Talk:Unite the Right rally

Request Edit

Paragraph:

    U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks on Charlottesville generated some negative responses. His initial statement following the rally were to "condemn hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". Trump condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists.[31] In his first statement and subsequent defense of it, he claimed there were "very fine people on both sides", referring to the people there to protest the removal of the statues and those in support of removal. Biased critics maligned these comments to suggest he was implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them. Critics interpreted his remarks as sympathetic to white supremacists,[8] while supporters characterized this interpretation as a hoax,[32] because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists.[33][34]

Reasoning: the media has bad problems for years being objective and not inserting their own points of view or interpretations. As such, considering much of mass media has admitted a left leaning bias, entries into Wikipedia SHOULD be benign and politics left out of it by the editors to reflect ACTUAL historical events. It is convenient that Wiki has no editorial staff and relies on people (and in some cases, left wing people with an agenda and bias to make changes). Trump clearly denounced the bad elements of the gathering and spoke to the people in attendance for and against this action. he sought unity and leftist decided to create an endless, drama-filled news cycle to confuse people as part of a campaign to ensure he was no re-elected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.76.4 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Trivia revisited

Since we're still 1RR... An editor in this edit introduces a piece of ephemeral fluff about several of the rally attendees, that Fuentes, Baked Alaska, and Gabriel Brown attended both this and the Jan 6th insurrection. This article is not about these 3 individuals, nor Jan 6th, but simply the 2017 rally. Taking a small snippet of an ADL blog entry about an interesting but ultimately minor fact is not relevant to the Unite the Right rally article. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn’t belong in any article. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Atlantic

this reverted a reasonable edit. The source does not say the users questioned their own "beliefs", it says some of the users treated the websites as an ironic game and Charlottesville made them rethink that. It was the ones who were serious about it that had the "beliefs". This edit should be reinstated or else that part changed. Subuey (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fine people "hoax"

This [1] reverted an edit referring to an alleged media "hoax" regarding Trump's third Charlottesville statement. The revert claimed that the allegation was (1) a "fringe", "MAGA-sphere", criticism; and (2) that the books cited were not notable. I accept that the allegation is mostly made by Trump supporters. The edit states so. However, Even Sam Harris, a Trump-loathing social liberal, has claimed that the “Very Fine People" line was a "media-created hoax”.[2] There are several references to the "hoax" allegation in mainstream sources.[3] (Klein & Berney 2021: 56-59) While the books cited in the edit are not all notable, they do serve to support the text of the edit (that people claim that there was a "hoax", not necessarily that there actually was a hoax). One of the books cited (Loserthink by Scott Adams) already has its own Wikipedia page. Pakbelang (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We are looking for reliable sources which demonstrate due weight. Whether a source is notable or not is mostly irrelevant to how reliable that source is. Reddit posts, for example, are not reliable even though Reddit is notable. Adams' book is also not reliable in this context for various reasons. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This source uses the term "Chalottesville lie" to describe the media treatment of the "fine people" comment .(Klein & Berney 2021: 56-59) Pakbelang (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Trump: Friend Extraordinaire to Israel and the Jewish People"...The entirety reads like PR for Trump's 2024 campaign. One of the contributors, Morton Klein, seemed to defend President Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories questioning the birthplace of Barack Obama in 2022. DN (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the edit that I'm proposing is that Trump supporters say that there is a 'hoax'. I'm not suggesting that reliable sources support this notion. Pakbelang (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems too WP:FRINGE to include. What's the hoax, exactly? Trump said "very fine people on both sides", and defended saying it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim for the "fine people hoax" is that the media (mainly CNN) used selective edits to make it seem that Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people". Pakbelang (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

With the weight of evidence we find that it indeed was a hoax. Liberals LOVE Snopes, and just yesterday, they finally decided that the statement that Trump said Neo Nazis are very fine people, IS FALSE!

[4]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/#Echobox=1718905525-1 2603:8080:3EF0:9790:9DC:75A7:7868:334C (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

How does this in a manner contradict this article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The portion on Trump should be taken out, it is not HIS fault that liberals attribute bad faith on everything he does or did and spin articles to make him seem to be evil when he is another flawed individual just like them and the writers of the articles that claim he is.

Or perhaps, maybe fix the paragraph to state those who tried to state a lie are the ones that were the problem, not him. OR take that portion of the article out. or maybe, "Bad actors tried to defame Trump by claiming he meant something he actually stated was untrue." 2603:8080:3EF0:9790:5852:F15:810B:8334 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You aren't going to get any consensus for a change if you keep spewing accusations. Try again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I support citing this new Snopes article, as it is a very reliable source. Beaver Takes a Walk (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No, this is misconstruing the citation. The former president did a "both sides are bad" which is a roundabout wat is being passed by some as "condemning neo-Nazis." Both Snopes and Factcheck note the nuance, and editors attempting to cite this as "aha, Trump DID condemn the neo-Nazis after all!" are being extraordinarily disingenuous. Zaathras (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that we're off to a great start with allegations of editors as "extraordinarily disingenuous". Can you discuss the material of the articles and what you think is wrong with adding them? My diff:

Fact checking organizations have affirmed that Trump did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people" and that he condemned white supremacists during the rally.

I cite a Snopes article titled No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People' to support my edit statement of "Trump did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people". In the body, they clearly rate claims that On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people." as False.

I cite a factcheck.org article titled Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists to support my edit content of "he condemned white supremacists". In the body, they clearly state So, contrary to Biden’s claim that Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy, the neo-Nazis,” in the course of two days, Trump did it twice.

Please explain your reversion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• US President Donald Trump's remarks about the rally generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump condemned the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides." This first statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist protesters and the counter-protesters. Trump later stated (in the same statement) that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists"

This seems to already be clear in the paragraph so the repetitive nature of this context is quite possibly UNDUE in the lead when compared to other sources and context in the body and elsewhere.

• Fact checking organizations have affirmed that Trump did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people" and that he condemned white supremacists during the rally.

Lastly, this article is not just about what Trump said and the reactions to it. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, and in the spirit of consistency, would you be in favor of removing the the line about the first and subsequent statements as implying a moral equivalence between white supremacists and counter-protestors and leaving in just the verbatim statements? Otherwise it seems like a obvious failure to abide by NPOV. Currently, we have the content of the verbatim statement itself, content of commentators criticizing that statement based on a description of that statement that has been debunked by fact-checkers, but not the fact-checkers themselves debunking that statement? KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the editor's note in the Snopes article?:

Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump was wrong.

I think the current article text acceptably covers the subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the Snopes article beyond that editor's note? This editor's note is about the rally itself, which it describes as having a lot of white supremacists. The actual article is about grading claims that Trump called white supremacists "very fine people". Those claims are graded as false by Snopes. Yet as of right now, those debunked claims are given undue prominence in the lead, without mention of them being fact-checked as false. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I read the article. I think the current text here covers the situation correctly, including Trump backing off his original statement after a backlash. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The current text gives undue play to "implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist protesters and the counter-protesters" in the lead, without mentioning its direct refutation by fact checkers. You're basing your claims on an editor's note that explicitly says their clarification is different to what we are discussing here. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The editor's note was added after criticism that the article said the things that you appear to be saying. I do not see a direct refutation nor do I see multiple, reliable fact checkers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so your objections are based on a misreading of my edits and/or the Snopes article. The editors note clearly says: This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. My edits: Fact checking organizations have affirmed that Trump did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people" and that he condemned white supremacists during the rally.

Where exactly do I state that Trump was correct or incorrect in stating that there were fine people on both sides? This discussion is not about whether he was right or wrong, but whether he actually called white supremacists fine people.

And which fact checker is now suddenly unreliable? Snopes? Factcheck.org? or both? KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the text is at odds with factcheckers and that all the reliable sources got it wrong as it clearly presents Trump's further statements. The statement was made after a violent event planned by white supremacists resulting in 35 injured and one dead. We'll see what other editors say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Snopes says We looked into these claims, and found that while Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," meaning both the protesters and the counterprotesters, he also condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists outright and said he was specifically referring to those who were there only to participate in the statue protest. Yes, he did, in one of his statements, but what do we do when the fact checkers disagree with one another?

From 2020, Glenn Kessler of WaPo wrote The evidence shows there were no quiet protesters against removing the statue that weekend. That’s just a figment of the president’s imagination. The militia groups were not spurred on by the Confederate statue controversy. They arrived in Charlottesville heavily armed and, by their own account, were prepared to use deadly force — because of a desire to insert themselves in a dangerous situation that, in effect, pitted them against the foes of white supremacists.

Snopes concludes In sum, while Trump did say that there were "very fine people on both sides," he also specifically noted that he was not talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists and said they should be "condemned totally." Therefore, we have rated this claim "False." So what are we supposed to change in this article? He praised the neo-Nazis and condemned them in the same statement. Snopes better captured this doublespeak in their 2020 debate fact check than they did here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu

Kessler and Snopes don't disagree though. Kessler's point was that Trump assumed (incorrectly) that there were non-racist protestors at the event. Per Kessler: This is where Trump got into trouble. While he condemned right-wing hate groups — “those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans” — he appeared to believe there were peaceful protesters there as well. The bolded part is the wrong part. Kessler repeats this: Some Trump defenders, such as in a video titled “The Charlottesville Lie,” have prominently featured Piercy’s quote as evidence that Trump was right — there were protesters opposed to the removal of the statue. This is what is mentioned in the Snopes fact check's editor's note.

The RS statements on this are: Trump incorrectly assumed there were peaceful protestors generally objecting to the removal of confederate monuments, exclusive of white supremacists. He called them "very fine people", which was misconstrued as calling the white supremacists "very fine people". KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

So Trump condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists but referred to "peaceful protestors" who didn't exist as "very fine people"? That's what Snopes is saying. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what multiple fact checkers are saying. Washington Post's Kessler, Snopes, Factcheck.org. The WaPo fact check you cited repeatedly mentions that Trump presumed, wrongly, that there were in fact peaceful "fine people", exclusive of white supremacists that he condemned. Assuming that some of the protestors were "fine" protestors who just cared about maintaining historical confederate statues is different from categorizing the white supremacists writ large as "fine people". It's like if someone assumed the people who "attacked" Jussie Smollett were white neo-nazis, but then it gets revealed that they were Nigerian fraudsters all along. Would the more appropriate descriptor be, "That person believes Nigerians are white neo-nazis" or "That person mistakenly believed there were actual attackers, who they categorized as 'white neo-nazis'"?

The fact-checking on this is clear, Snopes explicitly clarifies this point in their editor's note, differentiating the question of whether Trump called white supremacists fine people (he did not) from whether there were indeed fine people at the protest (there were not).

Suggested edit to the lead to further clarify this point: Fact checking organizations have affirmed that Trump condemned white supremacists during the rally and did not refer to white supremacists as "very fine people", instead wrongly presuming some of the protestors as being non-racist and non-violent. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding in fact-checkers from the debate that also covered this, we now have even more fact-checkers to reinforce the above edit suggestion, in addition to the aforementioned Washington Post Fact Checker, Factcheck.org, and Snopes.

CNN Facts First: The claim that Trump’s “fine people” comment is a “hoax” and “nonsense story” is based on the inaccurate premise that there were peaceful non-racists attending an aggressively hateful march... But there has never been evidence that such a benign group was present at the march.

Associated Press: Trump did use those words to describe attendees of the deadly rally, which was planned by white nationalists. But as Trump supporters have pointed out, he also said that day that he wasn’t talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists in attendance... He then added that he wasn’t talking about “the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.” Instead, he said, the press had been unfair in its treatment of protesters who were there to innocently and legally protest the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Our lead currently says US President Donald Trump's remarks about the rally generated negative responses. In his initial statement following the rally, Trump condemned the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides." This first statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist protesters and the counter-protesters. Trump later stated (in the same statement) that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally–but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists". This is correct. He said these things, and his "very fine people" comment was heavily criticized to the extent that we should say so even though he did say the thing about condemning the white nationalists, after implying they're "very fine people". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He was criticized, but the criticisms have also been negatively reviewed by RS fact checkers. We can include his verbatim statements, the criticisms from others, and the contextualization from fact checkers. Currently, we are missing the latter. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We have the "Efforts by Trump and his supporters to rewrite the history of the rally" section, and I do believe that section header is POV. It says According to analyses in the Washington Post in 2020, Trump and his supporters attempted to distort and rewrite the history of the rally, continuing to claim falsely that there were peaceful elements to the right-wing protest. Fact-checkers emphasized that the rally-goers consisted solely of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and that "virtually anyone watching cable news coverage or looking at the pictures of the event would know that." In 2024, Trump downplayed the rally as a "peanut" compared to the ongoing pro-Palestinian campus protests. So we can add Snopes in there. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That should be rewritten as efforts to downplay the rally, but this Snopes fact check (and the factcheck.org fact check, and the WaPo fact check) is not really "rewriting" or downplaying, unless every wrong claim that opposes Trump that gets fact-checked is "rewriting"/downplaying. Maybe reactions to third statement or defenses of Trump and rebuttal? KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that we have consensus on the "fine-people" statement itself. The disagreement is regarding the context. This recent WaPo article may help clarify the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/what-trump-said-with-his-very-fine-people-comments-vs-what-he-meant/. Pakbelang (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be an incorrect assumption. DN (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

White supremacist

Calling this a white supremacist rally is opinion rather than factual. Suggest edit to simply “rally”. 2601:543:C001:5A90:81F4:E656:294D:EBBC (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It is well documents in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)