Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon: Difference between revisions
→Requested move 30 August 2020: entierly oppose |
|||
Line 406: | Line 406: | ||
* Strong '''oppose'''. Recent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] frequently describe them as "protests" and referred to them as relating to George Floyd. Examples: [https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-protests-continue-on-3-month-anniversary-of-george-floyds-death.html] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/22/police-portland-oregon-riot-protest] [https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests-continue-in-portland-for-90-nights/283-9b2d0303-1de1-466b-9ec2-b10b53496400] [https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/09/us/george-floyd-protests-different-why/index.html] Riots may occur in the context of protests, but not the other way around; numerous protests on the subject occur daily around Portland, only occasionally are they declared "riots." Even when they are declared "riots," that declaration by police is often contested in reliable sources, and is used to justify local police efforts to use impact munitions, tear gas, etc. In June the legislature prohibited use of such weapons in the absence of a riot declaration. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete Forsyth]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 05:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC) |
* Strong '''oppose'''. Recent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] frequently describe them as "protests" and referred to them as relating to George Floyd. Examples: [https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-protests-continue-on-3-month-anniversary-of-george-floyds-death.html] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/22/police-portland-oregon-riot-protest] [https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests-continue-in-portland-for-90-nights/283-9b2d0303-1de1-466b-9ec2-b10b53496400] [https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/09/us/george-floyd-protests-different-why/index.html] Riots may occur in the context of protests, but not the other way around; numerous protests on the subject occur daily around Portland, only occasionally are they declared "riots." Even when they are declared "riots," that declaration by police is often contested in reliable sources, and is used to justify local police efforts to use impact munitions, tear gas, etc. In June the legislature prohibited use of such weapons in the absence of a riot declaration. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete Forsyth]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 05:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''. It isn't about "general protests', they have a reason. My suggestion is [[Response to 2020 police violence in Portland, Oregon]]. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 06:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. It isn't about "general protests', they have a reason. My suggestion is [[Response to 2020 police violence in Portland, Oregon]]. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 06:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong Oppose''' Searching "guardian portland" i see: "Fatal shooting in Portland as Trump supporters clash with Black Lives Matter protesters ", "One dead as protesters from rival sides clash in Portland", "Portland police order protesters to disperse ". As you can see, there are zero mentions of riot.--[[User:Hiveir|Hiveir]] ([[User talk:Hiveir|talk]]) 07:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:10, 30 August 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Frequently asked questions Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer?
A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a reliable source; secondary sources are generally preferred over primary. Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)!
A3: See our neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help. Q4: Why is this article calling it a murder instead of a death/killing?
A4: As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at WP:MURDERS. Q5: Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods?
A5: The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the Cub Foods store chain. Q6: Why does the article use such a graphic photo? Isn't it in poor taste?
A6: The lead image was determined by the community in a formal Request for Comment process. The RfC reached an "overwhelming consensus" that "...the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic." Q7: Why was my request or comment removed?
A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and essays, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and WP:Reliable sources. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary. Q8: Why do we not call the protests riots?
A8: Because most reliable sources call them protests, not riots. Q9: Did he not die of a drug overdose?
A9: No, whilst fentanyl was a contributory factor, his death certificate lists his cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression". |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
May 30 videos by The Oregonian on YouTube
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1fhuDAgL1c: George Floyd vigil at Peninsula Park in North Portland draws hundreds
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0sTGLNGf3Q: Portlanders converged Friday night to protest the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbxLITyvYB8: Portland protesters break windows at the Justice Center downtown
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRC9nZ2rHU: Scenes from riot in downtown Portland that followed peaceful protest of Minneapolis police killing
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_WMHn4RIs8: Aftermath of protests in Portland over death of George Floyd
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Sg601-6Ac: Hundreds of protesters are back in downtown Portland as curfew begins
---Another Believer (Talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Black Lives Matter
I've created WikiProject Black Lives Matter for interested editors. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19
---Another Believer (Talk) 04:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Scope of parent article
@Phuzion: In this edit you changed the scope of the "parent article" from worldwide to the United States. (The other level worth considering would be the state of Oregon, which also has an article.) This seems worth soliciting perspectives from article contributors. To me, it seems that the previous (highest-level) link is the best one, as that's the "great grandparent" of all the various protest articles. But maybe since the US is the original and main scope, that's the right one? I'm assuming you were thinking along those lines. Thoughts? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was my train of thought. My thoughts were basically if a reader is looking at the article for Portland, Oregon, they're probably most specifically interested in protests in the US. I considered also adding the link to the international list, but figured that would make an excessively long hatnote above a section, so opted to omit it. Additionally, List of George Floyd protests (singular) was the original title of List of George Floyd protests in the United States before being converted to a redirect to Lists of George Floyd protests (plural), so anything that linked to [[List]] probably should have its wikilink updated to the US page. However, List of George Floyd protests outside the United States started on List of George Floyd Protests in the United States while it was just titled List of George Floyd protests, so it's particularly complicated. I'm definitely willing to hear others' opinions on the matter. Thanks for the ping! Phuzion (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background. It seems to me that in this case (a multi-faceted and fast-evolving story around the world) navigating among the various articles is an especially high priority, so I like the current model of listing the worldwide, US, and Oregon pages. I don't think excessive length is really that much of a problem, and I'd err on the side of making sure readers have ready access to whatever "level" they're interested in. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep in mind, if a background section were fleshed out with prose, some of the links could potentially be integrated and not display as main/see also. Just a thought. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background. It seems to me that in this case (a multi-faceted and fast-evolving story around the world) navigating among the various articles is an especially high priority, so I like the current model of listing the worldwide, US, and Oregon pages. I don't think excessive length is really that much of a problem, and I'd err on the side of making sure readers have ready access to whatever "level" they're interested in. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Sources for gap
- https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/06/protesters-take-to-the-streets-for-citys-11th-consecutive-day-of-demonstrations-live-updates.html
- https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/06/driver-passes-portland-protest-blockade-on-i-84-sideswiping-subaru-altercation-ensues-video.html
- https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/06/portland-moms-say-they-feel-called-to-join-the-protests-for-george-floyd.html
- https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2020/06/couple-sues-city-of-portland-after-being-exposed-to-tear-gas-during-protests.html
---Another Believer (Talk) 03:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson (Bitter)
The statue of Thomas Jefferson has been vandalized. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Note
Once the protests come to an end, the time line ought to be refactored into a narrative. This would reduce the length of the article while increasing its content. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Llywrch, Agreed, but right now I'm just trying to easily identify to readers where there are major gaps. Initially I was doing pretty good at updating the page each day, but I've struggled to keep up. I'm sure some trimming can be done longterm, but for now, I'd actually ask folks to help expand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, I think you are mistaking a suggestion about something to be done "down the road" with something to be done more promptly. (And I did suggest this refactoring be done after the protests end. Have they? I haven't heard about any tonight.) And even when they have ended, it may be a while before it is acted on. (Based on my experience with Wikipedia articles, I don't expect anyone to act on this for a year or two.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Asking for an update & not as criticism -- have the protests in Portland been continuing up to now? (A quick look with Google News shows there was unrest downtown over the July 4 weekend. We need to find jobs for these people.) It's gotten to the point that local tv news is treating the nightly unrest downtown as a "dog bites man" story, & it could come to an end without anyone noticing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, multiple events every day. Just added some items with a July 4 KOIN story. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: Yes, I'm pretty sure there have been demonstrations every day since late May. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's going to get harder to document the later demonstrations if the usual news sources don't cover them. -- llywrch (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the Oregonian and OPB have done a reasonably good job of establishing context on a regular basis. For instance in my most recent edit, the Oregonian affirmed that there have been demonstrations of hundreds to thousand every day for 39 days (that was as of Sunday). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: News outlets are covering the demonstrations. The Wikipedia article is just not being updated daily. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not the ones I watch, I regret to say. -- llywrch (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Llywrch Today's Oregonian speaks directly to your question, worth a read. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not the ones I watch, I regret to say. -- llywrch (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's going to get harder to document the later demonstrations if the usual news sources don't cover them. -- llywrch (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Asking for an update & not as criticism -- have the protests in Portland been continuing up to now? (A quick look with Google News shows there was unrest downtown over the July 4 weekend. We need to find jobs for these people.) It's gotten to the point that local tv news is treating the nightly unrest downtown as a "dog bites man" story, & it could come to an end without anyone noticing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, I think you are mistaking a suggestion about something to be done "down the road" with something to be done more promptly. (And I did suggest this refactoring be done after the protests end. Have they? I haven't heard about any tonight.) And even when they have ended, it may be a while before it is acted on. (Based on my experience with Wikipedia articles, I don't expect anyone to act on this for a year or two.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Elk statue
---Another Believer (Talk) 20:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that the title of that story you linked was changed when the (pro-BLM?) author learned what really happened: https://www.koin.com/news/protests/fire-set-at-elk-fountain-in-downtown-portland-causes-little-damage/ I doubt elk are racist. It's all being done in the name of a criminal whom many "peaceful" protesters would never want to actually live near. They make no effort to understand high black crime rates, and cops' constant fear for their own lives when arrests are resisted. The Floyd case was a random bad outcome, since neck-holds had been used many times before. Even a black economist (Roland Fryer) found no clear connection between racism and police killings of blacks. The media sensationalizes only cases where blacks get killed, leaving out the full context of dangerous arrests and the daily hazards faced by police. Also left out is the fact that cops save far more blacks than they kill, and the roots of black crime in broken family structures. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action
Let's work on the lead section
Now that we're 7 weeks in, there's a wealth of news coverage to guide how we compose the lead section. The declarations of riot need to be put into proper context (restrictions on things like tear gas unless riot is declared). Stating that police officers have been injured, without mentioning the protesters who have been injured, is a significant NOPV problem. The emphasis on property damage is an odd non-sequitur, I don't think this is borne out as one of the major themes by the news coverage that has been generated. Here are things that stand out to me based on the Oregonian, OPB,and other coverage I've been following:
- Police aggression, ACLU lawsuit
- Cooperation and tension between local police and Federal officers who arrived in July
- Large marches, often over 1,000 people, as well as small neighborhood events, every day often had no police interaction whatsoever; contrasted with actions at the Justice Center downtown, and the PPA building in North Portland, that are characterized by confrontation, violence, etc.
- Reforms demanded and reforms implemented (e.g. reduction of police budget)
One specific point worth watching -- it's been alleged that PPB caused the "riot" that they declared, by breaking their own window. Will be good to see what comes of this. [1]
-Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Suggested new sections
As this event continues and evolves, it's becoming clear that further context would be helpful. I'd like to suggest two new sections (and of course, I'm open to better section titles):
- Precipitating events would detail the killing of George Floyd and other recent/prominent national cases, as well as local police killings in recent decades (many of which do not have their own Wikipedia pages).
- Advocacy for reform would include the specific reforms called for by the various protest groups, indicating which have achieved success.
-Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, Sure!, and thanks for your work on this article. I was doing a pretty good job initially at building this article's foundation and keeping up to date, but lost momentum. I am a little disappointed to see the date headings removed, only because those identified where there were content gaps, but I know we need to start summarizing and converting the many bits of text into better prose. While the recent 'abductions' are concerning hopefully this will at least get more eyes on the page for further improvement. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer You did excellent work getting things going, glad to be able to contribute and build on that. On removing the sections, a few things:
- I thought it would be uncontroversial, because it seemed to me that you had likely done it at a time when measuring things on a scale of days made sense, but as we got into the sixth and seventh weeks of daily protests that has shifted some;
- I only removed them after noting that the balance had been somewhat restored, after a period when several of the sections had been completely empty for a while; and
- I'm always cautious, based mostly on this journal article from 2011, of using the temporal frame too strongly on Wikipedia articles. The article argues that imposing a timeline on coverage of an event can introduce bias, as history does not evolve in an orderly way; some days or weeks will merit much more coverage than others, because much more happened then. ::All that said, though, if you feel it's important to bring back somewhat more granular headings, I'm not opposed. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer You did excellent work getting things going, glad to be able to contribute and build on that. On removing the sections, a few things:
What about a section for Vandalism? I know at least 4 statues have been removed (Elk, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and part of the William Clark memorial), and obviously there's coverage of some of the vandalism to buildings downtown. This might help organize the article body a bit more, and separate text about Demonstrations from text about Vandalism. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've been specifically asked to weigh in on the "vandalism" section suggestion (see below). I'll try to be brief. I think this suggestion is preposterous, offensive, and cannot possibly be justified by the preponderence of news coverage, which focuses on issues of human life and governance. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, Offensive? Er... ok, I was just trying to think of ways to organize this article. I'll consider that a strong no, but I sure don't mean to offend you or anyone else. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer It's possible I didn't understand you properly. You've done a great deal of good work on this and related articles. My understanding was that you felt that vandalism of property (much of which is no more than fences that can be replaced, paint that can be removed, etc.) merits an amount of attention in this article that's similar to matters of life and death, human dignity, and how a city governs itself and its police force. If that's the case, I find it offensive to anyone who cares about the people who have been killed or hospitalized. Enough so that I had stopped looking at this section I started. Seems like something that belongs in a presidential strategy memo, outlining what excuses will be used to justify sending militarized forces against his own citizens, than in a Wikipedia article. Your suggestion did not seem like something worthy of serious consideration. If I've misunderstood, let me know. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, I was/am trying to think of ways to organize existing text within the article. I proposed a section about vandalism because news outlets have reported on this, and at least four statues have been torn down during these demonstrations. I didn't suggest giving more weight than the issues you've mentioned. I'm still not sure I fully understand what's offensive (is this a semantics issue?)... all one has to do is walk around downtown to see graffiti all over the place. If you take issue with the word "vandalism" itself, I'm just basing this off sources:
- Portland fires, vandalism, looting as protest turns into riot; at least 13 arrests (KTVZ, May 30)
- Vandalism at Portland mall during riot (KGW, May 30)
- Portland City Hall vandalized during overnight protest (KPTV, June 29)
- Elk statue removed from downtown Portland after protesters set its base ablaze (KGW, July 2)
- ‘Terribly upsetting’: Portland takes in riot damage (KOIN, July 5); mentions "vandalism" once in article body and twice within captions
- Portland businesses feel impacts of riots, vandalism (KGW, July 7)
- There are other sources confirming total damages, cleanup efforts, etc. Pete, I think you probably have some sense of where I land on the ideological and political spectra. I'm working in good faith, aware of the seriousness of the issues being discussed here, and supportive of the BLM movement. All I'm trying to do is make this article more informative and easier to read; I have no other agenda. If my response here is offensive then maybe I should just leave this discussion because I feel like I'm stepping on toes but not understanding how or why. I would also like to hear from other editors about other ways to organize this page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Knowing you both, I'd encourage a deep breath and a shared acknowledgement that this is a really hard f'in time. I know you're both trying to do what's best for the article. Keep that in mind. We need you both doing your best work. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 23:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ocaasi, I agree and thanks for the reminder. I have no issues with Pete, but when someone says I've offended them I try to understand why. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- I just noticed George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. has a section called Vandalism, George Floyd protests in Columbus, Ohio has the sections Business actions and mural artwork and Damage and statue removals. We can also borrow from how George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul is organized. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, text can be very impersonal at a stressful time. I value both of you, and everyone working to improve the content, apart from specifically liking and valuing you as a human being. My comment was not meant to reflect on you as a person, but on the specific change you proposed (as I understood it, and I acknowledge, I may have misunderstood some nuance.)
- Maybe it will be easier if I explain what comments I've found problematic in the wider world, and which define some of the context in which I heard your suggestion. There are indeed places where you will find "vandalism" mentioned as a significant part of the dynamic. For instance a NY Post article today leads with a sentence about vandalism. "Portland endured yet another night of violence and vandalism Monday..." Wikipedia editors have generally classified the Post as a tabloid which is not preferred as a source. The Post is also an organization that is 3000 miles away, that not have its own reporters on the ground in Portland. Meanwhile, here's a comment from Alex Zielinski, news editor of the Portland Mercury, who's been covering these events on the ground since May: "These federal police are pointing firearms at members of the public because some people broke windows, graffitied walls, and threw rocks at them last night." Notice how the cause-and-effect are reversed? If you look through the local coverage, the coverage from reporters who are basing their stories on what they see with their own eyes, you'll find they're pretty close to 100% aligned with Zielinski's take. They don't tend to talk about vandalism much at all, and when they do, they're talking about how the police use vandalism as an excuse to step up their attacks on protesters.
- If you look below at the section #Fox apologist nonsense you will see what I believe is the main factor driving publications like the NY Post to focus on vandalism as a central topic: the Trump administration has specifically used vandalism as the justification for sending officers to Portland. Acting Secretary Wolf speculated (an act, in itself, which lazy journalists without reporters on the ground will consider newsworthy) that if the feds left, that the protesters would burn down their building. This is not a cabinet secretary using his platform to help the public make sense of what's going on, it's basic propaganda in service to a political end (building public support for federal intervention, in the run-up to the November election). The news editor of Oregon Public Broadcasting summed it up like this: "Dear national media: This press conference is filled with federal officials saying things that run completely counter to what journalists on the ground in Portland have observed and documented."
- It's possible you intend something different from what the NY Post and Acting Secretary Wolf are talking about, but if so, I have not yet grasped the difference. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, What do you think about the local sources I bulleted out above? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think you have two reasonable choices: (1) ask me for my opinion and then take some time to think about what I tell you, or (2) don't worry too much about what I think and do your own thing. (Which doesn't mean ditching this article entirely, as you suggest above -- it doesn't need to be anything so dramatic.) (1) doesn't seem to be working out so well. So maybe try (2)? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, What do you think about the local sources I bulleted out above? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Knowing you both, I'd encourage a deep breath and a shared acknowledgement that this is a really hard f'in time. I know you're both trying to do what's best for the article. Keep that in mind. We need you both doing your best work. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 23:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, I was/am trying to think of ways to organize existing text within the article. I proposed a section about vandalism because news outlets have reported on this, and at least four statues have been torn down during these demonstrations. I didn't suggest giving more weight than the issues you've mentioned. I'm still not sure I fully understand what's offensive (is this a semantics issue?)... all one has to do is walk around downtown to see graffiti all over the place. If you take issue with the word "vandalism" itself, I'm just basing this off sources:
- Another Believer It's possible I didn't understand you properly. You've done a great deal of good work on this and related articles. My understanding was that you felt that vandalism of property (much of which is no more than fences that can be replaced, paint that can be removed, etc.) merits an amount of attention in this article that's similar to matters of life and death, human dignity, and how a city governs itself and its police force. If that's the case, I find it offensive to anyone who cares about the people who have been killed or hospitalized. Enough so that I had stopped looking at this section I started. Seems like something that belongs in a presidential strategy memo, outlining what excuses will be used to justify sending militarized forces against his own citizens, than in a Wikipedia article. Your suggestion did not seem like something worthy of serious consideration. If I've misunderstood, let me know. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, Offensive? Er... ok, I was just trying to think of ways to organize this article. I'll consider that a strong no, but I sure don't mean to offend you or anyone else. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Peteforsyth that additional sections for Advocacy for reform and Precipitating events (&/or revising the background section), would improve the article. Also agree with Another Believer in that clarity and accuracy regarding property damage to statues is relevant precisely because it is being used as justification for the creation of executive orders that allow federal agents to enter areas uninvited by state and local officials. Not opposed to a section for vandalism, but with so many areas in need of editors attention, it is a lower priority. Cedar777 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
URGENT: Bringing attention to reports of "secret police" abductions
Several media outlets are now reporting on the literal abductions of American citizens in Portland. This is unlawful. Period.
- https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/
- https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-secret-police-portland/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/07/17/us-marshals-accused-of-gestapo-like-tactics-in-portland/#1b808b2f461c- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/17/reports-federal-officers-detain-portland-protesters-unmarked-vans/5457471002/
This flagrantly unlawful government action, coming less than two months after the 2020 Lafayette Square assault, reveals the urgency of need for American citizens to push back on the escalating use of force against its citizenry in a purported self-governing democracy. I believe the "July" subsection of the "Demonstrations" section of this article can now be spun off into its own article detailing a clear and present governmental abuse of power in line with the federal government's assault on peaceful demonstrators in Washington, D.C. on 1 June 2020. If this has already been done, please direct me to the page of the new article. --- Tutombist (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Tutombist: Was just logging in to work exactly on this, but I appreciate the reminder and the links (I'd missed a couple of those stories, spares me the effort of tracking them down). Would appreciate your eyes on what I add. I'm moving this section to the bottom, regular Wikipedia editors will be more likely to notice it here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, by "exactly this" I meant to work on this topic -- there may be a time to spin this off into its own article, but for the time being I'm just planning to add a paragraph or two. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Protecting American Communities Task Force has been created as a split from this article. I'm not sure how accurate or appropriate that is, given that much of the media coverage that I've seen has emphasised that no one really knows which agency the feds are from, but I haven't reviewed all the sources. @Tutombist: If you think another article is necessary you might want to place {{split section}} in the relevant section of this article. You might also find it useful to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – while I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said, and I'm sure that you're not planning on adding non-neutral content to any articles, espousing strongly-held views about political topics on article talk pages is usually not appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I struck the Forbes contributor entry above per Wikipedia:RS/Perennial. I've worked in the other sources mentioned (except the Nation article which I haven't gotten to). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Protecting American Communities Task Force has been created as a split from this article. I'm not sure how accurate or appropriate that is, given that much of the media coverage that I've seen has emphasised that no one really knows which agency the feds are from, but I haven't reviewed all the sources. @Tutombist: If you think another article is necessary you might want to place {{split section}} in the relevant section of this article. You might also find it useful to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – while I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said, and I'm sure that you're not planning on adding non-neutral content to any articles, espousing strongly-held views about political topics on article talk pages is usually not appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- As a fairly new contributor, I appreciate any offering of pointers to help me understand this medium. I would have to admit I am too inexperienced with Wikipedia to offer my own language or formatting to place within the articles themselves, but I will not hold back on these "Talk" pages. My goal is to share what should be basic civics info which I once misunderstood to be common knowledge. However, after recognizing the de-emphasis of government and civics lessons within the primary and secondary public education systems here in the U.S., I have come to acknowledge that there is a huge gap in the education of our young folk as to how our government structure operates.
I am not here to "right any wrongs"; I save that for the ballot box, and I urge every member of a free democracy to exercise their own franchise, as is their right and duty as well-informed citizens of a properly functioning free and open society. However, any "wrong" that has been so clearly exposed to the light of scrutiny *must* be examined and brought to broad public awareness. I don't think there should be any controversy over the illegality of the actions of federal agents in this instance.
The "due process" clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution state clearly that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law by federal and state authority, respectively. Arbitrary and indiscriminate "detention" or "arrest" -- or whatever this is ultimately claimed to be -- is nowhere within the ballpark of due process of law as it has been understood thus far in the history of the U.S.
My apologies if an inflamed passion seeped through in my initial post, but I do indeed feel that coverage of unlawful behavior by the government of a "free" nation is a matter of great urgency, and not just within the context of this one article. And I am eager to see the contributions of you all and the rest of the community on this matter. So, thank you.
--- Tutombist (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)- Tutombist Your comment was most welcome. In my view having an opinion is not a disqualifier for discussing or collaborating on an article, as long as you approach it with an open mind and are not overbearing, and IMO you were nowhere near that line. Appreciate the input. You're right, this has become a very important article very quickly, and at the time you wrote it was not getting nearly enough attention from Wikipedians. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
"50 days of protest"
---Another Believer (Talk) 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
For more than 60th days in a row now.--93.211.215.14 (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
When did federal property first become the primary target of Portland protests? and why did it replace city hall and city property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is important! After Trump's 'little green men' arrived in Portland:
- Donald Trump’s little green men, Financial Times
- Trump's Portland strategy: Look tough and beat Biden. But he's making cities less safe, USA today
- How Federal Officers Escalated Violence in Portland | Visual Investigations, The New York Times - --217.234.72.22 (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is important! After Trump's 'little green men' arrived in Portland:
"Deployment of federal agents"
Currently the "Deployment of federal agents" subsection appears under the Demonstrations heading. Should this be moved into the Responses sections, specifically the Federal subsection? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @NedFausa, Cedar777, and Peteforsyth: Pinging you all as recent article contributors. See also: Thoughts on Vandalism section per above? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- It makes sense to have a separate federal subsection under Government responses, but it's a mistake to have one under Demonstrations in July. We repeatedly assert that federal officers were deployed "in early July" without (unless I missed it) giving a precise date. But even taking the vague "early July" inception, federal officers have thereafter been an integral part of the protests. Instead of moving the "Deployment of federal agents" subsection, we should merge it chronologically into the Demonstrations section where it now exists, creating a seamless running narrative. NedFausa (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- The separated sections do pose their own challenges with gaining a well-rounded understanding of events as they developed in time. Still reading about the protest events in Portland but clearly the duration is long and may continue indefinitely, with or without a federal deployment. I will delete the subsection for Deployment of federal agents as it doesn't fit well with the way this article is currently structured.
- A concurrent observation is that the public dialog between various key local, state, and federal officials can be swift, as with the tensions at the CHOP in Seattle in June. In my view, the major reactions of public officials to events are better digested when included (sparingly) in the form of a chronology, as something is lost when these various spoken actions (and reactions) are removed entirely from the timeline. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- It makes sense to have a separate federal subsection under Government responses, but it's a mistake to have one under Demonstrations in July. We repeatedly assert that federal officers were deployed "in early July" without (unless I missed it) giving a precise date. But even taking the vague "early July" inception, federal officers have thereafter been an integral part of the protests. Instead of moving the "Deployment of federal agents" subsection, we should merge it chronologically into the Demonstrations section where it now exists, creating a seamless running narrative. NedFausa (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Cedar777: I don't understand your concurrent observation, where you advocate including reactions of public officials in the form of a chronology, as something is lost when these various spoken actions (and reactions) are removed entirely from the timeline.
If by that you mean such reactions should be part of the Demonstrations timeline, rather than segregated under the Responses section, I disagree. Earlier today I moved a comment by President Trump to the Federal subsection because, frankly, I thought it had been situated in the July Demonstrations subsection in a way that violated WP:NPOV. Here's how it appeared before I moved it:
On July 11, protester Donavan LaBella was shot in the head with a "less lethal" round by federal police, suffering facial and skull fractures and having to undergo facial reconstruction surgery.[1] Two days later Trump praised federal agents for their work in policing protests in Portland, saying they had done "a great job".[2]
References
- ^ Levinson, Jonathan (July 12, 2020). "Federal Officers Shoot Portland Protester In Head With 'Less Lethal' Munitions". OPB. Retrieved July 19, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)- ^ Crombie, Noelle (July 14, 2020). "Trump says feds in Portland have done 'a great job' on protests". The Oregonian. Retrieved July 16, 2020.
As you see, this proximity made it look as though Trump had specifically praised officers for inflicting facial and skull fractures on a protester. I believe the cited source does not support such an inflammatory interpretation. This should serve as a cautionary example of why it's sometimes imperative to keep the reactions of public officials out of the protest timeline. NedFausa (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Fox apologist nonsense
With this edit, Binksternet reverted what he called "Fox apologist nonsense" that I'd added to the article space. I had indeed cited a post at the Fox News website bylined Talia Kaplan, reporter for FoxNews.com. It excerpted Acting DHS Secretary Wolf's response, delivered on Fox & Friends, to criticism from local leaders in Portland. Regrettably, I failed to grasp the distinction at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources between Fox News (news and website), determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG
, and Fox News (talk shows), including Fox & Friends, where content is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be attributed.
Please help me correct my mistake. How can I upgrade this content to Wikipedia standards? I added in-text attribution as bolded below, but fear I'm still missing something.
On July 20, Acting DHS Secretary Wolf appeared on the daily morning conservative news/talk program Fox & Friends, where he responded to criticism from local leaders in Portland. He rejected as "completely irresponsible" Mayor Wheeler's charge that DHS and other federal agents were "sharply escalating the situation" in the city. "The facts don't lie," said Wolf, "and the facts are that these violent anarchists and extremists were violent well before DHS surged federal assets into Portland." Wolf added, "We're not trying to escalate, we're trying to hold those folks accountable. What we're not going to do is allow them to attack a courthouse and then simply step across the street on to city property and say you can't touch me. That's not how this works." He asserted that "almost all of our activity has taken place in the one, two or three blocks around that courthouse and will continue to do so."[1]
References
- ^ Kaplan, Talia (July 20, 2020). "Acting DHS secretary hits back at Portland mayor's 'completely irresponsible' claim that feds are 'escalating' unrest". Fox News. Retrieved July 20, 2020.
I would appreciate guidance from editors to help make my good-faith contribution acceptable. NedFausa (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- The basic problem here is that you are giving Wolf a platform to air his false narrative. The "violence" he reports is not actually hurting people; it is instead one broken window and some graffiti, costing around $5000.[2] So the federal response responds by spending about a half million on troops, something like 100 times out of proportion to the damage, which was never "violence" against other people. Don't give Wolf a platform; don't quote him. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- So there is no way to make my good-faith contribution acceptable because you personally have decided that Acting Secretary Wolf's remarks present a "false narrative." Isn't there a Wikipedia policy about No original research? I could've sworn I read about that somewhere. NedFausa (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- What would you call assisting a politician in promoting a false message? We have a guideline about that. I especially love it when he says "the facts don't lie." Golden. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- NedFausa, this is ultimately an issue of WP:UNDUE, as in Undue Weight. Wikipedia intentionally rejects the false equivalence balance of traditional journalism, where all sides get equal time regardless of their position or its validity, prominence, popularity, or evidence-based nature. In this situation Wolf is parroting the government's narrative on Fox and Friends, which is essentially state media. We may excerpt a single phrase or sentence from this kind of media, but we don't amplify acts of spin and propaganda. Simply: we don't carry water for dictators and tyrants, from any State. They can broadcast their message elsewhere. Ocaasi t | c 12:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Let me give you an example of what I mean by WP:UNDUE weight. Consider:
- Politico: "Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler urged the Trump administration Sunday to call off its intervention in the city, accusing the federal forces of “sharply escalating the situation” and employing tactics that are “abhorrent” and “completely unconstitutional.”
- Washington Examiner: "The federal government cannot put troops or military personnel or police on the streets without the invitation of the governor or the legislature of the state. That is not only federal law, that is in the Constitution. And as horrific as it is for people who believe in the sanctity of the person and of private property to watch this destruction, there is very little that the feds can do about it," the Fox News commentator said Monday...What happened in Portland over the weekend was not only unlawful and unconstitutional, it was just plain wrong."
- The Nation: "“It’s like stop and frisk meets Guantanamo Bay,” attorney Juan Chavez told OPB. He added that these detentions were not following any rules of probable cause. “It sounds more like abduction. It sounds like they’re kidnapping people off the streets."
- Congressmen Merkley, Wyden, Blumenauer, and Bonamici: “DHS and DOJ are engaged in acts that are horrific and outrageous in our constitutional democratic republic,” Merkley said. “First, they are deploying paramilitary forces with no identification indicating who they are or who they work for. Second, these agents are snatching people off the street with no underlying justification. Both of these acts are profound offenses against Americans....“Oregonians’ demand for answers about this occupying army and its paramilitary assaults in Portland at the direction of Donald Trump and Chad Wolf cannot be stonewalled,” Wyden said. “That’s not how it works in a democracy. It’s painfully clear this administration is focused purely on escalating violence without answering my repeated requests for why this expeditionary force is in Portland and under what constitutional authority... “The jarring reports of federal law enforcement officers grabbing peaceful protestors off the street should alarm every single American. This is not the way a government operates in a functioning democracy,” Blumenauer said. “We are demanding an immediate Inspector General investigation into these incidents to get answers from the Trump administration and ensure these disturbing abuses of power stop immediately.”...“The overly aggressive conduct of federal officers in Portland is alarming and unconstitutional. Oregonians must be able to exercise their First Amendment rights safely, without being picked up and detained by unidentified federal officers,” Bonamici said. “The President is intentionally provoking unrest and discord, and our community will not stand for it. He purports to be a law and order President, but his Administration’s actions are political bluster and are making our city and our country less safe. We will not rest until we get answers on behalf of Oregonians.”
- ACLU: "This is a fight to save our democracy,” said Kelly Simon, interim legal director with the ACLU of Oregon. “Under the direction of the Trump administration, federal agents are terrorizing the community, risking lives, and brutally attacking protesters demonstrating against police brutality. This is police escalation on top of police escalation. These federal agents must be stopped and removed from our city."
- NPR: "“What is happening now in Portland should concern everyone in the United States. Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street we call it kidnapping. The actions of the militarized federal officers are flat-out unconstitutional."
- NBC: "Trump and his acting secretary of homeland security, Chad Wolf, have now unleashed these agents like an occupying army — complete with fatigues, military-style equipment and tactics that are utterly unacceptable in an American city."
- Axios: "Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that he "absolutely" believes the Trump administration is violating the Constitution by deploying unidentified federal agents to arrest protesters in the city."
- Newsweek: ""The American people will not tolerate a dictator," Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) tweeted."
- US News: "[Governor] Brown's spokesman, Charles Boyle, said Friday that arresting people without probable cause is “extraordinarily concerning and a violation of their civil liberties and constitutional rights.”
- KCRW: "KCRW speaks with Yale professor Jason Stanley, whose new book is titled “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.” He says, “Are there fascist forces in America today that are ascendant and threatening our status as a democracy? Is Trumpism a fascist, social, and political movement? I think it is.”
- Independent: "‘The tactics of a dictator’: Portland leaders demand removal of masked federal agents sent by Trump admin following spate of arbitrary arrests"
- Washington Post: "“Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping,” Carson said. “Protesters in Portland have been shot in the head, swept away in unmarked cars, and repeatedly tear-gassed by uninvited and unwelcome federal agents."
- BBC: "Senior Democrat Nancy Pelosi said "unidentified Stormtroopers" were "kidnapping protesters". Another Democrat Ro Khanna described those involved as "secret federal agents".
- Lawfare: "There’s definitely reason to be alarmed about what’s going on in Portland. And even if the federal officers are technically complying with the relevant statutes, there’s something more than just unseemly about camouflaged officers who refuse to identify themselves or their employer purporting to conduct arrests on the streets of American cities. Whether these officers are in fact abusing their authorities or not remains to be seen, but either answer would be deeply troubling."
- PBS: "“The idea that there’s a threat to a federal courthouse and the federal authorities are going to swoop in and do whatever they want to do without any cooperation and coordination with state and local authorities is extraordinary outside the context of a civil war,” said Michael Dorf, a professor of constitutional law at Cornell University."
- Fox News: "“They certainly can't do what they have been doing in Oregon, which is arresting people without a warrant and without probable cause, holding them for a few hours and then letting them go,” he went on to explain. “So they have to be restrained and they have to confine their activity to the federal property.”"
- The Nation: "In Portland, Ore., heavily armed federal agents in full military camo are now roaming the streets. Some, wearing no identification, picked up protesters and bundled them off in unmarked vans. These federal officers are, apparently, from a range of agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and the US Marshals Service. Their mandate is officially limited to protecting federal property, and they’ve used Trump’s executive order about protecting monuments as justification—but in practice, they seem to be treating Portland’s streets as legitimate stomping grounds."
- Newsday: "While protesters in Portland, Oregon, go on staging an extended rebellion, President Donald Trump poses as the Great Suppressor, bringer of order. Trump likes to show off the use of force. Whether it has any impact, or is constitutionally legitimate, may be an afterthought. He strives to look and sound tough. He wants to humiliate critics and haters."
- Vice: ""The federal troops came in, they used their unconstitutional tactics, they injured nonviolent demonstrators, and the whole thing blew up again like a powder keg.”"
- CNN:"Trump's 'law and order' is starting to look like martial law"
- AP News: "“What they were doing was unconstitutional,” David said. ”Sometimes I worry that people take the oath of office or the oath to the Constitution, and it’s just a set of words that mean nothing...There was no talking. The federal officers, in full tactical gear, came charging out of the federal building.They came out in this phalanx, running, and then they plowed into a bunch of protesters in the intersection of the street and knocked them over. They came out to fight,” David said. One officer pointed a semi-automatic weapon at David’s chest, he said, and video shows another shoving him backwards as he tried to talk with the officers."
- NY Mag: "In the past few weeks, federal agents in military fatigues have been deployed in Portland to protect federal property, garnering national attention by grabbing demonstrators off the street, detaining them in unmarked cars, and attacking peaceful protestors. For those concerned about the authoritarian nature of the actions, their anxieties were not dispelled."
- Newsweek: "Lincoln Project Rebukes Trump for Sending 'Paramilitary' in 'Unmarked Vans' to Portland: 'This Is How It Starts'"
- The Hill: "“You have a lot of peaceful demonstrators,” Napolitano argued. “The complaint filed by the attorney general of Oregon against the Department of Homeland Security recounts horror stories of peaceful people being kidnapped, held blindfold, handcuffed, and incommunicado for just two hours and then let go. There is no reason to disturb those people. The people they should stop are the ones with the baseball bats...The federal government can’t do what it doesn’t have the authority to do,” he added. “And it shouldn’t do anything without the coordination of the locals.”
- Congressman Rand Paul: "“We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will,” Paul tweeted Monday."
- Boston Globe: "“It is a standard move of authoritarians to use the pretext of quelling violence to bring in force, thereby prompting a violent response and then bootstrapping the initial use of force in the first place,” Dorf said."
- NY Times: "“This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes, whether it’s Franco’s Spain or whether it’s the Russian Empire,” said Snyder. “The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.”"
- Do you see what I mean about WP:UNDUE Weight??? Ocaasi t | c 14:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- So there is no way to make my good-faith contribution acceptable because you personally have decided that Acting Secretary Wolf's remarks present a "false narrative." Isn't there a Wikipedia policy about No original research? I could've sworn I read about that somewhere. NedFausa (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- The basic problem here is that you are giving Wolf a platform to air his false narrative. The "violence" he reports is not actually hurting people; it is instead one broken window and some graffiti, costing around $5000.[2] So the federal response responds by spending about a half million on troops, something like 100 times out of proportion to the damage, which was never "violence" against other people. Don't give Wolf a platform; don't quote him. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Twitter links as external media
There are now a handful of "External links" boxes directing readers to videos on Twitter. Are these appropriate / reliable? I've added a couple external links to videos myself, but to Oregonian videos hosted on YouTube, not just random Twitter users. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Good point Another Believer. The specific videos included have been covered in reliable sources, but it's important to make that clear to the reader. I'm working on adding a bit of context. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Litigation by journalists
NedFausa reverted my addition of an article published on Bellingcat, with the edit summary: "This is very troubling. The author is "actively suing the Portland Police Bureau" over events our Wikipedia article describes. A litigant is hardly an independent reliable source" I disagree about the "very troubling" frame, but it does pose a bit of a challenge that should be discussed.
I agree this is a point that must be taken into consideration, but it is not a reason to exclude a source. When evaluating sources, our guideline emphasizes organizations not individual reporters. It is not for us to second-guess Mr. Evans' editor at Bellingcat, who has already deemed that any conflict of interest Evans may have has been managed sufficiently to make the story worth publishing. Bellingcat is a source deemed "generally reliable for news" at WP:RS/Perennial.
The lawsuit referred to indeed includes a large chunk of the Portland press corps, including The Oregonian, a paper that has won multiple Pulitzer prizes spanning a century. Any decision to exclude sources on this basis would be sweeping. I encourage others to consider this and weigh in. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- The disputed source writes:
At this point, most of the Portland press corps, including myself, are actively suing the Portland Police Bureau.
Has the author, Robert Evans, joined other journalists or news organizations in a lawsuit? Or is he suing as an individual, for example over a personal injury he alleges he sustained at the hands of PPB? This demands clarification. If we cite The Oregonian, we can probably trust that any of its staff who are individually named plaintiffs will not be reporting on the continuing news story underlying that suit. But Bellingcat is not The Oregonian. I submit that we should not blindly presume that Robert Evans has no conflict of interest in advancing this narrative. And I object to the admin's attempt to broaden this dispute into having "sweeping" implications for editing Wikipedia. Please, let's just focus on the source in question. NedFausa (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why we cannot extend the net farther than just this one Bellingcat source. But for starters, Robert Evans is a seasoned journalist who submits some of his works to Bellingcat. The New York Times quotes Evans on the topic of Portland protests.[3] NPR quotes Evans about extremist shooters.[4] At the very least we could use his assertions about a lawsuit while attributing him, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Everything else he writes as a reporter should be accepted as reliable.
- The wider net brings in this article in The Oregonian and this one in the Chron. The lawsuit can be discussed easily in these WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link to The Oregonian, which reports:
The lawsuit describes several interactions Evans had with police while he was documenting the protests, from May 30 to June 30. The interactions included police allegedly threatening him with arrest if he did not leave the area, shooting him in the foot with a tear gas grenade and spraying him, and repeatedly shoving him.
Yes, I'm sure that after having been shot in the foot by PPB with a tear gas grenade, Robert Evans can be relied upon to write about these events with complete and unimpeachable objectivity. NedFausa (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)- Nobody's arguing that these matters shouldn't be considered, only that we should consider them carefully. Another point to throw in the mix: Sergio Olmos is also a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit, and (I believe since after the lawsuit was filed, though I'm not certain of the sequence) has multiple bylines, in a reporting capacity, for the New York Times. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wrote above that Bellingcat is not The Oregonian. Let me assert now that Bellingcat is not The New York Times, either. We should not evaluate the reliability of Robert Evans based on the reliability of other journalists at other publications. Please try to focus. NedFausa (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Other journalists rely on Evans. That's the focus. He's reliable. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wrote above that Bellingcat is not The Oregonian. Let me assert now that Bellingcat is not The New York Times, either. We should not evaluate the reliability of Robert Evans based on the reliability of other journalists at other publications. Please try to focus. NedFausa (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody's arguing that these matters shouldn't be considered, only that we should consider them carefully. Another point to throw in the mix: Sergio Olmos is also a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit, and (I believe since after the lawsuit was filed, though I'm not certain of the sequence) has multiple bylines, in a reporting capacity, for the New York Times. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link to The Oregonian, which reports:
NedFausa You are arguing that this should be a simple, clear decision. If that's the case, it should derive from a clearly articulated, shared principle. You seem to advance two possible arguments, and move between them rather fluidly. As I understand you, the two principles you've advanced are:
- The reporter's status as a plaintiff disqualifies his writing, due to a conflict of interest
- If you acknowledge (as you seem to) that the reporting of Sergio Olmos in the NY Times or Beth Nakamura in the Oreonian is acceptable, that undercuts any argument that #1 is a clear-cut principle, because Olmos and the Oregonian (on Nakamura's behalf) are both plaintiffs in similar lawsuits.
- Bellingcat is an inferior publication to the Oregonian or the New York Times.
- As stated above, Bellingcat has been discussed at WP:RS/Perennial, and thus far has been accepted at a high level. Is it possible that their editorial policies and/or their adherence to them are in fact significantly inferior to other publications, and that Wikipedians have missed important stuff in those past discussions? For all I know, sure! But it's not a "given" that you can rely on to make this point; it's something that would have to be discussed and evaluated.
As I made clear by starting this section, I agree that it's worthwhile to be mindful of conflicts of interest around these matters. But up to this point, I have yet to see a convincing argument that this source should be rejected. If you still feel it should, I'd suggest you clearly state which of these principles you want to work with, and then lay out your argument. Maybe you do want to make an argument that's a hybrid of both; but if that's the case, I think you'd do well to acknowledge that you're opening up a discussion that will involve a complex balancing act to evaluate principles in relation to one another, and that it's anything but clear-cut. I'm happy to hear you out (up to a point) if you want to take that path. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say Bellingcat is inferior. I meant merely that its smaller size gives it fewer resources than The Oregonian or The New York Times. Since it cannot be as selective in acquiring content, Bellingcat may be tempted to overlook conflicts of interest among its contributors. But again, I insist for latecomers, Bellingcat is not the issue. Robert Evans is the issue. We should evaluate his acceptability as a source in this particular instance based solely on his status as a litigant in a lawsuit against the PPB, which he alleges caused him direct injury during the George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon. NedFausa (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- “After that first week, it quickly escalated to us being treated like protesters. We weren’t being treated as neutral observers,” said Sergio Olmos, a freelance reporter who has been at the protest nightly capturing footage." - source link
- It seems like a good way to reduce coverage of the actions of an entity would be to violate the rights of a group of reporters, have them seek justice for the mistreatment, and then claim that they could not cover the story anymore due to bias.
- The Bellingcat article is one of the most detailed regarding the Who? What? Where? When? How? Why? of this subject to date. The timeline and trajectory is well aligned with what is known about the Seattle protests, as both cities, in the early days, were locked in a pattern with a similar cycle of violence at a fence, plus plenty of tear gas in a residential urban area. The article also more clearly defines the participation of the two red-linked subgroups in the Organizers section. I cannot see a reason to avoid its use. Cedar777 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- You write,
It seems like a good way to reduce coverage of the actions of an entity would be to violate the rights of a group of reporters, have them seek justice for the mistreatment, and then claim that they could not cover the story anymore due to bias.
Just to be clear, are you alleging that's what happened here? The Portland Police Bureau deliberately targeted Robert Evans by shooting him in the foot with a tear gas grenade, spraying him, and repeatedly shoving him, all in order to provoke him into a lawsuit against PPB so that I could claim Evans should not cover this story anymore due to bias. Wow. Just wow. NedFausa (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)- It looks like you, NedFausa, do not want reliable reporters to be heard. It looks like you wish to silence them. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Between the personal barbs, I think we're doing good work here in sorting through the relevant issues. Maybe I've contributed to that; my apologies if I failed in my attempt to reflect back what I was hearing, Ned I can assure you it was only in an effort to better understand you, I'll happily grant that any mischaracterization was my mistake. But, I'd urge us all to focus on the topic at hand, rather than one another's motivations. The article is what matters, not what we think of each other. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is not just one reporter that had this issue. NedFausa, I do agree that under ideal circumstances with one conflict between a single reporter and their subject, that the agency would send in a replacement. However, the dynamic is quite different here as there are several reporters stating, essentially, that in order to cover the story, that they had to endure being treated like protesters, breathing the gas, feeling the flash bangs, and worse, through no fault of their own. (again similar to Seattle w/ Omari Salisbury's reporting at Converge). The events between people and groups at these interfaces are complex, with many things occurring simultaneously in often contradictory ways. The bones of an article are best built from the major news agencies Reuters, Associated Press, BBC but for the details, regional on-the-ground reporting is essential. Cedar777 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- When Cedar777 said
It seems like a good way to reduce coverage of the actions of an entity would be to violate the rights of a group of reporters, have them seek justice for the mistreatment, and then claim that they could not cover the story anymore due to bias.
That did not read to me like Cedar accusing any wiki user of seeking to reduce coverage, but rather urging us to consider the context within which we're attempting to summarize reports. - I still haven't heard any objection to my original point, which is that it's publications (and their editorial process) that we evaluate as reliable or non-reliable, not individual journalists. It's the publication's job to vet and manage the reporter, and they build their reputation on how well they do that. In a situation like this (and having served as an editor myself), I'm confident that would involve a focused conversation between editor and reporter (Evans), about how to ensure any bias he has related to the lawsuit does not compromise the integrity of the reporting. It might also involve a clear disclosure of the lawsuit to the reader -- which is the reason we're discussing any of this. That's the kind of thing responsible news publishers do, and the existence of the disclosure should increase our trust in this source, rather than decreasing it.
- Overall, I've been following news about this closely, and I have yet to see another report as comprehensive as this one. Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall also recommends it as well, calling out the specific qualifications of Bellingcat and Evans for a story like this, and noting the "density and lucidness of the reporting". I recommend reading Marshall's entire characterization of Evans' story. In addition to the extensive NY Times interview with Evans discussed above, Buzzfeed featured him on its podcast, highlighting the article in question. The New Yorker and any number of other publications have talked about his reporting favorably. Evans comments on the actions of both protesters and police in a way that permits both positive and negative interpretations. This is clearly a useful piece to use as a basis for the Wikipedia article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- When Cedar777 said
- It is not just one reporter that had this issue. NedFausa, I do agree that under ideal circumstances with one conflict between a single reporter and their subject, that the agency would send in a replacement. However, the dynamic is quite different here as there are several reporters stating, essentially, that in order to cover the story, that they had to endure being treated like protesters, breathing the gas, feeling the flash bangs, and worse, through no fault of their own. (again similar to Seattle w/ Omari Salisbury's reporting at Converge). The events between people and groups at these interfaces are complex, with many things occurring simultaneously in often contradictory ways. The bones of an article are best built from the major news agencies Reuters, Associated Press, BBC but for the details, regional on-the-ground reporting is essential. Cedar777 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Between the personal barbs, I think we're doing good work here in sorting through the relevant issues. Maybe I've contributed to that; my apologies if I failed in my attempt to reflect back what I was hearing, Ned I can assure you it was only in an effort to better understand you, I'll happily grant that any mischaracterization was my mistake. But, I'd urge us all to focus on the topic at hand, rather than one another's motivations. The article is what matters, not what we think of each other. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like you, NedFausa, do not want reliable reporters to be heard. It looks like you wish to silence them. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- You write,
Based on the very well argued points for inclusion, I have restored the Evans piece in Bellingcat. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The Promised Land
Sourcing needed, but I can confirm The Promised Land has been removed from the Plaza Blocks:
---Another Believer (Talk) 01:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Change article name
The "Protests" aren't even about George the Floyd ABruhRandomUser (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- The protests were originally about George Floyd, viewing his murder as a symbol of racial injustice in America; just as the Civil Rights Movement began about segregation but grew to encompass a broad array of social justice issues. What other name would you use, and what sources would support that name? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- IMHO, the Portland demonstrations are fueled by people wanting a way to act out against Trump. Especially those who stay after hours at the protests. He brings that quality out in people. This has been noticed by others, & the head of the local NAACP issued a statement over the weekend that the protests need to return to the cause of ending police violence against Black people. (He appeared on the KGW News to discuss this statement further; I could see if I can hunt down a link or two.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- The opinion of Rev. Mondaine is just that -- the opinion of Rev. Mondaine. Have other local groups endorsed or agreed with his position? Commissioner Hardesty explicitly disagreed. Local media's coverage (see OPB's story) did not present his opinion as established or representative of a larger group. This opinion expressed by one person (in an admittedly widely-read venue), should not impact the way we title the article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- The talkpage is not a forum about the article topic, it's for discussion the article. NorthBySouthBaranof is correct in the onomastics of the protests. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- The opinion of Rev. Mondaine is just that -- the opinion of Rev. Mondaine. Have other local groups endorsed or agreed with his position? Commissioner Hardesty explicitly disagreed. Local media's coverage (see OPB's story) did not present his opinion as established or representative of a larger group. This opinion expressed by one person (in an admittedly widely-read venue), should not impact the way we title the article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- IMHO, the Portland demonstrations are fueled by people wanting a way to act out against Trump. Especially those who stay after hours at the protests. He brings that quality out in people. This has been noticed by others, & the head of the local NAACP issued a statement over the weekend that the protests need to return to the cause of ending police violence against Black people. (He appeared on the KGW News to discuss this statement further; I could see if I can hunt down a link or two.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Buildings and sites
---Another Believer (Talk) 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Riot Ribs
- https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2020/07/at-portland-protests-riot-ribs-is-dissolving-completely-after-threats-to-groups-safety.html
- https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2020/07/25/28675531/riot-ribs-to-transfer-leadership-to-dont-shoot-pdx
- https://pdx.eater.com/2020/7/27/21341063/riot-ribs-closing-twitter
- https://www.pdxmonthly.com/eat-and-drink/2020/07/amid-protests-riot-ribs-feeds-everyone
- https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/14/protesters-feast-on-riot-ribs-a-donations-only-barbecue-in-the-center-of-a-standoff-with-the-feds/
- https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/23/u-s-congressman-comes-to-the-defense-of-riot-ribs/
- https://pdx.eater.com/2020/7/16/21327332/riot-ribs-portland-mutual-aid-kitchen-free-food-for-protesters-locked-out-by-police
- https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/riot-ribs-supplies-seized-by-police-during-shutdown-of-lownsdale-and-chapman-squares-group-member-says.html
- https://pdx.eater.com/2020/7/27/21339455/higgins-piggins-riot-ribs-verde-cocina-fire
---Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Raffi
- https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/raffi-turns-beloved-americana-tune-famous-thanks-to-its-a-wonderful-life-and-bruce-springsteen-into-portland-protest-song.html
- https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/07/raffi-portland-moms-black-lives-matter-protest-song-stream/
- https://www.wweek.com/music/2020/07/25/legendary-childrens-entertainer-raffi-has-written-a-song-about-the-wall-of-moms/
- https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/9424882/raffi-portland-moms-song
---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Barr, fact checking
---Another Believer (Talk) 23:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
About "Naked Athena"
Willamette Week has a link to the podcast where they interview the woman behind the label. (I tried to listen to it; it is 2 hours long. The hosts rambled & digressed so much that after 15 minutes I decided I had better things to do than try to find some bit of information not in the articles about the podcast.)
For the record, while believe she deserves to be included, the article at this moment covers her in sufficient detail. More information would be bogging it down with trivialities. Maybe this could be included as an "External link". -- llywrch (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Wall of Moms
Related: Wall of Moms. Improvements welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Website tracking relevant news
My friend Andy shared this website he's created to track news about these protests. May be useful to wiki editors: http://portlandprotests.andysylvester.com/ Andy Sylvester's Portland Protests Reading List] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Violence
There has been a good amount of coverage of violence in the protests. Oregonian reporting estimates 19 law enforcement officers and dozens of injuries to protesters at the hands of la enforcement. Court rulings have specifically sought to protect journalists and legal observers, with the judge explicitly emphasizing the importance of documenting how protesters are treated. Here are a few links that could help improve our article's coverage of this aspect of the protests.
- Burns, bloody wounds, broken bones: Injuries mount at Portland protests
- Oregonian photo essay
- Federal officers at Portland protests could wear large numbers on fatigues and journalists could wear special vests to avoid conflicts, judge suggests, Oregonian, July 31, 2020.
- More on this frm Courthouse News Service
- DHS had "low confidence" in its assessment of the Portland situation prior to federal deployment. From the Start, Federal Agents Demanded a Role in Suppressing Anti-Racism Protests NY Times, July 28, 2020
- Somewhat tangential to this point, a Multnommah County judge has barred the Portland Police from live-streaming the protests: [5]
-Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
August seems to have really kicked off. The protests have taken on a newer form. Have included Ted Wheeler's response to the increasing virulence of the protests and violence. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- We also should add coverage of violence against protestors by third parties. Willamette Week is currently the only source I can find outside of twitter:
Impacts on policy, government, society
Starting this section to track the impacts of the protests. Some things are already mentioned in the article. It might be time to start pulling them out into a separate section (or at least ensuring they are all appropriately covered).
- Reduction of Portland Police Bureau funding
- City Council disposition toward upcoming contract negotiation
- Mike Schmidt assumes DA office months early, announces new policies on prosecution.[1][2][3] Characterization of Schmidt's election as marking a turning point from the legacy of Mike Schrunck.[4] Underhill initially planned to serve out his term,[5] but retired five months early to make way for Schmidt.[6]
- Portland State University disarms police[7]
- Special sessions of Oregon Legislature
- What else?
-Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/476553-385149-multnomah-da-mike-schmidt-wont-charge-some-protest-related-cases
- ^ https://www.opb.org/article/2020/08/11/multnomah-county-da-plans-to-drop-significant-number-of-protester-charges/
- ^ https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2020/08/11/district-attorney-mike-schmidt-will-drop-the-majority-of-current-charges-again-portland-protesters/
- ^ https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/05/portland-gets-first-outsider-district-attorney-in-mike-schmidt-part-of-national-wave-of-progressive-prosecutors.html
- ^ https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/05/mike-schmidt-wins-multnomah-county-district-attorney-race-oregon-election-results.html
- ^ https://www.koin.com/news/civic-affairs/multco-da-rod-underhill-to-step-aside-for-mike-schmidt/
- ^ https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/476821-385355-portland-state-university-will-disarm-its-campus-police
When the storytellers become part of the story...
Coverage of these demonstrations has a strong theme about the emergence of local, independent journalists. It has arisen partly due to police attacking and/or arresting journalists, which prompted judicial orders constraining the police's actions (see the discussion above of #Litigation by journalists). Regional and national media has noted the quality of reporting by independent journalists, and in some cases published interviews with them. [6] [7] [8] [9]
I suggest a new section titled "local and independent journalists" or similar to capture some of these themes. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Heading should be changed.
Continuing to call these protests while including up to the present day, is not accurate. They have been riots now since June 1st, 2020. That is when the demonstrators starting lobbing projectiles, fireworks and mortars at the police and it was first declared a riot. It has continued since then to be a riot every night with damage, fires, looting, attacks, etc. To continue to call this a protest is just not accurate at all.
- Your own source refutes your claim; it describes the events as "protests." A neat counterexample is the Unite the Right rally - while clearly marred by violence, including literal right-wing terrorist murder and assault by vehicle-ramming attack, we still describe the event as a "rally," not a riot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally police declaring something a riot does not make it so. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
References
"Portland protest turns violent, brutal assault caught on video"
- Portland protest turns violent, brutal assault caught on video
- Manhunt for Portland attack suspect enters day 2 as security company denounces any association
--TMCk (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
uploaded videos from 7/22
wow, it's been a month. I finally uploaded videos from when Ted Wheeler was there. I think the filenames are a decent summary. There are probably some good sound clips, maybe a few stills or short snippets can be pulled out of them.
- File:Federal response at police riot - night of Ted Wheeler at 2020 police riots - Portland Oregon.webm
- File:Ted shot us too! -- Resign! Now! -- War Crime Wheeler! Tear Gas Teddy! - Ted Wheeler at 2020 police riots - Portland Oregon 01.webm
- File:Fuck Ted Wheeler! - Ted Wheeler at 2020 police riots - Portland Oregon.webm
- File:Ted Wheeler speaking, unknown MC, then We Know Mac and Mac Smiff speaking- night of Ted Wheeler at 2020 police riots - Portland Oregon.webm
The source files are 2-20gb, except for the third, which I must've deleted. FYI in case anyone really wants a meaty file to edit, I have them. tedder (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Important sources that we've missed
There are some significant sources we haven't yet worked into the article, parking them here for later use:
- New York Times overview with maps and photos: Inside the Battle for Downtown Portland July 31
- Oregon Public Broadcasting, Portland’s protests: 3 months in, no end in sight, August 24.
Shots fired: Deadly Portland police encounters reveal troubling patterns August 15(overview since 2003/ Kendra James) Added 8/27 to the background section- Black People Nearly Twice as Likely as Whites to Be Arrested at Portland Protests by Karina Brown for Courthouse News, August 21, 2020. Discussed on OPB Think Out Loud on August 26.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteforsyth (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
caustic gas polluted the water
- So much tear gas has been sprayed on Portland protesters that officials fear it's polluted the water Quote: "Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) sent a letter to Portland's Bureau of Environmental Quality. "Due to the unprecedented amount of tear gas products used within the downtown area over the last 90 days," the letter read, "DEQ is requiring the City to conduct additional water quality monitoring." They added that the city must submit a monitoring plan within three weeks of the letter's date (which was August 20)." --217.234.72.253 (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I added a brief item to the end of the "Police" section. Not sure if it's the right section or enough detail, but it's a start. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Done
"Developer: Businesses leaving downtown Portland over riots"
---Another Believer (Talk) 22:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 30 August 2020
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon be renamed and moved to 2020 Portland Riots. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon → 2020 Portland Riots – I believe the name should be changed as the protests are not protests anymore due to the nature of the damages of buildings and personal property. The riots has been ongoing for 92 days and counting with buildings being stormed, lit on fire and many injuries. Portland police has declared riots most of the last 3 months. Efuture2 (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Efuture2 (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Move to 2020 Portland riots. These have gone far beyond "protests" at this point. O.N.R. (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Recent reliable sources frequently describe them as "protests" and referred to them as relating to George Floyd. Examples: [10] [11] [12] [13] Riots may occur in the context of protests, but not the other way around; numerous protests on the subject occur daily around Portland, only occasionally are they declared "riots." Even when they are declared "riots," that declaration by police is often contested in reliable sources, and is used to justify local police efforts to use impact munitions, tear gas, etc. In June the legislature prohibited use of such weapons in the absence of a riot declaration. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. It isn't about "general protests', they have a reason. My suggestion is Response to 2020 police violence in Portland, Oregon. tedder (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Searching "guardian portland" i see: "Fatal shooting in Portland as Trump supporters clash with Black Lives Matter protesters ", "One dead as protesters from rival sides clash in Portland", "Portland police order protesters to disperse ". As you can see, there are zero mentions of riot.--Hiveir (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- C-Class Black Lives Matter articles
- High-importance Black Lives Matter articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- Mid-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class Oregon articles
- Mid-importance Oregon articles
- WikiProject Oregon pages
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Requested moves