Jump to content

Talk:2017 Berkeley protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.208.70.47 (talk) at 20:31, 18 April 2017 (→‎add method: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suggestions for Results

  • Increasing use of political violence between the alt-right and the far-left in the United States
  • Milo Yiannopoulos speech cancelled by UC Berkeley
  • Nathan Damigo under investigation by California State Stanislaus

Anything to add? EthnicKekistan (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this prose, or for the infobox? If it's for the infobox, I don't think this belongs. Its too wordy. The first is speculative, since "result" implies its something that will happen because of the protests, while the latter two are specific to individuals and confined to the protests themselves, not unambiguously lasting consequences. Avoid WP:RECENTISM and wait for WP:LASTING effects to become clear. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EthnicKekistan: Please see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. All of this must be explicitly sourced, as well. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's for the result section in the inbox. Perhaps the inbox should be revised, but something of this scale is justified to have a results section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthnicKekistan (talkcontribs) 00:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. What's justified is what's supported by reliable sources, and even then, WP:V isn't necessarily sufficient. Many such event infoboxes do not have a 'results' section. It's entirely optional, and entirely premature. Wikipedia uses a long view, and this is still very fresh. See WP:NOTNEWS if you haven't already. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't, thanks! Wouldn't the US commenting on the Feb 1 incident count, however? EthnicKekistan (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is important to note that the LRA advertised the april 15th rally as a free speech/patriots rally. they openly condemned the few white nationalists that showed up and at no time implied this rally was pro-trump. https://www.facebook.com/events/185364111955870/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozmo12358 (talkcontribs) 1:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Names of those arrested on April 15 released

The Berkeley police have released a list of names of those arrested at the April 15 protest. I'm not sure how or if this information should be incorporated into this article, because I'm concerned about WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Putting the link here for reference. Funcrunch (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article also includes the names with additional information and context. Funcrunch (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Between WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME we would need a very good reason to include these names other than just WP:V. Even if any of these people are independently notable, we should probably find a more specific source just to make sure we have the right person, also. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Coverage

I noticed on the April 15th section that there weren't any mentions of Antifa being the other half of the fight, that the woman attacked was a member of Antifa and had earlier spoken about getting "100 Nazi scalps" at the protest. This section seems extremely biased against one side, and more information should be added. 47.156.34.70 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. both sides came itching for a fight in large numbers. while we can get into debates on who is more to blame, i think this fact isn't in dispute. in regard to the woman in question, she is seen swinging a glass wine bottle at people before she was punched. it was retaliatory. plenty of blame to go around. 24.130.1.183 (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are needed to add the stated information to the article. Funcrunch (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a free speech rally, to continue to call it a pro trump rally is directly in conflict with the truth: https://www.facebook.com/events/185364111955870/

also, many people in this article are labeled as white supremacists and alt right with no evidence provided to support it and the presence of neo-nazis at the rally is exaggerated with no mention of them being condemned by the speakers and the facebook page for the event. this appears to be an attempt to paint the rally itself as a much more radical event than it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozmo12358 (talkcontribs) 16:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

This was a free speech rally, to continue to call it a pro trump rally is directly in conflict with the truth: https://www.facebook.com/events/185364111955870/

also, many people in this article are labeled as white supremacists and alt right with no evidence provided to support it and the presence of neo-nazis at the rally is exaggerated with no mention of them being condemned by the speakers and the facebook page for the event. this appears to be an attempt to paint the rally itself as a much more radical event than it was. Cozmo12358 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Facebook is of limited value, and the name chosen for the rally shouldn't be overstated when many reliable sources link the rally to both Trump and the alt-right. Regardless of the eventual outcome of this discussion, the requested edit template should be posted after consensus has been reached through discussion, not before. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

add method

It says Vandalism, street fighting and assault, but riot i believe should be added, as the february 1st event became a riot.108.208.70.47 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]