Talk:Unite the Right rally: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:48, 24 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unite the Right rally article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 14 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 13, 2017.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

August 13 to 19, 2017 (11th)

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Donald Trump Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia: University of Virginia Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject University of Virginia (assessed as Mid-importance).

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Other talk page banners

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Unite the Right rally was copied or moved into Rise Above Movement with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Section sizes

Section size for Unite the Right rally (57 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	28,751	28,751
Background	6,431	55,159
Summer rallies in Charlottesville	7,836	7,836
Protesters	25,614	25,614
Militias	2,358	2,358
Counter-protesters	9,846	9,846
University and city preparations	3,074	3,074
Timeline of events	25	41,781
Permits and court case	8,354	8,354
August 11	9,518	9,518
August 12	23,884	23,884
Related events	19	44,637
Vehicular attack and homicide	73	31,435
Overview	5,281	5,281
Heather Heyer	3,530	3,530
Arrest of James Alex Fields Jr.	8,991	8,991
Trial, conviction and sentencing	13,560	13,560
Assault of DeAndre Harris	8,447	8,447
Fatal helicopter crash	3,608	3,608
Foreign interference	1,128	1,128
Reactions	15	133,923
Criticism of the police's handling of the rally	161	10,147
ACLU's criticism, ProPublica report, and officials' response	5,879	5,879
Heaphy report	4,107	4,107
Responses by organizers and alt-right personalities	7,116	7,116
Vigils and protests	5,612	5,612
Online responses	14,959	14,959
President Trump's response	4,054	71,145
First statements	15,540	15,540
Second statement	5,220	5,220
Third statement	27,776	27,776
Later statements	1,458	1,458
Resignations from and dissolution of presidential advisory councils	9,118	9,118
Defenses of Trump and rebuttal	3,861	3,861
Public opinion on Trump's response	4,118	4,118
Efforts by Trump and his supporters to rewrite the history of the rally	2,433	2,433
Responses by other politicians	5,629	5,629
Religious responses	6,518	6,518
Academic responses	4,758	4,758
Military's response	2,885	2,885
UN's response	1,754	1,754
President Biden's 2021 statement	952	952
Consequences	17	23,163
Financial costs	1,122	1,122
Removal of statues	6,137	6,137
Local politics	1,577	1,577
Sines v. Kessler	2,591	2,591
Indictment of "Rise Above Movement" members	50	8,143
Convicted members	4,593	4,593
Pending charges	3,500	3,500
Threats against a local politician	3,576	3,576
2018 anniversary rally	5,227	5,227
Legacy	6,258	7,063
January 6 United States Capitol attack	805	805
See also	2,964	2,964
References	35	35
External links	3,040	3,040
Total	345,743	345,743

Request Edit

Paragraph:

    U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks on Charlottesville generated some negative responses. His initial statement following the rally were to "condemn hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". Trump condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists.[31] In his first statement and subsequent defense of it, he claimed there were "very fine people on both sides", referring to the people there to protest the removal of the statues and those in support of removal. Biased critics maligned these comments to suggest he was implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them. Critics interpreted his remarks as sympathetic to white supremacists,[8] while supporters characterized this interpretation as a hoax,[32] because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists.[33][34]

Reasoning: the media has bad problems for years being objective and not inserting their own points of view or interpretations. As such, considering much of mass media has admitted a left leaning bias, entries into Wikipedia SHOULD be benign and politics left out of it by the editors to reflect ACTUAL historical events. It is convenient that Wiki has no editorial staff and relies on people (and in some cases, left wing people with an agenda and bias to make changes). Trump clearly denounced the bad elements of the gathering and spoke to the people in attendance for and against this action. he sought unity and leftist decided to create an endless, drama-filled news cycle to confuse people as part of a campaign to ensure he was no re-elected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.76.4 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia revisited

Since we're still 1RR... An editor in this edit introduces a piece of ephemeral fluff about several of the rally attendees, that Fuentes, Baked Alaska, and Gabriel Brown attended both this and the Jan 6th insurrection. This article is not about these 3 individuals, nor Jan 6th, but simply the 2017 rally. Taking a small snippet of an ADL blog entry about an interesting but ultimately minor fact is not relevant to the Unite the Right rally article. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It doesn’t belong in any article. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic

this reverted a reasonable edit. The source does not say the users questioned their own "beliefs", it says some of the users treated the websites as an ironic game and Charlottesville made them rethink that. It was the ones who were serious about it that had the "beliefs". This edit should be reinstated or else that part changed. Subuey (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine people "hoax"

This [1] reverted an edit referring to an alleged media "hoax" regarding Trump's third Charlottesville statement. The revert claimed that the allegation was (1) a "fringe", "MAGA-sphere", criticism; and (2) that the books cited were not notable. I accept that the allegation is mostly made by Trump supporters. The edit states so. However, Even Sam Harris, a Trump-loathing social liberal, has claimed that the “Very Fine People" line was a "media-created hoax”.[2] There are several references to the "hoax" allegation in mainstream sources.[3] (Klein & Berney 2021: 56-59) While the books cited in the edit are not all notable, they do serve to support the text of the edit (that people claim that there was a "hoax", not necessarily that there actually was a hoax). One of the books cited (Loserthink by Scott Adams) already has its own Wikipedia page. Pakbelang (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking for reliable sources which demonstrate due weight. Whether a source is notable or not is mostly irrelevant to how reliable that source is. Reddit posts, for example, are not reliable even though Reddit is notable. Adams' book is also not reliable in this context for various reasons. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source uses the term "Chalottesville lie" to describe the media treatment of the "fine people" comment .(Klein & Berney 2021: 56-59) Pakbelang (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump: Friend Extraordinaire to Israel and the Jewish People"...The entirety reads like PR for Trump's 2024 campaign. One of the contributors, Morton Klein, seemed to defend President Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories questioning the birthplace of Barack Obama in 2022. DN (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edit that I'm proposing is that Trump supporters say that there is a 'hoax'. I'm not suggesting that reliable sources support this notion. Pakbelang (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too WP:FRINGE to include. What's the hoax, exactly? Trump said "very fine people on both sides", and defended saying it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for the "fine people hoax" is that the media (mainly CNN) used selective edits to make it seem that Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people". Pakbelang (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the weight of evidence we find that it indeed was a hoax. Liberals LOVE Snopes, and just yesterday, they finally decided that the statement that Trump said Neo Nazis are very fine people, IS FALSE!

[4]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/#Echobox=1718905525-1 2603:8080:3EF0:9790:9DC:75A7:7868:334C (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does this in a manner contradict this article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The portion on Trump should be taken out, it is not HIS fault that liberals attribute bad faith on everything he does or did and spin articles to make him seem to be evil when he is another flawed individual just like them and the writers of the articles that claim he is.

Or perhaps, maybe fix the paragraph to state those who tried to state a lie are the ones that were the problem, not him. OR take that portion of the article out. or maybe, "Bad actors tried to defame Trump by claiming he meant something he actually stated was untrue." 2603:8080:3EF0:9790:5852:F15:810B:8334 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to get any consensus for a change if you keep spewing accusations. Try again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support citing this new Snopes article, as it is a very reliable source. Beaver Takes a Walk (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is misconstruing the citation. The former president did a "both sides are bad" which is a roundabout wat is being passed by some as "condemning neo-Nazis." Both Snopes and Factcheck note the nuance, and editors attempting to cite this as "aha, Trump DID condemn the neo-Nazis after all!" are being extraordinarily disingenuous. Zaathras (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that we're off to a great start with allegations of editors as "extraordinarily disingenuous". Can you discuss the material of the articles and what you think is wrong with adding them? My diff:

Fact checking organizations have affirmed that Trump did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people" and that he condemned white supremacists during the rally.

I cite a Snopes article titled No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People' to support my edit statement of "Trump did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people". In the body, they clearly rate claims that On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people." as False.

I cite a factcheck.org article titled Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists to support my edit content of "he condemned white supremacists". In the body, they clearly state So, contrary to Biden’s claim that Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy, the neo-Nazis,” in the course of two days, Trump did it twice.

Please explain your reversion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US President Donald Trump's remarks about the rally generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump condemned the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides." This first statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist protesters and the counter-protesters. Trump later stated (in the same statement) that "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"

This seems to already be clear in the paragraph so the repetitive nature of this context is quite possibly UNDUE in the lead when compared to other sources and context in the body and elsewhere.

Fact checking organizations have affirmed that Trump did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people" and that he condemned white supremacists during the rally.

Lastly, this article is not just about what Trump said and the reactions to it. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 :::This seems to already be clear in the paragraph so the repetitive nature of this context is quite possibly UNDUE in the lead when compared to other sources and context in the body and elsewhere.
 :::*Fact checking organizations have affirmed that Trump did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people" and that he condemned white supremacists during the rally.
-:::Cheers.
 :::Lastly, this article is not just about what Trump said and the reactions to it. Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 06:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)