Jump to content

Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Requested move 25 August 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 section.

Kenosha protests → ? – this is an adjustment to this partially closed request necessary because of the page move. The ongoing survey and discussion can be found below in the #Break after partial closure subsection. This can technically be considered a relisting. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous move request:
Kenosha riot → Kenosha protests – Per WP:COMMONNAME. To limit my analysis to news sources I used news.google.com In order not to retrieve older protests/riots, I restricted the searches to last week only. "protests in Kenosha"=20. "Kenosha protests"=28. Total PROTESTS=48. "riots in Kenosha"=8. "Kenosha riots"=12. Total RIOTS=20. Conclusion: protests is *more than twice as common* in news sources! "Jacob Blake protests" would also make sense but only 8 occurrences at present. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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 partial result of the move request was: Consensus against riot. I am going to partially close this discussion. I find, based on our policy that there is consensus that this should not be named Kenosha riot(s) and I further find that it is eligible for early closure (that is the elements of WP:SNOW are satisfied) despite the presence of established editors in favor of Kenosha riot(s). As such I am closing that element of the discussion and moving the page for the remainder of the discussion to Kenosha protests, as the original proposal. I am not closing the discussion overall, however, as there is substantial support for Kenosha unrest. Given this divide further discussion is still necessary to determine if the article should be at Kenosha protests, Kenosha unrest, or a new suggestion which might emerge through the RM process. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I suggest Jacob Blake protests as the article title. The events are a reaction to the shooting of Jacob Blake. This approach is similar to the George Floyd protests article (which morphed into a global protest movement article with the Minneapolis riots spun off into George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul). Using "Kenosha protests" or "Kenosha riots" as the main article title is far too limiting, especially as other parts of Wisconsin have already had notable events, and it is a way of diminishing the person who was shot. Also, it's not a Kenosha thing anymore.VikingB (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Support VikingB's proposal for consistency, as well as to reflect the accuracy of protests tied to the shooting of Jacob Blake that are not limited to Kenosha. While I also support ShadZ01's proposal, that is a discussion to take place elsewhere, as repeatedly mentioned. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
As events continue to unfold, unrest more accurately captures the essence of what is occurring while maintaining WP:NPOV. Many domestic and international outlets are largely referring to events in Kenosha as either "protests" or "unrests." I now weak support a move to "Jacob Blake protests" or "2020 Jacob Blake protests," and strong support a move to "2020 Kenosha unrest."
I say George Floyd protests and this article should be merged into one. Call it United States anti-police brutality protests or 2020 United States unrest like that since these similar events aren't just about George Floyd anymore. ShadZ01 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
A merger and rename discussion would need to happen on the talk page for George Floyd protests.VikingB (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
What makes you say that a majority of what is happening in Kenosha was peaceful? Juno (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The news outlets call this riots. Protests take place in daylight - these are not protests at night. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reasons as stated by Lightburst user above, also this article is specifically about the riots and the damage caused by them, which massively overshadow the otherwise hardly notable daytime "protests". I also somewhat support ShadZ01's point about the George Floyd protests namechange, but that's for another talk page. Temeku (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Juno (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would hope editors would consider themselves to have a duty to a correct record, and not a duty to media outlets, which are a tool to arrive at the record but are not the record themselves. Distinguishing between protests of no particular note and riots of considerable significance is a pertinent consideration as well. We do not speak of the Greenwood protests; we speak of the Tulsa Race Massacre.Torriende (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    This comment should not be considered too strongly, as the editor is saying reliable sources aren't reliable. And the comp between this event and the Tulsa massacre is odd and out of place. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    This comment should be taken into serious consideration, as the editor is claiming media outlets report on different aspects of a social phenomenon, whether out of a bias or for purposes of simplification. Some outlets slant to investigate the political (aka the protest) demonstrations, while others slant to investigate the property damage, physical violence and sense of breakdown in law and order. Reasonable persons may consider these to be two overlapping events, linked by a common trigger, and thus reporting on either may be justified if the phenomenon was the result of various factions with different objectives and methods. The mention of the events of late May 1921 in Tulsa ( historically referred to as the Tulsa Race Riots) further underscores this point. Sean729 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose content of the entry focuses on the violence occurring as a result of the Blake shooting, as evidenced by the Events entries. By focusing on the violence the name and content reflect the riots occurring and not the protests. A change in the title will necessitate new content specific to the protests and engender a need for a new entry to cover the Kenosha Riots leveraging the current content of this entry.BrianCLT (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — BrianCLT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose A separate article is more appropriate, as riots and protests are distinctly different things. This article handles the riots, an additional one might handle protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.161.152 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — 173.206.161.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose The article title should at the very least reflect the definitions of the words riot/protest as defined on Wiki itself. "Where protests are part of a systematic and peaceful nonviolent campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere protest"[1]. "A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people."[2] Iceness (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot
  • Oppose You can't call all the damage that has occurred and what the media and police are calling Rioting and protest. The article already sites damage and victims of the riots. Also anyone can listen and watch the people on the ground and police audio and see this is more than a protest. From Merriam-Webster Definition of riot (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: a violent public disorder
specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
b: public violence, tumult, or disorderBurrkilla2 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Burrkilla2 — Burrkilla2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Naturally, Fox News calls it "rioting".[1] But Fox News is an outlier here; they are a biased source in U.S. politics, as discussed at WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Riots The local Kenosha, WI newspaper calls them riots. Look at the photos in the link from 8/24/20 and tell me if that is from protests or riots. The largest wisconsin newspaper Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calls them riots, Newsweek calls them rioters. Lightburst (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Lightburst, Look at the photos in the link from 8/24/20 and tell me if that is from protests or riots. That's not what we do. We don't judge things for ourselves, we say what reliable sources say. And that title says "rioters", as opposed to the Kenosha News link I shared that says "protests", which makes it clear that this is predominantly protests, with some rioting interspersed. Much like the George Floyd protests. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Nice catch. instead read the title of that article IN PHOTOS: Rioters set fires in Kenosha, Lightburst (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I did read that title. The other Kenosha News article I shared mentions protests, while that article mentions rioters. Like I said, it's protests that contain some rioting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu The title should indeed be neutral. The logic you've applied towards FOX applies likewise towards almost every source that you've linked (namely CNN, NYT and CBSN). Blindly copying MSM rhetoric doesn't ensure Wiki's neutrality, it exacerbates its political bias. Here's an alternative sampling:
Non-neutral but common names are allowed, specifically "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." BrianCLT (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Lightburst: The Journal Sentinel article you linked to may have used "riots" when you linked to it, but it says "protests" now. Similarly the Kenosha News is calling them protests in several articles on today's front page. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Guettarda: I say let it go. Here is a photo from 8/24/2020 Credit: (Yayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) for your edification. This is not a protest IMO. Some news outlets misuse the term "protest" but the majority consider property destruction and violence a riot. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Lightburst: Sorry, I don't follow what you mean by "let it go". I clicked through the JS link and saw that they're using "protests", not "riots", and wanted to let you know that the article had either been changed, or you had made a mistake. I was operating from a position of AGF, but your response here makes it seem like you're operating from a position of WP:OR and cherry-picking examples to support your position while disregarding WP:COMMONNAME. I'm disappointed that an established editor like you would choose to disregard policy in this fashion, but that's your choice. Have a nice day. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rioting is simply the OBJECTIVE REALITY of what's been happening in Kenosha over the past few days. There haven't been a bunch of parents with their kids marching peacefully, holding signs, and listening to speeches. There's been looting, arson attacks, assaults, including a business owner nearly beaten to death, guns drawn on reporters, etc. Of course me commenting here probably won't matter, as editors will just point to a handful of partisan neolib outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Vox, NYT, and WaPo, who push a misleading narrative for political reasons, and be like "tHeY sAy 'ProTeSTs,' sO We sHoUld cAlL iT ThAt ToO!!!" But hopefully, at least just this once, objective reality and truth will actually prevail! -2003:CA:871F:47AB:8CCD:DAC:59BE:B0DE (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE: Protests are different than riots. Assaulting and intimidating people & burning down and looting businesses is not a protest that's a riot. We need to stop normalizing these riots. Words have meanings, we need to stop perverted those definitions. These are riots, do not change the name from Kenosha Riots to Kenosha Protests, that would be a lie! If Wikipedia wants to continue being the place people turn to for information, that information needs to be factual and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoGirlInASoCalWorld (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — ChicagoGirlInASoCalWorld (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • COMMENT It appears that this discussion has been listed on some alt-right page. As a result, we get tons of new editors and editors returning after a long time of absence who put their opinions here. Their general argument is that these are riots because they "feel" that this is the appropriate word. They sidestep the fact that the press overwhelming calls these protests and protesters (or, in other cases, promote conspiracy theories about the press and Google brainwashing Americans). Saying that we need to call these riots because this feels about right, while the press calls these protests, is of course promoting WP:original research, hence clearly conflicting with WP policy. But even if we sidestep the data as well for a moment (we shouldn't but for the sake of the argument), then, still, protests is the only proper word to describe the events. The reason is simple: while protests can be violent, riots cannot be peaceful. Hence protests with elements of violence are per definition protests, NOT riots. It is as simple as that! gidonb (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The prevalence of personal opinion in the majority of comments is apparent and should absolutely be ignored. With that said, a public expression that results in the destruction of public and private property, otherwise the elements of violence, is what Wiki itself defines as a riot. Elements of violence don't spur out of existence because the press overwhelmingly refers to the events as a peaceful protest. Unless there is evidence that the act of public expression is exclusively, not largely, peaceful, the existence of violence makes the entire act a riot, not a protest. So far, there is a staggering amount of evidence listing multiple acts of violence by the very same press. This article's name should reflect the reality of the situation, not mirror the press headlines to the T. Under your logic that protests can be violent and remain protests, 1992 Lost Angeles Riots article would also need to be renamed. Iceness (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb—you say "Their general argument is that these are riots because they 'feel' that this is the appropriate word." Merriam-Webster defines "riot" as "a violent public disorder". Wouldn't the burning of cars be "a violent public disorder"? I believe that's what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
As I explained, between what an individual believes and carefully picks out of a book and the events in Kenosha and between what authoritative sources say, the sources take strong preference. Otherwise, we promote WP:Original research. I understand that some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots but whenever there are protests of which some forms are nonviolent and others are violent the common denominator is "protests". This part of my text explains why: "The reason is simple: while protests can be violent, riots cannot be peaceful. Hence protests with elements of violence are per definition protests, NOT riots. It is as simple as that!" Again, my policy argument is that contradicting the large bulk of the authoritative sources is promoting WP:OR and Wikipedia articles must not contain original research as it is not neutral and cannot be carried in consensus but this can help you organize it in your mind. gidonb (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb—I oppose misnaming the article based on factors such as whether or not some of the participants may be "African American". That may be your concern but it has no counterpart in objective reality. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, if you had read my text more carefully you would have seen that I oppose misnaming the article because many protestors are African American. The press doesn't do this and neither should we. We should follow the WP:RS and not engage in WP:OR. It is very simple: the press calls this for the most part protests and protesters. The entire idea that there is violence or there are minority populations so this must be riots is based on a misunderstanding of what riots and protests are as well as on prejudice. WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice but summarize WP:RS. gidonb (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb—there are no racial factors in whether this is a "riot" or not. Yet you are saying "some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots". You are stating your concern. But what does your concern have to do with objective reality? It bears no relationship to objective reality. It doesn't matter if one racial identity or another racial identity ignites new automobiles, fresh off the assembly line, into flaming infernos. It is still rioting. It is still waste of human resources. It is still air pollution. I'm not looking at the color of the skin of the person who destroys some of humanity's finest creations. There is a reason new automobiles cost tens of thousands of dollars. These are fine creations. Who has the right to riot and smash the windows of brand new, high quality driving machines, and then set them ablaze? That is not rioting? How much air pollution derives from a burning automobile? How many wasted hours of fire departments have to be devoted to this nonsense that you are pretending is merely "protesting"? If sources call it "rioting" we can call it "rioting". And the dictionary definition concurs. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, my opinion is crystal clear: we should follow the Reliable Sources, otherwise we'd be engaging in Original Research and deviate from the Neutral Point Of View. The racist prejudice and the misunderstanding of what protests are -"There is violence so these are not protests" is a false statement- is how I explain that a lot of people here hold different opinions. These opinions clearly conflict with our policies and should not receive the same weight as those rooted in WP policy and guidelines. Otherwise canvassing -like the outcome we see here- will again become all the rage. All this is my analysis. My opinion on the name, clearly stated in the nomination, is based solely on what the Reliable Sources say. It is a WP:COMMONNAME argument! gidonb (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb—you are referring to "racist prejudice", and in an earlier post you say "WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice". What is this a reference to? I haven't seen "racist prejudice", at least not in this thread. You can cut-and-paste a quoted excerpt of something you think someone said that you feel displays "racist prejudice". And I suppose we can discuss that. Maybe I will agree with you. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb-but whenever there are protests of which some forms are nonviolent and others are violent the common denominator is "protests" . According to which source do you believe this to be true? This is the core divergence between our points of view - from my understanding your claim is false. I am open to being challenged though. In the meantime, consider this - there are five people that are being mugged on a train with the capacity of one hundred people; as some people are not being mugged, the common denominator for the incident on the train is that no mugging occurred. The point is, this article doesn't exclude the existence of peaceful protests in Kenosha - it describes the riots that have and are occurring. If peaceful protests do occur within the same time frame, they need to be covered separately, within this article or in a dedicated one. Iceness (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Iceness False. The common denominator would be that all these people (crime victims, criminals, and bystanders or sitters) are traveling by train. Also, we have been through this discussion many times before. For example at the George Floyd protests. The consensus was that "protests" is the correct name as this is what the WP:RS use. Here too. I'll quote my own statement in one of the discussions: Peaceful protests and violent protests -- what do they have in common? Yep! The one word that we need and have in our title! Violent protests are a real thing. It is discussed at length in the literature and is also reflected in our protests article. What isn't a thing is peaceful riots. Riots are contained in protests. Using riots, instead of protests by the RS, we would be implying that for WP only violent actions count and that the rest should be discounted. I couldn't disagree more! Bundling peaceful and violent protests as "riots" is a strong departure from WP:NPOV. gidonb (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb And what would the Wiki article look like regarding the incident, 'People are traveling by train' or 'Mugging occurs on the train'? I think you have an inherited bias in this, with your reference to the George Floyd article. While I personally believe (and I stress the word personally) that the George Floyd page title should also be renamed into 'movement' akin to the Yellow Vest movement, but lets sidetrack that and get to the bottom of this - are there riots occurring in Kenosha, yes or no? Breathing is contained during the act of murder, that doesn't mean that each time each a person breathes they commit a crime. Wiki is a non-profit foundation, and as a psychology major I absolutely resent the tendency in this thread of narrowing down the argument to aligning with the phrasing from a cherry-picked list of commercial media outlets. Iceness (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Iceness NP. My opinions are clear and directly rooted in WP policy and guidelines, in social science and in logic. I do not recognize myself in a narrowing down of any sort. On the contrary, I addressed the big picture. All the protests. Peaceful or not. All news sources. I wish you good luck with the riddles. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb—looting and arson are not protected by the US Constitution. Only peaceful protest is protected by the Constitution. You are arguing to downplay looting and arson to peaceful protest. And you still have not told me what "racist prejudice" has been expressed in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop - This is getting more ridiculous each time. I'm not downplaying anything. Protests cover violence and peaceful demonstrations. With "riots" you are downplaying that there are peaceful demonstrations and do not want this acknowledged in the title. You're totally projecting on me what you are doing in this discussion. Second. I have explained many times in this threat that racial prejudice and other factors can cause people to prefer a different terminology than the one adequately describing what happened or is used in the press. This analysis is rooted in a large body of social science research and proven to be correct when it became apparent that an alternative reality website had placed a call to come and influence the discussion here. We at Wikipedia do not engage in politics just describe reality based on WP:Reliable Sources. Your suggestions totally conflict with reality, and your points do not hold water. Have you even read our policies and guidelines? And if you did and disagreed with these, maybe their talk pages are where you should be arguing? gidonb (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb—I feel it is improper for you to invoke racial prejudice unless it exists in this thread. You are saying "This analysis is rooted in a large body of social science research". But you are going far afield from the topic of this discussion when you say "some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots...The racist prejudice and the misunderstanding of what protests are...WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice". I am unwilling to engage you in a discussion about the alleged "large body of social science research". Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
As long as we're talking about feelings, I feel that it is improper for you to engage in tendentious anti-anti-racist soapboxing at great length and at every available opportunity. --JBL (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb Your logic removes the existence of the word 'riot' from the language by replacing it with 'violent protest' (and incidentally dropping the 'violent' part from the title). I have spent years recognizing ethical, confirmation and sampling bias in scientific publication and I have myself written papers on social science - to me, the mere concept of CNN (or any media, left- of right-leaning) being treated as a reputable source is ludicrous; I understand that live social events can only be reported by the media - this makes it further imperative for the admin board to maintain impartiality when reviewing this request. Notwithstanding my point, these are today's hard numbers from Google News - "Kenosha protests" (as spelled) from Aug 23 to Aug 27 returned 100 articles; "Kenosha riots" (with the same parameters) returned 90. If both events don't exclude each other, they should be treated as two separate events - but removing the word 'riot/(s)' from this current article's title is an act of censorship against the reports by the very same media that have identified the events as such. Iceness (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support We should use high quality media such as BBC, CNN, MSNBC source as to writing this article when they definite it as protests, not FOX when i considered more unreliable than BBC which use definition riot for that event. IMO, BBC is a high quality reliable source when writing to evwnt in Kenosha than any other media in the world, even Fox News. 182.1.23.97 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    Comment: Again, what the media reports does not change the fact that these are violent race riots. Buildings are being burned and looted, Police and Whites attacked and shot at, and other forms of general destruction. To gain an actual image one must see the full story from all perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B0CB:BCD:740A:41C7:7D5F:9445 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    Comment: The BBC ones are funny. They avoid the use of 'riot' at all costs but then say stuff like "In the surrounding streets we saw vehicles set on fire, buildings vandalised and whole rows of streetlights pulled down." LegendLength (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • STRONGLY OPPOSED: There is a very clear difference between a protest that's peaceful with some sort of civil disobedience, but this is not anything resembling a peaceful protest. The fact that the media lies to everyone and gaslights by utilizing the word "protest" rather than "riot" should be a separate part of the article where we talk about the one sided media coverage. Tim Pool rightly calls this and the riots surrounding George Floyd as they are. They are riots and they should have titles that tell the truth about the situations on the ground. Onstrike (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)— Onstrike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose: Reliable sources are referring to violent destruction as being caused by rioters.(CBS 58) Rioters setting fire to homes and apartments, places where people live, and jeopardizing the lives of the residents, does not fall under the umbrella of protesting.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Refer to modern American history and how it references the violence [2] Pictorals from each of the events as described by the History channel refer to them as Riots. Los Angeles Riots, Watts Riots, 1967 Detroit Riots, Zoot Suit Riots, Attica Riots... The Los Angeles Riots were subsequent to the beating of Rodney King. That event mirrors these riots as do the others listed by the History channel. Protests are non-violent. Recent riots have all resulted in murders, attempted murders, serious bodily injury, arson, rapes, etc. These are not the hallmarks of peaceful protests and do not deserve that moniker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.241.95 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Muboshgu. Most RS are calling this a protest. Moreover, "riot" is not a neutral title, especially since (as stated in the article) a local sheriff said that most of the damage was caused by people from outside the county who had no intent to protest. Davey2116 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I like the fact you are trying to find a compromise. The reliable sources, however, are clear: these are protests and protesters. "Unrest", too, would be WP:OR. As I see it, given the huge quality edge over a massive amount of largely canvassed opinions, this discussion is going into the correct, WP:RS direction. A compromise solution would be worse than calling the protests by what they are: protests. In my comment above I explain why. gidonb (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
While I oppose any page move from its current title, using "unrest" as a title would not be WP:OR. There are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "unrest". "Department of Corrections building burned to the ground in Kenosha unrest" (CBS 58), "Kenosha unrest tests political potency of Trump's 'law and order' convention message" (CNN), "Jacob Blake shooting: gun battle in Kenosha on third night of unrest" (The Guardian), "Gov. Tony Evers declares state of emergency in wake of unrest after Kenosha police shooting" (The Cap Times). There are many reliable sources that refer to the situation as unrest, the actions as rioting, and participants as rioters.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • strong support I agree that this should be merged with the floyd protest article, as in this strikes me as a sub event of like the 2020 usa blm protests. If not that, then either protest or unrest. Guardian headlines; "Jacob Blake shooting: gun battle in Kenosha on third night of unrest ", "Shots fired on third night of Wisconsin unrest over police shooting of Black man ", "Clashes at US protest over police shooting of black man" --Hiveir (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Sources focus on the civil disturbance and violent aspect of the events. A curfew was called on the first day and the National Guard in the first 24 hours. Fa suisse (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There are reports of armed vigilantes, and according to the Washington Post, 2 protesters have already been killed. I think it best to avoid language which might encourage more violence against protesters. I think some of the language above violates WP Civility, amounts to taunting, and creates a hostile environment for minority Wikipedians. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems to be a discussion now about what "protest" and "riot" mean. According to multiple dictionary definitions for protest and riot a protest is neither referring to a peaceful or violent protest. To denote it as either would require qualifying it as "peaceful" or "violent". A protest is just a public demonstration in opposition to something. A riot is a violent public disturbance created by three or more people or, legally, it is an unlawful assembly (assembled for a common purpose) that terrorizes the public or has become violent. A riot isn't required to be chaotic, confusing, or disorderly to be a riot. There can be organized riots. The common purpose of the people assembled could be to protest or it could be to simply loot stores. If we start with a group of people assembled for a common purpose. The only addition necessary for a riot is either violence or terrorizing the public. A violent protest (of 3 or more people), then, would be, by definition, a riot. Hence, once a large peaceful protest becomes violent it becomes a riot so long as there are 3 or more people involved. 657viper (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — 657viper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
1. If both violent and non-violent protests occur, then protests would be the more inclusive label. 2. In many cases, including this discussion, violence against protesters gets confused with violence by protesters. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

riot — noun ✔️1. a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets. ✔️2. Law .a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes. ✔️3. violent or wild disorder or confusion. ✖️4. a brilliant display: a riot of color. ✖️5. something or someone hilariously funny: You were a riot at the party. ✖️6. unrestrained revelry. ✔️7. an unbridled outbreak, as of emotions, passions, etc. ✖️8. Archaic .loose, wanton living; profligacy.

— verb (used without object) ✔️9. to take part in a riot or disorderly public outbreak. ✖️10. to live in a loose or wanton manner; indulge in unrestrained revelry: Many of the Roman emperors rioted notoriously. ✖️11. Hunting .(of a hound or pack) to pursue an animal other than the intended quarry. ✔️12. to indulge unrestrainedly; run riot.

Burning Buildings, Torching Vehicles, Assulting People non ADW, ADWs, Robberies, Lootings, MURDERS... NONE of this is "Peaceful Protesting"... Do not change the title!!! Mk2jahouser (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Mk2jahouser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: "People have been murdered" obscures who is responsible for the violence. I don't want to get too deep into the weeds on assigning responsibility, because that runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Still, titling the page as "Kenosha riot" and making vague references to people being killed implies that those responsible for the deaths are the demonstrators themselves. "Kenosha unrest" describes both what is taking place and where, without asserting responsibility on any person or party for the violence. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Was the shooter not a demonstrator? He wasn't a cop. Juno (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
According to the reports I've seen, the shooter was a pro-police vigilante, and the victims were protesters. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that it is obscure as to who is responsible for the violence. It seems to me that the notability of the article isn't whether or not there are protests taking place, but that there are riots taking place. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/kenosha-wis-sees-second-night-of-violence-as-unrest-spreads-11598362900
@BirdValiant: sure, my !vote can be counted as a "support" for either. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose: They are riots, plain and simple. 73.89.157.3 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • don't care: But if you keep trying to change others' perception of reality with words, after a while the words start to more closely represent the phenomena people observe in connection with those words. You see it all the time in euphemisms: "retarded" used to be a more polite, enlightened version of "moron", "idiot" etc. Yet now it's just as much of an insult if not more so. Do you want the very idea of protesting against the existing order to be irreparably associated with spiteful nihilistic violence? Because that's what you're doing. Slowly but surely. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose If almost everyone in Wikipedia could leave his Liberal bias for a few minutes and be objective and apolitical you'd realize this is in fact a riot, just like in Portland or Minneapolis, I don't care how much you support Black Lives Matter or oppose racism or how wrong you think the shooting of that criminal Blake was, it IS a riot. --177.230.47.65 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
We are not the arbiters of truth. As a policy, we follow the example of reliable sources. If they call it "unrest" or "protests", we call it the same. If they call "riots", we call that. The vast majority of sources do not use riot to describe these set of events. In a page showing the first 100 results of for "Kenosha", the word riot appears 1 time. While protests appear 24 times and unrest appears 10 times. That is clear evidence besides the many points made above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
You're right. Most peoples' objections in this talk page would be better taken up with the news outlets rather than Wikipedia, but the fact remains that you still have a great deal of lattitude in how you treat these subjects. Strict, consistent policies are great, and in light of that, if I wanted to vote, I'd vote in favor of the move. You guys set yourself apart as collators of information, not originators.
The problem comes in when I see editors listing off news outlets that they should listen to more than others, how they're more "biased" than others. I thought you guys weren't arbiters of truth?
This is an extremely difficult situation you're in. Truly responsible people, the kind who get remembered for generations, would be VERY CAREFUL that they weren't letting their own biases creep in. That they had the humility to accept that they could be wrong, even about things they're absolutely sure of. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Looking at Google News results top-100 for "Kenosha", protest appears 50 times, unrest appears 25 times, and riot appears 21 times. Clear evidence that riot is NOT the COMMONNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A search for "kenosha protest" OR "kenosha protests" in Google News currently shows 120,000 mentions of those terms, while "kenosha riot" OR "kenosha riots" only finds 14,000. And that's before excluding stories from the latter where the term is only included in a link to this very page.
Ontologically, all riots are also protests, while not all protests are riots. Using protest would therefore be the sensible & safe choice where there doubt. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
That's equivalent to saying "all fist fights are interpersonal conflicts, ontologically." Well, OK. You could say that about 99% of fights in the real world, but that's still not enough to say the concepts are "ontologically" encompassing. Some people fight in sparring sessions with the friends to learn to defend themselves. Some people fight for fun. Some people, money. Likewise, not all riots are protests. What if people just burn shit and lynch people because they felt like it? What if there's no discernible meaning at all? There's no element of *protest* there unless you REALLY stretch.
One word doesn't encompass the other, rather, they overlap. It's important, I think, not to confuse this relationship because it makes certain phenomena, (which in this case happen to reflect a fundamental aspect of human nature), impossible to describe because you've already ruled them out syntactically/definitionally. If you're like most of us, and think in words, it makes these possibilities harder to even consider. What it boils down to is an implicit, unspoken, probably even *unconscious* assumption that, "if people are rioting, they must have a reason one can sympathize with."
Words and meanings are intricate, dangerous things. Be careful with them. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Very weak support. On the one hand, that the media is making an effort to portray these as protests, and as such that is what many of the sources (especially ones that we deem reliable) say. On the other hand, every bit of coverage I've seen, video on twitter, and reports from the area sure looks and sounds like rioting to me. Policy would say to go with the sources, and that we aren't the arbiters of what is the truth. SQLQuery me! 19:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the preponderance of RS. And while I expect nonsense from canvassed SPAs that show up to fight 'liberal bias', veteran editors who are basing their oppose arguments on homegrown definitions of the difference between "riot" and "protest" should know better. Grandpallama (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This article covers various events, some of which are perhaps better described as rioting, others which are clearly not, including the fatal shootings on 25 August. If the article covers all this, then it should be a more neutral term, like "protests". If you want an article just on the rioting, then a bunch of material needs moving to another article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support i agree with Bondegezou argument that protests is more neutral term, at least word "unrest" per Ferguson unrest, but in BBC, they call it "Jacob Blake protests", not Kenosha riot as far-right media mentioned as BBC not necessary naming the city whose rioting. Wikipedia should using high quality reliable source to explain this like BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: can you clarify how any of the options are more recognizable than the others? We don't have a separate article at this time about the unrest in general (and creating one would be an unnecessary split), so I am unclear on how WP:PRECISE would apply either. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Also please remove some of the more racist comments such as Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B104:7F41:25BB:659:E12D:9233's and 204.93.126.18's and 177.230.47.65's. I do not appreciate the use of the word "retarded". 2001:4898:80E8:3:FEB4:F184:A5D0:AFD0 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
You've got to be fucking kidding me. Read my comment before you embarrass yourself. I really hope this is a bot or something.204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Haven't seen any sound policy arguments for opposing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure that any of the choices is more prevalent than another (protests, riots, or unrest). Personally, I think "unrest" bridges the two extremes and would be more befitting of an article involving protests, riots, and murders. - MrX 🖋 22:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's a great deal of coverage from journalists live on the scene, and their reporting indicates that the predominant activity by the crowds in Kenosha has been rioting rather than protesting. Wsw248 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support All of the opposes are just talking about the media, my reasons for support are that the we used the word support in previous articles of this type. Idan (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Zvikorn Inaccurate per 1992 Los Angeles riots , 2020 Delhi riots etc Iceness (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - As some editors have pointed out, it would be better to move to a more time/place/event-specific title, such as Jacob Blake protests/riots or 2020 Kenosha protests/riots. NoNews! 00:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Newfraferz87: Your latter naming convention propose (2020 Kenosha protests/riots) is required in all disaster management articles which it shall be formatted as <year> <place> <event> (Example like 2020 Delhi riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2011 England riots). Even there are exceptions, such as riots in Kenosha which never have riots before then, the naming convention shall be used as redirect. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes I acknowledge that -- but I also note the George Floyd protests article is named as it is right now. Therefore I'm voicing my objection to both the existing and proposed article names in favour of the ones I have listed. The result of the discussion will determine the choice between "protests" and "riots". NoNews! 00:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Violent protests can still be called protests. Any closure that does not strike the extreme amount of canvassing and sockpuppetry here should be disregarded. Reywas92Talk 00:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Riot, though not itself defined in the Wisconsin Statutes, is mentioned in the following: 943.20(3)(d)3, 943.20(3)(d)4 (Crimes Against Property); 62.09(8)d (Cities); 61.24 (Counties); 61.24 (Villages); 323.11 (Emergency Management). A riot is defined as three or more persons engaging in unlawful behavior by the use of force or violence. This definition has been in use for centuries and is reflected in the laws of the States and of the United States. The acts committed in Kenosha meet the common law and statutory definitions of riot. 5JVL9 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support; these are overwhelmingly described as protests among reliable sources, eg. [3][4][5][6][7]. Note that the sources people are presenting to argue otherwise are almost uniformly low-quality, non-WP:RS, and/or opinion pieces; the mainstream news media is overwhelmingly terming them as protests, which even some of the oppose !votes concede. Furthermore, WP:NPOVTITLE requires that we use a more neutral title; calling them 'riots', a plainly incendiary framing, would require strong sourcing that is completely absent here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The majority of the demonstrations have been violent its getting to the point were it is worse then Minneapolis in may.- User:Garmin21
  • Support George Floyd protests are filed under protests, this is consistent with existing naming convention. Honkinonbobo (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though George Floyd protests were called protests, it was because of WP:COMMONNAME, most of the news and media called them protests. On the other hand, most news and media have called these riots because people literally go outside every night with guns and go to war with each other. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, can we stop SHOUTING and say Very strong Support or Very Strong Oppose, because adding a "very strong" does not carry more weight than just a support or an oppose. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oh, it's a riot. Big riot. Please Wikipedia, just look at the footage, this is just getting silly. Nate Hooper (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Give me a break. We're supposed to follow what reliable sources say, and the majority are saying protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.129.178 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per the WP first mentioned in creating this move request, and following the similar naming scheme for the George Floyd protest. Also, just to point this out but I don't think daytime or nighttime matters in what counts as a riot or a protest, as some users seem to think above. -boldblazer (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment The amount of suspicious activity by SPAs and obvious sockpuppets on this RfC is ridiculous. There's absolutely no way that there isn't extensive off site canvassing going on here. Anyway, the whole thing should probably be merged to Shooting of Jacob Blake. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the more neutral title for this article is "Kenosha protests" or "Kenosha unrest" which is comply with NPOV. The title like riot, revolt, etc doesn't make it neutral as it places into far-right argument. This is principles of Wikipedia which articles that made shall NPOV tone. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Alright, so in the last few hours, it's been moved multiple times, from riot, to protest, to unrest and now back to riot (quite amusing to be honest). I was one of the people who thinks "riot" is best, but let's just talk on an issue that most of us will agree on. That is the fact that about half of us are on one side and the other half are, by definition, on the other. Now, these are the perfect conditions for an edit war, so we are at an impasse. It seems that there is no way to solve this problem, short of a never-ending edit war... I've never seen such an even split on Wikipedia before. Can we flip a coin or something? lol Nate Hooper (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that it's an "even split" when many of the !votes are by IPs whose arguments are entirely devoid of WP policy or any reference to WP:RS. Also see WP:DEMOCRACY. Whoever closes this RfC is in for a nightmare. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - 304,000 hits for "protests" on Google vs. 143,000 for "riots". But there are only 24,000 for "riot", singular. Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, the title should be plural. As it stands it is inaccurate either way. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
How does one go about dealing with all the SPAs and opinions from not-logged-in users (IP addresses) in concluding this move request? Do you just ignore them, and then consider the consensus present? -boldblazer (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The closing admin will weigh the comments against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The drive-by sheep will be given very little consideration. WWGB (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but preference to Kenosha unrest it seems clear there have been protests as well as things often described as rioting. It doesn't make sense for this article to only cover the parts called riots. Protests seems the more common name so would be preferred over riot. But given that many sources do seem to acknowledge some of it goes beyond protests and that unrest is often used, I think it's a good middle ground. If in the future the riots or the protests become clearly the most significant part of this, we can re-asses it then. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Muboshgu. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are not peaceful protests. The violence is quite blatant and changing it to anything else would violate WP:CENSORED. We have to be realistic here. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
GreenFrogsGoRibbit: I struggle to see how WP:CENSORED applies to the title of this article. The policy you've cited deals with the content contained within the article, or the existence of the article overall. If someone were requesting that this article be deleted, or was editing content to exclude any violence that occurred during this unrest, that absolutely would fall under WP:CENSORED. Changing the article's title is only an effort to adhere to WP:COMMONNAME, which is what is in contention here. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
A move to Kenosha protests and riot or Kenosha protests and riots is needlessly wordy and does not align with WP:COMMONNAME (unless there is evidence to suggest that people are using this dual terminology). Many users have recommended Kenosha unrest or 2020 Kenosha unrest, which lines up with media descriptions of what is occurring and describes that violence is taking place. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
"needlessly wordy"? Are we trying to save electrons? Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop: per WP:PRECISE, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. Also, per WP:CONCISE, the goal of conciseness [of a title] is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. For example, the official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject. The title "Kenosha unrest" is concise and accessible to the layperson seeking information on the specific topic. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Delta1989—thanks for pinging me. I think the events in Kenosha go beyond "a disturbed or uneasy state", which is the definition Merriam-Webster gives for "unrest". I think the suggested title downplays the level of violence and destruction and arson and looting. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
While you might personally think that the term does not go far enough, 1) as has been repeatedly demonstrated, these events are being covered as "protests" and/or "unrest" by the media; and 2) Wikipedia already as a matter of course (e.g. List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States) uses the term "unrest" (i.e. civil unrest) as a term that encompasses everything from non-violent protests being met with violence by the authorities to armed occupations (such as the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge) and overtly violent events such as the Tulsa Race Massacre. It's worth noting that the first example usage of the word unrest in your link is "The country has experienced years of civil unrest," which serves to buttress the argument that the term is, in fact, accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
You say It's worth noting that the first example usage of the word unrest in your link is "The country has experienced years of civil unrest," which serves to buttress the argument that the term is, in fact, accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha. That is in reference to which "country"? Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The example given is just that—an example, intended to showcase how the word unrest is used. As such, the dictionary example does not actually refer to a specific country. The usage of the word unrest, however, is apt. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
As "the dictionary example does not actually refer to a specific country" you cannot say it is "accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha". But you are correct that the example sentence shows usage. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose A protest is a peaceful assembly to support a particular position, and a riot involves violence and property damage. This is clearly a riot. Pkeets (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the sources identified by Muboshgu and Guettarda. That, and not the opinions/definitions of Wikipedia editors (or passersby), is what these determinations are based on. "Unrest" may be preferable to "protests" since it's more inclusive perhaps, but both seem more common than "riot" in the high quality sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI 8/27/2020: Newsweek CNN Mocked for Calling Kenosha Riots 'Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests Lightburst (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Isabelle Belato (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to "Kenosha unrest", although "Kenosha protests" is preferable to "Kenosha riot". This is per the most recent sources and when discussing it in a variety of contexts: NPR, NPR again, Politico, The Guardian, CNN, CNN again, the Associated Press, ABC News, CBS 2 Chicago, etc. There is a local anti-protest militia, as well as rioting by a subset of protestors, and this is why sources typically say something other than just "protests" (even those that do use that word). This name would follow Ferguson unrest's example. Crossroads -talk- 17:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to "Kenosha unrest", with "Kenosha protests" as a potential second choice; "Kenosha riot" is not acceptable. The brigading and clear POV-pushing to support "Kenosha riot" would on its own be a reason for the move, per WP:DENY. I don't envy the closer the task of clearing off the mud seeping between the policy-compliant !votes, however. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support. In addition to the other great points made, the terms "protests" and "unrest" are simply more accurate descriptions of what's covered in the article. The term "riots", by definition, excludes the peaceful protests that have occurred. The term "protests" doesn't exclude the riots. Frankly, it's embarrassing that these SPAs are able to ensure the article remains under such a biased title for seven long days. Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 19:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support protests, per RS. No RS is using riot (only tabloids, as far as I can see at a glance). Protests is by far the RS supported word. On another note, the level of canvassing here is incredible, though I wouldn't quite say unprecedented. On a final note, we're confusing the heck out of Google: a search for "Kenosha unrest" gives this article, with URL "/Kenosha protests" and with title "Kenosha unrest", even though both the title and page name are "Kenosha riot". Interestingly, a Google for "Kenosha riot" is autocorrecting to "Kenosha unrest". I can't tell if they're trying to correct for our mess and week-long bureaucratic procedure, or if their caches are confused. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unrest first, protests second. There are protests and there are riots. It makes no sense to have articles for each and unrest is the best proposed title that covers both. The streets of Kenosha have been filled with peaceful mass demonstrations in recent days, but also damaging riots by night in which businesses have been looted and burned.[8] AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support While all riots can be described as protests, not all protests are riots, and this article would be improved immensely if it described the riots as well as other forms of protest. If this was only about the riots, a lot of information would have to be omitted. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For the sake of the encyclopedia, riot seems inappropriate in that something that started out as events intended to be peaceful and seemingly became a riot when militaristic tactics got involved (for whatever reason it is common in these United States for police to use a chemical banned in warefare to “disperse” civilians for excercising the First Amendment). Trillfendi (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
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.

Break after partial closure

  • Unrest per my previous suggestion. There has been protesting as well as rioting, so "unrest" covers both of these. The "unrest" option is the most diplomatic and does not have the inflammatory effect of hiding the fact that riots have happened. Finally, I would like to take this moment to criticize those who have said that seasoned veterans should have "known better" than to vote "oppose" for various reasons. BirdValiant (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Kenosha unrest. This is per the most recent sources and when discussing it in a variety of contexts: NPR, NPR again, Politico, The Guardian, CNN, CNN again, the Associated Press, ABC News, CBS 2 Chicago, etc. There is a local anti-protest militia, as well as rioting by a subset of protestors, and this is why sources typically say something other than just "protests" (even those that do use that word). This name would follow Ferguson unrest's example. Crossroads -talk- 03:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Closer's comment despite my archiving the discussion above it was not my intention for people to have to reiterate their position (unless they would like to clarify on unrest/protests/etc). I would hope and expect whoever closes this discussion in the end to consider the comments above in assessing the consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - As with Wikipedia's established style, no matter what is chosen as the page's title, unrest, protest, or riot, it should be preceded with the year. "2020 Kenosha Protests" is far more encyclopedic and proper, especially when compared to other articles of a similar nature that follow the <year> <city> <event> format. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    See NOYEAR. Can you point to a different topic that may reasonably be confused with this? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
My comment below goes into greater detail, but WP:NCE sets out the general format of year/location/event for titles that concern events limited in time and geographic scope. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Although esthetics are difficult to argue, for what it's worth, plain "Kenosha unrest" to me sounds more like the name of an indie band or roller-derby team, than it does a Wikipedia article about civil unrest. Due to the mismatched expectations, I think that this will be confusing to at least some people. Thus I would prefer either "2020 Kenosha unrest" or "Kenosha civil unrest" more than plain "Kenosha unrest". WP:NOYEAR be damned, since I think that applying its guidelines here results in something more confusing than it has to be, such that WP:IAR is a useful option. BirdValiant (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM, WP:DNFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Kenosha unrest: Per sources offered by Crossroads. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the term unrest, per Crossroads' sources. Additionally recommend the format "2020 Kenosha unrest" per WP:NCE, which states that in the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: when the incident happened; where the incident happened; [and] what happened. The examples given, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, are not confusable with other similar events in similar places, but still have the year included as a useful identifier. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support moving to Kenosha unrest per Crossroads.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I also support moving to "Kenosha unrest" per Crossroads. -boldblazer (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the term unrest just like the Ferguson unrest article.--Excel23 (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Unrest per Crossroads and Tdl1060. While "protests" seems to be the predominant choice of wording among mainstream media outlets, there have been compelling arguments towards the use of unrest and how it more broadly covers the "riot" and "protest" nature of the events. These users have also provided solid evidence of adoption of the word among RS. Further, the Rittenhouse shooting does not exactly fall into any of these, which is why "unrest" seems to be a preferable blanket term. And it also works as a more neutral option. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 04:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) By the way I made a comment in the first RfC but I changed my signature in the meantime, so that was me as well.NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support "Kenosha unrest" per my comments in the above move request. Unrest is used extensively in sources and bridges the two alternatives: "riots" and "protests" without violating WP:POVTITLE. - MrX 🖋 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Over 40% of this article is about the shooting of 3 protestors by a 17-year old from out of state. That material may be spun out into its own article. Until such time as it is, this article needs a name that is suitable for a large chunk of the article being about that event. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "unrest". Keep it as "protests". "Unrest" is a namby-pamby word that doesn't begin to describe the situation, and also doesn't cover the protests in other cities or the dramatic action by the athletes, which are also part of this story. I would consider a change to "Jacob Blake protests", to be comparable to all the articles named "George Floyd protests", but certainly not "unrest". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unrest - I think it's a fair and accurate term for what's been happening in Kenosha recently. Love of Corey (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unrest broader term that encompasses what multiple RSs are saying. Anon0098 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Protests is the stronger name that covers the events, which is always my preference. Regardless of who killed who or demonstrates against who. Protests is also the name most used in the press, notwithstanding the quote of selective sources above. My opposition to "unrest" has been well summarized by MelanieN (kudos!). Unrest is what I have at night when I cannot sleep (and check if I can do something on Wikipedia). It looks like this is moving from the term with a right-wing bias to the term with a left-wing bias. I initiated the first, moving away from bias. Sorry to see this important gain lost. I choose the WP:NPOV status quo, i.e. protests. gidonb (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Funny you say that, I always viewed "protests" as a left-wing bias, "riots" as right-wing, and "unrest" as NPOV. Guess everyone has a different viewpoint on it Anon0098 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Protests includes purpose and action, unrest is just disquiet. An extremely passive, or, as MelanieN puts it, "namby-pamby word" implying that the people who engaged in these are not responsible for their actions. Typical left-wing bias. The same way the left talks about, for example, Palestinians. Everything just happens to them. Supposedly they have no will. Such passivism is also disrespectful. As a complete opposite of what was being said by likely right-wing supporters in their last message before that I had not yet answered (these were so repetitive and I do have other responsibilities), I do not have a problem with the term "riots" either for an article. If the protests are all violent. Likewise, if all protests are classic and peaceful "demonstrations" can be used. I proposed changing away from riots because both violent and peaceful protests were held. To the next most specific term. Using riots when protests are peaceful and violent is singling out one type of event over any others for political purposes. My problem with unrest is that we'd be moving away from any purpose and specificity. gidonb (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gidonb—you write "Typical left-wing bias. The same way the left talks about, for example, Palestinians. Everything just happens to them. Supposedly they have no will. Such passivism is also disrespectful." Am I permitted to support "unrest" in the title without being anti-Palestinian? This is the way you argued in the previous section, saying "some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots". Am I permitted to support "riot" in the title without being anti-African American? Just for the record, I am not anti-anybody. My only aim would be to give the article an appropriate title. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I see plenty of green but there's no relationship between anything I wrote and you or your texts. None whatsoever. gidonb (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Gidonb—you are saying "Such passivism is also disrespectful". Would it be "disrespectful" to change the title to Kenosha unrest? Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a nonsense question based on a false interpretation of my words. Please stop harassing Wikipedians who hold another opinion than yours! gidonb (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I already wrapped my mind around protest as a common name. Even though these were classic riots in my mind and some rs. However the definition of unrest includes chaos and disruption so I can get behind it.Lightburst (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, aka keep current ('protests'). A quick Google search suggests Kenosha protests is the WP:COMMONNAME over Kenosha unrest by a nearly three-to-one margin; beyond that, "unrest" is somewhat clunky and euphemistic. The arguments that "unrest" is more encompassing are effectively editorializing on our part - the whole point of COMMONNAME is that we are not supposed to do that. --Aquillion (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Aquillion: Interesting. We are suffering from the same naming problem with the 2020 American athlete boycotts. A boycott is not an accurate description of what is more like a strike. And yet most of the RS calls what the athletes are doing - a boycott. So do we go with the RS or with our own judgment? Does it become synth if we we change a title to reflect actual and not go with the RS? Lightburst (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Google search result counts do not distinguish between sources based on Wikipedia's criteria for RS, and taking into account only the results that Google will actually show you, the margin is far closer, with Google no longer showing any results after page 39 and 386 results for "Kenosha protests" and page 35 and 347 results for "Kenosha unrest". Regardless, I reiterate my comments from before the partial closure, that there are plenty of reliable sources using the term "unrest".There are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "unrest": "Department of Corrections building burned to the ground in Kenosha unrest" (CBS 58), "Kenosha unrest tests political potency of Trump's 'law and order' convention message" (CNN), "Gov. Tony Evers declares state of emergency in wake of unrest after Kenosha police shooting" (The Cap Times).--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the term "unrest" in preference to "protests". "Protest" connotes articulately expressed ideas and demands for specific changes. Burning of vehicles, looting stores, beating people up—this is inarticulate. These activities are best conveyed by the word "unrest". Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The article Kenosha protests#Ongoing demonstrations does describe specific, well-articulated calls for action. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Dlthewave—if you see something in the Ongoing demonstrations section that you consider a specific, well-articulated call for action would you please bring it to our attention? The closest thing I can see to a specific, well-articulated call for action in the Ongoing demonstrations section is the reference to calls for "police reform legislation" and that is nonspecific, providing no concrete recommendations. As I argued in my post, to which you are responding, the word protest "connotes articulately expressed ideas and demands for specific changes". "Unrest" is the preferable term due to the absence of any clearly articulated demands for concrete and specific changes to the status quo. I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
In what way is it an WP:NPOVTITLE? You can say it, but that does not make it so, Bravetheif. Provide some reasoning to support your assertion. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I would have thought people would understand from my statement of "it seems to be the most" preceding WP:NPOVTITLE that I meant "in my opinion it seems to be the most WP:NPOVTITLE". Apparently not. As for why I believe that, well, in your very own comment above (along with others) you seem to be trying to use the term to propagate a bias towards considering the protests to be illegitimate and violent. They're still protests, whether you like how some have presented themselves or not. If you want actual hard evidence, this ML sentiment analyser ranks "protest" as a neutral term, and "unrest" as a negative one. I don't know much about the company that made it, but I do know a bit about ML and to train the model they probably chucked a bunch of tagged data and books to create it, which means the output model should be a pretty decent representation of an average person's sentiment about a term. Also "unrest" is a very vague term in general. Bravetheif (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
You say I'm "trying to use the term to propagate a bias towards considering the protests to be illegitimate and violent". I think the activity is "violent". By the way, we wouldn't be using "MonkeyLearn Sentiment Analyzer" because we have little interest in causing customers to buy our product. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah... That's what a bias is... I do not understand what you're actually saying about MonkeyLearn and I don't really care either. Point is, "protest" is the more neutral term. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to push your opinions. Bravetheif (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a more precise description would be that you are attempting to reframe the it away from a protest into something illegitimate and violent. Putting that in the title is, definitionally, taking a point of view. Of course it's impossible not to take some kind of POV, but protest accurately describes the entire movement and is a far more neutral term Bravetheif (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Bravetheif—"illegitimate and violent" are separate. The events are "violent". I have not said that the events are "illegitimate". But I emphatically say the events are "violent". Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I use illegitimate in the sense that you do not believe they are real protests (as in "the events are not legitimate protests"). You've said as much in your comments. Bravetheif (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Bravetheif—sorry but you are mischaracterizing me. And you also seem to be misquoting me. Let's start with the possible misquoting. Where did I say "the events are not legitimate protests"? Obviously, I'm not sure if I said that or not. So, I am asking you to tell me where I said that. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop I was not quoting you, the quote was demonstrating the manner in which I was using the term. I apologise if it came across like I was quoting you, it was not my intention. What specifically made me use that term to describe you was your statement: "'Protest' connotes articulately expressed ideas and demands for specific changes. Burning of vehicles, looting stores, beating people up—this is inarticulate". Correct me if I am interpreting it wrong, but it appears that you do not consider the events in Kenosha a protest. The events in Kenosha do meet the definition of a protest, so I think it's reasonable to describe your stance as "not being a legitimate protest or legitimate form of protesting". Bravetheif (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Bravetheif—I believe the article is incorrectly titled as Kenosha protests. Why? Because these events are unaccompanied by anything like articulated verbal demands for specific changes to the status quo. That is why this is best characterized as a "riot", or "unrest", as opposed to "protest". If you think there are concrete, verbally articulated and specific demands being made, please present them here—or even better—add them to the article. The article makes no allusions to any verbally articulated demands. In what sense is this a "protest"? Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop A protest is just expressing disapproval of something. A riot, while a violent and generally disagreeable form of it, is still a protest. That said, this specific protest is part of the larger BLM movement which does have articulated verbal demands and intent. Bravetheif (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Bravetheif—aren't you conceding that the "Kenosha protests" are protests in name only when you say "this specific protest is part of the larger BLM movement which does have articulated verbal demands and intent"? Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop I'm sorry but I don't follow. BLM is a movement with demands and intent which is achieved/disseminated partially through protest. Kenosha is one such protest. It also is a protest over police violence, such as the kind shown towards Jacob Blake. I do not understand how that makes it a "protest in name only" Bravetheif (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Support "Protests") - The current title covers a broad spectrum of events which, although sometimes appearing chaotic and destructive, do have an overall focus and purpose. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think the current protest title is bad but I think the riots/destruction/disorder are the most notable part of what started as protests. However, I don't think people will fail to find the article or view the content differently if the name isn't changed. Springee (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Kenosha unrest - per BirdValiant and Crossroads. Also better to add the year per Delta1989. Temeku (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support only because it is more accurate than the current page name. However, "unrest" sounds much too much like a WP:EUPHEMISM. Unrest = riots; otherwise, it's a protest. "Kenosha riots" is the most accurate name. Ergo Sum 01:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. The larger story here clearly is the rioting. Perhaps the article could even be split, as who would agree that a story about a peaceful protest belongs in the same article about a riot? Certainly not the peaceful protesters, who I'd think wouldn't want to be associated with rioters. On the other hand, I don't recall if there were any peaceful protests during the LA riots, but I'd be willing to bet that the people doing the rioting would want their larger message to be seen as a protest of sorts anyway. -- œ™ 02:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Kenosha unrest. There are protests here. There are also lots of things not constituting protests. Juno (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unrest Seems to be a more neutral name between protests and riots. --Steverci (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose' This new title doesn't appear to make much sense, there is unrest for practically everything, at any protest there is a massive amount of unrest,take literally any protest and you can justify it as Unrest does that mean every title should be renamed to just Unrest? Unrest is a vague term at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest/Archive_6&oldid=1136871624"