Talk:Charlottesville car attack

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpetersen9825. Peer reviewers: NoahSchmeisser.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism?

Antifa members bragged about brandishing guns at Alex Fields. During the attack, he appeared to be getting pelted with rocks and bats. It's hardly obvious to me that this was planned. Absent planning, how could it be an act of terror. Terror against whom? The person killed was white. Was the terror in the service of some ideology? Anti-left ideology? Did Fields provide an ideology, besides reading far right material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.79.27 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Peacefully" in article lead

There doesn't appear to be enough in the article to support a POV-laden label like this. How about removing it and just sticking with protesting without any additional label? Failing that, this needs to be supported and sourced in the article as I'm just not seeing it. Ravensfire (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation and WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also have a problem with the use of the word "peacefully". There were several areas of protest in Charlottesville, with varying degrees of violence. If the Lede is going to shade the incident in terms of the "peacefulness" of the protestors, it should also include the fact that they were illegally blocking the entire roadway for balance. Best I think to trim the lede to make it as neutral as possible. Video exists of Field's car being struck prior to impact, which negates the claim of "peacefulness".2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC) We don't even have to talk about protests in the area. His car was hit with bats before and after the crash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.105.95 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC) the "hit with before the crash" never happened, it's strictly an alt-right lie. Witnesses confirm, as well as video released by the prosecution. Sailboatd2 (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC) The hits on his car before the crash with clubs are clearly visible in the video posted in this entry. This does not excuse his actions, but your claim that they never happened is demonstrably false. Rmmiller44 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44 [1]: "A 32-year-old woman died and at least 19 people were injured Saturday when a car crashed into a crowd of peaceful protesters leaving a "Unite the Right" rally that officials had declared an 'unlawful assembly.'" [2]: "An Ohio man has been charged in connection with driving a car into a group of peaceful counter-protestors during a white nationalist rally on 12 August 2017, killing a 32-year-old woman and injuring at least nineteen others before backing away at top speed and driving off." WP:NPOV states: "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." Additionally, WP:NOR says: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." References have been added to the article citing these websites so these policies apply here. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 01:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Source 1 is a statement of the opinion of the authors of the article, Doug Stanglin and Gabe Cavallaro. Source 2 is a statement of the opinion of the author of the article, Brooke Bonkowski. These articles are not credible. They are not held to any sort of standard outside of what the news organization is willing to publish. To really show my point, where did these journalists get their information from? Where are their sources? 71.46.56.153 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Neither of those articles are opinion columns; they are reported news stories from reliable sources which are suitable for establishing facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC) It appears to me that you are asserting that “peace” is not a matter of perspective. Okay. So tell me what the universal criteria for “peaceful” is and then cite the indisputable source that answers that question. 71.46.56.190 (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Peaceful means non-violent, and the law describes violence. The news sources probably got the information from the police. Since it is widely reported and clearly relevant (whether a protest is violent is the most important characteristic of it), and it is not contested by any serious source, it belongs to the article. wumbolo ^^^ 06:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Not necessarily. If you get up in another’s face then proceed to yell and scream at them, you have not commited violence. That being said, it is easy to argue that that action, while non-violent, cannot be considered “peaceful”. 71.46.56.190 (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC) We're not here to debate the definition of "peaceful"; reliable sources invariably use that term to describe the crowd, so we use it as well. Please either drop the WP:STICK or present a reliable source that supports your claims. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC) @Dlthewave. That is a specious argument and what I find to be a major flaw in Wikipedia source fact treatment. It permits people to essentially make clearly non-NPOV statements in an entry by merely quoting someone...anyone...who has publicly made a non-NPOV statement. We ARE here to debate the meaning of the word "peaceful" because it is used in this entry and characterizes the actors. It applies normative judgement to what should be a positive statement. People do not need a "source" to challenge non-NPOV. The video posted to this entry clearly shows protestors carrying clubs. Were they all on their way to a softball game after the protest? Wikipedia is run by CONSENSUS. We all agree that they were protestors. There is no consensus that they were peaceful. The word must be stricken. Rmmiller44 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44 Whether they were peacefully protesting or not, they were certainly doing it illegally, as the car crash happened after the state of emergency was declared, meaning that all public gatherings and protests by both sides at that point were illegal. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Which source describes their presence in the intersection as illegal? –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC) The unlawful assembly laws of the State of Virginia. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Rreagan007, what are you trying to accomplish here? Drmies (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I second reopening this discussion. There is plenty of evidence (among them ) that the protestors were not peaceful, and moreover a person was on video admitting to threatening the driver with a rifle. The notion that the protestors were strictly peaceful is a lie, no matter how many sources baldly claim they were. It doesn't matter if there are a thousand news sources saying "the protestors were peaceful" if there's a video of them being non peaceful. This must be corrected. Mathguyjohn (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, that's not how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:RS. (Incidentally, assuming, arguendo, that a protestor threatened the driver with a rifle, *after he intentionally drove into a crowd of people*, that would literally be the textbook definition of self-defense against a murderer who tried to kill dozens of people.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof. There is no question the threat or the beating of the car may have been lawful self defense. But the video shows people beating the car BEFORE the crash as it passed. And even if it was lawful self defense, there is no question that many protestors showed up armed with clubs and, apparently, at least one rifle.

RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Today, [3], [4] all indicate that the victims were peaceful. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• The FBI's Richmond SAC (as quoted in The Washington Post) and USA Today are clearly reliable sources. If they say the crowd was peaceful, and they do, the crowd was peaceful. I do object somewhat to the inclusion of Snopes News (I'm not sure they'd pass an RS test in terms of being a news organization), but I will not doubt USA Today. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me put it like this, I am in a bank, a robber comes in and threatenes people, I punch a random person near me...that is not self defense (nor were the rest of the customers (especially the victim) being violent).Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources, witness testimony and video evidence from the trial make it clear that regardless of any violence that may have occurred that day, this particular group of protesters was peacefully moving through the area when Fields began accelerating toward them from more than a block away. Hoaxers have circulated a video that appears to show individuals beating the car before the point of impact when played backwards, (to be clear, they actually hit his car after the impact) but no reliable sources have been found to support this conspiracy theory. This section will again need to be closed as "unsourced speculation and WP:FORUM" if these unsourced assertions continue to be made. We are not here to hear your argument for why reliable sources got it wrong; we're here to discuss the best way to present what the reliable sources actually say. –dlthewave ☎ 22:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

They're literally on film attacking his car before the accident even happened. They were deliberately blocking the road and were belligerent and hostile the entire event. Just because mainstream media outlets portray them as "peaceful," doesn't make it so. Remove this nonsense . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondKeeno (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up those claims? –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 03:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the word "peaceful" in the lede is problematic but even more so is the phrase "people who had been peacefully protesting". That's not at all what the RS say - what the sources do say is "peaceful protestors". The latter speaks to the people themselves and the former speaks to what those people had been doing at some time in the past. The issue here of course is that the RS do not say, nor do we otherwise know, how people in the targeted group protested. They could have been violent or they could have been peaceful - we just don't know so at the very least, that phrase needs to be re-written (see below) or get tossed out.

Moving on, RS alone does not justify inclusion of all content as we also need to consider (at least) WP:NPOV and more specifically, "Impartial tone" and "Bias in sources". It seems pretty clear that the RS characterizing the protestors as peaceful are either (a) speaking only to the targeted crowd at the moment they were attacked; or (b) ignoring the fact that protestors on all sides were violent. All said, the desired course of action here would be to try and rewrite the lede. So, with that in mind, may I suggest something like:

"On August 12, 2017, James Alex Fields Jr. deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people who had been protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The attack resulted in 1 fatality with 28 others injured and at the time of the attack, the targeted group was peacefully assembled. The 20-year-old Fields had driven from Ohio to attend the rally and had previously espoused neo-Nazi and white supremacist beliefs. He was convicted in a state court..." --- VeritasS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally if you are being peaceful you are doing it peacefully. It very rare for people to be violently peaceful.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure to what you referring...in any event, nowhere did I say nor suggest people being "violently peaceful" --- VeritasS (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No, but I assume you object to peacefully because they were not being peaceful?Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Change it to "mostly peacefull". You get to use the "peacefull" label while also being objective. Everybody knows the "peacefull" label is all a big joke anyway with the recent "fiery" "peacefull" protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1533:1D00:A9A3:4FF9:5ACF:1513 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Or we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Consider a temporary protection lock?

Considering this article seems to be attracting the attention of Neo-Nazis interested in depicting Fields as some sort of political prisoner or hero, maybe we should consider a users-only lock - at least for a temporary duration? This also appears to be in the news again because of the trial beginning recently. Just a suggestion. Concchambers (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Fucking nazis and their innocent-until-proven-guilty. He hasn't been convicted of anything. The court is deciding right now. If he is innocent, this article is complete slander. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in this article has any bias that you're describing. It is based on high-quality news sources and I avoided any details that are only present in the indictments. wumbolo ^^^ 20:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm just saying, we can't call it a terrorist attack until the courts decide. Fields himself says it isn't, so it has to be proven by the courts. Alex of Canada (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't call it that, just elaborate on the reactions it has received from people in positions of power. wumbolo ^^^ 20:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There were edits being made to the effect of, "James Fields Jr. told police upon his arrest he accidentally hit them." The IP user was trying to make it seem as if this statement should be taken at face value and that, to quote him, views to the contrary were being propagated "by democrats [sic]". If you watch the video, it's pretty much impossible to not conclude that he did not intend to drive the car into the crowd. This same user was also insisting he was a political prisoner who was being persecuted for his racist, Nazi beliefs - as opposed to someone who, it's fairly obvious, drove his car into a crowd and killed a person. "If he is innocent"? I'm pretty sure his defense lawyers are basically just trying to reduce his sentence by arguing the attack wasn't premeditated. Sure, he hasn't been formally convicted yet - but saying this would be "complete slander"? I don't even know what to say to that, to be honest. Also, I just checked the edit log - the IP user is still trying to make extremely biased edits. I would say a user lock was justified.Concchambers (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It's late in the day to bring this up again (see above) but the word "attack" should not have been used in this article's title nor body. "Attack" means it was deliberate and malicious, and it is for the court, not Wikipedia, to decide if that is the case.

Of course it's ridiculous to suggest he is a political prisoner being persecuted for his views, but this isn't an either/or dichotomy. IF he had been heard shouting "die, scum", IF he had stated "I'm glad she died, I only wish I'd got more", IF he had shot himself and left a manifesto describing murderous intent, then fair enough, it's clearly an attack and can be called such before the legal rubber stamping.

But he didn't, it seems he "whimpered and sobbed", he kept repeating he was sorry, he has claimed self defence and fear for his life, he has pled not guilty. It transpires that he has mental health issues and is on medication.

"Incident" is the neutral term that should have been applied here until the judgement of the court, and afterwards too in the very possible event of acquittal. Captainllama (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

And 4 hours later, he has been convicted. This is the point at which references to the "incident" can be correctly amended to "attack". Bear in mind for next time folks! Captainllama (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Next time we'll describe things the way reliable sources do, just as we did this time. Bradv🍁 23:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a fine point but reliable sources are not infallible. If reliable source "Wonderland Reporter" calls Citizen X "murderer" before conviction, Wikipedia can say "Citizen X, called a murderer by Wonderland Reporter", but cannot say "Citizen X, murderer". Captainllama (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

[5]: "A 32-year-old woman died and at least 19 people were injured Saturday when a car crashed into a crowd of peaceful protesters leaving a "Unite the Right" rally that officials had declared an 'unlawful assembly.'" [6]: "An Ohio man has been charged in connection with driving a car into a group of peaceful counter-protestors during a white nationalist rally on 12 August 2017, killing a 32-year-old woman and injuring at least nineteen others before backing away at top speed and driving off." WP:NPOV states: "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." Additionally, WP:NOR says: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." References have been added to the article citing these websites so these policies apply here. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 01:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that neo-nazis are frequenting this "article"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.44.198 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Protesters were NOT blocking the road

This has been brought up a couple of times, but I did not have a source to verify it. I've found it now. Before bringing it up again, read this excerpt from the report on the month-long investigation into the police actions:

A single wooden saw horse was all that impeded traffic down 4th Street as large groups of people continued to roam the streets

[7] wumbolo ^^^ 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation, WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems a tad self-contradicting. How do large groups of people roaming the streets not impede traffic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.192.73 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Because there is no traffic... The police blocked the street so that pedestrians (the protesters) can walk down the street. wumbolo ^^^ 21:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Sorry perhaps I'm missing something - Fields' car and those he collided with cleary had access to those roads. 210.1.192.73 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Indeed, and weren't the rallies declared illegal by the city as well? So it was kind of an illegal road block by the Antifa. --102.141.183.215 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC) You are showing your ignorance. A court overruled the city, counterprotestors had permission at two parks and there was a third where they did not need permission. As for Antifa, they were only part of the counterprotestors, our main article says: "espoused a wide array of ideological beliefs, preferred tactics and political goals. A large number were ordinary residents of Charlottesville who wanted to show their disdain for white supremacist groups, particularly after the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in the city on July 8."[81] Ahead of the rally, an array of "faith-based groups, civil rights organizations, local businesses, and faculty and students at the University of Virginia" planned counterprotests.[43]. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

James A. Fields Jr. sentenced to life in prison in Charlottesville car attack

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/james-a-fields-jr-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-in-charlottesville-car-attack/2018/12/11/8b205a90-fcc8-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html?utm_term=.794772da9d90 FusionLord (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is this its own article?

Why does this have its own separate article? Why is it not part of Unite the Right rally?2600:1004:B129:6206:34CD:26B5:1D1D:6E08 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF. wumbolo ^^^ 12:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ordering of "Investigation" and "Hate Crimes Charges" sections

As a reader, I was confused by the organization of the "Investigation and prosecution" section. The "Hate Crimes Charges" subsection scrambles the chronological presentation of the larger section, and its not clear to me why it warrants a separate subsection (indeed, it's the only subsection, which makes me think either the material should be integrated into the larger section, or the larger section needs a couple of other subsections to demarcate the charges that weren't hate crimes and the trial itself).

Yeah, it is confusing because it is not chronological. I could make sections "investigation", "state prosecution" and "federal prosecution". However, I'd rather wait for the federal trial before rearranging the sections. This quite long article is currently easy to understand, unlike e.g. the section Charleston church shooting#Legal proceedings which has 6 long paragraphs and 4 short paragraphs. Note to self: [8] wumbolo ^^^ 22:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2019

Eminem wrote a song "Like Home" honoring Heather as a fallen hero in the fight against hate: "And band together for Charlottesville And for Heather, fallen heroes, fill this wall with murals" - https://genius.com/Eminem-like-home-lyrics#note-13261171 59.102.32.152 (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Baseball bats

At least one of the two source for this makes no mention of them, can I have the quote form the other saying it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The CBS source does not say protesters used baseball bats, there may be baseball bats, or fence posts or god knows what other kinds of stout stick they may have. We need a source saying "baseball bats".Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

For any reading, here's a video of the incident in question; https://www.cbsnews.com/video/charlottesville-car-attack-suspect-denied-bail-in-first-court-appearance/

Multiple members of the crowd can be seen at 37 seconds hitting the car with objects, including a baseball bat at 39 seconds that makes a large hole in the car's back window. Edit5001 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a baseball bat, it might be, but I am not sure the image is clear enough to be sure.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note the statement at the top of this page about discretinary sanctions related to this article

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory surrounding Heyer's death

I've noticed that the article was recently permanently protected due to vandals adding the claim, originated from a statement by Susan Bro in an NBC interview and spread by alt-right media, that Heather Heyer died of a heart attack. Below is all the related information covered by reliable sources i could find (sorted by date):

• deGrandpre, Andrew (August 15, 2017). "The man who disparaged the Charlottesville victim is 'amused' by death threats". The Washington Post.
• Kaplan, Alex (September 8, 2017). "Fringe media are furiously trying to absolve the white nationalist who allegedly killed Heather Heyer". Media Matters for America.
• Hayden, Michael Edison (October 17, 2017). "Sexist 'Alt-Right' Conspiracy Surrounding Heather Heyer's Death Persists Despite Ruling From Medical Examiner". Newsweek.
• Dwilson, Stephanie Dube (August 11, 2018). "Heather Heyer Cause of Death: How Did She Die?". Heavy.com.
• Barrouquere, Brett (December 10, 2018). "How the 'Unite the Right' murder trial helped debunk alt-right myths". Southern Poverty Law Center.

Per WP:RSP, only Washington Post and SPCL are considerated generally reliable while the others are in an unclear status. I think there should be a mention about it in the White nationalists reaction section, which (at the time of writing this) only includes statements from Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer. Mayimbú (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Was about to add the following text below the White nationalists reaction section but, in case someones objects on my take, i'll leave it here first:

Other white supremasists, such as James Allsup and Andrew Auernheimer, went onto claim that Heyer's death was the result of a weight-related heart attack, a conspiracy theory which stemmed from a statement by Susan Bro in an NBC News interview and was pushed by white supremacist media outlets such as Occidental Dissent and The Daily Stormer, the latter which had it's services suspended by their domain registrar following a blog post mocking Heyer. Other debunked claims and conspiracy theories suggested that a Michigan man was driving the car during the ramming; that Fields was under assualt and acted in self-defense and that Dwayne Dixon, an University of North Carolina professor and member of Redneck Revolt, threatened Fields with his AR-15 rifle prior to the attack. According to Mark Fenster, those conspiracy theories are "part of a self-sustaining narrative created by white nationalists who might be worried that the violence that took place delegitimized their cause."

References

Mayimbú (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

Change James Fields location from USP Hazelton to FCI Hazelton. Nh550 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done after checking the source provided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

dedicated page for Heather Heyer

Would anyone have any objections to creating a dedicate page for Heather Heyer, looks like Heather is generating a lot of back links to this article and it would be prudent to have a dedicated page and cross-link the two. Please advise, I'm happy to help work on her page. Stealth006 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

yes, we are not a memorial, and she is not independently notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant external link?

Under External links, under the Aftermath subheading is a link to a blog post written by a classmate of Fields with the description "A blog post about Fields written by an ex-schoolmate who barely knew him." I would question both the relevancy of the blog post in general and I would definitely argue that, if the blog post is to be kept, the description seems irrelevant. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Change James Field's incarceration location from FCI Hazleton to USP Allenwood. Nh550 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• James Alex Fields Jr.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of things don't make sense

A couple of things are too inconsistent and missing links of information.

• The lead says 19 people were injured, but the infobox says 28.

• In #Biography, it says Fields was turned down from the military and that was a "big blow". Two paragraphs later it goes on saying he enlisted in the army?

• In #Investigation and prosecution it says he needed an appointed private attorney due to conflict of interest (and pro bono). It goes on saying that few days later he had a laywer named Denise Y. Lunsford who replaced Charles L. Weber. This is the first and only mention Charles L. Weber. Since when and who is a "Charles L. Weber"?

Not sure why we say different numbers, maybe using sources to close to the event.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

The grammatical error in the following sentence needs correcting as it fundamentally alters the meaning of the sentence. The preposition "against" should be inserted into the following sentence:

deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people who were peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one and injuring 35.

It should be changed to:

deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people who were peacefully protesting against the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one and injuring 35. BigAl LBL (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I think it's pretty clear, and that's common parlance for protesting. Protesting is against something by nature. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a car crash?

Hm 188.143.45.234 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The perpetrator was convicted of murder in a court of law. Every person is entitled to their day in court and a presumption of innocence, as the case of Kyle Rittenhouse should remind you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well yes, a deliberate one.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

In the very first sentence, it said that this attack was carried out by a white supremacist. I checked the source: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/14/543462676/why-the-govt-cant-bring-terrorism-charges-in-charlottesville There is no mention of the assailant being a white supremacist. Perhaps this is a formatting error? Could we fix this, or instead add a new source that gives evidence for his motivations? Thanks. 76.179.51.51 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Statements in the lede do not have to be sourced, as long as they are in the body. This is sourced in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven Where is it sourced? I ctrl f'd "supremacist" and all the sources simply say he attended a white supremacist rally, but by that logic then all the counter protesters must be white supremacists, correct? So again, we need to find a source that he espouses white supremacist ideology. I mean, obviously he's a white supremacist because everyone says so, I'm not arguing that, but it'd be encyclopedia-like if we could actually provide a source. 76.179.51.51 (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So you did not see source 57?, it came up when I did a control F.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It say's he's an "avowed white supremacist" (That has been asserted, admitted, or stated publicly.). I agree that everyone calls him one, but has he admitted or stated so? 76.179.51.51 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

We an RS that says yes, so therefore we do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Remove "fascism" motive as not found in citations

Please change the "Motive" section from "Neo-Nazism, White Supremacy, Fascism" to "Neo-Nazism, White Supremacy".

The "Motive" section mentions "Fascism" but none of the three sources actually state that was his motive. The latter two don't even mention fascism and the first only states that he was seen protesting with fascist groups, not that this was his motive for the attack.

The ideal source here would be a statement from the perp, the prosecution or the judge regarding motive. 82.5.42.19 (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Reasonable summation and conclusion. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Simple edit request in "Perpetrator—Ideology"

In paragraph three of "Ideology" in the "Perpetrator" section of this page, the following statement may need to be edited, probably deleted: "Weimer said that Fields "admired" the Confederate States of America for their military, though they "never spoke about slavery".

The citation for this sentence is a 2017 Cincinnati Enquirer article. However, the article does not include any statements from Weimer regarding Fields and the Confederacy. I am not sure where this quotation comes from, but it isn't the cited article. The article does include the subsequent statement from Weimar about a black student riding in a vehicle with a Confederate flag sticker, but that's it. Dsa605 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Change the number of years since this event from 6 to 7, as of today. 137.54.125.254 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done The "x years ago" in the infobox is calculated by a template and does not require manual updating. I executed a WP:PURGE on the page and it shows correctly now. – Recoil16 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024 use tweet ref-name not abuse dummy ref

−

|ref = {{dummy reference|1}}

+

|ref-name = TweetrealDonaldTrump_2

This actually shows the clickable ref with the URL and is the proper way to avoid cite errors with multiple tweets. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What edit do you want made? Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done

@Slatersteven: he wanted to change a dummy reference to a source that was already in the article. I've done the change. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)