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 138.207.198.74 (talk) at 19:00, 24 June 2020 (→‎Are the protests over? The article is unclear: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Template:WPUS50


Split proposal: Reactions

Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and part of it should be split to a new page entitled Reactions to the George Floyd protests. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think international reactions are definitely a split. However, "domestic reactions" (as currently written) are not really reactions, but either actions or words by actual participants of the events. For example, On June 1 he [Donald Trump] spoke from the Rose Garden, where he proclaimed "I am your president of law and order" and said he was "dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers" to deal with rioting in Washington, D.C. That belongs to this page, but possibly should be moved to a different section. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with My very best wishes. Domestic reactions are not just a product of the protests, but also affect the protests. They should remain in the main article. userdude 18:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Split I need a better reason than a page size, which still falls within the limits, to support a split. Reactions, international or otherwise, are an integral part of this protest and affect the movement. Also, Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this falls into the category of "Length alone does not justify division". DTM9025 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are, and that is why it deserves a dedicated article to talk about it. RBolton123 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support split - As I said above, the reactions to this protest are as important to understanding the topic as the protests themselves, and it deserves its own page. RBolton123 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of confused by this reasoning as if they are important to understand the protests, shouldn't they be in the protest article? DTM9025 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support trim and split - The article is way too long. As usual, I think "reactions" sections are unencyclopedic and should be removed; second choice, though, is to split. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did the split. - Featous (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that there was consensus yet, especially in the question of the fact that the reactions are fundamentally a product and a part of the protests, which I believe means that it should remain in the article and would like an answer about why that fact would mean it should be in a different article as one of the posters was mentioning. As such, I have reverted the split for now but would love to understand RBolton123 explanation on his points. DTM9025 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only person of eight who opposes and it was two days since the last response. Shall we give it another two days for the surge of opposes that you are expecting? - Featous (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are three people opposing the split? userdude and My very best wishes including me? DTM9025 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DTM9025, it's now been another week. Are we good to go ahead and split? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be trimmed. Cole DiBiase (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support split Yeah, per the reasons stated by others, this is way too long of a page, and might I add that it even loads much slower comparatively. As a side note, perhaps other sections may need splits as well? I can also see the section about the covid concerns needing a split, to create an article that can go alongside all the other covid related articles. boldblazer (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split – Reactions to the protests are important context, I think the separate section is enough and splitting the article would make it more difficult to find relevant information. The page isn't too long and the table of contents is there for a reason. SpockFan02 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support international split per My very best wishes Anon0098 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Support split Yes, support the split. Also, I think "Reactions" could be expanded to include reactions from various corporations, organizations etc thus the "Reactions" page has considerable room to grow -- which makes it even more necessary to have it on a separate page. EnneDee (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split per Reactions to Occupy Wall Street and Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Tvc 15 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split – Reactions are a core part to the page and are necessary for its interpretation. Removing it to another page cripples this page in its entirety, nor is the reactions strong enough to fill its own page. Violence and controversies has more strength as an independent page, and I'd oppose the removal of that section as well. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reactions section should go to Wikiquote. We do this literally every time that a major breaking news story happens, and people want to insert everything they find online into an article. GMGtalk 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split - I believe it is important to keep reactions like Donald Trump's and other important political officials on this page because of their large impact on the protests. But I do think reactions from celebrities and corporations should be separated. Although many of them did supportive things like join protests and donate, they did not have a massive impact on protests in terms of largely changing their outcome. I believe celebs and corporation's reactions should be separated, but largely important politicians, governments, and organization's reactions should stay since many protests were targeted at them to make change, and how they reacted and the laws they passed as a result of this have had a massive impact on their countries and the goals of these protests. Uelly (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Split - Could we not split articles based on protests and riots? There have been protests all over the globe, but the attention right now is on protesting the death of George Floyd and police brutality and the actions of rioting and looting. Unless the article just needs to be renamed George Floyd Protests and Riots. I think the goals and actions of each party differ greatly and deserve their own pages and would split the information nicely. i.e leave the event of the death of George Floyd, the protest against police brutality, and the reaction from government and civil leaders. Put the destruction of property, statues, fires, violent clashes between police and rioters, etc. on another page. Just a thought. You could also reference external protests taking place in a section and have separate pages for those as well since they are protesting against police violence or other issues, but probably have more to do with their local experience and history within their own country or area. New to Wikipedia conversations so if this is not the correct way to reply to a talk section please let me know =P (Doomsdaysquid (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

"Violence during the George Floyd protests" should have its own article within this main one

That way, it'll help the fix the issues the article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Should a separate article I propose be created within this main article, it also should include violence that happens internationally in relations to the protests. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sounds like a reasonable suggestion, there is a lot to talk about when it comes to violence, especially police violence, surrounding the protests. BeŻet (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this main article is about protests/unrest in general and yet all of the violence displayed here is from the U.S. That's why a separate article should be proposed in order to fix this problem that applies both inside and outside the U.S. equally and to alleviate the problem this main article is currently having. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XXzoonamiXX, are you proposing to WP:SPINOFF the Violence and controversies section into a separate article, and if so, is it OK with you if we make that "official"? (With a split proposal notification template on the article.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm proposing, yes. Violence and controversies should have its own separate article in order to reduce the main article being too long to navigate, and that way, it can include violence both inside and outside the U.S. However, I won't get involved in creating that separate one, so it's up to anyone here to do it if they wish. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many instances of violence and controversy are already covered in the George Floyd protest articles of various U.S. states and cities. Perhaps this article can note the most significant things and summarize some of what happened? Maybe more of effort should go into Improving those articles and adding controversial developments? Also, worth reading the Los Angeles riots article and MLK riots article for how things though of as critical to note now, may not be so in the future. Just a friendly thought, not a vote. VikingB (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest to add violence and deaths from other countries as well? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Add Rayshard Brooks to the death sections because it was a part of George Floyd protest and change death number to 23. 114.125.236.89 (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 10:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brooks' death isn't even slightly related to the protests. He was being arrested for drunk driving Anon0098 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it's not related - his death is fueling additional protests in Atlanta. What he was arrested for doesn't seem to be relevant. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it wouldn't be relevant is because it didn't happen in response to the protests. His death was unrelated. Just because others used it for the protest is irrelevant when it comes to the death count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.74.245.128 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death: Javar Harrell

Javar Harrell, a 21-year-old man, was killed in downtown Detroit on June 5 after someone fired shots into a vehicle during a protest.

According to a police report, Harrell, of Eastpointe, Mich., was sitting in the driver’s seat of a car in a parking lot with two others when someone opened fire and then ran away.

Detroit police have released photos of Harrell’s suspected killer, a man in a surgical mask, and a dark hooded sweater.

Source: https://fox6now.com/2020/06/08/deadly-unrest-here-are-the-people-who-have-died-amid-george-floyd-protests-across-us/

And? not every death is notable enough for inclusion, or directly link to the demos.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, yes it is Idan (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I strongly oppose Slatersteven vehemently here. Zvikorn has the right idea. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 2:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
That is already covered here in this article in the death section. Seems like the link got the date wrong since Harrell was killed on May 29, not June 5. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the source incorrectly wrote his death as June 5th, while we already covered his death which actually took place on May 29th. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is right-wing involvement "alleged" at this point?

I had removed "alleged" from the section header "Alleged far-right and white supremacist involvement" as there are at least five arrests of boogaloo boys so far - two for the California police shootings and three from the Nevada protester bombing plot. This doesn't take into account other incidents described in the section. @RopeTricks: reverted with the explanation "alleged should remain on both titles or neither title in the name of neutrality". "Alleged far-left and anarchist involvement" not only doesn't include any people charged with a crime, but it doesn't describe any specific incidents at all. I understand the impulse to "both sides" this, but the content under the two section headers is not remotely equivalent. - Featous (talk)

Seems to me that if one has led to arrest and one has not both are still only alleged (an arrest is not a conviction, and wP:blp applies even to the far right). But we may need to find a way to make it clear there is not real evidence (beyond word salad) of far left involvement.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Featous "boogaloo boys", I haven't heard that before. Please explain?. Ah, I have now. Jargon! Regards, 220 of ßorg 18:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it. Given that there have been 5 arrests, it is no longer alleged.Unibrow69420 (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a conviction has occurred an arrest does not equal guilt. It would still be alleged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.26.77.245 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV with regards to Antifa

Who is causing violence at the George Floyd protests? It’s not antifa. | The Fact Checker, 21.06.2020, Washington Post : Quote: "There has not been a single confirmed episode where antifa caused violence at the George Floyd protests in the U.S." - Semi-protected edit request - --87.170.195.36 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a credible source and holds no weight here. The Washington Post along with most of the "news" media is far from unbiased journalism IMHO. - Samf4u (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Samf4u, WaPo is considered generally reliable by Wikipedia. Please see WP:RSP. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not "Youtube", the source is the Washington Post! Is it a RS? --87.170.195.36 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually an official YouTube channel would be just as much an RS as a terrestrial one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure we've used The Washington Post countless times before on other pages. You personally finding them to be bias should not redefine massive years of precedent on Wikipedia, imo. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would you have us do with that source exactly? It's a Youtube video, so of course, the comments are filled with Russians, conspiracy theorists, and the alt-right at large, which adds a bunch of additional issues that already comes with trying to maintain credibility while citing a Youtube video. Moreover, I don't see the relevance of the video, unless, of course, you're suggesting we use that source to offer a countering view to the Republican government officials claiming Antifa's involvement without a shred proof. In which case, might I recommend this article that the Youtube video is based off and a sentence akin to "Despite unsubstantiated claims from Republican politicians and law enforcement officials, there has been no concrete evidence of Antifa involvement according to an investigation by the Washington Post..." and so forth. This source may be beneficial too. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNN: Police point finger at gangs and local groups for riot damages, contradicting Trump's claims: "Opportunistic local people, not outside political groups, account for 80% of the arrests [in Philadelphia] and in Pittsburgh." @GreenFrogsGoRibbit: Please refrain from making any insensitive, xenophobic remarks on Wikipedia ("the comments are filled with Russians").[1], [2]. The Russian people cannot be reduced to Putin’s regime. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I didn't mean to come off as discriminatory. I was attempting to reference Russian interference through the use of social media to influence US politics for the year 2020, which was a confirmed and documented fact in the year of 2016. I should have been more concise, I concur with that. Again, my apologies if I hurt anyone's feelings. I only mean to attack malicious attackers. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are the protests over? The article is unclear

I get most of my information from Wikipedia, but this article is confusing. Why doesn't it have a neat timeline, like the Yellow Jackets Protests article? I can't even get the picture of what was the last day of the rioting.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I agree there are evidences that they are, no new reports of street protests, most protests never announce that "the protests are now officially over", they are considered over as people stop going out to the streets to protest, and there havent been any new source or mention of George Floyd or any ongoing new protests, marches or violence. There will never be decleartion of an end to the protest, it is not a war or anything officilal, they are over when people literally stops protesting. Just like people will argue no WP:RS that the protests have ended, we can counter argue no WP:RS that the protests are ongoing. Protests are not offical wars that have declarations, like the 1992 Los Angeles riots protests ends when situation calms down and no more street protests (marches, violence, etc). Never the less a deceleration of the end of the protests was made on June 21: [3], I haqd even included it: [4] and no more protests on George Floyd have been reported since then. I support that protests are over, and the timeline between May 26 to June 21. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last demo reported?Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last demo was reported on June 21 as per WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is one demo ending has (for example) the free zone been reoccupied?Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also this [5] pretty much says that there were still protest on Tuesday.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/black-lives-matter-protests-06-23-2020/index.html there's still plenty of protesting going on, media coverage is dropping off however. There's a rally scheduled in my tiny town in southeastern CT for Saturday. I'm fairly certain we will be seeing protests for weeks yet, but there were definately some yesterday. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Floyd_protests&oldid=964307274"