Talk:George Floyd protests

Inappropriate split

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. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 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. Someone Not Awful (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support split per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 21:25, 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.

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 Moi 17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Twin Cities riots → 2020 United States police brutality riots – Riots have spread beyond the Twin Cities; for instance, rioting has occurred in Columbus, Ohio, and numerous other cities as well (see NBC4 report on the rioting/protests that occurred: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/crowds-gather-across-columbus-to-protest-police-brutality/ Also see Twitter post by NBC4 reporter Eric Halperin: https://twitter.com/EricHalperinTV/status/1266229197896286208) TZLNCTV (talk) 06:15, 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)
• Wait. Too early to tell anything. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Document the individual events. We can create a list of them later. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 07:05, 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. "police brutality riots" is too vague. Miss HollyJ (talk) 07:43, 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 until more information is known about the scope of the riots.  Nixinova   T   C   08:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose you either say where they are or the what they are about, not a social issue.Life200BC (talk) 11:30, 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 • Talk 10:33, 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 per MelanieN. Recommend a SNOW close, so the template at the top of the article can be changed to reflect #Requested move 29 May 2020 (3). userdude 15:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The scope of this article is the local riots, not the nationwide response. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:58, 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 (2)

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)

---

2020 Twin Cities riots → 2020 Twin Cities Uprising

Uprising is the correct term here, not riotUnibrow69420 (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose You have not bothered to list a single reason why that is the correct term here. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:49, 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)
• Oppose they are riots not uprising.Life200BC (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Super opinionated. Love of Corey (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is subjective, but to me the term "uprising" sounds very biased towards the rioters. 90.250.184.135 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• SNOW Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. userdude 12:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation.
**@Ed6767: You deleted my comment here. Was this on purpose or accidental? userdude 14:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC) UserDude, accidental! So sorry, thanks for pointing it out. Ed6767 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC) No problem; AGF and all. userdude 14:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - opinionated and this isn't an uprising yet Ed6767 (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Propose WP:SNOW close here? Ed6767 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:20, 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)

---

Twin Cities riots → Twin Cities protests – Per the Radio Television Digital News Association guidelines: Do not use words like protest and riot -- or protester and rioter -- interchangeably. Protest can be legal or not. Rioting is by definition a crime. (source) This article should be renamed to a more neutral term, and one that is supported by sourcing such as BBC News, CNN, The New York Times, etc. as well as precedent at 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, 2019–2020 Iraqi protests, 2019–2020 Lebanese protests, 1999 Seattle WTO protests, etc. Would also support "Twin Cities unrest", following the convention of Ferguson unrest, but "protest" appears to be the wording more widely used in sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - per WP:CENSOR and other articles like 2011 England riots. Ed6767 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support - neutral regarding this change. Other people have some very valid points. Ed6767 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Neutrality is not censorship, nor does WP:CENSOR support this argument. And I could just as easily point to plenty of articles named "___ protests" (for example, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, 2019–2020 Iraqi protests, 2019–2020 Lebanese protests, 1999 Seattle WTO protests, etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:42, 29 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)

  I agree with your below suggestion that a formal RfC might be needed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:26, 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)

• Oppose - protests & riots are taking place, but it's the riots which are notable & the focus of this article. Jim Michael (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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 | Talk 12:43, 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)
• Oppose I agree with Jim, Riots are notable, protests are not.Life200BC (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • What part of the WP:GNG is that in? Gamaliel (talk) 12:52, 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)
      • You do realize that we literally have a Category:Protests by year which lists a lot of "not just riots" protests that are notable, such as Gezi Park protests or 2019–20 Hong Kong protests? Regards SoWhy 14:36, 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)
          • The deaths of 22 people were a result of the Gezi Park protests. Whilst not riots, they were far from peaceful. Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 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)
• Oppose per Jim Michael. userdude 14:05, 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. userdude 14:30, 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. userdude 15:13, 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. userdude 07:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• For ease of access, I will list the sources that use the term "riot", "rioters", or "rioting" here:

1. France 24
2. CBS Minnesota
3. KIRO7
4. KARE11
5. FOX News
6. The Australian
7. Variety
8. NPR
9. Yahoo News
10. Reuters
11. City Journal
12. The Washington Post
13. KIMT3
14. WRAL
15. Diario AS (english)
16. amNY
17. Star Tribune
18. Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal
19. Minnesota Daily
20. Publishers Weekly
21. RealClear Politics

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. userdude 08:10, 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)

• Wikipedia follows reliable sources, it doesn't make decisions to spite reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Who said anything about spite? Spengouli (talk) 15:16, 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). userdude 07:32, 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 - NPOV. Many similar articles are named "protests",like 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. --DRIZZLE (talk) 14:33, 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 SoWhy 14:37, 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)

  I suspect this issue would be a good candidate for a broader RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have a feeling that the LA article is at the WP:COMMONNAME --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:49, 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. GMG^talk 15:21, 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. — Starforce¹³ 15:33, 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)

• Those are three sources, with one being the dubious FOX News. Here are 13 top news organizations that have gone with protests if you search for Google News "floyd protests" vs "floyd riots." They are newspapers, television news, and radio concerns that have all used "protests" in the headline as the main way to refer to these incidents - NY Times, CNBC, National Public Radio, Detroit Free Press, Minnesota Public Radio, CBS News, CNN, Business Insider, Washington Post, Denver Post, Al Jazeera English, The Guardian (UK), Wall Street Journal. That is a much more comprehensive and respected list of WP:RS. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:43, 30 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.) userdude 07:47, 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 ^{+ c} 16:38, 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)

• Comment 2020 Twin Cities protests would seem reasonable to address this.--Pharos (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  +1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• That's why we use dates in titles. Like 2014 Hong Kong protests and 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Like 2012 United States elections and 2016 United States elections. Gates of Ale (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Response to Comment 2020 Twin Cities protests would rightfully include the anti-lockdown protests in St. Paul last month as well. Kire1975 (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support “Protests” is more general than “riots” and more accurate. It also has more support in sources. Volunteer Marek 17:57, 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)
• Comment There should be an article (probably 2020 Twin Cities protests) that covers the nonviolent and violent protesting that follows the language used in the sourcing. I also think that it's important to have an article that focuses on the tactics (violent or nonviolent) of the protesting once this has been more fleshed out over time similar to Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Mccunicano☕️ 18:09, 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 | Talk 06:48, 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)

• Just a comment, but riots include crime. Criminal activity is the majority of these "protests". Aardwolf68 (talk) 19:42, 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 | Talk 06:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now - For now, I support Twin Cities protests, as this is more neutral. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:05, 29 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 | Talk 06:59, 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)

• Strong support "2020 Twin Cities protests" per above, due to NPOV concerns about the current title and the precedent of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Per most. Most if not all protests have violent rioting side effects. To name a few within the past year, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, 2019–2020 Catalan protests, Yellow Vest protests, Citizenship Amendment Act protests, etc. JesseC436 (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Davey2116 and JesseC436: Not a precedent. See my comment just above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:15, 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 per Fuzheado. "Riots" is limiting in scope. إيان (talk) 22:49, 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 | Talk 06:24, 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 - Looting and burning down homes/businesses aren't protesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C60:5300:1714:8163:6AE7:47E1:A157 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — 2600:6C60:5300:1714:8163:6AE7:47E1:A157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• 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 | Talk 00:32, 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 | Talk 00:19, 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 | Talk 00:24, 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 | Talk 00:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That was accidental, read my edit summary, I removed that one. Anyway what matters is WP:RS and they term it as riot. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree what matters is WP:RS. Here is the tally - 13 major news orgs using protests consistently in headlines, and not riots - NY Times, CNBC, National Public Radio, Detroit Free Press, Minnesota Public Radio, CBS News, CNN, Business Insider, Washington Post, Denver Post, Al Jazeera English, The Guardian (UK), Wall Street Journal. FOX News [9] use riots, and France24 [10] [11] and Yahoo! [12] [13] both use "riots" and "protests." -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:17, 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)

• Support & speedy close, per NPOV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 30 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 | Talk 01:24, 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 | Talk 01:18, 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)
  • This is demonstrably not true in Wikipedia - we have plenty of articles about protests that include violence and vandalism, and they are still called "protests." Most recently, see 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • And there are other articles on Wikipedia that use the term "riots". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:42, 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)

Cantstandthishypocrisy, that's why we seek consensus Ed6767 (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Riots is a politically loaded term. Protests is NPOV. See anti-lockdown protests for relevant example. Unibrow69420 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• That's not a relevant example. There wasn't widespread arson and looting during the quarantine protests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Per 2015 Baltimore protests and NPOV Jokullmusic 01:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, that article should probably be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• 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 | Talk 07:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Not isolated to Twin Cities. ~ HAL333 04:04, 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)? userdude 07:13, 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. Valentinian ^{T / C} 04:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• The article also clearly describes the protests and context, as seen in the Timeline section. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:31, 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 | Talk 06:14, 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 by Pikamander2 (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. -- Dane ^talk 07:13, 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:
  • Protests – 13 major news orgs use "protests" consistently in headlines, and not riots - NY Times, CNBC, National Public Radio, Detroit Free Press, Minnesota Public Radio, CBS News, CNN, Business Insider, Washington Post, Denver Post, Al Jazeera English, The Guardian (UK), Wall Street Journal.
  • Riots – one organization, FOX News uses riots and looting on a consistent basis
  • Both or inconsistent – two organizations use "riots" and "protests" at different points - France24 [14] [15] and Yahoo! [16] [17].

- Fuzheado | Talk 07:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• 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.

@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.

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.)
4. 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, userdude 11:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2020 (4)

Twin Cities protests → George Floyd protests

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)

Please wait until the other RM is resolved. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 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)
• Comment - Does no one see all the other ongoing renaming discussions going on? Love of Corey (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - @Love of Corey:, "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) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Still think this is already overkill. Love of Corey (talk) 21:14, 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)
• Note George Floyd protests (permalink) has been split off from this article & Support merging George Floyd protests here and moving this page (Twin Cities riots) to that title while expanding the scope at the same time to list all notable protests.  Nixinova   T   C   08:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems to be more than one City now and "twin city" seemed a little slangy. Games of the world (talk) 08:26, 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)
• Support : Protests have spread nationwide to Atlanta, LA, and people are also protesting outside the White House. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 11:25, 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)

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.

1. 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)".
2. "Unrest" is also a valid term to describe what is going on (it is what is used for Ferguson unrest)
3. 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)

Incorrect image caption

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)

• Support The 3rd district police station looks like this. Kire1975 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Love of Corey (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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:

• 2020 Twin Cities Riot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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. userdude 12:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Infobox image

Currently, the most prominent image in the infobox is commons:File:Protest against police violence - Justice for George Floyd, May 26, 2020 08.jpg. This image shows a peaceful protest. While I understand the desire to not mislead readers into thinking the protests were entirely violent, this article is about the riots, so the infobox should only contain images related to the riots. Images of peaceful protest might belong in the Background section. userdude 12:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

arrest stats?

are there any official stats on the number of people arrested yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:b04:2000:1d51:a038:d0ed:a8b6 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

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. Medics in the ambulance were unable to find a pulse from Floyd and he was pronounced dead at the hospital.

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. 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. Medics in the ambulance were unable to find a pulse from Floyd and he was pronounced dead at the hospital.

YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THIS IN THE VIDEO... 50.235.81.146 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

 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. userdude 14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a riot

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.

Please look into this tweet and all the official and hidden information related to it before writing this off as some “Blacks are always violent” drivel. https://twitter.com/jazzyjazz017/status/1266101791013376001?s=21 2604:2000:1107:8A76:2DC7:8A7A:1FDD:33FE (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• "you HAVE to know they did this shit" is not a reliable source. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. userdude 15:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

R. J. Dockery, you may wish to participate in the page move survey above. Ed6767 (talk) 01:42, 30 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

@2604:2000:1107:8A76:2DC7:8A7A:1FDD:33FE: Title has already been changed as per earlier discussions among editors. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon

• https://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/2020/05/portland-police-respond-to-george-floyds-in-custody-death-in-minneapolis-prepare-for-local-protests.html
• https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/1-arrested-in-Portland-during-George-Floyd-death-15303382.php
• https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/downtown-portland-protests-george-floyd-05292020/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of these photos may be public domain

https://www.voanews.com/gallery/minneapolis-protesters-demand-justice-black-man-who-died-police-custody

Two of these images appear to not be watermarked, and may be by a voa employee which would be PD Victor Grigas (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The photos are attributed to Reuters. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

These look like they would be beneficial to have in a Wiki article. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

None of these images can be used because they don't fall under fair use. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 03:01, 30 May 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?  Nixinova   T   C   00:13, 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. userdude 07:07, 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.TheMemeMonarch (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, plus with the attack on the CNN building in Atlanta, 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)

I wholeheartedly agree. maybe a good name would be: Floyd protests and riots or something like that because the protest and riots are both notable and included in this article.Life200BC (talk) 04:13, 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:

• Protests – 13 major news orgs using "protests" consistently in headlines, and not riots - NY Times, CNBC, National Public Radio, Detroit Free Press, Minnesota Public Radio, CBS News, CNN, Business Insider, Washington Post, Denver Post, Al Jazeera English, The Guardian (UK), Wall Street Journal.
• Riots – one organization, FOX News uses riots and looting on a consistent basis
• Both or inconsistent – two organizations use "riots" and "protests" at different points - France24 [18] [19] and Yahoo! [20] [21].

-- Fuzheado | Talk 07:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See #Requested move 29 May 2020 (4) for a discussion about moving this to George Floyd protests  Nixinova   T   C   08:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

does it seem like time...

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)

See #Requested move 29 May 2020 (4) for a discussion about moving this to George Floyd protests.  Nixinova   T   C   08:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Content was split out

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)

Note: Reuters is calling these the I Can't Breathe Protests [22]. Volunteer Marek 08:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's quite a vague and nonobvious title for a page to have.  Nixinova   T   C   08:22, 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)

Background

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)

Controversial police activities

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)

Seems more than reasonable to discuss if well sourced. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your notion BeŻet --Hiveir (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Add "LMPD officer fires pepper balls at WAVE 3 News reporter during Louisville protest" https://www.wave3.com/2020/05/29/lmpd-officer-fires-pepper-balls-wave-news-reporter-during-louisville-protest/ --Hiveir (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Media simply lying about "facts"

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.

Source? --Hiveir (talk) 12:25, 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)