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 146.115.75.143 (talk) at 17:36, 2 June 2020 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50


Congressional calls to law enforcement to cease violence

Can we make a new section for us leaders calling for the military and police to stand down?

eg:

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/01/george-floyd-protests-live-updates/#link-WXAVG2MFXRA6TMRC64BLHOVV24

Ohio Representative Joyce Beatty https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/congresswoman-pepper-sprayed-joyce-beatty/612436/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.108.161 (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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]
    • This is mostly an addendum to my comments above. Among some common remarks is the mention of how "protest" implies "riots". This remark is frankly confusing, especially when considering:
      • the current front page of Wikipedia itself makes a distinction on the topic between protests and riots on the current situation here. That implies Wikipedia itself thinks that that protests and riots are distinct and separate.
      • At the current moment, the Wikipedia page on a Riot does not explicitly imply a Protest; only as a "See Also".
      • Common dictionary searchings for "Riot" (e.g., Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia Britannica) don't imply "riot" as a form of violent protests. At least from my searching, Oxford only does.
    • These situations imply that "protest" and "riot" while are related to each other are distinct and don't imply each other. totlmstr (let's chat) 22:49, 31 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]

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]

As the apparent consensus is that the scope of this article should include the riots and the protests, this comment may be disregarded. userdude 11:57, 1 June 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]

  • "you HAVE to know they did this shit" is not a reliable source. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. userdude 15:17, 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]

There are protests, correct, but to assert that there are no riots is a completely false statement. Document and separate the peaceful protests from the looting and riots. ANTHONATOR35 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 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]
I also 100% agree with this. Its simple, short, and straight to the point. 9gfg06w2 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 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 [5]. 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]

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]
The issue is that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" is American establishment corporate media, which is in fact notoriously unreliable. Wikipedia is disinterested in objective truth, but rather simply pushes the American corporate line. In this sense it is not a genuine encyclopedia, as it is not interested in the dissemination of genuine truth and knowledge. CompactSpacez (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CompactSpacez: With that logic, you could claim anything to be true. If you can find other reliable sources that conflict statements in the media, a change might be considered. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 05:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CompactSpacez: you might read WP:VNT to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works on this matter. We go with what the reliable sources say. MonsieurD (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MonsieurD:, I'm aware of how Wikipedia works on this matter, as indicated in my original comment. CompactSpacez (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to find a non-American, non-corporate reliable source to support your claim. userdude 16:14, 1 June 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]
Welcome to Wikipedia, it may interest you to read our policy on verifiability. If a reliable source supports the claims you have made, it may be considered for inclusion. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a forum. Try Breitbart if you feel like ranting about Antifa. - AMorozov 〈talk〉 16:40, 2 June 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]
Either the Mayor was lying, or the cops lied to the Mayor: https://www.kare11.com/article/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-records-show-arrests-mostly-minnesotans-as-george-floyd-protests-riots-continue-minneapolis-st-paul/89-73f3e0e8-0664-41d5-8d3e-4467d04da7cb 2601:603:4D80:D560:6C07:1B4D:BC45:B3B6 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 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.

Right now that whole section of the article is in flux and may be moved to a separate article. The Phoenix material isn't even in the right place. I will see about straightening it out when I have more time (unless someone wants to do it first, hint hint), and then I will see if this material can be added. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the "list of protests" article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 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]
just a note that we are working on the map in List of George Floyd protests, and can copy it over when it's done. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:49, 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]
We haven't had an archive yet. Wait and see. Benica11 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 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]
I've added it to the List of protests article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 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 [6] 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.

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: [7]

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]

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]

"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]

We can't do much about it unless you tell us specifically what you are referring to and where it is in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 1 June 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]
It's already in the list article. I have improved it with better sources and removed some unverified material. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 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" [[8]]. 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]

I've added something. I left out Morehouse, because the journalists say they were saved by other protesters. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 1 June 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]

I've got it: it's here: Https://www.newsbreak.com/mississippi/tupelo/news/0PCYmZk9/rally-held-in-tupelo-to-protest-death-of-george-floyd. I'll add something to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the tip. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 1 June 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]
The material has been moved from this article to the list article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split to list - duplicate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion: There was consensus that it was inconvenient having the "Protests elsewhere" information being maintained separately on two different pages at once – given the immense duplication of efforts (and the two getting out-of-sync, as people added new reliably-sourced entries to one but not the other), There was a consensus to just summarize them here (the summary might need a bit of enhancing) and to keep a hatnote to the larger List article. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • Support split for reasons stated above. --WuTang94 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the duplication of efforts (and the hassle of the two getting out-of-sync as people add new reliably-sourced entries to one but not the other), we should do it soon (and not have the content in both places). Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split, possibly with transclusion from a common page to both articles in case it is desirable to show the full list here and in the list article. Any way to one only place to maintain.―BlaueBlüte (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: this article is getting overwhelmed with additions, including a dozen or more that weren't put in the right place under the state, but were thrown in at the beginning. Somebody needs to undertake a cleanup here and then more it ALL to the other article, maybe overwriting what is there. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 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

"...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 [9].--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]

I have added it to the List article. Thanks for the tip and the reference. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 1 June 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]

Thanks for the suggestion. The material is already well covered in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 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: Procedural close. A one month moratorium on move requests is hereby enacted. Enough is enough. El_C 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC) ~~~~[reply]

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]
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.

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]

Which source are you referencing, and for what facts? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 1 June 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]
The two Detroit reports describe the same death, which is listed (even though it hasn't been tied to the protest). Reports have corrected the age of victim from 19 to 21. That Minneapolis death hasn't been tied to the protest either. Zekelayla (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@8889stanzaexcel: I couldn't find any reliable sources that connected the Minneapolis death to the riots; they just mentioned that they occurred at the same time. userdude 07:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this too. I don’t know why it was removed. TenseFlower893 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Cusack, for all his talents, isn't a professional journalist. Also this sentence is ungrammatical and poorly written

"Actor John Cusack, who joined protests in Chicago, was filming a video of a burning car, when suddenly a police officer yelled against him and treated with, and then hit his bike.[380]" "yelled against him and treated with," "Yelled against him" is bad enough, but "treated with" is unintelligible. Unless "treated with" is some archaic legal term for "conversed with". And this is in the violence against journalists section. It might not even be violence, if the bike wasn't damaged by the baton. I mean, there's an argument to be made that it's still violence even if the bike wasn't damaged. Anyway, it definitely doesn't belong in the violence against journalists section. Unless citizen journalists count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolent Prawn (talk • contribs) 20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. He was not acting as a journalist, and the incident was trivial. Somebody yelled at him and hit his bike? Come on. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table of cities

Hi all, perhaps foolishly but to try to bring some order to chaos I'm working on a table of cities in a sandbox page here: User:Phoebe/George_Floyd_protest_table - I figure we can use this data to better structure the article, the map, etc. once we have a better handle on the situation and more information. If it seems useful for the article we can move it over. Please help out if you like. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update lead to refer to the world rather than the US only?

The article now includes protests outside of the US (see George_Floyd_protests#International), so perhaps we should update the lead from "protests and demonstrations in the United States" to something more appropriate. Also "before spreading nationwide" ·addshore· talk to me! 21:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you show Alaska on the map?

There have been marches there but Alaska is not visible on the map. Source. CoryGlee (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source -the map is being worked on now, but we can definitely add Alaska to the text list. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

And so they do. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The social media crap has been removed now, replaced with expert analysis from a New York University security analysis outfit, official statements from local and federal officials on the involvement of white supremacists, and analysis by experts on the groups involved. I consider this case closed.--Calthinus (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text about people calling into radio stations is still there. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 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]
Hi, there could be a split off page for protests in Los Angeles / Southern California, like George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon and other articles, but everything needs to be documented with sources - preferably reliable media sources - even if things are in flux and changing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PickleG13, please don't create a new article to tell what you see as the true version of the story. Tell it here, provided it is based on reliable sources. If we have it wrong, straighten us out. I'm really sorry to see this splitting off into sub-articles, where we might end up having pages on dozens of cities. This is not warranted. Most cities (except Minneapolis) can be dealt with within this article. I hope that those sub-articles will be merged back into this one when things calm down and it no longer seems important to spell out every little detail of every protest. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous

Maybe a sentence or two could be added about the Anonymous response to these events. Variety and Forbes articles. SK2242 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Anonymous response to these events as Anonymous is not an organization or one firm group.
There is an anonymous response to these events under the name of Anonymous.
And that's all what "Anonymous" is (namely anybody who is anonymous and using the name with varying support by others who are also anonymous). This needs to be reflected in the text if it gets added.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests article changes.

Hi guys, I was would like to add an image, which is the breathtaking photo of the building on fire, to the article. I’m not allowed though, but i’m Sure someone here knows which photo I mean. Marco45edit (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marco45edit, is it copyrighted? If so, it's likely we can't add it. Ed6767 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Addition of Kansas City protest in the list of "Major Cities Protest" subsection. 2605:A601:AE85:A601:B939:23B1:E964:215C (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which Kansas City? And can you give us a link to a published story? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likely  Already done Ed6767 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City, Missouri. https://fox4kc.com/news/photos-protesters-clash-with-kansas-city-police-over-death-of-george-floyd/ https://www.kcur.org/2020-05-31/following-night-of-demonstration-and-destruction-a-third-day-of-protest-planned-in-kansas-city https://www.kmbc.com/article/kansas-city-missouri-country-club-plaza-protest-live-update-kansas-city-police-westport/32723737

Should deaths info be more detailed?

As it is, the section does not say much about who was killed, or who they were allegedly killed by. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Area describing far left, far right, etc

I think I may have screwed something up in the section describing white supremacist and far left involvement. I didn't realize that the section below already had the heading relating to white supremacism, but I didn't revert back correctly, and things seem rather out of order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ain515 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too and I have fixed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FPS officer death

https://abc7news.com/george-floyd-protest-oakland-federal-officer-killed-patrick-underwood-in/6221576/ Angelica K (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis semi incident

Hi,

Should this incident here: [11] be included in the Reported violence subsection of the Violence and controversies section? It seems like there weren't any injuries as a result. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portland, Maine

Suggestion: add Portland, Maine to the list of cities where there have been protests. The protestors and police in Portland, Maine, have been quite peaceful, so far, with protestors blocking a few streets and committing minor acts of vandalism such as spray-painting graffiti. Here's a scource. Let's hope it stays calm, ay-yuh! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

The death toll of 8 is not provided by any reliable sources, and is an unwarranted synthesis. The sources cited in the deaths section only include an allegation of substantive link to the crisis in 4 cases (1 each in Minneapolis, Omaha, Oakland, and St. Louis). The 4 deaths in Indianapolis, Chicago, and Detroit, are simply described in the cited sources as being located near protests/riots. That is not sufficient to add them to the death toll, considering these are major urban areas in which homicides are common. I attempted to correct this and was reverted in violation of WP:DONTREVERT etc., so am seeking consensus here. Zekelayla (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read each source, they mentions them as part of the protest/riots, dismissing sourced contents and stating a death toll based on personal views is a violation of WP:NOR. We should state what WP:RS says not what particular editors believe. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dilbaggg re: "they mentions them as part of the protest/riots", no, that's not the case for the 4 I indicated. If you want to argue the point, please quote where you think it says that, so that I can see what you are talking about. Zekelayla (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source link itself says "title=Man fatally shot during protests in Detroit", what I am doing is complying with source, what you are doing is repeatedly violating WP:NOR. All of them have been included because the sources say deaths occurred during the protest. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dilbaggg As we've already discussed twice, the article is explicit that "Detroit police cannot confirm if the victim was part of the protests" and the investigation is ongoing. "during" simply means the murder happened at the time of the protest. i.e. the content of the article body is more than enough to supercede whatever innuendo you take from the title. So we cannot confirm this death is affiliated with the protest. Zekelayla (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally Zekelayla claims this is not part of the protest despite WP:RS clearly saying it is:

* On May 29 in Detroit, a man was fatally shot in the vicinity of protests.[1]"

Whatever majority decides will be set as death toll. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dilbaggg "Detroit police cannot confirm if the victim was part of the protests, but the shooting happened downtown where the protests were taking place. Detroit Police are investigating." So, just as I indicated, the only known connection is proximity to the protest. In fact, the article also notes the police went out of their way to correct an earlier statement which prematurely tied it to the protest. Zekelayla (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but WP:RS has connected it to the protest. No source mentions total death toll yet as the protests are ongoing, we are adding up updates and new death tolls added by WP:RS. I am not the one who added all these deaths, other editors did, I am just following guidelines under WP:RS and WP:NOR. Anyway I leave it here, add the death toll will be what majority editors agree on. Lets wait for what they say. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RS puts it by the protest, which also happens to be a busy urban environment in a city with a lot of murders. There is no other connection to the protest alleged. The RS does not go so far as to say it is a protest death and in fact intentionally avoids doing so. Zekelayla (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"which also happens to be a busy urban environment in a city with a lot of murders", a clear Original Research Statement. This is something you said, not WP:RS/ You clearly do not understand the policies. Anyway the purpose of this discussion is to reach a consensus, let other editors judge and decide for themselves, it make take some time for them to respond please be patient, but do not change death toll until then.Dilbaggg (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dilbaggg To clarify, that comment is simply explaining why you exceeding what the source indicates is so problematic. I am calling for deleting unsupported claims from the article, not adding original research. And please watch your tone. Zekelayla (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watch my tone? On what, I haven't said anything offensive, just because your claim is disputed (which is 100% allowed) you are saying that, do not violate WP:Harassment Dilbaggg (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"You clearly do not understand the policies." "It is hard to AGF with such malicious behavior, misrepresenting sources" etc. Zekelayla (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't violating any policy or any attack on you. Regardless the purpose of this discussion is to reach a consensus, we stated our points, let other editors observe and decide, please be patient and do not change death toll figure until consensus is reached. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekelayla (talk • contribs)

The New York Times has compiled an estimate of death toll: "At least five deaths have occurred amid unrest, while other deaths have taken place nearby but their ties to protests are uncertain." (Link). NYT is unsure of several of the deaths we are currently linking to the protests despite the lack of support from RS. Can we please change the death toll from 11 (which no RS attests) to "at least 5" (or something of that nature) at this point? @ EllenCT Nice4What Dilbaggg Calthinus. Zekelayla (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Edited Zekelayla (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the NYT estimate probably was too early to catch the 2 deaths in Cicero, IL that have been explicitly linked to the protests by the town authorities (link. So, it seems "at least seven" would be the best way to integrate the appropriately conservative NYT estimate at this point. Zekelayla (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the New York Times is considered Zekelayla, even though the protests are ongoing and only after it ends the total death toll will be revealed. Well I am neutral on this as NYT is indeed RS, but I am not voting to change as other sources indicating as of now 13 deaths are also WP:RS and NYT clearly said "at least" not ruling out that other deaths have occurred. However if the majority of the other editors vote to reduce it to "at least five", I have no issues either. Whatever the majority of the editors decide counts. But do not change until the consensus is reached and of course the real death toll will be finalized only after the protest ends anyway. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However after reading newer WP:RS added by other editors I have realized that was back dated and more incidents have happened and are still happening and death toll will be continually updated, a single backdated source can not help much. Then again I repeat one more time whatever the majority decides will go. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reporting of the NYT does sharpen the picture. The deaths range among confirmed link, likely per RS but unconfirmed, disputed, no RS-based link but happened nearby, etc. Yet we are counting all of these towards the death toll as of now. This is untenable. At minimum there should be a numerical range. Zekelayla (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eight given the sources at present. The practical probabilities that the four deaths in question are not associated with the protests will be decided soon enough, but at present the clear consensus of their reports reflects the acknowledgement of a connection. I should also point out that editors experienced with such events will recognize that early reports under such chaotic conditions are more likely to be a substantial undercount than any alternative, so the reader is served with the account of eight deaths at this time. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for 4 of the deaths reflect not so much the acknowledgement of a substantive connection as acknowledgement of the possibility of a connection. Zekelayla (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a reliable source ties a death with the protests, it should be listed. As of this comment, the death toll should be 11. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zekelayla is 100% correct: the inclusion in an infobox of deaths about which the strongest that can be said is "it happened in the vicinity of protests and is under investigation" is utter BS. The deaths entry in the infobox should be strictly limited to deaths that have been unambiguously and concretely linked to the protests. If someone insists on having garbage NOTNEWS violations in the body text, fine, but split them out: "[intro text] [list of deaths unambiguously linked to protests] In addition, the following deaths have been tentatively linked to the protests by some sources, or occurred in their vicinity: [list of deaths that will eventually be removed from the article once it turns out they were unrelated]." --JBL (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" If someone insists on having garbage NOTNEWS violations in the body text, fine, but split them out" Agree with this. that is what I tried to do before being reverted, so there is some language in an earlier version. Zekelayla (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an ongoing event, nothing gives a total death toll yet, so adding up the deaths from WP:RS than adding figures based on Original Research by certain editors is the best way to move forward until the protests end and the total death toll is established. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also who said that the deaths should only include that of protesters that which has been implied? The death list is for those who died as a result of the protest, who said bystanders can be excluded? In every other protests including the 1992 LA riots deaths of not riots who died as a result of the riot were also included. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"adding up the deaths from WP:RS" OK, but we disagree about how to do that. I think the total is 5 based on the RS in the article, but you think it is 11. "Original Research by certain editors" I'm sorry, but isn't this exactly what you've repeatedly (and falsely) accused me of? Zekelayla (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't falsely accused anything, your statements are OR, disputing WP:RS and giving a figure you feel should be included. You have even warned by different users including an admin. Regardless the voting is still ongoing, what majority decides is what counts and fact is the protests are still ongoing. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not OR to call for wikipedia to correctly characterize the content of an RS. Zekelayla (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
nothing gives a total death toll yet FFS then why the fuck would you want to put it in the article, in direct contravention of core policies? When the given options are "making shit up in direct contravention of WP:OR" and "not doing that", not making shit up will always be the best thing to do, and particularly not putting made-up shit into an infobox. This is an encyclopedia! --JBL (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JBL mind WP:Civility, and deaths of 13 are all as per source, and it keeps updating as its on going event, but what Zekelayla did saying deaths were unrelated to protests, even saying stuffs lie "they were done in places filled with murderers" is pure OR. The 13 deaths have all WP:RS. And also do not change figure without consensus. What WP:RS says and what majority editors agree on consensus is what counts. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing is dishonest, incompetent, and damaging. With any luck your attempts to draw administrator attention will get you blocked, and then someone can remove the material you've repeatedly inserted that lacks any source whatsoever that ties it to the subject of this article. FFS. --JBL (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave it, we do not need a live update (we are not a news wire service)? We can have a total when its all done and dusted.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Zekelayla (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you didnt leave it and went on to change it to fit your desired figure without getting a consensus. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be removed until/unless the death toll can be sourced. Sourcing it to this article, or counting up individual reports, violates WP:V and WP:NOR. I've added a New York Times article as a source, and per that source, changed the number to "5+". One of the reasons we shouldn't have had "13" or "9-13" is that those numbers are both contradicted by reliable sources. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure esp as it's a developing situation. But note that many analogous pages for civil and international conflicts -- as well as the coronavirus in X-country pages -- have slightly outdated death counts because they rely on sources to do the counting for them, so they are often a day or two behind. Hence there is precedent. --Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Under section titled "Deaths" the number of deaths should be changed to 8 instead of four as has already been changed in the information box. Freeroamer90 (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion in the previous talk page section. Zekelayla (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done Ed6767 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White House turns off its lights

Per The Guardian, and Insider. Should consider adding. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 08:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against Jewish-Americans

I see there is a section on "Violence against Asian-Americans." There should also be a section on violence against Jewish-Americans. Black rioters heavily looted Jewish neighborhoods in Los Angeles specifically because they were Jewish and graffitied "Free Palestine" and "Fuck Israel" on synagogues, thanks to intersectional leftism. www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/31/rioters-loot-jewish-stores-vandalize-synagogue-in-l-a-free-palestine-f-israel [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

Problem (as I see it) is that none of the sources I can view say this was done by black people.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Or rather: done by black protestors. Also one of the links here has nothing to do with Jews, it is just a commercial center (this one [17]) --Calthinus (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think before we add this I would want to see much better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV of infobox - "Caused by"

A couple issues:

1. The "caused by" section of the infobox lists "institutional racism" as a cause, but this strikes me as rather POV. Which contemporary American institutions, specifically, are being accused of racism, and what are the specific policies or individuals being pointed to?...Further, it's not even clear who exactly is making this accusation. The citation links to a CNN article about statements by the US Surgeon General, but he talks about "racism," not "institutional racism." It's likely he means lingering racial prejudice on the part of certain individuals, rather than a prevalence of racist policies on the part of American institutions.

I think it'd make more sense, and be more NPOV, to list something like "racial tension and the legacy of historic racist policies."

2. Notably absent from that same "caused by" section was the lockdowns, which have been particularly strict in may of the worst affected urban areas. This has served as a stressor for many Americans in multiple ways - from the disruption of normal social and recreational activities, to sexual contact becoming much more difficult for single people, to the economic disruption. It seems rather self-evident that this helped prime a lot of people to be ready to go out and loot, burn, or fight in the streets...

I did a quick search just now, and found a few articles mentioning this factor:

"To light a fire, you need at least three elements -- fuel, oxygen, and a spark.

The protests and ultimately the riots were ignited by the videos of Chauvin killing Floyd. The oxygen — always present — was America’s history of police violence and racial tension. Some of the fuel, the kindling that made this spark turn into an inferno, was the lockdown of society and the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-lockdown-riots

"The seething anger was there already. After two months of lockdown, it was ripe to burst out." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-01/george-floyd-riots-inflamed-by-donald-trump-tweets/12306092

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-riots-and-the-lockdown/

So it'd probably make sense to include this factor as well. -2003:CA:8732:E4BC:99EF:4919:4F2D:58A (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ CNN, Jennifer Henderson and Madeline Holcombe. "Man fatally shot during protests in Detroit". CNN. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

 Partly done:. I have replaced Institutional racism in the infobox with Racism, because the source cited does not support institutional racism as a factor. Whether or not to include the lockdowns as a contributing factor is less clear-cut, so I have not done so. However, this should not be interpreted as an opinion against doing so. Similarly, this should not be interpreted as an opinion against including Institutional racism if a reliable source supports it. userdude 12:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. IMO we would need more mainstream analysis saying the lockdown contributed to the spread and fury of the protests. These are opinion pieces from a few sources and they are somewhat contradictory. Let's wait for at least some kind of consensus to emerge that the pandemic and lockdown were important. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Bawaba and man handing out money

The article currently mentions a story reported by Al Bawaba in the "Alleged far left and anarchist involvement" section, which talks about some Twitter users sharing a video of a man handing out money to someone. Not only does the video itself not indicate any connection with an extremist group, even the tweets themselves don't mention any of that, with Al Bawaba concluding that, despite the lack of antifa imagery, the incident is "linked" with far-left groups "according to commentators". I think this should be removed, as we don't want to include every single conspiracy theory, especially ones that are so weakly supported anything. BeŻet (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does the source say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source, however another editor has already removed that fragment. The source says: Anti-protests social media users circulated a short video clip from Columbus, Ohio showing a white man handing out money to two black young men. The white man can be heard talking about 'tickets' which according to some Twitter users "is code for a fishy business," suggesting that he was providing them with instructions to loot and destroy properties. Although the video doesn't mention or show any Antifa symbols, the left-wing "anti-fascist political activist" movement is linked to this incident, according to commentators, who referred to online Antifa calls to donate money to bail out protesters, who have been arrested by the police in different cities. To me that's extremely weak and not up to our standards (WP:COATRACK). BeŻet (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it, as indeed it is not even close to our standards. --Calthinus (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International condemning 'excessive' militarised response to George Floyd protests

Someone has removed a paragraph stating that Amnesty International is calling the American police to end their use of excessive violence in response to the protests. Since there are so many edits happening, I can't locate the change that removed that fragment. Does this not belong in this article? If so, why? BeŻet (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have (non primary) RS covered this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven and BeŻet: Yes, they have [18] --Calthinus (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC
Frankly I would like a ore mainstream source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Axios exactly? --Calthinus (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This "In March and April 2019, HuffPost and Wired reported that Axios had paid a firm to improve its reputation by lobbying for changes to the Wikipedia articles on Axios and Jonathan Swan." form a start.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously not kosher but this says nothing about how "mainstream" or reliable the source is. --Calthinus (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is enough for me to question if it is the kind of source we should be using. If this is "the best source" that can be found the question becomes "why do better sources not care?"Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources focus on other matters, like an ongoing pandemic, widespread violence, etc; the report is still fresh. But sure, we can wait for others. The British Afro-Caribbean paper Voice covers it [19] covers it too.--Calthinus (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And when other (more significant) sources cover this then it will not violate wp:undue to mention it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally not a fan but is widely used as RS elsewhere on wiki: Al Jazeera covers it too [20]. --Calthinus (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that is enough now to mention it,Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass violence"

This smacks of sensationalism. Cases with like 0-2 injuries listed in the chart (the vast majority) are not "mass violence". --Calthinus (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the title of the section should be different. BeŻet (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the term "mass violence" is sensationalism; however, the fact that multiple major American cities have had many reports of injuries and even deaths is certainly not something to be brushed off. The property damage also counts as violence, so that should be taken into account as well. RBolton123 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we even need it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that we will never going to be able to produce a complete, exhaustive list of every time someone gets injured, or every time someone throws a rock. Perhaps we should consider not having a list like that, as we already mention in other parts of the article that violence is present. BeŻet (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point BeZet. I motion to delete it entirely. You guys agree? --Calthinus (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I disagree that "mass violence" is inherently sensationalist, but there are no well defined criteria for including events, and there is no way we can realistically catalog all instances of mass violence, even if we did decide on specific criteria. It's best to let that content be covered in the #Deaths section. userdude 14:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest "Violence" or "Violence and destruction of property". There is violence, but a tally of injuries and death do not seem to justify the "mass violence" title. MonsieurD (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Why do we need a separate section for any violence?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing that table. It is mis-titled and incomplete; it could probably never be complete. Describe individual incidents for now; wait for the summaries afterward. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. When overarching analysis comes in, then it will be WP:DUE. But we do not need a table with entries for incidents where dudes threw unexploded Molotovs.  Done. --Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total Injuries

Are there any numbers for the approximate amount of injuries? I would expect them to be very high. Also, it is crucial information as most people are getting injured rather than dying during the protests or riots. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When its all over we will know what the total injuries are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against Police

I was looking through the article and I was struck by how one sided many of the statements are. For example, by the reference to the video that surfaced recently that shows a unarmed helpless woman being beat up and knocked unconcious by two police officers. This video is shocking and disgusting, how can those brutes do that to her! Until....you see that the video is incomplete and cut short. If one were to look up that video online and find the FULL version, he would see that the woman had been agrressive and shouting hysterically, and then in the heat of her crazed outburst she turned on the police officer and attacked him, punching him in the head. She became an animal and continued to try to injure the cop to the point that she became a danger, a danger that tthe cop dealt with swiftly. But this full story is not the one posted here instead we hear about the victim, a woman who was innocent and defenseless who was another casualty of a fight for freedom from the dangerous police. So I ask everyone who edits and writes here to please have commen sense and an unbiased opinion and to try to the best of your ability to only write the pure and unvarnished truth. SamsonKriger (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Produce an RS and we can discuss re-wording.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SamsonKriger: I believe you may be mixing up different incidents; I cannot find any evidence that the woman in the video seen here attacked the police. userdude 16:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We use sources to back things up. If you have a source that clarifies the situation, please share it with us. BeŻet (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the viral video https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maryland/articles/2020-05-30/baltimore-officer-suspended-video-shows-woman-knocked-out SamsonKriger (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be me but that source does not back up your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My claim was that media outlets are extremely biased against those of opposite political standing and therefore we must be catious before posting any video or statement that might not have been the full story. SamsonKriger (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The media are not politically opposed to the police, as they are not a political body, and should not have a political stance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebs

Though I'm not saying support by influential public figures is not relevant, I'm starting to think we are going to need some criteria for inclusion as that list is going to get very long very fast. I know of a huge number of many other notable celebrities who have given statements, and I am really not that up to date on pop culture at all. --Calthinus (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. As someone who catches up with pop culture, I can safely say that virtually almost every single celebrity with a platform has spoken up about it in some shape and form. It does not make sense to single out who has said what, as the list would probably be longer than the entire article. As such, maybe we can just leave the first few sentences there, about celebrities attending the protests, and the "blackout". If we have to mention a celebrity, it has to be someone who has actually done something notable, like Taylor Swift who directly condemned Trump publicly, or Halsey who has supported the protests, joined them, criticised the police on her stories and also gave tips for protestors to stay safe. We should not be listing every single celebrity who had posted something, if that something has little to no impact in the full picture at all. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We don't need to mention everyone by name. Yes include sportstars such as, Michael Jordan and Lewis Hamilton as they are world known, but an NFL player or NHL player, no we don't need to specifically mention them. We can probably get away with Sports stars such as MJ and Hamilton have voice opinions on the protests... same for other celebrities if they have said something truly notable. Don't feel that we need a criteria, just need some common sense. Games of the world (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no, not a one. We cannot decide who is famous enough and who is not. What they think is not relevant unless it has an affect.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utica,NY protest

I noticed that Utica's protests[1] were not listed o the map, but I do not know how to add it. Anyone know how to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupstatenewyorker (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done userdude 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnyhomepage.com/news/utica-protest-is-peaceful-large-crowd/

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Please add Ross Lynch to the celebrity protest list. 2602:306:38A5:B3C0:1439:91:4D68:A6A0 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - please provide a source - I'm also not sure how this specific case would be notable Ed6767 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this title be renamed "George Floyd protests and riots"?

Moratorium on move requests is still in effect. El_C 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of protests as well as riots. Should the title be renamed? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preposterous info box

Can anyone defend the “info box” that has found its way into this page, according to encyclopedia standards of neutrality?

The “caused by” section says that these protests were caused by racism, police violence, etc., and the “methods” section then in all seriousness gives as “methods of protest” arson, assault, and looting!

I’ve commented out the box to draw attention to this. -Wwallacee (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

don't make edits to "draw attention" to something, that is disruptive, and I oppose deletion of the useful infobox. --Calthinus (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your bold edit. In the future, please don't erase information to make a point. I believe some of your concerns about the particulars in the infobox are already addressed on this talk page. gobonobo + c 19:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While removing the box is unnecessarily destructive, Wwallacee has a point that the "caused by" section has been written as a non-exhaustive list with a subjective basis for inclusion that lacks proper citations. Additionally, the death toll of 11 is a Wikipedia special: not originating in an RS and based on a scientifically dubious synthesis and mishandling of disparate sources. Zekelayla (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
scientifically dubious -- so you are saying we should apply the Scientific method? No, we just add RS :). They're everywhere. Wikipedia is not science. --Calthinus (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is scientifically dubious is the synthesis of sources. If all it was was adding RS, there would be no problem. See WP:SYNTH. Zekelayla (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, no. We do not do "science" here. Period. Additionally juxtaposition is WP:NOTSYNTH. I see sources to support all of those statements already in the article. Someone merely needs to add them to the infobox...--Calthinus (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus The article body and sources support the claim that 11 homicides were relatively closeby to the riots, not that 11 deaths were caused by or attributable to the riots.Zekelayla (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This distinction is sophistry.--Calthinus (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus What a bizarre statement. You apparently know better, e.g., than the police officials in Detroit which explicitly declined to allege that the death there was connected to the rioting. Zekelayla (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bla bla bla strawman bla bla. --Calthinus (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus very mature and comprehensible comment. Zekelayla (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, how nice, thanks. Yeah like most people I will not entertain you if your version of discussion is putting words in my mouth. Please do stop pinging me though.--Calthinus (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zekelayla my apologies actually. I was an asshole. Sorry. Things get heated. You didn't deserve that.--Calthinus (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus Thanks, maybe I haven't made my points as effectively as possible, but I am simply trying to reduce potential overcounting in the death toll section. Zekelayla (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zekelayla WP:RS links them to the riots, thats what matters, not your WP:NOR violating statements. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dilbaggg Some of the deaths aren't linked to the riots by the RS in any aspect beyond relative proximity. You can ignore this as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact. Zekelayla (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just your personal assessment, and that doesn't change the fact, you have 0 WP:RS that claimed that those deaths were not caused by the riots, that all those were false news. This cannot be changed based on your original research and OR statements that you made above section "The RS puts it by the protest, which also happens to be a busy urban environment in a city with a lot of murders. ". Anyway you have received warning for WP:EW attempts, do not change death toll unless majority editors agree with your figure. You have been asked to receive a consensus, voting is still going on the death toll section above. Whatever majority agree will go, anyway I won't be around for some hours, so I request you to follow wikipedia policies. Good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"you have 0 WP:RS that claimed that those deaths were not caused by the riots" My point is (and always has been) that you have 0 WP:RS that claim that those deaths were caused by the riots. It's truly disappointing that at this stage of the game you are still misrepresenting my argument. Zekelayla (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those WP:RS clearly says the deaths were part of the protest and it has been repeatedly explained to you. it is you who tried using original research claiming that they were committed by murderers not linked to the riots. You have been repeatedly told to be patient before a consensus is reached and editing wikipedia is not a game, it comes with responsibility. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, been saying this for days. The racism charge violates WP:NPOV imo. Arson and looting arguably are relevant, since there are documented cases of this. Assault is over the top for sure. Anon0098 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a long and ridiculous list of "sides"--as if this were some kind of war, some kind of conflict with clearly defined belligerents or whatever. Adencc, you will need some serious consensus on the talk page for this, because this is a hill worth dying on for me. And no, this is not Hong Kong. The whole thing makes no sense at all (far beyond the infobox itself)--I saw police chiefs in various localities embraces and march with protestors--so does that mean they're on the protestors' side, "fighting" against their own state or mayor? Come on now. The police in the US are already militarized enough; we don't need to formalize that. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already had consensus for removal above in Use of sides in infobox. gobonobo + c 20:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, okay, yeah, I can see the current version has issues, but most major protest events such as this one do have an infobox, and it is useful. --Calthinus (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I do agree there doesn't need to be a side list as that violates WP:NPOV. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sides have distinct and mutually exclusive goals and leadership. There are no distinct sides here yet. We should keep the infobox though. The causes listed are all legitimate and well-sourced.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know that is pretty much what all the RS is saying that this is a reaction to decades of Police brutality, Lack of police and institutional racism.10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion seems to be conflating multiple issues. I don't see any reason to remove the infobox entirely. That seems like an overreaction. Listing "sides" is silly. Listing legislatures as being on a "side" is doubly so. These are not monoliths, makes it sound like Duane Quam is busy lacing up his riot gear so he can go kick some butt, and ignores legislators who have themselves participated in demonstrations of which there are several. GMGtalk 16:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The “caused by” section says that these protests were caused by racism against minorities; might it help balance the article to add another line, that the riots are caused also, "by racism against the majority"? Of course an acceptable source would have to be cited. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Calgary, Alberta, to the map and list

Calgary currently has gatherings of over 100. CBC, Calgary Herald, CTV Calgary. GlobBruh (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done userdude 20:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section on violence against elected representatives?

Hi

Several politicians including State Senator Zellnor Myrie, U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, Columbus City Council President Shannon Hardin and Franklin County Commissioner Kevin Boyce have been pepper sprayed by the police, would it useful to have a section which lists politicians attacked? Here are the references I can find so far

I don't know the subject well, so please, if you think its a worthwhile idea, go ahead.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought so.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella man

Is this really WP:DUE? It is based entirely on social media and hearsay, and we have the page discussing the possibility of the police using an agent provacateur, which sans supportive analysis by experts, seems a bit of an accusation to me... --Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, there's some reliable sources that report that the cops say it was not the cop others said it was, and blah blah--but yeah, we don't need this kind of speculation, and I cut it. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Drmies -- thanks. --Calthinus (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mob violence?

Interesting how the protestor violence is referred to as "mob violence" but police violence is not... 31.187.0.170 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A better issue to point out regarding that section is that it is totally WP:UNDUE, concerning one (1) single incidence where one white individual was harmed by a few black individuals, and the only sources that seem to find this isolated incident notable are Fox News and Donald Trump (other sources find the ensuing controversy notable... not the incident itself afaik).--Calthinus (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had attempted to rename the section to "Protester violence" a few hours ago, but multiple edit conflicts held me back. I'll be doing so now, though. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree "Protester violence" is more neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images

I made one change: [21], with the rationale: "I commented out one image in the infobox because 6 out of 7 images were showing confrontation/destruction".

In general, it looks like the assortment of images may be a holdover from when the article was called "2020 Twin Cities riots". I believe that the collection could stand a further revision. Any feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Currently all seven images are from Minneapolis. I have listed the current images and commented on them below. I encourage others to add comments and alternative images. userdude 07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. commons:File:2020 Minneapolis Unrest (49952677233).jpg
2. commons:File:A protester stands on a police car with a smashed windowshield outside the Target in the Midway area of St Paul, Minnesota (49946336068).jpg
3. commons:File:Protesters outside the Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct May 28 2020.jpg
4. commons:File:Minneapolis Police Department’s 3th Precinct 2020-05-28.jpg
  • Keep. Probably the best image on commons of the Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct burning, arguably the most significant single event of the protests. userdude 07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. commons:File:Minneapolis 05-28-20 (49947574981).jpg
  • Diversify. 5 shows a masked protester arguing with a masked sheriff; it's important to have images prominently displaying masks to remind readers of the context years in the future, but this image doesn't have to be from Minneapolis. userdude 07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. commons:File:Minnesota State Patrol stand at E Lake St and 29th Ave S in Minneapolis, Minnesota (49949772331).jpg
  • Diversify. 6 shows Minnesota State Patrol standing guard. This can be replaced with police from any other area. It would be even better to show National Guard standing guard, if such an image exists. userdude 07:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. commons:File:A man stands on a burned out car on Thursday morning as fires burn behind him in the Lake St area of Minneapolis, Minnesota (49945886467).jpg

Arson and Looting?

Should arson and looting get its own subsection? I mean the event is a mixture of protests and riots, so we could have a separate section for that kind of thing. It also seems odd to cover the violence but not the arson or looting. In addition, the article doesn't talk about that very much - "arson" only appears 5 times, "fire" appears 28 BUT is often used to refer to gun fire, "fires" appears only 7 times. The destruction of the miineapolis affordable housing project doesn't even seem to be mentioned, which makes zero sense.

Basically the article spends a lot of time talking about reactions, allegations of people using the event to their own ends and the police, but not a lot of stuff like the above.Sdio7 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of double standards section

Currently this sub-section under 'controversies' reads like an argument for there being a double standard. I'm sure somebody has pointed out in print that the Boston Tea Party was a very targeted act of destruction, and that there was no looting during the anti-lockdown protests. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it looks like someone is trying to make an argument rather than just reporting sources. It also ignores the context of stuff like arson as well.Sdio7 (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Two of the citations in the Misinformation section are broken. One of them is "Daily Dot Undercover"; here is its citation: Covucci, David (29 May 2020). "Did an undercover cop really vandalize a Minnesota AutoZone?". Daily Dot. Retrieved 2 June 2020. FlyingPiMonster (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! userdude 06:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Under police violence - Police were seen slashing tires in Kmart parking lot in Minneapolis, they controlled that area and no protesters had access. Also the Minneapolis police have been firing tear gas and rubber bullets at medical teams, confiscating medical supplies and water from medics. Minneapolis police also attacked reporters from Unicorn Riot while they were interviewing a business owner who also happened to be Philando Castile's cousin Philando Castile was murdered by a Saint Paul police officer in 2016 73.94.63.20 (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. userdude 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looting and destruction of property

We should add a Looting and destruction of property part. This needs to be filled out with information regarding when the looting started, the first police station that caught fire during protests - police station. There is also a need to set the record straight about the "label"/destinction between peaceful protesters and mobs that loot and set buildings/cars on fire. Right now in this article there are several places where looting is mentioned but there is no real barrier between the peaceful protesters and the looting mobs. It is important for the reader in the years to come to know the full story and that theese protestors were not all bad people, not all looters, and that some peaceful marches led to incidents were police buildings caught fire also bank/shops. Here one could also start to discuss if the ppolice brutality with tear gas etc caused the peaceful protestors to become mobs. Here we can also put in political govenors, the president, senators, mayors and protesters pleads to stop the burning of buildings and ofc the looting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterloo1728 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add section on curfews?

Although I haven't seen comprehensive reporting, one article said that all major cities in the US have now implemented curfews.

Can there be a section specifically covering that?

As note in this tweet, the documentation of curfews is sometimes neglected. https://twitter.com/bobhardt/status/1267541195431034881 "This is the first time New York City has had a curfew in several generations. There's not even an entry for it it in "The Encyclopedia of New York City"! I'm guessing World War I or World War II." 67.230.130.151 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit to the end of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Protests Section

The final section of the aforementioned section states 'The 4,100 troops of the Minnesota National Guard is scheduled to increase to 10,800 on May 31.'. Should we make this past tense? 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:5D80:5F52:C3ED:612A (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Threat To Send Military To U.S. Cities

   To emphasize, the Insurrection Act requires a formal proclamation in order to be invoked. Trump *threatened* to use it if state National Guards aren’t effective, but vague threats and ambiguous speeches don’t cut it. He wants to look tough without actually taking responsibility. https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1267589188075094016
   — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 1, 2020

Source: https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1267589188075094016

--217.234.77.84 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggested edit it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

This is of some relevance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

47.220.138.237 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
These are riots, not protests.[reply]

white supremacists are not far-right.

Sources please.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: White supremacists are far right, and these are protests with some rioting interspersed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

In addition to the protests, a semi truck came driving on May 30 on the I-35W Bridge, Washington Avenue MN. Driving a semi-truck at high speed, protesters scattered quickly as 35 year-old Bogdan Vechirko came by at a dangerous speed. He only stopped when someone was laying or sitting in front of him on the road who perhaps fell whilst trying to escape. After stopping his truck, he was dragged out of the truck by angry protesters and beat up. Upon being rescued from his attackers by other protesters and the police, Bogdan was arrested on suspicion of assault *1. He suffered light injuries visible in his mugshot. Nobody else was hurt *4. His motivation for the action is unknown, as well as how he got to the bridge while the freeway was allegedly blocked *5.

More details: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8377735/Driver-truck-rolled-crowd-protesters-confused-governor-says.html 84.83.10.219 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to The George Floyd wars

Obviously not productive.--Calthinus (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's getting close to a war. I think The George floyd wars is better. Pineapple beats (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a silly joke, but if it isn't, we don't decide how to name things on a whim, we use reliable sources to do so. BeŻet (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deaths section issue

why does the death section say 5+ when there are at least 7 incidents there? Why not just report the actual number or a range instead of saying over 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.75.143 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things are changing all the time, editors are trying their best to keep things updated. BeŻet (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll is up to 9 now. https://www.timesofisrael.com/death-toll-grows-in-us-national-protests/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.75.143 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Change the death-toll count in the infobox to 9 or 10 (depending on whether or not George Floyd's death itself counts as part of this). Cite these two below sources in the deaths section with a full list of all the killings since the start of the protests. https://www.timesofisrael.com/death-toll-grows-in-us-national-protests/ https://apnews.com/864cb5c14ba08b4411a16577042d0773 146.115.75.143 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Floyd_protests&oldid=960386373"