criteria that it must discuss it further than interviewing a "single member". This is standard practice for an article. I think you should answer my question before I answer yours. (Yes, there are other sources, if you are looking for inclusion of the group's name.) Subuey (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The text was clear WP:SYNTH, and the op-ed in something called "Media Equalizer" is obviously not a reliable source for anything. Neutrality^talk 02:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Other sources here and here By the way, why is it "obviously" not a reliable source? Subuey (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those sources make the Trump connection that your text did (that Trump was "apparently referencing to" this particular, obscure group) so yeah, that's WP:SYNTH (btw, the Washington Times is a very poor source). Neutrality^talk 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, but the New York Times article hinted at it with the quote they published. In any case, the text can be changed. You did not answer my question by the way. Instead you throw in another unfounded claim. hm...Subuey (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Some marchers

We don't know if all marchers did the chanting or only some marchers did it. Therefore, it would be better to go with whatever one or more of the seven sources has to say about it. Anybody who makes a change to this wording should be prepared to cite a source. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The name of the park

The usage of "Lee Park" throughout the article seems to be inaccurate. According to the Daily Progress, Lee Park was renamed Emancipation Park in June 2017 and then changed to Market Street Park in July 2018. Reliable sources generally use Emancipation Park, sometimes mentioning "formerly known as Lee Park".

It makes sense to use either the current name or the name at the time of the rally, but there is no reason to use the old Lee Park name. –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, unless there is a reason to use the old name, such as if the park is known primarily by the old name despite the official change. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Some views by cartoonist Scott Adams

• https://www.scottadamssays.com/2018/02/14/charlottesville-fake-news-best-persuasion-play-past-year/
• https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/413801-dilbert-creator-defends-trump-remarks-on-charlottesville
• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html
• https://thebulwark.com/the-charlottesville-hoax-hoax/
• https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/04/30/the-fine-people-hoax-funnel/
• https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-01/dilbert-creator-exposes-liberal-medias-fine-people-hoax-funnel
• https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/donald-trump-continues-to-defend-the-racist-protesters-in-charlottesville/
• https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18517980/trump-unite-the-right-racism-defense-charlottesville
• https://www.scottadamssays.com/tag/charlottesville-hoax/
• https://twitter.com/Robby42394165/status/1124719596374769664?s=20
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/trump-republicans-race.html

Also, mention Trump's tweets that day prior to the "many sides" statement.72.76.163.6 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And the point of this long list of links to cartoonist Scott Adams's views is...what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Charlottesville historic monument controversy

See

• Charlottesville historic monument controversy
• Category:Charlottesville historic monument controversy

We are at the third year of global attention on this issue. Last year I started this article about the monument controversy. There were and still are multiple monuments at the center of this, as well as multiple court cases, 10+ individual big personalities including politicians and activists, and many demonstrations. The Unite the Right rally was a big event peaking over about 3 days, but the controversy itself has been heightened since at least a year before the Unite the Right Rally. There are court cases going on now and in local news unrelated to Unite the Right but related to the monument controversy. I live in Charlottesville and have been surprised to see how different the national and international news is in comparison to local journalism and common knowledge among people here.

Besides the confederate statues there is also scrutiny about all the Jefferson monuments with him being an advocate of slavery and also about Lewis and Clark statues with them being advocates of white takeover of Native American land. The national news has focused on one confederate statue, but locally in Charlottesville the issue has always been more complicated.

I am not aware of anyone sorting the local journalism into a coherent narrative. There are individual stories like for example see this paper from March 2019 -

• Provence, Lisa (6 March 2019). "The plaintiffs: Who's who in the fight to keep Confederate monuments". C-VILLE Weekly.

This newspaper article is currently the subject of a libel lawsuit.

If anyone wants to engage with this topic on this anniversary weekend then consider building out this angle of the broader monument controversy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: You removed my edit where I added this information to the article. I have to apologize from my side - you are right and I am in error.

I looked around more and I regret to say that I am wrong. I am not able to identify any media which associates Unite the Right with a general monument controversy.

I know how Wikipedia works but seeing this up close as a Charlottesville resident, I am going to go out and say that every single source cited in this article is bogus and incorrect. At the time of Unite the Right there were multiple monuments in controversy and even today controversies on monuments extend in multiple directions, including about Confederate war heroes, Thomas Jefferson's advocacy for slavery, and Lewis and Clark as symbols of Native American oppression. The impetus for Unite the Right was one lawsuit about one statue but that was in the context of that one statue's removal being a precedent and model for changing many monuments within this one town, and probably the state, and probably the country. People knew that then and now still.

Overall the news is sensationalized to the detriment of both sides, for and against the monuments. For the pro monument side leaving out the broader controversy makes monument advocates seem crazy and wild, which some were, but I really regret the absence of information about the multiple monument lawsuits. The legal arguments of the pro monument side are useful discourse which ought to be in the open but court filings are copyrighted and court filings are not machine readable so I guess there is no way to access them. For the anti-monument side making this about one statue omits all the activism about the other statues and causes.

Charlottesville is a town of ~40k people where ~20k are students, almost all of whom leave after graduation. That makes this a town of 20k which apparently leads to not much media representation to tell a story. Or otherwise - maybe I am the one with the misunderstanding, and maybe all these monument issues are unrelated to each other. Something seems off here. The problem does not originate with Wikipedia, and thanks BeenAroundAWhile - you did the correct thing too. Maybe a media reflection of local belief does not exist, or maybe it does and neither I nor anyone else has found it, or maybe the problem is with me being on the moon wrong about all this. If the entire global media failed to report a connection then the weight of the evidence would seem to be that I am the one in the wrong. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description

The current short description is "August 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia." Wouldn't something like "August 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia" be more appropriate and descriptive? I know what the name of the rally was, but unless I'm mistaken, not all far-right politics is explicitly associated with white supremacy. This rally was explicitly organized as a white supremacist event, not an event about far-right politics in general. There are plenty of other events, such as Tea Party rallies, for example, that could probably be accurately described as far-right rallies, but yet are not explicitly about white supremacy. Also, I'm pretty sure a lot more people know what white supremacy is than far-right politics. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding POV video to article

The video in question

commons:File:CHARLOTTESVILLE Scenes from the Alt-Right demonstration in Charlottesville Virginia on May 13 2017.webm

As explained on my talk page here, editor Victorgrigas is

...of the philosophy that each separate section could probably be illustrated in some way.

There is, of course, no policy or guideline which encourages editing in this manner. In fact, WP:NOTGALLERY -- i.e. "Wikipedia is not a photo gallery" -- would seem to advise completely the opposite.

In any case, because the "Summer rallies in Charlottesville" section was not accompanied by an illustration, Victorgrigas added a video to it. The video lists as its author AltRight.com with the URL to a YouTube channel of that name: [11]. Other links on the file information page are:

• www.altright.com
• www.altright.com/donate/
• www.gab.ai/AltRight_com

This is clearly a promotional POV videotape, and should not be allowed to be in our article, even when the caption clearly says it's promotional. The value to the reader is insignificant, while giving an alt-right organization a public platform to spread their propaganda does inestimable harm to Wikipedia's drive to present information neutrally.

I ask that this video be deleted from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for moving the discussion here, I should have started it here in the first place. Also thank you for mentioning the promotional urls in the file info - I just deleted them from the commons file, video2commons usually catches those before I upload. I should mention I am NOT an alt-right/neo-nazi etc. supporter, my interest in this material is to give the public a better understanding of the topic, in this case the events leading up to, during and after the rally.

So per the above:

WP:NOTGALLERY states (per images):

Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: ... Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

The video I added was captioned with accompanying text which read "Video produced by AltRight.com and published on May 16, 2017 promoting the May 13 event (Note that audio has been removed due to copyright restrictions)." The video advertisement is noted as such - it's promotional. I certainly don't want to promote the so called alt-right agenda. If providing a descriptive caption isn't appropriate or isn't enough, I'm curious if a freeze-frame or a short edit of the video might work? The caption could mention the event and mention how it was promoted with images of tiki-torch carrying and such. I do want to mention that I thought that this video was surprising because initially I thought it was of the main event, which tells me that it was likely used to promote and was seen by many attendees of the main event. Showing this video-advertising, and contextualizing it AS advertising I think is useful to Wikipedia's users so they get an understanding of how events like these are promoted. I don't think we need the whole video. It could be a freeze frame or a short snippet, but I think there is a loss of knowledge about how such a rally could even get promoted to get so big in the first place without these images. I am curious what others think? Victor Grigas (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The primary concern is not WP:NOTGALLERY, it's WP:NPOV. Simply labelling a propaganda film as a propaganda film does not offset the fact that by including it in an Wikipedia article, more people will be exposed to the propaganda than would otherwise have seen it normally. That might be OK if the propaganda involved was Triumph of the Will, but this is not. It doesn't even have an audio track to explain what the images are showing, because of copyright problems (presumably with whatever copyrighted music was used as background). It really has zero value for our readers, but the use of it has a lot of value for the propagandists.

Speaking of which, as I explained on my talk page, both WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD call for the article to remain in the status quo ante while discussion takes place. Why, then, haven't you removed the video from the article yet? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

OK! I've removed the video from the page. Anyone can add the video or a screenshot later if that's deemed useful. I am looking for images of the candlelight vigil too, but haven't found any yet. Victor Grigas (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Matthew Q. Gebert

State Department staffer Matthew Q. Gebert was in attendance at the rally [12]. Where should this be in the article? Victor Grigas (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Gebert was identified by his brother in a photo at a May 2017 rally in Charlottesville, not this one. He doesn't belong in this article.Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Presentism and oversourcing

This article suffers from the increasing problem on Wikipedia of Presentism and oversourcing. The first sentence of the Lead is broken into sections with a total of seven sources for non-controversial facts: the name of the rally, the location and dates. This is absurd. All the facts are covered in the body and none need to be sourced in the first sentence. It goes on in similar style from there, overloaded with non-conflicting sources over basic content. There are far too many details in the Lead, all the classifications of groups, descriptions of weapons, etc. but a reader can hardly learn about why the rally took place. The frenzy to present breaking news on Wikipedia is not aiding construction of encyclopedia articles.Parkwells (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Question separate article on car attack

Why is there a separate article on Fields's car attack? He wouldn't have been in Charlottesville except to attend the rally. His attack seems integral to these events, not something to be treated separately, even though he was tried as an individual. I would never be searching for an article "Charlottesville car attack" in relation to these events. I realize I could officially propose a merger of the two articles, but wanted to bring up the issue here first. Parkwells (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support a merge/redirect. Neutrality^talk 22:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that merging the two articles would make this article too long to navigate comfortably. This article is already, at approx. 300 kilobytes, a really big article. Merging the 77kB Charlottesville car attack article into this one would make it even harder to navigate. Per WP:AS, it probably wouldn't be the best idea to merge. I think the section Unite the Right rally#Vehicular attack and homicide gives enough basic information, and it also links to the main article. --Hmxhmx 17:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 VCDL Lobby day - activists banned from Charlotte to attend

" The convoys and militias are coming, if social media posts are to be believed, headed to Virginia's capital to take a stand for gun rights — or, in the words of some, to fan the flames of a civil war. “I’ll be rolling into town early. I can’t give you my exact time for security reasons,” said Christian Yingling, head of the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia and a leader at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017.

“I organized a convoy, places we can meet up and drive up together. I’ll be leading it,” said Tammy Lee, a militia activist in Oklahoma. Both Lee and Yingling were members of groups that signed consent decrees never to return to Charlottesville while armed, part of a lawsuit settlement over the violence there. But there is no restriction against coming to Richmond."[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This entry is not encyclopedic

This might as well have been written by antifa. It makes no effort to be objective. It is merely yet another anti-white attack page. 2604:2000:1580:425C:ACB5:BF88:AA9D:F567 (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |}

In popular culture section

wp:notforum --Calton | Talk 11:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cleaning up the timeline of events

The timeline of events of the rally on this page is currently quite jumbled, with several events (like the fight involving DeAndre Harris) being repeated in two different sections.

It'd be a strong improvement to restructure the Timeline section so events aren't repeated, and events are written in the correct chronological order and not out of order. For example, the rally started at 11 AM, an unlawful assembly was declared at 11:22 AM, etc. MWise12 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Duke's quote

David12345 In the lines I changed that you reverted, the source shows Duke is clearly speaking on August 12th and about the Unite The Right rally, not about the previous July rally. My change was thus accurate and I will restore it. MWise12 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Your change included: "claiming that the protesters had throwing water bottles, using a pepper gel and spittingwhich, hile racist counter-demonstrators and legal observer organizations characterized as potheir lctions aice brutality." ??? Doug Weller talk 09:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Duke's comments were about the UTR rally, so I've moved that paragraph down into the "Political responses" section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, although I just realized the quote was repeated twice on the page anyway (in the Organizer's Responses section and the Political Reactions section). I went and cleaned it up. MWise12 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I added that line about the police and protesters Doug Weller because it includes more context to the incident, which is discussed and documented in the sources given and cited of the events. MWise12 (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't explain "s potheir lctions aice". Doug Weller talk 10:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That was a typo. My bad. MWise12 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

please more democracy in wikipedia

I don't understand why when one person ask you a question or give you an advice you blocked that person. I repeat that far-right clashed with far-left (antifa, communist and others). they didn't clash with peaceful counterprotestors. If you want a source you can see images and video of that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.52.174 (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based off reliable sources. If one viewpoint is supported by more sources, we feature that viewpoint more prominently. See also Wikipedia:DEM. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 13:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia does not view images as reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that support a claim, then they are suitable for wikipedia. If not, then they're not. If the only source for your claim is images and video, then that is insufficient. Jlevi (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Why a newspaper article is worth more than a video? Articles are written based on images or video that journalists capture at the rally or that some people give them, therefore the primary sources are still those. If you look the videos of Unite the Right Rally and see that people with antifa flag or communist flag clashed with other people with swastika or kkk flag, what do you need more? do you think that those images are photomontage? but when you watch the videos you can see that they are true. I imagine that all of you know what is happened, and you know that far-right battle with far-left, but i don't understand why you continue to say that far-left weren't at the rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.97.115 (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we hold secondary sources to be more reliable than primary sources like videos (see WP:PRIMARY). Videos can be changed and edited and can be interpreted any way by the editor. In any primary source, people can cookie-cut and ignore parts of the primary source that reject their opinion. Secondary sources give us a clear framework of what happened and what the consensus is. As Jlevi said before, videos and images are not reliable sources. I hope that answers your question. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 11:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed spelling errors in your post. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 11:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

sorry but also secondary source are not reliable, because people can take primary sources and with these product a false secondary sources (a ideologized sources). The video, primary sources are more reliable because show you what is happend. instead is more easy that secondary sources distort reality because they are a filter in which primary sources are modify and used as a political weapon. In this case, i repeat it for the hundreth time, is clearly that at the rally there were far-left who clashed with far-right. The only thing that i can have is that you are defending the far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.137.207 (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SECONDARY, along with the other guidelines I have supplied above. On Wikipedia, we hold unbiased secondary sources at a higher standard than Primary sources. Interpretation of Primary sources is not allowed, unless it comes from a secondary source. In addition to this, please refrain from creating new posts on talk pages when there are already posts pertaining to that topic. Reply to the previous posts instead. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 16:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrator note I've blocked a series of northern Italian IPs as LTA cases, there's been consistent trolling on this subject and others with the same theme. RBI. If reporting to AIV, make a note that I've advised a block-on-sight policy. Acroterion (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

tell the truth

Please tell the truth and don't block me or delete my comments. I didn't expect that wikipedia is so politicized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.93.18 (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see the two discussions above. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 15:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

LTA IP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources are correct

i've seen two discussion above and secondary sources are correct and tell that at the rally far-left were present. I don't understand why is so difficult to mention the presence of far-left and write that far-left clashed with far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.93.18 (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is already in the lead: "The event turned violent after protesters clashed with counter-protesters, resulting in more than 30 injured." Most sources don't clarify which group counter-protesters came from. If you could supply a source describing this explicitly (preferably with a quote), it would be much easier to make your case. Jlevi (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

LTA IP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

this is a source

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/who-were-the-counterprotesters-in-charlottesville.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/01/intelligence-law-enforcement-report-leftwing-terrorists-charlottesville

these are articles, secondary sources, who try to explain the violence and clearly talk about the fight between far-right and far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.25.141 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have read the articles, but the views it holds does not differ from the current article. The article acknowledges that "Members of the antifa movement were also in attendance. Some counter-protesters came armed." Nothing (besides possibly a few sketchy 4chan and Reddit posts) supports the claim that there were only far left groups and far right groups. A multitude of sources show that peaceful protesters were clashing with neo-nazis and white supremacists. Even the new york times source you supplied to me is used as evidence that most counterprotesters were peaceful and citizens of charlottesville. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 11:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The NYT piece mostly describes readiness for violence, rather than enactment of violence. One exception has to do with the aftermath of the car attack, after which protesters surrounded Jason Kessler, shouted 'murderer', and some hit him. This later led to convictions to three of them. It is not described in this particular article whether the people who attacked Kessler were far-left, and the articles described in Charlottesville_car_attack#Attack don't mention it either.

The Guardian piece doesn't describe this event as left vs. right in its own voice, and in fact it directly states that that is not what occurred. In contrast, it disputes the account of a report that was commissioned for internal consumption for various government agencies, whose contents have been criticized by experts. I'll look into the report a bit more--it might be worth discussing as a production of this event if not yet mentioned. Jlevi (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. The report was commissioned prior to Unite the Right, so it is neither a result, nor useful for discussing the event. Jlevi (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine People "Hoax"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ian.thomson undid my addition of a citation to a pro-Trump website giving the explanation: "But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides" -- one of those sides consisted of white supremacists and people who agree with white supremacists about removing monuments to white supremacism (in other words, white supremacists). Yes, that is a good summary of the position put forward by Trump's critics on this matter. I'm not going to challenge that position. However, I do want to highlight that the <finepeople.org> citation is a reliable source for understanding the pro-Trump position on this issue. The site was set up Ali Alexander, a black Republican, and the site includes reference to other conservatives who attended the rally and consider themselves to be pro-statue but not pro-white supremacy. The site is a good reference as to why these people consider the fine-people meme to be a "hoax"--Pakbelang (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC) @Pakbelang: finepeople.org is a website by professional troll Ali Alexander, who has a history of lying to support far-right causes. It is not reliable for anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: Woah! I see what you mean. Then how about we instead include a direct reference to the Steve Cortes article in Real Clear Politics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html)? --Pakbelang (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC) The section already has citations, just to sources that Trump typically doesn't like. I'm not seeing a reason to pile-on right-wing sources in that area. And with all due respect, that you thought finepeople.org was a reliable source is maybe an indication that you should focus on other topics until you get a better feel for sourcing in American politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: you're right that I am just begining to get a feel for sourcing in American politics (and I was unaware of Ali Alexander's dodgy background). I also agree that I should focus on other topics, and I do intend to focus on other topics (mainly wildlife, history and culture of Malaysia). However, as you imply, the existing sources for this article aren't pro-Trump sources. My reading (as an outsider with no stake in American politics) is that the existing sources fail to do a good job in capturing the pro-Trump position on the "hoax" issue: the USA Today article is rather jumbled and the FactCheck article just sticks to the transcript without really mentioning what Team Trump considers to be a "hoax". I still feel that the <finepeople.org> website is a reliable source for understanding the pro-Trump position (it's a compilation of articles and videos from several pro-Trump commentators on the issue). Having said that, this website is indeed probably not the best source to use for Wikipedia, especially since you point out Ali Alexander's background as a fraudster. That's why I suggested linking directly to the article by Trump's spokesman Steve Cortes that was published on RCP. Is there any harm in adding the Steve Cortes RCP article as a refrence for the pro-Trump position? --Pakbelang (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC) We don't need to cite pro-Trump sources. It's sufficient that the sources currently cited are reliable. We don't need to play "both sides", especially when one of the sides regularly lies or supports lies. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: I agree we don't need to cite pro-Trump sources if existing sources are adequate. I'm not questioning the reliability of the existing sources, I'm just pointing out that they fail to capture the pro-Trump position regarding the "Hoax". In contrast, the Steve Cortes article is an excellent source for this position. --Pakbelang (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC) I'd appreciate further feedback from @Ian.thomson: and other editors before including the Steve Cortes article as a source for the pro-Trump position on the "hoax". Thanks! Pakbelang (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: the key points in the finepeople.org website and the Steve Cortes article are: (1) not all of those people who agreed with white supremacists about removing "monuments to white supremacism" agreed that the Robert E. Lee statue was actually a monument to white supremacy; (2) not everyone pro-statue identified as being "white"; (3) very few people who are pro-statue and who are pro-Trump actually support the ideologies of white supremacy. I'm not going to go into the merits of these positions but is important that Unite the Right rally at least give a clear reference to a pro-Trump source on this so-called "hoax" because the article's existing sources don't really explain the Trump position. @Ian.thomson: Here's what reliable source claim that a lot of fine people felt about Robert E. Lee: "In the Richmond Times Dispatch, R. David Cox wrote that “for white supremacist protesters to invoke his name violates Lee’s most fundamental convictions.” In the conservative publication Townhall, Jack Kerwick concluded that Lee was “among the finest human beings that has ever walked the Earth.” John Daniel Davidson, in an essay for The Federalist, opposed the removal of the Lee statute in part on the grounds that Lee “arguably did more than anyone to unite the country after the war and bind up its wounds.” Praise for Lee of this sort has flowed forth from past historians and presidents alike." Pakbelang (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC) The Richmond Times Dispatch source sounds like an OpEd, The Federalist, founded by a man who was fired from the WPost for plagiarism, is not a reliable source. Townhall is mostly opinion pierces, not actual news. ValarianB (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC) User talk:ValarianB These are all sources cited *by* an article in The Atlantic which is quoted extensively in the WP article on Robert E. Lee. The Atlantic article asserts that, despite popular impressions, Robert E. Lee was actually a white supremacist. This suggests that it was possible to be both pro-statue and also to be against white supremacy --Pakbelang (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC) ...possible to be pro-statue and also to be against white supremacy, despite a lone writer's opinion on the matter, citing bad sources, it really isn't. As my wife's Jewish uncle liked to say, "if one sits at a table with 5 Nazis, there are 6 Nazis." ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Yes, User:ValarianB, I tend to agree – assuming one knew they were Nazis! Pakbelang (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC) A bunch of guys chanting "Jews will not replace us" while waving Nazi flags isn't an fucking obvious hint? At this point, you've gone past excusable ignorance into downright trolling. If you somehow are sincerely trying to help, then do so by leaving the page alone until you are not so damned ignorant of this topic (which I already told you to do when you suggested finepeople.org as a source). Otherwise, stop excusing people who want to excuse Nazis, because that's really just excusing Nazis. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Yes, User:Ian.thomson of course, if one is happy standing in a crowd with 5 Nazis waving flags then there are 6 Nazis. My point is that not everyone who attended the rally knew in advance that it would be filled with Nazis. And yes, I have taken your advice and have made no further edits to this page until I am more informed on the topic. So far I have found no reliable sources that report on the Fine People Hoax. However, as I cite above, it is clear that a lot of conservatives do believe that Robert E. Lee was a good person .Pakbelang (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC) The purpose of the talk page is to suggest useful changes to the article, not for you to continue pushing an idea based on a bad source. The article already mentions that Trumpists think that the face-value interpretation of his comments are a hoax, and that statement cites two reliable sources. We're done there. You can stop talking about the "Fine People Hoax" as if it was a real thing (instead of a political lie). You can stop grasping at straws to try to stretch to pretend that nobody at the rally saw the large group of Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us." You can stop pretending that anyone who did due diligence in learning anything about the rally before commenting on it could have not known it was full of white supremacists. You can stop pretending that a condemnation of "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides" is somehow an explicit condemnation of white supremacists (and yet paradoxically not an acknowledgement one side was solidly white supremacist). Stop posting here, you've had nothing useful to say. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC) References

The Unite the Right rally was not explicitly or intended to be a white supremacist, neo nazi, neo fascist or racist rally as incorrectly stated in this article.

The Unite the Right rally was not explicitly or intended to be a white supremacist, neo nazi, neo fascist or racist rally as incorrectly stated in this article. It was a rally to protest the unlawful destruction and removal of historic confederate statutes from government property without due process of law. Most participants were not affiliated with 'hate' groups. Also note that the rally was largely peaceful until counter protesters began throwing urine and feces at rally participants. This article is clearly not objective and I'd have expected better from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.112.17 (talk • contribs) 03:57, March 28, 2019 (UTC)— 67.45.112.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Plz read WP:NONAZIS GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The WP:NONAZIS article is completely irrelevant. It isn’t being racist to claim that there were participants at the rally who had nothing to do with white supremacist groups, and who were there simply to protest the pulling down of the Robert E Lee statue. Scott Adams, who is a major proponent of the so-called “Fine People Hoax” - indeed he coined the phrase, I think - said he spoke to many people who attended the rally to protest against the statue being pulled down. The presence or otherwise of these people is a critical issue for this article which is completely ignored. It’s critical because if there weren’t non-white-supremacists there then the implication is that Trump was covering for white supremacists. But if there were non-white-supremacists there, then the “fine people” comment was completely valid. 49.181.49.147 (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You cited some random comic strip cartoonist as if anything he says matters, therefore everything you said can safely be ignored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that we need a stronger citation before we accept this point - WP is not the place for publishing original research. There is a valid question as to whether reliable sources report that the "Unite the Right" rally was a "white supremacist rally" (supported by NYT, BBC, etc). There is also the valid question as to whether there were "many" people who attended the rally who did not identify as white supremacists. There probably were (I tend to believe Scott Adams and I find the Youtube video below to be credible) but until there is a reliable source that meets Wikipedia's standards, then it is not appropriate for this claim to be added to the article. --Pakbelang (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert E Lee was a white supremacist. If you join up with people who are rallying in support of maintaining a statue of Robert E Lee on public grounds, you shouldn't be surprised when they start to chant "Blood and Soil" and "Jews Will Not Replace Us", In fact, you might just be a white surpemacist too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Muboshgu, true on both counts. It's also true that if you found yourself in such a situation you might be thinking to yourself, "Sh*t, this is not what I expected!" Without the mind-reading/speculation/original research, WP should be guided by reliable sources.--Pakbelang (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are some people who actually attended the rally, who explicitly deny being white supremacists and explicitly condemn racism: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McKfSoya2zM 49.181.49.147 (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

While User generated sites are not generally considered reliable sources, WP:ABOUTSELF can be reliable sources specifically about themselves. JMM12345 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

People at a white supremacist rally declaring themselves not to be white supremacists falls explicitly under WP:MANDY: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not need to give the subject the last word. We include credible allegations from credible sources, we attribute them when they are the work or opinion of small numbers of individuals and we state them in Wiki-voice when the consensus is overwhelming. "X is a white nationalist" does not need the qualifier "X denies being a white nationalist" because, well, he would, wouldn't he? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I should point out that WP:MANDY is not an official Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is merely an essay on an opinion that some Wikipedia contributors have about the limits of WP:NPOV. It says it right at the top of the page. Some people agree with the essay, others disagree with it. Personally, I think that it has some serious problems, not the least of which that it would seem to directly conflict with existing policies like WP:BLPPUBLIC which states, among other things, that if a well known public figure denies allegations, their denial should be stated in the article next to the properly sourced allegations without giving the denial undue weight.

Secondly, I was not even arguing that we should include the denials from the youtube video; I was only pointing out that just because it was on a Youtube video doesn't necessarily mean that it is not a reliable source. I typed it in response to someone saying in an unqualified statement that YouTube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. TBH, I am undecided on whether or not I think it should be included in the article. A good reason why we shouldn't include the denials would be that it might be undue weight to include the denials of only a couple of relatively low profile members of the rally which may give the readers a warped impression about what the rally was really about.JMM12345 (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Wilco song misnamed

Hi - I don't have an account so I couldn't make this minor edit myself, but under the In popular culture section, the Wilco song is referred to as "All Sides, You Say?" when the song is actually titled "All Lives, You Say?". The source cited in the article for the song reflects this. --47.144.154.251 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Two Charlottesville statues removed today - there are more

I live in Charlottesville and I have previously said that the media discussing Unite the Right and the statues here are wrong.

The major media says that there was a conflict over one statue, Robert E. Lee Monument, and this is incorrect. The conflict has always been about multiple monuments in Charlottesville, which I have listed at Charlottesville historic monument controversy. My explanation for the problem is that news sources get no benefit from the naming and explaining that there are 6 statues and 2 parks when the news story works just fine showing one statue.

Today Saturday early morning, perhaps around 7am, an army of construction workers ripped out two statues with cranes and ran away like they were stealing peaches from a tree. It was a huge mess just announced yesterday. Work crews cut branches from trees last night, an army of workers came in today, and there were police everywhere keeping peace and spreading out the crowds. Besides the Lee statue that all the Unite the Right media mentioned, the Thomas Jonathan Jackson is gone too. For local people these statues are part of the same controversy, as are the other statues.

This source talks about all 6 statues.

• Higgins, Jessie (20 September 2021). "'Johnny Reb' is gone — Here's the status of the 5 other Charlottesville-area statues activists want removed". www.cvilletomorrow.org.

Here is NPR confused about what happened this morning.

• Paviour, Ben (10 July 2021). "Charlottesville Removes Robert E. Lee Statue That Sparked A Deadly Rally". NPR.org.

NPR does not understand if 1 or 2 statues got removed. The article says that the "city of Charlottesville, Va., removed a statue of Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson" - these are two statues. For years it has been like this, with news media either reporting only one statue or being confused at how many there are. I brought this up previously at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_8#Charlottesville_historic_monument_controversy. The consensus of WP:Reliable sources is that there is just one statue, but here in Charlottesville, all of these monuments are prominent around town and everyone knows there are several. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• update - 2 more statues removed To recap, the city of Charlottesville announced the removal of two statues late on Friday 9 July. They were gone by 9am Saturday, and news media from many major networks were there reporting. Around 10:30am the city announced the removal of another statue. News media had already reported the first 2 removals then had to do another story for the noon removal, which was right at the center of one of the city's busiest intersections at the entrance to downtown. The closed the intersection without notice to grab the statue and run, so business, deliveries, and basic city transit had to deal with this. Saturday evening the university announced the removal of the statue near what could be called the front of the university, in the area where undergraduate students go for recreation and where almost everyone who visits the school sees this other statue. This makes 4 statues gone, all taken quickly without much notice but with a large police presence. People were anxious about a repeat of Unite the Right violence. The poor journalists who came in to report this probably wanted to go home after Friday morning then got stuck here forced to do another story Saturday afternoon. Almost no one wrote about the removal of the Sunday statue which was the largest and most prominent of them all. I can only imagine that the city did not even tell visiting out of town journalists what they intended to do for fear of information leaks or word getting out that all these statues were going immediately.

Again, I am telling this story because national and international news is generally seen as most reliable, but the small underfunded local media sources are the ones that are more accurate in reporting that there are multiple statues. 4 removed this weekend, the Johnny Reb got removed a year ago, and now I think the only one left which has been the target of vandalism and protest is the Thomas Jefferson right in front of his UNESCO World Heritage site.

I have not often become aware of major media sources and local media sources reporting things differently, but here there is a difference, and there are multiple statues at play in the Unite the Right rally story. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Challenged change of subsection heading "President Trump's statements"

I edit changed the heading of the subsection to "President Trump's response" to bring it in line with the other subsections of the "Reactions" section that deal with statements made/released by individuals and organizations in response to the rally. Trump's response consisted of spoken and written statements, including tweets, no different from the responses of the other individuals and organizations mentioned. My edit was reverted with the explanation that the change disrupts wikilinks to that section. Section and subsection headings on WP are changed all the time, and AFAIK editors are not required to search for any pages that might be linking to them. I wouldn't even know to go about doing that—if I find a link that doesn't work anymore, I correct it. Unless my edit is challenged on its merits, I intend to repeat it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If anyone changes the heading again, please just use Template:Anchor. Changing all incoming links is slightly better, but the anchor works just fine. I just added one for the old "President Trump's statements" heading name. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: I believe that's "the discussion you are having at the Donald Trump article"? I didn't start it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Re "Unless my edit is challenged on its merits, I intend to repeat it. " — Please note the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES at the top of this talk page, which includes the statement, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)."

Before the editor's heading change, the section was well organized with the heading "President Trump's statements" and subsection headings "First statement", "Second statement", etc.

In addition to the example of a discussion that Space4Time3Continuum2x is in at Talk:Donald_Trump#Very_fine_people, another example is an RFC in progress Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_should_we_add_a_wiki-link_to_article_subsection_President_Trump's_statements_on_the_Unite_the_Right_rally? that would also be disrupted.

The editor should at least wait to propose the heading change until after the RFC is completed. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Modifying the subsection heading does not change the organization of the subsection into first, second, etc. statement sub-subsections. Discussion and RfC are both about whether to link "Trump's comments" in the sentence Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, condemning "this egregious display... to the subsection currently called "President Trump's statements." If the consensus is to link to the subsection and the subsection heading has since been modified, the link can be modified accordingly. The wording of the sentence won't change, and neither will the target of the link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to delay the improved header. Frankly, the objection is unfounded and feels like gaming the issue. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, this heading has been in the article for four years. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As much as possible, we should avoid linking an article to another article's section or sub-section. Thus removing the aforementioned problem, when changing a section or subsection heading. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers' above solution [14] for the disruption problem is fine for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)