Talk:2017 Berkeley protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggestions for Results

• Increasing use of political violence between the alt-right and the far-left in the United States
• Milo Yiannopoulos speech cancelled by UC Berkeley
• Nathan Damigo under investigation by California State Stanislaus

Anything to add? EthnicKekistan (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this prose, or for the infobox? If it's for the infobox, I don't think this belongs. Its too wordy. The first is speculative, since "result" implies its something that will happen because of the protests, while the latter two are specific to individuals and confined to the protests themselves, not unambiguously lasting consequences. Avoid WP:RECENTISM and wait for WP:LASTING effects to become clear. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@EthnicKekistan: Please see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. All of this must be explicitly sourced, as well. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It's for the result section in the inbox. Perhaps the inbox should be revised, but something of this scale is justified to have a results section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthnicKekistan (talk • contribs) 00:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No. What's justified is what's supported by reliable sources, and even then, WP:V isn't necessarily sufficient. Many such event infoboxes do not have a 'results' section. It's entirely optional, and entirely premature. Wikipedia uses a long view, and this is still very fresh. See WP:NOTNEWS if you haven't already. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't, thanks! Wouldn't the US commenting on the Feb 1 incident count, however? EthnicKekistan (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel it is important to note that the LRA advertised the april 15th rally as a free speech/patriots rally. they openly condemned the few white nationalists that showed up and at no time implied this rally was pro-trump. https://www.facebook.com/events/185364111955870/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozmo12358 (talk • contribs) 1:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Names of those arrested on April 15 released

The Berkeley police have released a list of names of those arrested at the April 15 protest. I'm not sure how or if this information should be incorporated into this article, because I'm concerned about WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Putting the link here for reference. Funcrunch (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This article also includes the names with additional information and context. Funcrunch (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Between WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME we would need a very good reason to include these names other than just WP:V. Even if any of these people are independently notable, we should probably find a more specific source just to make sure we have the right person, also. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Biased article

You forgot to mention when dozens of antifas attacked one free speech defender (using skateboards too), it was literally caught on CNN video. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/04/15/donald-trump-protesters-clash-berkeley.cnn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.66.234 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The reporter on that video segment said nothing about "antifas" nor "free speech defenders". The participants were described as people for and against Trump. We need to go by what is actually said, not any editor's interpretation of it. Funcrunch (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

yes but the reporter was very clearly wrong, it was very clear those were antifa because it was an organized group waving antifa flags dressed as antifa and antifa was the group that came to the rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.212 (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

More bias

Antifa also started the fight, which the MSM and Wikipedia never covers due to their liberal bias except one passing mention hiding in the middle of a CBS article http://www.cbsnews.com/news/protesters-arrested-as-pro-trump-and-anti-trump-rallies-clash-in-berkeley/ "A Trump supporter was the first casualty of the day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.66.234 (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this has more to do with Wikipedia having a anti trump pro left authoritarian bias. many people and organizations are miss represented except europa witch only one member was know to show up. Lauren Southern Is far from a right wing extremist she is a libertarian.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.244.135 (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2017‎

Rationalwiki is not a reliable source, and that article isn't being entirely sincere in describing her as libertarian ("She is like the Mechagodzilla or Space Godzilla to Ann Coulter's Godzilla." "Libertarians! They're actually just conservatives." etc.) As for the political compass, it's popular, but being popular doesn't make it accurate or informative, and without reliable sources specifically linking it to these events it's meaningless here. A forum post which doesn't even mention Southern means nothing.

As for the first casualty, can you propose a specific change? Grayfell (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Antifa-girl etc Half the trouble here is that the majority of the so called anti-Trump/anti-fascist protesters are MASKED, while the allegedly fascist/pro-Trump/pro free speech side are not, so are identifiable. And who are the most violent? IMHO the masked ones who are carrying Anti-fascista signs/flags. For example, the 'bike lock incident', which I think should have as much coverage (for balance) is not mentioned right now. (Redacted) Going back to the 'bike lock incident', while some fairly terse discussion was taking place 2 masked women (?) in the front row attempted to swat at phone/s recording the talk. A bystander merely held up his arm to ward off the second swat when shortly after a masked person on the 'anti-fa' side reached forward between thtt person and another and struck that bystander in the head with what appears to be a U-shaped bike lock. The bystander immediately began bleeding, was treated and I believe taken to hospital due to a large gash on his head. The attacker has been 'identified' by 4Chan, and others IIRC, but I doubt if there is enough evidence for the police to act. Why? Because for the majority of the riot/rally, and when he used the bike lock, he was masked though it slipped at times, so maybe there is hope the perpetrator will be caught. As said a person has been identified, and it's either him, his twin or a doppelganger. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAIyBW0ZOmM "The Professor as a Fascist Criminal" for a possibly biased commentary on the event and search for the perp.220 of Borg 04:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC) (Redacted) Oh yeah, she is also now nicknamed as 'Moldylocks'. 220 of Borg 05:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC) References

Esquire as a source?

Really? Esquire is a "men's magazine", not a news organization, and any news site that writes BuzzFeed style clickbait headlines like the one featured in that link is not appropriate for source material. Lauren Southern is hardly a "white nationalist" and the liberal use of those impactful words to describe any political philosophy that leans right of Trotsky is ridiculous. Wikipedia's consistent, purposeful blurring of lines between the few in the United States who believe in honest to God Ku Klux Klan white supremacy and blue collar conservatives or nationalists is disgracing it as a reliable source of information. Whether you agree with Southern or not, she has never declared her support for any white nationalist group or organization. It's outright misleading. The April 15 section in the timeline needs to be revised.--Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Esquire has a long and respected history as a news organization (see New Journalism for one example). Being a men's magazine doesn't make it unreliable. For that matter, BuzzFeed can also, sometimes, be a reliable source. If you think I'm wrong, you can ask for additional input at WP:RSN. Southern is not from the United States, by the way, but her support for the far-right is well supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lying by omission

1. You need to outline the fact that there were a lot of moderates and free speech supporters at the event, and most of the left-wing protestors were ANTIFA, like the girl who got punched. The editors are trying to paint this as the alt-right and Trump supporters vs the left-wing

2. If you're going to mention the girl getting punched, you should mention what she said on Facebook (nazi scalp threat) and that she was seen throwing bottles into the crowds - (Redacted). Also mention the violence from ANTIFA (e.g. m80 bombs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameequalsjeff (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia must follow published sources, mainly secondary sources. There were moderates, both pro- and anti-Trump, at the rally. Sources do not cover them much, because they were not part of the fighting and rioting. Not really surprising, is it? The Esquire article discussed above explains that the anti-fascists were not there because of the moderate free-speech supporters, or even Trump supporters. They were there to oppose the white supremacists and actual neo-Nazis who had filtered in from multiple states. Since neo-Nazis and similar groups were there, and armed, in substantial numbers, this is what sources are focusing on, and this is what this article must focus on.

(Redacted)... Anyway, you need reliable sources for this, and sources should be more than just gossip. Snopes, for example, says it's very poorly supported. I don't remember reading any source that says injury or damage was caused by M-80s, which suggests this was a noisy but minor aspect of the protest. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if there were multiple reliable sources confirming (Redacted), it would be utterly irrelevant and inappropriate to include in this article. Funcrunch (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nameequalsjeff: Please remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Potentially defamatory claims about living people like the ones you've been making here need to be backed up with reliable sources. That said, I agree with Grayfell and Funcrunch that I can't see how that particular allegation would be relevant to this article even if it is true and supported by sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Berkeley police investigate alumnus connection to rally assault

http://goldengatexpress.org/2017/04/23/berkeley-police-investigate-alumnus-connection-to-rally-assault/

71.182.244.13 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Per WP:BLPCRIME including this in any detail would be premature. Even so: "A guy who 4chan thought had a certain job, but it turns out he didn't, and he may or may not have committed a crime." What is that? That's nothing. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

This was a free speech rally, to continue to call it a pro trump rally is directly in conflict with the truth: https://www.facebook.com/events/185364111955870/

also, many people in this article are labeled as white supremacists and alt right with no evidence provided to support it and the presence of neo-nazis at the rally is exaggerated with no mention of them being condemned by the speakers and the facebook page for the event. this appears to be an attempt to paint the rally itself as a much more radical event than it was. Cozmo12358 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Facebook is of limited value, and the name chosen for the rally shouldn't be overstated when many reliable sources link the rally to both Trump and the alt-right. Regardless of the eventual outcome of this discussion, the requested edit template should be posted after consensus has been reached through discussion, not before. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

understood, but the facebook page shows all the event posters and the description of the evnt all posted by the liberty revival alliance who organized this event. I understand the confusion as many of the original reports were incorect, so here is a video from the LRA announcing the eventhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvS0JBn06YM

here are some reports after the event that got it right due to them afterward having time to research more extensiveley

http://ktla.com/2017/04/18/police-ask-for-help-iding-people-involved-in-violence-at-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley/

https://news.vice.com/story/chaos-and-violence-erupted-at-a-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/04/15/free-speech-rally-berkeley-results-several-injuries-least-4-arrests/

http://observer.com/2017/04/berkeley-free-speech-patriots-day-turns-violent/

https://www.oathkeepers.org/live-free-speech-rally-berkeley-ca/

http://kron4.com/2017/04/13/video-berkeley-police-gearing-up-for-saturday-pro-trump-rally-anti-trump-protests/

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-riots-berkeley-california-injured-arrested-585022

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/16/a-little-american-civil-war-in-berkeley.html

http://sanfrancisco.carpediem.cd/events/2877856-free-speech-rally-in-berkeley-at-civic-center-park/

I don't mean to spam you and I respect you shutting off public editing and waiting to get all the facts. Many right wing people did show up, but headline speakers included the pink pistols and the speakers repeatedly condemned the few white nationalists there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.212 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here are those sources:

• [3] Saturday’s nonpermitted demonstration was billed as a “free speech” rally by conservative activists, but soon devolved into violence. The source accepts that it's free speech, but only in quotes, and only with qualification. Nowhere does it mention the organizers distancing themselves from white nationalist. The organizers invited white nationalists in the first place, which undermines that claim, anyway.
• The Vice article is usable, but only of limited value here, as it is a brief news blurb which summarizes other sources and adds no new reporting. It's better to use the cited sources in this case.
• [4] The Daily Californian does mention the Pink Pistols, but it describes the spokesperson as far right. The Free Speech Rally was organized by Rich Black, who was also behind the “March 4 Trump” rally that took place last month ... is pretty clear, also. Was he organizing the same group of people in the same area, and expecting radically different results and a totally different ideological rationale? Reliable sources don't accept that.
• The Observer article is an opinion piece, which isn't usable for statements of fact.
• I do not see anything usable from the Oathkeepers link, either.
• [5] Contrast A conservative group calling itself the Liberty Revival Alliance is billing Saturday’s noon event as a patriot’s day free speech rally. with But anti-Trump demonstrators aren’t buying the group’s message of free speech. Which of these groups is correct? We do not necessarily accept the event organizer as the sole authority here.
• [6] The trouble unfolded when hundreds of Trump opponents staged a counter-rally alongside an event billed as a "Patriots Day" free-speech rally and picnic, organized by mostly Trump supporters. Picnic? Really? Did anyone remember to bring napkins? This was "mostly" Trump supporters, and that's being pretty generous compared to other sources.
• [7] The promoters insisted that they sought a peaceful demonstration, and many were, in fact, largely peaceful. And it did look to this reporter that the far left, the black clad demonstrators, initiated much of the violence. But the pro-Trump side also included provocateurs that preach in favor of white racism, gun rights and against immigrants both legal and illegal. Notice that the reporter, even presenting a relatively sympathetic angle, still just says "pro-Trump side".
• Event listings are not neutral, and not particularly reliable.

With this in mind, can you propose a specific, actionable change? Thanks Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you would like an actual change I would suggest, change it from a pro trump rally to a free speech rally in the first sentence of the April 15th section, and don't say "Planned speakers included Brittany Pettibone, Lauren Southern, Tim Treadstone, and others associated with the far-right and white nationalism.[15][16][17]". This sentence makes the claim that these three are associated with white supremacy, a VERY radical claim with no supporting evidence, brittany pettibone has written for the website alt right.com, but that is the only thing I have seen that could possibly link her to white supremacy and that really would be a stretch. there is no evidence that this was planned to be a pro-trump rally, many of the event organizers and speakers were on the right, but to suggest that automatically means this rally that they only ever claimed was about free speech automatically has to be a pro trump rally seems a little bit off target. I don't want to suggest any radical changes, I just want it stated that this was a free speech rally, and I don't think this article should suggest three people are associated with white supremacy without evidence as that is a radical statement. the article should still refer to them as far-right, even though I personally disagree with that description, because that is arguable, and I don't want this article to reflect any individuals bias, including my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.212 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's something we can work with. Treadstone has definitely been linked to white supremacism by many reliable sources (some arguably more reliable and others).[8][9][10] The connection is less obvious with Pettibone and Southern, but whether or not they are supremacist, they are definitely all part of the same tiny walled-garden of far-right activists. As for "free speech" vs "pro-Trump", every substantial source I've read specifically mentions Trump as being the unifying factor. Ignoring that wouldn't be neutral. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

well, I don't know enough about tim treadstone to defend him but to lump Lauren southern and Brittany Pettibone in with him seems misleading as there really isn't anything solid connecting them to white supremacy. also, i disagree with you about the free speech vs pro trump argument, it was NEVER even implied that it would be a pro-trump rally, and saying that you read about and saw mostly trump supporters is not evidence, neither is any of the news reports that also cited the appearance of a lot of trump supporters. all the evidence based on fact says it was a free speech rally. all the journalists that examined the event page said it was a free speech rally and that is because it was only ever meant to be a free speech rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.212 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources to determine what is and is not fact. We use sources, not direct evidence, and we strongly favor secondary sources. Sources which cover this in substance all agree that this was strongly linked to Trump. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think your just biased yourself, I have shown you plenty of sources that were second hand, I have linked you to every advertisement for the event. you are dishonest, there is absolutely NO evidence that this was a pro trump rally, the news sources that claimed this was a pro trump rally never backed that claim up because there is NO evidence. Yes a lot of trump supporters were there, that means nothing, there were plenty of other political philosophies there, all of the speakers spoke of it as a free speech rally, it was only ever advertised as one, and there is not ONE SHRED of evidence it was anything else, have wasted my time here because YOU ARE BIASED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.212 (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The evidence is the sources. That's how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia has standards for what is and is not a reliable source, and reliable sources link this to Trump. I don't actually think that's entirely accurate either but that's not really a problem we can solve without other sources. The Esquire source discussed below makes a good case that it wasn't exactly pro-Trump, it was organized as a "Patriots Day" event by white-nationalists to make their radical positions appear less radical. That's why "free speech" isn't going to work without qualifiers. Sources either don't emphasize it at all, or say it was a smokescreen.

Advertisements are not reliable sources, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Advertisements are also not second-hand, they are first-hand from the organizers. Sources indicate that the organizers of the event were tied to violence and white nationalism (Kyle Chapman and others) and knew exactly what they were doing when they called this a free speech event. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No your biased, here is why: the organization that ran this event was the LRA, there is no evidence they are associated with white supremacy but even if there was that wouldn't mean this was automatically not a free speech rally, white supremacists can have a free speech rally. you say sources indicate this event was tied with white nationalism and violence... that is also not an argument against this being a free speech rally, seriously, i could go in to how you are obviously tring to paint this as a white supremacy related event, but right now all I'm asking you to do is say this was a free speech rally because there IS NO EVIDENCE THIS WAS A PRO TRUMP RALLY your article is WRONG and you won't change it because you are a shill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.212 (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Spencer's attendance (Apr 27)

I can't find any sources confirming he attended. This source says he has promised to attend "within the next year." James J. Lambden (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional (unincorporated) sources

CBS News: Ann Coulter student supporters file suit against UC Berkeley [11] James J. Lambden (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: I have no objection to this source being added, but I am concerned about too much weight being given to a Coulter talk that may or may not occur on an article about protests that actually have occurred. Funcrunch (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparently a protest against Coulter is now planned to happen whether she shows up or not. I think we should exercise restraint and wait until it actually occurs before adding information on the protest to the article. Funcrunch (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern but the controversy may be notable whether or not the talk and/or protests go forward. I do feel we should wait for more coverage, which is why I began this section. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest is she plans to speak at Sproul Plaza on Thursday, in which case protests and counterprotests are highly likely. Funcrunch (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Fox News: Ann Coulter cancels Berkeley event amid protests, says decision 'a dark day for free speech in America [12] To be incorporated for YAF content. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Root (magazine) source reliable?

Is The Root a WP:RS reliable source? This [13] is used as a source for Kyle Chapman 'Based Stickman'.
Nb. Kyle Chapman ("... former national director of the New Zealand National Front (NZNF), a white nationalist political party." is another person (it appears) entirely. 220 of ^Borg 05:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The Root article links to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle which could be used instead. Funcrunch (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, should go back to the original 'source'. The Root page reads like an opinion piece. 220 of ^Borg 03:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

add method

It says Vandalism, street fighting and assault, but riot i believe should be added, as the february 1st event became a riot.108.208.70.47 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Arson should be added for Feb 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanillaDazzle (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested edit

1. Please remove the sentence about "several news organizations...", since only one source is cited, and it is Esquire magazine, which is not a news organization.
2. Please remove all description of the nature of the protestors, i.e. "far-left" "anarchists" "alt-right" etc. since information in the lede which is not cited in the body of the article must be cited in the lede, and this information is not cited, except for the aforementioned Esquire article, which, again, is not a reliable source for political news. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Your second claim is incorrect. One of the first sources (NY Times) mentions anarchists. WaPo: "far-left activists and antifascists." Business Insider: "clashes between militant left-wing and right-wing activists." WaPo: "Berkeley has been at the center ... pitting protesters from the far-left and the far-right", etc.

Your first claim may be as well. From an existing source:

"Berkeley has been at the center of a bitter fight over free speech, pitting protesters from the far-left and the far-right galvanized by President Trump’s election in November. Some protesters are demanding that controversial speakers not be given a platform, while others insist that blocking them violates their right to free speech. While confrontations over speakers are nothing new on college campuses, the anger has spun into riots in some places, leaving universities and police trying to balance safety and First Amendment rights." [14]

Please carefully examine the sources and revise the request accordingly. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Particularly egregious section.

"During the event, Nathan Damigo—a 30-year-old Cal State Stanislaus student and the founder of the white supremacist group Identity Evropa—punched a 20-year-old woman in the face, then ran off into the crowd. The attack was captured on video and prompted calls for Damigo's arrest or expulsion.[24] Cal State Stanislaus stated that that they would investigate Damigo.[24]"

Is this a joke? "Ran off into the crowd" is not suitable for an encyclopedia, surely some mention should be made about this girl brandishing bottles and going there with the intent of getting "Nazi scalps"?

The way this section is written is bordering on absurdity.

78.149.209.252 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't the tweet a reference to Inglourious Basterds? She was going to a counter-protest against white supremacist groups and tweeted a line from a movie about fighting white supremacist groups. Who cares? Regardless, this was already discussed above, which you should've read before posting this. You would need reliable sources for this, and since this is a WP:BLP issue, they must be very reliable. Blogs and shaky youtube clips aren't going to cut it. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

He was acting in self defense when he punched her. The woman whom he punched had been hitting innocent people with glass bottles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03bHf6j1T5o 71.182.240.13 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As I just said, Youtube videos aren't going to cut it, and there is no way in hell that channel is a reliable source. Find something much better. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your tone is a bit ridiculous, I did read the prior section. I acknowledge the need for proper sources, obviously; the sad reality is some instances don't seem to be reported on at all outside whack-job websites, even when there's abundant impartial proof.

Sadly, it seems like there's not any proper news places reporting on it yet, c'est la vie. 78.149.209.252 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell and even the other person, actually youtube videos in THIS CASE are considered PRIMARY sources because they contain RAW footage. Most articles on Wikipedia cite sources that are tertiary, at best. I'd be curious what you were taught are proper sources. Primary and secondary sources are THE ONLY sources I was allowed to use when I wrote research papers for college. Also, the comment about "nazi scalps" was on her Facebook, not a tweet. Again, this is a case of a primary source. If you don't know what I'm talking about please read up on it VanillaDazzle (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't college and you aren't writing a research paper. You need to read up on our foundational policies, which demand that virtually all content in the encyclopedia be based upon reliable secondary sources that have been professionally fact-checked and edited, such as reputable news organizations, published books, academic journals, magazines, etc. This is particularly the case when we are discussing issues connected to living people. Some rando's YouTube channel is not, and never will be, a useful source for this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources, because the ones named reliable here got their information from Youtube as well. Wikipedia is now ridiculous ideological battlefield! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.100.145 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Biased Coverage

I noticed on the April 15th section that there weren't any mentions of Antifa being the other half of the fight, that the woman attacked was a member of Antifa and had earlier spoken about getting "100 Nazi scalps" at the protest. This section seems extremely biased against one side, and more information should be added. 47.156.34.70 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

agreed. both sides came itching for a fight in large numbers. while we can get into debates on who is more to blame, i think this fact isn't in dispute. in regard to the woman in question, she is seen swinging a glass wine bottle at people before she was punched. it was retaliatory. plenty of blame to go around. 24.130.1.183 (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed to add the stated information to the article. Funcrunch (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/04/18/boys-punching-girls-feminisms-big-win/ here you go then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.212 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an editorial. Need higher quality sourcing for contentious statements. Funcrunch (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This was a free speech rally, to continue to call it a pro trump rally is directly in conflict with the truth: https://www.facebook.com/events/185364111955870/

also, many people in this article are labeled as white supremacists and alt right with no evidence provided to support it and the presence of neo-nazis at the rally is exaggerated with no mention of them being condemned by the speakers and the facebook page for the event. this appears to be an attempt to paint the rally itself as a much more radical event than it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozmo12358 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah seriously. Whoever wrote these sections originally is clearly leaving out some of the facts to portray the left and antifa in a better light. Absolutely pathetic that this type of behavior is going on in WIkipedia 108.170.74.226 (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is highly biased. I just got a snotty message on my talk page from that funcrunch user a little above this trying to claim I said something without references. I said they should add arson to the section on the February 1st incident. I think I also said that Youtube is a valid source if it contains raw footage (but I'm not seeing it now, don't know if I'm missing it or he took it down). I mean if you write a research paper in college, you can cite a youtube video if it's a primary source, such as an hour and a half raw footage video of an event or an interview, but you can't cite Wikipedia, AT ALL. Not to mention, this is a talk page not an article edit. I think he figured he could boss me around because this was my first edit on Wikipedia, but I've been on Wikia.com for a year and a half, so I know how a wiki works. It's bad enough the article is biased leaving out key information, like the fact that the antifa were breaking the law. They threw at least 7 M-80 fireworks into crowds of both the anti-first ammendment group and pro-first amendment group. They had facemasks on, which is against the law, as well as speaks to their intent. Also, the American side wasn't really even fighting at the Feb. 1st incident. They were just there to see Milo, a gay political comedian and provocateur (with thought and discussion not violence). The left just smears exaggerated or false labels on anyone not on the left. (Redacted)VanillaDazzle (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@VanillaDazzle: The talk page warning was for a serious violation of our Biographies of Living Persons policy, which you should read (it applies to talk pages as well as articles). You should also read on how we identify reliable sources to understand why primary sources are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Ok, I looked at it and it says, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." It acknowledges primary sources and explains when you can and can't use them. It reinforces the same standards required when one writes research papers for college. Also, Wikipedia states that you should use sources that fact check. Many of the sources being used are known to not fact check.

You, on your user page, "My current (2016-2017) focus on Wikipedia is improving representation of marginalized people. Transgender/nonbinary people and black people[1] are my priorities. I am active on the LGBT Studies and Women in Red WikiProjects." It's pretty clear that you're here to slant articles in an extreme left wing direction.

Finally, I do not see any sort of label on your user page indicating that you're moderator of some sort. Where is this information displayed? VanillaDazzle (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@VanillaDazzle: I am not a "moderator" of any sort and have never claimed to be. Any Wikipedia editor can add notices to user talk pages and revert content that does not comply with policies. Funcrunch (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: So you're trying to harass and intimidate a new user? Also, leave the moderating to moderators. I'm sure the policies here are similar to other forums and wiki sites. This behavior you exhibit is normally against a sites terms. If it's not, it's still very, very poor nettique. If a moderator sees this, please deal with this guy. If anyone knows how to report him, please report him and/or let me know how to. If you did that on one of my wikis to one of my users, I would definitely block you with the lengths increasing every time. You just figured you could harass me because I'm new to wikipedia, which makes it even worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanillaDazzle (talk • contribs) 5:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh Ahmisa, guess what I just found? "Damigo charged a diminutive woman who was involved in the fighting and punched her in the face, then ran away into the crowd." That was in THE SAME ARTICLE that is already cited and looky there, "WAS INVOLVED IN THE FIGHTING" and yet whomever used that LA Times article did not add this fact and exhibited bias. Bias is against Wikipedia's policy. VanillaDazzle (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not taking part in this content debate, simply pointing out that the way Wikipedia works is not at all the way 'wikis' like Wiki.com operate. Funcrunch isn't acting like a moderator. We don't have moderators, we have WP:Administrators like me, but I'm not acting like/as an Admin here, just as an experienced editor trying to clarify things. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The title is wrong/ missleading

There have been substantially more protests than the alt-right events in Berkeley in 2017. The articles title is inherently misleading unless the intention is to list all of the events in Berkeley in 2017.

I suggest "Violence at political rallies in Berkeley, 2017" or something similar to increase clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C410:2740:697A:A8AB:557C:18E8 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Antifa?

So I noticed this article makes no mention of Antifa. If you need an RS that mentions them, then here you go: [15][16][17]Terrorist96 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Enough...

I have fully protected the page, and yes, I know it's the wrong version. Frankly, I don't care who is right or wrong here; everyone involved: just use the talk-page to find consensus. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read what the recent revisions were about? The last several revisions by IP users were done to remove defamatory material against a named person. If such material was left in the article in a locked state, this matter would have had to be elevated rather swiftly. TheValeyard (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes: Lectonar, as TheValeyard pointed out, today's IP edits introduced rather serious BLP violations which I've already pinged Vanamonde93 (who full-protected this article previously) about revdeleting. This had nothing to do with the ongoing argument over the infobox, which I haven't participated in and don't care much about. But due to the subject of this article and continued disruption from unconfirmed editors, I propose that it be extended-protected, indefinitely. I can post a request to the appropriate noticeboard, but don't think it would be welcomed or acted upon while the current full protection is in place. Funcrunch (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

April 15 bike lock incident

Re this edit and summary by Grayfell, there actually are a number of reliable sources that state the name and former profession of the person committing the (alleged) act: Washington Post, Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. Since we're listing the name and affiliation of the individual who punched a woman in the face in the previous paragraph (and not saying "allegedly" there), I don't see how we have grounds to suppress this information. Funcrunch (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not flatly against this, but caution is called for. I'm sure there are multiple sources, but WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME suggest that being mentioned in news articles is not necessarily sufficient for being identified as the perpetrator of an otherwise non-notable crime. He is being accused of these crimes, but there's a lot more to this, and we should be able to clearly explain why this is WP:DUE. Damigo is at least somewhat notable as the founder of the notable and relevant white supremacist group Identity Evropa. This guy isn't notable. He's is a former part-time philosophy teacher at a school that has nothing to do with this. He's nobody, and is absolutely non-noteworthy other than this one incident, so we need to be able to explain why this is significant.

He has been charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, and this should be treated as a criminal act. If we include this at all, it's not going to kill us to include this bare-minimum acknowledgment of being innocent until proven guilty. The Mercury source uses "alleged", and the SFGate story said Uncovering Clanton's identity became a minor obsession in some internet circles after video surfaced of a man — now believed by many to be Clanton... They are as cautious of the wording here as we should be.

Let's not ignore the elephant, either. A big part of the reason anyone is talking about this is because it became a "minor obsession" among the alt-right. The Mercury says it went viral, and links to a video by /pol/ about this. This is, also according to sources, why some people think his former job is significant. If this is why this is being covered, we should evaluate how much context we should be giving. Including some of the basic facts while ignoring the larger, documented context is making this much less neutral.

The lasting significance of this is almost certainly trivial, but without longer-term sources that's just a guess, and without those sources it's hard to understand why this matters. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood. But given this article's contentious history, I expect further edit-warring and (assuming the page is protected again as a result) more invective on the talk page over this issue... Funcrunch (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC about adding an infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus against adding the suggested infobox to the article. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the following infobox to the right be added to the article? Kamalthebest (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 Berkeley protests
Protesters during the April 15 rally
Date	February 1, 2017–present
Location	Berkeley, California 37.8716° N, 122.2727° W
Methods	Protesting, street fighting, vandalism, assault
Status	Intermittent
Parties
Anarchist groups ANTIFA Anti-Trump protesters BAMN Communist groups International Socialist Organization Alt-right groups Conservative groups Fraternal Order of Alt Knights Identity Evropa Proud Boys Oath Keepers Trump supporters White nationalist groups Berkeley Police Department University of California Police Department Alameda County Sheriff's Department
Casualties
Injuries	Several (February 1) 7 (March 4) 11 (April 15) Several (April 27)
Arrested	1 (February 1) 10 (March 4) 23 (April 15) 5 (April 27)

Survey

• Support: I believe it is helpful to the reader and uncontroversial considering other similar riots/protests such as the 2017 French riots, 2017 Russian protests, and 2017 Serbian protests have similar infoboxes. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my comments above: I agree that the infobox should be removed. Describing these protests as a "civil conflict" blows things way out of proportion, and the time and energy spent already arguing over who is and is not a "leader" of the various sides of these protests is way beyond productive. Information about involved parties, etc. can be included in the body text. I would be less opposed to its inclusion if the "sides" parameters were left blank. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per earlier comments. An editor or two is trying to make this into something that it is not. TheValeyard (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. Parabolist (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons articulated by GorillaWarfare, although I think the casualties section should also be removed if the infobox is kept but pared back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrote (talk • contribs)
• Oppose it's not a civil conflict... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- does not serve a useful purpose. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Hello, Drmies, NorthBySouthBaranof, GorillaWarfare, K.e.coffman, PerfectlyIrrational, James J. Lambden 🇺🇸, TheValeyard, Parabolist, and Charles lindberg. This is the formal WP:RfC regarding whether or not to include the infobox. If you would like to re-add your views, please do so above. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

May I please add that image at the top of the article without the infobox? --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Sure, that's not where the controversy is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalthebest (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Umm... actually, I added the photo to the "April 15" section. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Kamalthebest, may you please withdraw the proposal and then close it? Seems that the consensus opposes adding the infobox. George Ho (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Well, unfortunately, no one outside of the original discussion has since given an opinion which kind of defeats the whole person of a neutral WP:RfC. I'm not sure how to proceed, really. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I requested closure at WP:ANRFC, where you can request closures in the future. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

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.

Removal of Civil Conflict Header

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See the RfC below. There is a consensus not to include an infobox in this article. Mz7 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

---

It seems ridiculous that the page's civil conflict header was removed. This pretty clearly falls under the purpose. There was large-scale violence, rioting, and civil unrest that cost over $100,000 so far. All of the people listed have multiple sources of documentation that they were attending, or planning on attending. This is section-blanking for no good reason. There was clear evidence of violence, fighting, injuries, arrests, and other hallmarks of civil unrest. It has also been listed as such by multiple news organizations. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is a protest, not a war. An infobox with listings such as leaders, parties, and casualties is hyperbolically bonkers. TheValeyard (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"A civil conflict infobox may be used... for example, protest, clash with police". This seems to clearly fall under that, if not, that is something you will have to request to change. This isn't the war info box, but a civil unrest infobox. Instances of large-scale protesting, clashing with police, rioting, vandalism, assault, and other civil unrest is well-documented with documentation.

• No, this is nonsense. If those arguments stand you could put that infobox on every demo--why not for one that did $1000 of damage? And all planned speakers are "parties" to the conflict? Are you going to put the young woman who was punched in the face by a Nazi in there as well? No, this is not a "civil conflict" for the purpose of this infobox. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Wouldn't this fall clearly under a civil conflict? (The description for use of a civil conflict is "A civil conflict infobox may be used... for example, protest, clash with police") This isn't a war infobox, but a civil conflict one. There has been many fights between protests, and frequent violence between protestors - all of which falls pretty clearly under a civil conflict. There does not have to be large-scale bloodshed to fall under a civil conflict, but only large scale civil disruption, which this falls clearly under. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This clearly falls under a civil conflict. The description includes rioting, large-scale protesting, civil unrest, and other circumstances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_civil_conflict PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Watts was a civil conflict. The Rodney King riots was a civil conflict. This was just nothing like that. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there not "large protesting, clash with polices, rioting, and vandalism" Occupy Seattle and other peaceful movements are considered to fall under the InfoBox. This is that on steroids. The only thing I could possible see removing are the local Berkeley ANTIFA leader, along with the girl who was punched by Nathan Damigo; it is possible that the leaders could also be removed. The example given is simply people protesting over a budget. However, saying that the civil conflict InfoBox should be removed is totally nuts. There are hundreds of cases of it being used, that are much less severe then this.

Edit-conflict. Watts was a riot, the infobox applies even to protests of which "civil conflict" may not be the best description. It seems like the this template is poorly named but correctly applied in this case. And while this recent demonstration was peaceful see the February 1 and March 4 entries and accompanying article which detail violence, arrests and significant property damage. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Was Milo there, or did he directly "lead" or organize these events? No. Was Spencer there, or did he directly "lead" or organize these events? No. The infobox is drawing battlefront lines and organizations that do not exist. You can't make up stuff, stick it in an article, and call it good. TheValeyard (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

What stuff in this is "made up". All of the organizations here have extensive sourcing - often multiple. This isn't a war, this is a civil conflict. They don't have to be using violence, look at how the Occupy civil conflict has people leading the protests, instead of people fighting. Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, Brittany Pettibone, Lauren Southern, and others have been clearly leading the protests. That is all that matters, not whether they engaged in acts of violence. If it can't be justified in this article, you are arguing that most of the uses of this tag should be removed, which is insane. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

None of this actually rebutted what I said, so...ok. TheValeyard (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues in dispute:

1. Is the infobox appropriate
2. What information should be included

You're now arguing (2); your edit removed (1). I agree several named individuals should not be included but organizations for whose presence we have multiple sources, should. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

TheValeyard says it pretty good. These "unrests", which are important and on a large scale only in the eyes of a certain segment of the media, aren't a conflict between clearly delineated parties. Last time I looked there were three columns--was this a conflict between three sets of parties like ISIS, the Syrian government, the Syrian opposition? No, that is not the part that was played by the police, as far as I can tell; plus, it had nonsense like "Trump supporters" in there, as if those aren't also alt-right/conservative/Proud Boys/whatever. That the presence of such groups was verified doesn't mean we all of a sudden have a "civil conflict". And whose were the methods listed? "Protesting, street fighting, vandalism, assault"--were the parties in the third column also guilty of that? Stop inflating this. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You disprove your own point by saying "large-scale rioting and civil unrest that cost over $100,000 so far"; the 1992 Los Angeles riots, which actually were "large-scale" civil unrest, resulted in more than $1 billion in property damage. You're off by several orders of magnitude here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The infobox description makes that point irrelevant:

"A civil conflict infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular civil conflict (for example, protest, clash with police) in a standard manner. This template is designed for non-military conflicts, so please do not use on the entry of military conflict."

There is no requirement that there be a minimum amount of damage, protest or conflict alone meets the bar. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There is also no requirement that the infobox be included, and the minor nature of this purported "civil conflict" renders a massive infobox completely unnecessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that the infobox should be removed. Describing these protests as a "civil conflict" blows things way out of proportion, and the time and energy spent already arguing over who is and is not a "leader" of the various sides of these protests is way beyond productive. Information about involved parties, etc. can be included in the body text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with the removal. The protestors were *not* clashing with police; they were clashing with the counter-protestors. I'd describe it as a brawl, rather than a civil protest. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree with the removal. Can we please have a formal WP:RfC to have some consensus before removing the infobox? Personally, I agree with James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 and PerfectlyIrrational. I believe the infobox is warranted because this fit the description listed: "A civil conflict infobox may be used... for example, protest, clash with police." Also, regardless of what you want to call it, an infobox is helpful for readers to have a summary who exactly participated in the protests/riots. That being said, I believe the "leaders" section should have been removed because it was not clear that those people actually lead the efforts described. Kamalthebest (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Compromise Proposal: Removal of leaders section, and cleanup of notable groups. This seems like the most logical solution anyway. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @PerfectlyIrrational: I've re-added this compromised version. I hope no one has issue with it. Kamalthebest (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

    There is no consensus for any form of this infobox. Removed. TheValeyard (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

    There is no consensus to remove it either, TheValeyard. People seem to be split about 50/50 on this. How do you suppose we move forward? I suggested a formal WP:RfC above. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think our definition of "50/50" differs significantly. TheValeyard (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard Really? Why? I count five people being in favor of removing this infobox (You, Drmies, NorthBySouthBaranof, GorillaWarfare, and K.e.coffman) and three in favor of keeping it (Me, PerfectlyIrrational, James J. Lambden 🇺🇸). Keep in mind that is before the proposed compromise of removing the "lead segment" which even I had a problem with. That's why I think we should have a formal WP:RfC like I proposed earlier. (Also, please ping me next time so I get a notification someone replied. Thx!) Kamalthebest (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, really. By all means, begin an rfc if one is desired. Until then though, consensus does not support the addition of any sort of "civil conflict" infobox. TheValeyard (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with the removal as well. Infoboxes are extremely useful for quickly presenting information to the reader, and the implementation of the Civil Conflict IB to this page has almost no usable info, so it seems wholly unneeded. Parabolist (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Charles lindberg: Hello, Charles. I noticed you recently tried to add an infobox to this article but we are currently debating whether or not to include one so you can add your voice here if you want. Kamalthebest (talk) 05:15, 7 May 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.

Biased Outlook

In this article I can only see comments that are against conservatives, against the right, for the left or only half facts. In some of the right and conservative protests, the violence that occurred was started by the leftists and liberals, however the article makes no mention of this, only citing that during one of the alt-right movements those extremists were carrying weapons. It says nothing about how during the other (non-alt) right movements were peaceful until the leftists and liberals began to attack them. This article barely goes into the fact that the violent side was primarily the liberals and leftists who claim to be less violent than conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.121.30 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What article are you reading? Certainly not this one. It acknowledges several times the far-left protesters were violent. It seems one sees what one wants to see. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

April 15 bike lock incident. Again.

I have removed his name for now, as it has been debated in the past. But I would like some consensus before doing so, because I'm not flatly against it. Of course, WP:BLPCRIME may apply, but others may argue that it doesn't.

Long story short, should we add the name of the person who did the bike lock incident? SkyWarrior 21:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it should. He needs to be named and shamed. --199.76.101.9 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Good lord. Wikipedia isn't a platform for shaming people. I laid-out why I don't think this belongs in the archive: Talk:2017_Berkeley_protests/Archive 1#April 15 bike lock incident. Summarized, I do not see any benefit to mentioning his name. If we do mention it, we should explain that it's become an obsession of far-right fringe sites to identify and "shame" him. There are more sources about this obsession than there are about the attack itself as a criminal case. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• No, per WP:BLPCRIME they're a low profile person per WP:LPI --Kyohyi (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I don't have strong feelings about keeping this person's name out of the article (though I think Grayfell made good arguments for doing so), but agreed that "naming and shaming" is not the role of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. Funcrunch (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Protests vs riots

Numerous editors, mostly unconfirmed, have changed "protests" to "riots" in the lead without gaining consensus, which should require a formal move discussion as it would affect the title and PoV of the page. Most recent three are 1, 2 (misleadingly described as "Fix typo"), 3. Opening a section here for discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

While I think the two "unusable sources" that Grayfell opposes are legit, I propose eliminating them but leaving snopes, cbs, ny times and mother jones citations about the antifa girl. I argue that while (as Grayfell says) the "article [is] about larger series of events, of which this was a small part", recent events have raised the profile and importance of antifa and its white supremacist, right wing enemies, and so more space for this issue is natural. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Where's your NYT article that specifically names the "antifa girl" as the "antifa girl"? Because I just searched, and all I get is reddit posts and some crap called ar15.com. If that's what you're relying on as reliable sources.... well, dog, meet wrong tree. Rockypedia (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

What about this? Snopes Takes On Punched Antifa Woman In Berkeley, Whether She Was Holding Glass Bottle Or IED. It's the first of 377,000 google hits under "antifa girl berkeley". goes on to say "Earlier this week there was quite a dustup online between the alt-right and the left regarding whether or not white supremacist/separatist Nathan Damigo was justified in assaulting a 95-pound woman during the street brawling that occurred following a rally and counter-protest last Saturday in Berkeley" and includes her name you keep deleting. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand that 377,000 hits under "antifa girl berkeley" means nothing? That the words "antifa", "girl", and "berkeley" all just have to appear on the same page for that to be a "hit"? That's not even close to a measure of notability.

Also, that link you just put up does not mention the name that you keep attempting to add to this talk page in violation of BLP. Why are you lying about that? You're so good at searching, but you can't do a crtl-F on a web page to figure that out? Enough already. WP:DROPTHESTICK Rockypedia (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the first 30 or so articles in the search list all had mentions of the girl (woman) in question. The Antifa girl/woman uses a number of pseudonyms (which I will gladly add to the article), one of which is in the article I linked. As far as dead horses go my next step is WP:RfC. This is not the most important issue around but, frankly I don't think other editors are going to find you very reasonable. --BoogaLouie (talk)

"the first 30 or so articles in the search list all had mentions of the girl" - great, list a reliable one here. And a word of advice - be careful about how you word that RfC. Include the girl's name and I can see an admin quickly blocking you. Just my two cents. Rockypedia (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This is still first and foremost a BLP issue. The fact that this has already been revdeled multiple times is pretty clear indication this is a big deal. "...recent events have raised the profile..." is tipping your hand about what this is really for. If you have sources linking this to "recent events" please, let's see them, otherwise this is pushing an agenda. Even with sources, it sure seems like pushing an agenda.

Google hit counts and similar are meaningless for so, so many reasons. In addition to what Rockypedia said, they are incredibly inconsistent and shift dramatically from user to user based on Google's capricious algorithms and your own user profile, IP location, etc. It's the first hit for you, but not necessarily for everybody else, nor does being the first hit mean it's reliable. Which is, y'know, important. For another, how wide-spread a harassment campaign is among random websites has nothing to do with how wide-spread it is in public consciousness, nor do either of those things necessarily reflect anything about the lasting encyclopedic significance this. And again, none of that over-rides BLP concerns that we would be tacitly contributing to harassment. That issue keeps getting side-stepped by pedantry about hit-counts.

SFist is a blog/opinion post on a site run by Gothamist. Yes, political gossip sites like to discuss things like this. Big whoop. This incident seems to have been mostly forgotten by reliable sources, but not, I'm sure, by the alt-right hardliners and similar weirdos who harassed this women in the first place. There is no benefit to dragging this on even further. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"...recent events have raised the profile... it sure seems like pushing an agenda". Sounds very sinister. The recent event is Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. The raised profile is New York Times "[name deleted for no good reason] became a symbol of the antifa movement in April when a white nationalist leader punched her in the face during a melee near the University of California, Berkeley."

True, search results "shift dramatically from user to user based on Google's capricious algorithms and your own user profile, IP location, etc.," but I thought it curious that the capricious algorithm Google has of me knew I had never been to any of these sights attacking the woman/girl-who-must-not-be-named, yet they were ranked ahead of snopes in my results. In short, if other search users are getting a the same results similar effect, incorrect and libelous information is ahead of the facts. Correcting situations like this surely is one of the goals of wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You obviously have been to those sites, since you tried to add several of them to this article. Did you think that Google only prioritizes sites you have already visited? That's so ridiculous I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at. I don't think you understood my point at all, though.

This is both a BLP violation and a fringe conspiracy theory. Using a garbage source to introduce a BLP violating rumor still legitimizes it to significant degree, same as any WP:FRINGE perspective. We don't rush to explain that "the Earth ISN'T flat, it DEFINITELY ISN'T FLAT!" in astronomy articles, because introducing the idea serves no productive purpose. I get more hits for "flat earth" than "round earth", but that doesn't mean anything at all regarding how we present this information. Earth doesn't mention modern flat earthers at all, because it's only confusing the issue. There are plenty of garbage sources for most garbage position, but those absolutely need to be properly contextualized. Just mentioning that "false information is false" isn't remotely good enough.

This is much more serious because of the BLP ramifications. If you have a reliable source specifically about these specific accusations, present them. So far, only Snopes has been presented. That's a start, but because the entire point of that source is to debunk garbage sources, it's poor for establishing any sort of perspective or appropriate weight, especially regarding BLP. This is why we're so insistent on caution, here.

There is a substantial group of people who think Snopes is a fake news or a Jewish conspiracy and antifa are domestic terrorists. They see something about someone punching a hippie, they aren't looking at the Snopes source, they're going right to the toxic waste you tried to add. This is, to some degree, going to happen anyway, but why are we actively making it even easier? Why is this otherwise obscure trivia improving the article? It really, really doesn't seem like a big deal to reliable source, so why cater to the unreliable ones by including it?

So you keep trying to include her name, and it keeps getting redacted, even though it's been pretty widely published in some reliable sources. I'm sure it's appealing to think this is for "no good reason", and that you're the rational one while we're not. Please stop it with that. We're doing this for a reason, and if you don't understand that reason, or you're not even trying to understand that reason, you've lost the high grand to dismiss our actions as unreasonable. Wikipedia has been used as a platform for amplifying harassment before. We're not interested in facilitating this further, so you have to actually work to make your case.

If you want to make a case for including her name, do it without actually including that name. Not difficult. There is a strong case to be made for explaining this, but you're doing a very poor job of it. The NYT article is another good start, but it doesn't mention any of the actual accusations, and likewise says nothing substantial about the Berkeley protests. This source does nothing to advance your case that we should add her name into the article just because it's sourcable. Since we know she's been targeted for harassment, thanks in part to all those sources you hadn't been to, we cannot ignore that just to hunt around for sources to justify including her name. We need actual context, which has to be supported by real sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

deleting text about "Antifa girl"

Just had description of the "antifa girl" episode deleted by Grayfell (who frankly seems to have a hobby of deleting text) with the summary "(Revert BLP issues and extremely poor sources. Please see past discussion on talk page.)".

The issue is highly topical. antifa girl berkeley yields 280,000 hits on google. There is a controversy with white supremacist cites alleging she was the aggressor. Snopes got into the act as well.

I did include right wing sources (along with CBS an snopes) but these are sites that anyone doing any research on the issue will readily find. If anything the account is sympathetic and not violating BLP --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Grayfell that the BLP issues outweigh the need to publish all that trivia on Wikipedia. Rockypedia (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I frequently remove content which doesn't belong. This is another example. Those sources are not just 'right wing' (as if it were a contest), they are absolutely unreliable, and should not be used at all. How "topical" this is doesn't justify restoring material which has already been rejected, and REVDELed, from the article and talk page multiple times. Since you've read all of those sources, you know full well that she's been doxxed and harassed. Wikipedia should not participate in this casually, especially not with links to unreliable, inflammatory nonsense accusing her of criminal activity. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

When you search [names redacted] or any of her other names you will (very likely) get articles from right-wing sites about (among other things) her allegedly attempting to throw an explosive in a glass bottle into a crowded area, which could have hurt a lot of people (if true). Yes they are unreliable but they (the claims) are all over the internet. This is what snopes was investigating. "Was a Protester Throwing Explosives Into a Berkeley Crowd Before She Was Punched?" That is why I included them along with the snopes article debunking the charges. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

So you're admitting the information you want to add to the article is from unreliable sources, and that the claim has been debunked, but still think it should be included because... reasons? Also, please don't put the names in question even on the talk page; they have been revdeleted in the past for good reason. Funcrunch (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable gossip sources were included just because they were easy to find? That's bad. Grayfell (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been a clearer.

• "So you're admitting the information you want to add to the article is from unreliable sources ...?"

Here is my sentence: Supporters of Nathan Damigo accused her of "holding an explosive device made from a glass bottle" and maintain he prevented her from throwing it. (followed by the two rightwing cites)

The sources are not backing up the claim that the "antifa girl" was "holding an explosive device made from a glass bottle". They back up the claim that supporters of Nathan Damigo accused her of doing that. And for that they are reliable sources!

• Am I using rightwing cites (or "Unreliable gossip sources") "just because they were easy to find?". NO. My point is that the accusations against Antifa girl are ANYTHING but obscure. They are hard to miss. Wikipedia does not have the power to suppress these attacks by deleting information from its articles. Would not WP:BLP be better served, wouldn't a defense of Antifa girl from her libelers be more effective, if the accusation was included (briefly) along with the snopes fact checking debunking it???? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are completely and disturbingly missing the point. The problem isn't that they are "right wing" (you're the one who keeps bringing that up). The problem is that they are utterly unreliable and include inflammatory, unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct amid childish name-calling. Why would we include multiple unusable sources insulting and harassing a non-public living person? Being right wing has nothing to do with this. Is this an appeal to false balance? Why present this as some ideological disagreement?

This shows a lack of understanding of BLP. "Damigo's supporters"... who are they, and why are we giving their debunked, WP:FRINGE theories the time of day? Why are we presenting this as a perspective worth considering? Why is this even being included at all in an article about larger series of events, of which this was a small part? The only usable source for the bomb thing is a Snopes article explicitly pointing out that this is nonsense. So why include the nonsense sources? That only serves to amplify false information, which is the opposite of Wikipedia's philosophy. If you want to explain that these accusations are significant, you're going to have to actually do the work needed to explain this without leaning on sources you concede are utterly unreliable. Encyclopedia Dramatica? I'm flabbergasted by this.

You added a wikilink to the name of a person you surely must know is not independently notable per WP:1E etc. This highlights her name in an incredibly obvious way. You also clearly know she has been heavily harassed. Why contribute to this? It really, really looks like you were trying to draw attention to her name, and that's unconscionable. This isn't a neutral explanation of a minor aspect of the incident. Regardless of your intentions, this was an aggressive edit which normalized and facilitated harassment with false balance as the only justification. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Communists are evil and deserve to be harassed. They are just as evil and anti-Semitic as the Nazis they are fighting against. Why are you defending them? Are you one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitscroci (talk • contribs) 09:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References

More replies

• "problem isn't that they are "right wing"" (OK, I wasn't implying that right wing and dishonest are synonyms but these cites all share a white supremacist, right-wing orientation, and as snopes points out are not very honest about the explosive bottle accusation.)
• "Why would we include multiple unusable sources insulting and harassing a non-public living person" "amplify false information," (Not true. I'm using two cites to back up the sentence Supporters of Nathan Damigo accused her of "holding an explosive device made from a glass bottle" and maintain he prevented her from throwing it. Not sure the title of their stories in the reference section constitutes much insult and harassment. FOr that you have to go to their web site.)
• "why are we giving their debunked, WP:FRINGE theories the time of day? Why are we presenting this as a perspective worth considering?" (as mentioned before the google search "antifa girl berkeley" yields 280,000 hits, of which rightwing attacks on the girl appear high up on in the search list. Wikipedia is not an exclusive club where those distasteful people unworthy of our "time of day" are given a good snubbing. If some issue is in the popular consciousness than it should be dealt with.)
• "You added a wikilink to the name of a person you surely must know is not independently notable per WP:1E etc. This highlights her name in an incredibly obvious way." (You sound scandalized. Here she is in the New York Times [names redacted] Picture of her is included. Sounds a bit "independently notable".) --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, you attempted to publish a name from the NY Times article, an article which says nothing about a bottle or any supporters of Domigo, whoever they are. In other words, while the NYT is a reliable source, it doesn't even remotely support the slag you're trying to add, so guess what? Your edit doesn't get added. Rockypedia (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

As the editor attempting to add the information has already admitted in this discussion that even he considers the sources unreliable, I'm not sure how this discussion can even continue. Case closed, the info stays out; at least, that's how I see it. Rockypedia (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the editor again tried to add the person's name to this talk page, as I noted above. This has to be worthy of admin action at this point, doesn't it? And someone needs to take that out of the edit history. Rockypedia (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: I've already pinged an admin who previously redacted BLP violations on this page. If she can't get to it soon, a post to the BLP noticeboard might be in order. Funcrunch (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that that's required, but I literally do not have the time to do that right now. Someone please step up, this is time-sensitive. Rockypedia (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Who cares if she has been "doxxed and harassed"? I thought it was Wikipedia's job to report noteworthy facts, not become hysterical SJWs censoring information in order to protect an evil communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitscroci (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017 rally/counterprotest

Re the currently brewing edit war, I do believe there needs to be some mention of the skirmishes and arrests at today's rally, which were reported in several major newspapers (Guardian, LA Times, SF Chronicle, etc.). Stating them in a neutral way will be challenging and making everyone happy with the wording likely impossible. Funcrunch (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If it is worthy of mention, which is dubious, it shouldn't be from the alt-right-cheerleading slant that is currently being slammed into the article. Revert to a pre-biased version and craft the appropriate text here, IMO. TheValeyard (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to cobble something together from the LA Times source as a starting point, but it's too long. Figuring out what is and is not significant is a WP:RECENTISM problem which requires time or more sources or both. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Saying that they just shoved and pepper sprayed people is disingenuous. As many as three other people (excluding the patriot prayer founder) were beaten. Article should mention that the violence was instigated by Antifa and six people were injured with two being hospitalized. Truthsort (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it was a starting point. Your version was totally unworkable and selectively highlighted some parts of sources while ignoring others. If we include every detail of every source we're going to misrepresent a relatively minor incident as something more important. I'm sure you don't want that, now do you? Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that six injuries with two being hospitalized is a "minor incident" Truthsort (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect we'll see more (maybe better) coverage tomorrow. I wouldn't call escalating political violence "minor." This will build until either the police/national guard step in or worse, these anarchist cosplayers find themselves on the wrong side of the second amendment. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Careful, you're drooling all over the page at the prospect of someone getting murdered. Six people reported non-life-threatening injuries. Compare that to other protests... other protests this year... this year at Berkeley? As I said, this is still relatively minor, at least for now. Going blow-by-blow to add every detail we can find isn't appropriate, and we're going to have to wait to see how this plays out in reliable sources. How major or minor this is will depend on those sources, but breaking news isn't a good indicator of lasting encyclopedic significance.Grayfell (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Your "drooling" comment, if it was directed at me, is disgusting and offensive. Please remove it. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering that we've already seen one far-right terrorist murder a protester this month, maybe rethink your approach if being offensive is a concern. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Why were Benitez and Hinojosa removed [18] but Champan and Invictus kept? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Based Stickman redirect here, for whatever reason. Chapman has several mentions in other articles, and is significant to this set of rallies. Invictus is notable enough for an article. Neither of the other two appear to me significant enough to single out just because they're mentioned in the source. Explain why they are notable if they're important to you. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason the LA Times journalist thought they were: one organized an earlier Trump rally and the other is a leader of Latinos for Trump. The LA Times article plaints this as an anti-marxism, pro-Trump and white nationalist rally. It would be a misrepresentation if our article only mention the white nationalists. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That seems flimsy. Neither the AP source nor the SF Gate source mention them, America First, or Latinos for Trump. The AP one doesn't even mention Marxism. Gibson, on the other hand, is mentioned by all three. As I said, not every detail belongs. Grayfell (talk)

The AP article doesn't mention Chapman or Invictus either, only Gibson by name and mostly to describe his attack and rescue. It also doesn't mention far-right but does mention pro-Trump protestors. That balance was lacking in our article. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You're ignoring what I said again. Padding this out isn't neutral. Do you want to remove Chapman? Talk about that, but his role as a meme and in previous rallies and the FOAK suggest potential notability. Austin Gillespie is noteworthy for several reasons, including his headlining at the Charlottesville rally, his failed libertarian political career, and the goat blood thing. I don't see how Johnny Benitez is supposed to be noteworthy yet. Was the "America First" rally in Laguna Beach noteworthy? Irma Hinojosa and Latinos for Trump aren't noteworthy. By naming these people we are not providing any additional information about the rally. Assuming the names of these people/organizations/events would impart any information is presumptive and original research. Grayfell (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ah imagine how happily we'd all get along--left, right, Nazi, MRM, Antifa, neo-Confederates, etc--if we took NOTNEWS seriously; we'd be having none of these fights. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Riot

The 2017 Berkeley protests refer to a series of riots

I added this and Grayfell seems to think that "violent protest" doesn't mean riot. Even if that's true, two of the six sources say riot. Can we add riot to the list? Nicholas S8 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Two of the six say "riot"? This is WP:SYNTH, and it's not how Wikipedia works. One of those two is an opinion piece which takes a specific political stand, while both are specifically and directly about the February event alone, since both were published in February. I do, indeed "seem" to think that. Riot is not just another way of saying "violent protest", it were, there would be no reason not to just say violent protest. This loaded language shouldn't be used without solid support from reliable sources, which haven't been presented yet. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

checked each source. The word "Series" here is outright synth. Also there's a marked difference between rioting emerging at a relatively small scale protest, and a riot such as the poll tax riots, which were defined as and referred to as such. It would be highly misleading to uninformed readers to refer to it as such. Addition: by the way, the aforementioned poll tax riot article has an entire "history of events" time line section which is uncited. If anyone feels this horse is starting to whiff a bit, they might want to jump on that one and have a poke around. Edaham (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

References

History

Great job at explaining the timeline of recent protests. However, I believe it is very important to include a section about the history of these protests and why Berkeley has such a high amount of protests compared to other universities. This would give a better understanding of Berkeley's environment and the history that goes along with it. I know that it is intended to be a website for the protests in 2017, however, I believe the original protests to be imperative to the understanding of today's protests. VictoriaR1997 (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Victoria RihmVictoriaR1997 (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you know of any reliable sources which discuss the link between past protests and more recent ones? Or sources which discuss this history specifically as it relates to the recent protests? This would be the first step in adding this to the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a very informative article with a great amount of detail on the timeline. I am not sure I agree with the previous comment about adding "why Berkeley has such a high amount of protests," as this could be subjective. I would recommend to include key actors such as the Berkeley College Republicans, and how they contributed to these events. It might also be helpful to add graphics regarding the placement of key areas such as People's Park to help other readers. Shannonk2799 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Also a good idea, but again, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, so any additions like this would have to reflect those sources, not original research. Grayfell (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about allegations against the punched antifa woman in the the April 15 section

The consensus is against the inclusion of these allegations per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.

Cunard (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

Should the fourth paragraph of the April 15 section mention...

1. that the woman who was punched in the face by Nathan Damigo was

a) doxxed by right-wing groups (the doxing parties revealed or claimed to have revealed very personal information about the woman along with assorted insults. No mention of this will be included in the proposed edit) and

b) accused by those groups of putting one or more M80 explosives inside glass bottles and throwing them at the pro-Trump marchers before being punched?

c) but that the fact-checking site Snopes found no reports of explosions in bottle during the rally, that photographic evidence (a close-up of the bottle) appears to show that it’s empty and that there is no record of Damigo claiming the woman did such a thing?

2. ... and also mention one or more of the name(s) of the woman punched (who uses a number of pseudonyms) which have appeared in Snopes, Mother Jones, CBS News, and recently the New York Times, which called her “a symbol of the antifa movement”. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

References

---

Survey

• Support. For reasons explained in the RfC. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Better add more. Believe the doxxing and accusation of throwing a m-80 is notable. Reliable sources talk about it. If she was throwing an m-80 she might have hurt several people, maybe killed someone. She was not doing that, so exposing the accusation as proved wrong by fact checking is notable, ISTM. Including her name seems pretty basic as it can be found in several sources. There is no evidence that the woman in question has asked for her name to be kept out of the public eye. She has been interviewed by the local CBSNews and her Antifa organization. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The importance to some editors and at least one admin of not mentioning her name and of not providing any links to the right-wing sites attacking her is such that, not only was the addition to the article proposed in the above RfC reverted, but any mention of her name has been deleted from the talk page discussion above, and an admin took the unusual step of deleting the history of several edits that included citations from the right wing cites. (In the discussion above one editor warned/threatened me "be careful about how you word that RfC. Include the girl's name and I can see an admin quickly blocking you.") --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not an unusual step at all; it's a common policy when dealing with BLP issues, which you don't seem to get after having it explained to you many times. Your main motivation in this RfC is to cement the girl's name in Wikipedia, which is uncomfortably close to what the very groups that you mentioned have been doing ever since the Berkeley protests took place. Wikipedia isn't here to fulfill the agenda of white supremacists groups or individual editors looking to promote their interests, and that's why, even aside from your procedural errors in constructing this RfC, you will fail in this effort. Rockypedia (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's talk about Wikipedia:Assume good faith issues. Kindly don't tell me what my "main motivation" or any other motivation is. There is an issue — not earth shattering but not trivial — that deserves inclusion in the article. I want to include it. That's my motivation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's talk about WP:DUCKTEST. Your previous behavior and edits to this article are clear and convincing evidence that your statement just now is a lie. Rockypedia (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and strike or amend this RfC on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements laid out in WP:Writing requests for comment; in fact, it's not even close. Rockypedia (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"does not meet the requirements". How so? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the page. From the first sentence: "neutrally and concisely". Your RfC is neither of those things. Rockypedia (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief for more. And please don't bother with another question until you've read that, because all the answers you need are there. Rockypedia (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief says: "the RfC question should not be longer than a few sentences." It's a few sentences. What is not neutral about it? -BoogaLouie (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

First answer: WP:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief does not say "few sentences." It says "Keep the RfC statement short and simple." Yours is neither; you're asking about 4 different questions.

Second answer: The fact that your only purpose is to continue doxxing the woman punched by Nathan Domigo, your hero, in the same vein as has been done by countless alt-right and white supremacist sites and forums, all while not one reliable source has reported on her holding explosives in glass bottles or anything even close to that, but yet here you are, pushing to have that material included. If you had the balls to admit why you're really pushing this, I might be able to continue this discussion, but you don't, so that's all I have to say. Rockypedia (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The subpoints (a,b,c) are not questions they are an outline of what the brief added edit would contain.

The article is divided in two questions specifically in the event there is consensus that the bottle and snopes issue be included but not the unnamed woman's name.

as for "Nathan Domigo, your hero", "If you had the balls to admit why you're really pushing this", I must again ask you to follow wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I would further ask you how including the fact checking that debunks his defenders' claim that he was preventing the unnamed woman from throwing a deadly weapon would hurt the unnamed woman or help him in any way???? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if you're read Wikipedia:Assume good faith - I have. Specifically, the part that says "Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it." So I'm going to bow out now and let someone else handle your lies; your edit history on this page speaks for itself. Rockypedia (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Appears to be well cited factual info for this event. Arkon (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rockypedia; whatever the OP's motivations are, the wording of this RfC is 1. Non-neutral and 2. A mess. Funcrunch (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mess? non-neutral? How? The subpoints (a,b,c) are not questions they are an outline of what the brief added edit would contain. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- on substantive and procedural grounds; this content it undue, while the RfC is poorly worded and appears to be non neutral. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Tell me what's poorly worded or non-neutral and I'll redo the RfC --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues outweigh the need to publish all that trivia on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems much similar to what goes on at Unite the Right rally, an editor or two insists on inserting blow-by-blow details to ensure that their "side" is heard. Encyclopedias should summarize and present the material generally, providing citations so readers can a) verify and b) read more. Excessive detail of rocks, bottles, who threw what at who, car colors, and...most importantly per project BLP rules...minutiae of non-notable participants. ValarianB (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  "Side" as in reporting details widely (ok not widely, but this event is not widely described anyway) from RS's? The sourcing would appear to disagree with your non-notable rationale. Anywho, it would be better for folks to address the sources/proposed addition instead of trying to shut down the RFC, I literally don't see an issue, its not non-neutral (heh), and no one has spelled out the problems they have on that front. Good luck folks. Arkon (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's the problem: I don't know what you mean when you say there's reliable sources. Show me a RS that names the woman and describes how she had a bottle full of explosives when she was punched by Damigo. It doesn't exist. That's why the white supremacist types have flocked here trying to insert her name; it's just another form of doxxing her. The BLP issues are huge; the sourcing is next to non-existent. Rockypedia (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No matter how many times I tell you I'm not trying to say that you ignore me. What is the matter with you? For everyone else reading, I'm working to include the snopes story that debunks the m-80 claim, not advance it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your stated goal is exactly opposite to the end result of your actions, regardless of your true intentions. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose everything per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Just because reliable sources talk about something doesn't mean we must include it. ansh666 21:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Minor, WP:UNDUE details that don't have a place here, and serve to further a neo-fascist smear campaign? Nah. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"further a neo-fascist smear campaign" What does the RfC say? add that the woman was doxxed by right-wing groups, that they accused her of throwing a m-80 in glass, and that the accusations were untrue. How the hell does that "further a neo-fascist smear campaign"??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Her use of "pseudonyms" is none of our business, but I can't count the number of people (mostly women) I know who occasionally use alternate names for privacy or to avoid real-life stalking. Implying that this is significant stinks of yet another fixation on invading her privacy. Anyway, including her name or any details of this debunked conspiracy theory would only highlight and legitimize fringe nonsense. Additionally, if this were included for some other reason, which has't yet been clearly articulated, it would need so much careful, tedious context to avoid BLP issues, that it would certainly exceed due weight for an article about a longer set of nominally significant events. Highlighting tangentially related details just because it's sourcable is definitely non-neutral. In this case, it's extremely non-neutral, because it aligns with an extremist harassment campaign. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Grayfell said it much better than I ever could. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Grayfell and others. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Can an uninvolved admin close this RfC? It's been open over nine days and had no discussion for the last eight. Does it need to run a full 30 days? Funcrunch (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose biographies of living persons policy recommends against including non notable persons (being punched doesn't bestow notability) unless they are central to the understanding of the topic. Agree that the RfC is a mess. There are some sources listed there, however. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of content from those sources provided it doesn't 1)fail RS 2)fail blp 3)take the subject of he article into some tangential coat rack area - in that order. Edaham (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, generally trivial. These sources could be summarized into a larger sentence or paragraph about people getting doxxed and harassed more generally (one that, probably, wouldn't mention any individuals), but I don't see any value to highlighting her as an individual when she clearly falls under WP:BLP1E. --Aquillion (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose presently WP:UNDUE and too trivial. Knox490 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2017 Berkeley protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170307201424/http://sfist.com/2017/03/05/pro-trump_rally_in_berkeley_turns_p.php to http://sfist.com/2017/03/05/pro-trump_rally_in_berkeley_turns_p.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170925214303/http://sfist.com/2017/09/25/milo_spent_15_minutes_at_uc_berkele.php to http://sfist.com/2017/09/25/milo_spent_15_minutes_at_uc_berkele.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018

Change "Antifa Members" to "Antifascist Groups" keeping the link intact. Antifa is not an organization, nor does it have a membership structure. Otto13371 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Seems reasonable to me. I changed it to "antifa groups", for simplicity. Capitalization seems inconsistently applied, but in this case it seems like lowercase makes more sense. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Far right

Far right should not include white supremacists or neo nazis as th at gives a biased feel towards the article, making the far right seem as the bad side where as i think it should feel balanced Epic132195 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The far right activists at the event included white supremacists and neo-Nazis. This is supported by reliable sources. We should not remove factual information just because one some editors feel that it's biased or that it makes someone look bad. If someone's actions and beliefs make them look bad, that's their problem. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

These were riots, not protests.

There is already a redirect in place... can we move the article to 2017_Berkeley_riots? There's an entire paragraph about how the local police stood down because they were afraid of masked men beating up peaceful protesters. Call a spade a spade and let's remain objective here. 174.135.92.244 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Damigo Attacking redacted

Request to change "protester" to Antifa member (Redacted). Seems fair to include her name since his is being mentioned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:847f:b2f0:8178:b751:49ad:b27a (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This proposal has already been discussed and rejected in tedious detail. See Talk:2017 Berkeley protests/Archive 1. If you have some brand-spanking-new reason to include this, which is separate from the far-right harassment campaign and unfounded conspiracy theories discussed in the archives, please explain it without including her name or any of the WP:BLP violating nonsense. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this about keeping the so-called 'bike lock professor' from being named in the article? --SVTCobra (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, but that's also been discussed. Did you read the archives? This has also spilled-out onto other noticeboards, although I can't find them easily. This is mainly about identifying details on the female protester who was punched. To briefly re-summarize: for WP:BLP reasons this would have to be explained with a large quantity of context. This has become a far-right obsessions, centered on unsubstantiated criminal allegations and badly-edited youtube swill, and we cannot ignore this context. Since this article is about multiple protests, fixating on this one incident from one protest would be disproportionate and distracting. If someone wants to use sources to properly summarize this, it could be done, but... why? How is that helpful for this article? Misusing sources to include this "just because" is not acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I have not read all the talk archives. I will say, however, both of the people we just mentioned are named in the existing sources, so no need to rely on "swill". The ex-professor facing criminal charges doesn't seem to be "unsubstantiated" or "disproportionate" if he was named. Nevertheless, I don't know if it would provide a substantial improvement to the article. More importantly, perhaps, I noticed not one of the sources has been archived yet. This seems highly unusual and a potential for future article rot. Is there a particular reason ArchiverBot hasn't been activated? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said, this is not about that. Again, this has already been discussed, and conflating two separate issues is unhelpful at best and disruptive at worst.

I don't know how archive bots work. How is this "more important" for this issue? Archives are important in their own right, but not always pressing. For something like this, those archives almost certainly exist whether we link to them now, or later when it's necessary, so WP:V is met regardless. I do not see how this technical issue has anything to do with either of these particular Chan obsessions.

Feel free to Archive them yourself if you want, but use restraint, please. Overzealous archiving is a very bad practice. News media issue corrections and retractions, which is part of what makes them reliable in the first place. Ironically, rapid-fire archives make a source less reliable, because they often conceal these corrections. This is especially important for breaking news, which often updates and changes rapidly. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It is really curious how you select data points as "chan obsessions" when they are in media which you, yourself, regard as reliable sources. Nevertheless, I don't really care as long as the source information is preserved; and I am sorry if bringing that up was muddling our conversation. Like you said, publishers do sometimes change articles, which is extremely poor without express correction notices. The print days may have been better when they were forced to issue an actual correction instead of just wiping their mistakes. These events are about two years ago, so if newspapers are still changing what they wrote, I'd chalk that up to journalistic malfeasance. I do know how archiving works, I was just asking if there was a reason it hadn't happened. Also, I have seen plenty of sources disappear and articles get dramatically shorter and essentially different. Currently, the ArchiverBot doesn't delete the link to the original as long as it is still live. It just creates a link to an archived version with an "as of" date. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What? I assure you, I did not fabricate this obsession, and if you're not willing to read the archived explanation of this, you should at least be willing to assume good faith. Uncovering Clanton's identity became a minor obsession in some internet circles after video surfaced...[19] The video went viral, etc. As the archives show, many IP addresses came her with the open intent to use Wikipedia for "naming and shaming" this person. We don't play stupid to this kind of crap. If we are going to go into detail for this, we would also be required to provide this context, for multiple reasons. I don't think this is worth it, and apparently neither do you, so drop the vague aspersions and get back to actual editing. Grayfell (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit seems debatable

Please see this edit, --SVTCobra 03:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)