Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:06, 20 October 2017

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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!

A news item involving Unite the Right rally was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 August 2017.

[REDACTED]

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald TrumpPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia: Albemarle County / University of Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albemarle County, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. [REDACTED] This article is supported by WikiProject University of Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

Template:BLP noticeboard

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Unite the Right rally. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Unite the Right rally at the Reference desk.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

They're back

Richard Spencer and white nationalists briefly return to Charlottesville. TheValeyard (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Deliberate deletion of counter-opinions re: Unite The Right Rally

A summary of media responses citing a single New York Times editorial has been provided in the header. Two from National Review were provided to cite the relevant counter-opinion but deleted with the justification of it being "just one opinion" (as though the adjacent one were not).

Subsequently, an edit war ensued over the insertion of a quote deemed relevant for quotation by NBC which has been demanded by a consensus of politically aligned editors to be unacceptable to reprint for fear of conspiracy theorizing, even though it could be made clear that heart attack due to trauma is perfectly common, and as though that were a reason to arbitrarily obfuscate information anyhow.

Among the prevailing consensus, this WP: NPOV and WP: AGF gem:

11:58, 29 September 2017 ValarianB (talk | contribs) . . (210,798 bytes) (-187) . . (Undid revision 802934185 by TheAaliyahJones (talk) The alt right talking point will not be allowed in this article)

Regardless, and as requested, multiple sources from the likes of Newsweek and the Washington Post were added to the counterpoint in the header, but deleted on the justification that edits were not discussed, when the discussion page has devolved into referring to other users as "nazi civil-tards" without controversy.

Does there stand any coherent reason not to undo the following revision? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&diff=802961526&oldid=802960642 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium103 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to phrase the RfC in the form of two or more options for editors to comment on. Read this Misplaced Pages policy page for more on how to do this if you're confused. Rockypedia (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues conflated here. What was reverted was either #1, the watering down the vehicular homicide by highlighting the heart attack angle, and #2 "Anfita as bad as Nazis!", supported by a handful of OpEds and a gaggle of biased right-wing sources pushing a fringe narrative. Fringe theories don't get equal playtime as the mainstream, sorry. TheValeyard (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC tag as this isn't a proper RfC. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I was told by admin Huon in chat to bring it up in RfC, I stated the issue as lucidly as possible, and a clear choice of including the sources or not was included in the wording, so what recourse for the de-facto brigading of a page is there supposed to be?

And, no, even if you've managed to convince yourself that the Washington Post and Newsweek were "biased right-wing sources", any source that one generally disagrees with does not suddenly become non-notable, | whether it's biased or not. Equilibrium103 (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In regards to my "gem" above, I removed the passage in question and will continue to do so until/unless it is demonstrated here that there is consensus to support its inclusion. It is a fashionable talking point in alt-right/nationalist circles to highlight the "victim died of a heart attack" aspect of her death, to downplay and discredit the vehicular homicide. It is a violation of NPOV to include an extremeist point-of-view. As for "AGF", I note and highlight the bad-faith editing of "TheAaliyahJones", and reverted accordingly, an account which edit-warred this article in an 18-hour span, was blocked, has made 1 typo edit after the block expired, then silence. There are several accounts that exhibit this behavior, including this one, "Equilibrium103". ValarianB (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In regards to Equilibrium103's question on why this wasn't a properly-formatted RfC, I ask Equilibrium103 again to please read the RfC policy page, particularly #3, which states "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" - your RfC was neither brief nor neutral. Take a look at the "Example" listed below that section - it's 10 words long. Now, yours doesn't have to be that short, but you need to clearly present two choices (it can be more, but I think in this case it's two) to the commenters/voters, and you need to do it neutrally. Rockypedia (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The basic reportage of the victim dying of a heart attack is not a point of view at all. Creationists misappropriating the facts about the flagellum of the eye does not make whatever observable complexities about it change in any way whatsoever, and offers no justification for erasing any data point regarding it.

I would ask again for any justification for the exclusive and prominent inclusion of one subset of editorial opinion represented by a single journalistic source and the deliberate exclusion of any and all others regardless of how thoroughly-cited, or I will consider the "not addressed in talk" claim null and void, and any further deletion of it disruptive and overt WP:TE.Equilibrium103 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The "basic reportage" belies an alt-right narrative that seeks to discredit the vehicular homicide. If there is adequate sourcing to discuss the alt-right smear regarding the heart attack angle, then we can certainly include that, but the Misplaced Pages does not advance fringe narratives as if they were fact. What you "consider" addressed or not really has no relevance to the discussion, and declaring an intent to edit-war will probably not go well for you. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You've done nothing to establish that the single sentence in question carries an objectively deducible narrative, only your inductive fear of one, and this resource is not required to discuss a narrative you prefer while exterminating raw information you don't, but by all means, include the Media Matters et al citation as well.

And I'm more then satisfied to let people at the very least observe statements like that last one and determine if it's justification amounts to no more then an attempt at intimidation and argumentum ad nauseam. Equilibrium103 (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure every editor save you has more than justified this and other edits, bro. Not sure what else is left to discuss here, as their is zero consensus for your preferred edits. TheValeyard (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing to add that has not been said by others, and consider the matter settled. ValarianB (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The heart attack matter was thoroughly addressed by ScratchMarshall, and he was hounded with character attacks for the correct assertion that relaying raw facts does not forward a narrative. I leave the users to review that themselves and reflect on the personal and emotive nature of this consensus, and what, if anything, is to be done to mitigate such a thing anywhere else if not here.

However, in the matter of the journalistic counter-opinion, neither you nor anyone else have said anything whatsoever except for a dubious and swiftly abandoned assertion against the cited sources. So regarding the following outlets:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazis/2017/08/30/9a13b2f6-8d00-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.41e0aa0a7998

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450722/stop-normalizing-political-violence-use-fighting-words-instead

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/17/trump-spoke-truth-sides-charlottesville-media-lost-minds/

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporters-antifa-white-supremacists-650640

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/350946-why-president-trumps-both-sides-argument-has-merit

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/08/17/poll-despite-media-what-did-americans-think-of-trumps-charlottesville-response-n2369890

I will take it that you consider their worthwhile inclusion settled in the affirmative. Thank you for your time. Equilibrium103 (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

OpEds and fringe right-wing sources. No valid case for the inclusion of these. I would also caution against popping back up every few days to edit-war, as that has not gone so well for some of the other now mysteriously-silent user accounts. ValarianB (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC) ValarianB (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

DeAndre Harris section

My edits that have been reverted were correct. On my user talk page, Oswah asks: "You also added "On October 9, 2017, after verifying the facts of the incident" - why did you add the phrase after verifying the facts after removing referenced content there? Do any sources state this? This appears to be worded in a way that could be interpreted as a viewpoint. What if people disagree and don't believe that anything was "verified"? Do you see the concerns that your edits are introducing here?"

Here is the relevant text from the Vice News article that was sourced by the user claiming that the police were not involved in the decision to sign off on the warrant (https://news.vice.com/story/how-white-supremacists-got-the-black-man-they-brutally-beat-charged-with-felony): “The victim went to the Magistrate’s office, presented the facts of what occurred, and attempted to obtain a warrant,” Charlottesville police said in a statement on Tuesday. “The magistrate requested that a detective respond and verify these facts. A Charlottesville Police Department detective did respond, verified the fact, and a warrant for Unlawful Wounding (VA Code 18.2-51) was issued.”

So, based on the Vice News article, the facts were verified by a detective with the Charlottesville police. So the entire POV slant of the section claiming that the warrant was drawn up without the police being involved is false. The claim that the warrant surprised the police department is false. Whether or not "many activists" were surprised by the warrant being issued is completely irrelevant. Now that DeAndre Harris has been arrested and charged, how white supremacists or others "sought to portray" the incident is irrelevant, because a police detective and magistrate verified the facts, issued a warrant, and arrested and charged DeAndre Harris. Most of the section is trying to frame it as if Harris is being railroaded.

I may have accidentally removed some relevant sources in removing the section about how certain groups sought to portray the incident. Those should be added back, but by and large I think my edits served to remove POV language and clean-up the section. 70.209.197.196 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have initiated a deletion discussion of the standalone article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Harris. This may be of interest to editors here. ValarianB (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Traditionalist Workers Party

This group participated as we note, and I found a source describing their participation and mentioning the fact that they will be at Shelbyville on the 28th. Also, their leader, Matt Parrott aka User:Wikitopian, complained at the article's talk page about the article (which is actually about their predecessor, the Traditional Youth Network), which in turn led me to find the source. The source quotes Parrott.

"The groups coming to Shelbyville for what they’re calling a “White Lives Matter” rally include The League of the South, the Traditionalist Workers Party, Vanguard America and the National Socialist Movement.

These alt-right fringe groups claimed they were innocent victims of attacks by counter protesters in Charlottesville, that they were merely trying to protect themselves and to assert their constitutional right to free speech.

This is how Matt Parrott of Traditionalist Youth Network, a white supremacist group, described their claim of self defense: “With a full-throated rebel yell, the League broke through the wall of degenerates and TradWorker managed to enter the Lee Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling. Michael Tubbs, an especially imposing League organizer towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as league fighters with shields put their training to work.”

Another view of the incident came from a news reporter, Blake Montgomery: “Most white supremacist and Nazi groups arrived armed like a paramilitary force — carrying shields, protective gear, rods and, yes, lots of guns, utilizing Virginia’s loose firearm laws. They used militarized defensive maneuvers, shouting commands at one another to ‘move forward’ or ‘retreat,’ and would form a line of shields or a phalanx — it’s like they watched ‘300’ a few times — to gain ground or shepherd someone through projectiles. It seemed that they had practiced for this."

We need an article on the TWP, by the way. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Shelbyville Rally

Is there an article on this yet? Doug Weller talk 13:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Talk:Traditionalist Youth Network#Requested move 18 October 2017

FYI on a requested move for a related article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Redacted per WP:BLP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, not true: "she died as a result of blunt-force injury to the chest". Nice try. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Virginia articles
• Low-importance Virginia articles
• C-Class University of Virginia articles
• Low-importance University of Virginia articles
• WikiProject University of Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English