Template:Did you know nominations/Charlottesville car attack
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Nominator has agreed for the nomination to be closed on his talk page. In response to Wumbolo's question, yes the article can be renominated if it becomes a GA, though the BLP concerns would still have to be addressed then.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Charlottesville car attack edit
- ... that the Charlottesville car attack perpetrator refused to interact with the French on a school trip to Europe? Source: [1]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/I Am Malala
- Comment: The attack's one-year anniversary is soon, but my hook isn't time-sensitive.
Moved to mainspace by Wumbolo (talk). Self-nominated at 12:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC).
Article was recently moved to the mainspace, is long enough, and QPQ completed. However, there are problems with the article and hook. I've added a citation needed tag to the Jason Kessler statement, but does this really belong in the lede? Have authorities confirmed Kessler's statement, or is this WP:UNDUE? There's also a WP:BLPCRIME problem with the hook identifying James Alex Fields as the "perpetrator", even though he hasn't been convicted yet (the article identifies him as the "assailant"). FallingGravity 16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- With regards to the {{cn}} tag, I removed the Kessler quote. I added an inline citation for the "no evidence" statement; the New York Times source supports it in this paragraph:
- Detective Young, the sole witness at the hearing, said under questioning by Mr. Fields’s lawyer, Denise Lunsford, that investigators had found no evidence that Mr. Fields was affiliated with any of the groups assembled that day.
- With regards to the {{cn}} tag, I removed the Kessler quote. I added an inline citation for the "no evidence" statement; the New York Times source supports it in this paragraph:
- @FallingGravity: I'm not the most familiar with the words assailant and perpetrator. If they imply crime so much, I'm not opposed to changing everything to "suspect", including in the hook. I see that's what's usually done with recent crime. Will changing it to "suspect" do? wumbolo ^^^ 16:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I too am not familiar with the BLP implications of "assailant", though I'm pretty sure "perpetrator" is off bounds until he's convicted. Reliable sources aren't bound by Wikipedia's BLP rules, but I've found some that say "assailant"[2][3]. As such I think either "suspect" or "assailant" would be acceptable. FallingGravity 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com defines "assailant" as "a person who attacks". The title of the article is "Charlottesville car attack", so "assailant" seems to fit. However, since he hasn't yet been convicted, I do question whether that is the appropriate title. If he had used a bomb or a weapon like a knife or gun his motive to "attack" would be more clear. But car crashes happen everyday, and there is still some question since he hasn't had a trial yet as to whether his intent was to attack or if his motives were something less sinister. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: would any of "attack suspect" or "crash assailant/perpetrator" work? wumbolo ^^^ 01:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think "attack suspect" would be the safest way to go. If he gets convicted at trial later this year, as I suspect he probably will be, then next year we can be more direct. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: thanks. One more question - can the article be titled "attack"? wumbolo ^^^ 11:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think the title is a little problematic, as it does sort of assume the guilt of the driver of the vehicle before there has been a trial. But a lot of media sources seem to refer to it as a "car attack". Something like "car accident" seems weak since that would seem to imply innocence, though arguably we should be assuming innocence before a trial has occurred. Perhaps something like "car incident" would be more neutral. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: would "car incident" in the title, and "car attack suspect" in the hook work? wumbolo ^^^ 16:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with "car attack", but "perpetrator" should be changed to "alleged perpetrator" or something like that. My problem is with the hook, which strikes me as vague and not very exciting. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. "Alleged perpetrator" is probably the way to go. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the original source: AP News. I agree that my hook is vague, and the direct AP reference explains the story in more detail. I find this AP source pretty interesting (e.g. "he only went on the Europe trip to visit the Fatherland"). I will suggest a hook about a fact from the AP article soon; if someone finds some fact interesting, I'll welcome it. And other than this Europe trip story, there aren't any other interesting facts in the Wikipedia article. Thanks a lot for the feedback; I wouldn't have reconsidered the hook otherwise. wumbolo ^^^ 19:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm wondering, though, if a rewrite of the hook wouldn't help make it stronger. "...refused to interact with French people" already sounds a little better to me. Just a thought. Thanks, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies: this below seems too long, right? Not so hooky, and probably boring (160 characters):
- ... that the alleged perpetrator of the Charlottesville car attack went on a school trip to Europe only to visit Germany and was hostile toward French people? [4]
- wumbolo ^^^ 14:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Wumbolo, are you serious? I think it's GREAT. Now, I forgot the rules, but in the character count--I believe--we leave out the article name, the word "that", and things like the marking for bold and wikilinks and the question mark, and with all that gone I have 122 characters. Sure, the sentence as a whole is a bit longer than some hooks, but it's certainly not excessive, it's verified, and FAR from boring. Thanks, and good luck with it!
OK one thing. The article (what a treat, this person) says he "couldn't stand" the French, but what he said about them, he said--I gather--to his schoolmates, not to the French. So maybe you should rephrase, into something like "disparaged French people", which doesn't mean he was disparaging towards them, you know what I mean? And maybe "re-propose" it, putting "ALT1" in front of it--I think BlueMoonset would want you to do that, with that minor tweak. BlueMoonset, am I advising properly? And I'll be happy to OK that hook, though we might ask User:FallingGravity if they're OK with the article after your edits to address their concerns. Again, good luck--I hope you get lots of hits. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Wumbolo, are you serious? I think it's GREAT. Now, I forgot the rules, but in the character count--I believe--we leave out the article name, the word "that", and things like the marking for bold and wikilinks and the question mark, and with all that gone I have 122 characters. Sure, the sentence as a whole is a bit longer than some hooks, but it's certainly not excessive, it's verified, and FAR from boring. Thanks, and good luck with it!
- @Drmies: this below seems too long, right? Not so hooky, and probably boring (160 characters):
- I'm wondering, though, if a rewrite of the hook wouldn't help make it stronger. "...refused to interact with French people" already sounds a little better to me. Just a thought. Thanks, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with "car attack", but "perpetrator" should be changed to "alleged perpetrator" or something like that. My problem is with the hook, which strikes me as vague and not very exciting. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: would "car incident" in the title, and "car attack suspect" in the hook work? wumbolo ^^^ 16:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think the title is a little problematic, as it does sort of assume the guilt of the driver of the vehicle before there has been a trial. But a lot of media sources seem to refer to it as a "car attack". Something like "car accident" seems weak since that would seem to imply innocence, though arguably we should be assuming innocence before a trial has occurred. Perhaps something like "car incident" would be more neutral. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: thanks. One more question - can the article be titled "attack"? wumbolo ^^^ 11:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think "attack suspect" would be the safest way to go. If he gets convicted at trial later this year, as I suspect he probably will be, then next year we can be more direct. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Rreagan007: would any of "attack suspect" or "crash assailant/perpetrator" work? wumbolo ^^^ 01:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com defines "assailant" as "a person who attacks". The title of the article is "Charlottesville car attack", so "assailant" seems to fit. However, since he hasn't yet been convicted, I do question whether that is the appropriate title. If he had used a bomb or a weapon like a knife or gun his motive to "attack" would be more clear. But car crashes happen everyday, and there is still some question since he hasn't had a trial yet as to whether his intent was to attack or if his motives were something less sinister. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I too am not familiar with the BLP implications of "assailant", though I'm pretty sure "perpetrator" is off bounds until he's convicted. Reliable sources aren't bound by Wikipedia's BLP rules, but I've found some that say "assailant"[2][3]. As such I think either "suspect" or "assailant" would be acceptable. FallingGravity 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the alleged perpetrator of the Charlottesville car attack disparaged French people on a school trip to Europe, which he only attended to visit Germany? [5] wumbolo ^^^ 19:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- The information from the hook should be in the article. Currently the article just says:
Fields's roommate on a class trip to Europe in 2015 told the Associated Press that Fields referred to Germany as the Fatherland, "had no interest" in being in France, and "refused to interact with the French".
Not being interested in visiting France, and not interacting with French people, isn't the same thing as "disparaging the French". The article should include the relevant information from the AP article (apparently the quote about him viewing the French as inferior). FallingGravity 03:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)- @FallingGravity: done. wumbolo ^^^ 11:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo and FallingGravity: This hook contravenes BLP policy in that we do not feature on the main page items about perpetrators that have not been convicted (even if the word alleged is used). You need a new hook that concentrates on the event itself or its aftermath and not the driver. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
No alternative hooks have been suggested. FallingGravity 02:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've left one last message on the nominator's talk page and am waiting for a response from them. If they do not reply within the next few days, then please close this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
