Jump to content

Talk:George Floyd protests

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hiveir (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 31 May 2020 (→Fluctuating death toll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:WPUS50

Supposed White Supremacist Involvement (Proposal)

The second half of the paragraph around supposed white supremacist involvement says this;

"Numerous people have told Minnesota Public Radio about seeing trucks marked with militia or white-supremacist symbols driven by white men, many armed and some wearing bullet-proof vests.[423] Some callers have described seeing white men smashing store windows and trying to start fires.[423] An attendee of the Friday night Minneapolis protests described seeing a white man carrying an assault rifle and a handgun, driving in a red pickup truck with Minnesota license plates and a far-right militia group Three Percenters symbol.[423] Another attendee reported a truck with a sticker featuring the OK sign symbol, which has been associated with white supremacists. The two men in the truck were driving aggressively, intimidating other drivers, and were seen to harass a woman leaving an apartment building garage.[423] Some social media users[dubious – discuss] have said that far-right activists and "fringe" libertarian groups were seizing on the instability to provoke violence and destruction."

As the previous discussion (here) notes, there is some evidence that white nationalist groups were there and this merits inclusion. But anonymous people calling into radio stations, saying things to media outlets, or even worse posting on twitter with no futher evidence is hardly that. We should be writing articles about what officials and verified sources say, not random unverified reports or "Some social media users". Otherwise, the entire article will just devolve into social media conspiracies. That is why I propose removing these sentences for now. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need two threads on the same topic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, I'm making a specific proposal. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I take it the above thread is closed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to replace this with RS testimony. It was dumb that we ever had stuff based on "social media users", because we have better alternatives. The RS spell out on their own what we know and do not know. After that, this conversation will be moot. --Calthinus (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New proposals go at the bottom.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles peaceful protests, and splitting pages

The majority of protests nationwide have been peaceful, but this is especially the case in Southern California. As someone from the region, I can tell you that there is a great deal of misreporting, especially in making majority nonviolent protests look like riots. The way it is portrayed on Wikipedia, it looks like it is entirely rioting, and additionally discards the great amount of violence inflicted on protesters by police.

Therefore, I promise expanding the particular section for Los Angeles to include the facts of the protests being mostly nonviolent, and additionally that Wikipedia may consider creating separate pages for how protests are going in certain major cities. That way, protests could be more easily differentiated from violent crime.

Wikipedia is a vital resource for millions. We cannot allow it to spread disinformation as well. PickleG13 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Against a seperate page due to not enough material to split off. Having a central page for the protests nationwide seems best at least for now. However if the Los Angeles section of the article is inaccurate it should be fixed with RS. U-dble (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There seems to be few chances that this move is going to happen, and there are 2 other move requests open on this page Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2020 Twin Cities riots → 2020 United States police brutality riots – Riots have spread beyond the Twin Cities; for instance, rioting has occurred in Columbus, Ohio, and numerous other cities as well (see NBC4 report on the rioting/protests that occurred: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/crowds-gather-across-columbus-to-protest-police-brutality/ Also see Twitter post by NBC4 reporter Eric Halperin: https://twitter.com/EricHalperinTV/status/1266229197896286208) TZLNCTV (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of our other articles are named that way. Many rioters are opportunists who are using the death of someone whom they'd never previously heard of as an excuse to be violent. Jim Michael (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Many rioters are opportunists who are using the death of someone whom they'd never previously heard of as an excuse to be violent." doesn't sound very NPOV, and unless you have a source for it I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's my reply to the comment immediately above it. I stated my reasons for opposing the proposed move further up this section. Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way you word it is rather odd, but that's somewhat true. The protests began peaceful and even socially distant, then someone lights a car on fire and soon the whole city's (cities?) ablaze. RBolton123 (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 29 May 2020 (2)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Snow close without prejudice for other RM proposals, after universal opposition expressed. With parallel RMs for the same page it would be pointless to keep this open. (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2020 Twin Cities riots → 2020 Twin Cities Uprising

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

Off-topic conversation.
**@Ed6767: You deleted my comment here. Was this on purpose or accidental? userdude 14:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 29 May 2020 (3)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Clearly this is an early close, as the RM was opened yesterday, but the situation has become so confused since then - with another RM opened below, a split out to George Floyd protests which I have also re-merged - that I think this would benefit from closing now. Furthermore, there has been a large amount of participation here already, which gives enough information to make a consensus call. On a pure head-count basis, I count roughly 38 in support and 24 in opposition, give or take. On the policy-based merits of the two sides, it has been demonstrated in the discussion that the terms "riot" and "protest" do both appear in the media, but the central assertion of the nominator - that reliable sources are predominantly using "protest", making this version the WP:COMMONNAME for the incidents, was not disproven. I'm therefore calling this as a rough consensus in favour of moving at this time. The RM below, proposing a move to George Floyd protests can remain open for the moment, and if that has consensus in due course then the article can be moved again. I would also point out that nothing is set in stone. If in a week or a month's time it becomes clear that "riots" was a more appropriate term after all, with clear evidence as to why, then a fresh RM could be started.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

  • Neutrality is not censorship, nor does WP:CENSOR support this argument. And I could just as easily point to plenty of articles named "___ protests" (for example, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, 2019–2020 Iraqi protests, 2019–2020 Lebanese protests, 1999 Seattle WTO protests, etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because the scope of those articles are protests, of which those riots were a minor factor. The scope of this article is about the riots, which is a notable event itself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment below. People are making claims about the scope of this article as though it's been formally decided, which to my knowledge it has not. I don't believe it is appropriate to split the riots into a standalone article while leaving information about the peaceful protests in the article about Floyd's death. Furthermore, peaceful protests have already been included in this article (primarily in the "other cities" section), so it's inaccurate to claim that that's the de facto scope or the formally-decided one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: The scope of the article was set when Mccunicano created the article and wrote "Riots warrant a separate article from the death of George Floyd". This move request is what's proposing to change the scope, I'm not making any de facto assumptions. Case in point, the riots here have received more coverage than the protests. Protests often happen after this sort of death, but what makes these protests more notable is that riots have formed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately article scope, like anything else, is decided by consensus and not set in stone by the original article creator. Although it would seem the creator was not making any statements about where the protests ought to be covered. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current scope and title is about the riots. The point is that consensus to change that hasn't been reached, so please stop acting confused about the current scope. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "acting confused", I am quite clear: the scope has not been decided in any formal way, and those who are referring to any existing scope are referring to the de facto scope that was determined by the article creator. It ought to be decided more formally; I am hesitant to start yet another discussion on this page, especially one so intertwined with this current discussion, but perhaps it is needed at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your below suggestion that a formal RfC might be needed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice4What, there’s no tyranny of the status quo on Wikipedia and just because someone at some point wanted this article to be about the riots we must stick to that absent strong consensus to change. NPOV is more important and we don’t work on “first come, first decides the scope” basis. Volunteer Marek 17:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You need consensus for change. The article is clearly titled "Twin Cities riot". Don't use scare words like tyranny to downplay my simple statement. We know that "riots" isn't an actual NPOV issue per other articles, it's just that this article is about the riots that have achieved notability beyond the other protests. To equate the notability of the riots to the peaceful protests would be WP:UNDUE. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - protests & riots are taking place, but it's the riots which are notable & the focus of this article. Jim Michael (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • To expand on this: the two terms are not mutually exclusive. "Protests" is a broad term that encompasses riots and peaceful protest. When RS use the term "protests" they are referring to the protests in general; when RS use the term "riots" they are referring to the riots specifically. The fact that some RS use the term "riot" ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) does not contradict other RS that use the term "protest". Protests are usually commonplace whereas riots are more unusual. The scope of this article should cover the riots, and the title should reflect so. userdude 14:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Where has the scope of this article been so specifically determined? I don't see that discussion on this talk page, but it seems to be being treated as though that decision was arrived at by consensus. As I see SoWhy has just pointed out, plenty of protests (with no rioting involved, or rioting and peaceful protest) are notable, and reliable sources covering the responses to Floyd's killing have covered both violent and non-violent responses. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand on this further: several users have raised the issue of NPOV with regard to the term "riot". However, concerns of NPOV violations are unfounded because numerous RS use the term "riot" (eg, above). Remember, NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (italics added). The term "riot" may be biased against the rioters, but this is a bias expressed by RS, and we must reflect it — NOT sanitize it. userdude 07:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ease of access, I will list the sources that use the term "riot", "rioters", or "rioting" here:
  1. France 24
  2. CBS Minnesota
  3. KIRO7
  4. KARE11
  5. FOX News
  6. The Australian
  7. Variety
  8. NPR
  9. Yahoo News
  10. Reuters
  11. City Journal
  12. The Washington Post
  13. KIMT3
  14. WRAL
  15. Diario AS (english)
  16. amNY
  17. Star Tribune
  18. Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal
  19. Minnesota Daily
  20. Publishers Weekly
  21. RealClear Politics
The point of this is not to claim that there are more uses of "riot" than "protest" — I'm sure there aren't. Rather, the fact that this many RS have used the term "riot" should show that NPOV concerns are unwarranted. userdude 08:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Riot" is a fine term to use, even if news agencies are avoiding it. Like others have said, there were several peaceful protests, but the riots/looting are what's notable and should be covered here. Spengouli (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riot being a loaded term because it makes you think about Trump's tweets is also "nothing but your opinion," I would think. I don't mean to "call out" anyone but this just seems bizarre to me. Spengouli (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I happen to agree that "riot" is a loaded term, though not because it reminds me of Trump's tweets (and that is not what Drmies said below, by the way). The Radio Television Digital News Association, which I also quoted above, writes: Words like riot, mayhem and thug may carry unintended meaning to various audiences ([8]). Even though we may be behind in establishing a universal approach to naming these articles, we can follow the guidelines used by reputable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GorillaWarfare: Assuming, arguendo, that we should follow the guidelines of RTDNA (either in addition to or instead of MOS), these guidelines do not say to never use "riot", but rather to be careful when using the term "riot". We are not the experts at interpreting RTDNA guidelines, so we should leave the interpreting up to RS — numerous of which, as shown above, have already decided that the situation warrants the term "riot" (despite, presumably, following RTDNA or similar guidelines). userdude 07:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC); anchor link added 07:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Riot" is a fine term to use, even if news agencies are avoiding it <<— you know you just basically said “we should do the opposite thing than what a Wikipedia policies require”, right? I mean, that right there is a perfect reason for the closer to completely disregard your !vote. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - NPOV. Many similar articles are named "protests",like 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. --DRIZZLE (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and precedent. Protests might also include riots (or lead to riots) but limiting this article's scope to just riots (criminal acts) ignores all the non-criminals protesting peacefully without any basis in policy. Regards SoWhy 14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; GorillaWarfara is spot on. The term "riots" is loaded--one is reminded of a certain racially charged word our president used in a tweet to refer to these events--and "protests" isn't just the more neutral word, it's also the more general word and the term used by reliable sources. And for those who say (see the "See also" section) that "riots" is standard, as in 1980 Miami riots and 1992 Los Angeles riots, well, there's 2015 Baltimore protests, and the Miami and LA articles really need to have their titles changed. GorillaWarfare, you want to do a few more? I find it interesting, by the way, that right now that "See also" section has this very telling piping, [[Ferguson unrest|2014 Ferguson riots]]. I don't know who did this, but that ain't right. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this issue would be a good candidate for a broader RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a feeling that the LA article is at the WP:COMMONNAME --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose at least for the time being. Before anything else, renames for current events are rarely productive. More often than not, we will find a name that fits eventually, and we're unlikely to find a permanent name while the event is ongoing, but we're almost certain to have an unproductive rename request every 36 hours or so. Beyond that, and I mean, I have a little bit of experience writing about strikes, protests, and riots, these terms are not mutually exclusive. Riots don't "just happen", and historically they are the outcome of strikes, protests, or both. The current naming is not inaccurate. It is currently correctly described as both a riot and a protest. Time will tell which one of these is more lasting a designation. GMGtalk 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These are protests - large, nationally covered protests and so named - which developed a riot component. Protest is a more inclusive term for the story and it is what Reliable Sources are using. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support - These are clearly protests against police brutality. Those are just facts, not POV. Any riots that occurred were just a side effect of the protests. So, they shouldn't be the defining factor. By calling them riots, we're marking them as a crime and invalidating what this actually is. — Starforce13 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG SUPPORT Per most, it is a protest w/ rioting side effects. Calling it riots unconditionally incorrectly reflects the peaceful protests elsewhere. Augend (drop a line) 15:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – This article is about the riots, not the peaceful protests. They are separate events. The term "riots" has been used by reliable sources: France24, Yahoo!, Fox News. Reporting on the protests encompasses the riots, but again, to rename this article would mean to broaden its scope. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how is this a NPOV issue? We have Ferguson unrest, because it's specifically about the unrest and not the protests. Same with the LA riots. Protests after these sort of deaths are common, it's the riots that rarely happen that make this notable. Calling it "riots" does not take away from the protests, which is already covered in the Death of George Floyd article. Stop falsely citing other articles as precedent such as 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, because the so-called riots that were parts of those protests are very small portion of what's happening while the ones here in the Twin Cities are not. Do not push a agenda to remove the "riots" title just because you think it downplays the peaceful protests, because it does not. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though I'm not sure "Twin Cities" is the best disamibuator, and it might still make sense to split out a separate article on the unrest at some point.--Pharos (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Floyd's death has provoked a spectrum of responses, ranging from protests, marches and vigils to civil disobedience, looting and rioting. It would violate NPOV to paint these varied reactions with a loaded term such as riot. Limiting the scope of this article to just the more violent aspects of the last few days is unbalanced. gobonobo + c 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Literally any protest that have ever happened in the Twin Cities can be added to the page if this change is made. Kire1975 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you are describing is already being done with this article, which is why the rename discussion is happening. Check out the Timeline section where it describes the protests. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support strongly (2020) Twin Cities protests as the title. While rioting did occur, peaceful protesting also occurred, and the article should reflect that. Also note that "riot" is a loaded term (esp. in an American context), and using it in the article's title would be a violation of NPOV. (Edit: in light of protests across the US, I think the article should be called "George Floyd Protests" instead of "Twin Cities Protests")FactCheck105 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - To reiterate "response to comment" above, if we call it merely 2020 Twin Cities protests how would that not include last month's anti-lockdown protests in St. Paul. Furthermore, there are protests in St. Paul but none of them are any more notable than the ones in Denver, Columbus, Memphis, Los Angeles or elsewhere. Kire1975 (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - As much as I personally think "riots" is a more appropriate term for these events, it does seem like all examples that would support an "oppose" opinion (1992 Los Angeles riots, 2005 French riots, 2011 England riots, etc.) are a result of WP:COMMONNAME, whereas others are not. Until we get a common name that describes these events as a riot, "protests" are a more all-encompassing term. Love of Corey (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - These were not protests. These were riots. Private property that had nothing to do with the death of George Floyd was destroyed and stolen. That is completely unacceptable criminal behavior that does not constitute a peaceful protest, as many are claiming it is. The suggestion to change to the article's name comes across like a political move to me. To act as if these were "peaceful protests" is simply disingenuous. -- Cc330162 (talk)
  • This is a straw man argument - no one has proposed that it be renamed "Twin Cities peaceful protests." The Timeline section of the article is at odds with your statement that "These were not protests." The Timeline of events starts with "Protests of Floyd's death emerged ..." and "The protests continued into May 27..." -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support - I see no reason why Hong Kong protests deserve to be called protests if the George Floyd riots are not called protests. Both involve behavior that would be considered "rioting" but only one is called a riot. This double standard is a violation of NPOV. Qiushufang (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a double standard and don't throw around NPOV if you don't understand. Using imaginary number heres, but let's say 5-10% of the coverage for the Hong Kong protests are the riots. Thus, the protests themselves are the primary topic. For this article, 70-80% of coverage is about the riots, making them notable on their own. That's the different. Don't compare apples to oranges. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The HK protests are primarily planned protests with specific political goals & a proportionately small amount of violence. These are very different in that they turned violent quickly & involve a lot of looting, arson etc. Jim Michael (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming the article "Twin Cities protests". There have been protests and there has been rioting. The two terms should not be used interchangeably. However, retitling it "Twin Cities unrest" is a good solution as unrest can include both peaceful protests and rioting.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per Fuzheado. "Riots" is limiting in scope. إيان (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support as descsribing these as "riots" is not only inaccurate to the full scope of activity that is happening, but also is very non-neutral and politcally charged. In addition, it is convention events like these are named as protests and reliable sources name it as such. There is no reason to name this article as a riot except to falsely mislead the reader and to propagate a political narrative. DTM9025 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'd like any editor who will consider to close this discussion to note the unfounded "precedent" that many people have cited above that equates spontaneous looting and arson to relatively planned and calm protests in Catalonia and Hong Kong (that had minor elements of violence). Why is it called "riots" when it happens in India but suddenly it's a POV issue when it happens in the States? The idea that keeping the word "riots" is pushing a political narrative ignores the subsequent political narrative of equating the peaceful protests to these riots (WP:UNDUE/WP:PTOPIC). I suggest making a separate article about the nationwide George Floyd protests to cover the more peaceful aspect. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you read the OP post by GorillaWarfare, you will see for the most part we use "protests" and not "riots" when discussing these sort of movements and reactions in reaction to an injustice. I was not involved in the other article you mentioned, but that does not disclude the fact that "riots" is way more unneutral and political then "protests". I personally rather make this article talk about all the reactions of this injustice as it would be too many articles that are too spreadout otherwise. DTM9025 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That post is misleading. Rioting was not a major aspect in Lebanon or Iraq, nor did it receive widespread coverage. Ferguson unrest is not called protests. 2020 Delhi riots is not called protests. 1992 Los Angeles riots is not called protests. Those other articles are about protests, this is about riots. Again, I suggest an article for the nationwide protests and then this article separately since these riots are notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the original intention of this article to only cover the "riot" aspects (that by itself is nebulous), it is clear that the scope of the article has changed to all the various demonstrations in reaction to this injustice, with Death of George Floyd article linking to this page in the lede as "demonstrations and protests" and it being the main article for "Memorials, protests, and riots." As such, I would prefer renaming this to protest and covering the different reactionary demonstrations in this article, especially since most news articles have referred to these as protest as shown in the OP. DTM9025 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence of 2020 Delhi riots - "Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire... More than a week after the violence had ended, hundreds of wounded were languishing in inadequately staffed medical facilities and corpses were being found in open drains." That incident is dramatically different than protests and property destruction in Minneapolis. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per the facts of what has occurred. The center of the riots (in Minneapolis) has been around the 3rd precinct building, which (along with many other buildings in the area) was burned in the events. Rioting constitutes direct physical attacks by a mob of people against some kind of authority and/or symbol of authority; if this definition is to be adhered to, this would be considered a series of riots. Peaceful protests could have been the original intent (I would assume it was); however, regardless of whether the protests were hijacked in some way, the term "riots" reflects an escalation of "protests" - an escalation which, in the article, has already been documented to have occurred. Sections of the article could, however, distinguish the phases and areas of these events; for instance, peaceful instances should be referred to as "protests", and if the events have escalated into visible property damage and looting, the term of referral should be escalated to "riots". In any case, however, the term for the overall events should be the term used to refer to the maximum escalation of the events in general - and in this case, it escalated to riots. --TZLNCTV (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Looting and burning down homes/businesses aren't protesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C60:5300:1714:8163:6AE7:47E1:A157 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — 2600:6C60:5300:1714:8163:6AE7:47E1:A157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose - As it currently stands, this article is about the rioting and only tangentially about the peaceful protests. Unless and until the article is expanded to also deal with the protests, the current title is more accurate than the proposed change. When that is said, I think it would make sense to create a new article about the peaceful protests, and leave this article about the riots. I also see why many people want to make the title reflect that protests and riots have spread beyond the Twin Cities, but for lack of a commonly used name in RS, calling them the "Twin Cities" riots and protests is currently the least bad option. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is provably incorrect - The Timeline of events starts with "Protests of Floyd's death emerged ..." and "The protests continued into May 27..." The characterization in your !vote is inconsistent with the fact that the article is very much about the protests and not focused on the "riots." Prior Wikipedia examples show that if there is indeed organizing and activism, and not just random violence, protest is the consistently used term. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes? My point isn't "this article isn't about the protests at all", my point is "this article is primarily about the riots". There are mentions of the peaceful protests, but it's a lie to say that this article primarily deals with the protests in general rather than the riots specifically. No one's denying that there was/is peaceful protest, but for some reason many people here are denying that there was/is rioting. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As far as I'm aware events like the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, 2019–2020 Iraqi protests, 2019–2020 Lebanese protests, don't feature the looting of almost 200 stores (possibly more) as part of the protests. The recent Twin City events are much closer to what would be called "riots" than actual "protests" from everything I've seen and read. Yodabyte (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would be wrong. Did you try looking? "Hundreds of shops destroyed as Hong Kong protesters defy rally ban" (France24, 20/10/2019). "As violence and vandalism escalate in Hong Kong, some protest supporters have had enough" (CNN, October 27, 2019). This pretty much invalidates your point. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - All news media reports it as riots at this point, doesn't mean riots are not a type of protest, all the 60s riots, the 1980 Miami riot, 1992 LA riot were all violent protests against racism. Protests that turn violent are called riots, featuring looting, shooting, arson attacks, killings, stone throwing, etc. But all these anger just steams from such non stop police brutality. The main point is both riots and protests have been used to describe the incident by WP:RS. I fail to see why it should be renamed just based on certain editor's view that the term riot is not NPOV. Then also rename the 60s riots, 92 riot ands all riot articles. WP:RS terms it riot thats what it should matter, not editor's personal views. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be your own WP:OR though. The naming of the article needs a policy basis, which is why we rely on what WP:RS use, and prior Wikipedia examples show that if there is indeed organizing and activism, and not just random violence, protest is the consistently used term. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fuzheado | that is YOUR WP:OR, news media reports this as riot, sources names it as riot, both protest and riots have been described by WP:RY, so stop singling out a term based on your personal views. Riots do not violate NPOV its just a term for violent protest, lots of riots in the 60s civil rights movement, 1980 miami riot, 1992 la riot are described as what they are riot. So Stop trying to dictate words based on your personal views, point is most WP:RS have termed it a riot and it should be called what it is. Please do not falsely accuse other users of pusing POV, I stated what sources stated. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, I meant your statement: "Protests that turn violent are called riots." There's no Wikipedia policy basis for that. Since we're here, why did you !vote twice here? I've struck the other one below. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was accidental, read my edit summary, I removed that one. Anyway what matters is WP:RS and they term it as riot. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree what matters is WP:RS. Here is the tally - 13 major news orgs using protests consistently in headlines, and not riots - NY Times, CNBC, National Public Radio, Detroit Free Press, Minnesota Public Radio, CBS News, CNN, Business Insider, Washington Post, Denver Post, Al Jazeera English, The Guardian (UK), Wall Street Journal. FOX News [9] use riots, and France24 [10] [11] and Yahoo! [12] [13] both use "riots" and "protests." -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The RIOTING, i.e. people looting, burning, destroying property, assaulting people, etc., is a distinct and notable phenomenon. It might be a good idea to also have an article about protests (i.e. people doing things like marching, holding signs and banners, chanting slogans, etc.) in the wake of the Floyd killing, but again, this is something very separate and distinct. To conflate the two would both unfairly tarnish the protests and also misleadingly sanitize the rioting. Keep them separate! -2003:CA:8732:E411:7403:21A3:FCA0:15AC (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -As the events that happened in Hong Kong are only labeled as 'protests' this should be labeled just as so. This shows double standards, which would be a violation of NPOV Gorden 2211 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lets judge before seeing what majority votes say, various WP:RS calls it riots, riots are just protests turned violent like the 1960 riots, all were civil rights protests. Why should this be speedy renamed because certain users feel riot is a term against NPOV? If WP:RS calls it riot (wqhich they do) then thats what should matter. Anyway lets decide based on majority votes before rushing to a speedy conclusion. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You must be new here, because "majority votes" is not how it works. "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly." Please read the policy pages. "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments" (Wikipedia:Requested_moves) "...this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority" (Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions) -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not censored. These events are clearly riots and are referred to as such by reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Protests" generally refers to peaceful protests, not ones involving violence and property damage. Those are called "riots". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can't stand this hypocrisy anymore, the HK protests showed MAJOR amount of violence with people tearing up the street, throwing cocktails, setting fire and smashing local businesses but now its just a "small part of it" and "its apple and orange" So when the agenda is something you approve of, the violence is overlooked and the political statement is one getting highlighted but if its something you don't approve of, its the riots that are the primary focus? Even a blind person know the political statement the twin cities protesters are trying to make and that is to end police brutality and mistreatment of black americans. The lootings ARE NOT THE PRIMARY FOCUS and by choosing to set it as such, you are trying to push your own narrative of what happened. Its especially hypocritical when the exact same things happened in other recent riots but you CHOOSE to downplay it instead. This is honestly disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantstandthishypocrisy (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — Cantstandthishypocrisy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Have you ever considered that what the coverage focus on depends highly of the motive and agendas of the new companies. Do you honestly think they were going to focus on the ongoing violence in the other protests when its in other countries that are not allied with the US? What the media choose to focus on is motivated by a lot of factors, and just the idea that "there are coverage on violence so we will talk more about the violence" is NOT a neutral way of looking at the issue. Wiki is supposed to serve as a neutral bystander and present BOTH sides of the issue. Honestly, I don't know people can be so blind to their double standard. Most likely, I won't convince you but please at least think about the things you are saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantstandthishypocrisy (talk • contribs)
Cantstandthishypocrisy, that's why we seek consensus Ed6767 (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that article should probably be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change name to "George Floyd killing protest or similar, as this is happening in cities across America. ɱ (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – For the sake of neutrality and to account for the fact that there are still plenty of lawful protests taking place. Master of Time (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is about more than riots, it's about widespread protests (of which is the riots are a part). Guettarda (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could move to support if a separate article was created to cover the protests. Most likely, I think it might be more appropriate to give those articles a name reflecting this being a national string of protests (and riots) as opposed to simply the Twin Cities. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: They began peaceful, and riots (while true) can be better substituted by protests. A riot is a form of protest, not the other way around. This may develop into other events, so it's better and future-proof to rename it to protests. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 02:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree with the above statements that protest is more neutral and more broad than riot, and this article seems to cover both. In fact, the article uses the word "protest" and its variants far more than "riot", which may in part due to media coverage calling it protest as well. So overall it seems like a reasonable move. ChromeGames923 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are certainly riots occuring by any definition of the word. Any parallel peaceful protests can get their own article and let it be called that.--Therexbanner (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Protests can semantically encompass both the peaceful protest and the riots. The only other to way to properly address this would be to have two separate articles, but that would make it difficult for readers to understand the overall subject of the aftermath of Floyd's murder. - MrX 🖋 03:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – Agree entirely with User:WhoAteMyButter; riots are forms of protests, protests are not forms of riots, and as others have pointed out, they started out peacefully (and continue to be as such). LeoC12 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The defining characteristic of the protests in this case has been riots, arson, and looting. The extreme lawlessness necessitated a response from the National Guard, thus I feel that riots is a more apt term, especially given the fact that there has been constant and deliberate violence every night, without a single night's break for nothing but peaceful protest. Riots better encapsulates the demonstration and unrest than protests, which in common parlance tends to mean a peaceful demonstration. Porcelain katana (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Just because there are a few instances of violence doesn't mean this event can be framed as a riot. Plenty of peaceful demonstrations against the state of the government. Dismissing this event as a just a riot instigated by thugs would imply an endorsement of a politically charged narrative. Leotext (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Going in a march holding placards is protesting. Arson, looting and property damage have nothing to do with peaceful protests. The article clearly descibes acts of rioting from May 27 and May 28. Valentinian T / C 04:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuzheado | Talk 07:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial reaction is support and also merge in George Floyd protests into a more general article, is my first reaction, but if other people have good counterarguments to that I would not object to other consensus BlackholeWA (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Twin city is slang. Also 2020 United States police brutality riots seems a better fit as incidents have happened in other cities which would fit in with this page. Games of the world (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Wikipedia didn't make the article death of George Floyd into killing of george Floyd. This should therefore be twin cities protest rather than riot because we should go with the most neutral term first until more evidence becomes available.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close discussion

@Amakuru: I find this closure wholly inappropriate. Discussion was still ongoing, and this discussion was closed less than 24 hours after it was opened. Claiming this situation has become so confused without further explanation is not a valid reason to close. The situation is NOT confused, rather Mangokeylime simply opened a new discussion in violation of WP:MULTI. That is is not a reason to early-close an active discussion as move. If any discussion is to be early-closed, it should clearly be #Requested move 29 May 2020 (4), which was more recent, opened in violation of MULTI, and had fewer commenters. You say that the central assertion of the nominator - that reliable sources are predominantly using "protest", making this version the WP:COMMONNAME for the incidents, was not disproven. I have several problems with this statement.

  1. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply, because none of the sources cited in the original nomination used the term "Twin City protests". Rather, they simply used the term "protests" and not the term "riots" (see #3).
  2. This is not an issue of choosing the more common name between two synonymous names. Even the original nominator made this clear: "Do not use words like protest and riot -- or protester and rioter -- interchangeably.". This was never an issue of COMMONNAME, it was an issue of neutrality and scope.
  3. I had already stated repeatedly that this is not an issue of a dichotomy between "protests" and "riots", but rather the protests encompassed the riots, as well as other peaceful protests. the two terms are not mutually exclusive. "Protests" is a broad term that encompasses riots and peaceful protest. When RS use the term "protests" they are referring to the protests in general; when RS use the term "riots" they are referring to the riots specifically. The fact that some RS use the term "riot" ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) does not contradict other RS that use the term "protest". Thus, it does not make sense to compare counts of RS that use the word "protest" or "riot", because the term "riots" refers to events distinct from the protests at large. Again, this was not an issue of COMMONNAME, but an issue of scope and neutrality. No one had disproven this statement because no one had yet responded to it — despite the fact that I pinged GorillaWarfare and Fuzheado reiterating the statement. (I'm not saying no one might have come along and disproven my statement, but no one had the chance to as a result of the inappropriate early close.)
  4. While I acknowledged in my response The point of this is not to claim that there are more uses of "riot" than "protest" — I'm sure there aren't., I still demonstrated that the nominator's claim that reliable sources are predominantly using "protest" cannot stand as a mere assertion, and as the twenty-one sources I provided using the term "riot" are, in fact, more than the three sources the nominator provided that did not use the term "riot". If providing a literal list of sources using the term "riot" isn't enough to challenge an assertion, I don't know what is.

Pointing out that nothing is set in stone is not a valid reason to close an active, productive discussion. I am aware that there is no deadline, but that is not an excuse to close a discussion in favor of one side without adequate reason and just tell other people to fix it later. I kindly request that you re-open this discussion. If not, I request that you respond to my contentions as you are obligated to do per WP:AN/RFC#3. Thank you, userdude 11:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good close - It was becoming increasingly clear, not just from a numeric tally but from the substance of the comments, that the sentiment of the folks chiming in were either for protest or unrest as the ultimate larger scope of this article. UserDude, for the sake of getting us to more productive work vs. spilling another few megabytes about one word change for the article, could we consider just getting back to real editing of this article? It's really not a good use of our time to keep stringing this out as there were really no new or compelling arguments being raised. I'll address some specific points, but it gives me no pleasure. I'd rather us just get back to work adding real content to the article.
a. We cannot just declare that "WP:COMMONNAME does not apply" because it's not a laser exact match for what we are considering as the title. That's never been our modus operandi, and there's no justification to adopt a new practice now. We're intelligent human beings who can interpret some convergence on a title by WP:RS whether they are using "Twin City protests" or "Minneapolis protests" or "Floyd protests in Minneapolis" etc.
b. I agree it should not be a dichotomy between "protests" and "riots" and my support sentiment above reflects that - it was about scope, and clearly the "Timeline" section of the article led with the protests and the context, in addition to the top part of the article. So of course the article is more than just the riot. So why have we focused on the "protests" vs "riots" issue? See next item.
c. The focus on what WP:RS have been calling these events was prompted by many people !voting "Oppose" because they kept saying reliable sources were using "riot." You even have a 21 point seemingly impressive list of news organizations using the term. But a blunt search for a single word is bad methodology for justifying the naming of this article. No one has ever refuted that the word "riot" has been used by news organzations - they all have. Instead, for the naming of a Wikipedia article, we have always looked towards headline writing to understand what WP:RS have labeled an event as the closest analog to what we do in terms of naming articles. I provided evidence showing 13 major sources used protests consistently, and not riots. Only FOX News used "riots" and "looting" as umbrella terms. Two major sources used both terms in significant amounts. I'm not sure how many of these discussions you've been a part of but for more than a decade, every move/title discussion I have been part of has accepted this method of measurement as a best practice.
d. When compared to prominent previous articles for 2020 such as 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests and 2020 Delhi riots, going with protests is clearly the appropriate way to go. When there is popular political activism at the heart of an endeavor (as with Hong Kong, or Iraq, or Lebanon, or Seattle WTO) and significant violence and vandalism also result, it makes sense to circumscribe the activities as "protests," as WP:RS have done. In the case where it is ethnic, religious or cultural clashes with physical confrontation as the main point conflict, as with the Delhi riots, WP:RS have gone with "riots" as a more rare but justified term to describe the entirety of the events. When presented with this context, no one had a good argument to say that the reactions to Floyd were more "Delhi" than "Hong Kong."
I think that does a pretty good job of summing it up, and thanks to Amakuru for trying to recognize these early and get us back to productive work. Can I ask folks to not think of this as a MMORPG and about this as winning or losing? There is no shame in just getting back to collaborating. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this was a good move and I thank Amakuru for carrying it out. I also think that we should have a moratorium, just a brief one for a week or so, on any further RMs - pending the closure of the open RM below. We can continue to discuss the title as we wish, but no formal discussions or RMs, and no actual move, until the situation is behind us and we can get some historical perspective. This is not a formal declaration of moratorium, just MHO. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good close I also concur that this was a good closure of the renaming request and thank Amakuru for carrying it out. I'm not going to repeat the points made by Fuzheado, but this is a rapidly developing event and making this decision now after the huge amount of participation was necessary. All but one source (that being Fox News) use the term protest so it is clear that for now we should use that to describe the range of demonstrations and activities have occurred. Furthermore, this article is being linked to by multiple related articles, from the Death of George Floyd linking to this as "demonstrations and protests" and thus it is clear "protest" is appropriate. Again, thank you for Amakuru for carrying it out. DTM9025 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - apologies for not being online much today, or responding to the above comments in a timely fashion. Just to say that I understand why UserDude and others are disappointed, it's never ideal when Wikipedians get into very polarised debates like this, and one side has to "lose" while the other side "wins". But I think my call at the time did reflect the consensus of the community, and I think in this case that there was no value in allowing two contradictory RMs to proceed for the usual mandated seven days. Clearly, with the close below, events have not moved on considerably further than the situation when I made the close above, so I hope that we can get some stability now and proceed with making the article the best it can be rather than arguing about the name. If, when the dust settles, it's clear that we're not using the correct name then we can reassess at that time. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2020 (4)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Events are moving quickly, and it is clear that the unrest is now at a national scale. Though discussion is ongoing, it is clear that there is rough consensus for George Floyd protests. I count 20 supports (though they varied in their exact wording) to only 5 opposes. Though Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, we very much exist in the real world right now, and it is important to have an accurate title, thus the early closure after just a little over 24 hours. I hardly expect this to be the last RM, but at the moment, things have certainly spread beyond the Twin Cities. There are still questions over whether it should be referred to as "protests" or "riots" (though RM 3 did give rough consensus to "protests" at the time), if it should be given a more national/broader title, or if it should include "2020". I would encourage a bit of work-shopping before opening the next RM, in order to find a more conducive long-term title. It seems we may need a few days of news coverage before a long-term WP:COMMONNAME emerges. It is also possible that the content could be split out, as was previously attempted. A discussion about scope/splitting should likely follow this RM. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities protests → George Floyd protests

There is another request on this page to give the article a name that reflects the nationwide aspects of the protests. I think the term "George Floyd protests" which has been used in the press, is a good title. A quick google search can show that this title has already been in use by media outlets. I think this title is descriptive, concise, popular, and shows the nationwide aspect of the protests. If you have another idea for a title I'd love to hear it. Mangokeylime (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • My proposal (#3), though it uses "Twin Cities", reflects my strong opinion that the article should be named "___ protests". I would support "George Floyd protests" as well, though I would oppose "George Floyd riots". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may be appropriate if it proves necessary to split out the national protests from activities in the Twin Cities. I believe GW's RM should be addressed first.--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until the other RM is resolved. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Still think this is already overkill. Love of Corey (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The RIOTING, i.e. people looting, burning, destroying property, assaulting people, etc., is a distinct and notable phenomenon. It might be a good idea to also have an article about protests (i.e. people doing things like marching, holding signs and banners, chanting slogans, etc.) in the wake of the Floyd killing, but again, this is something very separate and distinct. To conflate the two would both unfairly tarnish the protests and also misleadingly sanitize the rioting. Keep them separate! -2003:CA:8732:E411:7403:21A3:FCA0:15AC (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, as protests is a broader term that can encompass all actions taken by those that have taken to the streets.Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The acts of violence that have been committed thus far should not invalidate the fact there have largely been peaceful protests in the wake of these violent killings. A few weeks ago other protesters blocked highway traffic, prevented emergency vehicles from reaching hospitals, marched around with guns, openly displayed hate symbols, lynched an effigy of an elected official, and arguably endangered the public by potentially spreading COVID-19 -- but these have all been deemed protests, not riots. Backchannels (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note George Floyd protests (permalink) has been split off from this article & Support merging George Floyd protests here and moving this page (Twin Cities riots) to that title while expanding the scope at the same time to list all notable protests.  Nixinova   T   C   08:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems to be more than one City now and "twin city" seemed a little slangy. Games of the world (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's nationwide now. It's become a national and not just local issue. Even the White House was under lockdown because of the protests. Yekshemesh (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There are huge protests all over the country. It has very little to do with the Twin Cities. Less to do with St. Paul than Minneapolis. Protests is more comprehensive than riots. Unprovoked violence against protesters by police, cars running over people blocking highways and agent provocateurs smashing windows and painting "free stuff" on autozone buildings (sources available upon request) has as much to do with any violence than dehumanized animalistic stereotype images stealing private propery because it is part of their subhuman nature. "George Floyd protests" is probably best because the phenomenon only exists because of him. Kire1975 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : Protests have spread nationwide to Atlanta, LA, and people are also protesting outside the White House. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 11:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support I was involved in one of the discussions above this as well. There are now protests in at leats 28 cities, it seems utterly ridiculous to insist on keeping this article in such a limited scope and with such a limited name that no longer represents the accuracy of what is happening. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • EITHER TITLE IS INFERIOR. Given at least twelves cities involved as of last night, I propose 2020 US urban riots as a better choice, per Watts riots as titling precedent. This is not a mere "protest" anymore, and hasn't been since halfway through the first day, anymore than was the case at Watts. For every person discussing grievances with a Unicorn Riot reporter, there's three hundred people in the background smashing, looting, and burning. (Most of the people being interviewed on the streets by Unicorn Riot defend the violence, if not outright participating in it, saying it's necessary or nothing will change.) -- Maybe one person in ten is carrying a sign in the daylight, and none of them are after sunset. --2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) <just.another.IP.user>[reply]
  • Strong support. It isnt restricted to a single place, the protests/riots are happening all over the US in many cities and places. Also the term "twin city protests" is a violation of WP:OR, no WP:RS names it as such, while a lot of WP:RS uses the term George Floyd protests . Dilbaggg (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Protesting is not isolated. However, the rioting is notable so i propose rioting being included in the name or a name that is inclusive of the rioting. Life200BC (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with a perviosu commenter that a term usch as 2020 US urban riots would be more appropriate. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now: I support this rename for now, but the situation is fluid — if rioting becomes more common and more pronounced within the media, I would expect another name change. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Protests have now spread nationwide and that should be reflected in the article's title. We can either make this the central article with a national scope or create a new article at George Floyd protests. At this point, events in individual cities outside of Minneapolis-Saint Paul do not appear to warrant their own articles. gobonobo + c 14:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's no different than the King assassination riots of 1968, where it list cities suffered from rioting in response to the Martin Luther King Jr. being killed in Memphis on April 4, 1968. Also, the article should give riot-torn protest cities here in the U.S. equal treatment rather than just Twin Cities should the title be actually renamed. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the protests are not only about George Floyd deaths but also about Arbery's death and that other woman who the police killed.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support George Floyd protests. Ultimately this could turn into a more generic May 2020 police brutality protests in the United States - but George Floyd is how people will be looking for these. Either way the lede should mention the other killings that are being protested, per above. Oppose riots in the title as riots are a component, but not the total sum of the protests and unrest. And, these are now clearly nationwide. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to George Floyd protests - This article doesn't only discuss the protests in Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, and I think the protests elsewhere are just as notable as the ones in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These protests have not only been about George Floyd but also about police brutality as a whole and therefore could be misleader. Epicneter (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, term being in the press [18], captures the protests outside Twin Cities. And, the current title is ambiguous as it's vague. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are now many additional protests outside the twin cities, therefore the article name is outdated. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "George Floyd protests and riots" Riots are taking place in Columbus, and elsewhere, not really in the same realm as protests. But, yes, this article title needs to reflect the scope beyond Twin Cities, immediately. ɱ (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A new name centered on the particular victim doesn't really seem to fit the pre-existing nomenclature used for protests/unrest/riots like Watts '65, LA '92, Ferguson '14, Baltimore '15, Milwaukee '16, etc. I think an article expansion towards what phoebe mentioned like 2020 police brutality protests in the United States makes more sense anyways given how much the protests have spread across the country. I also agree that any use of "riots" in the title would be inappropriate right now. If the situation were to become like 1992 with many dead and even more widespread issues, I think you could have a discussion about it, but right now, such a title would be an unfair title to the protest aspect. Kyrios Sampson (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The protests are now national and the article's title should reflect this.--Tdl1060 (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note it seems like there is consensus on a national-level name? Can we move this to one, and then debate its exact naming? Right now the title is extremely misleading. ɱ (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither title is great, but this has spread way beyond 'Twin Cities'... ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split article. The actions in the Twin Cities alone should be kept here as that alone warrants its own article (IMO), but the nationwide protests placed on a separate article and expanded as George Floyd protests and riots due to the lack of a suitable nationwide name otherwise. Any other major local riots could be split from that too. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The protests are now much more geographically broad than just the Twin Cities. Qiushufang (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three comments on renaming going forward

I'm not going to start a new renaming while we have one open, but I'll leave two pieces for when the next cycle opens.

  1. As we have a dated article on the Minneapolis protests, this needs to be dated in title, even though the "city" is different. There's potential confusion "Twin Cities" and "Minneapolis" that this should be at "2020 Twin Cities (riots/protests)".
  2. "Unrest" is also a valid term to describe what is going on (it is what is used for Ferguson unrest)
  3. There may be a need to reconsider the scope of the location given we now have action in DC, NYC, and LA among other places. But I would wait a few days before even considering this. The other two points can be reviewed now. --Masem (t) 00:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrest seems to be the better option. This is probably due to the fact that both riots and protests have occurred. As a case example with CBS News as seen in the merging discussion, it mentions (emphasis mine):
    • In Minneapolis, protesters defied a Friday night curfew. The city has been rocked by violent demonstrations in the nights following Floyd's death, with protesters on Thursday setting fire to the precinct where the former officers worked.
  • A "riot" is a violent demonstration, but the overall situation is being called a "protest", which is a nonviolent demonstration. This is confusing, to put it mildly, and it is a common feature in all of the articles given. It might be better to instead be called "2020 Twin Cities unrest" (as previously mentioned) or some other alternative ("Unrest for the death of George Floyd" maybe as a catch-all???). totlmstr (let's chat) 09:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should be using the word riot over protest; whether there is an underlying air of protest seems less consequencial than the activity itself which is a riot. Most riots seem to begin with an atmosphere of protest over some issue or another but it is the rioting which defines them. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. IMO we should have a moratorium on name changes for now; after things calm down and we have some historical perspective we can reconsider. My opinion: at some time in the future we should probably change this to "2020 Minneapolis protests". The protests, and especially the riot components, are overwhelmingly in Minneapolis, and virtually all of the reporting is focused on Minneapolis; that's where the action is and where it will probably be remembered. It's also a clearer title since many readers will have no idea what "Twin Cities" refers to. But this is a discussion for another day. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wrong, there are just as extreme protests and riots happening nationwide, with immense reporting in each city. This is well, well beyond Minneapolis. ɱ (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Ɱ, I agree that the article title should encompass all protests in the United States. It is becoming increasingly clear that full-fledged riots in their own right, not just protests, have appeared in other American cities. -- History Mind (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect image caption

The image labeled "The 3rd District Police Station in Minneapolis was set ablaze on May 28 by protestors" does not show the 3rd Precinct Police Station. That is housing. The picture should be changed or relabeled. BattlePig101 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Interpretation of Ambiguous Language

Within the Reaction section, it is stated that "President Trump responded to the riots by threatening to send in the National Guard to shoot looters". Trump's tweet currently available here uses ambiguous language: specifically "when the looting starts the shooting starts". It seems to be quite a leap to assume that this is a call to violence when it could very well be a postulation of the escalation of the rioters' behavior. I'd suspect confirmation bias of whoever decided to reference this article as an absolute truth and would call WP:NPOV into question. --Davman99 (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Davman99[reply]

  • I agree. The tweet was deliberately ambiguous. "To shoot looters" or similar phrasing should not be said in Wikivoice. The language has since been changed to It was seen as a threat for the military to shoot looting protesters.[1] userdude 12:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "George Floyd Protests in Minneapolis: Live Updates". The New York Times. 29 May 2020. Archived from the original on 29 May 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
Should the historical context be noted if the dog-whistling is ambiguous? ""The NAACP and other black organizations had for years complained about the treatment of the black community by Miami police. At this hearing, in discussing how he would deal with what he called crime and thugs and threats by young black people, he issued this statement that the reason Miami had not had any riots up to that point, was because of the message he had sent out that 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts,' " Lusane said." [19] Banak (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

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

I've added an image of marchers from the 26th at the top of the Twin Cities timeline section. Many more images are available in the Commons category. gobonobo + c 14:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now titled George Floyd protests, if that affects your opinions on pictures. Banak (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

arrest stats?

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

12-27k, according to CNN iirc Anmishfish (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: the arrest stats is ~1400, according to FOX Anmishfish (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

CHANGE: Floyd then goes silent and motionless, however Chauvin still doesn't lift his knee from Floyd's neck. An ambulance soon arrives and Chauvin doesn't remove his knee until emergency medical services put Floyd on a stretcher. Chauvin had knelt on Floyd's neck for about seven minutes, four minutes of which were after Floyd had stopped moving.[1] Medics in the ambulance were unable to find a pulse from Floyd and he was pronounced dead at the hospital.[2]

TO: Floyd then goes silent and motionless, however Chauvin still doesn't lift his knee from Floyd's neck. A stream of urine flows from Floyd as he becomes unconscious.[3] An ambulance soon arrives and Chauvin doesn't remove his knee until emergency medical services put Floyd on a stretcher. Chauvin had knelt on Floyd's neck for about seven minutes, four minutes of which were after Floyd had stopped moving.[1] Medics in the ambulance were unable to find a pulse from Floyd and he was pronounced dead at the hospital.[4]


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

References

  1. ^ a b Montgomery, Blake (May 27, 2020). "Black Lives Matter Protests Over George Floyd's Death Spread Across the Country". The Daily Beast. Retrieved May 28, 2020. Floyd, 46, died after a white Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeled on his neck for at least seven minutes while handcuffing him.
  2. ^ Steinbuch, Yaron (2020-05-28). "First responders tried to save George Floyd's life for almost an hour". New York Post. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
  3. ^ Cleary, Tom (May 27, 2020). "George Floyd: Minnesota Man Who Died in Minneapolis Police Custody Is Identified". heavy. Retrieved May 29, 2020.
  4. ^ Steinbuch, Yaron (2020-05-28). "First responders tried to save George Floyd's life for almost an hour". New York Post. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
 Not done You'll need a reliable source that specifically states this; Wikipedia is not for publishing our observations of what occurs in the video. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query on this - surely if an event occurs in a video, then the video serves as a reliable source for the event it depicts? Can someone direct me to the wikipedia policy on this if there is one, because it doesn't feel like that would be OR. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A stream of urine flows from Floyd as he becomes unconscious. is not supported by the heavy.com source. userdude 14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a riot

Please, wikipedia editors. This is a protest not a riot. Rumors are going around about police officers and other people setting pro-low income homes on fire and blaming blacks for it. Jammers are being placed around to prevent people from live streaming and showing what really happened.

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

Although large protests were held, they’ve been largely overshadowed by the rioting (especially the burning of the third precinct). Calling the article the “Twin Cities protests of 2020” wouldn’t fully demonstrate the entire picture. What’s not in dispute is the fact rioters burned the third precinct and nearby areas, that constitutes a riot. You may dispute other acts of arson, it is an unfolding situation, but rioting undisputedly occurred. R. J. Dockery (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Dockery, you may wish to participate in the page move survey above. Ed6767 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most protesters have been peaceful. But many did, in fact, riot. We have documented their violent crimes which constitute rioting. We must differentiate between peaceful protesters and rioters. We should only use the term riot to describe violent crimes such as arson and looting. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97[reply]

@2604:2000:1107:8A76:2DC7:8A7A:1FDD:33FE: Title has already been changed as per earlier discussions among editors. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be two simultaneous movements in response to the George Floyd murders:
  • Organized, peaceful protests at police behavior; &
  • Widespread acts of violence against property & police -- AKA rioting -- where the actors are not solely, or in some places even largely, people of color. For example, the governor of Minnesota has claimed that most of the rioters arrested were people from out of state. (Don't know if these are White Racists agitating for their "boogaloo", facts are still coming in, but I wouldn't be surprised.)
IMHO, we may end up with two interrelated articles, one focussing on the mostly peaceful protests, & one on the rioting. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these photos may be public domain

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

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

The photos are attributed to Reuters. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? (genuinely curious for the first two images) Victor Grigas (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

None of these images can be used because they don't fall under fair use. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Year in title

Shouldn't "2020" be included in the title? (Current title is just "Twin Cities riots.) It was like this originally; any reason it was removed?  Nixinova   T   C   00:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any compelling reason for which the year was removed. It should probably be added back, especially if the ongoing move discussion ends up swapping out the word "riots" for the word "protests." Master of Time (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to add, if the page ends up at a title such as "George Floyd protests," the year will not be useful nor needed because such a title would provide natural disambiguation. Master of Time (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"2020" was removed in accordance with WP:DAB. There is no need to distinguish that these riots happened in 2020, because there is no other article on Twin Cities riots. I suspect this name won't last for long though, so the point is kind of moot. userdude 07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The media is labeling these protests as the "Floyd Protests"

I've seen multiple media organizations call the protests nationwide as Floyd Protests. Because the protests are now nationwide, we should considered making that the name of the article, rather than the "Twin Cities Riots" which is localized.[1][2]TheMemeMonarch (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, plus with the attack on the CNN building in Atlanta,[3] it seems the protests are becoming nationwide in scope and impact.--Beneficii (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Protests across the country are becoming violent now, not just the ones in Minneapolis. I think we should reconsider renaming this article to reflect these developments. Love of Corey (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree. maybe a good name would be: Floyd protests and riots or something like that because the protest and riots are both notable and included in this article.Life200BC (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information - as part of the discussion made in the (3) move request on this talk page, I've found the following breakdown of different news organizations using the terms:

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

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


References

  1. ^ "People gather for George Floyd protest in Sacramento". KRCA. KRCA-TV. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  2. ^ Macaya, Melissa; Hayes, Mike; Alfonso, Fernando; Diaz, Daniella; Yeung, Jessie; George, Steve; Kottasová, Ivana; Thompson, Nick. "George Floyd protests spread nationwide". CNN. CNN.
  3. ^ Alfonso, Fernando III (30 May 2020). "CNN Center in Atlanta damaged during protests". CNN.com. CNN. Retrieved 29 May 2020.

does it seem like time...

To merge this and all of the other coverage into something like "2020 George Floyd Death Protests and Civic Unrest"? I feel like the balance must be tipping towards something like that after the past three days. This is perhaps the most significant series of events in the US in my adult lifetime. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Content was split out

Some content from this page seems to have been split out to the George Floyd protests page. Should that content be added back here? Unclear if the "George Floyd protests" should be its own article. Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the civil unrest due to the killing of George Floyd in the US should really all be in one article. I don't have an axe to swing in what it is named but I feel it clears all the WP boundaries for an article in and of itself138.207.198.74 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I have brought back what I read to be the "worst" cases of violence on the Floyd protests page (eg the Altanta case.) This is to give an example of the violence that is happening outside the Twin Cities. Hopefully we don' have to worry about updating this much, but my idea is this will be an ebb and waning section; it should only stay at 5 or case example, so should only be the "worst" cases at any time, rather than adding to it, since you have the separate page for that. --Masem (t) 05:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are protests in every major city. Certain cities such as Atlanta might even deserve their own article. It would take one mammoth article to cover the subject completely. Furthermore, it is likely that there will be much more protests and rioting in the upcoming days. So, in short, there is too much content to put in one article and the reach of the protests has spread far beyond the Twin Cities.TheMemeMonarch (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against merging into the other article (the George Floyd protests one), I just don't think it should be in 2 separate articles, one about the MN area and the other about "other areas". Natg 19 (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Reuters is calling these the I Can't Breathe Protests [24]. Volunteer Marek 08:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's quite a vague and nonobvious title for a page to have.  Nixinova   T   C   08:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

It seems there have been similar incidents with the police forces involved in 2018 and a somehow not appropriate response by authorities. So it might explain to some degree the massive outburst of violence and the complete loss of any confidence that the authorities might handle the situation as it should. Structural injustice is the fuel for the fire. This is missing in this article.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reliable source saying such, that may be used in the article. Otherwise, original research is not permitted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial police activities

About to add a section talking about controversial police activities: arresting of journalists while on air, alleged undercover police participation in protests etc.. Since it might involve a bit of work, I want to discuss it first before it gets removed and that effort is for nothing. BeŻet (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more than reasonable to discuss if well sourced. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your notion BeŻet --Hiveir (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should have the arrest of the journalist and their crew. Image use restrictions permitting, I think the article would greatly benefit from an image from the CNN broadcast of the reporter being arrested on air would be fitting either in the gallery in the top right collection or in the main body of the article. Banak (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Keepcalmandchill: You have removed the umbrella man story from the section stating that this is currently a completely unverified social media theory, but it was described as such in that paragraph, and has been discussed by reliable sources. I think it's okay to keep it there. BeŻet (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media simply lying about "facts"

Article claims that he did not resist arrest after exiting the vehicle, yet the cameras clearly shows him drop to the ground to prevent being put in the squad car.Vice should be removed as a source for anything related to this case, as well as any media claiming the same lies.

Source? --Hiveir (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reliable source saying such, that can be used in the article. Otherwise, original research is not permitted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protest or riot?

These words are being used inconsistently in this article. It would be less confusing if just one of these terms were used OR if it was clear when this event went from protest to riot to protest or something to that effect.--Hiveir (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some incidents are protests and some incidents are violent/riots. Use the appropriate term at the appropriate time. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Fuzheado, and we should use descriptive prose that describes the actual event that happened (eg a march, vandalizing stores or police stations, candlelight vigil, etc.) since the terms 'protest' and 'riot' are prone to various interpretations by readers. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature note

The Minneapolis–Saint Paul metro area is known locally and regionally as the Twin Cities. However, it's evident that this isn't generally the case farther afield. True, the (medium-sized) city of Minneapolis itself has long dominated as shorthand for the Twin Cities area, much to the annoyance of St. Paulites (and locally, BTW, it's written St. Paul, not Saint Paul). My choice would be "the Minneapolis-St. Paul area" – which, rather astoundingly, comprises 200-plus municipalities. – Sca (talk)

PS: This user is a native Minneapolitan. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should title be renamed "George Floyd riots/protests"?

Protests/riots is now happening anywhere here in the U.S. Should the title be renamed "George Floyd riots/protests" in a manner similiar to the King assassination riots of 1968? Twin Cities riots implies the protests only happens in Twin Cities only and not anywhere else. Also, the article dedicates solely to Twin Cities and not the ones happened elsewhere if that's gonna be the case. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have the "protests" (I sneer that word out contemptuously as the slithering lie that it is in defiance of Wikipedia's typical walking-the-ricepaper soy-drenched, milquetoast, moist-towelette, wussypussy de rigueur political-correctness), as what's going is a brick-to-the-face obvious BLM/Antifa coordinated communist-front attempt at instigating a bloody insurrection that hopefully gets thousands of their own useful idiots killed (gotta have martyrs) by the military, and hey, can't China now do the same thing in Hong Kong, and also accuse Trumpypoo of hypocrisy if when opens his fat mouth to complain about it? Nevermind that the HK's are opposing a tyranny, and haven't burned down their city) expanded to the entire US, but to Canada as well, where they even have a different dead body being used as excuse. </rant> --2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — 2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
...made few or no other edits... On0z! My statement invalidated because not enough breadcrumbs! Terrible. I bad peasant. Shall now retreat from the stern gaze of my scornful liege.--2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Protests elsewhere": Bullets vs. prose?

Currently, the "Protests elsewhere" section has a bulleted list of cities. Should this be converted into prose? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am liking bullets for now - before the article is moved to a more generic title - and while each city has stub info. AND while the list is growing (eg other cities are planning protests today) bullets make it easier to find and add cities. But we should think about good ways to organize this in a longer, more generic article. By date? by size of protest (hard to figure out)? Alphabetically also seems like the best way for now. There *should* be a prose lede that summarizes the scope of the protests though. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
looks like someone started in on organizing by state, that works too -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phoebe, Yes, I've created subsections for U.S. states with 3+ cities w/ demonstrations. This helps with overall article organization, but doesn't address bullets vs. prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cool, looks good. I still think bullets work for now - the list is going to grow a lot this weekend (see below). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer what are you thinking vis a vis the non-organized cities? unless/until all the protests are organized by state, when you are scanning the ToC it makes it looks like only the state sections had protests. I'm trying to figure out what a good title for the non-organized cities is though. "Throughout the United States"? hmm -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phoebe, Good question. I've written a few Good articles about major demonstrations, including Impeachment March and Not My Presidents Day, both of which simply apply state subcategories as needed. Just sharing in case these are helpful as examples. Another option is to organize by U.S. region by List_of_regions_of_the_United_States#Census_Bureau-designated_regions_and_divisions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are now subsections for U.S. and International. I see other editors are starting to move cities into more U.S. state subcategories. Personally, I'd prefer to only see subdividing by state when there are 3+ cities, but others may prefer differently. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The split of bullet points for individual cities and subsections for states with multiple cities makes this section difficult to navigate. Do subsections for each state sound reasonable? gobonobo + c 21:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
planned protests (according to news stories) for Sat/Sunday include Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Providence, Raleigh, San Antonio... phoebe / (talk to me) 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update map of protests

As of now, if our bar is >100 people, the map of protests in the US needs to be updated with: Cincinnati, Charlotte, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Eugene, Honolulu, Omaha, Windermere FL according to the sources we have in the text. I have made a list on the talk page of the file. We also should probably use an image with smaller bullets to accommodate. User:TheMemeMonarch is the creator - are you able to update? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the map should be changed to protests with greather than 1000 protestors, because it seems that almost every major city in the US has hit the original criteria. I also agree about the smaller bullet points. I will update with concensus. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! It looks like someone has updated the article with a dynamic map under George_Floyd_protests#Protests_elsewhere, which will make it easier to update. I think we need better sources for the 1000+ designation, but this can shift over time. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheMemeMonarch - as things progress I think you are right about 1000+ on the map. I will start a new discussion session below. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-state agitators

"Every single person we arrested last night [in St. Paul], I'm told, was from out of state.... I talk to my friends, who have been in this movement a very long time ... I hear them say ... 'We don't know these folks.' ... Those folks who are agitating and inciting are taking advantage of the pain—of the hurt, of the frustration, of the anger, of the very real and legitimate sadness that so many of our community members feel—to advocate for the destruction of our communities."—St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter III, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNrHsXmSSGg

The governor of Minnesota estimates that 80% of those doing the destruction are from out of state.

These things should probably be mentioned. 107.2.89.199 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's been conjecture that white nationalists, possibly associated with the so-called "Boogaloo movement", are on the ground in Minnesota, but I've seen little in the way of reliable sources. Bellingcat has an article as does The Independent. Also, keep in mind that St. Paul is a 16-minute drive from the Wisconsin border, while there are Minnesotans who are driving 2+ hours to get here. gobonobo + c 20:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The white-nationalist bogeyman narrative is making this morning, always by sharers who say nothing about the BLMs and Antifa who openly *bragged* about driving to Minneapolis to Unicorn Riot reporters.--2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — 2601:444:380:8C00:F8AC:22BD:130E:415F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I believe it's meant to be 80% of the rioters arrested for vandalism and violence were from out of state, but I'm struggling to find actual numbers to back up what might have been pulling a number from the air. Banak (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the mayor of St. Paul's report that everyone arrested on Friday was from out of state. There is still nothing to confirm the governor's claim that up to 80% of rioters are from out of state, but the mayor's report makes it a little more credible. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Army units ordered to stand by, worth a mention?

I'm actually not sure if this counts as a major event as much as the national guard being called in.


Minnesota’s governor activated all National Guard troops, and the Army ordered units to stand by. Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota said on Saturday that he was activating thousands of additional National Guard troops to send to Minneapolis, and the Army ordered troops to stand by after protesters turned out for a fourth night in a row on Friday, burning buildings to the ground and overwhelming officers.

“Our goal is to decimate that force as quickly as possible,” Mr. Walz said of the rioters who have been causing the damage, a group that he said was different from demonstrators who had been protesting the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after being pinned down by a white officer earlier this week. The former officer, Derek Chauvin, was charged with murder on Friday.


https://www.nytimes.com./2020/05/30/us/george-floyd-minneapolis.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.157.41 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Trump's war with Twitter be explained in the article?

In the section about Trump’s reaction, I removed[25] a paragraph detailing Trump’s war with Twitter over its fact-check tagging of claims about voter fraud, and his Executive Order weakening the company’s liability protection, and reactions/analyses of his action, IMO none of them related to this subject. My edit summary was removing paragraph about Trump's war with Twitter over Section 230: unrelated to this subject. The material had apparently been in the article for at least 24 hours. User:Zialater promptly restored the material without an edit summary. For reference, here is the material I removed:

Trump's tweet and Twitter's moderation came on the same day that Trump had signed his "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship", intending to limit the protection that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gave to social media companies like Twitter for their alleged anti-conservative bias, two days after Twitter had marked two of Trump's tweets about mail-based absentee voting with "potentially misleading" warnings. Opponents of Trump criticized the order as a retaliatory action against Twitter for the notices, which came amid long-standing criticism about his Twitter activity of trafficking false, misleading and accusatory claims on a variety of topics; some legal scholars noted the order might open social media companies to liabilities pertaining to statements sent by Trump over those platforms that could be interpreted as libelous or incendiary, resulting in more stringent moderation of his tweets if not an outright ban from using Twitter.[1] Following Twitter's marking of his May 28 tweet, Trump said in another tweet, "Section 230 should be revoked by Congress. Until then, it will be regulated!"[2]

Sources

  1. ^ Baker, Peter; Wakabayashi, Daisuke (May 28, 2020). "Trump's Order on Social Media Could Harm One Person in Particular: Donald Trump". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 28, 2020. Retrieved May 28, 2020.
  2. ^ Chalfant, Morgan (May 29, 2020). "Trump accuses Twitter of unfair targeting after company labels tweet 'glorifying violence'". The Hill. Retrieved May 29, 2020.

I don’t want to get into an edit war or an argument about who has the right to revert whom, so this material is still in the article. Let’s just discuss it on the merits. Should it be in this article? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. It has little-to-no bearing on the scope of this article whatsoever. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Trump v. Twitter has little relevance to these protests. Ed6767 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have removed it, at least for now while discussion can continue. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Can someone add that the Phoenix protests were also over the death of Dion Johnson, who was killed by a DPS trooper after being approached for sleeping in his car. Here is a source you can use. https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/police-no-body-dash-cam-footage-in-phoenix-dps-shooting-family-and-friends-pushing-for-answers/75-a733c100-ff2b-44c6-994e-2499d5ea04ef 68.230.45.65 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make/edit a separate page about Johnson, then you can, but this page specifically pertains to Floyd Anon0098 (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it reference Breonna Taylor for Louisville. It's the same situation.

Additional note about page name

There seems to be a lot of opposition to the name after the previous discussion was closed. Plus, as the original argument says, riots are illegal. There is clearly burning of buildings and stealing, as well as breaking curfew, so "riot" isn't exactly out of the question. I think a good compromise would be to keep a neural term, such as "unrest" and list several AKAs. This is what the Ferguson unrest page does: "The Ferguson Unrest (sometimes called the Ferguson Uprising, Ferguson Protests, or Ferguson Riots)..." Anon0098 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

This location needs to change from Nationwide U.S. (protests started in Twin Cities, Minnesota) to Worldwide (protests started in Twin Cities, Minnesota, U.S.) because it found that there are many protest occured overseas like London, berlin 36.77.102.5 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but it is not necessary (and not generally in line with MOS) to add "U.S" to a city and state. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them as solidarity protests. Adencc (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protests in Bethlehem and Allentown PA.

There were protests in Bethlehem PA (https://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-nws-lehigh-valley-black-lives-march-20200530-axaogyp7yjcodlqxqlryvh5i5y-story.html, https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/2020/05/hundreds-pack-together-for-bethlehem-protest-against-police-brutality.html) and Allentown (https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/2020/05/hundreds-pack-together-for-bethlehem-protest-against-police-brutality.html, https://twitter.com/TShortell/status/1266871385860853760?s=20). Syryquil1 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Include iconic CNN photograph

There's a photograph of the protestors standing on top of a graffitied CNN logo (at the CNN HQ in Atlanta) holding the Mexican flag and a Black Lives Matter flag. The photo is evidently iconic and symbolic. I would strongly suggest including it in the photo collage in the infobox. CompactSpacez (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably not freely licensed, which means that we can't use it (unless the author does release it and upload it to Wikimedia Commons). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Protests throughout Florida

I do not have enough experience nor edit history in order to efficiently add information to this page, so I am leaving this message notifying more experienced users about largely peaceful protests (as of May 30, 2020 8:55 PM) throughout municipalities in Palm Beach County, Florida which includes Lake Worth and West Palm Beach along with many other locations in the state (which have turned violent) in Florida including Tallahassee, Gainesville, Coral Gables, Tampa Bay, and more. Information can be found here: (https://www.wpbf.com/article/demonstrations-for-racial-equality-underway-in-palm-beach-county/32720418 / https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-ne-local-george-floyd-protests-20200530-jkkvuuhxtfawra65hgelgrb3di-story.html / https://www.wfla.com/news/local-news/live-protests-underway-across-tampa-bay/) I ask contributors with experience and those who are working on this article to add this information. Thank you all for your diligent efforts.2601:580:4301:7730:194:F871:1D40:3AFC (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll include a section for these municipalities. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "riot"

The word "riot" absolutely needs to be used in the first paragraph of the lede. It's described as such by numerous reliable sources. CompactSpacez (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, I'll add a note about additional names used, but the overall name of the page (George Floyd protests) should remain until we all agree to change it Anon0098 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map of protests - size cutoff?

Hi folks, as TheMemeMonarch suggested above, as the number of protests balloons (we are over 100 now) having a cutoff of 100 demonstrators for the map doesn't work well as that's just about every city. Is a cutoff of 1000 good? 500? A different number? Unfortunately it looks like most sources are saying things like "hundreds" or "thousands" of demonstrators which makes it hard to have a very precise number. >1000 might be good for this reason. What do you think? If there's agreement I'll change it. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's starting to get overwhelmed. Might be better to list the cities but increase the cutoff for the map itself Anon0098 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if there are only, say, 2 cities with over 1000 protesters, you can make it >500 protesters. Change it how you see fit because of right now, the midwest is unreadable Anon0098 (talk)
OK, let's do 1000, and anytime a source says "thousands of protesters" or similar we can include it. I'll work on that now but it will take me a bit to sort the list out! --phoebe / (talk to me) 03:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
update: it is really, really, really hard to get protest size estimations out of these sources! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if it's not consistent then don't worry about it. It's not that big of a deal Anon0098 (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
anon0098 TheMemeMonarch and all - overnight I was thinking - what about a map of multi-day protests? Since that seems to be the main distinguisher now. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
phoebe As I anticipated, the map is entirely unreadable. It's up to you how you want to organize it, as long as the criteria is easily accessible and consistent. Multi-day protests sounds good to me Anon0098 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's do that - >2 day protests. I'm going to take a break & step away from the screens right now but I'll get back to it in an hour or so. Feel free to go ahead. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the archive period to 1 day?

This talk page is close to 200 kB, can we please change the archive period to 1 day? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4-5 days are the minimum in my opinion. Very fast archive is annoying.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Little Rock is currently experiencing protests and rioting around the Capitol building. Please add Little Rock to the page. Donovanbolte (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California is not its own state

The rest of the US is listed by state. Why is Southern California listed in the same size and type as if it was its own state? I’m not touching an article for breaking news, but can someone fix this? 70.130.77.141 (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)lalandshark[reply]

California is broken into northern and southern regions because of the number of cities involved. It is clearly marked as a subcategory under "California." Anon0098 (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the no. of arrests

We should label the amount as unknown until this is over, as several thousand people were arrested today alone, making it more logical to add the numbers after everything has calmed down (for the time being) Anmishfish (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since media are releasing running totals, it seems worth documenting them here. Scientific29 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. - A split was done part-way through the discussion before a conclusion was drawn, so any further opinions here are largely irrelevant now. I'd suggest creating a new discussion for any new issues. A light WP:TROUT to Jax 0677 for acting too swiftly. Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support split - The George Floyd protests page is over 200 kB, and should be split into new articles entitled George Floyd protests and riots in Minnesota, Reactions to the George Floyd Protests and List of George Floyd protests. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This was reinserted with the original time stamp after it was removed by User:Ɱ in this edit [26] Gammapearls (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a huge topic covering all national and local news. It is the most significant thing to affect my city's downtown in decades, and the worst riot in perhaps a century. Yes it deserves more coverage. ɱ (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are saying the data size is insignificant and is not as large as people are making it out to beAnon0098 (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, sorry the editor I'm using glitched, I think. No need to announce it to the world. I don't understand your reply directly above either... ɱ (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes perfect sense and keeps NPOV. There are clearly two very different components to these events, including peaceful protesters and criminal looters/rioters. Both of these groups have been documented by plenty of reputable sources in the media. --Therexbanner (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't support the three-way split proposed, but some kind of tightening would be good. I thin a main overview article of the protests nationwide with the background about the protests and a full list of the demonstrations nationally/internationally is appropriate, I think, then with split out articles for cities/protests that are large or significant enough to warrant them. Splits have already been done for Seattle and Minneapolis-St Paul and one really needs to be done for Chicago. Smaller cities probably won't have multi-day riots, but bigger cities might, and they will need extra coverage. If we keep detail in the main article brief -- perhaps even putting some info in a table once the situation calms enough that numbers aren't changing every five minutes -- the list and main article will stay readable. I'm not sure what a "reactions" article would contain and don't support splitting this off. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This proposal makes sense. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think subsequent protests outside Minneapolis deserves its own page just because of the sheer number of cities it is affecting. Something like "2020 Civil Unrest." Splitting reactions off too is unnecessary Anon0098 (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - some of these articles exist now - see Category:Death of George Floyd. ɱ (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose for now. I don't think the proposed splitted articles are sufficient and simply confuses readers with not having a single page encompasing the demonstration. Right now, all of the news articles treat these events under one "banner" of protests in reaction to the deatt of George Floyd and splitting this information up I think is unwieldy and causes confusion. All the arguments in support seem to be simply convenience of editing which I don't think should factor in this discussion. It is very clear all of these protests in different locations fall under the same banner of reacting to the injustice that has ocurred. DTM9025 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not one agrees with the split, the proposer carrying it out in the middle of the night local time less than twenty minutes after he first suggested it is indefensible. —Cryptic 05:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. While I can sympathize with wanting to act quickly on this rapidly evolving event and supported the quick renaming of this article to protest, 20 minutes is nowhere near enough time to ensure participation, and renaming an article is much more visibly significant then splitting an article, which in my opinion isn't that urgent. I don't think the proposer was trying to be malicious, but in the meantime I have restored that content to this article pending this discussion. DTM9025 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the merger, but I think some of these protests should be described as riots. This article is a mess. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support This is just a suggestion but I feel like 2020 United States riots and protests (or something to that wording) should be it's own page seeing as this is now widespread nationwide. I don't really see a reason for Minnesota to have it's own page now. Miss HollyJ (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to keep the information of where it initially came from separate to what it devolved into. However, I agree that a second page entitled "2020 United States riots and protests," or something to that sort as you suggested, is necessary to describe riots outside the epicenter. Anon0098 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support splitting off the reactions section, which is garbage flag salad. Abductive (reasoning) 06:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Editors need to use RS to examine what were truly protests and what was simply rioting and violence, with no hint of protesting in Floyd's name. Then accordingly split forthwith. Calling every agitator involved in this mess a 'protester' is increasingly not supported by the reliable sources. RandomGnome (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have a “subsections” of other articles, focusing on the other protests. I.e. make this an overview, and create a seperate article covering major riots, and another part regarding reactions from, say, other countries, or media. Anmishfish (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 3 articles is overkill. In addition this article really is not that long if you remove the other states and countries. Yes the list may have been a bit hasty but I think if you link that article to that section you have job done, on the split. FYI really not that long. Coronavirus in the Uk is double the size (however per guidelines this should be split). No need to split any further at the moment. Games of the world (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


It's been split for a couple hours now but the discussion is not closed. What gives? Kire1975 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the user who proposed it created a split article an hour later and this discussion has only been open for 3 hours, in the middle of the night. Far too swift action by some users on here. Games of the world (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kire1975, It would appear that Jax split the pages before opening a discussion here...more of an "ask for forgiveness" instead of "ask for permission". CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is useless since it is already split, I suggest closing it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jax acted too soon, but there seems to be general support above. Can we close this discussion for now? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

1. San Jose, CA had a protest. There were some hundred people. There was one police injury, and at least 3 protestor injury (an SUV had run some people over)

2. San Francisco had a protest. Anmishfish (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source for the San Jose incident: https://www.ktvu.com/news/police-arrest-suspect-accused-of-running-over-two-san-jose-protesters --2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:45A:325:C755:469A (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This information was added. Thank youAnon0098 (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"News reporting"

I removed a portion of a section under "News reporting" and I'm preserving this contents here by providing this link. My rationale was: "rm opinion pieces, otherwise this section would be a collection of all sorts of media opinions". --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, op-eds shouldn't be sourced here Anon0098 (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

article info for later

hi i dont want to get in a fight or dig up the source but i was reading the hennepin da report for the charges against chauvin today and there were two things i noticed that wp doesnt yet reflect 1-chauvin and thao were not the first responding squad but instead the backup 2- one of the two original responding officers made three separate requests to roll floyd over during the kneeling incident, but was negated by chauvin each time

This page is specifically relating to the protests/riots. If you want to make a note of this in the "Death of George Floyd" page, you are welcome to add that information Anon0098 (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
correct but there are several paragraphs regarding his death in this article too

Asian-American and African-American relations

Tensions between these two communities have been on a high for quite sometime. I'm failing to understand as to why you think this isn't notable, Keepcalmandchill, since it's basically a repeat of the 1992 Los Angeles riots between Korean Americans and Asians in general and the African American community. Calling it a "single incident" is just fooling ourselves here. I don't understand your pedantics behind this, because clearly we both know this isn't some isolated incident. Going underreported doesn't imply it didn't happen, especially at a time like this where there's been a lot of other distractions. Adencc (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in your viewpoints as well, DTM9025. Adencc (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was I mentioning widespread tensions in the article? I was adding the mention of the restaurant being specifically targeted with sources provided. You were interpreting it otherwise. Adencc (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you can find a source to suggest there are Asian vs Black tensions going on here, I think this would count as Original Research or speculation, which is not allowed under Wikipedia rules. Do we have footage of even one roof Korean at this point? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources was provided where an Asian restaurant was specifically attacked, no original research there. Furthermore, the tensions in the 1992 Los Angeles riots between the two communities were more than just "roof Koreans". Adencc (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of places are getting attacked right now, so the fact that one place attacked happens to be an Asian restaurant is really not significant. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can't exactly speak for the user you are refering to, unless you have a reliable source saying this is a notable widespread phenomenon for the George Floyd protests, I don't exactly see the merit of including this in the article. I think saying that this is a repeat of the 1992 Los Angeles riots is an overgeneralization and as an Asian American myself I will say that the solidarity between Asian Americans and African Americans is more notable than these alleged tensions for the George Floyd protests (in fact one of the pictures in the protest list section showcases that). Also, as a side note, I would prefer we refrain from adding this section to the main page until this can be discussed further. DTM9025 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slight off-topic here but there were hardly any "solidarity" between the two communities before these riots started during the COVID-19 pandemic. The tensions were already there and it's what led to this. Adencc (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking speficially to the solidarity shown in these Goerge Floyds protests. DTM9025 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from further disruption or you may be blocked immediately. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to be less Minneapolis-centric

Ok, so I feel like this article is structured in a really weird way. I guess the article was originally written from when there where the main protests, riots, and clashes in were Minneapolis and there were just a few spillover incidents elsewhere. Now though, it is clear that this is a nation-wide uprising with a lot of it's happening in other cities like LA and Chicago. The current format makes it hard to understand the complete timeline of how everything's going down, so I believe this article must be entirely rewritten. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not an uprising. Clearly riots, and have been label as such by various agencies. We are currently deciding whether to create a new page specifically for riots/protests outside of Minneapolis. As for deleting and rewriting the entire page, that is extremely unnecessary. All of the information here is usable Anon0098 (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take-down of the Minneapolis website

At the time of writing, the Minneapolis website (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/) has been taken offline. This should be added to the article. 9gfg06w2 (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Currently Bring me the news and Variety have picked this up. This could also be related to Anonymous posting a video. 9gfg06w2 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous has posted a warning video to the Minneapolis Police Department

Source: [27]

Not sure where to add this into the article, but I am certain that it is worth mentioning it. I do know that the MPD website has been taken down, but there hasn't been any reliable sources to back whether Anonymous did that yet. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an independent source to establish that it's noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found this news article (brobible) regarding the video. 9gfg06w2 (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to the sources, Heavy made a news article regarding the Anonymous video too (Source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gfg06w2 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson: Currently, it has been picked up by Forbes and Variety. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 13:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nahnah4: Shouldnt this be a semi-protected edit request? 9gfg06w2 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@9gfg06w2: I can edit the article; it's not an edit request. I was trying to discuss with fellow editors. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

In San Jose, a woman ran 2 people over Source Anmishfish (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thank you for your contribution! Scientific29 (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of sides in infobox

I think it's rather unproductive to show two sides in the infobox, like for military conflicts and organized civil conflicts. One side lacks any actual party, commanders or tangible strength figure to put in the infobox, as evidenced by the fact that the infobox currently just says "Protesters" which is not useful information.

Similarly to Talk:Ferguson_unrest/Archive_1#"Sides"_in_infobox, I think it would be appropriate to omit the "Parties to the civil conflict" section of the infobox altogether. This seems to be the convention followed by Ferguson unrest, 2011 England riots, 2015 Baltimore protests, 2002 Gujarat riots, and a lot of other articles that deal with unorganized protests and rioting rather than a civil conflict between two ascribable groups. -Rfwang4 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the problem that one iteration of the "two-sides" approach (thankfully removed) was putting fuckin' Nazis on the same side as a movement dedicated to punching Nazis. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur and have removed the parties section from the infobox. gobonobo + c 17:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Pittsburgh to Map

Make new topic, and add Pittsburgh due to large turnout of rioters JBW95 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh is now on the map and in the list. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore, Maryland George Floyd Protests

Baltimore should be added to the protests elsewhere list as they had a massive demonstration outside of City Hall and the Baltimore Police Department Headquarters where protesters have turned violent throwing heavy objects at police. There was even looting reported at the Harborplace and The Gallery shopping malls with reports of windows being smashed open. [1]

References

  1. ^ WBAL: Protests for George Floyd spread across Baltimore for second day
Good call, thank you. I have added Baltimore. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"George Floyd" in name

I'd like to propose a name change, but not in the way of the discussion of riot vs protest we've been discussing. In the past, it's been conventional for Wikipedia pages for protests to focus in on a specific geographic area, i.e. 1992 Los Angeles riots, Ferguson unrest, 2015 Baltimore protests. I don't support renaming it to "2020 Twin City protests" or what the old name was due to the spread of the unrest but perhaps something like "2020 United States Police Brutality Protests"? I'm not sure what a good name would be honestly since the neutrality of that one is questionable, but I do think the name should only include Floyd's name if all other potential titles are unworkable. U-dble (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The protest isn't restricted to one or two places, it is nationwide so we can't name it after particular places. The protests were triggered by the death of George Floyd, which also motivated protesters to bring include other victims of police brutality (like Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery ), but the main trigger even as per WP:RS is George Floyd and it has been referred to vast majority of WP:RS as George Floyd protests/Protests in response to death of George Floyd. Do not suggest WP:OR terms. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support a name change, as these protests are not concentrated in a particular geographic area, and so it seems more appropriate to use their cause-celébre instead. Elizium23 (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sheer scale of these events, at a certain point it may become appropriate to title the article "2020 United States unrest" or "2020 United States crisis", the latter similar to articles on the 2011-2014 events in Egypt and other Arab Spring countries. Or perhaps an article similar to the one on the Long, Hot Summer of 1967. As of now I think the title is appropriate, but I have a strong sense that things could rapidly devolve given American unemployment rates and government responses thus far. Time will tell. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Words to watch

There are at least 15 instances of words to watch in this article that should be changed in order to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Elizium23 (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

San Diego, California also had a riot in La Mesa that resulted in looting of a shopping center and the burning down of two banks. 2600:8801:A704:B700:DCE7:5BF4:EFC0:1217 (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not including the word 'riots' in the title

I don't understand this. The article about the series of riots and civil disturbances in Los Angeles in 1992 is titled "1992 Los Angeles riots", not "1992 Los Angeles protests". Valid references confirm that there are riots, so why not include the word 'riots' in the article? I think a consensus needs to be reached about this issue as soon as possible, because only stating that these events are 'protests' in the title could mislead readers about the severity of these events and could be seen as a dishonest title by readers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGoodfan101 (talk • contribs)

MatthewGoodfan101, I think the problem here is Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT. There has been a long discussion above about the title of the article. All editors agreed that this is the a better title than a title that includes "riots".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are riots, so why not include it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because we just had a whole series of discussions barely a day ago, not even archived yet, to move it here. This isn't anywhere near the standards for a unilateral move. Come on, everyone here should know better. —Cryptic 10:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was, I said there were (and are riots) thus it seems a reasonable rename.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be renamed. The issue is that this is a situation changing on a daily basis. Just because some editors reached some consensus a few days ago, does not mean said consensus reflects the current state of affairs. The term "riot" or "unrest" should absolutely be included in the title. What is unfolding right now is simply not a mere "protest". We've witnessed numerous businesses across the country ransacked, looted, burned. We've witnessed violence and death. This is an unprecedented level of unrest and disorder, which the word "protest" fails to accurately convey. CompactSpacez (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is 2020 US police brutality riots good Baratiiman (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the police are not rioting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KDKA incident

According to a secondary source, the journalists were trampled, not attacked by protesters. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources "Beaten up" [[28]]. I think its not all that clear cut. I think as it seems contested we need to word it carefully.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Source also says that another group of protesters helped the journalists, so definitely a complicated situation. BeŻet (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might work
"In Pittsburgh, KDKA photojournalists, Ian Smith and Paul Martino were seriously injured during protests. Penguins CEO David Morehouse managed to save both preventing further injury. Both were later transported to the hospital."Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for protests?

There have been other protests in MS that were larger than the one in Jackson, MS. Is there list of criteria for protests somewhere that I'm missing.

Sorry. I'm new to this. And wasn't sure if this question belonged here. CileraDragonfang (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CileraDragonfang - welcome! There's not a criteria -- the list is just incomplete!! It's been hard to keep up with all the cities. If you can help with providing news coverage of other cities, I will help add them. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more than glad to find the coverage, but how do I link you a source? Just posting a url hasn't worked and I'm not sure which code or formula I should use to put it in the proper format for a message. CileraDragonfang (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC) link CileraDragonfang (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You don't have to do anything on the talk page (I'll format it into a reference in the article). The code you're looking for is here; I changed it above so you can see. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Https://www.newsbreak.com/mississippi/tupelo/news/0PCYmZk9/rally-held-in-tupelo-to-protest-death-of-george-floyd

I tried the [] and it's just never posts. I'm sorry if I'm making your day difficult. CileraDragonfang (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why both "Protests elsewhere" section + List of George Floyd protests?

This article has a very long "Protests elsewhere" section with a list of participating cities. But we also have List of George Floyd protests. Aren't these more or less the same? Can we trim the redundancy? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

haha Another Believer we are on the same page, see below :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split to list - duplicate

Hi all - this is a mess, now there's a split to List of George Floyd protests but ALSO a list of protests in this article. That means both are being updated and both are now out of sync and the merge is going to be a huge pain. Can we please either redirect List of George Floyd protests back to this article or finalize the split out?! Here's a quick poll: choice 1) redirect List of George Floyd protests; choice 2) split this list out and point to that page. What do you think? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point I'd say let's go with the split -- cut a bunch of detail from this article and provide a summary, and point to the list article as the documentation of ALL of the protests. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the person who created the new list article didn't ask for permission before creating said article, so I personally think the list from the George Floyd article should be pasted onto the list article (which appears not to be up-to-date anyways, given that George Floyd protests article is what is on the Main page) and summaries of especially large protests should be given on the George Floyd article instead of the currently exorbitant list. -- History Mind / (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I think we should keep most of the current content that relates to Milwaukee and St. Paul in this article, but split out most of the content about other cities. Use the list article but not as a pure list; have most of the details there. Copy/paste most of the content of our current article to it, while mentioning or summarizing a few of the most noteworthy incidents here. Maybe eventually change its title if it has become more than just a list, and change this back to be about the Twin Cities as the parent article. Realize that people will continue to add stuff to this article and it will be necessary to copy or transfer it to the list article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split consensus - hey all, the split to List of George Floyd protests was done last night and there's not a lot we can do about it without redirecting that article back to this one. But the articles are out of sync. So let's make sure that updated info is in the list article before taking anything out of this one. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Split List of protests is only going to grow. we should finalize it already. would have happened by now if the split wasn't done prematurely and was postponed Anon0098 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a split of all protests/riots in the Twin Cities into its own article, & another article (either narrative/list) of all other articles. Maybe creating further articles as details merit. 276k is too long for an article without reasonable justification. -- llywrch (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo in "Alleged extremist involvement" section

Graffiti displaying the anarchist slogan "No Gods No Masters" modified with a reference to "420"

@DMT biscuit: You have reintroduced this random photograph. How on Earth is this photo relevant to this section? It is not even referenced in the body of the article, nor does the caption explain why it should be there. If you can't justify its inclusion, please self-revert. BeŻet (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the relevance either.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded, especially since there are many good pictures of the actual protests now on Commons that were added overnight. I'll take it out. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

"...ongoing series of violent uprisings..." This line of information is incorrect, the George Floyd protests have been peaceful for the majority, the wiki page should reflect relevant information discerning this fact. 2406:3400:613:F4B0:7C44:9533:A7B:5D01 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, but most of the major cities have been experiencing violent protests or riots. ɱ (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this line of information is correct and is supported by numerous citations throughout the article Anon0098 (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago protests article?

I think it is about time Chicago gets its own protest article. The protests and rioting in said city are starting to rival those of Minneapolis and Los Angeles (to the point that a curfew was announced), so the large block of text should be extracted to a new page. It can be replaced by a small summary on the George Floyd protests article and the List of George Floyd protests article. -- History Mind / (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create one. All the other individual city articles were written by volunteers taking initiative, no RfC needed. ɱ (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History Mind, Be bold! Worst case scenario, the page is redirected/deleted... ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Caused By" Section

Instances include Institutional racism against minorities, Economic, racial and social inequality, and Racial profiling. The death of George Floyd page has agreed not to use racism as a contributing factor, and racism is not mentioned as a factor within the body of the article. Considering removing since this is one of the first things people see when entering this page. Thoughts? Anon0098 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think RS have made the point these protests have gone way beyond the death of Floyd now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then label it as such within the international page. This one is specifically relating to the George Floyd protests Anon0098 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed White Supremacist Involvement

Continued above.

This article designated one and a half paragraphs to what can only be described as a conspiracy theory that white nationalists started or were at least a major instigator of the riots. The justification for this theory is one passing mention by a local official that said: 'some of the 40 arrested in this district were members of organized crime or white supremacy groups' (hardly big evidence of a massive conspiracy, this could literally mean 1 person) and random anecdotal evidence of people saying they saw white supremacists. This is, of course, opposed to the mountains of evidence and public statements that the riots were started by left-wing groups. I'm not against mentioning this theory but saying "people said they saw white supremacists" for two paragraphs with little to nothing in real evidence or comments by police is not encyclopedic. I've gotten rid of content that is just people saying they saw white nationalists. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its one paragraph, with another on far left groups.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agreed that it is mostly unsubstantiated, but the wording obviously acknowledges this. Might be worth deleting until there is sufficient evidence to support this Anon0098 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis from NYU's Reiss center backs this up. It deserves mention [29].--Calthinus (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, RS have mentioned this, and we make it clear its only an accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven and Calthinus, I'm not against mentioning it. It would be better to mention this study than to talk about how people said they saw white supramacists there for 400 words. People saying they saw stuff is anecdotal evidence and is not encyclopedic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially it should get the same weight as the similarly unverified accusations contra Antifa.--Calthinus (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So lets see an alternative here?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
gimme an hr to write up a proposal. Or someone else. --Calthinus (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That just reads like an excuse for letter counting.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, Calthinus, Anon0098 I have written a proposal.
Then can we close this one down?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Update international response in London (3.2), thousands marched today -> source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52868465 Hamface1 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please follow the instructions when making an edit request: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Feel free to propose specific wording for inclusion in the article. - MrX 🖋 18:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Add To the Michigan Protests the ones in Ann Arbor

Source: https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/05/hundreds-protesting-police-brutality-gather-in-ann-arbor-to-make-a-change-for-our-country.html Globalanarchist1312 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please follow the instructions when making an edit request: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Feel free to propose specific wording for inclusion in the article. - MrX 🖋 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 2020

George Floyd protests → George Floyd protests and unrest – The lede currently begins with The George Floyd protests and riots are an ongoing series of... and ITN currently reads Protests and riots break out in Minneapolis and elsewhere in the United States... I know that riots are part of protesting, but the rioting aspect of these protests have notability. This is nationwide rioting (from Minnesota to California, South Carolina to Georgia) that hasn't been seen in years. The lack of "riots" "unrest" in the title may give the impression that there's undue weight in favor of the peaceful protests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC); Edited 18:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose actually, this seems WP:FALSEBALANCE, as it equates the weight of the rioting with the weight of the protests. But the rioting is merely one aspect of the protests. "Rioting" is also an incredibly loaded word. I could possibly support "unrest" even, but instant "no" to this one from me. --Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Nice4What fixed my main issue; I'm still not thrilled with constant RMs but I'm don't really care either way if we don't have the "riots" dogwhistle in it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ribbet32 for a moratorium on RMs. Waste of time and talk page space. This is a critical ongoing event and we should be working on expanding content, not reframing. --Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A month-long moratorium for a current event moving this fast is an eternity. This needs to be discussed and settled now, not a month from now. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Day 3: May 28 False information

By morning, more than 30 businesses in Minneapolis had been damaged by rioters.[12] A Dollar Tree store and another Target store were looted, and a Wendy's restaurant was set ablaze.[9] The Saint Paul Police Department reported that 170 businesses were damaged or looted on Thursday, and dozens of fires started.[52] On the evening of May 28, protesters near the 3rd District Police Station set nearby buildings ablaze. Fencing surrounding the facility was torn down, so police on the scene used tear gas against protesters while the tensions and blaze continued. The Third Precinct building was overrun by protesters later in the night, and the building itself set on fire.[53][54]

The referenced source clearly states 170 buildings were damaged (this includes businesses and governmental buildings), not businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.96.86 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fluctuating death toll

Previously, the death toll included a woman found dead in her car in Minneapolis, and two protesters shot and killed in Detroit; however, these deaths have been removed. Shouldn't they be re-added, as they occurred during the riots?

Article about woman found in car Article about Detroit protester killed in drive-by shooting Article about Detroit protester shot and killed in his car --8889stanzaexcel (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)8889stanzaexcel[reply]

@8889stanzaexcel: I did not read your links, but if the lady in the car died as a result of the riots, i support--Hiveir (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Floyd_protests&oldid=960034340"