Talk:2017 Charlottesville attack

Attack on "nonviolent"

PhilipTerryGraham seems to insist on the use of the phrase

• "A driver in a silver Dodge Challenger drove into the front of a crowd of nonviolent marchers on the street, whom were counter-protesting the Unite the Right Rally"

instead of the more factual;

• "A driver in a silver Dodge Challenger drove into the front of a crowd of marchers on the street, whom were counter-protesting the Unite the Right Rally"

The article's source material is quite clear on the matter that both groups used violence. The VOX source says:

"Violent clashes broke out between protesters and counterprotesters on Friday night and Saturday morning. Police ordered crowds to disperse before noon. As some counterprotesters began to disperse, a car appeared on a street that at least some demonstrators had believed was blocked off to traffic. It then sped into the crowd, striking multiple people before backing up."

The Guardian source mentions witnesses saying that those hit by the car were "people peacefully protesting the planned white supremacist rally" but also goes on to say that "fighting and scuffles broke out between the two groups".

Just to be clear: I'm not at all saying that what happened here was in any way justified or a 'retaliation' of some sort, nor am I defending anyone. I'm simply saying that it is clearly impossible to call all those counterprotestors nonviolent and the term should be avoided. It serves no purpose other than to create an unnecessary bias. Please keep it factual: a car drove into a group of protestors. AKAKIOS (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

People are people, groups are groups. If some people in a group are violent, it doesn't mean the ones peacefully protesting aren't non-violent. Here, it seems the non-violent ones were the ones hit, so they're the only ones who matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Which isn't my point. If some people in a group are violent, as you say yourself, that makes it very hard to determine if a group as a whole was non-violent. This is evidenced by the source material which clearly lists violence on both sides. Which is why this article should omit the reference entirely. It's not about what seems, it's about what is. Also, phrasing it that way suggest that the driver had a motive against the counterprotesters, which hasn't been determined yet. Wikipedia shouldn't add epithets such as 'nonviolent' or 'innocent' to these kind of terrible incidents. Keep it as POV-neutral as possible. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is based on sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes and those sources (the ones listed above) show ambiguity. Something I've made clear from the start.AKAKIOS (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2017

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

---

2017 Charlottesville attack → 2017 Charlottesville Challenger collision – calling this an "attack" appears premature when it is still so early in the investigation process. If this was accidental/panic as http://coed.com/2017/08/12/james-alex-fields-jr-charlottesville-suspect-arrest-driver-rams-car-into-protesters-white-nationalist-rally-counter-protest-injuries/ implies, we could by wrongly biasing public against the driver before all evidence is weighed. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Right idea, but long title. I suggest calling it a "car crash", like the similar 2017 Times Square car crash. Not a single Google News result for "Challenger collision", so can't be the common name. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

good point, I second your suggestion for 2017 Charlottesville car crash, I just didn't know if any other car commissions of notability occurred this year. If there are then "Challenger" could disambiguate. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't even really need the year, there's no other notable attack or car crash in Charlottesville. It's just force of habit in these things. But I won't argue against it, if people like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a Charlottesville Men's Pro Challenger. Not useful information, but it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, is there anything like Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy rename? I am tempted to be bold and simply move it now someone agrees. Every moment it stays under this name we could be doing harm to the driver and the justice process without charges much less conviction being secured. If anyone thinks it should be renamed "attack" they could always vote to move it back. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is almost like speedy criteria. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Move back to attack As CJK09 perfectly said, "As far as I'm concerned, regarding the car incident, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. There have been dozens of vehicle-ramming attacks in just the last few years and so far there's absolutely nothing to suggest that this is any different. Also note that the incident has been widely described as an attack by those who were there to witness it (which is not just counterprotesters, but also various journalists)". EvertonFC13^(talk2me) 00:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Already did a bold move as consensus was a rename was prudent. Even more sources have avoided calling it an attack. No harm is done in having a neutral "car crash" title, but potential BLP has exists in calling something an "attack" because of probablys. Naturally feel free to nominate it for a return move. The burden should be higher when implying something that specific when sources cited here do not support it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Remove 2017, because there's no need for the year as a disambiguator. Jim Michael (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Charlottesville car crash seems kinda broad. Implies no other cars crashed in town. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No more than the current title implies none did in 2017. We only need to disambiguate from other articles. This isn't getting an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and move back to attack As I said on the talk page of the other article: As far as I'm concerned, regarding the car incident, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. There have been dozens of vehicle-ramming attacks in just the last few years and so far there's absolutely nothing to suggest that this is any different. Also note that the incident has been widely described as an attack by those who were there to witness it (which is not just counterprotesters, but also various journalists). CJK09 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Uninvolved admin comment - I have moved the page to its original location and move-protected it until this discussion closes. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

and I suppose that policy will be to keep it open until any point anti-movers cascade in to gain a slightly lead while ignoring the persistent lead of pro-move? Also keep in mind this is more than a vote here, we need to abide by policy. Anti-movers are simply engaging in OR "looks like an attack, ducks make quacking noises" silliness. We are in direct violation of WP:BLPCRIME so long as we keep this "attack". There is a need for a speedy NPOV here. Drawn out discussions should be whether to move from broad to narrow. This is exactly why articles get titled "shooting" for a good while rather than "attempted murder". Crash is what is neutral here. Most sources are not calling it an attack. No cites support that here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's in a location, and it's been moved four times in the last four hours. That's called a move war, and I'd rather not see it continue. I genuinely have no issues with where this ends up eventually, but talk pages are where discussions happen, not "who gets in the last move". Primefac (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Move to "2017 Charlottesville automobile collision"- Merge to "2017 Unite The Right Rally, move to "2017 Charlottesville automobile collision", or other NEUTRAL article title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Merge - Article should be merged with the 2017_Unite_the_Right_rally as per the discussion in Talk:2017_Unite_the_Right_rally#Proposed_merge_with_2017_Charlottesville_attack.F2Milk (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move for multiple reasons. First, the car was a Charger, not a challenger, making the proposed title inaccurate (admittedly a weak reason, but so be it). Second, as charges have been filed, it seems safe to assume that the police saw this as an attack, not an accident, making attack seem like a more accurate title for now. Lastly, the media is playing it up as an attack, so seeing it referenced as an accident seems unnecessarily confusing when compared to how reliable sources are covering it at this time. If new evidence comes out that make this look like an accident, I think we can come back to this.--Sir Zyr (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • you ought to recuse yourself from this discussion for making straw man arguments. Nobody has suggested including "accident" in the title. The proposal I made was "collision" and Inedible suggested "crash" for brevity. BLP guidelines require convictions, not charges. You are right about the car brand, perhaps we should close this and re-open under correct title 2017 Charlottesville Charger crash or similar? ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Please remember to be civil in discussions. I believe that Sir Zyr (talk · contribs) has potentially equated the word "collision" with the word "accident." That can weaken their argument, but I do not think that they should refuse themselves in any discussion at this time. I would like you to expand on the BLP concerns to help get things back on track since you seem to understand them better than I am at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @InedibleHulk: highlighted WP:BLPCRIME and was correct: editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. The word "attack" suggests the driver committed a crime. A conviction has not been secured. I am fine with reportingthey are accused of it since the murder charge has been reported. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and keep as attack the Charlottesville Police Department have charged the alleged perpetrator with murder and malicious wounding not manslaughter. This was clearly an attack with no accidental nature to it. Jacarandacounsel (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• ADMIN ATTENTION NEEDED : SPEEDY CLOSE - I'm sure in good faith but the same nom has opened two RM templates on the same article. When that happens one or both must close. Aside from which there is evident consensus in both for keeping the current title over the next few days as events unfold. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Crumpled Fire

@Crumpled Fire: please read WP:BLPCRIME

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured.

Your move from car crash > attack violates this. When I made the move it was 2 v 0 and there was/is urgent BLP concern to relocate it. Please do not assist PoV pushing and return it to the more neutral name. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an ongoing move discussion, feel free to participate. This is a controversial move and should remain at its existing title until discussion ends in consensus to move elsewhere. Regarding WP:BLPCRIME, no one in particular is being accused of a crime. The perpetrator is not named. Video footage clearly shows that the vehicle was used to attack a crowd of people, regardless of the driver's intentions. There should be nothing controversial about naming this as an "attack", but feel free to add your arguments to the move discussion. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You have clearly taken a PoV here and should excuse any further application of your admin powers from here on. It is impossible to tell from outside video whether or not the driver intended to hit someone or not. Let the police investigate. The name of the arrested party is widely circulated on the web even if we do not state it here so we should still remain neutral. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but it seems another admin has reverted your move and added move protection. I am withdrawing myself from this discussion at this time. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 01:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No one's named yet, but that won't last a day. There's no such thing as an attack regardless of intention. Intending to damage what you hit is exactly what makes any collision an attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Car Identification

Is it worth putting in the article the car had ohio plates. NY times here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-protest-white-nationalist.html has a pic of the car's license plate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwalker (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's also a Charger, not a Challenger. Somebody fixed it, then somebody unfixed it before somebody locked it. Good times. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what type it was but I could find no quote from a source identifying it so I have added cite needed tags. Hopefully someone locates source that says this... Preferably one published prior to it being added to this article to avoid wp:citeogenesis prob. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Video recorded at the scene of the car crash shows a 2010 gray Dodge Challenger...

Media outlets have reported various combinations of Charger, Challenger, gray and silver based on eyewitness descriptions. Fortunately the Washington Post was able to identify the vehicle based on a video, which is presumably not subject to citeogenesis. Dlthewave (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know cars, I just know the source used said something else. If they match, it's all good, true or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 August 2017

Change "On August 12, 2017, a car collided into a crowd counter-protesting the Unite the Right Rally in downtown Charlottesville, Virginia." to "On August 12, 2017, a car driven by James Fields collided into a crowd counter-protesting the Unite the Right Rally in downtown Charlottesville, Virginia."

and "Shortly after the crash, the driver was arrested." to "Shortly after the crash, Fields was arrested and charged with second degree murder, malicious wounding and failing to stop at an accident that resulted in a death."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/12/virginia-unite-the-right-rally-protest-violence Dlthewave (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not sure if Primefac (talk · contribs) intended to lock the article, but ScratchMarshall (talk · contribs) has raised their issues with the name so I think it would be better to just use "The driver" when possible. Otherwise, I would say that as long as what you have written agrees with the source, then it should be ok with the above modification. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that I read it more closely, news sources are stating that Fields was arrested and charged but hasn't officially been identified as the driver. I'll hold off until the facts are more clear. Dlthewave (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

James A Fields - Arrest

The Washington Post has confirmed that the car was registered to James Alex Fields, an Ohio resident. A man with the same has been arrested in Charlottesville on suspicion of second-degree murder, malicious wounding, failure to stop for an accident involving a death, and hit-and-run.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CopaceticYawp (talk • contribs)

I believe that you are looking to discuss that in the section above since it is a related subject. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

down to 19 injured now? What about all these "at least two dozen" sources? Are they backtracking? Makes me wonder which media is reliable or making guesses when encountering these inconsistencies. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There is the possibility that the injured we counted twice by the police and/or by medical workers. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

20:37, 12 August 2017

This is the date this article was created under the title "attack" with the creator stating it was "deliberately driven into".

Due to wp:citogenesis concerns, we should prioritize sources (if any) which call this an "attack" that were first published (verify with archive.org timestamp) prior to this moment.

Those are the only ones we can be sure came to that pronouncement without this article's prompting. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2017

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

---

2017 Charlottesville attack → Charlottesville car crash – my earlier move request was too long a name. I would like to vacate that in favor of this phrase I just encountered from TWO

• "Charlottesville car crash suspect ID'd as 20-year-old Ohio man". CNN.
• "Charlottesville Rally Turns Deadly: One Killed After Car Strikes Crowd". NBCNews.com. 12 August 2017. Retrieved 13 August 2017. Trump did not respond when reporters asked whether the Charlottesville car crash was terrorism or if he denounced white nationalism.

This is simple, neutral, and a phrase two major media outlets have used. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Wait This page is a day or two away from being merged. Any reasonable redirects can be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That is uncertain. BLP concerns cannot wait. This could affect the neutrality of the murder trial. If it is unimportant then we should hedge our bets on neutrality. What we decide here may influence how it is presented on merger. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose then because this was an attack, is being described as an attack, and this doesn't impact the neutrality of a trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"this was an attack" is your WP:OR, bias noted. I remain neutral and await the court process. Some reports call it an attack (terrorist even) and others say it was unintended. We should not take sides. Neutrality means reporting the crash, reporting the interpretations. This is not a soapbox for condemning the man-to-hate of the week. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and keep as attack, majority of news reports refer to it as an attack and the police have charged the perpretrator with murder. Referring to it as an attack won't impact on sub judice. Jacarandacounsel (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • your mysterious majority is not reflected in our sources. The only time of is mentioned is an Australian article quoting Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and in those cases it is not clear they are referring to the car crash specifically. Please stop opposition BLP policy. We are expected to be neutral, not doing so will very much effect the judicial process. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • ScratchMarshall, I would like to suggest taking this up with Wikipedia:BLPN at this point if you still believe that BLP policy is being violated on both articles. Having said that, I am about to throw up a quick Reflinks template above with articles. I hope this will at least satisfy your claims regarding "your mysterious majority." --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• ADMIN ATTENTION NEEDED : SPEEDY CLOSE? - I'm sure in good faith but the same nom has opened two RM templates on the same article. When that happens one or both must close. Aside from which there is evident consensus in both for keeping the current title over the next few days as events unfold. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Support: The police haven't declared in intentional. Incident is still under investigation. [1] Regardless, he can still be tried for murder even if not declared intentional, I think. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - it was a clear alt-right white supremacist terror attack. Twitbookspacetube 08:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

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