Talk:George Floyd Square occupied protest

“Alleged” killing

I’m sorry, but you are incorrect in that assumption. When a medical examiner identifies a manner of death as “homicide”, they are not drawing a legal conclusion. Regardless of personal beliefs or emotions surrounding an event, a person is still “alleged” (innocent) to have committed a criminal act until they are proven guilty in a court of law - this is the very foundation of the justice system. Consider the most heinous crimes you’ve ever read about - were the accused not referred to as the “alleged” until proven guilty? ObjectivityistheKey (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Perfect edit. Thank you for compromising. ObjectivityistheKey (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not a matter of compromising; it is just ensuring consistency with the main killing of George Floyd article. Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for over nine minutes and Floyd's death was a homicide, both are facts regardless of the trial. Minnemeeples (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

And I agree with those facts, but I believe homicide has different meanings legally and medically and therefore wasn’t a conclusive statement. I guess I saw this talk page as a discussion per Wikipedia’s guidelines to avoid ‘edit warring’ and considered the clarification from the “Killing of George Floyd” page to be the best way to word the sentence. That’s why I used the word “compromised”. ObjectivityistheKey (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Minnemeeples (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Separate rules for white people entering the zone

"Decenter yourself and come to listen, learn, mourn, and witness. Remember you are here to support, not to be supported. Seek to contribute to the energy of the space, rather than drain it," reads another bullet point. "Bring your own processing to other white folks so that you will not harm BIPOC Black and Indigenous people of color."The instructions for white people also encourages visitors to "be mindful" of whether their "volume, pace, and movements are supporting or undermining" efforts to "decenter" themselves and urges them to not take pictures of people without their consent.[1] Reaper7 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It is literally just one piece of laminated paper hanging up on a post that seems to be the subject of sensationalist, tabloid-style reporting. It was picked up Newsweek, New York Post and other less reliable sources, and then coverage of it quickly fizzled out. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Minneemeeples: More then just Newsweek and New York post reported on this subject. Washington Examiner, Fox News, and The Sun just for a short list, also reported on this. All of these are reliable news sources. How quickly coverage of something ends, does not change the reports of credible sources. I will say that if it is added, it should be included only in the section of media coverage FactsNotNarratives (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

For starters, a Fox News analyst tweeted about it and some publications picked it up, largely around April 21. It hasn't had much if any reliable media coverage since. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The Sun is depreciated. Washington Examiner is considered partisan. Fox News, when discussing politics, is best to use with caution. Furthermore, the sources reporting on it do so in a tabloid-style manner. The articles do not discuss the context of the sign, who might have left it there and why, how it is important or noteworthy historically, how the instructions compare to those at other places about historic trauma (e.g., Holocaust Museum), and etc. Many of the articles are merely about how people on Twitter reacted to a tweet about the sign. A lot of circular reporting going on. Minnemeeples (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Minneemeeples: Fox actually had an article about it. Not just a tweet. You can not what news organizations are “partisan.” Bringing up the Holocaust is a bad example. And the context of who and why it was left there in order to for a news organization to report on it is not required. The reports were in articles not tabloid style manner. Please understand that What your describing is your POV. POV is not how people contribute to WP. It’s supposed to be neutral. If a reliable source , as such reports on it, it can be included FactsNotNarratives (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps I did not explain my argument well. I would not mention the Holocaust itself as an example, but meant to refer to instructions given to visitors of certain places of historic trauma, such as at Holocaust museum locations (e.g., visitor instructions for Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum). The media outlets covering the instructions at George Floyd Square made no attempt to provide perspective about who might have put them up (Was it activists, a neighbor, a white resident, a black resident, a Fox News reporter, an agitator?), when they first emerged, if they persisted beyond a day, if they were in a prominent location or multiple locations within the square, if any visitors had actually seen or read them, how people who visited felt about them, or any other context. If reliable sources reported on the instructions as part of a more serious attempt at journalism and they were a fixture at the square beyond a short-lived Twitter storm stoked by a Fox News reporter one day, then they might be worth including. But that doesn't seem to be the case. The instructions do not need to be in the article as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Fox News can be a reliable source. But if you are referring to this Fox News article, it is not a reliable source. Matt Finn, a Fox News reporter tweeted about something, and Fox News wrote an article about his tweet. Then the New York Post in this article wrote about reactions to the tweet by other Twitter users. The sign issue has not be the source of credible journalism, but instead sensationalist, routine, and tabloid-style media coverage. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. When the coverage is about politics, RSP warns us to use "Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims" and flatly calls the NYP unreliable. Coverage spun out from those two is highly suspect. Lastly, Minnemeeples wasn't "Bringing up the Holocaust", but pointing to a relevant similar example at the Holocaust Museum. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I will retract my statement. But I would like to note, I believe you misinterpreted about Fox News. In the RSP you quoted , Fox News is considered a reliable source , as long as it’s not their political or talk show. Thank you for helping point me in the right direction FactsNotNarratives (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Sorry to belabor the point, but for your sake and that of future viewers: the above quote from RSP refers to any Fox News coverage of politics or science. The entry on the Fox News talk shows is more restrictive, declaring their coverage to be "generally unreliable". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger: 38th and Chicago

I propose that 38th and Chicago be merged into this article. The intersection of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue is not independently notable, as it would not have received significant coverage for reasons other than the murder of George Floyd. See WP:NGEO, which states: Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. Edge3 (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If they were merged, the article would have undue weight and recentism to a current event. The articles are about two totally different topics. 38th and Chicago is about a notable street intersection and the center of a historic Black commercial district in a major U.S. city, while George Floyd Square is about an occupation protest (e.g., Capitol Hill Occupied Protest).

The street intersection has the same level of notability as other commercial areas in Minneapolis, such as 50th & France, Lyn-Lake, Midtown, Mills District, etc. (38th and Chicago has more content and sources than those at this point).The notability of the area and debates about it also pre-date Floyd , such as the issues of gentrification, preservation of historic structures and character, racial patterns in housing development, etc. and other dynamics there [2][3][4][5] The planning for the seven cultural cultural district in Minneapolis also pre-dates Floyd and pre-dates the George Floyd Square occupation protest that will end at some point. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Minnemeeples: Thank you so much for clarifying! I misunderstood the nature of 38th and Chicago's claim to notability, and I appreciate that you added additional background and citations to that article. I withdraw this merge proposal. Edge3 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Withdrawn Edge3 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Edge3, thanks for raising the issue. I can see the confusion. The 38th and Chicago article may need to be moved to 38th Street (Minneapolis) or something like that with other tweaks. The cultural district and historic Black corridor is centered at the intersection, but encompasses more area than that just that one point. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC at George Floyd protests

I have started a discussion at Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#RfC on Status of George Floyd protests regarding the current status of the George Floyd protests. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Impartial Tone

This wiki page seems to be contributed to by mainly one single person who has bias on the matter. While contribution is great, and the user should be commended for the hard work he has put into it, bias must be stamped out and an impartial/neutral tone must be taken as per Wikipedia’s own guidelines. Using the race of Derek Chauvin unnecessarily in this article gives it a bias tone and undermines the hard work that has been put into an important page.

Let’s discuss. From what I have seen based on the edit history, there is many contributors who have also spotted this impartiality, and it is always reverted by the same individual. Corona1112 (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQs on the talk page above. The race of Derek Chauvin is used across articles about George Floyd. It is not "my" view, but the view of a consensus of editors across many articles. Removing white is going against consensus already established. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here also is a link to the global FAQs this article inherits: Talk:Murder_of_George_Floyd/FAQ. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You cannot use impartiality on another article as an excuse to bring impartiality onto this one. Please read WP:NEUTRAL with great care, and then tell me why you believe that keeping this word is not in violation of Wikipedia’s neutral policy. Corona1112 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the edit and discuss this here, and show where consensus was reached on the matter, and how it does not violate the neutral point of view policy Corona1112 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was initially reached in this talk page section last year. Describing Chauvin as white has come up countless times since, thus the FAQ item. You can certainly try and establish a new consensus, but, and here's my main point: seek to change the consensus at Talk:Murder of George Floyd, not here. There are no good reasons this article should treat Chauvin's top-line description differently from other related articles, and good reasons of consistency to treat it the same. We shouldn't rehash the same debate in every article that mentions the murder. PS: I think you may be using impartiality incorrectly. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Coron1112: @Minneemeeples: @Firefangledfeathers: Impartiality would be consistent with the addition of “white” to describe the police officer. WP requires us to be neutral. Even in the list of demands, it expresses demans “ Black Indigenous and People Of Color”. Therefore it would be neutral for an addition to represent more accurately why this demand was made. They were not making demands because of their own race. FactsNotNarratives (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Update

https://www.fox9.com/news/2-injured-in-shooting-near-george-floyd-square-mpd-says https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2022/03/19/police-2-shot-near-george-floyd-square-saturday-evening/ Persesus (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Present

Can we use the end date please ? Persesus (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no end date if it is still ongoing. The street intersection opened up to vehicle traffic, but the square is still an active protest zone with vacant businesses being held by protesters (e.g., Speedway gas station). One of the protesters' demands is for the trials of all officers to conclude. The state criminal trial of Lane, Kueng, and Thao is scheduled for mid 2022. Here is a KMSP source from March 20, 2022, "George Floyd Square at 38th and Chicago remains a memorialized intersection occupied in protest after former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in May 2020" (emphasis added). No end date. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

this is more of a tribute rather than a protest, no one calls this occupation a protest where there are stone throwing or arson and stuff, it is shown as a tribute and respect to Mr. Floyd in his memories, please learn the definition of protest. With that said I have the deepest respect for the tribute. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's both a memorial space AND an occupied protest, according to reliable sources as recently as a few weeks ago. City buses are rerouted around the area. Although the city recently purchased the Speedway gas station from the prior owner, the community is still holding it and using the gas station property as protest space.

This is from the Minnesota Reformer on January 5, 2023 (bold added):

Even with the plans, Jenny pledges the community that comprises George Floyd Square will persist until the 24 demands are met. “The City has a lot of plans,” Jenny said, “but do they have the moral authority to come in here and just take it.

This is from the Star Tribune on January 27, 2023 (bold added):

In the nearly three years since George Floyd was murdered by police a block from her home, hardly a day has gone by when Marcia Howard hasn't met up with fellow activists at what is now called George Floyd Square. The site of his killing has become both a memorial and a clarion call.

The community believes its 24 demands have not been met and are still actively protesting at the space, according to sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is another excerpt from the AP/KARE-11 on December 9, 2022 (bold added):

The City Council voted unanimously Thursday to purchase the gas station at the intersection now known as George Floyd Square. The area has become a protest site since Floyd was killed in May 2020, when white police officer Derek Chauvin used his knee to pin Floyd's neck to the pavement for 9 1/2 minutes as the 46-year-old Floyd gasped that he couldn’t breathe and went limp.

...

Some activists have said the city's involvement in taking over the property could taint the protest and community space that emerged organically after Floyd's killing.

Here's an excerpt from Workday Magazine on January 17, 2023 (bold added):

She’s been a leader at George Floyd Square, where the intersection of 38th and Chicago is still occupied in protest since Floyd’s murder, more than two and a half years later.

Do you have a source dated after any of the above that has stated the occupied protest at George Floyd Square ended? Minnemeeples (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2023 (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:

• George Floyd - Flickr - chaddavis.photography.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)