Talk:Unite the Right rally

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

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

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 [1] for the disruption problem is fine for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

In popular culture

The attack has been the subject of various songs. Wilco released a single entitled "All Lives, You Say?" in reference to President Trump's comments after the attacks. Wilco donated all their earnings from the single to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Guitarist Jesse Dayton penned a song about the attack called "Charlottesville" for his 2018 album The Outsider. In addition, the Drive-by Truckers' song "The Perilous Night" contains numerous direct references to the rally, and criticizes Donald Trump's comments. The Eminem song "Like Home" references Heather Heyer and the Charlottesville rally in one of the song verses "If we start from scratch like a scab for scars to heal/And band together for Charlottesville/And for Heather, fallen heroes". In 2019, the band Abraham Inc released a song about Heather Heyer entitled "Lullaby for Charlottesville".

The Unite the Right rally was spoofed in the South Park episode "White People Renovating Houses".

The rally has also been referenced on film. The 2018 film BlacKkKlansman features video footage of the attack. The film was released on August 10, 2018, which was chosen to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the rally. The director of 2018 film The First Purge, Gerard McMurray, named Charlottesville as one of the various events that the film takes inspiration from, while the 2018 Marvel superhero film Deadpool 2 based one of its villains (the Headmaster of Russell "Rusty" Collins' school) after the Charlottesville marchers.

The rally was also alluded to in the marketing campaign of the video game Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus.