Talk:Unite the Right 2

Two changes

Firstly, the claim the rally was a "pathetic failure/embarrassing" comes from two opinion pieces (one of which is from an extremely biased source, Vox) and doesn't belong in the article. Two opinion pieces of questionable merit are not basis for inclusion of this sentence and it should be removed.

Secondly, to say the counter-protesters came to "oppose hate" isn't stated by a source and breaks NPOV. Many people would say counter-protesters (see: Antifa) are violent and hateful themselves. This line should be changed. Edit5001 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The claim is well-sourced and relevant - plenty of additional sources could be added, but two suffice. Are you arguing that the rally wasn't an embarrassing and pathetic failure for the white supremacists? Which sources support your implied counter-claim?

The statement is not a quote, therefore putting it in quote marks is inappropriate as per WP:SCAREQUOTES. That this rally was organized and operated by white supremacists and other merchants of hate is not in serious dispute, and neither is the fact that the counter-protestors were there to reject and oppose these ideologies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If additional sources that arent' opinion pieces or from hyper-partisan political outlets like Vox, go ahead and add them and remove the current two. The current two are not acceptable citations for this out of place and contentious claim.

"Merchant of hate" is subjective. There are many hateful ideologies among the political left, including some of those who protest events like these. If they came to protest white nationalism/supremacy, it should be written that they came to protest that. Not the word "hate" that isn't used by any source, is out of place, and hypocritical. Edit5001 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course they're acceptable reliable sources for expressing the opinion (and we do state it as an opinion, not as fact) that the rally was a "pathetic failure." If you have reliable sources which dispute that claim, you're welcome to add them as a countervailing opinion.

We often use paraphrases, but if you're concerned with the word "hate," I'll be happy to change it to "white supremacy." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The word "widely" isn't justified because every source cited is an openly left leaning outlet except for the NYT (and I don't see the words pathetic or embarrassing used in the NYT article). Of course left leaning outlets will condemn a pro-white rally. This doesn't justify a claim of "widely considered" a pathetic or embarrassing failure in the lead. Edit5001 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the description isn't particularly neutral for the lead. I'm certain I could find plenty of reliable sources describing the KKK unfavorably for example, but I don't see those terms used in that article. I think the "pathetic failure" description would be better suited in the "Reactions" section of the article. MartinezMD (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Alleged diagnosis

The source cited here: [1] states: Weimer [Fields' school teacher] said that Fields told him he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger.... This cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice and in any case, this is insufficient sourcing for a BLP subject. Here's the source in question: "What We Know About James Alex Fields, the Driver Charged in the Charlottesville Attack" (AUG. 14, 2017). --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Weimer was more than just a teacher, he was Fields' personal "confidant" due to their shared interest in military history see an additional source here. He goes into pretty good detail - not only did Fields tell him he was diagnosed, he told him he was taking medication for the problem. I don't think either party in this case would be lying. Edit5001 (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Knock it off. His mental illness has nothing to do with this rally, and implying that it does is completely unacceptable for a constellation of reasons. Grayfell (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources all report this fact about the man's schizophrenia and it's unconscionable not to mention that fact if you're going to bring up the car attack, which the article does. Edit5001 (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Multiple reliable sources say lots of things. Unite the Right wasn't a "schizophrenia rally", and the counter-protesters he attacked weren't "anti-schizophrenia". The purpose of both rallies, and the attack specifically, was related to the far-right, including neo-Nazism. Introducing this details is an obvious attempt to imply that his mental illness was causally related to the attack. What is unconscionable is demonizing mental illness for public relations purposes. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: First of all, the man's car was struck by multiple objects (we know this by the fact that it had holes in it, and one such strike was caught on video) prior to the crash. There were Antifa people all over the rally with clubs, bats, guns, and other weapons openly fighting protesters in the streets. All of these things were the perfect recipe for a diagnosed schizophrenic to snap. This isn't a demonetization of mental illness, it's a statement of fact. Edit5001 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Do not ping me again, on any page. All of this is flimsy original research. All of this has already been discussed on related talk pages before. None of these details are an excuse for editorializing or conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You asked why the man's schizophrenia could be related to the attack, I answered. It's not a conspiracy theory to watch on video the man's car being hit with an object, that's observance of reality. Edit5001 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop wasting time with original research, and do not misrepresent what I said. I never asked that, and wouldn't have any reason to, since your intentions are obvious. You clearly do not know enough about mental illness to make these unsupported claims, and your sources do not support this connections. Therefor your speculations about how schizophrenia works are inappropriate and ignorant. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

So just to be clear on your position, whenever a mentally ill person kills someone and it isn't directly obvious that their mental illness was the direct reason, you think the fact that they were mentally ill should be utterly scrubbed from informing people about the incident? Edit5001 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Misrepresenting what I said a second time makes it seem like you are trolling. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write in the page that schizophrenia was the reason he killed anyone. All I added was the fact from multiple reliable sources that he was allegedly schizophrenic. Edit5001 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please knock it off, the addition is obviously inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In this article, the inclusion of schizophrenia would be relevant only if a reliable source(s) reports it was contributory to his actions/participation. I think otherwise it is an unnecessary inclusion. In an article about the man himself, or if he warranted a full section in this article, it would be appropriate.MartinezMD (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate image

The picture used in the infobox (UTR2 photo.jpg) portrays a black person participating in the rally, which may give far right extremists an excuse to claim this was not a white supremacist rally. Please consider choosing a picture more representative of the events. WikiP'sNew2023UIisTRASH (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)