Talk:2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest

Change page name to 2016 Chicago Donald Trump's rally protest

The situation in which the protest happened must be specified in the page name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.6.88 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Chicago Rally Riot? 194.237.157.205 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Chicago Rally Protest . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.6.88 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I support the title change, 2016 Chicago Protest is too vague.. we need to specify it's related to Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.66.50 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• See the requested move section below. clpo13_(talk) 06:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Riot?

This is perhaps too strong a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangoed (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This was not a riot - this was a protest. A few small scuffles does not a riot make. 2602:306:3649:4820:2973:17F0:F20E:4341 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This was absolutely not a "riot" and this marks the second time I've moved the page away from "riot". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Google news search for phrase "Chicago riot" doesn't produce much; But search for "Chicago protest" yields many RSes. Protest seems to be descriptor being used by RSes. --Darmokand (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was ridiculous, the article's title was 2016 Chicago protest while the talk page was titled Talk:2016 Chicago riot so I changed the talk page to agree with the article title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Communist flag?

Does the Communist party have a flag of its own? Or are they referring to the former Soviet Union's hammer and sickle flag? A link or clarification may help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hammer and sickle flag. What an overwhelming majority of humanity sees as the symbol for communist ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.157.205 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Communist flag

Protestors were seen flying the communist flag. There is video footage and news websites who confirm that this happened. I have a credible source that in turn links to footage where the communist flag is seen. 194.237.157.205 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

One source, which is a right-wing rag, shows one flag. That is not representative of the protesters as a whole, and therefore fails WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't the narrative supposed to be that this was a lot of independent people coming together? If not, then perhaps Bernie has some explaining to do after all. TMLutas (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There is VIDEO FOOTAGE of PROTESTORS with the FLAG. What is it you don't understand? I'm reporting you to moderators, you're clearly breaking the rules here. 194.237.157.205 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If that's all ya got, one video with one flag, then you're misrepresenting the event, which fails NPOV. Only one right-wing rag, Townhall.com, is mentioning the flag in their sources. Not CNN, not anyone else. Clear? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't need CNN to also report on it for it to be the case, it IS the case that protestors were carrying communist flags, clear? 194.237.157.205 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

One protester with one flag not protestOrs with numerous flagS. Buster Seven Talk 19:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Buster7. One flag not reported on by reliable sources is not fit for inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course a single communist flag reported by numerous reliable sources to be present in the protest is something that should be mentioned, but something else equally important to you guys is that it shouldn't be mentioned, because you know that it would paint the rioters in a negative light, and you don't want that, because you're trying to turn this page into anti-Trump propaganda, and trying to paint this as a protest against him by ordinary people, when in fact it's fringe groups of people brought together with money by the likes of George Soros. Unfortunately there isn't much I can do about this, since you just call reliable websites unreliable, and authentic sources non-authentic, and you've got several other paid propagandists on here that support you in your attempt to subvert Wikipedia articles, so I guess I'll just wish you good luck on your continued circlejerking. 194.237.157.205 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The implication that you wish to promote is that the one Communist flag waver was somehow the spokesperson and emblematic for the many, many protesters. If you can find a reliable secondary source, put it back. Buster Seven Talk 04:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User Muboshgu is participating in disruptive editing

User Muboshgu is acting from a political perspective and removing anything that could potentially be viewed as a negative for the protestors. He continually removes edits made by people who back up their additions to the page with credible and authentic sources. I urge everyone to take action against him so he can't continue to disrupt this page.194.237.157.205 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You're slanting this article towards a pro-Trump and anti-Bernie POV. Townhall.com is not a "credible" source. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Townhall.com is a website and print magazine operated by Salem Communication. It has an openly stated editorial position which makes it entirely unremarkable in terms of US media. The standard is reliable, not credible, specifically WP:RS. Please stick to the actual rules. If you consistently knock out sources that qualify as WP:RS because of your personal ideological bias, you are violating the rules and will eventually be banned for it. TMLutas (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh so I guess FoxNews, MSNBC and CNN are? Why isn't this Townhall.com website credible? Because you said so? You're the one slanting this article towards an anti-Trump, pro-protestor POV, you're breaking the rules and you're trying to shut down people backing up their edits with credible and authentic information and sources. 194.237.157.205 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Those are all more reliable than Townhall.com. Lemme quote the full text here.

I want to say I'm surprised, but I'm not. An anti-Trump protester is seen in the background of CNN's live coverage holding up a Communist flag. I suppose since the left seems to forget the fact that Communism is responsible for more deaths than any other form of government, this guy will get some high fives among the Sanders crowd."

This is a biased source showing one flag that does not represent the thousands of protesters. Therefore, you're failing NPOV with your edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it doesn't represent the thousands of protestors, you could apply the same logic to a single person of the Chicago Police Department not being representative of the entire police force. A communist flag WAS seen being carried amongst the protestors, what you're doing is trying to hide the truth from the readers because you don't want the protestors to be viewed in a negative light. There are numerous sources which confirm this being the case, and it doesn't matter if even all of the sources are unreliable, because we have video footage where human beings with functioning eyesight can see the communist flag indeed being carried by some of the protestors. We don't need it to be representative of the protestors, in case you missed it, I wrote some protestors, not the protestors, - were seen carrying a communist flag.

I urge you to stop abusing the warning system and undoing my edits, I provide numerous sources, many of them reliable unlike what you claim them to be, to support my additions to the page. A communist flag WAS seen being carried around amongst the protestors, there's nothing you can do to change the facts and the reality of the situation. 194.237.157.205 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless I was seeing things I believe I saw a "Fuck Trump" sign. That doesn't make it worthy of mention, tho. Buster Seven Talk 19:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu is right. We simply cannot rely on unreliable sources (whether from either the right or left). There can be no serious dispute that "TownHall.com" is not reliable. Neutrality^talk 19:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Another user has added the material - I've removed it (see diff here) because none of the sources are reliable. One of the "refs" cited to was Infowars, which is of course a crank conspiracy-theory website (WP:FRINGE). The other sources - something called "trunews," Townhall, and Breitbart - are not credible either. Nor is reliance on raw YouTube footage (another "ref") added acceptable - this is pretty clearly original research/synth that we cannot rely on. It's also undue-weight, because I bet there are dozens of hundreds of YouTube videos that record (or purport to record) what transpired in Chicago. We cannot possibly summarize each of them, nor should we. Nor can we properly pick-and-choose which "raw" footage to describe.

There is a reason why we wait for reliable sources to report on something - it ensures that there is some fact-checking gatekeeper that can observe events and report on them with at least some perspective. Neutrality^talk 22:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

For an article like this, it is essential that only reliable sources be used. I'm sure there are biased sources for both pro- and anti-Trump positions and Wikipedia has to maintain a NPOV which is not necessarily the point of view of some of the editors here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

More media to import

Found this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG1wB0TTuXo Victor Grigas (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

YouTube is not considered a reliable source. It is a primary source that can't be verified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no blanket prohibition against videos on Youtube. If a video is on Youtube of, say, Obama and it's presented as a video of Obama, Wikipedia editors are not so dumb as to doubt whether or not it is a video of Obama were he clearly visible. "Video of Obama" would be a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". It depends on what the claim is. To quote from policy, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."--Brian Dell (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That YouTube video is not a reliable source. It is, strangely, considered original research since the viewer has to look at it with their own eyes. We can put it in the external link section, though. epicgenius (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

the viewer has to look at it with their own eyes I really have to shake my head at this. This is exactly what makes it as reliable as one can get until someone starts interpreting what's on display. In the end, though, I think we agree since if it goes into external links then Wikipedia isn't doing any interpretation.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Video and images are ILLUSTRATIONS, not citations. Here's the video:

Protesters takeover Trump Rally at UIC Pavilion

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, except in the case of interviews of indisputably recognized people. This video may make a useful external link.- MrX 14:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved More descriptive title per WP:PRECISE.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

2016 Chicago protest → 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest – This is a more precise description of the event. The protest was directly related to the Trump rally, but the current title may give the impression the protest was a larger event. clpo13_(talk) 06:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support fails WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Current title is too vague. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Article has been moved to more descriptive title. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This current title is crummy. This was no protest. This was partisan political street theater organized by BLM leaders, Sanders leaders and Soros funding. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So even if (if) that is all true, how is "partisan political street theater" not a protest? KConWiki (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Politico Article

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-chicago-protest-213728

A report on how the protest was planned; I leave it to others to decide if/how anything should be incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.97.22 (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No mention of injured police?

Second City Cop's first article on the event highlights a policeman with a bloody head wound and he states "Last report was at least two cops needed numerous stitches to close up wounds. A speedy recovery to the injured." This is significantly more violent than what the article currently is stating. This source is a bit famous as the place that cops gather to dish the inside scoop of what is going on in Chicago law enforcement so for this matter probably should be considered reliable for this type of event. There is more coverage. TMLutas (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a couple of reliable sources would be needed for that content to be included. A blog is not acceptable in my opinion.- MrX 14:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine if you want parallel construction so long as WP:RS isn't a cover for working extra hard to exclude politically uncomfortable information, "Trump rally police injuries" nets this high up in the results list so you don't have to rely on the blog. Re-reviewing the article, the two injured police are in the article. Whether I missed it before or it has been added since, I don't care enough run through the history log to chase down. TMLutas (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, it looks like all is good then.- MrX 14:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any mention anywhere of how the officers were injured? I believe I saw on report on local Chicago TV that hinted that a thrown bottle had caused one of the head injuries. Where the bottle came from and who threw it are probably unknowable. Supporters? Protesters? Who knows? BTW, I run through the history every day. I'm sure many other editors do likewise. This type of article demands attention and nurturing and care. Buster Seven Talk 15:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)