Talk:Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests

Why capitalize antifa?

I think this gives a misleading impression of a single organization, rather than a movement. Similar to the use of capitalized and uncapitalized forms or "big-[letter]" and "small-[letter]" forms to refer to political parties and to political movements, respectively. So outside direct quotes where the source capitalized the term, I don't think antifa should be capitalized in the article, and in those quotes, it may need (sic). 138.88.18.245 (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I fixed twice where it was capitalized outside of quotes. Inside the quotes, I'm not opposed to adding [sic], but I'll leave that to someone else to make a call on. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Antifa not a proper noun, though (like "Million Man March")? Netside (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Violence section needs elaboration

The section detailing violence by police is rather well documented, but the section immediately below it describing violence involving protesters is extremely spare - to actually meet the goals of the article, it really needs at least as much attention as the other section, or the article begins to feel unbalanced or non-reflective of the events as they occur. Tpiatek360 (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't help but agree. More information is rarely a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kysier (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The death of David Dorn was caused by "protesters" because the media often mentions looters and rioters as "protesters". Someone Not Awful (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree and have always disliked how unbalanced and incomplete the two sections are in comparison, but editors over a month ago determined that a lot of the violence attributed to protesters was instead committed by supposedly unrelated "rioters" and "looters", so much of the documentation was relegated to the "Criminal activities" section. Anyone that has even casually followed the George Floyd protests know that protesters weren't always peaceful and non-violent, and the current state of that section does not convey that. RopeTricks (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, RopeTricks. This is whitewashing because the majority of Wikipedia editors are left-wing. Indeed, the article went from 30+ people killed in the protests to "19+". Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.55.110 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This could use a section for counter-protester or anti-protester violence, other than from the police.

e.g. the alleged pipe bomb attacks against protesters in Portland. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This does seem separate from protestors, and would probably paint a better picture of the time, IMO.

Netside (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Forbes

@Calton: you say the Forbes reference is to their blog site and NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE (curiously while restoring this reference, which is presumably the one you meant?). However according to WP:FORBES articles written by Forbes Staff are reliable, and it is by "Jemima McEvoy Forbes Staff". As the Forbes Contributors entry below it states Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites", so it appears, to me at least, that the article was written by Forbes Staff and can't be considered unreliable just by having a "forbes.com/sites" URL. FDW777 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen that concern raised about Forbes, but it had to do with people who contributed without their oversight, and so it clearly doesn't apply to articles written by their staff. Also, every single incident in the instant article links to other sources—as someone else pointed out, linking to each of those would be absurd and is totally unnecessary. Complaining about the reliability of sources in the abstract when there's zero actual reason to doubt the veracity of the information cited is unhelpful, defies common sense, and frustrates editing. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: You say that, "[c]omplaining about the reliability of sources in the abstract when there's zero actual reason to doubt the veracity of the information cited" is unhelpful, but, if you actually look at the Forbes story and some of the references, you would see that there is ample reason to doubt the veracity of the information. I will cite only a few examples, I do not wish to make this an exhaustive search. The second death (Oscar Lee Stewart Jr.) that was "associated with the protests" is an individual who "appeared to have suffered thermal injuries" and whose body was found in a building that had been torched in protests over a month earlier. With regard to the third death (Javar Harrell), "police claimed the incident had no connection to the protests". The fourth death "associated with the George Floyd protests" was labeled as "an act of domestic terrorism" by the Department of Homeland Security and it was perpetrated by Boogaloo movement member Steven Carrillo, who was charged with the murder on June 16. Perhaps identifying the Forbes reference as "not a reliable source" is inaccurate, but so is claiming that there is "zero actual reason to doubt the veracity of the information". Temadison (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

No need for an inline references, and the current one for the infobox deaths is innacurate.

An inline citation is not required if the article has sources according to WP:MINREF or if the info is obvious, and the figures given in the infobox should match the article. The current figure for deaths is innacurate and contradicts the sources in the article. The obvious number is what is sourced in the article, and unless another source is found supporting that number, there shouldn't be one. Warlightyahoo (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed at several other articles. Adding up numbers from multiple sources is original research. We can only use a source that reports the total. –dlthewave ☎ 02:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, but is there a wikipedia page that says that? Warlightyahoo (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how WP:MINREF negates the need for an inline citation. It says Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements . . . Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag). Since the statement has been specifically challenged, it needs an inline citation. FDW777 (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Challenging a statement that's obviously true solely because it doesn't have an inline citation—shouting "WP:OR!"—meets the standard for a "challenge" that requires an inline citation? Isn't it obvious how this frustrates accurate editing? How is an encyclopedia served by publishing numbers that properly-cited sources in the article itself show to be incomplete or inaccurate? Is it in any way less accurate to write "Reliable sources have reported 25 deaths" as opposed to "A reliable source has reported 19 deaths"—especially when the statement is immediately followed by a list of 25 deaths from reliable sources? It strikes me that both are undeniably accurate, and whether it's technically "synth" or not, the former is more helpful and complete. Obviously I get the concerns about original synthesis, but it's there to prevent inaccuracy—and lawyering that defies common sense and increases inaccuracy is anathema to the goal of this project. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

As the Washington Post demonstrate whether a death occurred during a George Floyd protest is a matter of opinion, thus in the absence of references explicitly confirming a specific death to have occurred during a George Floyd protest it is original research to claim otherwise. If something is obviously true there should be little difficulty providing references for it. FDW777 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Accusation of "police brutality" in Wikivoice is a BLP violation

I've been reverted for changing "police brutality" to "alleged 'police brutality'" in "Lawyer T. Greg Doucette and mathematician Jason Miller have compiled a list of videos posted on Twitter showing police brutality, which as of June 6 contains 428 videos." Police brutality is described as a crime by Wikipedia: "Police brutality or excessive use of force by law enforcement can be legally defined as a civil rights violation, where law enforcement officers exercise undue or excessive force against a subject." To claim, in Wikivoice, that thousands of police officers in 428 videos are guilty of a crime, despite few if any ever having been charged, seems to me to be a gross BLP violation. It should be obvious that "police brutality" suggests wrongdoing, and that to unquestioningly assume that all these officers are guilty of such is unnecessary, when it's easy to make clear that "police brutality" is the subjective opinion on one lawyer and one mathematician, who surely don't know all the circumstances surrounding each of the 428 videos. We owe those thousands of officers, none of whom are public figures and some of whom have been doxxed, special protections thanks to BLP. Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources mainly use "police violence" in their own voice, presumably to avoid this type of complaint.

If we're concerned about this type of BLP issue then we should also reconsider the use of "riot", particularly in image captions where we don't know that the individuals have been charged or found guilty. –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I also noted that "police use of force" or "police violence" is generally favored—but thought in the instant example it was worth describing the term that the video compilers used, since they were clearly alleging "brutality" as opposed to simple use of force. I have no issues with using the term where it has been proven—or even formally charged. And I do appreciate what you're saying about the issues with "riot". For what it's worth, I don't think "riot" presents quite the same issue—although "rioting" can certainly be a crime under US and state laws. Part of the problem is that I'm not quite sure how one would euphemize "riot"—as "civil disturbance" also sounds legalistic to my ear. "Protest" doesn't capture it, and sometimes riots don't involve any clear-cut protestation, especially when it comes to violence, looting, etc. How would you go about describing a riot in which no one was charged but during which wanton violence was involved—in a way that doesn't impute criminality to those not formally accused? Definitely worth discussing! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've also edited the lead, which again stated that "police brutality" occurred in Wikivoice—while citing six sources, not one of which states that as fact. The only source to even use the term "police brutality" to describe law-enforcement response was The Washington Post, which prefaced it with an "alleged"—in the headline. This is a blatant violation of some of Wikipedia's most basic guidelines, including WP:REF, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. My last edit was reverted twice, with no explanation other than a false accusation that I'd used "weasel words"—by people clearly unfamiliar with the definition of that term or the guidelines found under MOS:WEASEL and MOS:ALLEGED. The latter makes clear that: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined."—as is obviously the case in the instant article. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Further note: the page List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests, which is presumably the source for the information on this page, does correctly preface the phrase: "Lawyer T. Greg Doucette and mathematician Jason Miller compiled a list of videos posted on Twitter showing evidence of alleged police brutality." Yet I'm still being reverted here, by the same editor who reverted my prior edit here, and who refuses to discuss the issue on this page. Quite frustrating—would appreciate any suggestions about how to proceed. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added a few sources to the lead that unequivocally support "police brutality". Of particular interest is a Denverite article that covers a report on police actions from Denver's Office of the Independent Monitor that was officially accepted by the police chief. –dlthewave ☎ 03:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Organization of lead

The lead would be improved by some organization: the alleged police brutality sentence could be the start of a new paragraph, without a break between it and the sentence about "reports and videos". Also, it's odd to include accusations against police, then have the police response, then have Amnesty International's further criticism about the police, which was not prompted by the police response. (I also question whether it belongs in the lead, at all—they routinely issue such press releases, and it's hardly a critical component of the article). Logically, the accusations and criticism should be grouped together, with the police response last. Thoughts? Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Article seems to bias in the wording.

I would suggest that in dealing with type of article that we do our best not to take a side and remain neutral . Example is brutality used by police but no mention of the violence displayed by the other side.. anyone reading thiis can easily see the article is scewed to one side. We lose readers based upon the obvious bias account. Stick with facts and not opinonn. Just my thoughts Jacob805 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The article mentions violence by protesters throughout. FDW777 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Secoriea Turner

Why was info about Secoriea Turner's death removed? X-Editor (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a George Floyd protest. FDW777 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Secoriea Turner still redirects here. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Who/what determines whether to classify groups of violent people at protests as protestors or rioters?

Inquiry for information Netside (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No longer protests these are riots

I noticed that these are called protests. It should be called riots.

Here is the wiki definition :

A riot (/ˈraɪət/) is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property, or people.

Riots typically involve destruction of property, public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings.[1]

Riots often occur in reaction to a grievance or out of dissent. Historically, riots have occurred due to poverty, unemployment, poor living conditions, governmental oppression, taxation or conscription, conflicts between ethnic groups (race riot) or religions (sectarian violence, pogrom), the outcome of a sporting event (sports riot, football hooliganism) or frustration with legal channels through which to air grievances.[2]

While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots typically consist of disorganized groups that are frequently "chaotic and exhibit herd behavior."[1] There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that riots are not irrational, herd-like behavior (sometimes called mob mentality), but actually follow inverted social norms.[3]

Dealing with riots is often a difficult task for police forces. They may use tear gas or CS gas to control rioters. Riot police may use less-than-lethal methods of control, such as shotguns that fire flexible baton rounds to injure or otherwise incapacitate rioters for easier arrest.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.20.168 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason it is categorized under protests is that they are picking out specific rioting incidents from a series of protests, not all of which had any level of rioting. EytanMelech (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Raccoon and trash can lid incidents

Hi @HHelmsley10, I realize your first edit after mine wasn’t a pure revert, so apologies for the misunderstanding. There are still a couple of issues with the two incidents you re-added, and I’d like to avoid an edit war.

• Raccoon incident: This should be removed. The Fulcrum source doesn’t seem to be a reliable news source. It has tags like “social justice, stupid” and is sourced from newspunch.com, which also seems to be a predominantly opinion source. Neither are at WP:RSP, so it might be worth getting other opinions on those sources. The Law Enforcement Today source is clearly labeled as an editorial. It also doesn’t support the incident as being “violence by protesters” since it explicitly questions whether the perpetrator was a BLP protester or whether he was hijacking the movement. Without a clearly reliable source clarifying that this took place during the George Floyd protests and committed by a protestor, it should be removed.
• Trash can lid incident: This should be removed, or moved to “Criminal activity”. The local source is fine, but they don’t identify the perpetrator as a protestor, nor say that the protests were related to George Floyd. The Newsweek article does briefly mention George Floyd, but WP:RSP is mixed on Newsweeks reliability, so it would be better to have a more reliable source that connects the incident to George Floyd protests. If kept in the article, it should be moved to “Criminal activity”.

POLITANVM ^talk 05:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)