This is an archive of past discussions about George Floyd protests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This edit request to Twin Cities protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
To remove the “Alleged” in the section stating the cause for the riots. That is the reason for the protests. It is definitely not “alleged” systemic racism. 1.129.106.115 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
this literally expanded well beyond the original scope overnight after I posted this, the split is more than reasonable now. --Masem (t) 00:01, 30 May 2020 (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.
This is a completely unnecessary split from the death of George Floyd article. The two events are tied together, there is zero reason to separate them at this point. Make a h2 section on the Death article to make the riots section stand out if necessary there. --Masem (t) 05:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The protests have escalated into riots and have been gaining increasing international attention. It deserves its own page. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles for each is standard when they're both notable enough. For example, Shooting of Michael Brown & Ferguson unrest. Jim Michael (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support split, and expand/rename this article to include all aspects of the protesting and unrest. Strongly oppose covering the riots in this article, but the peaceful protests in the Death of George Floyd article. GorillaWarfare(talk)16:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support split. The death of George Floyd was an isolated incident and the protests and unrest after are a separate (although related) phenomenonMangokeylime (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support split. At this point, the riots are motivated by more than the death of George Floyd. 23:18, 29 May 2020 (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.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
The image labeled "The 3rd District Police Station in Minneapolis was set ablaze on May 28 by protestors" does not show the 3rd Precinct Police Station. That is housing. The picture should be changed or relabeled. BattlePig101 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Snow close without prejudice for other RM proposals, after universal opposition expressed. With parallel RMs for the same page it would be pointless to keep this open. (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - riots is the usual term. Uprising is incorrect & strongly biased, making it sound like looting & arson is legitimate, justified etc. In addition, we shouldn't have more than 1 move discussion open at the same time. Jim Michael (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2020 (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.
Requested move 29 May 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: There seems to be few chances that this move is going to happen, and there are 2 other move requests open on this page Guerillero | Parlez Moi17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I think that they should be a section for the one in the twin cities, and another for the ones outside, since the ones in the twin cities were more violent. 85.210.214.179 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Changing the title to broaden its geographic scope makes sense, but the proposed title is unsuitable due to it not being neutral or standard naming. Jim Michael (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Same reasons given by User:Jim Michael. It should definitely be changed - I've seen reports of George Floyd related riots and counter-violence in Denver, Columbus, OH, Los Angeles and Memphis so far - but the title must be something else more appropriate. Kire1975 (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for now per Miss HollyJ, as well as the fact that the Minnesota riots are extremely notable in comparison to the others, which appear smaller in nature. We'll see how the story evolves from here, though. Love of Corey (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Miss HollyJ's statement the term is true vague. But I think a new article "list of riots triggered by police brutality" should be created, the 1980, 1992, 2014 and now 2020 cases just to name a few. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Wait Lets wait and see if the rioting spreads to other cities before declaring it a multiple riots. It might be definitive by the end of the week and might escalate. - AH (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Protests arose in other cities, and there was some incidental violence, but full-blown riots are (hopefully) confined to the Twin Cities. Notable non-violent protests can be included on the Death of George Floyd aftermath section. GaidinBDJ (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support The riots are a direct result of police brutality and undermining this by giving it a place-name is misleading. The riots are happening in places dud to an idea: police brutality. Any other generic naming is nothing short of revisionism. The article could also be called the George Floyd riots, as that is what appears to be the most common usage in media. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk10:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
None of our other articles are named that way. Many rioters are opportunists who are using the death of someone whom they'd never previously heard of as an excuse to be violent. Jim Michael (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
"Many rioters are opportunists who are using the death of someone whom they'd never previously heard of as an excuse to be violent." doesn't sound very NPOV, and unless you have a source for it I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That's my reply to the comment immediately above it. I stated my reasons for opposing the proposed move further up this section. Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The way you word it is rather odd, but that's somewhat true. The protests began peaceful and even socially distant, then someone lights a car on fire and soon the whole city's (cities?) ablaze. RBolton123 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Half Support, there are multiple secondary sources on the protests spreading nationwide. CNN, The Guardian, Sky News, France24. I'm not fixed on one definite name. It needs to be expanded, the riots are in response to police brutality. I'm not opposed to the title presented, but can understand concerns about it. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose: As stated by peeps above, the riots may have begun due to police brutality, but now it's just bedlam. There are still many who fight for the original cause, but there are also many who just want to watch the world burn. RBolton123 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The change to "United States" makes it too generic; there is already mention of protests in other cities but the main focus of action and reporting is Minneapolis. The addition of "police brutality" is not only unneeded disambiguation, it is very POV. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Events in other cities at this point are too minor to be considered part of a broad nationwide event. They're related and need to be included here, but the event is what is going on in Minnapolis/Twin Cities. --Masem (t) 17:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Half oppose while you are right that the protests are a nationwide phenomenon, the title should be more concise. The term "George Floyd protests" has been popularly used by the press and I think that would be more appropriate.Mangokeylime (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2020 (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.
Requested move 29 May 2020 (3)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Clearly this is an early close, as the RM was opened yesterday, but the situation has become so confused since then - with another RM opened below, a split out to George Floyd protests which I have also re-merged - that I think this would benefit from closing now. Furthermore, there has been a large amount of participation here already, which gives enough information to make a consensus call. On a pure head-count basis, I count roughly 38 in support and 24 in opposition, give or take. On the policy-based merits of the two sides, it has been demonstrated in the discussion that the terms "riot" and "protest" do both appear in the media, but the central assertion of the nominator - that reliable sources are predominantly using "protest", making this version the WP:COMMONNAME for the incidents, was not disproven. I'm therefore calling this as a rough consensus in favour of moving at this time. The RM below, proposing a move to George Floyd protests can remain open for the moment, and if that has consensus in due course then the article can be moved again. I would also point out that nothing is set in stone. If in a week or a month's time it becomes clear that "riots" was a more appropriate term after all, with clear evidence as to why, then a fresh RM could be started. — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
That's because the scope of those articles are protests, of which those riots were a minor factor. The scope of this article is about the riots, which is a notable event itself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see my comment below. People are making claims about the scope of this article as though it's been formally decided, which to my knowledge it has not. I don't believe it is appropriate to split the riots into a standalone article while leaving information about the peaceful protests in the article about Floyd's death. Furthermore, peaceful protests have already been included in this article (primarily in the "other cities" section), so it's inaccurate to claim that that's the de facto scope or the formally-decided one. GorillaWarfare(talk)17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: The scope of the article was set when Mccunicano created the article and wrote "Riots warrant a separate article from the death of George Floyd". This move request is what's proposing to change the scope, I'm not making any de facto assumptions. Case in point, the riots here have received more coverage than the protests. Protests often happen after this sort of death, but what makes these protests more notable is that riots have formed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Fortunately article scope, like anything else, is decided by consensus and not set in stone by the original article creator. Although it would seem the creator was not making any statements about where the protests ought to be covered. GorillaWarfare(talk)17:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The current scope and title is about the riots. The point is that consensus to change that hasn't been reached, so please stop acting confused about the current scope. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not "acting confused", I am quite clear: the scope has not been decided in any formal way, and those who are referring to any existing scope are referring to the de facto scope that was determined by the article creator. It ought to be decided more formally; I am hesitant to start yet another discussion on this page, especially one so intertwined with this current discussion, but perhaps it is needed at this point. GorillaWarfare(talk)17:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice4What, there’s no tyranny of the status quo on Wikipedia and just because someone at some point wanted this article to be about the riots we must stick to that absent strong consensus to change. NPOV is more important and we don’t work on “first come, first decides the scope” basis. Volunteer Marek 17:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
You need consensus for change. The article is clearly titled "Twin Cities riot". Don't use scare words like tyranny to downplay my simple statement. We know that "riots" isn't an actual NPOV issue per other articles, it's just that this article is about the riots that have achieved notability beyond the other protests. To equate the notability of the riots to the peaceful protests would be WP:UNDUE. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 18:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Certainly not, this Wikipedia page should encompass the entire movement, not just the riots. For instance, 2019-20 Hong Kong protests are characterized as protests despite the fact that there are certainly some riot-like behaviors. Augend (drop a line) 15:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support - Just from a scoping standpoint the title is too narrow and the article covers the protests and the greater effects. Therefore it is a matter of accuracy and is not censorship of any kind. I don't oppose a separate article about the specifics of the outbreak of unrest. - Fuzheado | Talk12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per Fuzheado. Invoking WP:CENSOR is preposterous, making a decision based on policy arguments and common sense is hardly censorship, and I can't believe I have to explain that. Gamaliel (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying that peaceful protests can't be notable, but most aren't. If only peaceful protests were taking place in the US in recent days, they wouldn't be notable enough for an article - they'd merely be mentioned briefly in Death of George Floyd. Jim Michael (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
SoWhy, thank you. I'm always amazed at the editors who come by in discussions on hot topics like this and start spouting their opinion completely unhindered by facts or policies. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - So far, sources both US-internal and external seem to be preferring "protest." This includes not only the BBC, CNN, and the NYT, as already given, but also the Washington Post, current top article on the Fox News website ("another night of violent protest in Minneapolis... Protesters could be seen setting fire to a Minneapolis Police Department jacket and cheering"; "rioters" is not used directly in the prose), Al Jazeera English ("Protests over deadly arrest rock US's Minneapolis"), top Reuters article ("vandalism gripped Minneapolis as protesters vented rage"), top AP article ("Minneapolis police station torched amid George Floyd protest"), Agence France-Presse ("three nights of violent protests"; article refers to "rioters" in the prose, but in the caption "protesters"), and so forth. I'd be fine with "unrest" as a potential compromise title.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
To expand on this: the two terms are not mutually exclusive. "Protests" is a broad term that encompasses riots and peaceful protest. When RS use the term "protests" they are referring to the protests in general; when RS use the term "riots" they are referring to the riots specifically. The fact that some RS use the term "riot" ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) does not contradict other RS that use the term "protest". Protests are usually commonplace whereas riots are more unusual. The scope of this article should cover the riots, and the title should reflect so. userdude14:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Where has the scope of this article been so specifically determined? I don't see that discussion on this talk page, but it seems to be being treated as though that decision was arrived at by consensus. As I see SoWhy has just pointed out, plenty of protests (with no rioting involved, or rioting and peaceful protest) are notable, and reliable sources covering the responses to Floyd's killing have covered both violent and non-violent responses. GorillaWarfare(talk)14:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Twin Cities riots is a distinct, notable event that deserves its own page because the level of coverage it's received cannot reasonably be contained in Death of George Floyd#Aftermath. The peaceful protests, on the other hand, fall directly under the scope of Death of George Floyd#Aftermath and can be contained there. There is no consensus yet, but the riots (distinct from the protests) are notable enough to not be contained to a section in Twin Cities protests; it can be demonstrated to meet WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG from the sources already in the article. userdude15:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with you that the peaceful protests should be split out from the less peaceful actions, but this is perhaps not the best place for a discussion around article scoping. GorillaWarfare(talk)15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
To expand on this further: several users have raised the issue of NPOV with regard to the term "riot". However, concerns of NPOV violations are unfounded because numerous RS use the term "riot" (eg, above). Remember, NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (italics added). The term "riot" may be biased against the rioters, but this is a bias expressed by RS, and we must reflect it — NOT sanitize it. userdude07:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For ease of access, I will list the sources that use the term "riot", "rioters", or "rioting" here:
The point of this is not to claim that there are more uses of "riot" than "protest" — I'm sure there aren't. Rather, the fact that this many RS have used the term "riot" should show that NPOV concerns are unwarranted. userdude08:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose "Riot" is a fine term to use, even if news agencies are avoiding it. Like others have said, there were several peaceful protests, but the riots/looting are what's notable and should be covered here. Spengouli (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That the looting is what's notable is nothing but your opinion, Spengouli, and as Gamaliel said does not agree with what the sources are describing. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Riot being a loaded term because it makes you think about Trump's tweets is also "nothing but your opinion," I would think. I don't mean to "call out" anyone but this just seems bizarre to me. Spengouli (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I happen to agree that "riot" is a loaded term, though not because it reminds me of Trump's tweets (and that is not what Drmies said below, by the way). The Radio Television Digital News Association, which I also quoted above, writes: Words like riot, mayhem and thug may carry unintended meaning to various audiences ([8]). Even though we may be behind in establishing a universal approach to naming these articles, we can follow the guidelines used by reputable sources. GorillaWarfare(talk)15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Assuming, arguendo, that we should follow the guidelines of RTDNA (either in addition to or instead of MOS), these guidelines do not say to never use "riot", but rather to be careful when using the term "riot". We are not the experts at interpreting RTDNA guidelines, so we should leave the interpreting up to RS — numerous of which, as shown above, have already decided that the situation warrants the term "riot" (despite, presumably, following RTDNA or similar guidelines). userdude07:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC); anchor link added 07:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"Riot" is a fine term to use, even if news agencies are avoiding it <<— you know you just basically said “we should do the opposite thing than what a Wikipedia policies require”, right? I mean, that right there is a perfect reason for the closer to completely disregard your !vote. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom and precedent. Protests might also include riots (or lead to riots) but limiting this article's scope to just riots (criminal acts) ignores all the non-criminals protesting peacefully without any basis in policy. Regards SoWhy14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support; GorillaWarfara is spot on. The term "riots" is loaded--one is reminded of a certain racially charged word our president used in a tweet to refer to these events--and "protests" isn't just the more neutral word, it's also the more general word and the term used by reliable sources. And for those who say (see the "See also" section) that "riots" is standard, as in 1980 Miami riots and 1992 Los Angeles riots, well, there's 2015 Baltimore protests, and the Miami and LA articles really need to have their titles changed. GorillaWarfare, you want to do a few more? I find it interesting, by the way, that right now that "See also" section has this very telling piping, [[Ferguson unrest|2014 Ferguson riots]]. I don't know who did this, but that ain't right. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Conditional oppose at least for the time being. Before anything else, renames for current events are rarely productive. More often than not, we will find a name that fits eventually, and we're unlikely to find a permanent name while the event is ongoing, but we're almost certain to have an unproductive rename request every 36 hours or so. Beyond that, and I mean, I have a little bit of experience writing about strikes, protests, and riots, these terms are not mutually exclusive. Riots don't "just happen", and historically they are the outcome of strikes, protests, or both. The current naming is not inaccurate. It is currently correctly described as both a riot and a protest. Time will tell which one of these is more lasting a designation. GMGtalk15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support These are protests - large, nationally covered protests and so named - which developed a riot component. Protest is a more inclusive term for the story and it is what Reliable Sources are using. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Support - These are clearly protests against police brutality. Those are just facts, not POV. Any riots that occurred were just a side effect of the protests. So, they shouldn't be the defining factor. By calling them riots, we're marking them as a crime and invalidating what this actually is. — Starforce1315:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
STRONG SUPPORT Per most, it is a protest w/ rioting side effects. Calling it riots unconditionally incorrectly reflects the peaceful protests elsewhere. Augend (drop a line) 15:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose – This article is about the riots, not the peaceful protests. They are separate events. The term "riots" has been used by reliable sources: France24, Yahoo!, Fox News. Reporting on the protests encompasses the riots, but again, to rename this article would mean to broaden its scope. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, how is this a NPOV issue? We have Ferguson unrest, because it's specifically about the unrest and not the protests. Same with the LA riots. Protests after these sort of deaths are common, it's the riots that rarely happen that make this notable. Calling it "riots" does not take away from the protests, which is already covered in the Death of George Floyd article. Stop falsely citing other articles as precedent such as 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, because the so-called riots that were parts of those protests are very small portion of what's happening while the ones here in the Twin Cities are not. Do not push a agenda to remove the "riots" title just because you think it downplays the peaceful protests, because it does not. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: See my comment above. There are more than just three RS using the term "riots". There is no dichotomy between using "protests" and "riots", the former happens to include the latter. (See WP:FOXNEWS with regard to your comment on that source.) userdude07:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Though I'm not sure "Twin Cities" is the best disamibuator, and it might still make sense to split out a separate article on the unrest at some point.--Pharos (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Floyd's death has provoked a spectrum of responses, ranging from protests, marches and vigils to civil disobedience, looting and rioting. It would violate NPOV to paint these varied reactions with a loaded term such as riot. Limiting the scope of this article to just the more violent aspects of the last few days is unbalanced. gobonobo+c16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Literally any protest that have ever happened in the Twin Cities can be added to the page if this change is made. Kire1975 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support strongly (2020) Twin Cities protests as the title. The use of "riots" in the title, while not completely inaccurate since some rioting happened, violates NPOV and is a spin on the events. Gates of Ale (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
What you are describing is already being done with this article, which is why the rename discussion is happening. Check out the Timeline section where it describes the protests. -- Fuzheado | Talk06:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support strongly (2020) Twin Cities protests as the title. While rioting did occur, peaceful protesting also occurred, and the article should reflect that. Also note that "riot" is a loaded term (esp. in an American context), and using it in the article's title would be a violation of NPOV. (Edit: in light of protests across the US, I think the article should be called "George Floyd Protests" instead of "Twin Cities Protests")FactCheck105 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - To reiterate "response to comment" above, if we call it merely 2020 Twin Cities protests how would that not include last month's anti-lockdown protests in St. Paul. Furthermore, there are protests in St. Paul but none of them are any more notable than the ones in Denver, Columbus, Memphis, Los Angeles or elsewhere. Kire1975 (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Weak support - As much as I personally think "riots" is a more appropriate term for these events, it does seem like all examples that would support an "oppose" opinion (1992 Los Angeles riots, 2005 French riots, 2011 England riots, etc.) are a result of WP:COMMONNAME, whereas others are not. Until we get a common name that describes these events as a riot, "protests" are a more all-encompassing term. Love of Corey (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed on "Criminal activity is the majority." That's an opinion that is not borne out by the facts. -- Fuzheado | Talk06:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - These were not protests. These were riots. Private property that had nothing to do with the death of George Floyd was destroyed and stolen. That is completely unacceptable criminal behavior that does not constitute a peaceful protest, as many are claiming it is. The suggestion to change to the article's name comes across like a political move to me. To act as if these were "peaceful protests" is simply disingenuous. -- Cc330162 (talk)
This is a straw man argument - no one has proposed that it be renamed "Twin Cities peaceful protests." The Timeline section of the article is at odds with your statement that "These were not protests." The Timeline of events starts with "Protests of Floyd's death emerged ..." and "The protests continued into May 27..." -- Fuzheado | Talk06:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Support - I see no reason why Hong Kong protests deserve to be called protests if the George Floyd riots are not called protests. Both involve behavior that would be considered "rioting" but only one is called a riot. This double standard is a violation of NPOV. Qiushufang (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Not a double standard and don't throw around NPOV if you don't understand. Using imaginary number heres, but let's say 5-10% of the coverage for the Hong Kong protests are the riots. Thus, the protests themselves are the primary topic. For this article, 70-80% of coverage is about the riots, making them notable on their own. That's the different. Don't compare apples to oranges. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 21:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong Support - the articles on events such as the Hong Kong protests are sufficient precedent for renaming this article. RealDoctorBrane —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The HK protests are primarily planned protests with specific political goals & a proportionately small amount of violence. These are very different in that they turned violent quickly & involve a lot of looting, arson etc. Jim Michael (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose renaming the article "Twin Cities protests". There have been protests and there has been rioting. The two terms should not be used interchangeably. However, retitling it "Twin Cities unrest" is a good solution as unrest can include both peaceful protests and rioting.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong Support as descsribing these as "riots" is not only inaccurate to the full scope of activity that is happening, but also is very non-neutral and politcally charged. In addition, it is convention events like these are named as protests and reliable sources name it as such. There is no reason to name this article as a riot except to falsely mislead the reader and to propagate a political narrative. DTM9025 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment – I'd like any editor who will consider to close this discussion to note the unfounded "precedent" that many people have cited above that equates spontaneous looting and arson to relatively planned and calm protests in Catalonia and Hong Kong (that had minor elements of violence). Why is it called "riots" when it happens in India but suddenly it's a POV issue when it happens in the States? The idea that keeping the word "riots" is pushing a political narrative ignores the subsequent political narrative of equating the peaceful protests to these riots (WP:UNDUE/WP:PTOPIC). I suggest making a separate article about the nationwide George Floyd protests to cover the more peaceful aspect. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If you read the OP post by GorillaWarfare, you will see for the most part we use "protests" and not "riots" when discussing these sort of movements and reactions in reaction to an injustice. I was not involved in the other article you mentioned, but that does not disclude the fact that "riots" is way more unneutral and political then "protests". I personally rather make this article talk about all the reactions of this injustice as it would be too many articles that are too spreadout otherwise. DTM9025 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That post is misleading. Rioting was not a major aspect in Lebanon or Iraq, nor did it receive widespread coverage. Ferguson unrest is not called protests. 2020 Delhi riots is not called protests. 1992 Los Angeles riots is not called protests. Those other articles are about protests, this is about riots. Again, I suggest an article for the nationwide protests and then this article separately since these riots are notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 23:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the original intention of this article to only cover the "riot" aspects (that by itself is nebulous), it is clear that the scope of the article has changed to all the various demonstrations in reaction to this injustice, with Death of George Floyd article linking to this page in the lede as "demonstrations and protests" and it being the main article for "Memorials, protests, and riots." As such, I would prefer renaming this to protest and covering the different reactionary demonstrations in this article, especially since most news articles have referred to these as protest as shown in the OP. DTM9025 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The second sentence of 2020 Delhi riots - "Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire... More than a week after the violence had ended, hundreds of wounded were languishing in inadequately staffed medical facilities and corpses were being found in open drains." That incident is dramatically different than protests and property destruction in Minneapolis. -- Fuzheado | Talk06:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose per the facts of what has occurred. The center of the riots (in Minneapolis) has been around the 3rd precinct building, which (along with many other buildings in the area) was burned in the events. Rioting constitutes direct physical attacks by a mob of people against some kind of authority and/or symbol of authority; if this definition is to be adhered to, this would be considered a series of riots. Peaceful protests could have been the original intent (I would assume it was); however, regardless of whether the protests were hijacked in some way, the term "riots" reflects an escalation of "protests" - an escalation which, in the article, has already been documented to have occurred. Sections of the article could, however, distinguish the phases and areas of these events; for instance, peaceful instances should be referred to as "protests", and if the events have escalated into visible property damage and looting, the term of referral should be escalated to "riots". In any case, however, the term for the overall events should be the term used to refer to the maximum escalation of the events in general - and in this case, it escalated to riots. --TZLNCTV (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - As it currently stands, this article is about the rioting and only tangentially about the peaceful protests. Unless and until the article is expanded to also deal with the protests, the current title is more accurate than the proposed change. When that is said, I think it would make sense to create a new article about the peaceful protests, and leave this article about the riots. I also see why many people want to make the title reflect that protests and riots have spread beyond the Twin Cities, but for lack of a commonly used name in RS, calling them the "Twin Cities" riots and protests is currently the least bad option. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is provably incorrect - The Timeline of events starts with "Protests of Floyd's death emerged ..." and "The protests continued into May 27..." The characterization in your !vote is inconsistent with the fact that the article is very much about the protests and not focused on the "riots." Prior Wikipedia examples show that if there is indeed organizing and activism, and not just random violence, protest is the consistently used term. -- Fuzheado | Talk00:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes? My point isn't "this article isn't about the protests at all", my point is "this article is primarily about the riots". There are mentions of the peaceful protests, but it's a lie to say that this article primarily deals with the protests in general rather than the riots specifically. No one's denying that there was/is peaceful protest, but for some reason many people here are denying that there was/is rioting. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - As far as I'm aware events like the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, 2019–2020 Iraqi protests, 2019–2020 Lebanese protests, don't feature the looting of almost 200 stores (possibly more) as part of the protests. The recent Twin City events are much closer to what would be called "riots" than actual "protests" from everything I've seen and read. Yodabyte (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
You would be wrong. Did you try looking? "Hundreds of shops destroyed as Hong Kong protesters defy rally ban" (France24, 20/10/2019). "As violence and vandalism escalate in Hong Kong, some protest supporters have had enough" (CNN, October 27, 2019). This pretty much invalidates your point. - Fuzheado | Talk00:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't. I was referring to looting (i.e. theft from stores during rioting), not just vandalism of shops. Yodabyte (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - All news media reports it as riots at this point, doesn't mean riots are not a type of protest, all the 60s riots, the 1980 Miami riot, 1992 LA riot were all violent protests against racism. Protests that turn violent are called riots, featuring looting, shooting, arson attacks, killings, stone throwing, etc. But all these anger just steams from such non stop police brutality. The main point is both riots and protests have been used to describe the incident by WP:RS. I fail to see why it should be renamed just based on certain editor's view that the term riot is not NPOV. Then also rename the 60s riots, 92 riot ands all riot articles. WP:RS terms it riot thats what it should matter, not editor's personal views. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This would be your own WP:OR though. The naming of the article needs a policy basis, which is why we rely on what WP:RS use, and prior Wikipedia examples show that if there is indeed organizing and activism, and not just random violence, protest is the consistently used term. -- Fuzheado | Talk00:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Fuzheado | that is YOUR WP:OR, news media reports this as riot, sources names it as riot, both protest and riots have been described by WP:RY, so stop singling out a term based on your personal views. Riots do not violate NPOV its just a term for violent protest, lots of riots in the 60s civil rights movement, 1980 miami riot, 1992 la riot are described as what they are riot. So Stop trying to dictate words based on your personal views, point is most WP:RS have termed it a riot and it should be called what it is. Please do not falsely accuse other users of pusing POV, I stated what sources stated. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Nope, I meant your statement: "Protests that turn violent are called riots." There's no Wikipedia policy basis for that. Since we're here, why did you !vote twice here? I've struck the other one below. -- Fuzheado | Talk00:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - The RIOTING, i.e. people looting, burning, destroying property, assaulting people, etc., is a distinct and notable phenomenon. It might be a good idea to also have an article about protests (i.e. people doing things like marching, holding signs and banners, chanting slogans, etc.) in the wake of the Floyd killing, but again, this is something very separate and distinct. To conflate the two would both unfairly tarnish the protests and also misleadingly sanitize the rioting. Keep them separate! -2003:CA:8732:E411:7403:21A3:FCA0:15AC (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Support -As the events that happened in Hong Kong are only labeled as 'protests' this should be labeled just as so. This shows double standards, which would be a violation of NPOV Gorden 2211 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Lets judge before seeing what majority votes say, various WP:RS calls it riots, riots are just protests turned violent like the 1960 riots, all were civil rights protests. Why should this be speedy renamed because certain users feel riot is a term against NPOV? If WP:RS calls it riot (wqhich they do) then thats what should matter. Anyway lets decide based on majority votes before rushing to a speedy conclusion. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Nope. You must be new here, because "majority votes" is not how it works. "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly." Please read the policy pages. "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments" (Wikipedia:Requested_moves) "...this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority" (Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions) -- Fuzheado | Talk01:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia is not censored. These events are clearly riots and are referred to as such by reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not censorship to look at precedent and make consistent policy-based decisions about article titles. See above comment by Gamaliel -- Fuzheado | Talk01:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. "Protests" generally refers to peaceful protests, not ones involving violence and property damage. Those are called "riots". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - I can't stand this hypocrisy anymore, the HK protests showed MAJOR amount of violence with people tearing up the street, throwing cocktails, setting fire and smashing local businesses but now its just a "small part of it" and "its apple and orange" So when the agenda is something you approve of, the violence is overlooked and the political statement is one getting highlighted but if its something you don't approve of, its the riots that are the primary focus? Even a blind person know the political statement the twin cities protesters are trying to make and that is to end police brutality and mistreatment of black americans. The lootings ARE NOT THE PRIMARY FOCUS and by choosing to set it as such, you are trying to push your own narrative of what happened. Its especially hypocritical when the exact same things happened in other recent riots but you CHOOSE to downplay it instead. This is honestly disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantstandthishypocrisy (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — Cantstandthishypocrisy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I know I'm replying to a single-purpose account, but... I want to point out that it's based on coverage/notability. Everyone knows there was violence in Hong Kong, but the numbers and tactics is what got coverage. These Minnesota riots have international coverage, more so than the peaceful protests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 01:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that what the coverage focus on depends highly of the motive and agendas of the new companies. Do you honestly think they were going to focus on the ongoing violence in the other protests when its in other countries that are not allied with the US? What the media choose to focus on is motivated by a lot of factors, and just the idea that "there are coverage on violence so we will talk more about the violence" is NOT a neutral way of looking at the issue. Wiki is supposed to serve as a neutral bystander and present BOTH sides of the issue. Honestly, I don't know people can be so blind to their double standard. Most likely, I won't convince you but please at least think about the things you are saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantstandthishypocrisy (talk • contribs)
Change name to "George Floyd killing protest or similar, as this is happening in cities across America. ɱ(talk)01:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support – For the sake of neutrality and to account for the fact that there are still plenty of lawful protests taking place. Master of Time (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - this is about more than riots, it's about widespread protests (of which is the riots are a part). Guettarda (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment. Could move to support if a separate article was created to cover the protests. Most likely, I think it might be more appropriate to give those articles a name reflecting this being a national string of protests (and riots) as opposed to simply the Twin Cities. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support: They began peaceful, and riots (while true) can be better substituted by protests. A riot is a form of protest, not the other way around. This may develop into other events, so it's better and future-proof to rename it to protests. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 02:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - I agree with the above statements that protest is more neutral and more broad than riot, and this article seems to cover both. In fact, the article uses the word "protest" and its variants far more than "riot", which may in part due to media coverage calling it protest as well. So overall it seems like a reasonable move. ChromeGames923 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose There are certainly riots occuring by any definition of the word. Any parallel peaceful protests can get their own article and let it be called that.--Therexbanner (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - Protests can semantically encompass both the peaceful protest and the riots. The only other to way to properly address this would be to have two separate articles, but that would make it difficult for readers to understand the overall subject of the aftermath of Floyd's murder. - MrX 🖋03:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support – Agree entirely with User:WhoAteMyButter; riots are forms of protests, protests are not forms of riots, and as others have pointed out, they started out peacefully (and continue to be as such). LeoC12 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - The defining characteristic of the protests in this case has been riots, arson, and looting. The extreme lawlessness necessitated a response from the National Guard, thus I feel that riots is a more apt term, especially given the fact that there has been constant and deliberate violence every night, without a single night's break for nothing but peaceful protest. Riots better encapsulates the demonstration and unrest than protests, which in common parlance tends to mean a peaceful demonstration. Porcelain katana (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Our WP:COMMONNAME policy says we go with what WP:RS say, which is overwhelmingly "protests." The observations about "defining characteristic" and "extreme lawlessness" are not the factors in the Wikipedia policy for naming. -- Fuzheado | Talk07:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@HAL333: The title you are supporting is "Twin Cities protests". Are you sure you didn't mean to put this under option 4 (George Floyd protests)? userdude07:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support Just because there are a few instances of violence doesn't mean this event can be framed as a riot. Plenty of peaceful demonstrations against the state of the government. Dismissing this event as a just a riot instigated by thugs would imply an endorsement of a politically charged narrative. Leotext (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Going in a march holding placards is protesting. Arson, looting and property damage have nothing to do with peaceful protests. The article clearly descibes acts of rioting from May 27 and May 28. ValentinianT / C04:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This is clearly a riot, just look at the news reporting. BigRed606 04:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not "clearly a riot." The Timeline of events starts with "Protests of Floyd's death emerged ..." and "The protests continued into May 27..." As others have said, NPOV and the custom established with other incidents that have protests and violence go with "protest" as the title. -- Fuzheado | Talk06:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts - It's going to be charged language either way, but there's too much widespread violence and destruction to call it "just" a protest. That said, Wikipedia as a whole doesn't seem to have a cohesive stance on this. Compare the 1992 Los Angeles riots with the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, both of which had a combination of peaceful protesters and violent rioters/looters. One solution is to rename them all to a format like Twin Cities protests and riots, though that's a mouthful. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at 05:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support The word protest can encompass both protest and riots, but the word riot can only encompass riots. Since both are going on, it should be protests. A possible alternative is 'unrest' Eccekevin (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment In a press conference just held by the governor of the state of Minnesota, the people involved in this event have just been referred to, explicitly, as "rioters".--TZLNCTV (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Rename to "2020 Twin Cities unrest" A more neutral title that encompasses both the peaceful protests and rioting that have been occurring. Sonictrey (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, but Support a Rename to "2020 Twin Cities unrest" as a more neutral title that encompasses both peaceful protests and rioting. -- Danetalk07:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support — "Protests" can mean peaceful protests and/or riots, while "riots" only means riots. Rioting can be used as a form of political protest. CentreLeftRight✉07:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment - As a point of information: as part of the discussion above, I've found the following breakdown of different news organizations using the terms using a Google New search for both "floyd protests" and "floyd riots." This is relevant concerning the WP:COMMONNAME policy as per WP:RS. Including it here for easier reading and reference:
Initial reaction is support and also merge in George Floyd protests into a more general article, is my first reaction, but if other people have good counterarguments to that I would not object to other consensus BlackholeWA (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Twin city is slang. Also 2020 United States police brutality riots seems a better fit as incidents have happened in other cities which would fit in with this page. Games of the world (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support Wikipedia didn't make the article death of George Floyd into killing of george Floyd. This should therefore be twin cities protest rather than riot because we should go with the most neutral term first until more evidence becomes available.
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.
Post-close discussion
@Amakuru: I find this closure wholly inappropriate. Discussion was still ongoing, and this discussion was closed less than 24 hours after it was opened. Claiming this situation has become so confused without further explanation is not a valid reason to close. The situation is NOT confused, rather Mangokeylime simply opened a new discussion in violation of WP:MULTI. That is is not a reason to early-close an active discussion as move. If any discussion is to be early-closed, it should clearly be #Requested move 29 May 2020 (4), which was more recent, opened in violation of MULTI, and had fewer commenters.
You say that the central assertion of the nominator - that reliable sources are predominantly using "protest", making this version the WP:COMMONNAME for the incidents, was not disproven. I have several problems with this statement.
WP:COMMONNAME does not apply, because none of the sources cited in the original nomination used the term "Twin City protests". Rather, they simply used the term "protests" and not the term "riots" (see #3).
This is not an issue of choosing the more common name between two synonymous names. Even the original nominator made this clear: "Do not use words like protest and riot -- or protester and rioter -- interchangeably.". This was never an issue of COMMONNAME, it was an issue of neutrality and scope.
I had already stated repeatedly that this is not an issue of a dichotomy between "protests" and "riots", but rather the protests encompassed the riots, as well as other peaceful protests. the two terms are not mutually exclusive. "Protests" is a broad term that encompasses riots and peaceful protest. When RS use the term "protests" they are referring to the protests in general; when RS use the term "riots" they are referring to the riots specifically. The fact that some RS use the term "riot" ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) does not contradict other RS that use the term "protest". Thus, it does not make sense to compare counts of RS that use the word "protest" or "riot", because the term "riots" refers to events distinct from the protests at large. Again, this was not an issue of COMMONNAME, but an issue of scope and neutrality. No one had disproven this statement because no one had yet responded to it — despite the fact that I pinged GorillaWarfare and Fuzheado reiterating the statement. (I'm not saying no one might have come along and disproven my statement, but no one had the chance to as a result of the inappropriate early close.)
While I acknowledged in my response The point of this is not to claim that there are more uses of "riot" than "protest" — I'm sure there aren't., I still demonstrated that the nominator's claim that reliable sources are predominantly using "protest" cannot stand as a mere assertion, and as the twenty-one sources I provided using the term "riot" are, in fact, more than the three sources the nominator provided that did not use the term "riot". If providing a literal list of sources using the term "riot" isn't enough to challenge an assertion, I don't know what is.
Pointing out that nothing is set in stone is not a valid reason to close an active, productive discussion. I am aware that there is no deadline, but that is not an excuse to close a discussion in favor of one side without adequate reason and just tell other people to fix it later.
I kindly request that you re-open this discussion. If not, I request that you respond to my contentions as you are obligated to do per WP:AN/RFC#3. Thank you, userdude11:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Good close - It was becoming increasingly clear, not just from a numeric tally but from the substance of the comments, that the sentiment of the folks chiming in were either for protest or unrest as the ultimate larger scope of this article. UserDude, for the sake of getting us to more productive work vs. spilling another few megabytes about one word change for the article, could we consider just getting back to real editing of this article? It's really not a good use of our time to keep stringing this out as there were really no new or compelling arguments being raised. I'll address some specific points, but it gives me no pleasure. I'd rather us just get back to work adding real content to the article.
a. We cannot just declare that "WP:COMMONNAME does not apply" because it's not a laser exact match for what we are considering as the title. That's never been our modus operandi, and there's no justification to adopt a new practice now. We're intelligent human beings who can interpret some convergence on a title by WP:RS whether they are using "Twin City protests" or "Minneapolis protests" or "Floyd protests in Minneapolis" etc.
b. I agree it should not be a dichotomy between "protests" and "riots" and my support sentiment above reflects that - it was about scope, and clearly the "Timeline" section of the article led with the protests and the context, in addition to the top part of the article. So of course the article is more than just the riot. So why have we focused on the "protests" vs "riots" issue? See next item.
c. The focus on what WP:RS have been calling these events was prompted by many people !voting "Oppose" because they kept saying reliable sources were using "riot." You even have a 21 point seemingly impressive list of news organizations using the term. But a blunt search for a single word is bad methodology for justifying the naming of this article. No one has ever refuted that the word "riot" has been used by news organzations - they all have. Instead, for the naming of a Wikipedia article, we have always looked towards headline writing to understand what WP:RS have labeled an event as the closest analog to what we do in terms of naming articles. I provided evidence showing 13 major sources used protests consistently, and not riots. Only FOX News used "riots" and "looting" as umbrella terms. Two major sources used both terms in significant amounts. I'm not sure how many of these discussions you've been a part of but for more than a decade, every move/title discussion I have been part of has accepted this method of measurement as a best practice.
d. When compared to prominent previous articles for 2020 such as 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests and 2020 Delhi riots, going with protests is clearly the appropriate way to go. When there is popular political activism at the heart of an endeavor (as with Hong Kong, or Iraq, or Lebanon, or Seattle WTO) and significant violence and vandalism also result, it makes sense to circumscribe the activities as "protests," as WP:RS have done. In the case where it is ethnic, religious or cultural clashes with physical confrontation as the main point conflict, as with the Delhi riots, WP:RS have gone with "riots" as a more rare but justified term to describe the entirety of the events. When presented with this context, no one had a good argument to say that the reactions to Floyd were more "Delhi" than "Hong Kong."
I think that does a pretty good job of summing it up, and thanks to Amakuru for trying to recognize these early and get us back to productive work. Can I ask folks to not think of this as a MMORPG and about this as winning or losing? There is no shame in just getting back to collaborating. -- Fuzheado | Talk13:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I concur that this was a good move and I thank Amakuru for carrying it out. I also think that we should have a moratorium, just a brief one for a week or so, on any further RMs - pending the closure of the open RM below. We can continue to discuss the title as we wish, but no formal discussions or RMs, and no actual move, until the situation is behind us and we can get some historical perspective. This is not a formal declaration of moratorium, just MHO. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Good close I also concur that this was a good closure of the renaming request and thank Amakuru for carrying it out. I'm not going to repeat the points made by Fuzheado, but this is a rapidly developing event and making this decision now after the huge amount of participation was necessary. All but one source (that being Fox News) use the term protest so it is clear that for now we should use that to describe the range of demonstrations and activities have occurred. Furthermore, this article is being linked to by multiple related articles, from the Death of George Floyd linking to this as "demonstrations and protests" and thus it is clear "protest" is appropriate. Again, thank you for Amakuru for carrying it out. DTM9025 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment - apologies for not being online much today, or responding to the above comments in a timely fashion. Just to say that I understand why UserDude and others are disappointed, it's never ideal when Wikipedians get into very polarised debates like this, and one side has to "lose" while the other side "wins". But I think my call at the time did reflect the consensus of the community, and I think in this case that there was no value in allowing two contradictory RMs to proceed for the usual mandated seven days. Clearly, with the close below, events have not moved on considerably further than the situation when I made the close above, so I hope that we can get some stability now and proceed with making the article the best it can be rather than arguing about the name. If, when the dust settles, it's clear that we're not using the correct name then we can reassess at that time. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Events are moving quickly, and it is clear that the unrest is now at a national scale. Though discussion is ongoing, it is clear that there is rough consensus for George Floyd protests. I count 20 supports (though they varied in their exact wording) to only 5 opposes. Though Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, we very much exist in the real world right now, and it is important to have an accurate title, thus the early closure after just a little over 24 hours. I hardly expect this to be the last RM, but at the moment, things have certainly spread beyond the Twin Cities. There are still questions over whether it should be referred to as "protests" or "riots" (though RM 3 did give rough consensus to "protests" at the time), if it should be given a more national/broader title, or if it should include "2020". I would encourage a bit of work-shopping before opening the next RM, in order to find a more conducive long-term title. It seems we may need a few days of news coverage before a long-term WP:COMMONNAME emerges. It is also possible that the content could be split out, as was previously attempted. A discussion about scope/splitting should likely follow this RM. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓18:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There is another request on this page to give the article a name that reflects the nationwide aspects of the protests. I think the term "George Floyd protests" which has been used in the press, is a good title. A quick google search can show that this title has already been in use by media outlets. I think this title is descriptive, concise, popular, and shows the nationwide aspect of the protests. If you have another idea for a title I'd love to hear it. Mangokeylime (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
My proposal (#3), though it uses "Twin Cities", reflects my strong opinion that the article should be named "___ protests". I would support "George Floyd protests" as well, though I would oppose "George Floyd riots". GorillaWarfare(talk)17:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment This may be appropriate if it proves necessary to split out the national protests from activities in the Twin Cities. I believe GW's RM should be addressed first.--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Review requested - I have requested at WP:ANRFC that both this discussion and "Requested move 29 May 2020 (3)" be reviewed by an experienced editor. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Reply - @Love of Corey:, I could not agree with you more. Someone once told me that "people already know that there is a backlog", and to "close by yourself the simplest discussions with which you are not involved". --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - The RIOTING, i.e. people looting, burning, destroying property, assaulting people, etc., is a distinct and notable phenomenon. It might be a good idea to also have an article about protests (i.e. people doing things like marching, holding signs and banners, chanting slogans, etc.) in the wake of the Floyd killing, but again, this is something very separate and distinct. To conflate the two would both unfairly tarnish the protests and also misleadingly sanitize the rioting. Keep them separate! -2003:CA:8732:E411:7403:21A3:FCA0:15AC (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support, as protests is a broader term that can encompass all actions taken by those that have taken to the streets.Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support. The acts of violence that have been committed thus far should not invalidate the fact there have largely been peaceful protests in the wake of these violent killings. A few weeks ago other protesters blocked highway traffic, prevented emergency vehicles from reaching hospitals, marched around with guns, openly displayed hate symbols, lynched an effigy of an elected official, and arguably endangered the public by potentially spreading COVID-19 -- but these have all been deemed protests, not riots. Backchannels (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support It's nationwide now. It's become a national and not just local issue. Even the White House was under lockdown because of the protests. Yekshemesh (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support: There are huge protests all over the country. It has very little to do with the Twin Cities. Less to do with St. Paul than Minneapolis. Protests is more comprehensive than riots. Unprovoked violence against protesters by police, cars running over people blocking highways and agent provocateurs smashing windows and painting "free stuff" on autozone buildings (sources available upon request) has as much to do with any violence than dehumanized animalistic stereotype images stealing private propery because it is part of their subhuman nature. "George Floyd protests" is probably best because the phenomenon only exists because of him. Kire1975 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Strongest possible support I was involved in one of the discussions above this as well. There are now protests in at leats 28 cities, it seems utterly ridiculous to insist on keeping this article in such a limited scope and with such a limited name that no longer represents the accuracy of what is happening. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
EITHER TITLE IS INFERIOR. Given at least twelves cities involved as of last night, I propose 2020 US urban riots as a better choice, per Watts riots as titling precedent. This is not a mere "protest" anymore, and hasn't been since halfway through the first day, anymore than was the case at Watts. For every person discussing grievances with a Unicorn Riot reporter, there's three hundred people in the background smashing, looting, and burning. (Most of the people being interviewed on the streets by Unicorn Riot defend the violence, if not outright participating in it, saying it's necessary or nothing will change.) -- Maybe one person in ten is carrying a sign in the daylight, and none of them are after sunset. --2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) <just.another.IP.user>
Strong support. It isnt restricted to a single place, the protests/riots are happening all over the US in many cities and places. Also the term "twin city protests" is a violation of WP:OR, no WP:RS names it as such, while a lot of WP:RS uses the term George Floyd protests . Dilbaggg (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Protesting is not isolated. However, the rioting is notable so i propose rioting being included in the name or a name that is inclusive of the rioting. Life200BC (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment I agree with a perviosu commenter that a term usch as 2020 US urban riots would be more appropriate. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support for now: I support this rename for now, but the situation is fluid — if rioting becomes more common and more pronounced within the media, I would expect another name change. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)13:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Protests have now spread nationwide and that should be reflected in the article's title. We can either make this the central article with a national scope or create a new article at George Floyd protests. At this point, events in individual cities outside of Minneapolis-Saint Paul do not appear to warrant their own articles. gobonobo+c14:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support: It's no different than the King assassination riots of 1968, where it list cities suffered from rioting in response to the Martin Luther King Jr. being killed in Memphis on April 4, 1968. Also, the article should give riot-torn protest cities here in the U.S. equal treatment rather than just Twin Cities should the title be actually renamed. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the protests are not only about George Floyd deaths but also about Arbery's death and that other woman who the police killed.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
SupportGeorge Floyd protests. Ultimately this could turn into a more generic May 2020 police brutality protests in the United States - but George Floyd is how people will be looking for these. Either way the lede should mention the other killings that are being protested, per above. Oppose riots in the title as riots are a component, but not the total sum of the protests and unrest. And, these are now clearly nationwide. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support move to George Floyd protests - This article doesn't only discuss the protests in Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, and I think the protests elsewhere are just as notable as the ones in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose These protests have not only been about George Floyd but also about police brutality as a whole and therefore could be misleader. Epicneter (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support, term being in the press [18], captures the protests outside Twin Cities. And, the current title is ambiguous as it's vague. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Support "George Floyd protests and riots" Riots are taking place in Columbus, and elsewhere, not really in the same realm as protests. But, yes, this article title needs to reflect the scope beyond Twin Cities, immediately. ɱ(talk)17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose A new name centered on the particular victim doesn't really seem to fit the pre-existing nomenclature used for protests/unrest/riots like Watts '65, LA '92, Ferguson '14, Baltimore '15, Milwaukee '16, etc. I think an article expansion towards what phoebe mentioned like 2020 police brutality protests in the United States makes more sense anyways given how much the protests have spread across the country. I also agree that any use of "riots" in the title would be inappropriate right now. If the situation were to become like 1992 with many dead and even more widespread issues, I think you could have a discussion about it, but right now, such a title would be an unfair title to the protest aspect. Kyrios Sampson (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Note it seems like there is consensus on a national-level name? Can we move this to one, and then debate its exact naming? Right now the title is extremely misleading. ɱ(talk)17:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Split article. The actions in the Twin Cities alone should be kept here as that alone warrants its own article (IMO), but the nationwide protests placed on a separate article and expanded as George Floyd protests and riots due to the lack of a suitable nationwide name otherwise. Any other major local riots could be split from that too. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2020 (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 Interpretation of Ambiguous Language
Within the Reaction section, it is stated that "President Trump responded to the riots by threatening to send in the National Guard to shoot looters".
Trump's tweet currently available here uses ambiguous language: specifically "when the looting starts the shooting starts".
It seems to be quite a leap to assume that this is a call to violence when it could very well be a postulation of the escalation of the rioters' behavior.
I'd suspect confirmation bias of whoever decided to reference this article as an absolute truth and would call WP:NPOV into question.
--Davman99 (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Davman99
I agree. The tweet was deliberately ambiguous. "To shoot looters" or similar phrasing should not be said in Wikivoice. The language has since been changed to It was seen as a threat for the military to shoot looting protesters.[1]userdude12:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Should the historical context be noted if the dog-whistling is ambiguous? ""The NAACP and other black organizations had for years complained about the treatment of the black community by Miami police. At this hearing, in discussing how he would deal with what he called crime and thugs and threats by young black people, he issued this statement that the reason Miami had not had any riots up to that point, was because of the message he had sent out that 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts,' " Lusane said." [19]Banak (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Twin Cities riots has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
CHANGE:
Floyd then goes silent and motionless, however Chauvin still doesn't lift his knee from Floyd's neck. An ambulance soon arrives and Chauvin doesn't remove his knee until emergency medical services put Floyd on a stretcher. Chauvin had knelt on Floyd's neck for about seven minutes, four minutes of which were after Floyd had stopped moving.[1] Medics in the ambulance were unable to find a pulse from Floyd and he was pronounced dead at the hospital.[2]
TO:
Floyd then goes silent and motionless, however Chauvin still doesn't lift his knee from Floyd's neck. A stream of urine flows from Floyd as he becomes unconscious.[3] An ambulance soon arrives and Chauvin doesn't remove his knee until emergency medical services put Floyd on a stretcher. Chauvin had knelt on Floyd's neck for about seven minutes, four minutes of which were after Floyd had stopped moving.[1] Medics in the ambulance were unable to find a pulse from Floyd and he was pronounced dead at the hospital.[4]
Not done You'll need a reliable source that specifically states this; Wikipedia is not for publishing our observations of what occurs in the video. GorillaWarfare(talk)14:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Query on this - surely if an event occurs in a video, then the video serves as a reliable source for the event it depicts? Can someone direct me to the wikipedia policy on this if there is one, because it doesn't feel like that would be OR. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
A stream of urine flows from Floyd as he becomes unconscious. is not supported by the heavy.com source. userdude14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems there have been similar incidents with the police forces involved in 2018 and a somehow not appropriate response by authorities. So it might explain to some degree the massive outburst of violence and the complete loss of any confidence that the authorities might handle the situation as it should. Structural injustice is the fuel for the fire. This is missing in this article.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
About to add a section talking about controversial police activities: arresting of journalists while on air, alleged undercover police participation in protests etc.. Since it might involve a bit of work, I want to discuss it first before it gets removed and that effort is for nothing. BeŻet (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Definitely should have the arrest of the journalist and their crew. Image use restrictions permitting, I think the article would greatly benefit from an image from the CNN broadcast of the reporter being arrested on air would be fitting either in the gallery in the top right collection or in the main body of the article. Banak (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Keepcalmandchill: You have removed the umbrella man story from the section stating that this is currently a completely unverified social media theory, but it was described as such in that paragraph, and has been discussed by reliable sources. I think it's okay to keep it there. BeŻet (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It is currently mentioned, but there are various agent provocateur claims regarding him, so I don't believe a single speculative theory warrants inclusion at this moment. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Protest or riot?
These words are being used inconsistently in this article. It would be less confusing if just one of these terms were used OR if it was clear when this event went from protest to riot to protest or something to that effect.--Hiveir (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Some incidents are protests and some incidents are violent/riots. Use the appropriate term at the appropriate time. -- Fuzheado | Talk14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
+1 to Fuzheado, and we should use descriptive prose that describes the actual event that happened (eg a march, vandalizing stores or police stations, candlelight vigil, etc.) since the terms 'protest' and 'riot' are prone to various interpretations by readers. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomenclature note
The Minneapolis–Saint Paul metro area is known locally and regionally as the Twin Cities. However, it's evident that this isn't generally the case farther afield. True, the (medium-sized) city of Minneapolis itself has long dominated as shorthand for the Twin Cities area, much to the annoyance of St. Paulites (and locally, BTW, it's written St. Paul, not Saint Paul). My choice would be "the Minneapolis-St. Paul area" – which, rather astoundingly, comprises 200-plus municipalities. – Sca (talk)
I am liking bullets for now - before the article is moved to a more generic title - and while each city has stub info. AND while the list is growing (eg other cities are planning protests today) bullets make it easier to find and add cities. But we should think about good ways to organize this in a longer, more generic article. By date? by size of protest (hard to figure out)? Alphabetically also seems like the best way for now. There *should* be a prose lede that summarizes the scope of the protests though. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Phoebe, Yes, I've created subsections for U.S. states with 3+ cities w/ demonstrations. This helps with overall article organization, but doesn't address bullets vs. prose. ---Another Believer(Talk)17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
cool, looks good. I still think bullets work for now - the list is going to grow a lot this weekend (see below). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Another Believer what are you thinking vis a vis the non-organized cities? unless/until all the protests are organized by state, when you are scanning the ToC it makes it looks like only the state sections had protests. I'm trying to figure out what a good title for the non-organized cities is though. "Throughout the United States"? hmm -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There are now subsections for U.S. and International. I see other editors are starting to move cities into more U.S. state subcategories. Personally, I'd prefer to only see subdividing by state when there are 3+ cities, but others may prefer differently. ---Another Believer(Talk)17:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The split of bullet points for individual cities and subsections for states with multiple cities makes this section difficult to navigate. Do subsections for each state sound reasonable? gobonobo+c21:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
planned protests (according to news stories) for Sat/Sunday include Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Providence, Raleigh, San Antonio... phoebe / (talk to me) 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
update map of protests
As of now, if our bar is >100 people, the map of protests in the US needs to be updated with: Cincinnati, Charlotte, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Eugene, Honolulu, Omaha, Windermere FL according to the sources we have in the text. I have made a list on the talk page of the file. We also should probably use an image with smaller bullets to accommodate. User:TheMemeMonarch is the creator - are you able to update? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the map should be changed to protests with greather than 1000 protestors, because it seems that almost every major city in the US has hit the original criteria. I also agree about the smaller bullet points. I will update with concensus. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure if this counts as a major event as much as the national guard being called in.
Minnesota’s governor activated all National Guard troops, and the Army ordered units to stand by.
Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota said on Saturday that he was activating thousands of additional National Guard troops to send to Minneapolis, and the Army ordered troops to stand by after protesters turned out for a fourth night in a row on Friday, burning buildings to the ground and overwhelming officers.
“Our goal is to decimate that force as quickly as possible,” Mr. Walz said of the rioters who have been causing the damage, a group that he said was different from demonstrators who had been protesting the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after being pinned down by a white officer earlier this week. The former officer, Derek Chauvin, was charged with murder on Friday.
Should Trump's war with Twitter be explained in the article?
In the section about Trump’s reaction, I removed[20] a paragraph detailing Trump’s war with Twitter over its fact-check tagging of claims about voter fraud, and his Executive Order weakening the company’s liability protection, and reactions/analyses of his action, IMO none of them related to this subject. My edit summary was removing paragraph about Trump's war with Twitter over Section 230: unrelated to this subject. The material had apparently been in the article for at least 24 hours. User:Zialater promptly restored the material without an edit summary. For reference, here is the material I removed:
Trump's tweet and Twitter's moderation came on the same day that Trump had signed his "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship", intending to limit the protection that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gave to social media companies like Twitter for their alleged anti-conservative bias, two days after Twitter had marked two of Trump's tweets about mail-based absentee voting with "potentially misleading" warnings. Opponents of Trump criticized the order as a retaliatory action against Twitter for the notices, which came amid long-standing criticism about his Twitter activity of trafficking false, misleading and accusatory claims on a variety of topics; some legal scholars noted the order might open social media companies to liabilities pertaining to statements sent by Trump over those platforms that could be interpreted as libelous or incendiary, resulting in more stringent moderation of his tweets if not an outright ban from using Twitter.[1] Following Twitter's marking of his May 28 tweet, Trump said in another tweet, "Section 230 should be revoked by Congress. Until then, it will be regulated!"[2]
I don’t want to get into an edit war or an argument about who has the right to revert whom, so this material is still in the article. Let’s just discuss it on the merits. Should it be in this article? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of opposition to the name after the previous discussion was closed. Plus, as the original argument says, riots are illegal. There is clearly burning of buildings and stealing, as well as breaking curfew, so "riot" isn't exactly out of the question. I think a good compromise would be to keep a neural term, such as "unrest" and list several AKAs. This is what the Ferguson unrest page does: "The Ferguson Unrest (sometimes called the Ferguson Uprising, Ferguson Protests, or Ferguson Riots)..."
Anon0098 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This location needs to change from Nationwide U.S. (protests started in Twin Cities, Minnesota) to Worldwide (protests started in Twin Cities, Minnesota, U.S.) because it found that there are many protest occured overseas like London, berlin 36.77.102.5 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but it is not necessary (and not generally in line with MOS) to add "U.S" to a city and state. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There's a photograph of the protestors standing on top of a graffitied CNN logo (at the CNN HQ in Atlanta) holding the Mexican flag and a Black Lives Matter flag. The photo is evidently iconic and symbolic. I would strongly suggest including it in the photo collage in the infobox. CompactSpacez (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It is probably not freely licensed, which means that we can't use it (unless the author does release it and upload it to Wikimedia Commons). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The word "riot" absolutely needs to be used in the first paragraph of the lede. It's described as such by numerous reliable sources. CompactSpacez (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
agreed, I'll add a note about additional names used, but the overall name of the page (George Floyd protests) should remain until we all agree to change it Anon0098 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Southern California is not its own state
The rest of the US is listed by state. Why is Southern California listed in the same size and type as if it was its own state?
I’m not touching an article for breaking news, but can someone fix this?
70.130.77.141 (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)lalandshark
California is broken into northern and southern regions because of the number of cities involved. It is clearly marked as a subcategory under "California." Anon0098 (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
1. San Jose, CA had a protest. There were some hundred people. There was one police injury, and at least 3 protestor injury (an SUV had run some people over)
I removed a portion of a section under "News reporting" and I'm preserving this contents here by providing this link. My rationale was: "rm opinion pieces, otherwise this section would be a collection of all sorts of media opinions". --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
hi i dont want to get in a fight or dig up the source but i was reading the hennepin da report for the charges against chauvin today and there were two things i noticed that wp doesnt yet reflect
1-chauvin and thao were not the first responding squad but instead the backup
2- one of the two original responding officers made three separate requests to roll floyd over during the kneeling incident, but was negated by chauvin each time
This page is specifically relating to the protests/riots. If you want to make a note of this in the "Death of George Floyd" page, you are welcome to add that information Anon0098 (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
correct but there are several paragraphs regarding his death in this article too
Asian-American and African-American relations
Tensions between these two communities have been on a high for quite sometime. I'm failing to understand as to why you think this isn't notable, Keepcalmandchill, since it's basically a repeat of the 1992 Los Angeles riots between Korean Americans and Asians in general and the African American community. Calling it a "single incident" is just fooling ourselves here. I don't understand your pedantics behind this, because clearly we both know this isn't some isolated incident. Going underreported doesn't imply it didn't happen, especially at a time like this where there's been a lot of other distractions. Adencc (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Was I mentioning widespread tensions in the article? I was adding the mention of the restaurant being specifically targeted with sources provided. You were interpreting it otherwise. Adencc (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Unless you can find a source to suggest there are Asian vs Black tensions going on here, I think this would count as Original Research or speculation, which is not allowed under Wikipedia rules. Do we have footage of even one roof Korean at this point? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources was provided where an Asian restaurant was specifically attacked, no original research there. Furthermore, the tensions in the 1992 Los Angeles riots between the two communities were more than just "roof Koreans". Adencc (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
A bunch of places are getting attacked right now, so the fact that one place attacked happens to be an Asian restaurant is really not significant. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
While I can't exactly speak for the user you are refering to, unless you have a reliable source saying this is a notable widespread phenomenon for the George Floyd protests, I don't exactly see the merit of including this in the article. I think saying that this is a repeat of the 1992 Los Angeles riots is an overgeneralization and as an Asian American myself I will say that the solidarity between Asian Americans and African Americans is more notable than these alleged tensions for the George Floyd protests (in fact one of the pictures in the protest list section showcases that). Also, as a side note, I would prefer we refrain from adding this section to the main page until this can be discussed further. DTM9025 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Slight off-topic here but there were hardly any "solidarity" between the two communities before these riots started during the COVID-19 pandemic. The tensions were already there and it's what led to this. Adencc (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so I feel like this article is structured in a really weird way. I guess the article was originally written from when there where the main protests, riots, and clashes in were Minneapolis and there were just a few spillover incidents elsewhere. Now though, it is clear that this is a nation-wide uprising with a lot of it's happening in other cities like LA and Chicago. The current format makes it hard to understand the complete timeline of how everything's going down, so I believe this article must be entirely rewritten. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
not an uprising. Clearly riots, and have been label as such by various agencies. We are currently deciding whether to create a new page specifically for riots/protests outside of Minneapolis. As for deleting and rewriting the entire page, that is extremely unnecessary. All of the information here is usable Anon0098 (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Baltimore should be added to the protests elsewhere list as they had a massive demonstration outside of City Hall and the Baltimore Police Department Headquarters where protesters have turned violent throwing heavy objects at police. There was even looting reported at the Harborplace and The Gallery shopping malls with reports of windows being smashed open. [1]
I don't understand this. The article about the series of riots and civil disturbances in Los Angeles in 1992 is titled "1992 Los Angeles riots", not "1992 Los Angeles protests". Valid references confirm that there are riots, so why not include the word 'riots' in the article? I think a consensus needs to be reached about this issue as soon as possible, because only stating that these events are 'protests' in the title could mislead readers about the severity of these events and could be seen as a dishonest title by readers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGoodfan101 (talk • contribs)
I agree that it should be renamed. The issue is that this is a situation changing on a daily basis. Just because some editors reached some consensus a few days ago, does not mean said consensus reflects the current state of affairs. The term "riot" or "unrest" should absolutely be included in the title. What is unfolding right now is simply not a mere "protest". We've witnessed numerous businesses across the country ransacked, looted, burned. We've witnessed violence and death. This is an unprecedented level of unrest and disorder, which the word "protest" fails to accurately convey. CompactSpacez (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Graffiti displaying the anarchist slogan "No Gods No Masters" modified with a reference to "420"
@DMT biscuit: You have reintroduced this random photograph. How on Earth is this photo relevant to this section? It is not even referenced in the body of the article, nor does the caption explain why it should be there. If you can't justify its inclusion, please self-revert. BeŻet (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thirded, especially since there are many good pictures of the actual protests now on Commons that were added overnight. I'll take it out. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Three comments on renaming going forward
I'm not going to start a new renaming while we have one open, but I'll leave two pieces for when the next cycle opens.
As we have a dated article on the Minneapolis protests, this needs to be dated in title, even though the "city" is different. There's potential confusion "Twin Cities" and "Minneapolis" that this should be at "2020 Twin Cities (riots/protests)".
"Unrest" is also a valid term to describe what is going on (it is what is used for Ferguson unrest)
There may be a need to reconsider the scope of the location given we now have action in DC, NYC, and LA among other places. But I would wait a few days before even considering this. The other two points can be reviewed now. --Masem (t) 00:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Unrest seems to be the better option. This is probably due to the fact that both riots and protests have occurred. As a case example with CBS News as seen in the merging discussion, it mentions (emphasis mine):
In Minneapolis, protesters defied a Friday night curfew. The city has been rocked by violent demonstrations in the nights following Floyd's death, with protesters on Thursday setting fire to the precinct where the former officers worked.
A "riot" is a violent demonstration, but the overall situation is being called a "protest", which is a nonviolent demonstration. This is confusing, to put it mildly, and it is a common feature in all of the articles given. It might be better to instead be called "2020 Twin Cities unrest" (as previously mentioned) or some other alternative ("Unrest for the death of George Floyd" maybe as a catch-all???). totlmstr (let's chat) 09:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This is mostly an addendum to my comments above. Among some common remarks is the mention of how "protest" implies "riots". This remark is frankly confusing, especially when considering:
the current front page of Wikipedia itself makes a distinction on the topic between protests and riots on the current situation here. That implies Wikipedia itself thinks that that protests and riots are distinct and separate.
At the current moment, the Wikipedia page on a Riot does not explicitly imply a Protest; only as a "See Also".
These situations imply that "protest" and "riot" while are related to each other are distinct and don't imply each other. totlmstr (let's chat) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I think we should be using the word riot over protest; whether there is an underlying air of protest seems less consequencial than the activity itself which is a riot. Most riots seem to begin with an atmosphere of protest over some issue or another but it is the rioting which defines them. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. IMO we should have a moratorium on name changes for now; after things calm down and we have some historical perspective we can reconsider. My opinion: at some time in the future we should probably change this to "2020 Minneapolis protests". The protests, and especially the riot components, are overwhelmingly in Minneapolis, and virtually all of the reporting is focused on Minneapolis; that's where the action is and where it will probably be remembered. It's also a clearer title since many readers will have no idea what "Twin Cities" refers to. But this is a discussion for another day. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Totally wrong, there are just as extreme protests and riots happening nationwide, with immense reporting in each city. This is well, well beyond Minneapolis. ɱ(talk)17:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As per Ɱ, I agree that the article title should encompass all protests in the United States. It is becoming increasingly clear that full-fledged riots in their own right, not just protests, have appeared in other American cities. -- History Mind (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As the apparent consensus is that the scope of this article should include the riots and the protests, this comment may be disregarded. userdude11:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Year in title
Shouldn't "2020" be included in the title? (Current title is just "Twin Cities riots.) It was like this originally; any reason it was removed? NixinovaTC00:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not see any compelling reason for which the year was removed. It should probably be added back, especially if the ongoing move discussion ends up swapping out the word "riots" for the word "protests." Master of Time (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, just to add, if the page ends up at a title such as "George Floyd protests," the year will not be useful nor needed because such a title would provide natural disambiguation. Master of Time (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"2020" was removed in accordance with WP:DAB. There is no need to distinguish that these riots happened in 2020, because there is no other article on Twin Cities riots. I suspect this name won't last for long though, so the point is kind of moot. userdude07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The media is labeling these protests as the "Floyd Protests"
I've seen multiple media organizations call the protests nationwide as Floyd Protests. Because the protests are now nationwide, we should considered making that the name of the article, rather than the "Twin Cities Riots" which is localized.[1][2]TheMemeMonarch (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, plus with the attack on the CNN building in Atlanta,[3] it seems the protests are becoming nationwide in scope and impact.--Beneficii (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I second this. Protests across the country are becoming violent now, not just the ones in Minneapolis. I think we should reconsider renaming this article to reflect these developments. Love of Corey (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Point of information - as part of the discussion made in the (3) move request on this talk page, I've found the following breakdown of different news organizations using the terms:
To merge this and all of the other coverage into something like "2020 George Floyd Death Protests and Civic Unrest"? I feel like the balance must be tipping towards something like that after the past three days. This is perhaps the most significant series of events in the US in my adult lifetime. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Some content from this page seems to have been split out to the George Floyd protests page. Should that content be added back here? Unclear if the "George Floyd protests" should be its own article. Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, the civil unrest due to the killing of George Floyd in the US should really all be in one article. I don't have an axe to swing in what it is named but I feel it clears all the WP boundaries for an article in and of itself138.207.198.74 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As a note, I have brought back what I read to be the "worst" cases of violence on the Floyd protests page (eg the Altanta case.) This is to give an example of the violence that is happening outside the Twin Cities. Hopefully we don' have to worry about updating this much, but my idea is this will be an ebb and waning section; it should only stay at 5 or case example, so should only be the "worst" cases at any time, rather than adding to it, since you have the separate page for that. --Masem (t) 05:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There are protests in every major city. Certain cities such as Atlanta might even deserve their own article. It would take one mammoth article to cover the subject completely. Furthermore, it is likely that there will be much more protests and rioting in the upcoming days. So, in short, there is too much content to put in one article and the reach of the protests has spread far beyond the Twin Cities.TheMemeMonarch (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not against merging into the other article (the George Floyd protests one), I just don't think it should be in 2 separate articles, one about the MN area and the other about "other areas". Natg 19 (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have merged the content of George Floyd protests back here, and redirected it. There are simply too many moving parts right now, and no clear consensus that the split was justified. The RMs above need to be settled first. — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
If you wish to make/edit a separate page about Johnson, then you can, but this page specifically pertains to Floyd Anon0098 (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Then why does it reference Breonna Taylor for Louisville. It's the same situation.
Right now that whole section of the article is in flux and may be moved to a separate article. The Phoenix material isn't even in the right place. I will see about straightening it out when I have more time (unless someone wants to do it first, hint hint), and then I will see if this material can be added. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Little Rock is currently experiencing protests and rioting around the Capitol building. Please add Little Rock to the page. Donovanbolte (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
We should label the amount as unknown until this is over, as several thousand people were arrested today alone, making it more logical to add the numbers after everything has calmed down (for the time being) Anmishfish (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's rather unproductive to show two sides in the infobox, like for military conflicts and organized civil conflicts. One side lacks any actual party, commanders or tangible strength figure to put in the infobox, as evidenced by the fact that the infobox currently just says "Protesters" which is not useful information.
I'd like to propose a name change, but not in the way of the discussion of riot vs protest we've been discussing. In the past, it's been conventional for Wikipedia pages for protests to focus in on a specific geographic area, i.e. 1992 Los Angeles riots, Ferguson unrest, 2015 Baltimore protests. I don't support renaming it to "2020 Twin City protests" or what the old name was due to the spread of the unrest but perhaps something like "2020 United States Police Brutality Protests"? I'm not sure what a good name would be honestly since the neutrality of that one is questionable, but I do think the name should only include Floyd's name if all other potential titles are unworkable. U-dble (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The protest isn't restricted to one or two places, it is nationwide so we can't name it after particular places. The protests were triggered by the death of George Floyd, which also motivated protesters to bring include other victims of police brutality (like Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery ), but the main trigger even as per WP:RS is George Floyd and it has been referred to vast majority of WP:RS as George Floyd protests/Protests in response to death of George Floyd. Do not suggest WP:OR terms. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
In fact, there have been demonstrations (mostly non-violent) in other countries, so while the focus is still mainly the US, the name shouldn't mention the US. RBolton123 (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't support a name change, as these protests are not concentrated in a particular geographic area, and so it seems more appropriate to use their cause-celébre instead. Elizium23 (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Given the sheer scale of these events, at a certain point it may become appropriate to title the article "2020 United States unrest" or "2020 United States crisis", the latter similar to articles on the 2011-2014 events in Egypt and other Arab Spring countries. Or perhaps an article similar to the one on the Long, Hot Summer of 1967. As of now I think the title is appropriate, but I have a strong sense that things could rapidly devolve given American unemployment rates and government responses thus far. Time will tell. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Criteria for protests?
There have been other protests in MS that were larger than the one in Jackson, MS. Is there list of criteria for protests somewhere that I'm missing.
Hi CileraDragonfang - welcome! There's not a criteria -- the list is just incomplete!! It's been hard to keep up with all the cities. If you can help with providing news coverage of other cities, I will help add them. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I would be more than glad to find the coverage, but how do I link you a source? Just posting a url hasn't worked and I'm not sure which code or formula I should use to put it in the proper format for a message. CileraDragonfang (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC) linkCileraDragonfang (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi! You don't have to do anything on the talk page (I'll format it into a reference in the article). The code you're looking for is here; I changed it above so you can see. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"...ongoing series of violent uprisings..."
This line of information is incorrect, the George Floyd protests have been peaceful for the majority, the wiki page should reflect relevant information discerning this fact. 2406:3400:613:F4B0:7C44:9533:A7B:5D01 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
That's your opinion, but most of the major cities have been experiencing violent protests or riots. ɱ(talk)16:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it is about time Chicago gets its own protest article. The protests and rioting in said city are starting to rival those of Minneapolis and Los Angeles (to the point that a curfew was announced), so the large block of text should be extracted to a new page. It can be replaced by a small summary on the George Floyd protests article and the List of George Floyd protests article. -- History Mind / (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to create one. All the other individual city articles were written by volunteers taking initiative, no RfC needed. ɱ(talk)16:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Instances include Institutional racism against minorities, Economic, racial and social inequality, and Racial profiling. The death of George Floyd page has agreed not to use racism as a contributing factor, and racism is not mentioned as a factor within the body of the article. Considering removing since this is one of the first things people see when entering this page. Thoughts? Anon0098 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Then label it as such within the international page. This one is specifically relating to the George Floyd protests Anon0098 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This article designated one and a half paragraphs to what can only be described as a conspiracy theory that white nationalists started or were at least a major instigator of the riots. The justification for this theory is one passing mention by a local official that said: 'some of the 40 arrested in this district were members of organized crime or white supremacy groups' (hardly big evidence of a massive conspiracy, this could literally mean 1 person) and random anecdotal evidence of people saying they saw white supremacists. This is, of course, opposed to the mountains of evidence and public statements that the riots were started by left-wing groups. I'm not against mentioning this theory but saying "people said they saw white supremacists" for two paragraphs with little to nothing in real evidence or comments by police is not encyclopedic. I've gotten rid of content that is just people saying they saw white nationalists. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
agreed that it is mostly unsubstantiated, but the wording obviously acknowledges this. Might be worth deleting until there is sufficient evidence to support this Anon0098 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven and Calthinus, I'm not against mentioning it. It would be better to mention this study than to talk about how people said they saw white supramacists there for 400 words. People saying they saw stuff is anecdotal evidence and is not encyclopedic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done - Please follow the instructions when making an edit request: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Feel free to propose specific wording for inclusion in the article. - MrX 🖋18:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done - Please follow the instructions when making an edit request: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Feel free to propose specific wording for inclusion in the article. - MrX 🖋18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Article claims that he did not resist arrest after exiting the vehicle, yet the cameras clearly shows him drop to the ground to prevent being put in the squad car.Vice should be removed as a source for anything related to this case, as well as any media claiming the same lies.
The issue is that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" is American establishment corporate media, which is in fact notoriously unreliable. Wikipedia is disinterested in objective truth, but rather simply pushes the American corporate line. In this sense it is not a genuine encyclopedia, as it is not interested in the dissemination of genuine truth and knowledge. CompactSpacez (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@CompactSpacez: With that logic, you could claim anything to be true. If you can find other reliable sources that conflict statements in the media, a change might be considered. sam1370 (talk · contribs)05:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"Every single person we arrested last night [in St. Paul], I'm told, was from out of state.... I talk to my friends, who have been in this movement a very long time ... I hear them say ... 'We don't know these folks.' ... Those folks who are agitating and inciting are taking advantage of the pain—of the hurt, of the frustration, of the anger, of the very real and legitimate sadness that so many of our community members feel—to advocate for the destruction of our communities."—St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter III, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNrHsXmSSGg
The governor of Minnesota estimates that 80% of those doing the destruction are from out of state.
There's been conjecture that white nationalists, possibly associated with the so-called "Boogaloo movement", are on the ground in Minnesota, but I've seen little in the way of reliable sources. Bellingcat has an article as does The Independent. Also, keep in mind that St. Paul is a 16-minute drive from the Wisconsin border, while there are Minnesotans who are driving 2+ hours to get here. gobonobo+c20:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe it's meant to be 80% of the rioters arrested for vandalism and violence were from out of state, but I'm struggling to find actual numbers to back up what might have been pulling a number from the air. Banak (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have added the mayor of St. Paul's report that everyone arrested on Friday was from out of state. There is still nothing to confirm the governor's claim that up to 80% of rioters are from out of state, but the mayor's report makes it a little more credible. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks, as TheMemeMonarch suggested above, as the number of protests balloons (we are over 100 now) having a cutoff of 100 demonstrators for the map doesn't work well as that's just about every city. Is a cutoff of 1000 good? 500? A different number? Unfortunately it looks like most sources are saying things like "hundreds" or "thousands" of demonstrators which makes it hard to have a very precise number. >1000 might be good for this reason. What do you think? If there's agreement I'll change it. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah it's starting to get overwhelmed. Might be better to list the cities but increase the cutoff for the map itself Anon0098 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, if there are only, say, 2 cities with over 1000 protesters, you can make it >500 protesters. Change it how you see fit because of right now, the midwest is unreadable Anon0098 (talk)
OK, let's do 1000, and anytime a source says "thousands of protesters" or similar we can include it. I'll work on that now but it will take me a bit to sort the list out! --phoebe / (talk to me) 03:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
phoebe As I anticipated, the map is entirely unreadable. It's up to you how you want to organize it, as long as the criteria is easily accessible and consistent. Multi-day protests sounds good to me Anon0098 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, let's do that - >2 day protests. I'm going to take a break & step away from the screens right now but I'll get back to it in an hour or so. Feel free to go ahead. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
We can't do much about it unless you tell us specifically what you are referring to and where it is in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It's already in the list article. I have improved it with better sources and removed some unverified material. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no Anonymous response to these events as Anonymous is not an organization or one firm group.
There is an anonymous response to these events under the name of Anonymous.
And that's all what "Anonymous" is (namely anybody who is anonymous and using the name with varying support by others who are also anonymous). This needs to be reflected in the text if it gets added.
I think I may have screwed something up in the section describing white supremacist and far left involvement. I didn't realize that the section below already had the heading relating to white supremacism, but I didn't revert back correctly, and things seem rather out of order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ain515 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This smacks of sensationalism. Cases with like 0-2 injuries listed in the chart (the vast majority) are not "mass violence". --Calthinus (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that the term "mass violence" is sensationalism; however, the fact that multiple major American cities have had many reports of injuries and even deaths is certainly not something to be brushed off. The property damage also counts as violence, so that should be taken into account as well. RBolton123 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The problem here is that we will never going to be able to produce a complete, exhaustive list of every time someone gets injured, or every time someone throws a rock. Perhaps we should consider not having a list like that, as we already mention in other parts of the article that violence is present. BeŻet (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. I disagree that "mass violence" is inherently sensationalist, but there are no well defined criteria for including events, and there is no way we can realistically catalog all instances of mass violence, even if we did decide on specific criteria. It's best to let that content be covered in the #Deaths section. userdude14:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest "Violence" or "Violence and destruction of property". There is violence, but a tally of injuries and death do not seem to justify the "mass violence" title. MonsieurD (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with removing that table. It is mis-titled and incomplete; it could probably never be complete. Describe individual incidents for now; wait for the summaries afterward. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well said. When overarching analysis comes in, then it will be WP:DUE. But we do not need a table with entries for incidents where dudes threw unexploded Molotovs. Done. --Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Total Injuries
Are there any numbers for the approximate amount of injuries? I would expect them to be very high. Also, it is crucial information as most people are getting injured rather than dying during the protests or riots. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. - A split was done part-way through the discussion before a conclusion was drawn, so any further opinions here are largely irrelevant now. I'd suggest creating a new discussion for any new issues. A light WP:TROUT to Jax 0677 for acting too swiftly. Fuzheado | Talk16:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support: Every edit encounters a conflict within seconds. It's unwieldy. Titles are okay. They can change later if necessary. Kire1975 (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree to some form of split, but Question: where would a description of protests (and/or riots) outside of Minnesota that don’t have their own article go?―BlaueBlüte (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Seriously how many articles do we need over a single topic? 200 kB is hardly significant. Adencc (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a huge topic covering all national and local news. It is the most significant thing to affect my city's downtown in decades, and the worst riot in perhaps a century. Yes it deserves more coverage. ɱ(talk)04:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I think they are saying the data size is insignificant and is not as large as people are making it out to beAnon0098 (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Jeez, sorry the editor I'm using glitched, I think. No need to announce it to the world. I don't understand your reply directly above either... ɱ(talk)04:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support as many articles as needed to thoroughly cover the issues. This is generating hundreds of articles of news coverage, in Columbus alone. ɱ(talk)04:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Makes perfect sense and keeps NPOV. There are clearly two very different components to these events, including peaceful protesters and criminal looters/rioters. Both of these groups have been documented by plenty of reputable sources in the media. --Therexbanner (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
comment I don't support the three-way split proposed, but some kind of tightening would be good. I thin a main overview article of the protests nationwide with the background about the protests and a full list of the demonstrations nationally/internationally is appropriate, I think, then with split out articles for cities/protests that are large or significant enough to warrant them. Splits have already been done for Seattle and Minneapolis-St Paul and one really needs to be done for Chicago. Smaller cities probably won't have multi-day riots, but bigger cities might, and they will need extra coverage. If we keep detail in the main article brief -- perhaps even putting some info in a table once the situation calms enough that numbers aren't changing every five minutes -- the list and main article will stay readable. I'm not sure what a "reactions" article would contain and don't support splitting this off. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support I think subsequent protests outside Minneapolis deserves its own page just because of the sheer number of cities it is affecting. Something like "2020 Civil Unrest." Splitting reactions off too is unnecessary Anon0098 (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
yeah, it seems user:Jax 0677 went ahead and created List of George Floyd protests, which I think is a bit hasty - I would have kept this in the main article - but it's ok, we can work on the list over there and then provide a summary version in the main article. A bare section is no good. The rest of the article needs tightening too. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose for now. I don't think the proposed splitted articles are sufficient and simply confuses readers with not having a single page encompasing the demonstration. Right now, all of the news articles treat these events under one "banner" of protests in reaction to the deatt of George Floyd and splitting this information up I think is unwieldy and causes confusion. All the arguments in support seem to be simply convenience of editing which I don't think should factor in this discussion. It is very clear all of these protests in different locations fall under the same banner of reacting to the injustice that has ocurred. DTM9025 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not one agrees with the split, the proposer carrying it out in the middle of the night local time less than twenty minutes after he first suggested it is indefensible. —Cryptic05:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree. While I can sympathize with wanting to act quickly on this rapidly evolving event and supported the quick renaming of this article to protest, 20 minutes is nowhere near enough time to ensure participation, and renaming an article is much more visibly significant then splitting an article, which in my opinion isn't that urgent. I don't think the proposer was trying to be malicious, but in the meantime I have restored that content to this article pending this discussion. DTM9025 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support I agree with the merger, but I think some of these protests should be described as riots. This article is a mess. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Weak Support This is just a suggestion but I feel like 2020 United States riots and protests (or something to that wording) should be it's own page seeing as this is now widespread nationwide. I don't really see a reason for Minnesota to have it's own page now. Miss HollyJ (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It is important to keep the information of where it initially came from separate to what it devolved into. However, I agree that a second page entitled "2020 United States riots and protests," or something to that sort as you suggested, is necessary to describe riots outside the epicenter. Anon0098 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Editors need to use RS to examine what were truly protests and what was simply rioting and violence, with no hint of protesting in Floyd's name. Then accordingly split forthwith. Calling every agitator involved in this mess a 'protester' is increasingly not supported by the reliable sources. RandomGnome (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This article should have a “subsections” of other articles, focusing on the other protests. I.e. make this an overview, and create a seperate article covering major riots, and another part regarding reactions from, say, other countries, or media. Anmishfish (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 3 articles is overkill. In addition this article really is not that long if you remove the other states and countries. Yes the list may have been a bit hasty but I think if you link that article to that section you have job done, on the split. FYI really not that long. Coronavirus in the Uk is double the size (however per guidelines this should be split). No need to split any further at the moment. Games of the world (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment Not sure where the 200kb page size number is coming from. At last check, the page had 23kb readable prose, which is well under our recommended maximum of 100 kb. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓07:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Because the user who proposed it created a split article an hour later and this discussion has only been open for 3 hours, in the middle of the night. Far too swift action by some users on here. Games of the world (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2020 (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.
Split to list - duplicate
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.
The result of this discussion: There was consensus that it was inconvenient having the "Protests elsewhere" information being maintained separately on two different pages at once – given the immense duplication of efforts (and the two getting out-of-sync, as people added new reliably-sourced entries to one but not the other), There was a consensus to just summarize them here (the summary might need a bit of enhancing) and to keep a hatnote to the larger List article.Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all - this is a mess, now there's a split to List of George Floyd protests but ALSO a list of protests in this article. That means both are being updated and both are now out of sync and the merge is going to be a huge pain. Can we please either redirect List of George Floyd protests back to this article or finalize the split out?!
Here's a quick poll: choice 1) redirect List of George Floyd protests; choice 2) split this list out and point to that page. What do you think?
-- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I think at this point I'd say let's go with the split -- cut a bunch of detail from this article and provide a summary, and point to the list article as the documentation of ALL of the protests. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It appears the person who created the new list article didn't ask for permission before creating said article, so I personally think the list from the George Floyd article should be pasted onto the list article (which appears not to be up-to-date anyways, given that George Floyd protests article is what is on the Main page) and summaries of especially large protests should be given on the George Floyd article instead of the currently exorbitant list. -- History Mind / (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support split - Whoever added the lists of other cities did not redirect the new article back to the old. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I think we should keep most of the current content that relates to Milwaukee and St. Paul in this article, but split out most of the content about other cities. Use the list article but not as a pure list; have most of the details there. Copy/paste most of the content of our current article to it, while mentioning or summarizing a few of the most noteworthy incidents here. Maybe eventually change its title if it has become more than just a list, and change this back to be about the Twin Cities as the parent article. Realize that people will continue to add stuff to this article and it will be necessary to copy or transfer it to the list article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Split consensus - hey all, the split to List of George Floyd protests was done last night and there's not a lot we can do about it without redirecting that article back to this one. But the articles are out of sync. So let's make sure that updated info is in the list article before taking anything out of this one. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Split List of protests is only going to grow. we should finalize it already. would have happened by now if the split wasn't done prematurely and was postponed Anon0098 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd support a split of all protests/riots in the Twin Cities into its own article, & another article (either narrative/list) of all other articles. Maybe creating further articles as details merit. 276k is too long for an article without reasonable justification. -- llywrch (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Given the duplication of efforts (and the hassle of the two getting out-of-sync as people add new reliably-sourced entries to one but not the other), we should do it soon (and not have the content in both places). Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Support split, possibly with transclusion from a common page to both articles in case it is desirable to show the full list here and in the list article. Any way to one only place to maintain.―BlaueBlüte (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Additional comment: this article is getting overwhelmed with additions, including a dozen or more that weren't put in the right place under the state, but were thrown in at the beginning. Somebody needs to undertake a cleanup here and then more it ALL to the other article, maybe overwriting what is there. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2020 (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.
)
Requested move 31 May 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. A one month moratorium on move requests is hereby enacted. Enough is enough. El_C22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC) ~~~~
George Floyd protests → George Floyd protests and unrest – The lede currently begins with The George Floyd protests and riots are an ongoing series of... and ITN currently reads Protests and riots break out in Minneapolis and elsewhere in the United States... I know that riots are part of protesting, but the rioting aspect of these protests have notability. This is nationwide rioting (from Minnesota to California, South Carolina to Georgia) that hasn't been seen in years. The lack of "riots""unrest" in the title may give the impression that there's undue weight in favor of the peaceful protests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC); Edited 18:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose actually, this seems WP:FALSEBALANCE, as it equates the weight of the rioting with the weight of the protests. But the rioting is merely one aspect of the protests. "Rioting" is also an incredibly loaded word. I could possibly support "unrest" even, but instant "no" to this one from me. --Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Nice4What fixed my main issue; I'm still not thrilled with constant RMs but I'm don't really care either way if we don't have the "riots" dogwhistle in it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Ribbet32 for a moratorium on RMs. Waste of time and talk page space. This is a critical ongoing event and we should be working on expanding content, not reframing. --Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
A month-long moratorium for a current event moving this fast is an eternity. This needs to be discussed and settled now, not a month from now. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The previous discussion was mostly about whether the scope of the article was about Twin Cities riots or protests, then followed-up by a discussion about nationwide protests vs. Twin Cities protests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong OpposeWP:FALSEBALANCE and we literally just had this discussion two days ago and the consensus was for "protest" which does encompass the wide range of activities that has happened. I see no reason why we need this change. DTM9025 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. As the nominator said, rioting is already included under the umbrella term 'protest'. The current title accurately and succinctly describes the scope of the subject. Agree that we need a moratorium on requested moves as well. gobonobo+c19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Could keep on tacking additional qualifiers indefinitely (and riots and disruption and marches and...) but at present "protests" concisely encompasses what is happening I think. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose I think it's more than just protests ... but "unrest" isn't particularly descriptive or common usage. Best to leave alone for a couple of weeks, until an obvious naming is evident. We don't need a change the name debate ertenally as the first thing anyone sees on this page. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose at this point (just "protests" is more common language in RS), although riots did happen, as discussed here. A riot is the language of the unheard.[28]. That too belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Peaceful protests and violent protests -- what do they have in common? Yep! The one word that we need and have in our title! gidonb (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed change adds nothing but verbiage; it's not as if we need it for disambiguation! Somebody please snow-close this, we really should have a moratorium on proposed name changes for at least a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
And obviously Protests need to be there. Most of this is protest, even if some rioting is getting more focus by some. I expect bathroom breaks are frequent too - but that also isn't acceptable in the title, User:Display name 99. Nfitz (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2020 (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.
George Floyd protests article changes.
Hi guys, I was would like to add an image, which is the breathtaking photo of the building on fire, to the article. I’m not allowed though, but i’m Sure someone here knows which photo I mean. Marco45edit (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I see there is a section on "Violence against Asian-Americans." There should also be a section on violence against Jewish-Americans. Black rioters heavily looted Jewish neighborhoods in Los Angeles specifically because they were Jewish and graffitied "Free Palestine" and "Fuck Israel" on synagogues, thanks to intersectional leftism. www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/31/rioters-loot-jewish-stores-vandalize-synagogue-in-l-a-free-palestine-f-israel [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]
Indeed. Or rather: done by black protestors. Also one of the links here has nothing to do with Jews, it is just a commercial center (this one [34]) --Calthinus (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A couple issues:
1. The "caused by" section of the infobox lists "institutional racism" as a cause, but this strikes me as rather POV. Which contemporary American institutions, specifically, are being accused of racism, and what are the specific policies or individuals being pointed to?...Further, it's not even clear who exactly is making this accusation. The citation links to a CNN article about statements by the US Surgeon General, but he talks about "racism," not "institutional racism." It's likely he means lingering racial prejudice on the part of certain individuals, rather than a prevalence of racist policies on the part of American institutions.
I think it'd make more sense, and be more NPOV, to list something like "racial tension and the legacy of historic racist policies."
2. Notably absent from that same "caused by" section was the lockdowns, which have been particularly strict in may of the worst affected urban areas. This has served as a stressor for many Americans in multiple ways - from the disruption of normal social and recreational activities, to sexual contact becoming much more difficult for single people, to the economic disruption. It seems rather self-evident that this helped prime a lot of people to be ready to go out and loot, burn, or fight in the streets...
I did a quick search just now, and found a few articles mentioning this factor:
"To light a fire, you need at least three elements -- fuel, oxygen, and a spark.
The protests and ultimately the riots were ignited by the videos of Chauvin killing Floyd. The oxygen — always present — was America’s history of police violence and racial tension. Some of the fuel, the kindling that made this spark turn into an inferno, was the lockdown of society and the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-lockdown-riots
Partly done:. I have replaced Institutional racism in the infobox with Racism, because the source cited does not support institutional racism as a factor. Whether or not to include the lockdowns as a contributing factor is less clear-cut, so I have not done so. However, this should not be interpreted as an opinion against doing so. Similarly, this should not be interpreted as an opinion against including Institutional racism if a reliable source supports it. userdude12:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. IMO we would need more mainstream analysis saying the lockdown contributed to the spread and fury of the protests. These are opinion pieces from a few sources and they are somewhat contradictory. Let's wait for at least some kind of consensus to emerge that the pandemic and lockdown were important. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Al Bawaba and man handing out money
The article currently mentions a story reported by Al Bawaba in the "Alleged far left and anarchist involvement" section, which talks about some Twitter users sharing a video of a man handing out money to someone. Not only does the video itself not indicate any connection with an extremist group, even the tweets themselves don't mention any of that, with Al Bawaba concluding that, despite the lack of antifa imagery, the incident is "linked" with far-left groups "according to commentators". I think this should be removed, as we don't want to include every single conspiracy theory, especially ones that are so weakly supported anything. BeŻet (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the source, however another editor has already removed that fragment. The source says: Anti-protests social media users circulated a short video clip from Columbus, Ohio showing a white man handing out money to two black young men. The white man can be heard talking about 'tickets' which according to some Twitter users "is code for a fishy business," suggesting that he was providing them with instructions to loot and destroy properties. Although the video doesn't mention or show any Antifa symbols, the left-wing "anti-fascist political activist" movement is linked to this incident, according to commentators, who referred to online Antifa calls to donate money to bail out protesters, who have been arrested by the police in different cities. To me that's extremely weak and not up to our standards (WP:COATRACK). BeŻet (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This "In March and April 2019, HuffPost and Wired reported that Axios had paid a firm to improve its reputation by lobbying for changes to the Wikipedia articles on Axios and Jonathan Swan." form a start.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No, but it is enough for me to question if it is the kind of source we should be using. If this is "the best source" that can be found the question becomes "why do better sources not care?"Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Other sources focus on other matters, like an ongoing pandemic, widespread violence, etc; the report is still fresh. But sure, we can wait for others. The British Afro-Caribbean paper Voice covers it [36] covers it too.--Calthinus (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like a silly joke, but if it isn't, we don't decide how to name things on a whim, we use reliable sources to do so. BeŻet (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Los Angeles peaceful protests, and splitting pages
The majority of protests nationwide have been peaceful, but this is especially the case in Southern California. As someone from the region, I can tell you that there is a great deal of misreporting, especially in making majority nonviolent protests look like riots. The way it is portrayed on Wikipedia, it looks like it is entirely rioting, and additionally discards the great amount of violence inflicted on protesters by police.
Therefore, I promise expanding the particular section for Los Angeles to include the facts of the protests being mostly nonviolent, and additionally that Wikipedia may consider creating separate pages for how protests are going in certain major cities. That way, protests could be more easily differentiated from violent crime.
Against a seperate page due to not enough material to split off. Having a central page for the protests nationwide seems best at least for now. However if the Los Angeles section of the article is inaccurate it should be fixed with RS. U-dble (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there could be a split off page for protests in Los Angeles / Southern California, like George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon and other articles, but everything needs to be documented with sources - preferably reliable media sources - even if things are in flux and changing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
PickleG13, please don't create a new article to tell what you see as the true version of the story. Tell it here, provided it is based on reliable sources. If we have it wrong, straighten us out. I'm really sorry to see this splitting off into sub-articles, where we might end up having pages on dozens of cities. This is not warranted. Most cities (except Minneapolis) can be dealt with within this article. I hope that those sub-articles will be merged back into this one when things calm down and it no longer seems important to spell out every little detail of every protest. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Source also says that another group of protesters helped the journalists, so definitely a complicated situation. BeŻet (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added something. I left out Morehouse, because the journalists say they were saved by other protesters. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
John Cusack, for all his talents, isn't a professional journalist. Also this sentence is ungrammatical and poorly written
"Actor John Cusack, who joined protests in Chicago, was filming a video of a burning car, when suddenly a police officer yelled against him and treated with, and then hit his bike.[380]"
"yelled against him and treated with,"
"Yelled against him" is bad enough, but "treated with" is unintelligible. Unless "treated with" is some archaic legal term for "conversed with". And this is in the violence against journalists section. It might not even be violence, if the bike wasn't damaged by the baton. I mean, there's an argument to be made that it's still violence even if the bike wasn't damaged. Anyway, it definitely doesn't belong in the violence against journalists section. Unless citizen journalists count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolent Prawn (talk • contribs) 20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I removed it. He was not acting as a journalist, and the incident was trivial. Somebody yelled at him and hit his bike? Come on. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Supposed White Supremacist Involvement (Proposal)
The second half of the paragraph around supposed white supremacist involvement says this;
"Numerous people have told Minnesota Public Radio about seeing trucks marked with militia or white-supremacist symbols driven by white men, many armed and some wearing bullet-proof vests.[423] Some callers have described seeing white men smashing store windows and trying to start fires.[423] An attendee of the Friday night Minneapolis protests described seeing a white man carrying an assault rifle and a handgun, driving in a red pickup truck with Minnesota license plates and a far-right militia group Three Percenters symbol.[423] Another attendee reported a truck with a sticker featuring the OK sign symbol, which has been associated with white supremacists. The two men in the truck were driving aggressively, intimidating other drivers, and were seen to harass a woman leaving an apartment building garage.[423] Some social media users[dubious – discuss] have said that far-right activists and "fringe" libertarian groups were seizing on the instability to provoke violence and destruction."
As the previous discussion (here) notes, there is some evidence that white nationalist groups were there and this merits inclusion. But anonymous people calling into radio stations, saying things to media outlets, or even worse posting on twitter with no futher evidence is hardly that. We should be writing articles about what officials and verified sources say, not random unverified reports or "Some social media users". Otherwise, the entire article will just devolve into social media conspiracies. That is why I propose removing these sentences for now. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, merge this thread. I don't think we should even mention "social media users" at all, period. We should focus on the expert RS such as that from the Reiss Center that I posted.--Calthinus (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to replace this with RS testimony. It was dumb that we ever had stuff based on "social media users", because we have better alternatives. The RS spell out on their own what we know and do not know. After that, this conversation will be moot. --Calthinus (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Note The text in question has been removed twice and added back twice in the last few hours. If people could help find a consensus on this it would be much appreciated. Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The social media crap has been removed now, replaced with expert analysis from a New York University security analysis outfit, official statements from local and federal officials on the involvement of white supremacists, and analysis by experts on the groups involved. I consider this case closed.--Calthinus (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Should title be renamed "George Floyd riots/protests"?
Protests/riots is now happening anywhere here in the U.S. Should the title be renamed "George Floyd riots/protests" in a manner similiar to the King assassination riots of 1968? Twin Cities riots implies the protests only happens in Twin Cities only and not anywhere else. Also, the article dedicates solely to Twin Cities and not the ones happened elsewhere if that's gonna be the case. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Not only have the "protests" (I sneer that word out contemptuously as the slithering lie that it is in defiance of Wikipedia's typical walking-the-ricepaper soy-drenched, milquetoast, moist-towelette, wussypussy de rigueur political-correctness), as what's going is a brick-to-the-face obvious BLM/Antifa coordinated communist-front attempt at instigating a bloody insurrection that hopefully gets thousands of their own useful idiots killed (gotta have martyrs) by the military, and hey, can't China now do the same thing in Hong Kong, and also accuse Trumpypoo of hypocrisy if when opens his fat mouth to complain about it? Nevermind that the HK's are opposing a tyranny, and haven't burned down their city) expanded to the entire US, but to Canada as well, where they even have a different dead body being used as excuse. </rant> --2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — 2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Not sure where to add this into the article, but I am certain that it is worth mentioning it. I do know that the MPD website has been taken down, but there hasn't been any reliable sources to back whether Anonymous did that yet. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
By morning, more than 30 businesses in Minneapolis had been damaged by rioters.[12] A Dollar Tree store and another Target store were looted, and a Wendy's restaurant was set ablaze.[9] The Saint Paul Police Department reported that 170 businesses were damaged or looted on Thursday, and dozens of fires started.[52] On the evening of May 28, protesters near the 3rd District Police Station set nearby buildings ablaze. Fencing surrounding the facility was torn down, so police on the scene used tear gas against protesters while the tensions and blaze continued. The Third Precinct building was overrun by protesters later in the night, and the building itself set on fire.[53][54]
The referenced source clearly states 170 buildings were damaged (this includes businesses and governmental buildings), not businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.96.86 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, perhaps foolishly but to try to bring some order to chaos I'm working on a table of cities in a sandbox page here: User:Phoebe/George_Floyd_protest_table - I figure we can use this data to better structure the article, the map, etc. once we have a better handle on the situation and more information. If it seems useful for the article we can move it over. Please help out if you like. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Despite the cnn source including Alaska in the 23 states that have activated the National Guard in response to civil unrest, Alaska National Guard's own facebook page only lists 15 states plus DC, implying AKNG is only responding to COVID-19 in the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.119.237.19 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Minneapolis semi incident
Hi,
Should this incident here: [40] be included in the Reported violence subsection of the Violence and controversies section? It seems like there weren't any injuries as a result. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Portland, Maine
Suggestion: add Portland, Maine to the list of cities where there have been protests. The protestors and police in Portland, Maine, have been quite peaceful, so far, with protestors blocking a few streets and committing minor acts of vandalism such as spray-painting graffiti. Here's a scource. Let's hope it stays calm, ay-yuh! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under section titled "Deaths" the number of deaths should be changed to 8 instead of four as has already been changed in the information box. Freeroamer90 (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I was looking through the article and I was struck by how one sided many of the statements are. For example, by the reference to the video that surfaced recently that shows a unarmed helpless woman being beat up and knocked unconcious by two police officers. This video is shocking and disgusting, how can those brutes do that to her! Until....you see that the video is incomplete and cut short. If one were to look up that video online and find the FULL version, he would see that the woman had been agrressive and shouting hysterically, and then in the heat of her crazed outburst she turned on the police officer and attacked him, punching him in the head. She became an animal and continued to try to injure the cop to the point that she became a danger, a danger that tthe cop dealt with swiftly. But this full story is not the one posted here instead we hear about the victim, a woman who was innocent and defenseless who was another casualty of a fight for freedom from the dangerous police. So I ask everyone who edits and writes here to please have commen sense and an unbiased opinion and to try to the best of your ability to only write the pure and unvarnished truth. SamsonKriger (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
My claim was that media outlets are extremely biased against those of opposite political standing and therefore we must be catious before posting any video or statement that might not have been the full story. SamsonKriger (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The media are not politically opposed to the police, as they are not a political body, and should not have a political stance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Not true. The police are seen as the establishment, carrying out the whims of the government to keep law and order, so if there is something politically sensitive and they act over the top/follow orders they are accused or seen to be politically biased towards certain groups. Games of the world (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The media are funded by big corporations. Surely they would be biased against protesters attacking said corporations? BeŻet (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't know what your trying to say but on on moral instances like this or instances with a high degree of public opinion they will favour the majority and not the funders. The media can be very biased when they choose to be. Although what he maybe saying is that some police have taken part in protests done some actions and wants that noted in the article, and to have the story written in a "correct way" and not the slapping of info in for the sake of it as we seem to be having at the moment. Games of the world (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure that is saying what you think it says, it seems to be about how the press portray demonstrators, not the police. It also seems to say that demonstrations about race (as the current ones are) tend get demonised. Hell it even says this "iolence, arrest, unrest, and disruption were the leading descriptors, while concern about police brutality and racial injustice was reduced to just a few mentions.", hardly saying the media are anti police.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
If the press portray the protesters (word used deliberately) as valiant and brave freedom fighters.. Then what does that make those who attempt to stop the heroes? SamsonKriger (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what is the point you're trying to make. If there are some inaccuracies in the article, provide a reliable source that will allow us to correct them - simple as that. BeŻet (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Though I'm not saying support by influential public figures is not relevant, I'm starting to think we are going to need some criteria for inclusion as that list is going to get very long very fast. I know of a huge number of many other notable celebrities who have given statements, and I am really not that up to date on pop culture at all. --Calthinus (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this. As someone who catches up with pop culture, I can safely say that virtually almost every single celebrity with a platform has spoken up about it in some shape and form. It does not make sense to single out who has said what, as the list would probably be longer than the entire article. As such, maybe we can just leave the first few sentences there, about celebrities attending the protests, and the "blackout". If we have to mention a celebrity, it has to be someone who has actually done something notable, like Taylor Swift who directly condemned Trump publicly, or Halsey who has supported the protests, joined them, criticised the police on her stories and also gave tips for protestors to stay safe. We should not be listing every single celebrity who had posted something, if that something has little to no impact in the full picture at all. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need to mention everyone by name. Yes include sportstars such as, Michael Jordan and Lewis Hamilton as they are world known, but an NFL player or NHL player, no we don't need to specifically mention them. We can probably get away with Sports stars such as MJ and Hamilton have voice opinions on the protests... same for other celebrities if they have said something truly notable. Don't feel that we need a criteria, just need some common sense. Games of the world (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry no, not a one. We cannot decide who is famous enough and who is not. What they think is not relevant unless it has an affect.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Preposterous info box
Can anyone defend the “info box” that has found its way into this page, according to encyclopedia standards of neutrality?
The “caused by” section says that these protests were caused by racism, police violence, etc., and the “methods” section then in all seriousness gives as “methods of protest” arson, assault, and looting!
I undid your bold edit. In the future, please don't erase information to make a point. I believe some of your concerns about the particulars in the infobox are already addressed on this talk page. gobonobo+c19:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
While removing the box is unnecessarily destructive, Wwallacee has a point that the "caused by" section has been written as a non-exhaustive list with a subjective basis for inclusion that lacks proper citations. Additionally, the death toll of 11 is a Wikipedia special: not originating in an RS and based on a scientifically dubious synthesis and mishandling of disparate sources. Zekelayla (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Lol, no. We do not do "science" here. Period. Additionally juxtaposition is WP:NOTSYNTH. I see sources to support all of those statements already in the article. Someone merely needs to add them to the infobox...--Calthinus (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus The article body and sources support the claim that 11 homicides were relatively closeby to the riots, not that 11 deaths were caused by or attributable to the riots.Zekelayla (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus What a bizarre statement. You apparently know better, e.g., than the police officials in Detroit which explicitly declined to allege that the death there was connected to the rioting. Zekelayla (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Aww, how nice, thanks. Yeah like most people I will not entertain you if your version of discussion is putting words in my mouth. Please do stop pinging me though.--Calthinus (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus Thanks, maybe I haven't made my points as effectively as possible, but I am simply trying to reduce potential overcounting in the death toll section. Zekelayla (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Dilbaggg Some of the deaths aren't linked to the riots by the RS in any aspect beyond relative proximity. You can ignore this as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact. Zekelayla (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thats just your personal assessment, and that doesn't change the fact, you have 0 WP:RS that claimed that those deaths were not caused by the riots, that all those were false news. This cannot be changed based on your original research and OR statements that you made above section "The RS puts it by the protest, which also happens to be a busy urban environment in a city with a lot of murders. ". Anyway you have received warning for WP:EW attempts, do not change death toll unless majority editors agree with your figure. You have been asked to receive a consensus, voting is still going on the death toll section above. Whatever majority agree will go, anyway I won't be around for some hours, so I request you to follow wikipedia policies. Good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"you have 0 WP:RS that claimed that those deaths were not caused by the riots" My point is (and always has been) that you have 0 WP:RS that claim that those deaths were caused by the riots. It's truly disappointing that at this stage of the game you are still misrepresenting my argument. Zekelayla (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Those WP:RS clearly says the deaths were part of the protest and it has been repeatedly explained to you. it is you who tried using original research claiming that they were committed by murderers not linked to the riots. You have been repeatedly told to be patient before a consensus is reached and editing wikipedia is not a game, it comes with responsibility. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, been saying this for days. The racism charge violates WP:NPOV imo. Arson and looting arguably are relevant, since there are documented cases of this. Assault is over the top for sure. Anon0098 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I just removed a long and ridiculous list of "sides"--as if this were some kind of war, some kind of conflict with clearly defined belligerents or whatever. Adencc, you will need some serious consensus on the talk page for this, because this is a hill worth dying on for me. And no, this is not Hong Kong. The whole thing makes no sense at all (far beyond the infobox itself)--I saw police chiefs in various localities embraces and march with protestors--so does that mean they're on the protestors' side, "fighting" against their own state or mayor? Come on now. The police in the US are already militarized enough; we don't need to formalize that. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Cyptic, I see you blocked Adencc before, and they're at it again. One wonders where that editor came from and what they are doing here. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Sigh, okay, yeah, I can see the current version has issues, but most major protest events such as this one do have an infobox, and it is useful. --Calthinus (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose removal much like similar protests like the 1992 LA riots or even the whole Civil Rights Movement this has an infobox, I do not see the point of its removal based on demands of certain editors as long as the information is per WP:RS. Almost all protest related articles have infobox. Why should the one of this be removed solely? Dilbaggg (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Sides have distinct and mutually exclusive goals and leadership. There are no distinct sides here yet. We should keep the infobox though. The causes listed are all legitimate and well-sourced.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know that is pretty much what all the RS is saying that this is a reaction to decades of Police brutality, Lack of police and institutional racism.10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be conflating multiple issues. I don't see any reason to remove the infobox entirely. That seems like an overreaction. Listing "sides" is silly. Listing legislatures as being on a "side" is doubly so. These are not monoliths, makes it sound like Duane Quam is busy lacing up his riot gear so he can go kick some butt, and ignores legislators who have themselves participated in demonstrations of which there are several. GMGtalk16:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The “caused by” section says that these protests were caused by racism against minorities; might it help balance the article to add another line, that the riots are caused also, "by racism against the majority"? Of course an acceptable source would have to be cited. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Section on violence against elected representatives?
Hi
Several politicians including State Senator Zellnor Myrie, U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, Columbus City Council President Shannon Hardin and Franklin County Commissioner Kevin Boyce have been pepper sprayed by the police, would it useful to have a section which lists politicians attacked? Here are the references I can find so far
Is this really WP:DUE? It is based entirely on social media and hearsay, and we have the page discussing the possibility of the police using an agent provacateur, which sans supportive analysis by experts, seems a bit of an accusation to me... --Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, there's some reliable sources that report that the cops say it was not the cop others said it was, and blah blah--but yeah, we don't need this kind of speculation, and I cut it. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A better issue to point out regarding that section is that it is totally WP:UNDUE, concerning one (1) single incidence where one white individual was harmed by a few black individuals, and the only sources that seem to find this isolated incident notable are Fox News and Donald Trump (other sources find the ensuing controversy notable... not the incident itself afaik).--Calthinus (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I had attempted to rename the section to "Protester violence" a few hours ago, but multiple edit conflicts held me back. I'll be doing so now, though. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I made one change: [41], with the rationale: "I commented out one image in the infobox because 6 out of 7 images were showing confrontation/destruction".
In general, it looks like the assortment of images may be a holdover from when the article was called "2020 Twin Cities riots". I believe that the collection could stand a further revision. Any feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Currently all seven images are from Minneapolis. I have listed the current images and commented on them below. I encourage others to add comments and alternative images. userdude07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Diversify. 3 has the benefit of showing the Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct burning, but this need can be better met by 4. userdude07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Probably the best image on commons of the Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct burning, arguably the most significant single event of the protests. userdude07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Diversify. 5 shows a masked protester arguing with a masked sheriff; it's important to have images prominently displaying masks to remind readers of the context years in the future, but this image doesn't have to be from Minneapolis. userdude07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Diversify. 6 shows Minnesota State Patrol standing guard. This can be replaced with police from any other area. It would be even better to show National Guard standing guard, if such an image exists. userdude07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Burnt-out street, firefighters in the background, protester in the foreground. This is a good image. userdude07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Arson and Looting?
Should arson and looting get its own subsection? I mean the event is a mixture of protests and riots, so we could have a separate section for that kind of thing. It also seems odd to cover the violence but not the arson or looting. In addition, the article doesn't talk about that very much - "arson" only appears 5 times, "fire" appears 28 BUT is often used to refer to gun fire, "fires" appears only 7 times. The destruction of the miineapolis affordable housing project doesn't even seem to be mentioned, which makes zero sense.
Basically the article spends a lot of time talking about reactions, allegations of people using the event to their own ends and the police, but not a lot of stuff like the above.Sdio7 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Currently this sub-section under 'controversies' reads like an argument for there being a double standard. I'm sure somebody has pointed out in print that the Boston Tea Party was a very targeted act of destruction, and that there was no looting during the anti-lockdown protests. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it looks like someone is trying to make an argument rather than just reporting sources. It also ignores the context of stuff like arson as well.Sdio7 (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Keepcalmandchill, the Boston Tea Party was also an action against a government monopoly. After the tea was thrown overboard, they didn't march down main street and loot Boston Market. So the comparison doesn't even start, and it's really not worth to go the route. Sir Joseph(talk)20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
We should add a Looting and destruction of property part. This needs to be filled out with information regarding when the looting started, the first police station that caught fire during protests - police station. There is also a need to set the record straight about the "label"/destinction between peaceful protesters and mobs that loot and set buildings/cars on fire. Right now in this article there are several places where looting is mentioned but there is no real barrier between the peaceful protesters and the looting mobs. It is important for the reader in the years to come to know the full story and that theese protestors were not all bad people, not all looters, and that some peaceful marches led to incidents were police buildings caught fire also bank/shops. Here one could also start to discuss if the ppolice brutality with tear gas etc caused the peaceful protestors to become mobs. Here we can also put in political govenors, the president, senators, mayors and protesters pleads to stop the burning of buildings and ofc the looting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterloo1728 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Add section on curfews?
Although I haven't seen comprehensive reporting, one article said that all major cities in the US have now implemented curfews.
Can there be a section specifically covering that?
There was a previous discussion, which agreed based on coverage in reliable sources, that they would be labelled protests for the time being. Any other name changes will have to wait until after July 1, when things will have calmed down and can be re-approached. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓18:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
In the "partof" section of the infobox it currently says the protests are "part of human rights and police brutality in the united states". This is not the proper use of the partof section. That section is for greater events/movements that the conflict is a part of, not topics that are related to the conflict. You can see this in almost every other Wikipedia page that uses infobox civil conflict. In the infobox's template page it says this...
partof – optional – the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For protests, it could be larger encompassing movement.
It ought to be: | partof = the [[Black Lives Matter movement]]<br>and reactions to the [[Killing of George Floyd]] userdude21:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Protestors vs rioters vs demonstrators?
What's the current consensus on which word should be used throughout this article? Should the word used vary with the action (eg if a building is being destroyed, use one of the two latter words)?
Sources vary on the term they use. e.g. for the attack on the CNN centre, articles vary from using 'protestors' (CNN), 'rioters' (NY Post, UK tabloids), 'demonstrators' (Washington Post, The Independent). There's no consensus amongst even mainstream media.
Protesters and demonstrators are basically the same thing, while rioters are people partaking in riots, so I think it depends on the context. BeŻet (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This source (a pretty big news channel in Canada) refers to riots and protests in a separate manner.
IMHO, it's getting more & more obvious that both peaceful protests and looting/riots are taking place in parallel, and the best approach would be to either rename the article (after the moratorium ends) to reflect both, OR to create a separate article covering the riot & looting aspects.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I am afraid of committing a mistake
I have a source for Vice President Mike Pence's reaction, he hadn't opined on the protests. But I don't know where it fits. Thank you. CoryGlee (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I added the information on Moulton, but couldn't readily find relevant info for Beatty in the article. Thank you for your contribution. Scientific29 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Take-down of the Minneapolis website
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Previously, the death toll included a woman found dead in her car in Minneapolis, and two protesters shot and killed in Detroit; however, these deaths have been removed. Shouldn't they be re-added, as they occurred during the riots?
The two Detroit reports describe the same death, which is listed (even though it hasn't been tied to the protest). Reports have corrected the age of victim from 19 to 21. That Minneapolis death hasn't been tied to the protest either. Zekelayla (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth it's not clear to me the two Detroit reports are the same: the first has shots fired into a crowd *from* a Dodge Durango, while the second shots fired *into* a Dodge Caliber. Scientific29 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
None of these articles directly links the events to the protests; they only indicate the deaths occurred in the same time and/or place. Of course, they might be linked later on, but for now I think we should exclude them. Scientific29 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing this source. The article only indicates the death "may have been connected to the protests", so will exclude for now until it is directly linked. Scientific29 (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Death toll
The death toll of 8 is not provided by any reliable sources, and is an unwarranted synthesis. The sources cited in the deaths section only include an allegation of substantive link to the crisis in 4 cases (1 each in Minneapolis, Omaha, Oakland, and St. Louis). The 4 deaths in Indianapolis, Chicago, and Detroit, are simply described in the cited sources as being located near protests/riots. That is not sufficient to add them to the death toll, considering these are major urban areas in which homicides are common. I attempted to correct this and was reverted in violation of WP:DONTREVERT etc., so am seeking consensus here. Zekelayla (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Read each source, they mentions them as part of the protest/riots, dismissing sourced contents and stating a death toll based on personal views is a violation of WP:NOR. We should state what WP:RS says not what particular editors believe. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Dilbaggg re: "they mentions them as part of the protest/riots", no, that's not the case for the 4 I indicated. If you want to argue the point, please quote where you think it says that, so that I can see what you are talking about. Zekelayla (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The source link itself says "title=Man fatally shot during protests in Detroit", what I am doing is complying with source, what you are doing is repeatedly violating WP:NOR. All of them have been included because the sources say deaths occurred during the protest. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Dilbaggg As we've already discussed twice, the article is explicit that "Detroit police cannot confirm if the victim was part of the protests" and the investigation is ongoing. "during" simply means the murder happened at the time of the protest. i.e. the content of the article body is more than enough to supercede whatever innuendo you take from the title. So we cannot confirm this death is affiliated with the protest. Zekelayla (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Additionally Zekelayla claims this is not part of the protest despite WP:RS clearly saying it is:
* On May 29 in Detroit, a man was fatally shot in the vicinity of protests.[1]"
User:Dilbaggg "Detroit police cannot confirm if the victim was part of the protests, but the shooting happened downtown where the protests were taking place. Detroit Police are investigating." So, just as I indicated, the only known connection is proximity to the protest. In fact, the article also notes the police went out of their way to correct an earlier statement which prematurely tied it to the protest. Zekelayla (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes but WP:RS has connected it to the protest. No source mentions total death toll yet as the protests are ongoing, we are adding up updates and new death tolls added by WP:RS. I am not the one who added all these deaths, other editors did, I am just following guidelines under WP:RS and WP:NOR. Anyway I leave it here, add the death toll will be what majority editors agree on. Lets wait for what they say. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The RS puts it by the protest, which also happens to be a busy urban environment in a city with a lot of murders. There is no other connection to the protest alleged. The RS does not go so far as to say it is a protest death and in fact intentionally avoids doing so. Zekelayla (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"which also happens to be a busy urban environment in a city with a lot of murders", a clear Original Research Statement. This is something you said, not WP:RS/ You clearly do not understand the policies. Anyway the purpose of this discussion is to reach a consensus, let other editors judge and decide for themselves, it make take some time for them to respond please be patient, but do not change death toll until then.Dilbaggg (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Dilbaggg To clarify, that comment is simply explaining why you exceeding what the source indicates is so problematic. I am calling for deleting unsupported claims from the article, not adding original research. And please watch your tone. Zekelayla (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Watch my tone? On what, I haven't said anything offensive, just because your claim is disputed (which is 100% allowed) you are saying that, do not violate WP:HarassmentDilbaggg (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"You clearly do not understand the policies." "It is hard to AGF with such malicious behavior, misrepresenting sources" etc. Zekelayla (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Which isn't violating any policy or any attack on you. Regardless the purpose of this discussion is to reach a consensus, we stated our points, let other editors observe and decide, please be patient and do not change death toll figure until consensus is reached. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times has compiled an estimate of death toll: "At least five deaths have occurred amid unrest, while other deaths have taken place nearby but their ties to protests are uncertain." (Link). NYT is unsure of several of the deaths we are currently linking to the protests despite the lack of support from RS. Can we please change the death toll from 11 (which no RS attests) to "at least 5" (or something of that nature) at this point? @ EllenCTNice4WhatDilbagggCalthinus. Zekelayla (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Edited Zekelayla (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that the NYT estimate probably was too early to catch the 2 deaths in Cicero, IL that have been explicitly linked to the protests by the town authorities (link. So, it seems "at least seven" would be the best way to integrate the appropriately conservative NYT estimate at this point. Zekelayla (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Well the New York Times is considered Zekelayla, even though the protests are ongoing and only after it ends the total death toll will be revealed. Well I am neutral on this as NYT is indeed RS, but I am not voting to change as other sources indicating as of now 13 deaths are also WP:RS and NYT clearly said "at least" not ruling out that other deaths have occurred. However if the majority of the other editors vote to reduce it to "at least five", I have no issues either. Whatever the majority of the editors decide counts. But do not change until the consensus is reached and of course the real death toll will be finalized only after the protest ends anyway. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
However after reading newer WP:RS added by other editors I have realized that was back dated and more incidents have happened and are still happening and death toll will be continually updated, a single backdated source can not help much. Then again I repeat one more time whatever the majority decides will go. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the reporting of the NYT does sharpen the picture. The deaths range among confirmed link, likely per RS but unconfirmed, disputed, no RS-based link but happened nearby, etc. Yet we are counting all of these towards the death toll as of now. This is untenable. At minimum there should be a numerical range. Zekelayla (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Eight given the sources at present. The practical probabilities that the four deaths in question are not associated with the protests will be decided soon enough, but at present the clear consensus of their reports reflects the acknowledgement of a connection. I should also point out that editors experienced with such events will recognize that early reports under such chaotic conditions are more likely to be a substantial undercount than any alternative, so the reader is served with the account of eight deaths at this time. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The sources for 4 of the deaths reflect not so much the acknowledgement of a substantive connection as acknowledgement of the possibility of a connection. Zekelayla (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Zekelayla is 100% correct: the inclusion in an infobox of deaths about which the strongest that can be said is "it happened in the vicinity of protests and is under investigation" is utter BS. The deaths entry in the infobox should be strictly limited to deaths that have been unambiguously and concretely linked to the protests. If someone insists on having garbage NOTNEWS violations in the body text, fine, but split them out: "[intro text] [list of deaths unambiguously linked to protests] In addition, the following deaths have been tentatively linked to the protests by some sources, or occurred in their vicinity: [list of deaths that will eventually be removed from the article once it turns out they were unrelated]." --JBL (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
" If someone insists on having garbage NOTNEWS violations in the body text, fine, but split them out" Agree with this. that is what I tried to do before being reverted, so there is some language in an earlier version. Zekelayla (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It is an ongoing event, nothing gives a total death toll yet, so adding up the deaths from WP:RS than adding figures based on Original Research by certain editors is the best way to move forward until the protests end and the total death toll is established. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Also who said that the deaths should only include that of protesters that which has been implied? The death list is for those who died as a result of the protest, who said bystanders can be excluded? In every other protests including the 1992 LA riots deaths of not riots who died as a result of the riot were also included. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
"adding up the deaths from WP:RS" OK, but we disagree about how to do that. I think the total is 5 based on the RS in the article, but you think it is 11. "Original Research by certain editors" I'm sorry, but isn't this exactly what you've repeatedly (and falsely) accused me of? Zekelayla (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't falsely accused anything, your statements are OR, disputing WP:RS and giving a figure you feel should be included. You have even warned by different users including an admin. Regardless the voting is still ongoing, what majority decides is what counts and fact is the protests are still ongoing. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
nothing gives a total death toll yet FFS then why the fuck would you want to put it in the article, in direct contravention of core policies? When the given options are "making shit up in direct contravention of WP:OR" and "not doing that", not making shit up will always be the best thing to do, and particularly not putting made-up shit into an infobox. This is an encyclopedia! --JBL (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
JBL mind WP:Civility, and deaths of 13 are all as per source, and it keeps updating as its on going event, but what Zekelayla did saying deaths were unrelated to protests, even saying stuffs lie "they were done in places filled with murderers" is pure OR. The 13 deaths have all WP:RS. And also do not change figure without consensus. What WP:RS says and what majority editors agree on consensus is what counts. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Your editing is dishonest, incompetent, and damaging. With any luck your attempts to draw administrator attention will get you blocked, and then someone can remove the material you've repeatedly inserted that lacks any source whatsoever that ties it to the subject of this article. FFS. --JBL (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Why not leave it, we do not need a live update (we are not a news wire service)? We can have a total when its all done and dusted.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
But you didnt leave it and went on to change it to fit your desired figure without getting a consensus. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Dilbaggg incorrect, someone else changed the figure. I added an "at least" pending talk page consensus, which I doubt anyone would quibble with the RS justification of. Zekelayla (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be removed until/unless the death toll can be sourced. Sourcing it to this article, or counting up individual reports, violates WP:V and WP:NOR. I've added a New York Times article as a source, and per that source, changed the number to "5+". One of the reasons we shouldn't have had "13" or "9-13" is that those numbers are both contradicted by reliable sources. Levivich[dubious – discuss]16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure esp as it's a developing situation. But note that many analogous pages for civil and international conflicts -- as well as the coronavirus in X-country pages -- have slightly outdated death counts because they rely on sources to do the counting for them, so they are often a day or two behind. Hence there is precedent. --Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
For consistency, I've revised the info box to reflect the number of deaths currently described in the Deaths section (12). Each death there is connected to the protests by a reliable source; the summation is then covered by WP:CALC IMO. Scientific29 (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. This page is for talking about the article, rather than asking questions about current events. To answer your question, yes the protests have spread to most if not all major cities in the US. See List of George Floyd protests. Scientific29 (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2020 St. John's Church incident
I believe that yesterday's events at the White House and Lafayette Park were of national significance and warrant an apolitical historical accounting of events. I drafted the following but I've never created a new topic before so hoping for some assistance. Firstly, is this sufficient? If so, can someone help make this into an article? - Wikmoz (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if this was "Trump's" incident. I think our understanding of the event is still changing. Apparently, it came at the direction of William Barr and involved many federal and local government law enforcement agencies. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Social media users claimed a man videoed breaking the windows of an AutoZone in Minneapolis on May 27 was an undercover Saint Paul Police officer (who was identified by his ex-wife); the Saint Paul Police Department denied these claims through a statement on Twitter.[207][208] - this is in §Misinformation which I think is extremely POV as it even says the person hasn't been identified yet it's being made out like this is a completely fraudulent claim. NixinovaTC05:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is the section on the extreme right so much bigger than that on the extreme left? Seems to me that makes little sense, given past experience with the extreme left misusing protests to loot and burn cities like Hamburg and Baltimore, London, and longer back LA and even longer back in the 1960s? I am not really aware of such behavior in western democracies after WW2 from the extreme right, the tiki-torn crazies did not really come close to the mayhem we see in a lot of US cities now.
Well one reason is that unlike the section about Lefties there are rebuttals for the accusation. As well as academics (rather than politicians) making accusations (*based upon analysis of social media activity).Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
What is the "past experience" you're referring to? I'm especially interested what you mean by bringing up London? The section on the extreme right is larger because there are more reported cases of the far right exploiting the protests. BeŻet (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 June2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change:
Video footage of the incident generated widespread national attention and raised questions about the appropriate use of force by law enforcement.
to
Video footage of the incident generated widespread global attention and raised questions about the appropriate use of force by law enforcement.
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change sentences from
A British Broadcasting Company cameraman, Peter Murtaugh, was purposely attacked by police on May 31 outside the White House.
to
A British Broadcasting Corporation cameraman, Peter Murtaugh, was purposely attacked by police on May 31 outside the White House.
Because I think the company is now known as British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), not former British Broadcasting Company, which existed from 1922-1927. This link can also be changed to just BBC only as the main article. 114.125.234.70 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't like the wording. If there was a list, and simply a list, below the text, I would support "this is a list". I tried as an experiment to change the text.
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under police violence - Police were seen slashing tires in Kmart parking lot in Minneapolis, they controlled that area and no protesters had access.
Also the Minneapolis police have been firing tear gas and rubber bullets at medical teams, confiscating medical supplies and water from medics.
Minneapolis police also attacked reporters from Unicorn Riot while they were interviewing a business owner who also happened to be
Philando Castile's cousin Philando Castile was murdered by a Saint Paul police officer in 2016 73.94.63.20 (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In addition to the protests, a semi truck came driving on May 30 on the I-35W Bridge, Washington Avenue MN. Driving a semi-truck at high speed, protesters scattered quickly as 35 year-old Bogdan Vechirko came by at a dangerous speed. He only stopped when someone was laying or sitting in front of him on the road who perhaps fell whilst trying to escape. After stopping his truck, he was dragged out of the truck by angry protesters and beat up. Upon being rescued from his attackers by other protesters and the police, Bogdan was arrested on suspicion of assault *1. He suffered light injuries visible in his mugshot. Nobody else was hurt *4. His motivation for the action is unknown, as well as how he got to the bridge while the freeway was allegedly blocked *5.
As we can see with the Hong Kong protests article, there aren't really two sides either and so the term 'Protestors' is sufficient. If you really want you could also add Student Unions, ACLU, BLM and NAACP as organisations being on the side of the protestors. Heaperty (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is that its not at all clear this is two sided. Its not at all clear (for example) that the protesters even belong to one movement or cause (or even agree).Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
No one said anything about this being a 'war', I have no idea how you got there. It's a protest and a riot which in itself the very definition of a civil conflict. I've also looked around the archives and have not come across a consensus which addressed this. Heaperty (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I just looked too, must have been deleted unless i dreamt it up. You're more than welcome to make a new consensus section for the addition of Parties Anon0098 (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose I'll keep the discussion here to make it less cluttery. I propose adding a 'Parties to the civil conflict' section to the infobox, adding the various police departments (especially of Minneapolis), New York (which ran over some protestors), Louisville (when they and the Kentucky National Guard fired upon protestors), etc. Furthermore, it should also include states where their governors has called in the National Guard as we can see in this map here. As of 2nd of June, more than 17,000 troops from 24 states has been called. There are many more to include but this is a good start as to show and allow readers to know who exactly and which police departments are engaging in direct action against the protestors or rioters so far. Heaperty (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Trump calls for protestors to be "dominated" and imprisoned for a decade
@Anon0098: It actually is not a rare practice in other articles for a user to present sources connected by a common point or event to allow other editors to arrive at appropriate phrasing for the article. That's why I didn't use the edit request form.Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
First time that federal law enforcement was employed for riot control since the 1992 Los Angeles riots?
The Justice Department has dispatched several federal law enforcement officers to combat the rioting relating to the George Floyd protests so it's the first time in 28 years that such personnel were employed for this mission. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like most recent sources has mention the fact that Bush Sr sent federal officers along with U.S. military troops into Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots of 1992. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Floyd being removed from his vehicle without any resistance.
A spokesman for the police department said the officers ordered him to exit the vehicle, at which point he "physically resisted." A video taken by a bystander shows Floyd being removed from his vehicle without any resistance.[24]
The above is flat-out false, the video from the person parked behind George Floyd's car CLEARLY shows the police having to physically drag Floyd out of his car to handcuff him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.100.189 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That may not mean he resisted, not cooperating and resisting are not the same, assuming he was in fact asked to get out, assuming....well we can assume all over the place.Slatersteven (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Missing Death from Vallejo, CA
This person was killed during looting early June 2:
He's been confirmed as a looter as part of the unrest, but so far he has only been reported to be shot, not dead. EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Controversies surrounding the George Floyd protests
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.
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.
Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Should the death of Marvin Francois [48] be added or mentioned in any way in the deaths section considering he was shot and killed by carjackers at the end of a day where he attended protests, photographing them, and was killed while picking his son up from a protest? EkoGraf (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be. The protests is related to George Floyd. If the protests didn't happen of where Marvin was killed, chances are he still be alive. The 1992 Los Angeles riots had 87-years-old black woman named Vivian Austin who died from a heart attack because of stress due to the L.A. riots news coverage and she is listed among the 63 riot deaths. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Grouping protestors together with rioters does a disservice to people who protest (and ultimately erodes democracy).
It's unfair to legitimate citizens in the same way that it would be unfair to group legitimate customers together with shoplifters in an article about US consumer habits. In the situation described in the article, one of three things can happen:
1. A protest can be held (this would be described in the Protests article)
2. A riot can take place (this would be described in the Riots article)
3. A protest can be held, which later degenerates into a riot (the first half of this would be described in the Protests article, and the second half would be described in the Riots article, and can be introduced with a sentence such as "The June 2 Purdue riot arose from the June 2 Purdue protest held earlier that day).
I think the article should be split in two, or at lest very clearly delineated into two parts.
You're overlooking the fact that it's sometimes very important to have two separate articles on "linked" events. Case in point: If you believe the above statement, why have you failed to suggest that this article be merged with the Killing of George Floyd article?
You should either make an effort to merge this article with that one, or retract your statement that "linked" events don't require two articles. But your current position is untenable and irrational, and serves to decrease the clarity of Wikipedia. --BoiledAlaska (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
OK I shall rephrase, we do not need more than one article on linked topics unless the topic becomes so unwieldy one article is not enough to encompass the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Your phrasing makes it hard to discern, but I take it that you now agree with my suggestion that this article be split in two, given that it has becomes so unwieldy that one article is not enough to encompass the topic?
BoiledAlaska, we write articles based on what reliable sources report. If you can find multiple reliable sources reporting at length on George Floyd protests versus George Floyd riots, we can write an article about that. But we can't decide for ourselves when a protest turns into a riot and therefore which article the information should go into. There's policy at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that covers your concern about doing a disservice to the protesters and democracy. —valereee (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, valeree; That sounds like a logical course of action.
To be clear, you will be satisfied if I can find a number of each of two categories of articles:
Several articles that describe a George Floyd protest on its own, without mention of any subsequent riot.
Several articles that describe a George Floyd riot on its own, without mention of any previous protest.
Several articles describe a George Floyd protest that devolved into a riot, and specify a delineation between the two.
If such articles cannot be found, I would agree that there are insufficient reliable sources to make any distinction between the protests and the riots. On the other hand, if that information can be provided for a reasonable number of the events described in this article, then my suggestion can be carried out, supported by reliable sources. Would you agree? --BoiledAlaska (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
While it is true that protests and riots are very different things, in this (and many) cases they overlap to the extent that we can't separate them out. The riots piggyback on the protests. Was it protesters rioting, or was it outside agitators taking advantage of the protests for their own ends? We can't tell. Was vandalism motivated by anger at injustice, or by a desire to discredit the protesters, or in hopes of promoting civil disorder? We can't tell. Was a particular looter someone who had been protesting, or simply an opportunist? We can't tell. Neither can the police. Neither can reporters. It is unfortunate that the riots get lumped in with the protests, but they are so entangled that we have no reliable way of separating them. So we title them all "protests" and explain in the text what happened in conjunction with some of them. You will notice the protests that did not devolve into a riot are often described by sources, and by us, as "peaceful". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Given the doubts about who is doing the vandalism/violence and why, I find the proposed splitoff title "George Floyd riots" inappropriate. --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Question about appropriateness of videos
Last night I was looking around for CC licensed videos to upload for use in the New York City protests article. I found a few good ones, but also found a few that raise ethical questions I'd like your opinions on.Here's an example of what I mean. It's someone breaking a window of the Reagan Foundation. The quality isn't good and the specific instance of vandalism isn't particularly notable, but bear with me for a moment. Let's say there were news articles about vandalism of the Reagan Foundation building, or that the video quality were better. What do people think about the ethical considerations (and potentially BLP considerations) of including such a video depicting people engaged in vandalism (or looting or violence for that matter)? It's possible this should be a Village Pump discussion, but it's directly relevant to this article, so starting here. Just to be clear: I'm not proposing adding this video to the article. It's just the one I was looking at when I started thinking. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Timeline of the protests
Keeping track of the progression of the protests/riots across the United States has become confusing and disorganized - for instance, there is very little information on June 2nd and 3rd, other days like May 31 appear to just be missing or only have pieces of information scattered throughout the page - would it be possible to create a separate page detailing the timeline of the protests, day-by-day, from its beginning to the current day? There doesn't seem to be any timeline of any sort in the main page at this time. Temeku (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Images from Charlotte
Hello all, I haven't been involved in this article, but I took some high-quality photographs today of some of the aftermath of the protests in Charlotte. Feel free to use any of what I attach below in the article.
Should the police violence header be more specific?
The "police violence" section in violence and controversies begins by referencing that there have been incidents of police violence towards both protesters and journalists, but the latter subject (police violence against journalists) is not covered until the "violence against journalists" header a few sections down. The way it's organized now probably does make the most sense in terms of structure, but seeing as the "police violence" section doesn't contain all discussion of police violence, should it be renamed to something like "police violence against protesters", so that the reader doesn't read to the end of that section and miss the violence against journalist section, thinking that the former contains all police violence coverage? Especially seeing as the two sections are of comparable length - the violence against journalists from protesters paragraph is more of a footnote in comparison. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Section "Protests"
Some unencylopedic content has slipped in at the end of the section: "( all lives matter not only black)". Can someone delete this? FiduciaryAkita (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing biased about pointing out members of his own party who denounced. Even if they weren't named as republicans, they would still be notable. --Bataromatic (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the extremist section is heavily tilted to give more support to a far-right presence. There is far less coverage to video evidence of leftist grafitti tagging, Antifa flag waving, the Pittsburgh kid who was arrested for inciting a riot, etc. Then there is much speculation on the far right side. In addition, there is a quote by Keith Ellison, with no mention at all that he once praised Antifa, which should really be mentioned considering the juxtaposition of the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 15:14, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
Antifa is not objectively considered an extremist entity. There's nothing wrong in waving an Antifascist flag at a protest. BeŻet (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
BeŻet, Antifa in the US is not at all the same as Antifa in Europe and if you think Antifa is not an extremist entity, you should not be editing these articles at all. Sir Joseph(talk)20:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph Last year, NJ Homeland Security updated their description to the following: Antifa is a movement that focuses on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices. The majority of Antifa members do not promote or endorse violence; however, the movement consists of anarchist extremists and other individuals who seek to carry out acts of violence in order to forward their respective agendas.BeŻet (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
US attorney general consider Antifa a terrorist organization, but activists here think "is not objectively considered extremist entity". The delusion with NPOV in this article is mindbogging. 2601:602:9200:1310:93B:1B27:C783:41DD (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
But it does, due to their positions (AG and president respectively) and their authority to make the determination. We may all know that you can't honestly label a loose movement as a terrorist organisation, but your opinions or mine are irrelevant, as the designation for a terrorist organisation lies in the hands of the president. So if he formally makes the designation that matters. Whether Wikipedia chooses simply to add a sentence saying that, verses completely designating it as a terrorist organisation, is a totally different question. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
We already talk about Trump thinking about designating Antifa as a terrorist group. What I'm saying is, just because Barr or Trump are entertaining this idea, and even if they somehow pull it off, this doesn't mean that we suddenly need to freak out whenever someone is holding an Antifa flag. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether Trump or other officials don't believe in global warming - their opinions really don't matter. BeŻet (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
ProcrasinatingReader, the designation of foreign entities as terrorists is indeed at the discretion of POTUS. Doing so for a domestic organization requires an act of Congress. And Barr surely knows this, making it an attempt at propaganda. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point. Just to add, as I touched on originally, my view only holds if the president decided to formally make the designation (compared to his current loose threat, which is likely just propaganda as you say). Since it does seem like he can't actually make that designation for Antifa, I guess this point is rather moot. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
BeŻet, Barr is the AG of the USA, so his opinion matters. Perhaps you are not within minutes of rioters and looters, so I really can't take you seriously into thinking that Antifa isn't extremist. Sir Joseph(talk)20:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
here but I am sure you will dismiss it since you already thing your personal opinion is more relevant to wikipedia than POTUS'. Keep taking a dump on wp:NPOV activists. Wikipedia crapshow needs more of you pushing your personal, biased agenda. 2601:602:9200:1310:93B:1B27:C783:41DD (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, I didn't say they were all antifa, I said the sections were not neutral and that the amount of words given to the right was way more than given to the left. And I'm not going to entertain something that is BLUE, considering we have video evidence and RS. This is why I don't usually edit in the politics area, so go ahead, write your biased articles and have at it. Take another article down with you. Congratulations. That where in an age that people actually say Antifa isn't extremist and I have to give them the time of day? No, I'm not going to do that. I actually have to worry about what I'm going to do for the next few days than deal with editing Wikipedia and deal with people so out of touch with reality. Sir Joseph(talk)21:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Temper tantrums will not get you anywhere. Perhaps you should follow your gut and stay away from political articles. BeŻet (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sir Joseph, if you're not going to come in to talk page discussions in good faith, you're going to find resistance based solely on your tone. If you want to actually address specifics and work in good faith, we can engage in a dialogue. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Guys, I'm not going to condone the manner of discussion Sir Joseph is taking here, but I do think that perhaps he brings up a solid point. There does seem to be an over-speculation of far-right, or at the very least, an under-speculation of far-left involvement in the current form of the article. I think that the guidelines of WP would urge us to err on the side of "less speculation". At the very least, can we agree that this portion of the article needs to be enhanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerrisEuler (talk • contribs) 19:57, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
FerrisEuler, we should always be looking to improve the content of the article. I don't know if the weight on that section is off, but it is possible. What might be missing, or should get cut? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Erring on the side of "less speculation", I'd recommend cutting the following sections:
1. The section mentioning Lisa Waldner, as the source currently mentioned is quite lacking in detail and is essentially just an unjustified quotation. Alternatively, a more complete source could be supplied.
2. The selection mentioning Stuart Wexler because it's superfulus.
3. The section mentioning Marco Rubio expressing concern about the bugaboo boys, as his cited tweet doesn't draw the connection between his concern and the group that the editor claims it does.
4. The section about the Pittsburgh Chief of Police and his statements about Antifa, as in its current state, it's rather unsubstantiated.
I'm mostly just concerned we're allowing this page to be filled with too much speculation, which I'm willing to acknowledge is challenging to avoid. Also, it should go without saying that if the sources on some of these statements were more complete I'd retract my concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerrisEuler (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
How is a specialist on the matter "superfulus" (sic)? This just seems to be your personal opinions. This is not speculation, it is WP:RS testimony from topical experts. --Calthinus (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus, with my previous point 2, perhaps I should've provided more justification. While I'm no expert on Mr. Wexler's publications and their use in contributions to Wikipedia with regard to WP:RS, I would say that this particular citation is speculative in nature, as it seems to be lacking in citable evidence. His article is more of an opinion piece comparing eras in American History, but it doesn't really reference any specific ongoing events that substantiate those claims. I'm trying to make sure we're upholding Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. I'm just suggesting that perhaps we can do better with this section.
I think that the original concern brought up with this section of the Talk Page was that there was a perceived over/under-speculation of various groups' involvements that may impact the encyclopedia's integrity. Wexler's article is used to give context on a section that is already overly-speculative, yet his analysis fails to bring any solidarity to the speculative nature of that section in the article. Additionally, one could likely make the argument that the historical connections drawn for the sake of context are lacking in evidence. I think we may be allowing opinions to be stated as facts here (WP:YESPOV). That being said, this is only one of the suggestions I've provided towards improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerrisEuler (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Whose conclusions about what is lacking in evidence do we trust? An outfit for security analysis at a leading university, a credentialed historian, etc ... or a random dude who edits Wikipedia talk pages? I know who I'm listening to. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
In a jaw-dropping statement Jim Mattis - Trump's former defense secretary - compared Trump to a NAZI:
Yeah, because it never happens that organisations give themselves self-flattering names, like the democratic people's republic of Korea. The mere fact that an organisation calls itself anti-fascist, does not exclude it from itself using what in common parlence are called 'fascist methods', such as using violence for political goals. You might be interested to know that the Antifa name comes from the left-wing extremists who fought the right-wing extremists in Germany before the Nazi's won. And similarly to that conflict, one should not be befuddled into thinking that only one (the nazi's and their friends) were immoral. Any side that uses violence for political aims is immoral, and specifically the extreme left and extreme right are both collectivists who don't care about individual rights. Dg21dg21 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus, I think that the political nature of this ongoing event has clouded some of our editors' judgements. Similar claims against edits on non-ongoing events page's would not be met with this kind of pushback. I'll digress if the majority really disagrees here, but this just seems like poor editing. For ex., unsubstantiated offhand claims from a police chief in Pittsburgh probably don't belong on a page that is focused on the (now) global coverage of protests/riots, because it gives the impression that 1. this claim is true & 2. it's likely true in other cities in the US/World, neither of which are confirmed. Additionally, conclusions about what is lacking in evidence can be objective when the author doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever. Obviously you set a dangerous precedent otherwise. It doesn't matter if a historian is a Harvard fellow, if they write an opinion piece without citing any evidence, it's not encyclopedic. I'm just trying to be civil here.
What you don't understand is that our opinions don't matter. We run on policy. There is no policy that empowers wikipedia editors to analyze if facts are based in "evidence". And oddly enough the Pittsburgh police chief's statement is actually something I support mentioning too. --Calthinus (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus, for specific policy relating to the concerns brought up in this thread, see WP:QUESTIONED (specifically, "Questionable sources are those...that rely heavily on rumors or personal opinions" and "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited"). However, I think we are both running away from the original topic of this thread. "Do we think the editing attitudes regarding extremist sections in this article are NPOV?" - for that, I think you should look at WP:NEUTRALEDIT. To rephrase: Can we do a better job with this section/Do we think the tone here is actually neutral? I'm pretty sure some solid cases have been brought up here that deserve attention, if we can get a third party. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerrisEuler (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Protester violence against police - threshold
We should set some sort of threshold for inclusion when it comes protester violence against police. For instance, in my humble opinion, it's a bit ludicrous to be writing about an officer who "was struck in the eye by flying glass from a projectile thrown at the police". Seems to me like an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE by bulking up the section with miniscule incidents. There are hundreds, if not thousands of reported injuries on the protester side, and if we were to report every single person who gets a bruise or hit in the eye, we would have a very, very long article here. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Protestors having accidents isn't newsworthy, so it's unlikely to have substantial references. Additionally, there's a distinction between an accident amongst protestors, and an attack by one group on the other. The former is uninteresting, the latter is notable. Finally, I'd add that if it were a brick thrown at an officer's head, you would probably say that is newsworthy, so why is glass 'miniscule'? The article also has sufficient mention of violence from police to protestors; if there's simply fewer incidents of that, then it's not false balance. If there are more incidents, they should be added. As it stands currently, the violence by police to civilians is multiple long paragraphs long, and the vice versa (which you disagree with) is only about 10 sentences overall. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't say a brick thrown at an officer's head during large scale protests and riots is newsworthy. BeŻet (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Once again, I am calling to establish a threshold for inclusion. Currently, the section seems to be a link dump and an attempt to mention every single small incident involving the police. As explained earlier, if we were to do the same about the violence suffered by protesters, the article would be never-ending. BeŻet (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we include stories that discuss major injuries or death, and are supported by at least two sources that are not local news agencies. BeŻet (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Aren't the protest demonstrations and the riots appropriating them being mashed together in the infobox here?
"Methods: Protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience, civil resistance [correct, but followed by:]
looting, assault, arson and property damage"
the first half of the list references protests, but the second half references looting and rioting. I think it's a mistake to lump protesters together with rioters and looters... fairly fundamental to the reason for mass protest, in fact. Sure, there's some crossover, but this paints them all with the same broad strokes, which is wrong. PythonGraham (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove "looting, assault, arson and property damage"; the reliable sources directly contradict the notion that this is part of the "protests". Most RSes distinguish between the protests and the rioting. Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose remove, support article name change The subject of this article, in its current form, covers the whole ongoing unrest in the US (reported on by a wide range of sources) which includes both protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience, civil resistance, looting, assault, arson and property damage. What would be more appropriate is to change the name of the article to reflect its subject. EkoGraf (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Remove "looting, assault, arson and property damage" as Levivich says as this is a vestige of the article's early days. I agree though that the subject of this article is on the whole ongoing activities in response, including the unrest and riots, but I do not believe the infobox is where we should put that information. I also oppose any article renaming, not that that matters since there is a one-month moritorium on renaming this article anyways. DTM9025 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove, protest organizers were pretty resolute in denouncing property damage let alone looting, assault, etc. Instead this was done by either lone wolf actors or even members of unrelated extremist orgs, whether Antifa or white supremacists looking specifically to provoke retaliation on the protestors. Likewise, article rename is out of the question as indeed there is a one month moratorium, so discussion of it should just stop as it is a waste of breath.--Calthinus (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we convert violence description sections into one or more tables? ("Deaths", "Violence against journalists", "Protester violence", "Police violence", etc.)
These sections are really just lists of single incidents in paragraph format. It would be a lot simpler to understand the toll of the violence, as well as update it over time, if we had a single list (or list in each section) describing the persons injured or killed.
The article currently separates violence into "police violence," and "protester violence." I can't check all the listed sources, but the article does not always justify these listings. For example it notes that police officers were shot and stabbed under "protester violence," on June 3rd, but does not include any direct statement about who did this.
1. If the article continues to divide violence based on the attackers, then it probably needs a section for counterprotesters, opportunists, and so on, and a section for unidentified or disputed attackers. And it should probably merge violence against journalists in with the rest.
2. If the article switches to dividing violence based on the victims, that may avoid a lot of the uncertainties. I think this would be a better approach, at least while these continue. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
yea I see a valid point here. It would definitely be easier for people that are not following this on a day to day basis (me). Idan (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The section detailing international reactions had a simple, refined, easy-to-read layout with the flag icons of the countries/organizations next to them, but at some point in the past 48 hours it seems the flag icons were removed - now this section is much harder to read, even just for my eyes, it seems disorganized now. Maybe there is a good reason to not have the flag icons there anymore, but I don't understand and now the section is very difficult to read, would it be possible to re-add the flag icons next to the international reactions? Temeku (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Speedily closed; no suggested naming target, and page moves are under moratorium until July 1st.Writ Keeper⚇♔13:53, 5 June 2020 (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.
Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
This edit request to George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In your posting of the current protests about the Floyd Jong you do not list any officers killed during ther riots. Please do so. Mike officers I believe have been killed than protestors or civilians. 166.182.85.216 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think we should add information about Chauvin's wife. It is also important bacause of accusations of Chauvin being "racist" and "white supremacist". If we have added interview of Maya Santamaria, owner of club where Chauvin worked as security guard, saying that Chauvin had used "overaggressive tactics" when dealing with black clientele, responding to fights by spraying the crowd with mace, calling it "overkill" (possibly implying Chauvin was racist), then why not to write in the article that Chauvin had wife of Hmong (Southeast Asia) decent, describing him as "gentleman"? I think we should add as much facts as possible and then it's up to readers to decide what is true. Also keep in mind that she is already mentioned in article filing for divorce. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
You want to use her as a "character witness"? She has filed for divorce and to have her name changed. I don't think she should be mentioned at all. I'm not too keen on inclusion of Maya Santamaria either. O3000 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Maya Santamaria is obviously used as "character witness" of Chauvin being racist. In this case, I think information about Chauvin's wife should be added. We can leave out her name if that is a problem. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The goal is not to help Chauvin or anyone. Anyway, Maya Santamaria was removed from the article by another editor, so I think we can leave the article in the way it is now. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The entire premise of this is ridiculous. This isn't even "I have black friends". It is "I have an Asian wife so I cannot be racist against Blacks" ....... which is just illogical. --Calthinus (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I have consistently opposed identifying or reporting the names of peripherally-involved people in these articles, per WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. That includes Chauvin's wife, it includes the former employer, it includes the people who filmed the videos - all of whose names have been removed from an article at one point or another. The discussion here, about whether particular information or a particular comment "helps" or "hurts" the victim or the perpetrator(s), is completely irrelevant. That's not how we decide what to include. We base our decisions on Reliable Source coverage and our own policies and guidelines. In this case, even though Reliable Sources are naming these people, our policies and guidelines are more protective of the privacy of non-notable people than the media - and so we don't. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that Chauvin's abuse of power as a security guard seems relevant to his abuse of power as a police officer. I don't see how comments on his marriage would really be relevant, as this page is not a biography on Chauvin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.201.237 (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Either way whatever is relevant it should not be mentioned on this page and should be on the page of the incident as this has nothing to do with the protests. Games of the world (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The images on the infobox collage all seem to originate from the initial Minneapolis protests. Given that the protests have since snowballed internationally and have gained way more notoriety due to this, should some of the Minneapolis images be replaced with images from other national protests? The burning building and the protester standing on the car can stay, but the rest of the images could be replaced. Geekgecko (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Intercept: We Crunched the Numbers: Police — Not Protesters — Are Overwhelmingly Responsible for Attacking Journalists
Should cite dates when Chauvin and other officers were arrested
Can't edit the page, but I think the specific dates that the four officers were arrested for participating in Floyd's murder would be good relevant information to add to the timeline for somebody who can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.201.237 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't see how that is relevant to this article, as the protests were not campaigning for action against those involved in the incident. Nor has it changed the tone or mood of the protests. Games of the world (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Events with names such as "The Justice For George Floyd March" are clearly motivated by seeking legal punishment for the killers. It is absurd to ignore that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.201.237 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Should some references to police refer instead to law enforcement, or should they go in their own section?
Should national guard be classed as police? What those who claim to be DOJ employees, but have not identified themselves? They are believed to be Federal Bureau of Prisons, FBI, ICE and TSA. Should they be listed under police? As unidentified armed and armoured forces believed to be federal employees? As whatever force we believe them to be? Banak (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
In the section George_Floyd_protests#Violence_and_controversies subsection June 4, for the paragraph beginning: "In Buffalo, a 75-year-old man...", this USA Today story contains good background information on the Martin Gugino.
A suggested cite follows:
There's a single sentence at the end of the section saying the COVID-19 deaths are not included. Is it something supported by sources or is just an editorial note? If this the second, then I suggest adding it using {{efn|...}} template.--Mhhosseintalk05:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The article should include deaths that were not part of protests such as isolated police shootings and homicides provided we change 'protests' to 'unrest' in the title to be more inclusive. Warlight2 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
On the 30th of May in Columbus, Ohio, 22-year-old protester Sarah Grossman, who had recently graduated Ohio State University, died allegedly in hospital as a result of an asthma attack triggered by tear gas sprayed on her protest group by police. [51][52][53] The corresponding day under the Deaths section does not include this case. Judging by the recent attention it has seen from both news media as well as social media (see the 3 sources linked above), it seems unlikely to be a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:D23:D400:84B6:8FD0:2C11:252E (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Also not included in the death section is the killing of a looter by police in Brooklyn, New York on June 4th. Warlight2 (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Date sections when content is just one/two sentences?
The Protester violence section has date sections for violence against police. I am wondering whether it is worth keeping those headings if there's only one or two sentences in the paragraph that follows? To me seems a bit like an overkill for that section, but I understand that some people might want consistency. BeŻet (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
In one of the protected edit requests I asked if we're adding additional dates, just adding where it seems appropriate and of that, what are we to do with the dated sections. Right now, the article is getting rather large, but that is the nature of major unrest and I've not a clue how to proceed to do justice to the subject and keep things manageable and of a reasonable length.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Images
@RopeTricks: Hey, sorry for not giving any reasoning for the edits; the image of the protester is simply superfluous and adds no value to the current gallery, as for the antifa image, terms describing the group as "far-left" and "anarchist" are disputed, see Talk:Antifa. QuestFour (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I was the one that added both images and think they indeed add value. The Gallery image is less about the individual protester and more about the National Guard, but I decided to try use a picture with both National Guard AND a protester for a better fit. The National Guard have and currently are playing a notable role during the riots and protests (as they have historically in the U.S.) and I thought the gallery should reflect that by having at the VERY least one image of them, yet you kept removing it. I can't comprehend how you think the image is "superfluous" for the gallery specifically, which did not have an image of the NG before, so it is unique and not derivative or trivial for the section. Would you prefer a different image of the NG in the gallery, or do you think NO image of them should be in the gallery at all? As for the Antifa picture, I added it because the section specifically mentions Antifa by name and I found the image of Antifa flags at a George Floyd protest, so the image is VERY relevant for the section. I was not arguing whether Antifa are left wing, anarchist or otherwise, I added the image simply because Antifa were mentioned by name and the U.S. President has used the protests to talk about the group specifically. RopeTricks (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I added an image of the National Guard. However, point still stands regarding antifa, as there have been a long-term dispute on terms like far-left, anarchist, etc. QuestFour (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
So we agree that a picture of the National Guard is not superfluous and should be in the gallery. Good, a compromise. Would you remove any picture of Antifa added on this article? I'm thinking of re-adding the image but not to the "leftist" section. RopeTricks (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You just said you don't like it in the leftist section. So add it somewhere else, such as the gallery, no? What part of that rationale don't you comprehend? I don't see why an image of Antifa (or any right wing counter-protesters for that matter) at a George Floyd protest is somehow inappropriate or superfluous for this article to you. RopeTricks (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Inappropriate, no. Superfluous, yes. This article already has too many images per MOS:IMAGES, and you haven't yet provided a good reason why the antifa image should be added. QuestFour (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, wikipedia editors. This is a protest not a riot. Rumors are going around about police officers and other people setting pro-low income homes on fire and blaming blacks for it. Jammers are being placed around to prevent people from live streaming and showing what really happened.
Although large protests were held, they’ve been largely overshadowed by the rioting (especially the burning of the third precinct). Calling the article the “Twin Cities protests of 2020” wouldn’t fully demonstrate the entire picture. What’s not in dispute is the fact rioters burned the third precinct and nearby areas, that constitutes a riot. You may dispute other acts of arson, it is an unfolding situation, but rioting undisputedly occurred. R. J. Dockery (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Most protesters have been peaceful. But many did, in fact, riot. We have documented their violent crimes which constitute rioting. We must differentiate between peaceful protesters and rioters. We should only use the term riot to describe violent crimes such as arson and looting. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
There appear to be two simultaneous movements in response to the George Floyd murders:
Organized, peaceful protests at police behavior; &
Widespread acts of violence against property & police -- AKA rioting -- where the actors are not solely, or in some places even largely, people of color. For example, the governor of Minnesota has claimed that most of the rioters arrested were people from out of state. (Don't know if these are White Racists agitating for their "boogaloo", facts are still coming in, but I wouldn't be surprised.)
IMHO, we may end up with two interrelated articles, one focussing on the mostly peaceful protests, & one on the rioting. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There are protests, correct, but to assert that there are no riots is a completely false statement. Document and separate the peaceful protests from the looting and riots. ANTHONATOR35 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There are protests, by definition from Oxford dictionary, protestors are protesting what is seen as an injustice. There also exist riots. The protests and the riots are separate issues with a significant intersection. It says nothing of who is rioting and who is protesting, but the two are taking place, in my opinion. Sai2207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There are both protests and riots, but also shootings, homicides, and assaults. However the title of the page suggests it is only protests. All of these events together can be accurately described as 'Unrest'. Warlight2 (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Apparently the far right cannot distinguish between opportunistic looting and vandalism & cause orientated protesting, which may include violent acts i.e against riot police. The former has no agenda. Typical self proclaimed “facts vs feelings” crowd going with... feelings. 2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:7801:F9FA:F2C6:F8E (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Who’s the far-right? Here are newspapers calling it “protests and riots”: NY Post and Guardian. I’d also cite Fox News and Dailywire, but I have the feeling you’d dismiss the former as non-serious news or biased or something and the latter as far-right opinion outlet. I could easily find you more instances of this perspective in the news. Your argument that these are two separate things – legitimate protests and opportunistic looting – (instead of presumably a continuum of legitimate protests, violent riots and opportunistic looting, which it obviously is when you look at the images) has absolutely no weight on whether both should be mentioned in title in lead. Both are happening, so both should be mentioned, and to all the people who lost property, homes or lives in the fires, Wikipedia would be doing a disgraceful disservice by pretending these are merely protests. I wonder if Wikipedia is able to stand up to its criticism … 2.243.23.57 (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps "Protests in some cities resulted in rioting and looting while many were marked by significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters" should be changed to "Protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, but there have been instances of civilians rioting and looting, and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters". Banak (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"Rumours are going around" is hardly a reliable source. And peaceful protests don't have a death count. Similar events are referred to as riots on other pages.Drilou (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the point these manifestations are part of a continuum. Reports state numerous peaceful protests were met with excessive police force, to which the protestors responded with rage, which grew. Spontaneous. Rage might be a good word which covers all the actions, as in 'Rage over George Floyd's killing.' There's also Days of Rage, and the FT is actually using the phrase...[1]. I agree that adding info on Jammers & Stingrays & other military equipment used to cut cell phone service, stop video coverage, even to drain battery charges (all used at Standing Rock) is important, though most MSM RS won't report it. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
To emphasize, the Insurrection Act requires a formal proclamation in order to be invoked. Trump *threatened* to use it if state National Guards aren’t effective, but vague threats and ambiguous speeches don’t cut it. He wants to look tough without actually taking responsibility. https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1267589188075094016
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 1, 2020
Yes, please. This is a constitutional question. He can not really order the military to occupy US cities and states. Read: https://theconversation.com/can-the-president-really-order-the-military-to-occupy-us-cities-and-states-139844: "Over time, the law has evolved to allow the use of troops in other circumstances. For example, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson used the Insurrection Act in the 1950s and 1960s to send the military to enforce court desegregation orders and to protect civil rights marchers." He is weak and just lost his Secretary of Defense in this question!
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper breaks with President Donald Trump and says he does not support using active duty troops to quell protests following George Floyd's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3OlG6b0WoA
The USA's National Guard has been deployed, and Wikipedia's articles on the USA military and the USA National Guard refer to it as part of the military, so I'm confused about this article not considering the military to have been sent to USA cities. If the article is referring to active military, it would benefit from making that clear. 68.96.208.77 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
The article makes no judgement, now an question has been asked (by me) what is the suggested edit, what (and where) do you want added?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm sorry that what I wrote was misconstrued as implying that the article was making a judgement: I was not. To answer your question, in the section titled Activation Of State And Federal Forces, in the Federal subsection, it seems that it ought to refer to "active USA military" instead of "USA military". Additionally, the article would benefit from someone with better knowledge of the USA's military explaining why the National Guard officers working for the federal government in DC are not considered federalized for the purpose of the Insurrection Act of 1807. 68.96.208.77 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
OK, on the first issue. Not sure that is needed, by inference if they militarily are active they are active militarily (as opposed to inactive). Your second point has more validity, As I understand it the NG can be mobilised at a state level, and thus would not be in federal service (its partly why they exist). DC is a bit of an odd ball as it is not a state, but has NG units. So may may have been mobilised at the "state" (for want of a better term level.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I've still not managed to convey my point about the military's deployment. Threatening to do something implies it has not been done although I'm open to examples indicating otherwise. The line about Trump threatening to deploy the military means the article implies that by June 1st the military had not been deployed. However, the National Guard had been deployed by then, so the military had been deployed. Indeed such photos accompany the article. Your point about the National Guard being active has some merit as a criticism of the term "active" although Wikipedia's article on it shies away from the term. Perhaps "non-reserve military" would be better. Either way, my point is that the article does not make clear in what sense deploying the military had already occurred by June 1st and in what sense deploying the military had been threatened to occur. 68.96.208.77 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
No, I get your point. My point is that the NG are not federal troops. So whilst he deployed A military is was not (at this point) technically the US army, navy or air force. We need to be clear on this point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad that we agree that the article needs to be clear. I agree that the non-reserve sections of the military you've listed have not been deployed. However, that you had to list sections which were not deployed highlights the fact that some military was deployed. The article does not make that point clear. 68.96.208.77 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
Seems like Trump is never going to deploy federal troops for riot control as the Pentagon sent all of the active duty troops back home since protests for the past few days have been largely peaceful. Looks like the Insurrection Act of 1807 needs to have some changes of anything that it's not going to be used anymore. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Although this might be unintentional, the image of the 3rd Ranger Battalion suggests that federal troops were used in some capacity for the George Floyd protests. 68.96.208.77 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
An explanation: there's a misunderstanding in the use of the word 'military'. In the US, the word 'military' refers to the US Armed Forces - the navy, air force, army, marines, and special ops forces working with them out of the federal Dept of Defense. A president is Commander in Chief. Now, the National Guard or 'the Guard', is not generally referred to as 'the military' in the US, although they have military training and shoot people. They are not a federal force, as previously explained, but called by individual state governors. So, maybe understanding the use and meaning of those terms -the military or the guard - would alleviate misunderstandings. Also Possee Comitatus laws prohibit the use of military for policing purposes, thus the threat of the Insurrection Act. As a note, the militarization of the US police is a basically lawless work-around of Possee Comitatus, especially since police have been participating in military tactical and weapons training run by 'the military'. The 1033 Program provides the military-grade weapons & vehicles to state and local police. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that is a very good point, and I agree that the status of the National Guard is key to this discussion, hence my highlighting that Wikipedia's articles on the USA military and the USA National Guard both refer to the National Guard as part of the military. Additionally, Slatersteven makes the case for the National Guard being viewed as a military force by saying "he deployed A military" and in a section below stating "The NG are part of the military." That the article leaves this issue ambiguous is emphasized by Banak's question below about the National Guard being a police force. If in this article the National Guard is not a military force, it ought to make that clear, and if it is a military force, then it ought to make clear that the military has been used, by states or otherwise, to regulate, for want of a better word, the protests. The presence of the 3rd Ranger Battalion ought to be explained too. 68.96.208.77 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
National Guard soldiers are military personnel, part of the reserve component. The key issue here revolves around whether or not those personnel are called up under Title 32 or Title 10. If Title 32 under their state's governor, they are in a state status and not prohibited from law enforcement duties by Posse Comitatus. If Title 10 under the authority of the president, then they are in a federal status and operate under the same restrictions that apply to the active component. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue I have raised is about whether the military has been deployed because the ambiguous phrasing of the article suggests, for example to Banak, that the National Guard is a police force. I've tried to make it clear that I'm not making a point about by whom, how, why or in what capacity it has been deployed, but I appreciate the detail of your insight, AzureCitizen. 68.96.208.77 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
Can you quote the specific text in the article that's an issue, i.e., the text that makes the ambiguous statement? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that you've renamed the image that formerly purported to show the 3rd Ranger Battalion, AzureCitizen, so I feel glad to have instigated that improvement. On the topic of the National Guard, I've listed Banak's question as indicating the article is misleading, and I've listed specific language above, so at this point I am just repeating myself, and I've given the issue enough time, so this should be my last post. I have enjoyed putting my thoughts in order though, so thank you all for that. Everyone bar perhaps Pasdecomplot regards the National Guard as part of the military, so my suggested edits would be change "had called in the National Guard" to "had called in military units from the National Guard" and change "threatened to deploy the U.S. military" to "threatened to deploy federal military units." 68.96.208.77 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Constructive Feedback
On the first item, I've changed the text that read "had called in the National Guard" to instead read "had activated over 17,000 National Guard personnel," which is more in keeping with the cited source anyway. On the second item, I've added "federal units of". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
azurecitizen's points are good except the Guard does not have the same standing as other DoD armed forces - it's a blend. Thus it can aid law enforcement where armed forces is restricted by Possee Comitatus. Possibly helpful info:
1. National Guard history from [1]
"The National Guard is a unique and essential element of the U.S. military. Founded in 1636 as a citizen force organized to protect families and towns from hostile attacks, today’s National Guard Soldiers hold civilian jobs or attend college while maintaining their military training part time, always ready to defend the American way of life in the event of an emergency."
2. Recent statement from [2] ARLINGTON, Va. – “The National Guard has gone from tackling natural disasters such as floods, to combating the coronavirus across the country, to now dealing with civil unrest in support of law enforcement on the streets of America,” said Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper recently. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you clarify a bit on what you mean when you say the Guard does not have the "same standing" as the other branches of the armed forces? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The name of this article should be changed with the times
if you think 50 states and numerous countries around the world are marching and enduring tear gas and pepper spray and rubber bullets for the death of one man, you are incredibly naïve. these protests now have taken on a greater meaning, these protests are now for wider police reform, and to call the world fighting police brutality and authoritarianism a “george floyd protest” fails to accurately depict the movement that is sweeping the western world as we speak. make no mistake, these protests are demanding action for george floyd’s death, but to ignore the larger message currently plaguing the people would be a huge disservice to the non-prejudice nature of wikipedia. I encourage us all to do better. thank you. Camdoodlebop (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yet I consistently see signs that say "I can't breathe" and "Justice for Floyd." It started with George Floyd and this is consistently the root of the protests. I see no reason to change it Anon0098 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You are correct that the protests are for wider police reform. But, this is how it started and how it's named. That's not unusual. O3000 (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
If sources start calling it something else (e.g., the American Spring, 2020 Rebellion), then we'll talk about a change. But until then, we go by what sources say. And it's still all stemming from Floyd's killing. EvergreenFir(talk)22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
i think, because there had already been four requested moves earlier, many editors have been informally refraining from making another move request. if you look through the archives, i believe you can see that many editors have believed early on that the protests were not only about one man. however, since the situation was still very fluid at the time, naming them after george floyd seemed the best option at the time, per consensus.
that being said, i actually have been noticing international press starting to refer to the protests as "anti-racism protests" or "protests against police brutality", so i actually came to the talk page to comment on this before i saw this section. i feel it's too early to move the page again to either of these options, as both options seem to be used pretty commonly, and selecting one would highlight that issue, creating controversy since the other wasn't selected, and further confusion if the media eventually decide to use the other option. in addition, i believe some protests in other countries have also highlighted victims of police brutality that were members of the majority race in that country, while other protests have apparently highlighted racism without explicitly denouncing police brutality aside from references to floyd.
i suppose "anti-racism protests against police brutality" covers both options, but it's a bit cumbersome, even though the phrase has actually appeared in the media.
also, i have no issues with leaving the article title as is, since it seems george floyd's name has now begun to symbolize standing against racism and police brutality, and i can't see why a movement can't be named after a person.
as a side note, i have seen the tokyo protest deleted multiple times by editors who did so because they believe floyd was not mentioned, even though his image appeared in photos and a video in the source (but not the text, which was in japanese). i'm assuming that, in such cases, the editors copied the text to a translator and looked for a reference to floyd in the translated text, not realizing the reference to floyd was not in the text itself. however, i mention these incidents to point out that a reference to floyd still appears to be an informal requirement. dying (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be changed.
The current title does not describe everything that is happening for the following reasons:
1) There have been riots, shootings, homicides, and assaults in addition to the protests
2) Other protests have occurred at the same time over different police killings of other black civilians in addition to George Floyd.
Thus it makes no sense to call it the 'George Floyd Protests'.
It should be called something that describes all forms of civil unrest that includes the year and the cause of the violent events, something which is also described by media a lot.
Suggestion {title: 2020 anti-police unrest}
The above title describes all events that happened over the police killing/s, plus it is called "The unrest" and "anti-police violence" numerous times in media, and it allows all info to be added to the article - such as related violence that were not part of the George Floyd protests. As it is right now, injuries cannot be included in the article because it's unclear how many injuries were due to the protests.
Also, various deaths caused by the event cannot be added to the article's death statistics because they were determined to not be part of protests despite being part of the overall unrest. With the title (2020 anti-police unrest) you can add all statistics related to it without so much afterthought.
If you do not want to call it the '2020 anti-police unrest' at least change it to the {George Floyd unrest} as protests are merely part of the overall unrest, not the whole thing. Warlight2 (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a really big difference between the phrase "anti-police" and "anti-police brutality". The latter is a far more accurate description of reasons for the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.201.237 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
A main cause of the unrest is police brutality, however the protests are anti-police with protesters carrying signs saying "F#*k the police" and a call for the abolishment of police departments. Warlight2 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not so much about the police or racism as much as it is about class
Though I largely share those sentiments, that is a discussion which goes beyond the scope and purpose of this article talk page. El_C23:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The media will never discuss poverty and how poverty is created by the ruling rich. The rule of law is used to enforce poverty. This is always the underlying motivation behind social explosions. The George Floyd protests were immediately hijacked by the media to condemn racism avoiding the fact that the American police state is routinely brutal towards the poor of any color. This needs to be added to the article.
The article must include in the description of the protests a sociological examination of poverty and stratification of wealth. These are widely understood to be key reasons for widespread agitation. The actual kindling incident is typically connected to an act of violence by the state. Race is used (this is a fact) by the media as a force for propaganda to divide, conquer and disable threats to extreme inequality. The article must include the media's important role in distributing propaganda to manage the dissent.
The article must mention that it is clearly the wealthy who dispense violence, it is always the role of the state to engage in violence and the wealthy control the state. It is the ruling class that has thrown people out of jobs, houses, into prisons, into ghettos and into kill zones. It is the wealthy the cops are paid to protect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.214.75 (talk • contribs)
That's a materialistic analysis which can be made of any event. But as most things in America, this is framed as a race issue, by the participants themselves.Drilou (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Needs a conflict box
Add two sides, each with leaders and belligerents.
For example: On the right side - Donald Trump, Chad Wolf, various governors, ...etc US armed forces, FBI, and various national guards and police departments, ...etc. On the left side - unknown leaders, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Boogaloo Movement, ...etc. Warlight2 (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done. Not quite yet. Protests are still happening and the National Guard is still deployed in some places. gobonobo+c03:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Photo of “Robert E. Lee” statue
The photo of “Robert E. Lee’s statue in Richmond, VA” is actually a photo of the Jeb Stuart statue that is located elsewhere on Richmond’s monument avenue. Johnlkim (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Should we have pictures of other cities unrest/protests on the intro box to reflect the current situation?
The pictures on the introbox at the beginning of the article is all from Minneapolis. It should have some other cities too to reflect the ongoing current situation. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Only two out of seven images depict the outcomes of destruction though one of these two is the most prominent image in the infobox. Perhaps a shuffle would be in order. Surtsicna (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I have shuffled the images a bit to try and make it more neutral, though I still think it is not ideal. I also would appreciate the images being more diverse in location as these protests have spread beyond Minneapolis and would encourage edits for those. DTM9025 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
These images are great! I have added them to the infobox with some associated captions, though the captions could probably use some better wordsmithing. Thanks for showing these! DTM9025 (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The images that were added did not capture the gravity or the political tenor of the protests. This edit turned the protests from a serious mass upheaval into a joy parade. Images of violence are neutral if presented well and they catalogue well-sourced and notable events in these protests. @UserDude:, please work with DTM9025 to curate an image gallery (like the one you've started) that is neutral but also realistic. Thank you. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅01:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I generally agree with your sentiment as right now the images, for the most part, do not capture the fact that these demonstrations have been met with a lot of violence and brutality, which we all know has happened. I'll try to do something about that when I have the time. DTM9025 (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I think any of the three images would do well, thanks for the context, though I like the last one more slightly. It's up to you. Thanks for doing all of this by way! DTM9025 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment I'd rather have a picture depicting police brutality directly rather than crowd responses to it, and one of attacks on/arrests of journalists by police instead of either the burning building or the fire. Banak (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Side Conversation – Suggestions Incorporated Above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that image of the destroyed street is one of the most important pictures there because it really encapsulates the scale of the damage done in that area. Work needs to be done to flush out which pictures need to stay Anon0098 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I query the picture captions in the infobox, re the use of "peaceful". It seems possible, AGF, somebody has gone through and added 'peaceful' at each occurrence (three) of 'protestor'. Without a source.
One would assume 'peaceful', without a reliable source saying otherwise, so it's not necessary to be said.
The actual descriptions on the images pages do not say 'peaceful' explicitly. Not sure whether that would be considered RS.
Shouldn't it be simply "… protestor …", unless a RS states otherwise. Meaning 'violent' protestor, or other adjective, like 'aggressive'.
I wrote the captions. I don't really have any strong feelings towards "peaceful protester" versus "protester", I just wrote "peaceful protester" to contrast with the term "demonstrator" used on the captions of images depicting violence. The one case where I think it might be important to include is the last image (commons:File:Helpers (cropped).jpg), to illustrate that tear gas was used on peaceful protesters. While there's no way to truly know if the protester was peaceful, there is strong circumstantial evidence that he was; namely, that Georgia National Guard describes him as a protest demonstrator effected by tear gas during curfew enforcement[56]. While an independent photographer might be hesitant to call a protester a "looter/rioter/etc." or say they were violent, the National Guard would not. userdude05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Done userdude 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree to some form of split, but
Question: where would a description of protests (and/or riots) outside of Minnesota that don’t have their own article go?―BlaueBlüte (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Partly done:. I have replaced Institutional racism in the infobox with Racism, because the source cited does not support institutional racism as a factor. Whether or not to include the lockdowns as a contributing factor is less clear-cut, so I have not done so. However, this should not be interpreted as an opinion against doing so. Similarly, this should not be interpreted as an opinion against including Institutional racism if a reliable source supports it. userdude 12:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Already done Ed6767 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. userdude 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A boarded up information building in Romare Bearden Park
Protest signs on the ground in Charlotte
A protest station at the Mecklenburg County Jail in center city Charlotte.
Protesters with signs at the Mecklenburg County Jail.
A defaced city sign in Charlotte (unsure about appropriateness due to language)
An end racism message on a sign in Charlotte
A notable local statue draped in a BLM message in Charlotte
Done Nothing biased about it. Added to George Floyd protests#Federal with this edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(49944144822).jpg){kind=link}
_(49943357188).jpg){kind=link}
_(49943348143).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}