Talk:George Floyd protests

Split proposal: Reactions

Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and part of it should be split to a new page entitled Reactions to the George Floyd protests. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think international reactions are definitely a split. However, "domestic reactions" (as currently written) are not really reactions, but either actions or words by actual participants of the events. For example, On June 1 he [Donald Trump] spoke from the Rose Garden, where he proclaimed "I am your president of law and order" and said he was "dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers" to deal with rioting in Washington, D.C. That belongs to this page, but possibly should be moved to a different section. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Concur with My very best wishes. Domestic reactions are not just a product of the protests, but also affect the protests. They should remain in the main article. userdude 18:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Split I need a better reason than a page size, which still falls within the limits, to support a split. Reactions, international or otherwise, are an integral part of this protest and affect the movement. Also, Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this falls into the category of "Length alone does not justify division". DTM9025 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed they are, and that is why it deserves a dedicated article to talk about it. RBolton123 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Support split - As I said above, the reactions to this protest are as important to understanding the topic as the protests themselves, and it deserves its own page. RBolton123 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sort of confused by this reasoning as if they are important to understand the protests, shouldn't they be in the protest article? DTM9025 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support split - Seems reasonable. Love of Corey (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support split as per all the arguments above. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support split or trim for the same reasons Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani was created 6 months ago. Reaction sections for big events are always bloated since everyone has something to say, so just give it its own page, or, alternatively, trim the section way down to only relevant and actually notable reactions. RopeTricks (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support trim and split - The article is way too long. As usual, I think "reactions" sections are unencyclopedic and should be removed; second choice, though, is to split. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the split. - Featous (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that there was consensus yet, especially in the question of the fact that the reactions are fundamentally a product and a part of the protests, which I believe means that it should remain in the article and would like an answer about why that fact would mean it should be in a different article as one of the posters was mentioning. As such, I have reverted the split for now but would love to understand RBolton123 explanation on his points. DTM9025 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You are the only person of eight who opposes and it was two days since the last response. Shall we give it another two days for the surge of opposes that you are expecting? - Featous (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are three people opposing the split? userdude and My very best wishes including me? DTM9025 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

DTM9025, it's now been another week. Are we good to go ahead and split? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be trimmed. Cole DiBiase (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support split Yeah, per the reasons stated by others, this is way too long of a page, and might I add that it even loads much slower comparatively. As a side note, perhaps other sections may need splits as well? I can also see the section about the covid concerns needing a split, to create an article that can go alongside all the other covid related articles. boldblazer (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose split – Reactions to the protests are important context, I think the separate section is enough and splitting the article would make it more difficult to find relevant information. The page isn't too long and the table of contents is there for a reason. SpockFan02 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support international split per My very best wishes Anon0098 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)\
• Support split Yes, support the split. Also, I think "Reactions" could be expanded to include reactions from various corporations, organizations etc thus the "Reactions" page has considerable room to grow -- which makes it even more necessary to have it on a separate page. EnneDee (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support split per Reactions to Occupy Wall Street and Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Tvc 15 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose split – Reactions are a core part to the page and are necessary for its interpretation. Removing it to another page cripples this page in its entirety, nor is the reactions strong enough to fill its own page. Violence and controversies has more strength as an independent page, and I'd oppose the removal of that section as well. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• A reactions section should go to Wikiquote. We do this literally every time that a major breaking news story happens, and people want to insert everything they find online into an article. GMG^talk 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support split - I believe it is important to keep reactions like Donald Trump's and other important political officials on this page because of their large impact on the protests. But I do think reactions from celebrities and corporations should be separated. Although many of them did supportive things like join protests and donate, they did not have a massive impact on protests in terms of largely changing their outcome. I believe celebs and corporation's reactions should be separated, but largely important politicians, governments, and organization's reactions should stay since many protests were targeted at them to make change, and how they reacted and the laws they passed as a result of this have had a massive impact on their countries and the goals of these protests. Uelly (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we have pictures of other cities unrest/protests on the intro box to reflect the current situation?

The pictures on the introbox at the beginning of the article is all from Minneapolis. It should have some other cities too to reflect the ongoing current situation. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - A few photos, preferably ones at major cities, should sound fine. Love of Corey (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support but it needs to include at least one photos at non-US major cities as well. 36.77.95.159 (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:George Floyd protests#Neutrality of images in infobox. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 04:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Support

Long Beach CA and NYC haven't been getting much coverage. Cole DiBiase (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality of images in infobox

The images in the infobox seem to highlight the destructive parts of the protests (at least to me), despite what is stated in articles such as List of George Floyd protests in the United States and List of George Floyd protests outside the United States, where a very large portion of protests have been peaceful. Is this neutral enough? The images also are mostly (all?) from the protests in Minneapolis, despite the widespread international protests. Ideally the images should present the topic neutrally and holistically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.177.117 (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Only two out of seven images depict the outcomes of destruction though one of these two is the most prominent image in the infobox. Perhaps a shuffle would be in order. Surtsicna (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I have shuffled the images a bit to try and make it more neutral, though I still think it is not ideal. I also would appreciate the images being more diverse in location as these protests have spread beyond Minneapolis and would encourage edits for those. DTM9025 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The images commons:File:George Floyd Protest Nashville 053020.png and commons:File:George Floyd protests.NYC.2020-06-01.Queens.Astoria Park.5.jpg, from Tennessee and New York, respectively, seem suitable for the infobox. userdude 00:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, commons:File:Keep Formation.jpg, commons:File:Hold the Line - 49984062448.jpg, commons:File:2020.05.31 Protesting the Murder of George Floyd, Washington, DC USA 152 35031 (49957236301).jpg, commons:File:George Floyd protests in Philadelphia 15.jpg, and commons:File:Texas National Guard Supports Local Law Enforcement - 49985911437.jpg from Georgia, Georgia, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Texas, respectively. userdude 00:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

These images are great! I have added them to the infobox with some associated captions, though the captions could probably use some better wordsmithing. Thanks for showing these! DTM9025 (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The images that were added did not capture the gravity or the political tenor of the protests. This edit turned the protests from a serious mass upheaval into a joy parade. Images of violence are neutral if presented well and they catalogue well-sourced and notable events in these protests. @UserDude:, please work with DTM9025 to curate an image gallery (like the one you've started) that is neutral but also realistic. Thank you. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 01:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with your sentiment as right now the images, for the most part, do not capture the fact that these demonstrations have been met with a lot of violence and brutality, which we all know has happened. I'll try to do something about that when I have the time. DTM9025 (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What do people think of this:

? userdude 03:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Almost When you mouse-over the link, the thumbnail is the worst image: the fire. Can we change it to the top image instead?
• Support looks good to me Anon0098 (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support What I really think would further contextualize the article is to have images that showcases:

scale, size, peaceful protests, violent interactions, historically significant moments, and police-protestor dynamic

That way we can encapsulate the article in its entirety with all the appropriate due weight. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 04:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I personally would switch the top image to commons:File:2020.05.31 Protesting the Murder of George Floyd, Washington, DC USA 152 35039 (49957522627).jpg and mayber remove commons:File:The Day Miami Burned (49954673792).jpg (unless I'm missing something about it), but I think that works. We can shuffle the images around later. DTM9025 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@TM9025: The two crowd images are fairly interchangeable; I prefer the Texas image because it shows the Texas National Guard in the foreground. commons:File:The Day Miami Burned (49954673792).jpg shows protesters fleeing from tear gas, intended to show police violence against protesters. Perhaps commons:File:5-27-2020 (22 of 61) (49944144822).jpg or commons:File:Reaction to tear gas at George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C.jpg would work in its place. userdude 04:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I think any of the three images would do well, thanks for the context, though I like the last one more slightly. It's up to you. Thanks for doing all of this by way! DTM9025 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with commons:File:Reaction to tear gas at George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C.jpg is that when it's in the infobox, it's too small to really tell what's going on. commons:File:5-27-2020 (2 of 61) (49943357188).jpg, commons:File:5-27-2020 (16 of 61) (49943348143).jpg, and commons:File:Helpers.jpg would also work. I prefer commons:File:Helpers.jpg because it's not in Minneapolis, it shows the Georgia National Guard, and it shows someone known to be a peaceful protester, thus showing police violence against peaceful protesters. userdude 03:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article lens itself well if commons:File:2020.05.31 Protesting the Murder of George Floyd, Washington, DC USA 152 35039 (49957522627).jpg was at the bottom or at the very least a row to itself as it encapsulates a lot of the points the demonstrators are making. DTM9025 (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support, also agree with DonSpencer1. However, I restored the previous layout for now as there is still no consensus per WP:CON. QuestFour (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'd rather have a picture depicting police brutality directly rather than crowd responses to it, and one of attacks on/arrests of journalists by police instead of either the burning building or the fire. Banak (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Side Conversation – Suggestions Incorporated Above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've replaced topmost image to get rid of the unsightly crosswalk and repositioned images; please see diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC) I think that image of the destroyed street is one of the most important pictures there because it really encapsulates the scale of the damage done in that area. Work needs to be done to flush out which pictures need to stay Anon0098 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC) I did not remove such an image; here's the infobox before I made my edits: [1]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Suggested replacement Suggested image to be added: the monument. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Suggesting this one be replaced: Austin, TX. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC) I wonder if the monument image may be a good addition to the infobox, perhaps instead of the Austin, TX image: Rationale: there's already a crowd image at the top; removal of confederate monuments became a big feature of the protests; the sky would add "airyness" to the infobox, which looks quite busy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Picture captions

I query the picture captions in the infobox, re the use of "peaceful". It seems possible, AGF, somebody has gone through and added 'peaceful' at each occurrence (three) of 'protestor'. Without a source.

• One would assume 'peaceful', without a reliable source saying otherwise, so it's not necessary to be said.
• The actual descriptions on the images pages do not say 'peaceful' explicitly. Not sure whether that would be considered RS.
• Shouldn't it be simply "… protestor …", unless a RS states otherwise. Meaning 'violent' protestor, or other adjective, like 'aggressive'.

Comments? 220 of ^Borg 06:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the captions. I don't really have any strong feelings towards "peaceful protester" versus "protester", I just wrote "peaceful protester" to contrast with the term "demonstrator" used on the captions of images depicting violence. The one case where I think it might be important to include is the last image (commons:File:Helpers (cropped).jpg), to illustrate that tear gas was used on peaceful protesters. While there's no way to truly know if the protester was peaceful, there is strong circumstantial evidence that he was; namely, that Georgia National Guard describes him as a protest demonstrator effected by tear gas during curfew enforcement[2]. While an independent photographer might be hesitant to call a protester a "looter/rioter/etc." or say they were violent, the National Guard would not. userdude 05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

UserDude Thanks for the reply. I'm happy with that. :-) 220 of ^Borg 17:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Started a list of police reforms related to these events

See List of police reforms in the United States related to the killing of George Floyd. It's really late now, but I plan to continue working on it tomorrow. See Talk:List of police reforms in the United States related to the killing of George Floyd for some additional context. It just seemed like a good resource (and something that's getting a lot of coverage, and could overwhelm one of the main articles IMO). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Violence during the George Floyd protests" should have its own article within this main one

That way, it'll help the fix the issues the article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Should a separate article I propose be created within this main article, it also should include violence that happens internationally in relations to the protests. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a reasonable suggestion, there is a lot to talk about when it comes to violence, especially police violence, surrounding the protests. BeŻet (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this main article is about protests/unrest in general and yet all of the violence displayed here is from the U.S. That's why a separate article should be proposed in order to fix this problem that applies both inside and outside the U.S. equally and to alleviate the problem this main article is currently having. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

XXzoonamiXX, are you proposing to WP:SPINOFF the Violence and controversies section into a separate article, and if so, is it OK with you if we make that "official"? (With a split proposal notification template on the article.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm proposing, yes. Violence and controversies should have its own separate article in order to reduce the main article being too long to navigate, and that way, it can include violence both inside and outside the U.S. However, I won't get involved in creating that separate one, so it's up to anyone here to do it if they wish. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to this split being done boldly? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • By all means, go for it. No one's gonna stop you and if you want to do it, do it now rather than wait for others. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Many instances of violence and controversy are already covered in the George Floyd protest articles of various U.S. states and cities. Perhaps this article can note the most significant things and summarize some of what happened? Maybe more of effort should go into Improving those articles and adding controversial developments? Also, worth reading the Los Angeles riots article and MLK riots article for how things though of as critical to note now, may not be so in the future. Just a friendly thought, not a vote. VikingB (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support split - I support this size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I will probably take a crack at this in the next day or so. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A note on the count of cities

"Over 1,000 cities" comes from this list, which has over 2,000 towns/cities in the US listed in the list at the end (I extracted them and counted); our own map, which has a cutoff of over 100 protesters, currently has 1,002 cities. Without reconciling these lists, I went for "over 1,000" as a safe count. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 13:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

update - I had a friend verify my count of the NYT list with python, it is at 2,007 cities/towns. So I am going to increase the estimate in the article to "over 2,000". 60 countries comes from our own list, List of George Floyd protests outside the United States -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is far-left in quotes, but far-right not in quotes?

Lmao! Ridiculous, blatant bias. I have no words. CompactSpacez (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please indicate where in the article you found these things? It's way too long an article for us to go searching. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

the subheadings under reports of extremest activities. It’s gotten a lot of criticism over the past week. Something to do with how RSs characterize the different phrases, but I’m not really sure why editors are so adamant about not changing it tbh Anon0098 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed them, scare quotes are editorializing unless directly cited to a source. The note (Which was inappropriate per WP:HIDDEN "Inappropriate uses for hidden text:... Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit....Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing local consensus.") made it clear that these were not cited to sources but rather based on the assertion that "far-left" is a disputed term when applied to Antifa, which is WP:OR when applied to this situation. If the allegations were merely that Antifa was involved, sure, but the quoted source specifically includes allegations of "far-left extremist" involvement. We are not saying Antifa is far-left in Wikipedia's voice, we are saying this is what the allegations are. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks Anon0098 (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous to state those who are as being opposed to fascism (Antifa is not an organisation, it is a position) are automatically far left, regardless of if trump says so or not. We should lend no more credence to this than to his pseudo-scientific claims about vaccines. Banak (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability in the "Reactions" section (Facebook posts by local organizations etc.)

Since EnneDee has chosen to edit-war over their massive addition of links to the "Reaction from Domestic Community, Religious, and Cultural Organizations" section, I'll try to explain the problems and relevant policies in more detail here:

• It is not true that any post made from an organization's official Facebook account is automatically notable enough to be included here, as EnneDee argues. Rather, Wikipedia articles should include views based on their coverage of independent reliable sources on a topic, see WP:NPOV and WP:SPS.
• Linking an organization's website in the article text (separately from and in addition to citing statements in footnotes) may be desirable for the purpose for driving reader attention and web traffic to that organization, but it violates Wikipedia's external links guidelines. Please do not reinstate these links.
• There are likely tens of thousands of organizations, businesses and local churches around the world who have published statements on occasion of the killing of George Floyd, and on the other hand this central overview article about the protests is already way too long (over 300k currently). Maybe the Chicago Tamil Sangam's reaction could be included in the separate local article George Floyd protests in Chicago, but it is out of place in a global overview.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

EnneDee (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)'s response

• The "already way too long" argument is essentially an argument for moving the "Reactions" page to an independent page (as has been debated separately in this Talk page), it is not an argument for not allowing references to organizations that have stood for the cause. I do agree that the article is too long and am supportive of moving the "Reactions" page to an independent page.

• Regarding not linking to the organization's main page, I am fine with delinking, I personally don't care about that.

• Regarding "It is not true that any post made from an organization's official Facebook account is automatically notable enough to be included here" -- I would agree with you, it is not that "any post...is automatically notable enough" -- but given that these organizations have hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of members, the post that is the official statement on this exact topic is the primary source and thus makes it notable. I would agree with you that the statement by any 10 person organization/business is not notable enough, but where, in your view, should we draw the line at? 250 members? 500 members? 1000members?

(And no, not a "edit-war" -- we haven't really gone back and forth on the same edits multiple times to get to that point, and I don't intend to. Peace...)

Regards, EnneDee (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Add Rayshard Brooks to the death sections because it was a part of George Floyd protest and change death number to 23. 114.125.236.89 (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 10:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Brooks' death isn't even slightly related to the protests. He was being arrested for drunk driving Anon0098 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's not related - his death is fueling additional protests in Atlanta. What he was arrested for doesn't seem to be relevant. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No timeline after June 4th?

This article seems to stop at June 4th, but the protests are still ongoing. Why is there no information for these past 10 days? 163.158.13.177 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Death: Javar Harrell

Javar Harrell, a 21-year-old man, was killed in downtown Detroit on June 5 after someone fired shots into a vehicle during a protest.

According to a police report, Harrell, of Eastpointe, Mich., was sitting in the driver’s seat of a car in a parking lot with two others when someone opened fire and then ran away.

Detroit police have released photos of Harrell’s suspected killer, a man in a surgical mask, and a dark hooded sweater.

Source: https://fox6now.com/2020/06/08/deadly-unrest-here-are-the-people-who-have-died-amid-george-floyd-protests-across-us/

And? not every death is notable enough for inclusion, or directly link to the demos.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes it is Idan (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I strongly oppose Slatersteven vehemently here. Zvikorn has the right idea. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 2:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That is already covered here in this article in the death section. Seems like the link got the date wrong since Harrell was killed on May 29, not June 5. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Citations to Jerome Adams are being removed?

Hello, it seems that citations to a speech by Jerome Adams is being repeated removed. Is there a particular reason for this? It's the one in this link here:

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protests-05-30-20/h_27ad9fc2045f3cdccdc3aa7800e964a7

Eric.c.zhang (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: Need some context here, who is Jerome Adams?
Ah, "Jerome Michael Adams (born September 22, 1974) is an American anesthesiologist and a vice admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps who currently serves as the 20th Surgeon General of the United States. 220 of ^ßorg 03:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

In previous versions of the article his speech in that video there was listed as the citation for different items under "caused by" and "methods" sections of the infobox. At one point, he was cited for infbox item "Methods: Protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience, and civil resistance" But then this citation was subsequently removed, which actually broke the other citations link to him in this article. That infobox item was replaced with "Methods: Protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience, civil resistance and riots", without a citation. Why was this done? Eric.c.zhang (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: I don't know. If you want to trace it, you will need to go through the edit history to find the edit that "removed" the cite. It should have an edit summary describing the edit. I'm not certain if infobox data needs a cite, or not, it's just a 'summary' of what's on the page. 220 of ^ßorg 10:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Image of Hungarian man breathing five years ago - keep with context, or replace image?

I am concerned about the relevance of this photograph, and before I edited the caption to contextualise its age and location, people could have believed that this man was a protestor and was knowingly endangering the public in a pandemic.

While it is not February like when this photograph was taken, there should be some photograph somewhere from the thousands of demonstrations in which there is visible moisture from someone talking.

This man was doing a Santana tribute act five years ago on Hungary, and now his image is in a section about coronavirus disease being spread at protests. Millions of people are seeing this picture everyday, and he could never have predicted that. He has nothing to do with George Floyd or coronavirus. While support of BLM is high in society, this man's country takes a different view and that should be taken into account to protect him from retribution. [3] [4]

In my opinion this image should be removed ASAP as inappropriate for this man's privacy and easy to misinterpret. But I will not do a unilateral removal on a high traffic article. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

*Support Removal Takes up unnecessary space and is irrelevant Anon0098 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done by Writ Keeper with this edit. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson statue

Can someone upload this Thomas Jefferson statue image for the gallery on this page article? https://www.kptv.com/news/district-ready-to-listen-after-protesters-tear-down-thomas-jefferson-statue-in-front-of-portland/article_0b34b048-af63-11ea-b32d-63eb6ae35316.html I have no idea how to load images on here. Desslock97 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. @Desslock97: Per our policy on non-free content we cannot use images taken from news sources since they are almost always protected by copyright and a free image can probably obtained instead. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"GF protests" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GF protests. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#GF protests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Floydian protests" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Floydian protests. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#Floydian protests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

1. Change Geroge Floyd Protest to Police brutality Protest

Although the protests were sparked by the murder of george floyd, the protest is primarily about police brutality. The title of the document is misleading, as it implies the protests are primarily about the death of george floyd which would be a reduction of police brutality and all the past and future victims of it. Atish2049 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. @Atish2049: Per the top of this talk page, no more requests to change the title are allowed until 1 July 2020. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Help needed over at List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests

There are some 700+ reported cases of police violence, we need lots of help to find reliable sources for them, if such sources exist. Feoffer (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Violence and controversies, deaths

This is a silly and redundant section is a variety of ways, and needs to be diffused properly in the rest of the article or moved to List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests. The article already makes like five attempts at listing events by date, and this comes off very much as a catch-all for anything we couldn't be bothered to find a better spot for, up to and including events that in WP's own voice admittedly are not materially connected to the protests or where the connection is unclear.

We have to make some attempt to write an actual encyclopedia article rather than a compendium of one-sentence blurbs about whatever story happened to pop up on our news feed. GMG^talk 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I made this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd_protests#%22Violence_during_the_George_Floyd_protests%22_should_have_its_own_article_within_this_main_one XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

is right-wing involvement "alleged" at this point?

I had removed "alleged" from the section header "Alleged far-right and white supremacist involvement" as there are at least five arrests of boogaloo boys so far - two for the California police shootings and three from the Nevada protester bombing plot. This doesn't take into account other incidents described in the section. @RopeTricks: reverted with the explanation "alleged should remain on both titles or neither title in the name of neutrality". "Alleged far-left and anarchist involvement" not only doesn't include any people charged with a crime, but it doesn't describe any specific incidents at all. I understand the impulse to "both sides" this, but the content under the two section headers is not remotely equivalent. - Featous (talk)

Seems to me that if one has led to arrest and one has not both are still only alleged (an arrest is not a conviction, and wP:blp applies even to the far right). But we may need to find a way to make it clear there is not real evidence (beyond word salad) of far left involvement.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Featous "boogaloo boys", I haven't heard that before. Please explain?. Ah, I have now. Jargon! Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 18:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it. Given that there have been 5 arrests, it is no longer alleged.Unibrow69420 (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Images outside of Wikipedia

I noticed that this image, which was previously quite prominent in the page (more so than it is now), is also the only infobox image for the Commons category, and is one of a handful used on Wikidata. Because of that, it's going to be one of the default images for other language versions of this topic. While dramatic, it doesn't actually seem to capture the subject as well as some others. Maybe could use the attention of users who have been involved with selecting photos here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

In the May 29th subsection of the violence and controversies section, remove the word the before the word blood (or clarify whose blood was used) in the following sentence:

"The white van allegedly used in the murder had "Boog" and "I became unreasonable" written in the blood on the vehicle's hood."--137.25.135.131 (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 09:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section on looting?

Eg a discussion about why[5] and who[6][7]. It's not just protestors looting. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this deserves its own section. But yes, looters and protestors are largely seperate groups. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Albuquerque, New Mexico

That part of the page is mostly false information. Steven Ray Baca was not with the militia and the New Mexico Civil Guard said that he is not their member and they didn't know who the guy was. The page also says that he attacked a woman, yet the video shows that the woman harassed him (blocked his way, and that's illegal), he got mad and then he slammed the woman. So it's not like he did walk there and did something to a woman for no reason. I don't know where did he ran, but he ran away from people who started to lynch him. He was not "tackled", he got hit with a skateboard, and one of his attackers had a knife, Baca pulled his gun then and shot because of that. The page says absolutely nothing about that. Neither about the fact that the gun-use charge is dropped, as it was obviously a self-defense situation. The page says nothing about the militia holding him back and they helped for the guy who got shot, yet the militia got harassed by the police for no reason.

So I would say that the 2 lines about the Albuquerque, New Mexico event are mostly false. Someone should fix that, but since the page is blocked from editing (protected?), I can't edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLiberty (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:SteveLiberty provide reliable secondary sources that back up your claims, or make an edit request with the changes you want (preferably also with a reliable source). Banak (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Economic impacts sentence in lede

I'm not sure this sentence "The economic impact of the protests has exacerbated the 2020 coronavirus recession by sharply curtailing consumer confidence, straining local businesses, and overwhelming public infrastructure with large-scale property damage" is appropriate in the lede; that's a strong statement, and the sources given are poor. Can we rework or remove? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I will agree that this is a fair statement, thus no action will be taken. I think that the COVID19 actually made more people desperate since they were on "house arrest." Captain Almighty Nutz ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} 08:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've read though the sources. markets.businessinsider says has four expects who conject about the future. The fortune.com source says there have been some scaling back of apple and amazon activity and that there have been (an unspecified number of) millions of dollars of damage. The marketwatch article claims that there is $25 million of damage in Minnesota, and then later says that an estimate by one insurance company, it's in the category of over $25 million of damage in the Minneapolis area. As far as I can tell, this is original research that exceeds what the sources say, so I'm going to removed the content as original research. Banak (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

The Antisemitism section currently contains one op-ed that talks about alleged anti-Israeli sentiment (NOT antisemitism), and a single report of antisemitic shouts in France. I am wondering whether this justifies the existence of a separate section. BeŻet (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could rename the section to xenophobia and therefore open it up to more content? BeŻet (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. A section opening with "According to Alan Dershowitz" cannot be RS nor NPOV. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not call them 'RIOTS'?

Over 20 people have died and tens of millions of Dollars have been incurred into in damages, why can't we change the terminology and call them for what they are then? And by that I mean riots obviously as these were protests just at the beginning before it was hijacked by radicals (although I won't speculate over the reasons and motivations, I still maintain my main argument which is that these aren't protests anymore but riots).

Thans in advacnce, Carlos.

--177.230.47.65 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There have been protests in all 50 states and around the world. These protests have continued for a couple dozen days. Do you have a source that these have predominately been riots? O3000 (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We use the description in mainstream sources. If readers feel comforted to hear them called riots they can always tune into right-wing media. TFD (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the vast majority has been peaceful, and letting the minority define the majority is ridiculous and without merit. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV with regards to Antifa

Who is causing violence at the George Floyd protests? It’s not antifa. | The Fact Checker, 21.06.2020, Washington Post : Quote: "There has not been a single confirmed episode where antifa caused violence at the George Floyd protests in the U.S." - Semi-protected edit request - --87.170.195.36 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Youtube is not a credible source and holds no weight here. The Washington Post along with most of the "news" media is far from unbiased journalism IMHO. - Samf4u (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is not "Youtube", the source is the Washington Post! Is it a RS? --87.170.195.36 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually an official YouTube channel would be just as much an RS as a terrestrial one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure we've used The Washington Post countless times before on other pages. You personally finding them to be bias should not redefine massive years of precedent on Wikipedia, imo. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you have us do with that source exactly? It's a Youtube video, so of course, the comments are filled with Russians, conspiracy theorists, and the alt-right at large, which adds a bunch of additional issues that already comes with trying to maintain credibility while citing a Youtube video. Moreover, I don't see the relevance of the video, unless, of course, you're suggesting we use that source to offer a countering view to the Republican government officials claiming Antifa's involvement without a shred proof. In which case, might I recommend this article that the Youtube video is based off and a sentence akin to "Despite unsubstantiated claims from Republican politicians and law enforcement officials, there has been no concrete evidence of Antifa involvement according to an investigation by the Washington Post..." and so forth. This source may be beneficial too. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The thumbnail for this article has the wrong picture.

Its a picture from this article that shows up, but it's not the correct image afaik. Like other wiki articles have the "top" image displayed.--Hiveir (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)