Talk:Ferguson unrest

Clean Up...

This article is probably due for a cleanup by February of 2015, and a possible major revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamchado (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop white washing this article. Include photos of Ferguson burning after the verdict.

It's obvious which way this article leans. If a photo of a cop with a gun pointing at the camera can be included, so should photos of the rioters. I've seen the video of the police officer photographed. That occurred very quickly, within 2 seconds, another officer grabbed him and straightened him out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:9080:1C8:B5B0:33CD:7387:A6A1 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Tshuva (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The interesting thing about these articles is that half the people think it leans one way and the other half think it leans another way. Looking here, I'm not seeing much in the way of "burning" photos. It might be helpful to mention specific images available to us and specific locations in the article rather than just a generic statement of disapproval. – JBarta (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Reactions" section

The section should be in prose. I don't like the encouragement of bulleting the list. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with George Ho's addition of a prose tag to the Reactions section. In prose, this would essentially be the same list, but using blank lines instead of bullets for delimiters. This would result in a long series of short paragraphs, many of them just one sentence. I think the bullets work better for this purpose. I was tempted to revert per WP:BRD, but I'm not in a reverting mood today.

Me, I'm a lot more concerned about the clear misuse of flags in International reactions, per MOS:FLAG. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed the flags per MOS:FLAG. Still thinking about the prose tag. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

2 officers shot in front of Ferguson PD, March 12

“ The shots, which witnesses said they believed originated from the

top of a hill about 220 yards directly across from the station, came just hours after the Ferguson police chief, Thomas Jackson, announced that he would resign, a move greeted with praise from protesters.

”

“ But by midnight, the situation calmed down, and the number of

protesters dwindled to around 100, if not fewer. They stood on the east side of South Florissant Road, while the police held their line on the west side, in front of the station.

Then, without any warning or seeming escalation, the shots rang out.

”

• Eligon, John (March 12, 2015). "2 Officers Are Shot Outside Ferguson Police Station". The New York Times.

--Jeremyb (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Is this going to be incorporated at all?

Rename Article to 2014-2015 Ferguson Unrest

As they currently cannot do so, @ShadowHawk555 has asked me to post this on their behalf. Should the article be renamed to include 2015 due to the recent sniper incident? - Amaury (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

High-profile news will continue in Ferguson for years if not decades. It is the new poster boy city for police racism issues. This non-fatal shooting would have gotten far less news coverage if it had happened in Decatur, Georgia, and not enough to justify a mention in any Wikipedia article. I'd be more amenable to renaming it to "Ferguson unrest", or just leaving it alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The sniper incident is definitely a bad reason - there's really no evidence connecting it to anything else, e.g. the protesters. For all we know now, an unusually bright ISIS sympathizer hit on it as a way to drum up discord. It is clear that protests are ongoing - I'm not so sure about "civil disorder". The article lumps together these two things under the very vague description of "unrest", but which is the real headliner? Should this be about the 2014 Ferguson disorder, or even the 2014 Ferguson riots, focusing mainly on the significant criminal actions, or should it focus on the 2014-2015 Ferguson protests, to which this is only marginally relevant? I would lean toward the latter. Wnt (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the rational first priority in general here might be a History of Ferguson, Missouri, article. It could include sections on both the shooting and the 2014 events, or maybe a single section on both. I think it can probably be argued that WorldCat contains enough entries related to that topic to indicate its notability, and it would be a good springboard for material on this incident, and any aftermath it might have, and, well, anything else in the future related to the city. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Per Mandruss, leave it alone or rename to "Ferguson unrest". - Cwobeel (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ferguson unrest" seems like a good choice, even if the article pertained strictly to events that occurred in 2014. Unless and until we have an article about unrelated unrest in Ferguson, there's no need to append a year (or years) for disambiguation. —David Levy 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, we can easily move this again if a future event with no connection to Trayvon Martin happens.--67.68.31.204 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2015

2014 Ferguson unrest → Ferguson unrest – Because of recent article-worthy events, it was proposed in a thread on this page to change "2014" to "2014—2015". To date, three users have proposed removing the year instead, which is enough to justify this request for move. Feel free to add to the earlier discussion, but please limit your participation here to a Support or Oppose !vote on "Ferguson unrest", with your argument of course. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. My argument is in the earlier discussion, no need to repeat it here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Cwobeel (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - the current name implies the event ended last year. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)