Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Started a list of police reforms related to these events

See List of police reforms in the United States related to the killing of George Floyd. It's really late now, but I plan to continue working on it tomorrow. See Talk:List of police reforms in the United States related to the killing of George Floyd for some additional context. It just seemed like a good resource (and something that's getting a lot of coverage, and could overwhelm one of the main articles IMO). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A note on the count of cities

"Over 1,000 cities" comes from this list, which has over 2,000 towns/cities in the US listed in the list at the end (I extracted them and counted); our own map, which has a cutoff of over 100 protesters, currently has 1,002 cities. Without reconciling these lists, I went for "over 1,000" as a safe count. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 13:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

update - I had a friend verify my count of the NYT list with python, it is at 2,007 cities/towns. So I am going to increase the estimate in the article to "over 2,000". 60 countries comes from our own list, List of George Floyd protests outside the United States -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is far-left in quotes, but far-right not in quotes?

Lmao! Ridiculous, blatant bias. I have no words. CompactSpacez (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please indicate where in the article you found these things? It's way too long an article for us to go searching. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

the subheadings under reports of extremest activities. It’s gotten a lot of criticism over the past week. Something to do with how RSs characterize the different phrases, but I’m not really sure why editors are so adamant about not changing it tbh Anon0098 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed them, scare quotes are editorializing unless directly cited to a source. The note (Which was inappropriate per WP:HIDDEN "Inappropriate uses for hidden text:... Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit....Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing local consensus.") made it clear that these were not cited to sources but rather based on the assertion that "far-left" is a disputed term when applied to Antifa, which is WP:OR when applied to this situation. If the allegations were merely that Antifa was involved, sure, but the quoted source specifically includes allegations of "far-left extremist" involvement. We are not saying Antifa is far-left in Wikipedia's voice, we are saying this is what the allegations are. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks Anon0098 (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous to state those who are as being opposed to fascism (Antifa is not an organisation, it is a position) are automatically far left, regardless of if trump says so or not. We should lend no more credence to this than to his pseudo-scientific claims about vaccines. Banak (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

agreed comrade 2600:1702:2340:9470:BD16:B8DD:4AA6:F27C (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability in the "Reactions" section (Facebook posts by local organizations etc.)

Since EnneDee has chosen to edit-war over their massive addition of links to the "Reaction from Domestic Community, Religious, and Cultural Organizations" section, I'll try to explain the problems and relevant policies in more detail here:

• It is not true that any post made from an organization's official Facebook account is automatically notable enough to be included here, as EnneDee argues. Rather, Wikipedia articles should include views based on their coverage of independent reliable sources on a topic, see WP:NPOV and WP:SPS.
• Linking an organization's website in the article text (separately from and in addition to citing statements in footnotes) may be desirable for the purpose for driving reader attention and web traffic to that organization, but it violates Wikipedia's external links guidelines. Please do not reinstate these links.
• There are likely tens of thousands of organizations, businesses and local churches around the world who have published statements on occasion of the killing of George Floyd, and on the other hand this central overview article about the protests is already way too long (over 300k currently). Maybe the Chicago Tamil Sangam's reaction could be included in the separate local article George Floyd protests in Chicago, but it is out of place in a global overview.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

EnneDee (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)'s response

• The "already way too long" argument is essentially an argument for moving the "Reactions" page to an independent page (as has been debated separately in this Talk page), it is not an argument for not allowing references to organizations that have stood for the cause. I do agree that the article is too long and am supportive of moving the "Reactions" page to an independent page.

• Regarding not linking to the organization's main page, I am fine with delinking, I personally don't care about that.

• Regarding "It is not true that any post made from an organization's official Facebook account is automatically notable enough to be included here" -- I would agree with you, it is not that "any post...is automatically notable enough" -- but given that these organizations have hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of members, the post that is the official statement on this exact topic is the primary source and thus makes it notable. I would agree with you that the statement by any 10 person organization/business is not notable enough, but where, in your view, should we draw the line at? 250 members? 500 members? 1000members?

(And no, not a "edit-war" -- we haven't really gone back and forth on the same edits multiple times to get to that point, and I don't intend to. Peace...)

Regards, EnneDee (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No timeline after June 4th?

This article seems to stop at June 4th, but the protests are still ongoing. Why is there no information for these past 10 days? 163.158.13.177 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Citations to Jerome Adams are being removed?

Hello, it seems that citations to a speech by Jerome Adams is being repeated removed. Is there a particular reason for this? It's the one in this link here:

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protests-05-30-20/h_27ad9fc2045f3cdccdc3aa7800e964a7

Eric.c.zhang (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: Need some context here, who is Jerome Adams?
Ah, "Jerome Michael Adams (born September 22, 1974) is an American anesthesiologist and a vice admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps who currently serves as the 20th Surgeon General of the United States. 220 of ^ßorg 03:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

In previous versions of the article his speech in that video there was listed as the citation for different items under "caused by" and "methods" sections of the infobox. At one point, he was cited for infbox item "Methods: Protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience, and civil resistance" But then this citation was subsequently removed, which actually broke the other citations link to him in this article. That infobox item was replaced with "Methods: Protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience, civil resistance and riots", without a citation. Why was this done? Eric.c.zhang (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: I don't know. If you want to trace it, you will need to go through the edit history to find the edit that "removed" the cite. It should have an edit summary describing the edit. I'm not certain if infobox data needs a cite, or not, it's just a 'summary' of what's on the page. 220 of ^ßorg 10:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Image of Hungarian man breathing five years ago - keep with context, or replace image?

I am concerned about the relevance of this photograph, and before I edited the caption to contextualise its age and location, people could have believed that this man was a protestor and was knowingly endangering the public in a pandemic.

While it is not February like when this photograph was taken, there should be some photograph somewhere from the thousands of demonstrations in which there is visible moisture from someone talking.

This man was doing a Santana tribute act five years ago on Hungary, and now his image is in a section about coronavirus disease being spread at protests. Millions of people are seeing this picture everyday, and he could never have predicted that. He has nothing to do with George Floyd or coronavirus. While support of BLM is high in society, this man's country takes a different view and that should be taken into account to protect him from retribution. [1] [2]

In my opinion this image should be removed ASAP as inappropriate for this man's privacy and easy to misinterpret. But I will not do a unilateral removal on a high traffic article. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

*Support Removal Takes up unnecessary space and is irrelevant Anon0098 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done by Writ Keeper with this edit. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson statue

Can someone upload this Thomas Jefferson statue image for the gallery on this page article? https://www.kptv.com/news/district-ready-to-listen-after-protesters-tear-down-thomas-jefferson-statue-in-front-of-portland/article_0b34b048-af63-11ea-b32d-63eb6ae35316.html I have no idea how to load images on here. Desslock97 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. @Desslock97: Per our policy on non-free content we cannot use images taken from news sources since they are almost always protected by copyright and a free image can probably obtained instead. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"GF protests" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GF protests. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#GF protests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Floydian protests" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Floydian protests. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#Floydian protests until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

1. Change Geroge Floyd Protest to Police brutality Protest

Although the protests were sparked by the murder of george floyd, the protest is primarily about police brutality. The title of the document is misleading, as it implies the protests are primarily about the death of george floyd which would be a reduction of police brutality and all the past and future victims of it. Atish2049 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. @Atish2049: Per the top of this talk page, no more requests to change the title are allowed until 1 July 2020. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Help needed over at List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests

There are some 700+ reported cases of police violence, we need lots of help to find reliable sources for them, if such sources exist. Feoffer (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Violence and controversies, deaths

This is a silly and redundant section is a variety of ways, and needs to be diffused properly in the rest of the article or moved to List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests. The article already makes like five attempts at listing events by date, and this comes off very much as a catch-all for anything we couldn't be bothered to find a better spot for, up to and including events that in WP's own voice admittedly are not materially connected to the protests or where the connection is unclear.

We have to make some attempt to write an actual encyclopedia article rather than a compendium of one-sentence blurbs about whatever story happened to pop up on our news feed. GMG^talk 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I made this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd_protests#%22Violence_during_the_George_Floyd_protests%22_should_have_its_own_article_within_this_main_one XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Images outside of Wikipedia

I noticed that this image, which was previously quite prominent in the page (more so than it is now), is also the only infobox image for the Commons category, and is one of a handful used on Wikidata. Because of that, it's going to be one of the default images for other language versions of this topic. While dramatic, it doesn't actually seem to capture the subject as well as some others. Maybe could use the attention of users who have been involved with selecting photos here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

In the May 29th subsection of the violence and controversies section, remove the word the before the word blood (or clarify whose blood was used) in the following sentence:

"The white van allegedly used in the murder had "Boog" and "I became unreasonable" written in the blood on the vehicle's hood."--137.25.135.131 (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 09:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section on looting?

Eg a discussion about why[3] and who[4][5]. It's not just protestors looting. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this deserves its own section. But yes, looters and protestors are largely seperate groups. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Albuquerque, New Mexico

That part of the page is mostly false information. Steven Ray Baca was not with the militia and the New Mexico Civil Guard said that he is not their member and they didn't know who the guy was. The page also says that he attacked a woman, yet the video shows that the woman harassed him (blocked his way, and that's illegal), he got mad and then he slammed the woman. So it's not like he did walk there and did something to a woman for no reason. I don't know where did he ran, but he ran away from people who started to lynch him. He was not "tackled", he got hit with a skateboard, and one of his attackers had a knife, Baca pulled his gun then and shot because of that. The page says absolutely nothing about that. Neither about the fact that the gun-use charge is dropped, as it was obviously a self-defense situation. The page says nothing about the militia holding him back and they helped for the guy who got shot, yet the militia got harassed by the police for no reason.

So I would say that the 2 lines about the Albuquerque, New Mexico event are mostly false. Someone should fix that, but since the page is blocked from editing (protected?), I can't edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLiberty (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:SteveLiberty provide reliable secondary sources that back up your claims, or make an edit request with the changes you want (preferably also with a reliable source). Banak (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Economic impacts sentence in lede

I'm not sure this sentence "The economic impact of the protests has exacerbated the 2020 coronavirus recession by sharply curtailing consumer confidence, straining local businesses, and overwhelming public infrastructure with large-scale property damage" is appropriate in the lede; that's a strong statement, and the sources given are poor. Can we rework or remove? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I will agree that this is a fair statement, thus no action will be taken. I think that the COVID19 actually made more people desperate since they were on "house arrest." Captain Almighty Nutz ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} 08:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've read though the sources. markets.businessinsider says has four expects who conject about the future. The fortune.com source says there have been some scaling back of apple and amazon activity and that there have been (an unspecified number of) millions of dollars of damage. The marketwatch article claims that there is $25 million of damage in Minnesota, and then later says that an estimate by one insurance company, it's in the category of over $25 million of damage in the Minneapolis area. As far as I can tell, this is original research that exceeds what the sources say, so I'm going to removed the content as original research. Banak (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

The Antisemitism section currently contains one op-ed that talks about alleged anti-Israeli sentiment (NOT antisemitism), and a single report of antisemitic shouts in France. I am wondering whether this justifies the existence of a separate section. BeŻet (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could rename the section to xenophobia and therefore open it up to more content? BeŻet (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. A section opening with "According to Alan Dershowitz" cannot be RS nor NPOV. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not call them 'RIOTS'?

Over 20 people have died and tens of millions of Dollars have been incurred into in damages, why can't we change the terminology and call them for what they are then? And by that I mean riots obviously as these were protests just at the beginning before it was hijacked by radicals (although I won't speculate over the reasons and motivations, I still maintain my main argument which is that these aren't protests anymore but riots).

Thans in advacnce, Carlos.

--177.230.47.65 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There have been protests in all 50 states and around the world. These protests have continued for a couple dozen days. Do you have a source that these have predominately been riots? O3000 (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We use the description in mainstream sources. If readers feel comforted to hear them called riots they can always tune into right-wing media. TFD (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the vast majority has been peaceful, and letting the minority define the majority is ridiculous and without merit. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The thumbnail for this article has the wrong picture.

Its a picture from this article that shows up, but it's not the correct image afaik. Like other wiki articles have the "top" image displayed.--Hiveir (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, the editor thumbnail (shown e.g. to editors with WP:POP enabled on a mousover of a link to George Floyd protests) shows File:George Floyd Memorial at 38th and Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis (49942178738).jpg, which is the first image in the article that is not in the {{photomontage}} template in the infobox. The reader thumbnail (shown to logged-out users) shows File:Minneapolis Police Department’s 3th Precinct 2020-05-28.jpg, which is the second image in the montage template. No idea why the first image in the photo montage isn't the thumbnail in either view. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 10:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Brooks' death isn't even slightly related to the protests. He was being arrested for drunk driving Anon0098 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's not related - his death is fueling additional protests in Atlanta. What he was arrested for doesn't seem to be relevant. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Death: Javar Harrell

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

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

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

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

And? not every death is notable enough for inclusion, or directly link to the demos.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes it is Idan (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I strongly oppose Slatersteven vehemently here. Zvikorn has the right idea. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 2:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That is already covered here in this article in the death section. Seems like the link got the date wrong since Harrell was killed on May 29, not June 5. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the source incorrectly wrote his death as June 5th, while we already covered his death which actually took place on May 29th. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Seems to me that if one has led to arrest and one has not both are still only alleged (an arrest is not a conviction, and wP:blp applies even to the far right). But we may need to find a way to make it clear there is not real evidence (beyond word salad) of far left involvement.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Featous "boogaloo boys", I haven't heard that before. Please explain?. Ah, I have now. Jargon! Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 18:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it. Given that there have been 5 arrests, it is no longer alleged.Unibrow69420 (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

NPOV with regards to Antifa

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

Youtube is not a credible source and holds no weight here. The Washington Post along with most of the "news" media is far from unbiased journalism IMHO. - Samf4u (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Samf4u, WaPo is considered generally reliable by Wikipedia. Please see WP:RSP. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is not "Youtube", the source is the Washington Post! Is it a RS? --87.170.195.36 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually an official YouTube channel would be just as much an RS as a terrestrial one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure we've used The Washington Post countless times before on other pages. You personally finding them to be bias should not redefine massive years of precedent on Wikipedia, imo. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you have us do with that source exactly? It's a Youtube video, so of course, the comments are filled with Russians, conspiracy theorists, and the alt-right at large, which adds a bunch of additional issues that already comes with trying to maintain credibility while citing a Youtube video. Moreover, I don't see the relevance of the video, unless, of course, you're suggesting we use that source to offer a countering view to the Republican government officials claiming Antifa's involvement without a shred proof. In which case, might I recommend this article that the Youtube video is based off and a sentence akin to "Despite unsubstantiated claims from Republican politicians and law enforcement officials, there has been no concrete evidence of Antifa involvement according to an investigation by the Washington Post..." and so forth. This source may be beneficial too. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

CNN: Police point finger at gangs and local groups for riot damages, contradicting Trump's claims: "Opportunistic local people, not outside political groups, account for 80% of the arrests [in Philadelphia] and in Pittsburgh." @GreenFrogsGoRibbit: Please refrain from making any insensitive, xenophobic remarks on Wikipedia ("the comments are filled with Russians").[6], [7]. The Russian people cannot be reduced to Putin’s regime. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't mean to come off as discriminatory. I was attempting to reference Russian interference through the use of social media to influence US politics for the year 2020, which was a confirmed and documented fact in the year of 2016. I should have been more concise, I concur with that. Again, my apologies if I hurt anyone's feelings. I only mean to attack malicious attackers. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It's okay. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Suggest adding Richmond police's unprovoked tear gassing of peaceful protestors to list of police violence. The mayor and police department apologized for their officers' conduct and promised consequences for those involved.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/teen-protest-leader-helps-control-violence-in-richmond-after-three-chaotic-nights/2020/06/02/8f38b2d6-a4cd-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html Danhalcyon (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 19:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head as well, as there seems to be no new chronological entries after 3 June, yet there are still protests. Should we continue chronological entries for ongoing protests or simply add them where appropriate and if that, what do we do with the dated sections?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Name "George Floyd protests" is not accurate

This is clearly beyond protests. Revolt? By black Americans, with many white sympathizers, against the white police? Civil War? We're sure getting close - riot police in DC? Armored vehicles? A crazy president. And on civil war, see Confederate monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests. deisenbe (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

lets wait for history to decide.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the events happening are going to wait for history -- when you have protests in several European capitals as well, a more-representative title is appropriate. 69.248.194.233 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's most accurately called (2020 anti-police unrest)

The demonstrations and confrontations are unmistakably anti-police. The hostile situations resulting from the police brutality are more than just protests. It's rioting, assaults, homicides, and shootings. All of the above fall under the category of unrest. The current title 'George Floyd protests' simply does not represent everything that's happened in said event. Warlight2 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A more accurate title would be "2020 race riots".Drilou (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"The vast majority of demonstrations over the past eight days have been peaceful but some have descended into violence and rioting, with curfews imposed in a number of cities." BBC news. It would be incredibly misleading to call it a riot overall, as that would not just misrepresent the majority of attendees, but the majority of events. Banak (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to bring this topic back up. I feel the protests are more about Police brutality and BLM than the individual case of George Floyd. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Many folks are referring to it as the Fed Up Rising --Strands of pearl (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The what? Who?Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for a slight change in the infobox

The "partof" section in the infobox lists that this event is "part of human rights and police brutality in the united states". While those are the topics that have sparked the protests, technically the "partof" section in the infobox is reserved for greater events/movements that the civil conflict is a part of. If you look at the civil conflict infobox's manual says this about the "partof" section...

partof – optional – the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For protests, it could be larger encompassing movement.

Can we get a consensus that the "partof" section should change to encompass a greater event or not be used? We can still mention that the topics of human rights and police brutality are the cause of the protests in a different more appropriate section. Lets use the infobox correctly.Mangokeylime (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mangokeylime: I added the Black Lives Matter movement to that part of the infobox since the protests are clearly part of that movement. I’m not sure what should be done w/the human rights & police brutality parts of that section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@QuestFour: why remove "Black Lives Matter" from "partof" in the infobox? Is this disputed? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This issue was also raised here. My opinion on this still stands, namely that it ought to be: partof = the [[Black Lives Matter movement]]<br>and reactions to the [[Killing of George Floyd]] userdude 06:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That sounds right to me, based on "part of" referring to events/movements/conflicts and not topics. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

The 2020 American Democrat Antifa Riots. Please stop dumbing down the American public fellow democrat. 2605:E000:1714:CF12:4C3B:63DC:6E11:9786 (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 19:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Two Requests:

1. Please either change the section header "Far-left and anarchist involvement" to "Allegations of Far-left and anarchist involvement", or something to that effect, or provide sourced evidence in that section of actual involvement. Currently, the two paragraphs simply present various claims made by people and organizations about whether or not such organizations are in fact involved, but the statements presented which far-left/anarchist involvement cannot be taken as fact given the biases of the claimants.

2. Please replace the caption in the gallery "Protesters and National Guard at the "Black Lives Matter Plaza" in Washington, D.C. on June 6, 2020" with "Protesters and National Guard at Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C. on June 6, 2020". It's the official street name - the quotes make as much sense as "Protesters and National Guard at the "Main Street" in Washington, D.C."

Psfiseditingwp (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: #2 done. I'll leave #1 to another editor to address. I'm not familiar with whether those headings are the product of consensus or bold editing. Thank you for the edit request! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the title was originally "Alleged far left and anarchist involvement", then was boldly changed to "Far-left and anarchist involvement". I actually support that change, and oppose Psfiseditingwp's proposed change because it's redundant — the level 3 heading is already under a level 2 heading "Reports of extremist activities". userdude 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm closing this edit request as "partly done". @Psfiseditingwp: for the change in the subheading, I suggest proposing the change in a thread on this talk page and seeing if there is consensus for it. Cheers, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Demands by protesters

I think we need a subsection describing what are the specific demands by protesters. It appears that one of the most widespread and specific demands is to defund/disband the entire police force [8], [9], a radical suggestion that can potentially lead to legitimization of the protest movement. Personally, I think this a ridiculous demand meaning transferring the power to street gangs and organized crime, similar to that after the demise of the Russian Empire. (The most radical police reform was undertaken by Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia (country). He fired the entire police force and hired new people (that was not defunding, quite the opposite!). And he did it because the police force in Georgia was 100% corrupt, meaning that the police has became a part of the organized crime. Fortunately, nothing even close to that exists in the US.). But this is obviously an important demand, and it should be described on the page per RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Generally, I think it's a myth that movements have specific demands. I don't think that we can describe "defund the police" as a demand of protesters. Nor do I see the CNN articles saying this demand is "widespread". "Protesters" includes millions of people around the world. They don't have a platform like a political party. I think the only thing that all these protesters agree on is that black lives matter, meaning the police shouldn't treat black people differently than they treat white people. I think that's the only thing RSes are reporting that comes close to a specific demand. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I think Civil rights movement in USA had well defined demands. So are many other Category:Political_movements. Having well defined, reasonable and achievable demands is extremely important for all political movements. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Look at Civil rights movement: there is no section listing demands. Nowhere does the article describe demands of the entire movement. Instead, it describes demands of particular organizations or protests that were part of the movement. For example, the Montgomery bus boycott (which Rosa Parks was part of) demanded desegregation of buses. SNCC demanded low-rent housing and job training, among other things. The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom had specific "demands", but they were extremely vague, like "right to vote" and "full and fair employment". There were moments when the movement coalesced around a specific demand, like passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but over its multi-decade lifespan, the movement never had a single political platform with specific policy goals. It was vague demands for equality and opportunity. More importantly, the US civil rights movement, like all movements, had its internal divisions. They did not all want the same thing. Some protesters had demands that others disagreed with, just like they disagreed about methods. Compare Martin Luther King Jr. with Malcolm X, for one famous example. This is true in every movement in history: the people who participate in movements always have internal disagreements, and always different ideas about goals and methods. This was true for the Suffragettes as it was for the Russian Revolution. It was true for Occupy Wall Street and it's true for Black Lives Matter. Movements are loose coalitions, not political parties. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, this is not some monolithic movement headed by one person, group or goal beyond ending racism and police brutality.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

OK then, let's see how events develop and wait for more coverage. But I am sure this is something significant, see here (Calls to defund police create potential risks for Democrats), for example. Of course a constructive program to reform police in US does exist and has been published: [10]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "defund the police" may grow into something bigger. It may be that it's worth mentioning somewhere on the article, I just disagree with characterizing it as a demand of the protesters (as opposed to an idea promoted by a small group of people). I will say that I think CNN is really sensationalist, and known to "fan flames" like this, and should be used with extreme caution in breaking-news articles. (Same for Fox News, MSNBC, and all US TV cable news. Probably other countries' TV news is the same but I'm not as familiar.) CNN is "reliable enough" generally-speaking, but for things like this... show me BBC, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, The Economist, or some organization on that level, saying "defund the police" is a "demand of protesters", and then I'll believe it :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying that is not the aim of some of the protesters.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Perhaps more importantly, it is not clear who the protesters represent except themselves. For example, as explained here, 60% of African Americans supported the idea to hire more police officers and dispatch them to high-crime neighborhoods, while only 18% of them were opposed to the idea. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I found this USA Today article about "defund the police" interesting: [11] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Quotation marks

In the section on alleged extremist involvement, why is the term "Far Left" in quotes, yet the term "Far Right" isn't? It appears to be an attempt to dismiss the possibility of Far Left involvement, and exaggerate the possibility of Far Right involvement. This doesn't strike me a very "neutral". 86.14.40.196 (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

explanation

I wikilinked Derek Chauvin because I think he measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is a non-event (where there is no evidence) in Wikipedia?

I don't understand why the following sentence is in the article. "There have been accusations of various extremist groups using the cover of the protests to foment general unrest in the United States. According to CNN, "although interference in this way may be happening, federal and local officials have yet to provide evidence to the public." It's like saying "There have been suggestions that Hitler was not a racist, but federal and local officials have yet to provide evidence to the public". When there is any evidence, put it in, until then, take it out. Sentences like this do nothing to help the reputation of Wikipedia in its quest to have a neutral point of view, because the sentence suggests that it is basically true. SethWhales ^talk 14:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Impact on entertainment section?

Would it be appropriate to add "Entertainment"/"On entertainment" to the "Impact and effects" section of the article? TV shows Live PD and L.A.'s Finest have already been impacted by the events (editions cancelled and season 2 launch delayed respectively), and it would appear they may be worth mentioning? Or would they best fit the section Reactions to the George Floyd protests#Entertainment industry instead? --Phinbart (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This page is already so large and it keeps increasing. Entertainment might have a better place in the reactions page, if it's WP:DUE at all Anon0098 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

For an article on the protests, there is very little information about the protests in this article

This is probably due to the splitting of the article into multiple regionalized articles, but it is bewildering to me that the actual protest section is so bare, especially compared to previous versions of this article. I'm going to try to add some more content, but would deeply appreciate others helping. DTM9025 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

100% agree with this observation. This article has more opinion about the protests than actual description of the protests. The "Activation of state and federal forces", "Use of social media", and "Misinformation" sections are each longer than the "Protests" section. "Violence and controversies" is even longer still. We have a day-by-day violence log, but not one of the protests. That's all a big WP:DUE violation in my opinion. And then there's the giant "Reactions" section which needs to be trimmed or split. Unfortunately, with breaking news articles, it's common that the article initially gets filled with what everyone wants to say about the event, rather than content describing the event itself. It's just something that'll get straightened out as editing continues. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"Protester violence" and people shot by "unknown looters"

The "Protester violence" section seems to include things like officers being shot by burglars. It doesn't seem correct to me to report every crime that happens during the protests under the "Protester violence" section. Perhaps we could create a new section called "Criminal activity during the protests" with an introduction sentence explaining that while the protests have been taking place, there have been criminal incidents reported. BeŻet (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have now separated criminal acts from protester violence. The latter should be just about violence committed by protesting crowds. BeŻet (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Good work BeZet. I think the section above that talks about a new division for violence based on target rather than perpetrator is a useful idea -- the victim is much more verifiable. Currently for example we have a case of a policeman struck by a bullet under "protestor violence" with zero sourcing supporting this and indeed based on who has bullets it is quite plausible it was a stray bullet discharged by another policeman.--Calthinus (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Further, I think it's important not to conflate rioters with opportunist criminals who might also be taking advantage of the unrest. A distinction should be made, for clarity. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to make this exact point. The heading "protester violence" is inappropriate and not supported by the material.Wikiditm (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, only violence that RS says is by protesters should be there.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not easy to establish if someone is a protester or not. I changed the heading twice to "civilian violence" (in contrast with police violence) and it is being reverted, which is a shame given the issues being brought up in this section. It would be good to build consensus on this.Wikiditm (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, we have a system in place called wp:v If RS do not say it was protesters neither do we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This would lead to removing a large amount of the material from the section, which surely isn't wanted?Wikiditm (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Violence committed by protestors—It is obvious and undeniable that protests have become violent, with many injuries, property damage, and deaths occurring—should be under "Protester violence" while violence by police should be under "Police violence". I personally disagree with using the term "civilian" instead of protesters in this specific context, as protesters have attacked non-protesters, even though both are "civilians". It's too vague, just call the protesters, "protesters". Keep it straightforward. RopeTricks (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If the heading is going to be kept as protester violence, then the material underneath will have to be reduced to only those cases which are committed by protesters. Looking down the list, this involves removing the vast majority of entries. In fact, it is not clear to me if any of the examples at all can be reliably ascribed to protesters. This is why "civilian violence" is preferred - the current heading is misleading and false, and not backed by the sourced examples underneath it.Wikiditm (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time separating the two, and now someone has combined them again without prior discussion. BeŻet (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've now separated again. Please discuss this with other editors if you intend to merge it again. BeŻet (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of prior discussion, I cited WP:BOLD for merging the sections, but you make fair points in why a separate "criminal activity" section is warranted as not all violence against cops can be necessarily attributed to the protestors. RopeTricks (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explaination! BeŻet (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit to the lead

I went ahead and made a bold edit to the lead:

1. "ongoing series of protests and riots" → "ongoing series of protests, marches and demonstrations"
   • If you open the sources we use and look at what terms they use, these three are used orders of magnitude more often to describe the subject as a whole. That's not to say there isn't rioting going on, and that's why rioting is mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead. It's just a case of WP:UNDUE.
2. removed a few sources, which didn't seem to actually add anything to the lead. Lead sections, of course, only need citations when using a direct quote, citing a particular figure, or a particularly contentious statement. We don't need citations after the name of the article -- that's based on consensus on the talk page. It also isn't helpful to add a couple citations to support "riots" when they're in conflict with nearly all of the other sources we use.
3. "against police brutality" → "against police brutality and racism in policing"
   • Again, based on the sourcing this is specifically about racism and police brutality and racism in policing generally.
4. Various copyedits to remove redundant content

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• The references after "spreading across the United States" and "and internationally" are also redundant, and I have removed them. userdude 16:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Could you clarify what you mean by the sources the sources after the word riot () being in conflict with nearly all of the other sources we use? userdude 16:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• in conflict with nearly all of the other sources we use - the basic description of the subject should be based on the body of literature about the subject. If you look at the many sources we use, the vast majority of them don't call the subject "riots". They mostly talk about protests, demonstrations, and marches. In some cases, they talk about rioting that has occurred at or after those events. By "in conflict with" I mean, effectively, that they're in a small minority of sources which call these events broadly "riots". To be clear, rioting definitely belongs in the lead, but that first sentence should be for the most fundamental description. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: Neither of the sources characterize the subject as entirely, or even primarily, riots. The Fox News article says Chaos broke out in several major U.S. cities on Sunday night as rioters hijacked what had been peaceful protests over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody and the CP24 article says While those protests have been mostly peaceful, there have been reports of violence and looting at times. This accords with the sources you discuss that talk about rioting that has occurred at or after those events.

The reason I bring this up is that it's easy to dismiss the sources about rioting as just a biased minority of sources, but that's ignoring the fact that many, many reliable sources have deemed the rioting aspect significant enough to include in the headline or lede, so we ought to do the same. Of course, "rioting" is already in the second paragraph of the lead, so this just comes down to editorial discretion. I'm inclined to avoid even the appearance of whitewashing, so I think "riots" ought to remain in the first sentence. userdude 17:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• The first sentence effectively defines the subject. If even the sources that do use the term "riots" are using it to describe a secondary aspect of the subject, it should be in a secondary part of our summary. Rioting (as well as peaceful demonstrations) happens at the protests, but the article is about the protests generally. Without a doubt the violence, vandalism, and rioting has gotten a ton of media coverage, and I don't disagree that it belongs in the lead. I just disagree that it should be part of the definition in the first sentence. I say that not because I'm analyzing the situation and think that's what it calls for, but because the sources we cite overwhelmingly do not frame the subject itself as "riots". In general, I'm very much against making editorial decision to avoid the appearance of whitewashing when all we're doing is faithfully representing the sourcing. All that said, I'm not saying that my wording is the ideal. There could be other ways to frame this which don't give undue weight to calling the subject riots. The second paragraph, for example, could include additional detail about some of the high-profile dramatic events. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before making such a major change to the lede. It has been reported by numerous RS that there have been hundreds of buildings burned and even more stolen from and destroyed. Even our own wiki page describes rioting as "involv[ing] destruction of property, public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings." I hardly see how hundreds of thousands, if not millions, worth of damage violates WP:Due. I added back rioting, but I kept your other characterizations of the protests as a compromise Anon0098 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "riot" from the first sentence and short description. The sources did not say that the protests were riots; they said quite the opposite, as userdude explains above. The protests are not riots. They're not "demonstrations and riots". The protests are one thing; the riots are something else. I agree with Rhodo's revisions, and also with mentioning rioting (either in the second paragraph as is currently, or even in the first paragraph), but I do not agree with suggesting that riots were part of the protests, because that's not what RSes say. Also we can do better than Fox News and CP24 for an article like this: much better-quality sourcing is readily available. @Anon0098: please review WP:ONUS... it's upon those who want to include "riots" in the first sentence to get consensus, not the other way around. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS clearly states it is the addition or removal of information that needs consensus, and this has been in the first sentence of the lede for nearly a week. Also since when have we decided Fox is not a RS? It is used repeatedly. I added new RSs as a compromise. However, I very strongly believe we should at least mention this earlier on, as this was a major part of proceding events. Anon0098 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

ONUS doesn't say "addition or removal", it says The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Key word there is "inclusion", not "inclusion or exclusion". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the edit was restored, I added a {{fv}} tag. None of these sources cited say that the protests were riots; they all treat the protests and the riots as two separate things. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have to take what the sources say and filter them through some other definition in order to use your preferred wording (i.e. sources don't say these are riots, but do report burning buildings, and some other source says buildings burning might qualify as riots, so therefore these are riots), then it's probably not the right wording for Wikipedia. We also don't define things by applying arbitrary dollar amounts to them. It's simpler than that: is the consensus among reliable sources that they are riots? If not, that's not what should be in Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that Anon0098 has added riots to the first sentence yet again, despite the above. Finding a source that calls them riots doesn't fix anything. In fact, it misses the entire point of everything that's written above. The first sentence is the fundamental definition of the subject that should reflect the consensus among reliable sourcing, not sources cherry-picked because they're one of the only ones that use a particular term. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

to be fair I wasn't the one who restored it. Other people seem to agree. Nonetheless, I believe it should stay and have explained why. Anon0098 (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You're right. Therexbanner restored it using the edit summary "Reverted removal of sourced info. The term riots in regards to these events is directly mentioned in the sources and even the titles of the articles". This, of course, completely ignores the discussion in this section. We can find sources which call it all sorts of things. That doesn't mean it all belongs in the very first sentence, which is reserved only for descriptions based on the broadest possible coverage in the sources, not what a minority of sources say. Being sourced isn't a guarantee of inclusion in any event. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 proposal

Does anyone have objections to changing the second sentence of the second paragraph from:

Protests in some cities resulted in rioting and looting while many were marked by street skirmishes and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters.

to:

Protests in several cities descended into riots, while many were marked by looting, street skirmishes, and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters.

? userdude 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Mention of estimated total number of protesters, within the United States and worldwide is suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.219.148 (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@UserDude: My 2c: it's hard to write this sentence because there were a lot of "events" (let's use that word for now). If you multiply the number of cities by the number of days, we're talking thousands of individual events. And they unfolded differently. In some instances, it's really quite accurate to say that a protest "descended into riots". But in other cases, you had situations where there was a protest during the day and riots at night, but they were two separate groups of people, and two separate events. In those cases, protests did not "descend into" (or "result in") riots. There was a protest. Later, there was rioting. But it's not a continuous transition. I think "were followed by" is better than "resulted in".

I think the second part, "while many were marked by looting, street skirmishes, and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters", needs adjustment. When we say "many were marked by looting", I think the RSes, in general, support that many riots were marked by looting, not that many protests were marked by looting. Although there was plenty of looting, there were also plenty of protests with no looting (e.g. the daytime ones). So I think the "looting" should go with the "riots" and not with the "protests", as it is now.

In "... many were marked by ... street skirmishes, and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters", the "against peaceful protests" part confuses me if "many" is referring to riots and not to protests. So what I'm saying is, "many protests" couldn't have been "marked" by both "looting" and "peaceful protesters" being attacked by police. The police attacks happened during protests; the looting happened during riots. I think we need to explicitly say that some protests descended into riots, some protests were followed by riots, many of the riots were marked by looting, many of the protests had street skirmishes (but not full-blown rioting with looting), and many of the protests had peaceful protesters attacked by police.

I think the current sentence expresses that pretty well, except I'd change "resulted in" to "followed by". (Sorry for the length, I think that might have been 5c or 6c worth.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:Thanks for the input. What about,

While the majority of protests were peaceful, demonstrations in some cities descended into riots and widespread looting, with more being marked by street skirmishes and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters.

I've seen a lot of RS's state the caveat that the majority of protests were peaceful before discussing violence, so we could do the same. "Demonstrations" is a broader term than "protests", so I think this should clarify that some of the riots may have occurred separately from the protests. From the characterizations of RS's, I think it is fair to characterize the riots as having emerged from demonstrations:

• Fox News: "Chaos broke out in several major U.S. cities on Sunday night as rioters hijacked what had been peaceful protests over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody." … "The riots erupted from demonstrations in cities from San Francisco to Boston protesting the death of Floyd."
• BBC: "The vast majority of demonstrations over the past eight days have been peaceful but some have descended into violence and rioting, with curfews imposed in a number of cities."
• New York Times: "In cities across the United States, tens of thousands of people have swarmed the streets to express their outrage and sorrow during the day. That has descended into nights of unrest, with reports of shootings, looting and vandalism in some cities."
• Washington Post: "The evening started with peaceful protests that descended into disarray and looting as the night wore on."
• Al Jazeera: "Although the protests have at times descended into violence with looting, vandalism and fires, especially as night falls and curfews kick in, they have remained largely peaceful[.]"

userdude 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Y I think it looks great, both in terms of language and sourcing. Thanks! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Two lingering concerns:

demonstrations in some cities - makes it sound kind of like it varied by city (i.e. Minneapolis and NYC events descended into riots... when in fact only some of the events in some of the cities.

descended into riots - similar to the point raised above, this sounds like it was the same group/event. that may be true in some cases, but it seems like the sources are kind of unclear.

Ultimately, neither of these objections are particularly strong FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A more accurate way to phrase it would be something like some demonstrations in some cities, but that sounds really awkward. I trust the reader to understand that "some demonstrations" is implied by the caveat at the beginning of the sentence; it's kind of ridiculous to think that all the demonstrations in City A were violent while none in City B were. userdude 05:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on "protester violence" heading

Should the "protester violence" heading be changed, and if so, what should it be changed to?Wikiditm (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC) My personal view on this is that the heading, which has generally been kept at variations on "protester violence," is inaccurate and misleading. The majority of the material underlying this heading does not describe violence from people known to be protesters, and the presence of this heading seems to conflate protesters with rioters, which are not necessarily the same groups of people. In fact, it may be that none of the people involved in the violence listed are protesters (maybe they all are, but this is not established in the sources). For this reason, I think the heading does need to be changed. In terms of what it should be changed to, I feel the best option is "civilian violence" as all of the people involved are established to be civilians, and this contrasts with the "police violence" heading for the section before.Wikiditm (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We actually already split criminal activity and protester violence, but someone combined it back without discussing it with other editors. I split it up again per our discussion above. BeŻet (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'm inclined towards removing that section entirely, or perhaps replacing with a single paragraph. Except for a few cases (such as the burning of the MPD 3rd Precinct), listing individual instances of protester violence seems very undue to me. There's also no conceivable way we can list every (RS-reported) example of protester violence. It would be preferable to describe protester violence generally, rather than list apparently arbitrarily selected examples. userdude 09:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree - in a discussion above I tried to establish a threshold for inclusion, because otherwise it is unclear what is worthy of inclusion. There are hundreds if not thousands of videos showing police violence, that are not being reported. I'm sure there's also instances of protester "violence" that go unreported. We might be giving a false picture if we only highlight select events. BeŻet (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean the entire violence section? Or just the "protester violence" subsection?Wikiditm (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment If we have violence by police we should have violence by protesters. But we should only include incidents that RS described as "violence by protesters", not just incidents that occurred at the same time.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I second this. Love of Corey (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on the input above, I've reviewed the "protester violence" subsection to see what would be changed if we follow the rule to only include examples which are reliably established to be from protesters in at least 2 sources. Doing this, the section would shrink considerably. Everything would be deleted apart from the first example from the "against non-police" portion. Would other editors be happy with this?Wikiditm (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as wp:v makes it clear, its has to be stated or blue sky obvious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not just move the information to the "Criminal activity" section instead of mass deleting content and pretending none of it occurred? The current section now gives a false picture to a global audience that only one incident of violence by non-police occurred when that is very obviously not true. RopeTricks (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Change the first text line "The George Floyd protests are an ongoing series of protests and demonstrations against police brutality and racism in policing" to "The George Floyd protests are an ongoing series of protests, riots and demonstrations against police brutality and racism in policing." K5dvt (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The George Floyd protests is an ongoing series of protests, riots, and demonstrations against police brutality and racism in policing Captain Almighty Nutz ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} 05:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Request approved and updated. Captain Almighty Nutz ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} 05:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Captain Almighty Nutz: Please make sure you're not just implementing things without looking for, say, the extensive discussion on this very subject just above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

How to classify civilian violence against protesters?

In light of the recent incident with a driver shooting a protester, I think we need to cover more than violence from police and from protesters. In particular, there's no obvious classify vigilante violence, and issues with verifiability. I'd like to bring back my previous suggestion that we group violence based on the victims:

• Against protesters
• Against journalists
• Against other civilians
• Against police

I can't edit the article for this reorganization, but I think it would be easier to verify where each incident goes, and easier overall going forward. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is better to identify the perpetrators rather than the victims.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Too many sections will make this article even more lengthier than it should be. Love of Corey (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not asking for more sections. I'm just trying to find a way to include the relevant verifiable information. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Call for help, list of police violence

A source has cataloged 400+ incidents that could be included in List of police violence incidents during George Floyd Protests. To include, we need reliable sources and neutral prose. Assistance welcome. Feoffer (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Erik Salgado

I removed the paragraph on Erik Salgado's death, but someone added it back. I am now removing it again, and opening this talk page section to explain the removal. The article cited does not confirm that the car Salgado was driving was stolen during the looting, nor does it even speculate that Salgado was responsible for the looting. Even if the car was indeed stolen during the protests, that does not make Salgado's death part of the protests. There is no direct connection between the event of Salgado's death and the protests. userdude 05:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Add line "On June 8-9, Seattle police abandoned the east precinct on Capital Hill, where then the protesters formed the "Free Capital Hill" an Autonomous Zone of Capital Hill and the surrounding blocks

Sources: https://twitter.com/caseyworks/status/1270218977944322049?s=19

https://twitter.com/BrandiKruse/status/1270112263890857984?s=19

https://twitter.com/Omarisal/status/1270210938969313280?s=19 2601:401:503:4660:B06F:1E13:7BB3:6C49 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unacceptable sources. Please see reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Change
'Protester in Vancouver, Canada with "Please give me space. I am diabetic and more susceptible to COVID-19" written on their shirt'
to
'Protester in Vancouver, Canada, with "Please give me space. I am diabetic and more sus[c]eptible to COVID-19" written on their shirt' or
'Protester in Vancouver, Canada, with "Please give me space. I am diabetic and more suseptible [sic] to COVID-19" written on their shirt' or something similar.
The reasons for this edit request are 1. that it says "suseptible" and not "susceptible" on his or her shirt and 2. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas. 2003:F6:274C:B400:6CBF:884A:ABFE:E8 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done thank you Anon0098 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to reactivate the edit request, though. 1. The comma behind "Canada" is still missing. 2. I looked up the Wikipedia Manual of Style again, and to my surprise I found that insignificant spelling errors "should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Original_wording; I personally strongly disagree with this, however, I am certainly not in a position to do anything about it. I apologize.

So, an updated edit request:
Please change
"Protester in Vancouver, Canada with "Please give me space. I am diabetic and more suseptible to COVID-19"[sic] written on their shirt" to
"Protester in Vancouver, Canada, with "Please give me space. I am diabetic and more susceptible to COVID-19" written on their shirt".
Thank you. --2003:F6:2718:C700:D855:6505:B880:7BDF (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Gen. Colin Powell speaks out on Trump

On State of the Union General Colin Powell condemned President Trump for, “drifting away from the Constitution (...) America is getting wise to this and is not going to put up with it.”

State of the Union with Jake Tapper (Sunday talk show). Washington, D.C., United States: CNN Studios. June 7, 2020. {{cite AV media notes}}: Unknown parameter |people= ignored (help)

Please add this to reactions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bataromatic (talk • contribs)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Mother Jones: Videos Show Cops Slashing Car Tires at Protests in Minneapolis

Not sure where to include mention of this

https://www.motherjones.com/anti-racism-police-protest/2020/06/videos-show-cops-slashing-car-tires-at-protests-in-minneapolis/

John Cummings (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, police violence Idan (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings I think it would be most appropriate in George_Floyd_protests_in_Minnesota#Day_5:_Saturday,_May_30. userdude 04:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Protests still, or a revolution?

With the appearance of the Capital Hill Free Zone, very much mimicking the Paris Commune of 1871 both in spirit and practice, are these still protests or is this better classified as a revolution? Especially when taken together with all the other events of these past few days, and the fact it doesn't look like it's going to run out of steam soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveboy2000 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there open conflict (armed) between the "rebels" and the government? So far (as far as I can tell) there have been a few random shootings that may not even be linked the the demos.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please no original research. I am unaware of anyone comparing this to the Paris Commune. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, still protests. Love of Corey (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If it was a revolution the government

would cut off resources to the Capital Hill Free Zone, until declared it's declared a revolution it probably shouldn't be called one. Cole DiBiase (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

It has been provid by many sources that the police did not move the protesters back so President Trump could make his way to the church. Also the actions were taken after protesters threw frozen water bottles at the police. The police used smoke grenades NOT tear gas. They also found homemade weapons after the protesters left. All of this was stated by multiple people on scene as well as media sources. 172.58.45.163 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate your concern. However, all reports done on Wikipedia must be verified using secondary sources. Can you provide a link(s) supporting your claims? Anon0098 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ditto, we go with what RS say, and as far as I can tell they all support what we say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Fake news. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Daily incidence is decreasing not increasing since George's death

Preliminary studies indicate outdoor risk of transmission is at least an order of magnitude lower than indoors. In addition, sunlight has the potential to rapidly deactivate the virus in a few minutes both on surfaces and in aerosol form.

Although many suggest the demonstrations would lead to increased daily incidence, the reverse seems to be true when looking at data from counties which had large protests in the next few days after his death. If these trends continue it could support treating outdoor events differently, with a possible relaxation of restrictions. Tsardoz (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. userdude 21:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

change labeled to labelled under deaths on May 30th. Oscar Beechey-Newman (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is written in American English, because it is about an American subject. userdude 19:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Minneapolis PD 3rd Precinct Fire

Police arrested 23 year old Branden Michael Wolfe and charge him with "aiding and abetting arson" at the MPD 3rd Precinct on the night of May 28, 2020. [12] [13] [14] [15] When Branden Wolfe was arrested, he was wearing police gear he had stolen during the time he helped fuel the fire in the precinct.

"On June 3, 2020, St. Paul police officers responded to a home improvement store in St. Paul after receiving a complaint that an individual, later identified as WOLFE, wearing body armor and a law enforcement duty belt and carrying a baton was trying to get into the store. According to employees, WOLFE had been employed as a security guard at the store but was fired earlier that day after referring to social media posts about stealing items from the Third Precinct. Officers located WOLFE and took him into custody. At the time of the arrest, WOLFE was wearing multiple items stolen from the Third Precinct, including body armor, a police-issue duty belt with handcuffs, an earphone piece, baton, and knife. WOLFE’s name was handwritten in duct tape on the back of the body armor."

Should there be a subheading for this? BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be included in this article, but instead at George Floyd protests in Minnesota, where it currently is. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This article has a picture of the MPD 3rd Precinct fire and has a "Violence and controversies" subheading. So, other than the picture of the fire, why wouldn't we mention details here too? BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: I think most of the #Violence_and_controversies section is UNDUE and ought to be merged to the relevant articles on protests by city. This article should be about the essence of the protests with only brief description of sufficiently notable events (eg, the MPD 3rd Precinct burning, CNN crew's arrest, Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church) while articles on specific cities should cover individual events and incidents with a lower bar for notability. That said, I think the burning of the MPD 3rd Precinct is sufficiently important to include in this article, though we don't need too much detail about Branden Wolfe. A sentence like, "23-year-old Branden Michael Wolfe was arrested in connection to the arson" immediately following a (brief) description of MPD 3rd Precinct event. userdude 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Why, why is this even worth a mention, looters loot.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "looting" and capturing and burning a police precinct. The burning of the precinct has also been covered very extensively in non-local reliable sources. userdude 08:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not say we could not mention that, just this one person, or was he the only one responsible for it all?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Previous edit

Can someone take a look at the dynamic map in the Protests sections? One of the editors deleted one of the maps and significantly decreased the size of the other one. I don't know how to fix this. I know @Phoebe: was working on it for a while, if you happen to know how to restore itThanks Anon0098 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nvm I think I fixed it Anon0098 (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Anon0098 groovy. I actually didn't see this but I added the United States map back in the article last night. If you look at the source, you'll see the current maps are actually just screenshots (adding the actual dynamic map is so big that it crashes the article) but the link in the caption takes you to the current map. Let me know if it needs anything else! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 13:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Violence By Police June 1 edit needed

Don't worry, it's just normal gas.

- Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]}
04:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The police have stated they used normal gas not tear gas and that they engaged the protesters because water bottles were thrown. Considering this I would say that the current description is inaccurate or at the very least is one-sided in its relating of accounts. Bgrus22 (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? Anon0098 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What is "normal gas"?Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Tweets

I removed two tweets; preserving here by providing this link. The tweets are cited to themselves, undue, and unnecessary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm indifferent ambivalent/undecided with respect to the Surgeon General tweet, but I don't think the Trump tweet is undue or unnecessary, and it was cited to itself because that's how the {{tweet}} template works. It was the first response to the protests by the President, and widely reported on both for its insinuation of shooting Americans and its flagging by Twitter (see When_the_looting_starts,_the_shooting_starts#Donald_Trump,_2020 or GNews search results for some example sources). If we discuss Twitter's flagging (which we should at least mention), we should include the full language of the tweet itself so the reader may better understand why the tweet was interpreted as inciting violence. userdude 07:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

List of renamed buildings?

Is thee a list of buildings that have been renamed during the Protests? Like the buildings at the University of Liverpool that were named after Prime Minister William Gladstone, and a new name is now being chosen? https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/university-rename-student-halls-named-18387566 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.52 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests has a section for names - Featous (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Subtitle 4.5

Currently it is "Criminal activity" when a what'd likely be a more suitable and NPOV subtitle would read as "Violence against police" --88.112.2.37 (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well strictly it would have to be "Violence against police and former police", which is a bit of a mouthful.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how renaming it to "Violence against police" has anything to do with WP:NPOV – since we are talking about both police officers and civilians, I think the name is adequate. BeŻet (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Violence against police.

The article is missing a significant amount if information about the violence against police occuring during both the protests and riots, over four hundred police and national guardsmen have been injured, which seems worthy of mentioning. Cole DiBiase (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Cole DiBiase: If you have a reliable source that specifically states "over four hundred police and national guardsmen have been injured", that certainly seems worth mentioning to me. userdude 19:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The "violence by protesters" section used to be fairly large, but almost all of it had to be removed due to sourcing issues. If you have reliable sources for violence against police then definitely add it in.Wikiditm (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/961870816

@QuestFour: In this edit, you reverted the change to the partof parameter and the photomontage in the infobox with the rationale that this is still being discussed. The discussion relevant to the partof parameter has already been archived, with unanimous support for changing the text. (If your continuous reversions are to be interpreted as an opinion against the change, then it's a 4-1 decision to change the text.) The discussion relevant to the photomontage has received unanimous support for changing the images in the 42 hours since it's started. As such, I've reinstated the changes. userdude 21:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Widespread condemnation of Donald Trump’s response?

Is that really a necessary phrase when you have only opinion articles mostly from one source?? Perhaps add a more neutral tone by adding voices who have praised the president’s response. Wikipedia is often accused of bias enough as it is. Why add more fuel to the fire? 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:AD92:ED4C:DD8A:A4F2 (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That two sources were include does not mean that there aren't easily find-able widespread sources. Can you provide reliable sources that say the opposite? O3000 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

add Sheriff's Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller to the deaths section 2604:6000:1311:CD14:9423:3DBD:F63D:B3A3 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No relevance to this article is provided. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Federal troops deployed in protests?

https://theconversation.com/why-soldiers-might-disobey-the-presidents-orders-to-occupy-us-cities-140402 This caption claims that the military is wearing U.S. Army Special Forces and have Airborne patches and are deployed in DC protests. Are they the National Guard? Why would the NG be wearing Airborne patches? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

See George_Floyd_protests_in_Washington,_D.C.#June_3; personnel from many agencies were deployed to Washington, D.C. It seems that the military was deployed, although at least from this article it's unclear if they actually engaged with anyone or stayed on standby. userdude 05:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

But the problem is the Insurrection Act is never invoked and no credible sources report that at least some federal troops were being deployed. They have to be the National Guard somehow, but it's really hard to make out with these patches. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

From https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/06/03/us/politics/ap-us-america-protests-troops-depart.html: The active-duty troops have been available, but not used in response to the protests. If I had to guess, either the individuals wearing the patches are part of some federal agency (not necessarily National Guard) or they are military personnel not actually engaged with protesters, but just standing nearby. userdude 05:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Insurrection Act has different application in DC. Since it is not a state, there is a more complicated relationship with federal forces (as police, national guard, or otherwise). Put differently, since it is not a state, DC is reliant on federal personnel. Msherby (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Should you add sheriff's Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller to the death toll?

Damon Gutzwiller was shot and killed by US air force sgt Carrillo while he tried to arrest him. Sgt Carrillo is linked to the killing of the oakland federal protective service officer and was targeting police officers. Rrmolten (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rrmolten: Here is a reliable source about the shooting, saying An FBI official said investigators were still looking at whether the slaying of 38-year-old Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller on Saturday was connected to the May 29 killing of a federal security officer standing watch at a federal courthouse in Oakland as protests took place blocks away. I'm against including this death, I think it's too many steps disconnected from the actual protests to belong on this article. 2020 shooting of Oakland police officers would be a more appropriate article for information about Gutzwiller's death. userdude 05:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If the fbi finds a clear link in the killing would you be in favor of adding him and that link redirects to the george floyd protest Paige Rrmolten (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rrmolten: I think it would probably be more appropriate to expand the scope of 2020 shooting of Oakland police officers to also include Gutzwiller's death, and link to that article in this article. userdude 08:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Under the violence and controversies section - deaths: In North Riverside, IL, Myqwon Blanchard, 22, of Chicago was killed during the looting of the North Riverside Mall. The gunman, with both hands gripping a weapon, fired multiple times at close range into the fallen man’s body. The gunman turned, ran and got into a waiting car that then drives off. Blanchard was shot during Sunday's chaos as people smashed windows and looted the mall and nearby business, police said. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-looting-north-riverside-mall-murder-video-20200602-khxtoe6slrbybe3gybfuwz6kum-story.html 98.227.228.199 (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing any clear link between this and the demos.Slatersteven (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

He was killed during and within vicinity of the looting relating to George Floyd though. If George Floyd hadn't died, none of the looting would have happened and Blanchard would have still have been alive. Deaths can be both direct and indirect as a result of the protests/unrest within the vicinity of such things. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "Sunday’s looting" referred to by the article is this. It seems to me to be connected to the George Floyd protests; from the source: Pritzker said he’s concerned other politicians will use the looting in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois to delegitimize the “pain and anguish and sorrow” of actual, peaceful protesters, who have been mourning the killing of George Floyd. userdude 07:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Was this just related to the looting, or was it a homicide taking advantage of the chaos? A waiting car? deisenbe (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune says during Sunday’s looting. I'm in favor of including this but there's no rush; we can wait until more details are revealed. userdude 10:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You mean no one in America was ever shot before this? Yes, they were, so saying he would not have been shot is an assumption as we do not know by whom or why.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There are 330 million people in this country, and there are many cities that are as peaceful as anywhere in the world. When there's unrest/looting, then violence increases, and criminals began to take advantage of the situation by wounding/killing others. He was shot while the looting was taking place at the mall. Next, you're gonna tell me that most of the L.A. victims in 1992 have nothing to do with the riots and thereby should not be included when most of them are within the vicinity of the unrest/curfew area. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Change "black" to "Black" when referring to race/identity. 72.255.94.126 (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. That does not conform to Wikipedia's manual of style. El_C 02:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

why in the world would they do that, that is different from like every website, book, article ever. and it would require like an entire overhaul of the whole wiki if done, or else this article would be an outlier Kika.txt (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be a separation between the protests and riots

The riots need a separate article. The article was bout the riots and now it called the ptrotests which reduces the importance of the riots. We need a separate article on the riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by cbinetti (talk • contribs)

It has always been called protests as far as I know.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Either split the article into one of riots and protests or let us change the title to the George Floyd protests and riots; this title is biased and in accurate. Either let us split o rename it to accurately reflect that riots are core component of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by cbinetti (talk • contribs)

Citation needed on the riots. Otherwise you’re trying to push a racist narrative--BaseFree (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

easy with the accusations. @Cbinetti: consensus was established about a week ago to rename this "George Floyd protests" from "Twin-Cities riots" (or something close to that). As userdude cites in the archived talk page, many RSs describe the protests as "devolving into riots," meaning they are closely related. It is beneficial to have one article talking about both of them. This is the main page, but the distinction is broke down in depth in subsequent linked pages, such as the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–St. Paul page. Anon0098 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What consensus? That consensus did not involve the Italian American monumentds getting destroyed. Also, there are riots going. It is not racist to not cite it. Calling this movement just protests erases the ugliness of the riots that deprive Italian Americans of their civil rights. Also, calling this movement all protests or all riots is unfair. Either change the name to accurate or divide the article into two. There needs to be a recognition of the riots that have caused chaos throughout much of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs)

That’s a bit of a stretch. Over 100 cities and counties and a bunch of states have changed the name of Columbus Day, and the statue that was destroyed was probably going to be removed anyhow. There is no right to have a statue. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you really want to change the name, then form a requested move heading and gain consensus. Just a heads up, people are pretty opposed to calling any of this a riot in the first place Anon0098 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Also claiming Italian Americans are having their rights taken away because of statues while Black people continue to be murdered by police shows the argument is not in good faith Binetti. You have yet to prove that the people protesting are the ones rioting as well--BaseFree (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

First paragraph contains double 'the' in "These followed the the killing of"

I suggest to change it to "These followed the killing of" Mthq (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Details about the Sarah Grossman Bio, Education and Death Cause Sammarabbas90 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Economic impacts

Suggested update: The economic impacts section currently states that the protests resulted in over $50 million in damages in Minneapolis. More recent estimates state the damage to be over $500 million.

References

Done, thank you Anon0098 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal: Reactions

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.

---

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

I think international reactions are definitely a split. However, "domestic reactions" (as currently written) are not really reactions, but either actions or words by actual participants of the events. For example, On June 1 he [Donald Trump] spoke from the Rose Garden, where he proclaimed "I am your president of law and order" and said he was "dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers" to deal with rioting in Washington, D.C. That belongs to this page, but possibly should be moved to a different section. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Concur with My very best wishes. Domestic reactions are not just a product of the protests, but also affect the protests. They should remain in the main article. userdude 18:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Split I need a better reason than a page size, which still falls within the limits, to support a split. Reactions, international or otherwise, are an integral part of this protest and affect the movement. Also, Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this falls into the category of "Length alone does not justify division". DTM9025 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed they are, and that is why it deserves a dedicated article to talk about it. RBolton123 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Support split - As I said above, the reactions to this protest are as important to understanding the topic as the protests themselves, and it deserves its own page. RBolton123 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sort of confused by this reasoning as if they are important to understand the protests, shouldn't they be in the protest article? DTM9025 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support split - Seems reasonable. Love of Corey (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support split as per all the arguments above. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support split or trim for the same reasons Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani was created 6 months ago. Reaction sections for big events are always bloated since everyone has something to say, so just give it its own page, or, alternatively, trim the section way down to only relevant and actually notable reactions. RopeTricks (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support trim and split - The article is way too long. As usual, I think "reactions" sections are unencyclopedic and should be removed; second choice, though, is to split. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I do not believe that there was consensus yet, especially in the question of the fact that the reactions are fundamentally a product and a part of the protests, which I believe means that it should remain in the article and would like an answer about why that fact would mean it should be in a different article as one of the posters was mentioning. As such, I have reverted the split for now but would love to understand RBolton123 explanation on his points. DTM9025 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You are the only person of eight who opposes and it was two days since the last response. Shall we give it another two days for the surge of opposes that you are expecting? - Featous (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are three people opposing the split? userdude and My very best wishes including me? DTM9025 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

DTM9025, it's now been another week. Are we good to go ahead and split? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• Support split Yeah, per the reasons stated by others, this is way too long of a page, and might I add that it even loads much slower comparatively. As a side note, perhaps other sections may need splits as well? I can also see the section about the covid concerns needing a split, to create an article that can go alongside all the other covid related articles. boldblazer (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose split – Reactions to the protests are important context, I think the separate section is enough and splitting the article would make it more difficult to find relevant information. The page isn't too long and the table of contents is there for a reason. SpockFan02 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support international split per My very best wishes Anon0098 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)\
• Support split Yes, support the split. Also, I think "Reactions" could be expanded to include reactions from various corporations, organizations etc thus the "Reactions" page has considerable room to grow -- which makes it even more necessary to have it on a separate page. EnneDee (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support split per Reactions to Occupy Wall Street and Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Tvc 15 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose split – Reactions are a core part to the page and are necessary for its interpretation. Removing it to another page cripples this page in its entirety, nor is the reactions strong enough to fill its own page. Violence and controversies has more strength as an independent page, and I'd oppose the removal of that section as well. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• A reactions section should go to Wikiquote. We do this literally every time that a major breaking news story happens, and people want to insert everything they find online into an article. GMG^talk 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support split - I believe it is important to keep reactions like Donald Trump's and other important political officials on this page because of their large impact on the protests. But I do think reactions from celebrities and corporations should be separated. Although many of them did supportive things like join protests and donate, they did not have a massive impact on protests in terms of largely changing their outcome. I believe celebs and corporation's reactions should be separated, but largely important politicians, governments, and organization's reactions should stay since many protests were targeted at them to make change, and how they reacted and the laws they passed as a result of this have had a massive impact on their countries and the goals of these protests. Uelly (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Split - Could we not split articles based on protests and riots? There have been protests all over the globe, but the attention right now is on protesting the death of George Floyd and police brutality and the actions of rioting and looting. Unless the article just needs to be renamed George Floyd Protests and Riots. I think the goals and actions of each party differ greatly and deserve their own pages and would split the information nicely. i.e leave the event of the death of George Floyd, the protest against police brutality, and the reaction from government and civil leaders. Put the destruction of property, statues, fires, violent clashes between police and rioters, etc. on another page. Just a thought. You could also reference external protests taking place in a section and have separate pages for those as well since they are protesting against police violence or other issues, but probably have more to do with their local experience and history within their own country or area. New to Wikipedia conversations so if this is not the correct way to reply to a talk section please let me know =P (Doomsdaysquid (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC))

• Support split Already too long. Bvatsal61 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support split Way to long. :) OptXSolo (talk) on 10:47 EST, 6/25/2020 —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support split It`s relevant..it`s going to happen anyway if it hasn`t already 2600:1702:2340:9470:1CA:85A1:55D6:DE6A (talk) 16:11, 27 June 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.

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

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

I think this sounds like a reasonable suggestion, there is a lot to talk about when it comes to violence, especially police violence, surrounding the protests. BeŻet (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this main article is about protests/unrest in general and yet all of the violence displayed here is from the U.S. That's why a separate article should be proposed in order to fix this problem that applies both inside and outside the U.S. equally and to alleviate the problem this main article is currently having. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

XXzoonamiXX, are you proposing to WP:SPINOFF the Violence and controversies section into a separate article, and if so, is it OK with you if we make that "official"? (With a split proposal notification template on the article.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm proposing, yes. Violence and controversies should have its own separate article in order to reduce the main article being too long to navigate, and that way, it can include violence both inside and outside the U.S. However, I won't get involved in creating that separate one, so it's up to anyone here to do it if they wish. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to this split being done boldly? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • By all means, go for it. No one's gonna stop you and if you want to do it, do it now rather than wait for others. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• Support split - I support this size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I will probably take a crack at this in the next day or so. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

   Done The "Violence and controversies" section has been copied to Violence during the George Floyd protests (with a few minor changes); the lead of that article and the summary of this article are constructed from the opening paragraphs of the various subsections. The section left behind here, and the sub-article, could still use further improvement/condensing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Yes I agree a global perspective would be best. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you get at least started on that? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Voice actor recasting

Should there be mention in the impact and effects section about the various voice roles being recast (The Simpsons, Family Guy, Central Park, Big Mouth, surely more to follow), in light of these protests and higher awareness of BLM?--Pokelova (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No as I am not sure they are protests.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

These are currently being captured at List of name changes due to the George Floyd protests#Personnel, though there is discussion at Talk:List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests#Further splitting? on the structure of these subtopics. - Featous (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

These are now mentioned in this article in the new section "Media takedowns, rewrites, and recasting". -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Opening a Trump/antifa can of worms

The current mentions of antifa in the article are:

1. Arkansas senator Tom Cotton also pushed for the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division to be deployed to quell the unrest, calling protesters "Antifa terrorists."
2. False stories about "Antifa buses" caused panic in rural counties throughout the country, despite there being no evidence they exist
3. He also shared a post by President Trump regarding the U.S. designating Antifa as a terrorist organization (he being Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro)
4. His Second Deputy Prime Minister, Pablo Iglesias, posted a tweet with the word "ANTIFA" in response to Trump's intentions to declare Antifa a terrorist organization
5. Cavusoglu also endorsed Trump's announcement that he would designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization

It strike me as somewhat strange that uses #3, #4 and #5 all relate to comments by Trump that don't actually appear in the article. So should Trump's comments be included, or should the reactions relating to them be deleted? Or neither as well I suppose? FDW777 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a problem. The reactions should be deleted. The whole Trump-designating-antifa-a-terrorist-org thing belongs in articles about Trump and Antifa, but not here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussions about antifa are directly related to the unrest, they deserve mention in this page Anon0098 (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think they should be mentioned as well. Gandydancer (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

So do I 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Alt text in photo montage

The photos in the montage all need alts, they're currently using their filenames, but I don't know how to insert them in a photo montage. I'm willing to do the work if someone will do the first one so I can see how it's done. Or go read up on how, if someone can point me in the right direction. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Here you go. It's documented, as you might expect, at {{photomontage}}. —Cryptic 01:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic, oh, duh. I was using Vis Ed like a dummy. :) —valereee (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Using Forbes magazine in the lead

The lead currently states:

The economic impact of the protests has exacerbated the 2020 coronavirus recession by sharply curtailing consumer confidence, straining local businesses, and overwhelming public infrastructure with large-scale property damage.

We really cannot state this information as factual. It is the opinion of several Forbes reporters of no great fame that I'm aware of. They can speak for Forbes but they can't speak for Wikipedia. I'm removing it from the lead and I'd suggest that editors take a look at they way it is being used in the body as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on including the House bill for Statehood of Washington D.C. - relevance ?

The section currently states -

Statehood for the District of Columbia

In response to the protests, the Democrat-controlled United States House of Representatives passed a bill 232-180 to statehood to most of the District of Columbia.[203] The change is opposed by President Trump and most Republicans, and was not expected to pass the Senate.[203] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the situation of taxation without representation in Congress a "grave injustice"; 46% of the population is African-American.[204]

I question how this is relevant to the subject.

I also observe that the bill by the Senate to address police behavior is not listed at all. One could easily argue that the George Floyd death was the result of illegal police actions, so a any bill if it were related to correcting or highlighting better/correct police actions would be relevant. I am not proposing it be added, but use it only to illustrate how a relevant action is not listed, where the issue of statehood for Washington D.C. is inserted ?

Htebault (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the Washington D.C. bill should be included. The other legislation you mention and the D.C. bill could be included in a section termed "Legislation" perhaps? Gandydancer (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't seem relevant to me, and that language seems loaded to begin with. Anon0098 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove, per WP:SYN. There is nothing in the cited sources that says the House was responding to the protests with this action. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Name

I don't think that this article should be called George Floyd Protests. The vast majority of protesters claim that they are protesting in support of Black Lives Matter. Additionally, several protesters have claimed that they are also protesting the 2020 deaths of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor, which occurred before George Floyd's death. I think that the best title for this article would be 2020 Black Lives Matter Protests. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are way off..you may call it what you want but the rest of us refer to it as the George Floyd Protests as it has been precipitated by his murder 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I can live with either, yes (technically) these protests are about a wide range of issues (and not just BLM, thought it is the major factor). But the spark was the killing of Floyd. So either name can be seen as accurate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Plus there are multiple other BLM-related protests going back to 2014. We'd have to make this 2020 Black Lives Matter protests or something, and then do we need to move Ferguson protests etc.? And what happens if these stop, but (god forbid) something else sparks renewed protests in November. I'm not sure BLM is the only thing going on here, but for sure this series of protests was directly sparked by Floyd's death. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should move away from "protests" as the story has gotten bigger than that. The NASCAR action, Mississippi flag, and statues removed by governments don't fall under the heading of "protests." Something like "Aftermath of" or "Reactions to the killing of George Floyd" GreatCaesarsGhost 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this started from Floyd, and continues to be about the protests. George Floyd protests works fine, as it always has since it moved out of Minneapolis. Anon0098 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2020

Correct form in: "An educator form the University of Washington said" to from. 2601:3C1:102:D20:40C0:BEB9:66D7:8D80 (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Are the protests over? The article is unclear

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

• Support - I agree there are evidences that they are, no new reports of street protests, most protests never announce that "the protests are now officially over", they are considered over as people stop going out to the streets to protest, and there havent been any new source or mention of George Floyd or any ongoing new protests, marches or violence. There will never be decleartion of an end to the protest, it is not a war or anything officilal, they are over when people literally stops protesting. Just like people will argue no WP:RS that the protests have ended, we can counter argue no WP:RS that the protests are ongoing. Protests are not offical wars that have declarations, like the 1992 Los Angeles riots protests ends when situation calms down and no more street protests (marches, violence, etc). Never the less a deceleration of the end of the protests was made on June 21: [16], I haqd even included it: [17] and no more protests on George Floyd have been reported since then. I support that protests are over, and the timeline between May 26 to June 21. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

When was the last demo reported?Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Last demo was reported on June 21 as per WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That is one demo ending has (for example) the free zone been reoccupied?Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Also this [18] pretty much says that there were still protest on Tuesday.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/black-lives-matter-protests-06-23-2020/index.html there's still plenty of protesting going on, media coverage is dropping off however. There's a rally scheduled in my tiny town in southeastern CT for Saturday. I'm fairly certain we will be seeing protests for weeks yet, but there were definately some yesterday. (edit)I didn't intend for any specific changes of the article, just wanted to caution against jumping the gun on declaring the protests over. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the protests are not at all over, at least not the events in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. Some type of protest gathering occurs each day, but the most newsworthy and notable events tend to happen over the weekends. That being said, peaceful protests with thousands of participants that feature boring stuff like speeches and chants and card board signs tend not to get as much media coverage and do not become the source of Wiki edit wars as when buildings are set on fire. What you might describe as rioting behavior occurred in Minneapolis-Saint Paul largely between May 28 and May 30, so I guess you say the rioting is over, but protests began May 26 and continue to today. VikingB (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

not even close..probably go one indefinitely 2600:1702:2340:9470:75CF:F0D7:D27B:FDC9 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Today (Friday) in New York City, there were 14 separate prayer vigils/marches/BLM Pride dance parties/outdoor movie viewings of 13th (film)/sit-ins/children's story hours, according to the IG account that has become the de facto announcement board for the city. News media largely moved on once they couldn't get new images of fires and tear gas. Just in NYC, thousands of people this weekend will participate in dozens of events that count as a "protests." If you're interested in places where protests just happened for the first time, the history of Template:George Floyd protests map is probably your best bet. So, no - the protests aren't over. - Featous (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Monday, 29 June 2020 marked the 33rd straight day of anti-racism protests in Portland. The chanting heard are: 'no KKK, no fascist USA'.

• https://twitter.com/PDocumentarians
• https://www.koin.com/news/protests/day-30-protests-outside-the-justice-center-in-portland

Policere used riot control munitions to clear out the demonstrations, but it's unclear what type of munitions were used. Loud booms and smoke were reported by witnesses, KOIN reported. Twitter account Portland Independent Documentarians shared a reported photo of the munition used: https://twitter.com/PDocumentarians/status/1277200832102936576

So, no - the protests aren't over.--217.234.74.78 (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

An updated timeline would still help tremendously.Doyna Yar (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Protests are not over. I updated lede & the section under united states protests has an updated timeline; are there other places you are thinking of? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Facebook information deleted should be returned to article

With the edit summary: (To avoid an edit war I'm conceding the Trump quote since that is relevant. But not every barely-pertinent runoff effect deserves mention here) the following information was removed:

Civil rights groups including the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, and Color of Change organized the campaign "Stop Hate for Profit", urging companies to stop advertising on Facebook during June 2020, to pressure the social network to do more to block hate speech on its platform. As of June 29, 246 brands were listed as confirmed participants, including Verizon, Eddie Bauer, The North Face, Patagonia, REI, Honda, and the Mozilla Foundation. Coca-Cola, Ford, and Starbucks also announced participation. Unilever announced it would suspend ads on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for the remainder of 2020. Facebook announced policy changes with regard to hate speech and misinformation on June 26, which organizers dismissed as insufficient.

This is so obviously connected to the George Floyd protests that I hardly even know how to defend it. This all started with Trump's quote and Facebook's resistance to condemn it and that is well-documented. However since my personal opinion means less than what RS says, here is a quote from The Guardian.

References

"The swathe of announcements marked the first concessions from Facebook towards the aims of a coalition, Stop Hate for Profit, that was formed in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in May."[19] Gandydancer (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Again, while your sources are accurate, this is WP:UNDUE. Not every case that is indirectly a result of the protests deserves mention. This is a separate issue. Anon0098 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support George Floyd has only been dead for FIVE WEEKS. More progress has been made on race relations in the US in one month than the 40 years preceding. There are no "separate" issues; everything stems from Floyd. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

[Redacted] --217.234.71.55 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Where to note damages and costs ?

What section would be best to note the damages and costs for protests ?

• Minnesota $500 million - Gov. Tim Walz has asked President Trump for a federal disaster declaration in his state due to “extensive fire damage” and other destruction in the unrest that followed George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis police custody on Memorial Day.

• Ironically paid police more -- LA had over $40 million in police overtime, Houston over $21 million,

• New York City -- vandalism though mostly spray painitng ...

So where ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, there's an article, Cleanup after George Floyd protests (though frankly I wonder if that should be merged here). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich I would think it should be merged, it’s so small and so connected. But what section here would it go to, or should it be a new one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, my preference in these situations is generally to distribute the information rather than concentrate it in a single section. Meaning, instead of a "costs" section, I'd include the cost of Minnesota in the section discussing Minnesota, and the cost of NYC in the section about NYC. (I feel the same way about "reactions" sections for example.) But I know there are other editors who would say put it in a "costs" subsection. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you want to try a bold merge of that article and merge however you think is best, you'll have my thanks. You might be reverted by someone, but you'll still have my thanks :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not merge them. They should be prominently linked. At this time the George Floyd protests article does not even contain a link to the Cleanup after George Floyd protests article. These two articles are flip sides of the same coin; they are as different as black and white though obviously related. I don't think they should be merged. The relationship between these two articles calls for prominent linkage. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Levivich here for once. There is so little new information on that page that I really do not think it constitutes a split in the first place. Anon0098 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can have a cost section unless sources write about the overall costs of damage, police, etc. Otherwise it should be mentioned when referring to individual cities, if it has widespread coverage. In any case we have no reliable sources for the actual cost of damages in Minneapolis. TFD (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Damages are covered in George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. See the economic section. Walz requesting aid not covered yet. VikingB (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Fake BLM posters

There should be something about how 4chan trolls are making and distributing fake Black Lives Matter posters containing offensive content in order to smear the movement, and how Tomi Lahren initially tweeted out such a poster as fact before apologizing later. [20][21]97.116.88.75 (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

First source is not RS, second violates "fringe material" exclusion on WP:RSPSOURCES imo Anon0098 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to skip fringe items, but it might be mentioned as a small part of overall signage - that is, it would have to be proportionate part of all signage coverage, and much more coverage exists about advertising and graphitti ... spray=painting many statues, and monuments and just generally tagging every wall. I think the signage might be considered separate from the violence or other massive cleanup of looting and broken windows, (e.g. Charleston, New York, ...), overturned & burnt cars, a number (alleged 11) of police killed, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Causes of the protests

In an attempt to avoid an edit war I am asking why it is controversial that the "Inequality and racism" bullet point under Causes in the info box keeps getting removed and was changed to "alleged" by Anon0098 and others in the past. Clearly this is not fully a police centered movement with messages of "Black Lives Matter", statues being removed, and brands and corporations co-opting these messages. Although I was not the person that originally added it, I would argue that there are enough WP:RS out there to justify it, which I have done several times only to hear that the sources are inadequate. Well, the article content essentially verifies the claim, so it should be allowed to stand even with that. Outside opinions are welcomed. Buffaboy ^talk 15:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, "Caused by" is distinctly different from "Protesting for." I added alleged because the cause, being the death of george floyd as the page title suggests, has yet to be proven as racially motivated in court. Anon0098 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I think the Killing of George Floyd was the result of racism, that is not the claim here. The claim here is that racism is a cause of the subsequent protests. Banak (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Caused by insinuates the start of the protests, which was ultimately the death of george floyd. As a more recent and long term example, the COVID-19 pandemic does not list “lack of wearing masks” as a source of the virus, as that is an ongoing issue, not the cause of it Anon0098 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

They're protesting because this person was killed, Police brutality, racism and a Lack of police accountability (amongst other reasons), which they see this as being part of a pattern of. Therefore, those are also causes. The protests have been widely described as ant-police brutuality protests and anti-racism protests. Clearly the thing they're protesting must be a cause. Banak (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it have gone way beyond that now. But yes that was the genesis.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer:

People are obviously insulted by this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Intro paragraph: United States protests

Tne first paragraph of the section, "United States protests", contains outdated and incorrect context about when protests emerged in Minneapolis. Better source material is available. Below is explanation of what would benefit from improvement.

"The day following Floyd's death, protests began in Minneapolis. In perceived response to both the police commissioner and police union leaders not holding Chauvin accountable for the murder of George Floyd, protesters and police began to clash on the streets.[62]"

The two sentences in the article imply a motive for the protesters and suggests it immediatley become confrontational or violent. The source doesn't have a motive and protests were peaceful initially.

"The unrest later escalated on May 27 as riots and looting began to take place, and on May 28 the third precinct police station in Minneapolis was burned down.[63]"

A lot happened over that time that might be worth a few more sentences, as images and media coverage of the unrest in Minneapolis was a catalyst for protests elsewhere.

"At this time, local officials and the United States Attorney's office had not yet arrested Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd, although Trump had ordered an expedited FBI probe into the matter;[64] jointly they sought a plea agreement to federal and state charges that fell apart on May 28 without public knowledge.[65] "

The FBI announced an investigation of the incident on Tuesday, May 26. Why is the Trump statement on Wednesday, May 27 relevant to this paragraph here? It seems more like political conjecture, which the source even alludes to, than a description of events for a reader to understand. In fact, even as indicated in the source, the protesters wanted an independent investigation. Trump ordering an expedited probe here is less relevant than other developments that actually happened, such as the police firing the officers with the police union objecting and backing the officers.

VikingB (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed to the first one, I don't see any of the RSs ascribe lack of accountability as a primary motive. I added the element of the FBI investigation as a reference for the alleged lack of perceived accountability, because simply saying there was no arrest does not correctly categorize the attention it was receiving from officials. I'd gladly help with a rewrite but I think it's important to note public knowledge at the time, which includes announced action — whether political or not — from the federal government. Anon0098 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone needs to add incidents from outside the U.S. when it comes to violence over the George Floyd death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests Considering the general nature of the title, I think violence from overseas needs to be added as well. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Independent: I was arrested, jailed and assaulted by a guard. My ‘crime’? Being a journalist in Trump’s America

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/journalist-arrest-seattle-chaz-protest-police-prison-black-lives-matter-a9606846.html

This is interesting, not sure where to use it though

John Cummings (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure a single op-ed has a place here Anon0098 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

The paragraph about Mahatma Gandhi's statues being vandalised must note that the statue in Washington DC is right in front of the Indian Embassy (it is relevant and mentioned in the article of the statue). I could do this myself, but I have used the wikibreak enforcer on my account. 45.251.33.227 (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done —valereee (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone add the link to the statue in Washington DC? It was removed by Valereee thought it was relevant. Besides that there are no issues. 45.251.33.179 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Harsh (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Inequality/racial inequality

In the infobox, we have a link to racial inequality, that now simply uses the word inequality as the result of minor edits that were not intended to change meaning. I believe this is either unclear or changes the meaning. When I hear inequality, or when I search for it on the internet, I get sources on household income inequality and stuff like the Gini coefficient. Indeed, just looking at the text of the link, inequality is a redirect which could feasibly mean most of the 10 non-mathmatical things at the redirect. Banak (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Its just a link, if the user clicks on it they will know what we mean.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nearly certain people understand the protesters are not protesting in favor of the 1934 mathematics book by Hardy, Littlewood, and Pólya. Inequality suffices fine, racial inequality is redundant. Anon0098 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Users should not have to click links or hover them to understand the content, it should be in the article in words. My understanding of WP:PLA as expanded on in MOS:PIPE and MOS:EASTEREGG is that you should not be suprised by a link, and should therefore know where it's going without having to hover. This was not the case for me here.

As I said above, I believe it could be understdood as most of the 10 non-mathmatical things at inequality. In particular, I would generally think of Economic inequality when given the word inequality. I googled the term and top was the OECD [22], and second was Social inequality on wikpedia (which does have Racial and ethnic inequality as 4.2, but this is not the main thrust of that article). Banak (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You know I'm biased regardless but I really do think specifying racial inequality is superfluous. Slatersteven and QuestFour seem to agree Anon0098 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I said nothing about bias (though, perhaps this may be a linguistic/cultural difference in what a word means). I said that your strawman of what I was saying, which by referring to a 1934 mathematics book, was explictly mentioned as a thing I didn't think it'd be confused with. Slatersteven's comment actually said at they should click it if it's unclear, not that it's clear. They may think it's clear or that it's not, but that's what they said.

I am from the UK and here, even in the context of news reports on rioting over the Shooting of Mark Duggan, when inequality is mentioned, it's taken to mean income inequality, such as in this report Banak (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:COVID19 GS editnotice

I saw that this page is largely relating to COVID-19. I suggets that someone could add the template and make an edit notice. 139.192.206.157 (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Descended"

Petition to change the word "descended" in the first sentence of paragraph 3 to "escalated". "Descended" is almost certainly a value judgement, whereas "escalated" lets people read what they want into it. 96.19.200.76 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree..descend implies a negative context beyond movement as in he descended into hell..escalate is neutral as is deescalate or decrease...to ascend is not neutral as it implies a positive context as well as motion as is he ascended into heaven 2600:1702:2340:9470:98B2:7C4:6918:104B (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done "Escalated" sounds more neutral than "descended" to me as well, and in any case that is what is used in one of the cited sources. Lester Mobley (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Covid spread

New article about this here in the National Review. MonsieurD (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer a reference that doesn't attribute the whole thing to according to a Fox News report in the first paragraph. FDW777 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

NYT, USA Today, Chicago Tribune say otherwise. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

We might be able to say "according to...but... have contested this".Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

DC Statehood - Requires a Constitutional Convention

This article mentions statehood, but naively omits the simple fact that the constitution needs to be amended for this to be. The constitution sets the limits on formation of new states, and specifically mentions the District of Columbia - as a second hurdle. So, for example, to make Puerto Rico a state, would be simpler - only the first hurdle would apply. The section in this article on DC statehood omits an important point. In order for DC statehood, both houses of congress need to approve it with a supermajority, the constitution has to be amended, therefore the states must then ratify the amendment so that it may take effect. Even if the amendment passes both houses, the states can nullify the amendment - it happened before in 1985. This topic is beyond the scope of a page devoted towards 'George Floyd Protests' but this topic is still, in the page. It is likely that even if this passes the senate, it will not survive the ratification process, through the fifty states (38 states are the minimum needed to avoid nullification).

Wikipedia already has a page devoted to this, so perhaps the existing wikilink is enough: Statehood_movement_in_the_District_of_Columbia. A sentence directing readers such as "see full article at Statehood movement in the District of Columbia" may be prudent.

Several references here:

• https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/21/opinion/constitution-says-no-dc-statehood/
• https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/dc-statehood-not-without-constitutional-amendment
• Constitution of the United States (sections relevant to D.C. statehood)

Discuss. This is Wikipedia, please feel free to edit. Thanks for your participation. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

the text "statehood to most of the District of Columbia" in that section appears to already link to the article to which you are referring. were you looking to add a hatnote in addition to that? dying (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the George Floyd Protest ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:5C22:6D5F:354F:3C2A (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't there any mention of the transcript?

"Floyd, who was still handcuffed, went to the ground face down. Officer Kueng held Floyd's back and Lane held his legs. Chauvin placed his left knee in the area of Floyd's head and neck. A Facebook Live livestream recorded by a bystander showed Officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck.[43][44] Floyd repeatedly tells Chauvin "Please" and "I can't breathe," while a bystander is heard telling the police officer, "You got him down. Let him breathe."[45] After some time, a bystander points out that Floyd was bleeding from his nose while another bystander tells the police that Floyd is "not even resisting arrest right now," to which the police tell the bystanders that Floyd was "talking, he's fine."

The transcript of the entire incident: https://dam.tmz.com/document/56/o/2020/07/08/56b415e8bd24401ba7b70bac1be8a8f6.pdf According to the transcript and multiple cam shots of the incident I think its misleading to not mention how Floyd was claustrophobic and asked the officers to be put onto the ground because he didn't want to be put into the police car. Also not mentioning the drugs dropped in the cam shots as well as the officers noticing him foaming at the mouth and him being in a car prior to getting questioned and arrested. Its also mentioned by floyd before ever being placed on the ground per his request he couldn't breath. I think it'd also be less biased to have the title be renamed George Floyd protests/riots or something to that effect. Given the emotionally charged outcry from the entire incident I think it'd be best if there is a clear unbiased recounting of the events that took place being sure not to leave out very important context. It might be better to just have a link or the entire pdf so that people can read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FutECH RD (talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Victim blaming.... FDW777 (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point, attacks on protesters should be mentioned in the lead.

And I don't mean the police.

I've made this easy with some NPOV citations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/us/bloomington-car-attack-protesters.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/21/880963592/vehicle-attacks-rise-as-extremists-target-protesters

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/08/vehicle-ramming-attacks-66-us-since-may-27/5397700002/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7kp4ja/people-keep-attacking-black-lives-matter-protesters-with-their-cars

And suggest:

While the majority of protests have been peaceful,[15] demonstrations in some cities escalated into riots, looting,[16][17] street skirmishes with police, and vehicle ramming attacks by extremists[x][y][z]

Or something along those lines.

There are also at least two instances of shooting (one in Arizona yesterday), but perhaps not enough to mention in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.99.105 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

60th day in a row

Protesters took to the streets in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, New York, Los Angeles, Louisville, Omaha, Richmond, Aurora, and Austin, where a protester named Garrett Foster was shot dead. (Waiting for information it appears the "protestor" was armed with an AK-47 style rifle and pointed/fired 5 shots at a citizen in a car.) (Source: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/27/trump_federal_agents_seattle_portland) --93.211.215.18 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? Even your source does not mention that Mr. Foster fired any shots, or mention the AK-47. This source https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53548415 does mention the AK-47, as does numerous others. Cant find the mention of his firing any shots. Rklahn (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I went through the sequence of Talk page edits, and 93.211.215.18 did not make the "(Waiting for information it appears the "protestor" was armed with an AK-47 style rifle and pointed/fired 5 shots at a citizen in a car.)" statement, FoulFix did. Im not sure exactly what Wikipedia policy is on this, but to this reader, it's hella confusing to edit someone else's Talk post. Rklahn (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"President Trump" or simply "Trump"

This article alternates between using "President Trump" and simply "Trump" to refer to the President. I think we should have consistency. I think it's supposed to be "President Trump", but style guides are all over the map on this, and I cant find a reference to this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I think in this article we should avoid controversy, and err on the side of formality. Im hesitant to simply edit on this, as it may be a point of needing consensus. Others may feel differently, and to them, I say, edit away. Rklahn (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I would opt for just Trump. It is consistent with how we treat other world leaders.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Simply "Trump" is sufficient. No need to keep repeating his title. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

agree "Trump" is enough. Fred (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Clearly the consensus is counter to my statement. Let's let it stand. Rklahn (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Connecting DC Statehood to the Protests

I find it a bit dubious to list this as an effect of the protests. The Fox source speaks quotes Hoyer mentioning BLM, but I don't think that's enough to be causal. It seems more like a passing comment. The NPR source doesn't seem to mention the protests either. Both speak about how this has been an issue since 1993. Are there any better sources we can add? Should we delete/move these to the Statehood_movement_in_the_District_of_Columbia article? Or keep it as is? Thank you for your consideration. Fred (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one wondering why it doesn't say George Floyd Protests/Riots? I shouldn't be. I'm all for non-police brutality, but there are riots going on and no one will acknowledge them, and if you do, your are RACIST.... Why can't we agree that the protests are fine until they diverge into violence and rioting, which they often do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WK8963 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see the case for not including DC and would support removal. However, consensus has been reached over and over again for calling it protests. The compromise was naming it protests but keeping the first sentence of the third paragraph, and the inclusion of that sentence is a hill I’m willing to die on. Anon0098 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC at A.C.A.B.

More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. 71.178.129.13 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"American Spring (2020–present)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect American Spring (2020–present). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#American Spring (2020–present) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

List of all "deaths" and updates?

I see 28, but I don't see the exact list with sources.

Today, the police found a dead body in a pawn shop, that was burned down during a BLM protest.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/us/minneapolis-protest-body-found/index.html

https://www.boston.com/news/national-news-2/2020/07/22/police-find-body-in-minneapolis-pawnshop-burned-down-during-george-floyd-protests

It makes 29. However I'm not sure if the 28 was the right number because I keep hearing about new cases, but the number is not really changing. (second unsigned section moved from here, see below subsection) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLiberty (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote the last sentence, but it was not me. She never said the "N" word, she said "All Lives Matter". All the news reports was about her sayins ALM, but not a single one was about "N" word. Why making up things like that?

And yes, the argument was about Floyd and the BLM, people were tere protesting, they had a debate there and they followed them to kill them. So they were victims of the protests. The motivation was literally about her disagreeing with the BLM protests. - SteveLiberty

SteveLiberty, you didn't sign your post, and someone else came in and added to it (also without signing). To prevent this in the future, sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of them. This automatically signs and dates them, and allows your posts not to be corrupted as easily. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Updated it to 30 deaths with the alleged self-defense killing of Garrett Foster last night, waiting for more information to come.

Moving addition that was added between OP's post and the autosign

I think its really dishonest to revert the numbers back. One of the deaths isn't a George Floyd Protest. People are trying to make the killing of Jessica Doty Whitaker a George Floyd death. She was not killed during a protest. She was killed at 3:30am after her and the people she was with got into a confrontation because they said the N word and a group of other people there heard and got into an argument, several minutes after they solved their differences she was shot from a distance and killed, no one saw who did it. It wasn't a protest. So its not honest to name her a George Floyd protest death. The body that was found in the pawn shop suffered from Thermal injuries so that one would be considered a death. But its dishonest to lump Jessica Doty Whitaker's killing with this. Its not part of it. So the total death count should be 28 not 29 We need to update it to 30 deaths with the alleged self-defense killing of Garrett Foster last night.

https://fox59.com/news/crimetracker/indy-mother-becomes-2nd-homicide-along-downtown-canal-in-1-week/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by jcicone1 (talk • contribs) —valereee (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Bondiben (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC) I went through the Wikipedia links and only came up with 16 deaths in total. Javar Harrell 21 Detroit Shot Amid protests? Dave Patrick Underwood 53 Oakland Shot (federal officer) Unknown ? St Louis Caught under wheel of FedEx truck Chris Beaty 38 Indianapolis Shot James Scurlock 22 Omaha Shot by bar owner Dorian Murrell 18 Indianapolis Shot David McAtee 53 Louisville Killed by police Italia Kelly 22 Davenport Apparently random shooting David Dorn 77 St Louis Shot by looters (retired police officer) Calvin L Horton Jr 43 Minneapolis Shot Jorge Gomez ? Las Vegas Shot by police (Gomez was armed) ? ? Cicero, Chicago Shot by outside agitators ? ? Cicero, Chicago Shot by outside agitators ? 16 Seattle Shot ? 19 Seattle Shot

References

"President Trump" or simply "Trump"

This article alternates between using "President Trump" and simply "Trump" to refer to the President. I think we should have consistency. I think it's supposed to be "President Trump", but style guides are all over the map on this, and I cant find a reference to this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I think in this article we should avoid controversy, and err on the side of formality. Im hesitant to simply edit on this, as it may be a point of needing consensus. Others may feel differently, and to them, I say, edit away. Rklahn (talk) 11:57 pm, 27 July 2020, last Monday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

I would opt for just Trump. It is consistent with how we treat other world leaders.Slatersteven (talk) 5:24 am, 28 July 2020, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

Simply "Trump" is sufficient. No need to keep repeating his title. Dimadick (talk) 6:09 am, 28 July 2020, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

agree "Trump" is enough. Fred (talk) 10:12 pm, 28 July 2020, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Thanks for the input. Clearly the consensus is counter to my statement. Let's let it stand. Rklahn (talk) 10:56 pm, 28 July 2020, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Connecting DC Statehood to the Protests

I find it a bit dubious to list this as an effect of the protests. The Fox source speaks quotes Hoyer mentioning BLM, but I don't think that's enough to be causal. It seems more like a passing comment. The NPR source doesn't seem to mention the protests either. Both speak about how this has been an issue since 1993. Are there any better sources we can add? Should we delete/move these to the Statehood_movement_in_the_District_of_Columbia article? Or keep it as is? Thank you for your consideration. Fred (talk) 10:12 pm, 28 July 2020, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Am I the only one wondering why it doesn't say George Floyd Protests/Riots? I shouldn't be. I'm all for non-police brutality, but there are riots going on and no one will acknowledge them, and if you do, your are RACIST.... Why can't we agree that the protests are fine until they diverge into violence and rioting, which they often do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WK8963 (talk • contribs) 11:29 pm, 28 July 2020, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

I can see the case for not including DC and would support removal. However, consensus has been reached over and over again for calling it protests. The compromise was naming it protests but keeping the first sentence of the third paragraph, and the inclusion of that sentence is a hill I’m willing to die on. Anon0098 (talk) 12:24 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

60th day in a row

Protesters took to the streets in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, New York, Los Angeles, Louisville, Omaha, Richmond, Aurora, and Austin, where a protester named Garrett Foster was shot dead. (Waiting for information it appears the "protestor" was armed with an AK-47 style rifle and pointed/fired 5 shots at a citizen in a car.) (Source: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/27/trump_federal_agents_seattle_portland) --93.211.215.18 (talk) 4:05 pm, 27 July 2020, last Monday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

Are you sure? Even your source does not mention that Mr. Foster fired any shots, or mention the AK-47. This source https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53548415 does mention the AK-47, as does numerous others. Cant find the mention of his firing any shots. Rklahn (talk) 12:04 am, 28 July 2020, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

Recent New York Times article about the event.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/us/austin-protest-shooting-foster-perry.html

Wikipedia's front page is no longer listing this page. Is that an error?

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.

---

If on purpose, Why? --Disoff (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Disoff, what gets displayed at "In The News" is decided by consensus at WP:ITN/C. A consensus to remove it emerged yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There is now an article that can be linked under "conspiracy theories" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_4_2020_Gettysburg_hoax

2601:543:4205:26B6:C066:6E94:AF75:1BC6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It's because the protests are no longer about George Floyd. They have transformed from every day people protesting police violence to anarchists and the hard-left advocating police abolition. The unifying aspect of the protests have turned into partisan protests and violence Alexandre8 (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Shame you ruined a valid point with soapboxing. Whilst the events are still ongoing it is now not that major, compared to certain other issues.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not soapboxing. The protests have taken a very new radical form. It's now mainly antifa continuing the protests. Up until that point it was every day people voicing their frustrations with good cause, and that's why it was globally noteworthy. When a movement returns to the fringes its no longer worldwide news. Do you see it otherwise? Alexandre8 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It is soapboaxing not because the protests haven't change form, but because its removal from the front page is not because of that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It is also soapboaxing because talk pages are for improving the article, not commenting on the subject, as are not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 2 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.

We really need to change this page's title.

This is a misleading title and it needs to be referred to as a riot and not a protest. Onstrike (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 1#Protest or riot?
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 1#Not including the word 'riots' in the title
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 1#Requested move 29 May 2020 (3)
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 1#Three comments on renaming going forward
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 1#Should title be renamed "George Floyd riots/protests"?
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 1#LA riots
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 1#George Floyd protests vs George Floyd riots
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#Why not call them 'RIOTS'?
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#Name "George Floyd protests" is not accurate
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#Edit to the lead
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#There needs to be a separation between the protests and riots
• Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#Connecting DC Statehood to the Protests

Yawn. FDW777 (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m telling you right now that “George Floyd riots“ would never stick. It doesn’t have enough support. It’s been tried before, I wouldn’t even bother Anon0098 (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, they're still "peaceful protests". No I'm not trying to hold in gales of laughter, why do you ask?24.70.64.219 (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mostly they are.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mm. Really. [23] [24] [25]. I found those in a minute-long search. Give me five and I could probably find five more. So I guess they're just loud peaceful protests? 24.70.64.219 (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

When you find a source that says 55% of the protests were riots, then we can talk. After all I can find sources that say much of the violence was provoked by the police, does this mean we should change this to "police brutality during the Floyd protests"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This suggestion keeps coming up, as you can see from the archive log. It's not going to happen, at least not now, it's too soon. I would maybe support the name change to something similar to past incidents, such as death of Freddie Gray or Shooting of Tamir Rice. These articles had a substantial portions dedicated to public reaction and protests. P.S. I see now this article was created on 29 May, in addition to the Death of George Floyd. Anyway, if there are some precedent for this kind of article, it could be considered. Fred (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between protests and riots, but generally riot is more selective term, while protest is broader, so is a more fitting term to use here, where there is a mix of protests and riots. Now I will admit that in the first few weeks, it seemed there was mostly rioting/looting, around the Twin Cities region, but since then protests (not always peaceful, but not riots) have outnumbered riots. On the other hand, I would say the term George Floyd Protests is inaccurate besides its usage of the term protest. Perhaps once they are over, we can refer to them as the 2020 Civil Demonstrations in America (something along those lines), because incidents such as CHAZ or Portland (Anarchist/Communist groups) are clearly not protests about George Floyd or racial inequality at all. Azaan H 15:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Protest" is more general. This article covers both the violent and completely nonviolent protests, all the protests of all kinds concerning George Floyd + BLM around the relevant time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messgchr (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnitude of the protests

Someone mention that this broke the record for the largest US protest by 3 or 5 times. That's a remarkable fact; the degree of the difference deserves its own mention (in addition to that it's the largest in history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messgchr (talk • contribs) 01:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No Longer Ongoing

There has not been any protests about George Floyd after August 2. [26]. Yes there are still some small events, but thats relating to the larger Black Lives Matter movement that has been going on for years. This is similar to the Watts Riot which was part of the Civil Rights Movement, but doesn't mean the 1965 riot lasted all the way to 1968. The George Floyd protests were only a part of it, large scale protests between May 26 to August 2 are now over. No news report or media or anything uses George Floyd's name anymore, large scale street protests are over. This is not a war that needs to have a "deceleration of its end", as with the 1992 Los Angeles riots which is listed to have ended on May 4, the day the final large scale protests took place before army took total control, there was no source declaring the end of it, that doesn't mean its been continuing for 28 years, the same goes with the 1980 Miami riots it was said to be over on May 20 after which no more large scale protests were observed, protests are not wars like American Civil War that have declarations of being over. protests are over when things cool down and no more news reports link events to the protests. Post August 2 there are no more news report or WP:RS saying that George Floyd protests are ongoing, saying it is ongoing without any WP:RS linking events to it is pure WP:NOR violation. The last protests were reported on August 2, Portland was the final city with major protests, others having cleared out by that point. Now Portland has cooled down, protests have ended within the period may 26 to August 2, everything after that belongs to a separate Aftermath section. No news or any other WP:RS has any more protests linked to George Floyd, thus the fact that its over needs to be noted. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

this [[27]] says its not even slowed down.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thats just CNN expressing their views, they do not list any new protests. Also CNN is democrat biased and FOX is Republican biased. The LA riots ended in 1992 but its impacts never slowed and continued fore years. Also more neutral sources are appreciated. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Both Fox and CNN are considered reliable sources as established by consensus in WP:RSPSOURCES Anon0098 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In Fox's case, reliable only "on topics other than politics and science". Their political coverage has been found to be unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Both CNN and Fox News have political biases, it's pretty silly to pretend like only one news network does. For example, CNN attacked St.Louis resident Mark McCloskey for defending his own house from violent protesters/rioters, and completely failed to report on the death of David Dorn, a retired black Police Captain shot dead by looters, clearly to fit a political agenda. It is fine to call out news sources for bias, Fox News itself claims to be conservative (meaning they will have biases) but there's no need to lie and pretend that your own news source is perfectly unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

O RLY? FDW777 (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Does you source say "and there are no longer any protests"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven If you do not have the time to read, I cannot help you, I know my initial post is long, but if you want to continue discussing, please have the time to read, see my protest-war comparison. Wars have a formal declaration of being over, protests never do. Please read the lengthy para, or this discussion would be pretty pointless. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is down to you to prove you case, not me (by the way, it is behind a wall, so I cannot view it). I take it form this, no it does not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

[[28]], [[29]]. Want any more?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear that protests sparked by the subject of this article continue. Let's not be in a rush to change tenses. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The KOIN headline reads, "Night 65: Protests in Portland ends with street marches." I read that to mean that the protests of that day ended with street marches, not that they were reporting an end to the protests. Even if that is what they meant, they were talking about Portland only. We would need a clearer so source to say that the protests have ended. TFD (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose obviously there is conflicting consensus on whether it is ongoing so it might be better to hold off until a majority of RSs conclude that the protests have largely subsided. Anon0098 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall we have been here before, with the same result. Can I ask that next time people tactfully find at least one source that contains the line "and the protests are now over"?Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven While I may have been incorrect and the protests are not over yet (even tho the BLM protests are getting mixed up with the George Floyd protests which was a prominent phase of BLM protest going on for years), this is as I explained and if you had the time to read the initial long post a protest, not a war, and protests like Watts Riot, 1992 Los Angeles riots have been considered to be over when street agitations ended, there are rarely ever formal declaration like "and the protests are now over" (side note: this actually reminded me of Bush's Sr's announcement of US's victory over USSR in the Cold War after Soviet split). While the protests may not be over now, it doesnt need such declaration when the protests indeed end whenever that will be, protests are not wars and have no specific leader or anything and very few protests ever had such declaration, protests ends when street agitations ends and news coverage stops and as per wikipedia, that would be when no more WP:RS links the protests to George Floyd. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No it will be when RS say "after X number of days", when RS say there are no longer any riots or protests.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the only protest ever and most protest articles hardly have such statement, like Cincinnati riots of 2001, no RS says it was over on April 13, but that is the day after which no further violence were reported. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

[[30]] "The Cincinnati Riot was a four-day period " [[31]] "took to the streets for three full nights", yes sources do give a time frame of when they lasted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

One last thing I would point out, there are sources that refer to Floyd protests as a thing of the past, and whatever happened after that are just the BLM protests going on since 2014 , of which the Floyd protests was a significant part (much like the 1965 Watts riot was a significant part of the Civil Rights movement). This source from June 25 implies the Floyd protests ended back in June (and there was a consensus back then that it ended in June) [32]. "After the Floyd protests whats next" is what this source sums up. Regardless I respect the view of majority editors and as there are still sources which connects protests to George Floyd, it is ongoing for now I end this discussion. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but it is simply difficult to create names for articles when events are still happening. When the first article on the Civil Rights Movement had been created, we already knew the broad movement and any riots/protests which occurred during it, here we don't know if it a full on Civil Movement or large selection of demonstrations. I would say that here, the death toll here includes deaths in events such as the death of Jessica Doty Whitaker or the recent shooting of an armed protester by a civilian . Really that would be inaccurate, since the death toll for the George Floyd Protests should only include the riots that broke out in late May and early June. Azaan H 15:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Riots are a poor comparison. Riots usually end when police and other agents of the state are able to put them down and arrest anyone out on the street. Demonstrations can go on indefinitely. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo demonstrations went on for 30 years. TFD (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Protests in the Minneapolis area are ongoing. Not all protests receive media attention and rise to the level of notability for inclusion in specific Wikipedia articles. Here’s a protest on August 15, 2020.VikingB (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Criteria to qualify as a "George Floyd protest"

I've been thinking about this issue for some time : how do we determine which protests constitute "George Floyd protests" ? I haven't seen this question discussed directly on this talk page, only discussions regarding whether the protests are over or not (they seem not to, regarding continuous protests in Portland for instance). The problem is that many police brutality/racism protests are mentioned in the media without direct reference to George Floyd and the wave of protests this summer in the US and other countries, and yet they are included here. For instance, on August 9 there was a police shooting in Chicago which sparked a riot in the city, and demonstrations regarding the event the following day. Do these events constitute George Floyd protests ? Floyd and the protests aren't mentioned or alluded to in the sources. Thus, we risk conducting WP:original research. Regarding this issue, I would think that the way to go is to include general police brutality/BLM protests, and protests in reaction to given police actions (mainly shootings of civilians such as the one in Chicago I just mentioned or the shooting of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta are included on a case by case basis, with a careful reading of the sources. Fa suisse (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is a difficult event to title as it is ongoing and everything is still up in the air, I agree. I don't believe these protests have been about George Floyd since around mid-June, since then the protests have been more broadly BLM/anti-law enforcement in general, along with various counter-protests and sometimes armed confrontations between opposing groups (over the removal of statues and monuments, for example). In some cities the protests never stopped (like in Portland), while other cities like Chicago, Richmond, Atlanta, Seattle, etc. have had frequent flare-ups of unrest and protests/rioting, none specifically George Floyd-related at all. The scope of this ongoing unrest is so all over the place that I believe the article should no longer be titled "George Floyd protests" but rather something like 2020 American protests/unrest/spring/etc. if people can eventually agree on something, as this is just absolutely all over the place. But I'm not currently challenging that since everything is still so up in the air right now, and will likely continue into at least November and probably explode again, regardless of who wins the election. But I'm on a tangent. Just my two cents. Temeku (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RS say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s time to give this movement a new name. The media isn’t calling the protests of today “George Floyd protests”. They are usually referred to as police brutality protests or something like that. We will either need a second page for “2020 Police Brutality Protests and Unrest in the US” to accommodate more recent activity, or change the title of this page. Camdoodlebop (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

79.146.43.165 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear what change is being asked for. FDW777 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Title should be changed to George Floyd Riots 12.129.16.124 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See Wikipedia:Edit requests, they are not for controversial edits that don't have consensus. FDW777 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Change the word Protest to Riots. With 30 people killed and over 500 million in property damage it is not a protest and fits the definition of the word "Riot"- a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd. VapeNShred (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Change George Floyd protests to George Floyd riots TonySm8 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"nearly eight minutes"

FYI

The lead currently reads that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd for "nearly eight minutes".

You are invited to join a related discussion about the kneeling duration at Talk:George_Floyd#"Nearly"_eight_minutes.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage?

There doesn't seem to be a section discussing media coverage. Has it been fair or biased? This source claims it was, at least initially, biased: "Centering protest coverage around the impact on traffic, local businesses, and property is one way that the protest-as-nuisance framing manifests. And according to the study, that “annoyance” framing increased over time — newspapers were more likely to frame a protest as a nuisance in 2007 than in 1967. The study also found that protests over liberal causes were framed as nuisances more often than protests over conservative causes.... You also see this bias in headlines from The Washington Post’s “A night of fire and fury across America as protests intensify” to The New York Times’ “Appeals for calm as sprawling protests threaten to spiral out of control.” These headlines focus exclusively on the violence of the protests. They don’t tell us where the violence is coming from. So when Slate published a story with the headline “Police erupt in violence nationwide,” it was almost startling in its forthrightness. The story resonated, being shared widely on social media in and in private text groups, because it was the first national report that made plain what people were seeing in videos. “People kept sharing these videos that were coming up and it was unambiguous what was going on,” said Tom Scocca, Slate’s politics editor, who edited the story. “We weren’t looking at a stream of videos of violence erupting or clashes breaking out. We were looking at cops, attacking people.”" https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/06/its-time-to-change-the-way-the-media-reports-on-protests-here-are-some-ideas/ Here is another: "Top 16 Euphemisms US Headline Writers Used for Police Beating the Shit Out of People" https://fair.org/home/top-16-euphemisms-us-headline-writers-used-for-police-beating-the-shit-out-of-people/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can include both. The FAIR article, from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, "the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation", shouldn't however be front and center of a section on media bias, and should be added along analyses by "media watchdog groups" with different political perspectives. Fa suisse (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A section discussing media coverage would be a worthwhile addition to the article. Fa suisse (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• It seems worth having a section for. Some possible sources: --Aquillion (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The only unbiased RS's provided only talk about substantial coverage and not necessarily improper coverage. We should be very careful with claiming RS are actually unreliable, and I don't see enough accepted RSs saying that directly. Anon0098 (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources above are reliable and provide important information relevant to the topic. I am open to adding the section and get this started when I can, if someone is willing, please do so.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 08:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Shooting of Jacob Blake

For the second time, the deaths relating to protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake have been added to the infobox. Since the protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake are, by definition, not protesting the killing of George Floyd I believe these deaths should not be added. FDW777 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Another reason to have George Floyd protests as a fork from larger page such as 2020 American Civil Unrest Anon0098 (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests criteria

Just to add on to this section, with the creation of the 2020 United States racial unrest page I think the criteria for the Floyd protests needs to be reworked. Maybe keep everything that RSs explicitly link to Floyd and move everything else to a BLM page which is forked from 2020 United States racial unrest, or something. Thoughts? Anon0098 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, if it RS dont link it to George Floyd we should not link it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus that the article title should stay where it is. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

---

George Floyd protests → 2020 Black Lives Matter protests – I suggest we change the name of this article to 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. Due to the unfortunate shooting of Jacob Blake and subsequent Kenosha riots, I believe that the title of this article should be changed to a more general title in order to include it, e.g. "2020 Black Lives Matter protests". Jacob Blake has become yet another figurehead of the fight against police brutality in the United States, and the title "George Floyd protests" doesn't do sufficient justice at including the nationwide movement that is now popping up against systemic racism, and the general aim of these protests as a whole. What was previously the George Floyd protests now far exceeds the scope of George Floyd's death. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose RS continuously link protests to Floyd. I haven't seen any significant amount call these "2020 Black Lives Matter Protests" in any capacity Anon0098 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As an additional comment, I would support making the George Floyd protest page a fork from 2020 American Civil Unrest or something close to that effect as some others in this thread have suggested. Still opposed to the main article being called Black Lives Matter protests. Some unrest is not explicitly linked to BLM, such as CHAZ, but all would fall under the category of the broader category of American unrest. Anon0098 (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Not all events in the death of George Floyd are even "Black Lives Matter" protests. That being said, it does seem like some content in the George Floyd protests article and other George Floyd protests in [NAME OF PLACE] articles have some content that is of a slighter broader context. Those articles just need better editing and refinement, not a full on rebrand.VikingB (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The protests are about the death of George Floyd. While Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and other's deaths have played a role in the protests, they were ultimately started by (and continue to mainly be fueled by) Floyd's death. The current name is best. I-82-I | TALK 03:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and move to George Floyd riots the article is more about a destruction of public property and vandalism by protesters, so the correct name of the title is George Floyd riots per 1992 Los Angeles riots, which also named as it thought is was some peaceful protest. Also, this article is about the death of George Floyd, not other Black Americans which have separated articles. 180.245.102.250 (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose George Floyd riots A large majority of the protests were peaceful although a significant minority were violent. We name articles using the terms that the preponderance of reliable sources use when discussing the topic. I also oppose the move to 2020 Black Lives Matter protests for the same reason. We go with the sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose George Floyd protests are a part of the BLM movement, which has been taking place for a number of years now and is not something which first originated in 2020. The BLM movement in 2020 is also in no way synonymous with George Floyd protests as multiple other events of the movement have taken place and continue to do so in 2020. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Move to George Floyd riots or George Floyd unrest as it fits definition of riot as it was many destruction of businesses, lawlessness, and many more. I agree with 180.245.102.250 that per 1992 LA riots, this article title should be follow that, even it was a peaceful protests. I not agree to move to 2020 BLM protest because reason above. 182.1.35.124 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and move to 2020 American protests/unrest/etc. per some of the reasons stated above. I called this a week ago on here, I'm glad to see others are starting to agree en masse that this series of events needs a different name after it has grown far beyond what started it back in May. George Floyd (or any of the others shot and killed) is much too narrow to describe what is happening here, which also includes large counterprotest movements and broad clashes between opposing groups in numerous cities. Temeku (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is in regards to the BLM protests directly in response to George Floyd's death. RopeTricks (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to both 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and George Floyd riots titles and as per •Shawnqual• 📚's comment. Panda619 (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The unrest is growing far beyond Floyd's death and I'm probably leaning more towards "2020 Civil Unrest in the US" or something to that effect, but I understand it's incredibly complex and there are several related things going on simultaneously. No harm in waiting for things to play out further and to build consensus for a new title. StuartH (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The period of mass protest and civil unrest in June following Floyd's death is one of the largest mass protests in U.S. history and deserves its own article. It part of the ongoing Black Lives Matter movement. I agree with StuartH that an article specifically about the civil unrest surrounding political and racial tensions is necessary. I think the George Floyd protests should be considered largely concluded, with many of them morphing into the ongoing BLM protests and related civil unrest. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose And also oppose any attempt to include the fatalities from the unrest relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake in this article, like I've just reverted here. There has to be a line drawn somewhere that not all protests are George Floyd protests, and it seems clear, to me at least, that protests relating to separate incidents months later are not part of the George Floyd protests. FDW777 (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• comment Much as I hate forks there may be a case (given recent events) for an overall article on 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've been wondering about that too. I'm not sure BLM is correct, and we likely won't know what the correct title is for years. —valereee (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  slatersteven and valereee, I think the title you are looking for is 2020 United States racial unrest. Googling "racial unrest" gets a lot of results related to the recent events. So following WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions gets us the title I suggest. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep I can run with that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This page should be sub-sectioned under American Civil Unrest 2020 and rename this article to Gorge Floyd Riots as this encapsulates an on-going larger issue in scope. JoshuaAMarsh 19:19, 26/08/2020. Joshua A Marsh (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with that, although a lot of the protests and riots are not related to George Floyd, a lot of them are not related to BLM itself, for example the so called CHAZ. Azaan Habib 10:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I also agree with that, but the current title should be stay as this, in turn this article, along with Kenosha riot would be fall as sub-article of 2020 United States protest, in turn again would be fall into sub-article of new main article about Protests of 2020 as the new main article will contain information about COVID-19 protest, police brutality and racism protest, Belarus protest, and even Thai protest. all of these articles would be fall into one large article. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: A meta article to provide an overview of the unrest caused by race protests/riots in the United States in 2020 has been started. See 2020 United States racial unrest. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 11:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I really do feel like these protests have become bigger than just George Floyd. The unrest has come to encapsulate other officer-involved shootings like Jacob Blake, as well as other incidents like Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church and political ideologies like the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Love of Corey (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Kenosha protests are completely separate and aren't even mentioned on this page. It's colinked with the George Floyd protests under 2020 United States racial unrest, though. RSs link St John and CHAZ directly to Floyd. Anon0098 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

I agree with the above user that the main page should read 2020 American Civil Unrest and have george floyd protests as an offshoot page Camdoodlebop (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The article for what OP has termed "the nationwide movement that is now popping up against systemic racism" is 2020 United States racial unrest (not the best title, but that's another discussion for another talk page). The protests have indeed become "bigger than just George Floyd"—hence the importance of an article focused on the initial wave of protest that did focus on Floyd and his being killed. This does seem to represent a consensus, so frankly I think it's time to close this discussion and focus on the broader question of how we structure our coverage on the 2020 race-related civil unrest and political/cultural shift in America, the UK and Europe. With respect, I do not find Love of Corey's arguments convincing. The St John photo opportunity occurred in the context of a George Floyd protest; though not relevant via its connection to Floyd himself, it is relevant via its connection to a George Floyd protest. The protest that Trump cleared was explicitly focused on Floyd and his being killed; it was not race-related without being connected directly with Floyd, as later protests have been. The same goes for CHAZ; it was part of a George Floyd protest and was primarily intended as a protest (hence the alternative name "protest zone" and the focus on the precinct of the police force whose officer killed Floyd). Presenting CHAZ as primarily an experiment in political ideology is undue weight at best and POV-pushing at worst. The George Floyd protests are—or were—a specific thing; they were also the first wave of a wider movement. We appear to have reached a consensus that our article titles should reflect that, and it is time for this discussion to end. —Kilopylae (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose George Floyd is so much more bigger then just the protests, it definitely needs to retain its own unique article. If it was to merged into the Black Lives Matter protests the article would need to be cut down ten fold, and there would need little to mention of his life, much of which is very important by itself and it to the protests. It would be a huge disservice to knowledge base of Wikipedia. This person is so complex to simply be included in the Protests, he was more then that. Vallee01 (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Black Lives Matter has largely been classified as a group or collection of groups, even if it is a wide-ranging movement. George Floyd's death provoked these protests, but no longer defines it: Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, and many others have now become part of the central discussion. I would argue 2020 police violence protests or something similar would be good, or it should continue to be called George Floyd protests. I oppose this name change as slated. PickleG13 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Media coverage has focused on Floyd's killing as the primary inflection point where protests and riots really became a national event. The current title still makes more sense than the proposed change. Agree w/ Kilopylae above, would like to see this discussion closed per WP:SNOW. Paradoxsociety 05:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose this article is more focused for the protests occured due to Floyd's death. If they want a article about broader protest about racism in general, see 2020 United States racial unrest and you can see unrest or riots relating to death of George Floyd, Rasyhard Brooks, Breonna Taylor, etc. 36.68.167.178 (talk) 22:09, 1 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.

RfC

Consensus does change, but edit requests over and over and over by people making their first edits are unlikely to be taking policy into consideration or be thoughtful. I'd like to discuss whether it's okay to answer and close such edit requests so they don't turn into long rediscussions that end up the same way. (FWIW, I'd be open to some regular reopening of questions that we all agree could have a change in consensus. But 'allege' passing of counterfeit bills is never going to change. And we don't need to rediscuss killing of vs. death of or riot vs. protest every six days.) —valereee (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose: Anything that's been discussed in the past month, with no clear change to current consensus, can be politely responded to, directed at the most recent discussion, and closed. Revised Proposal per discussion: Following the conclusion of #Requested move 25 August 2020 no further move requests can take place until 1 March 2021. —valereee (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

• Support I think we've wasted more than enough time dealing with people that think the page should be called "George Floyd riots" just because some of the protests turned violent. FDW777 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The original proposal didn't really reduce the work of editors or help in any way actually. Pointing people to past discussions is nothing out of ordinary and involves digging up past archives. The new proposal is better as it states a clear goal and has a significant result provided there is enough support for it. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose Its not wasted time dealing with people who think the page title should change because the George Floyd protests continue to evolve in its nature and scope. 3 months ago, nobody would have ever expected one act of police violence to set off hundreds of riots and protests across cities in the US and the world. To lock the title for 6 months into the future of an event only 3 months old but still going strong is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Who knows what this event will be like in even the next month? A moratorium of one month at MOST is what would be reasonable in this instance. Albertaont (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Valereee: I would prefer a six-month+ moratorium on move requests that I've seen on other articles, once the current move request has finished. I think the current proposal is a bit too weak. FDW777 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, I'd be happy with that. No one has S/O yet, would you want to tweak the language? —valereee (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Something along the lines of Proposal: Following the conclusion of #Requested move 25 August 2020 no further move requests can take place until 1 March 2021. FDW777 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Provided this gets enough support, a list could also be embedded at the top of the talk page to show the previous move proposals and their outcomes so it is clear to new editors/readers where the consensus lies.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the oppose !vote!, a moratorium is needed for the obvious reason that the large amount of peaceful protests that have occurred will not be erased from history at any time over the next six months, so another move request in a month's time of a proposed move to, for example George Floyd riots will not achieve consensus and will be a giant waste of everyone's time. FDW777 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims amended

I have amended the sentence As of July 25, 2020, at least 29 people have died during the protests, with 25 due to gunshot wounds and the related, unreferenced figure in the infobox, both of which were tagged as needing a citation and/or failing verification.

The references provided were as follows.

• New York Daily News of 3 June, which said At least 13 people, many of them black, have been killed in the past week as Americans flood city streets to protest police brutality. It listed them as
  • David Dorn (St Louis), David McAtee (Louisville), Dave Patrick Underwood (Oakland), Chris Beaty (Indianapolis), Italia Kelly (Davenport), unnamed person (also Davenport) Calvin L. Horton Jr (Minneapolis), James Scurlock (Omaha), Javar Harrell a 21-year-old black man (Detroit), two unnanmed people (Chicago), unnamed man dragged by FexEx truck (St Louis), Dorian Murrell (Indianpolis)
• ABC of 3 June, which said At least 13 people have been killed amid protests in cities across the US in the past week — many of them African Americans. It listed them as
  • David Dorn (St Louis), David McAtee (Louisville), Dave Patrick Underwood (Oakland), Chris Beaty (Indianapolis), unnamed 18-year-old man (also Indianapolis), Italia Kelly (Davenport), unnamed man (also Davenport), Calvin L. Horton Jr (Minneapolis), James Scurlock (Omaha), unnamed 21-year-old man (Detroit), two unnanmed people (Chicago), unnamed man (Las Vegas)
• Associated Press of 3 June, which listed them as
  • David Dorn (St Louis), David McAtee (Louisville), Dave Patrick Underwood (Oakland), Chris Beaty (Indianapolis), unnamed 18-year-old man (also Indianapolis), Italia Kelly (Davenport), unnamed man (also Davenport), Calvin L. Horton Jr (Minneapolis), James Scurlock (Omaha), unnamed 21-year-old man (Detroit), two unnanmed people (Chicago)
• Al Jazeera of 3 June (which is sourced by Associated Press, but including for thoroughness) which said Nearly a dozen deaths tied to continuing unrest in US, which listed them as
  • David Dorn (St Louis), David McAtee (Louisville), Dave Patrick Underwood (Oakland), Chris Beaty (Indianapolis), unnamed 18-year-old man (also Indianapolis), Italia Kelly (Davenport), unnamed man (also Davenport), Calvin L. Horton Jr (Minneapolis), James Scurlock (Omaha), unnamed 21-year-old man (Detroit), two unnanmed people (Chicago)
• Q13 Fox of 29 June, which listed two people killed in just over a week in Seattle's protest zone.

I will list all the people mentioned in the 3 June news reports in alphabetical order.

• Chris Beaty (Indianapolis)
• David Dorn (St Louis)
• Javar Harrell a 21-year-old black man (Detroit) (referred to in various reports as an unnamed 21-year-old man
• Calvin L. Horton Jr (Minneapolis)
• Italia Kelly (Davenport)
• David McAtee (Louisville)
• Dorian Murrell (Indianpolis) (referred to in various reports as an unnamed 18-year-old man)
• James Scurlock (Omaha)
• Dave Patrick Underwood (Oakland)
• Two unnanmed people (Chicago)
• Unnamed person (Davenport)
• Unnamed man dragged by FexEx truck (St Louis)
• Unnamed man (Las Vegas)

That's technically 14, despite all the references using a total of 13 (except for Al Jazeera, who think 13 is "nearly a dozen"). However I think, including the two people from later in the month in Seattle, "over 15 people" would cover it, so I am adding that to the article. The claim of 29, or 32 in the infobox, is unreferenced and should not be restored. FDW777 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm aware "over 15" is probably too low, and I've no objection to it being amended upwards if references are provided that state people were killed during George Floyd protests (and not Jacob Blake protests). My intent was not to add a figure that's set in stone and can't be changed, just one that's referenced. FDW777 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you add up all the deaths in the violence section it adds up to about 30. CaptainPrimo (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct, we need to manually add the deaths in the violence section. That is the basis for the figure. Reverting to previous. Albertaont (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a debate, it's a straightforward WP:BURDEN issue.

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

Vague mentions of other articles in edit summaries are not inline references, especially when original research is being added to the other article to inflate the death toll. FDW777 (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You used 4 sources to provide a consistent death count on June 3 of 13 people, but the article on Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests lists additional deaths from June 20, 27, 29, July 4, 5, 25, and August 29. What is the rationale for not including those deaths? You keep mentioning WP:BURDEN but it has clearly been satified through reliable sources for deaths after June 3. I see no editors in agreement with your position. We need to bring this to admin, but in the absense of anybody in agreement with your position, the original death count should be restored. Nobody here is asserting the +15 is a reliable or accurate figure. Albertaont (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The salient part of WP:BURDEN is Attribute . . . any material whose verifiability is challenged . . . to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Content of other articles =/= inline citation, and content of other articles =/= reliable, published source. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You are free to challenge any of the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests additional deaths from June 20, 27, 29, July 4, 5, 25, and August 29. Albertaont (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to challenge any of those, but I will when I have time. If you want to amend this article, the burden of evidence is on you to provide inline citations in this article to reliable references. FDW777 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Status of protests

Protests or events directly related to George Floyd's killing haven't been carried out since early-June according to the timeline by The New York Times. A quick google search also shows timelines ending in June-July from various sources. So, safe to assume that the status of protests is no longer ongoing or too early. Any protests hence have been under BLM or for Jacob Blake as of recently. This means that the status must be changed in the infobox, but which date should be used as the ending date? This timeline by NCAC could come in handy perhaps. @FDW777:, thoughts? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 08:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's clear to most people looking at things from an unbiased perspective that the protests in Kenosha are not George Floyd protests, but are, not unsurprisingly, people protesting at the shooting of Jacob Blake. I realise that where to draw a line under George Floyd protests might be difficult, but I think it's clear a line needs to be drawn if references say the protests are over. I think something along the lines of "xxx date to yyy date (occasional isolated protests have occurred since) might be a possibility (subject to referencing). FDW777 (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is this assertion coming from that the george floyd protests are "no longer ongoing or too early?" Even this article from [(CNN)] about the death in Portland yesterday makes clear links to the fact that these are protests spurred by the Killings of George Floyd. Also, I want to understand where you are getting that "it's clear to most people looking at things from an unbiased perspective that the protests in Kenosha are not George Floyd protests". Not saying this is incorect, but why would someone be biased merely for putting Kenosha and George Floyd together?Albertaont (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Death toll

Until other articles are created, this article is clearly referring to all BLM protests which have happened since George Floyd was killed/murdered, except the Kenosha Riot. So why has the death toll suddenly been halved? User:Alexiod Palaiologos 12:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

See #Unreferenced claims amended and WP:BURDEN. FDW777 (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 13:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Methology used in #Unreferenced claims amended was originally incorrect, we can count to 30 just from the deaths listed in Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests and has already been reversed.Albertaont (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There was no incorrect methodology used. Once again I refer to WP:BURDEN, you cannot use the content of another article as a reference. FDW777 (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

See #Unreferenced claims amended above. As stated there, I have no objection to the death toll being amended upwards with references. What has been happening can be seen at the first sentence of the section at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests#Deaths, where starting from an initial referenced death toll of 13 that is referenced, it has been consistently revised upwards (see for examples edits such as this where no reference is added, just a vague mention of the total at the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests page being updated), often without references. It's all well and good people saying count the deaths at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests#Deaths, but where's the evidence all those are related to George Floyd protests? Especially since there's people updating the total to include the two people killed during protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake, when that's a separate incident and the people shot were protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake, not the killing of George Floyd.

What do RS say? is an excellent question. I'd love to say a death toll that's published by RS, or even evidence every single claimed death in Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests did indeed happen during a George Floyd protest. FDW777 (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If RS do not consider it of note neither should we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, and for avoidance of doubt, are we saying that we cannot take the sum arithmetic of individual RS when determining casualty count but must rely on a single RS which aggregates the total casualty claim? I am strongly opposed to this, but I want to make sure we describe the issue as such. Albertaont (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If each reference says deaths were part of the George Floyd protests, I have no objection to arithmetic. I do however, as does policy, have an objection to anyone suggesting the entries at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests are added up, since mere inclusion in that article is not a guarantee the deaths were part of the George Floyd protests. FDW777 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is then we would have to view every source ever written about the subject, or our total may be wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's not an ideal approach but what's the alternative? Leave it at 13 which can be referenced to the references in early June which do give a death toll to date? Leave it out entirely? I'd absolutely 100% prefer to find a reference with a death toll published yesterday, today, tomorrow, or any time after the last claimed death relating to the George Floyd protests, but if we don't have that we need to include some kind of figure referenced somehow, since I doubt saying "13" is acceptable to anyone. FDW777 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of the info box, yes leave it out. This is not information we desperately need now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not addressing the problem though, since there is still a (contradictory) total at George Floyd protests#Violence and controversies and Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests#Deaths. Leaving it out of the infobox doesn't make the problem go away. Unless you want to opt for some kind of vague wording rather than a total? FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really as they both say "at least" and are from different dates. But as we do not know we should not say. It might be best to say "and there have been a number of killings" and leave it at that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as a proposed solution contains a verifiable total (if a total is included) and is applied consistently to this article and Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests I should have no objections. FDW777 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am saying do not include a total as it cannot be verified. Rather we keep it vague and imprecise until we know.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Because they dont want it to look as bad and given that another person has been shot dead in portland please change it to 31 and there is literally 19 dead by june the 8th alone https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/06/08/14-days-of-protests-19-dead/#58333cf84de4 thats two weeks in

So you provide a "reference" that says 19 dead and insist it's changed to 31? The answer to that would be "no", especially since the Forbes article is by a Forbes Contributor not Forbes Staff, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes for details. FDW777 (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Also regarding Portland. "Police have not given an identity or specified whether the shooting was directly linked to the clashes which broke out in a downtown area". FDW777 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday 32 dead, today, 15 dead. 17 people just resurrected I guess. Nonsense. Manipulating the most important details of these events because of political reasons is pretty much making Wikipedia an unreliable source. Change it back to 32 + add the 1 that happened yesterday. - SteveLiberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLiberty (talk • contribs) 14:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem providing reliable references that confirm your claim that 33 people have died, especially since "Police have not given an identity or specified whether the shooting was directly linked to the clashes which broke out in a downtown area" relating to yesterday's death. It's somewhat hypocritical to say Wikipedia is an unreliable source then insist unreferenced information is added to the article, given that is a frequent criticism as to why Wikipedia is seen as unreliable. FDW777 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This page had reliable sources to the 32, yesterday. Today 17 of those magically disappeared. If those 17 was "not reliable", then why were those on this page, to begin with? Sure, the people who protesting with BLM signs have killed a person, so it has nothing to do with BLM and George Floyd. Ok. I would rather say that the moderators of the page are trying to change criteria just to lower the death toll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLiberty (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That's quite simply untrue. The references that were in the article were discussed at #Unreferenced claims amended above. They were mostly from the start of June and said there had been 13 deaths, except for one from the end of June that said there had been 2 deaths in Seattle. You can see the diff there where I changed the total, the only references removed were the redundant AP and Al Jazeera ones both dated 3 June. FDW777 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As per above, you have provided rationale on why you believe a consistent death count on June 3 of 13 people is warranted, but the article on Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests lists additional deaths from June 20, 27, 29, July 4, 5, 25, and August 29. You make repeated mention of WP:BURDEN but it has clearly been satisfied through reliable sources for deaths after June 3 (otherwise they wouldn't have survived the wiki page. I see no editors in agreement with your position. We need to bring this to admin, but in the absence of any editor in concurrence with your position, the original death count should be restored until otherwise. Albertaont (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertaont (talk • contribs)

You are incorrect. This is not a debate. See also the comments of @Slatersteven:. Per WP:CIRCULAR you cannot use the content of another Wikipedia article as a reference. I do not care how many people assert an unreferenced figure of over 30 should be added to this article, per WP:CONLOCAL their collective voice cannot override the verifiability policy. FDW777 (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please take this to an admin, and explain why violating wp:or and wp:v is not against the rules. I have said I object to any number, be it 32, 17 or 42 (well in this context).Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If there are only 13 RS verified deaths why does the infobox say 15+ and not 13+? Someone Not Awful (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said at 08:15, 28 August 2020, I've no objection to it being amended upwards if references are provided that state people were killed during George Floyd protests (and not Jacob Blake protests). My intent was not to add a figure that's set in stone and can't be changed, just one that's referenced. That, nearly three and a half days later, people are still arguing it should be changed to an unreferenced figure is quite telling. FDW777 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating exactly why we will not be using the content of other articles as a reference for the death toll. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahmaud Arbery currently links to monkey

this needs to be fixed pretty desperately 103.131.193.6 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I've also locked the redirect so they can't do that again. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of protest-related deaths

There have been several deaths related to these protests: a federal officer in Oakland, two protesters in Kenosha, a counterprotester and later his alleged killer in Portland, probably others that slip my mind. Wikipedia coverage of these deaths has been inconsistent. In some articles such as Kenosha, it is so extensive that it has been proposed for a split. In others, such as Oakland or Portland, it gets only passing mention. I am proposing that we create an overall article to cover all of these deaths: a federal officer in Oakland, two protesters in Kenosha, a counterprotester and his alleged killer in Portland, etc. That way we could give each case the extended coverage that doesn't fit in the protests article but that it deserves, with details about the incident and the victim and (alleged) killer, as well as continuing coverage such legal action. It could be called something like George Floyd protest related deaths, with appropriate redirects to guide people to the article. I have proposed this at Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon#Coverage of protest-related deaths. Please comment, either here or there, with your opinion regarding an overall "deaths" article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO it would be better to keep the discussion in one place. For example it would be confusing to split discussion of why such an article is warranted compared to simply covering such deaths in Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. Nil Einne (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a persistent attempt by a wiki editor to remove what he deems to be deaths uninvolved to the George Floyd protest under Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, and is also the genesis between why the deaths went from previously +30 to only "over 15". No consensus was ever reached, but also we need to make sure that deaths removed from violence and controversies should be covered elsewhere. Albertaont (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Or in real terms, there is a persistent attempt to enforce non-negotiable policy that certain people don't like. FDW777 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant Reinoehl's death is to the Floyd protests. He was killed during a raid, not a protest Anon0098 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

And we are trying to keep the protests separate via 2020 United States racial unrest. I haven't seen any notable amount of RSs link the subsequent protests (ie kenosha) to Floyd Anon0098 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Counter-protests

Shouldn't there be a section that also lists down the encounters with counter-protesters as well? There have been multiple instances in which BLM protesters have been met with Trump supporters or militias that support him in some way or form. YouGottaChill (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• And there also was a number of Blue Lives Matter protests by policemen, no? It would be nice to include it into the article, to clarify Portlnd case, in particularly, but one should do it in a such way as not to create an impression that counterprotests are of the same scale. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree and think a tidy counter-protests section could fit well in the "Violence and controversies" section. RopeTricks (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge with 2020 United States racial unrest?

Just realized there’s this article so what about merging this article with the main article? Anyways, like I said, the unrest is all about other black people being killed by police. And the focus has also been on Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Jacob Blake, and Daniel Prude. All these people are connected to the unrest. StayingClean (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There have been various discussions about this, none of which received any significant participation. The most recent was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Black Lives Matter#U.S. 2020 articles forks. It is something that needs dealing with, but it is difficult to form any kind of consensus when discussion is so minimal. FDW777 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

I may need to make a minor edit, because Iran is West Asia, not South. Angrybirdsfan2005 (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Iran?Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Angrybirdsfan2005, there's no mention of Iran in the George Floyd protests article. There is mention in the List of George Floyd protests outside the United States, but that page is not semi-protected, so you're welcome to edit it. I'll caution you though, according to the comments in the article, it looks like the editors are using UN stats classification for where to put articles, so you may want to seek consensus before making a change, as it's likely to be reverted otherwise.— motevets (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, and I did the edit on the protests outside the USA, as according to most sources, Iran is in West Asia, and yes, there may be a few people that say it's in South Asia, but most people say it's Western Asia. Angrybirdsfan2005 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You really should have discussed this there, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion seeking consensus on the talk page under Talk:List_of_George_Floyd_protests_outside_the_United_States#Countries_in_western_Europe, please feel free to leave your thoughts there. — motevets (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Deaths linked to protests

The Washington Post says A review of 27 deaths linked to either protests or subsequent violence since late May indicates that those ultimately alleged to be culpable, in cases where a suspect or perpetrator were identified, were almost never actually part of the protest movement. Suggestions as to what this means for this article and the related Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests article? FDW777 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see a more clear break down of the deaths associated with the protest, especially to point out that at least two [33] [34] were caused by police. Perhaps a separate section to cover the deaths as in the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests article? El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC that the Protests are no Longer Ongoing

There have been no reported incident regarding George Floyd since August, absolutely no WP:RS says it is still ongoing, and nowhere other than Wikipedia based on opinions of certain editors the protests are still considered ongoing. This was stated before, it is an update after 2 months, there has not been any protest relating to George Floyd since August, no WP:V that is ongoing and people are mixing up the protests relating to the Killing of George Floyd with other Black Lives Matter protests which have been going on for decades and protests relating to the 2020 election. It is not an official war like the American Civil War that there has to be a declaration the protests are over, but like the 1992 Los Angeles riots which was over when no further incidents of protests were reported. There are no reports or WP:RS that the George Floyd protests are still ongoing, thus it must be referred to as an event of the past. This was the last reported George Floyd protest incident on August 3rd [35]. While the George Floyd protests may not be ongoing anymore, protests relating to other issues of racism and police brutality may be included in other Black Lives Matter movement articles. Please WP:AGF Dilbaggg (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Include: As per the points I made above and there being 0 WP:RS and WP:V that the protests relating to the killing of George Floyd are still ongoing. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Dilbaggg: I think you meant to type ″while″, when you said White the George Floyd protests may not be ongoing anymore[...]. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes,simple typo fixed. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC is out of process. There's no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE was followed, the opening statement is not neutral. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Dilbaggg. This is a mini-polemic, not an RfC. As to the meat of the matter, it's obvious that the Floyd protests have mutated into broader ones in response to similar incidents (and many RS say so explicitly). The protests have certainly not stopped; I just saw news that someone was shot to death in one yesterday. The real issue here is that "George Floyd protests" is the wrong article title. What we should have is a WP:RM to something like "2020 protests for racial justice", or "2020 protests for racial justice in the United States" if it needs to be split up geographically. Or something like that; maybe something that mentions BLM more specifically in the title? Whatever. It's not an RfC question but an RM one. PS: "George Floyd protests" was a terrible title to being with; no one is protesting George Floyd. So even if we did not want to broaden the scope, the article should be moved anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

    SMcCandlish no WP:RS mentions George Floyd since August 2020, this arice is soley about protests relating to him, so adding other protests and making them part of it is not right, also a new to designing RfC Can anyone fix my format? Dilbaggg (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

    I have no idea what you mean by that claim. I see references to George Floyd, and protests, in RS like major newspapers every single day, and I don't even read that much news. You are also not following my argument above at all. But that's okay. I expect that a more sensible discussion, that is not a one-sided proposal mis-framed as an RfC, will net many editors who do understand.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Badly formatted biased RFC, but see below, yes it looks like it is still ongoing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  The purpose of RfC is for getting approval, and I shared my points, there is nothing biased about RfC just because some people donot like it. What ever majrity editors say, include/oppose is what will count and it will by that be decided wheather it is ongoing/over.. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  "Keep the RfC statement short and simple. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". You tell people what the correct answer is, that is not how to frame an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  4 days ago https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/george-floyd-protests-suspect-bail-a4566101.html, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/george-floyd-protests-suspect-bail-a4566101.html 2 hours ago https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-police-protests/we-want-protection-french-police-protest-violence-against-officers-idUKKBN26X1M8.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  This just says a george Floyd protester got bailed, it doesn't say he is protesting now, it says he was one of the detained protesters who got "Bailed" 4 days ago. You are counting a former detained protesting veteran getting bailed now as a continuation of the protest? But anyway i said my points here, whatever the majority says goes, and if my RfC format is incorrect (I never started an RfC before, I was always just a participant), please correct the format. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  There are two sources, here is another https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/george-floyd-protests-suspect-bail-a4566101.html, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/protesters-knock-down-roosevelt-lincoln-statues-in-portland/.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reported using of hexachloroethane

Federal forces have reported used more-toxic-than-most chemical weapons in Portland. See the Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2020/10/10/portland-tear-gas-chemical-grenades-protests/ 138.88.18.245 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like a few more sources for this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I question that it needs more sources, most stuff is considered verifiable if it has been reported by one RS. Further the article is based on research conducted by a group of scientists and backed up by photo and video evidence. A brief search turns up that at least one other police department uses this [36]. I will have a further look later. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Its called wp:undue. Also both wp:blp and wp:crime might come into it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked 'federal forces' are not a person let alone a living one, and this page is not a biography. The use of this type of smoke grenades is not a crime, as the above linked article states that it is part of the standard operating procedures for at least one police department. A sentence or two in a 20,000 odd word article is unlikely to be undue weight and it seems to me that a reliable source publishing a whole article on a subject that is directly related to a page (especially one that is, like this, on a fairly narrow subject) is sufficient to give it due weight. These two are probably not RSs but here's a local news site cover it [37], and here's an article based on the Intercept report [38] if that helps convince you. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I said might, BLP can apply to groups, its a case by case basis. Also one police department is not all, again if this is worthy of inclusion there would be more sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP states that A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group. I view the police as a rather large organisation and therefore not subject to the use of this policy. Further I doubt that BLP has ever been used to protect a government on Wikipedia before and I think that the use of a policy designed to protect private individuals to defend a government department is rather troubling. I stand by my previous view that this is directly related to the topic of this article page but if you feel that it would be more relevant on a different article please feel free to point me towards it. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The one about the Portland protests?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

BLM crowd funding and the aims of the movement as laid out on their Gofundme page.

BLM have a gofundme crowd funding page where they lay out their aims for all to see:

"We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately and systematically harm Black people in Britain and around the world."

"We call for the police to be defunded"

And most disturbingly: "Black Lives Matter UK (BLMUK) is a coalition of black activists and organisers across the UK". "We will be supporting.....Organisations that align with our political demands."

This is a neo-Marxist political organisation: they say themselves that they are trained Marxists (Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E202:D401:F9DF:64DB:6B8F:B372 (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So? What edit do you propose?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

BLM is decentralized--Hiveir (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Photos

• Photos I took some photos here in Wisconsin - Wauwatosa Wisc. They may be useful. Lightburst (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing

Just on case.

https://katu.com/news/local/protesters-stage-sit-in-at-portlands-revolution-hall-to-mark-george-floyds-47th-birthday.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"The group said there was no plan for ‘direct action’ after Wednesday’s sit-in, and is planned as a celebration of Floyd’s birthday and legacy." quoted from your post, clear declaration that this marks the end of the protest. We should set end date October 15, 2020 as per your source Slatersteven. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No its means they are not planing commit any ‘direct action’. Not that no one else will. Nor does it say they have stopped, only that they have no plans at this time to continue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What it shows (and there were other form of "commemorations" as well) is that the protests are sill, (as of just 3 days ago) ongoing. What it shows is we need to wait before declaring this over.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

[39] declaration of the end of the protests, besides there are 0 WP:RS the protests are still on going, most of the recent events are just to pay tributes, the protests are long over, and the Black Lives Matter protests are getting mixed with the George Floyd Protests, regardless as per this source we can say the protests ended, @Slatersteven ? Dilbaggg (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets wait till after the election, and that is only about his home town.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The live feeds have ceased. What would need to happen for these protests to be considered over? CaptainPrimo (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

One of two things. Either multiple RS say ALL the protests are over, or there has to have been enough time with out ANY protests for it to be "blue Sky" obvious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

How to organize this subject moving forward?

I'm seeing a lot of events added to various "George Floyd protests" articles that don't mention George Floyd. While he's obviously a big part of so much that's going on, at some point we need to figure out a better way to draw lines around this and other subjects. Maybe that's renaming the various articles to be about "2020 Black Lives Matter protests" or maybe that's about creating separate articles for Black Lives Matter protests and making sure that all material added to these articles are specifically described by reliable sources as a response to the killing of George Floyd. What do people think? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Might need to split off a new article at some point. I think that the George Floyd protests kick-started general protests over systemic racism and its enforcement with police brutality. One bled into the other, you could say. J.D.718 (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

We made the 2020 United States racial unrest for this reason. Imo anything that isn't directly related to George Floyd should be categorized accordingly Anon0098 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Where should the beating of Darquan Jones go?

The incident triggered some protests in Iowa (http://kcci.com/article/black-lives-matter-rally-focuses-on-des-moines-man-assaulted-last-weekend/32652171 https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2020/06/07/george-floyd-des-moines-black-lives-matter-protests-updates-demonstrations-sunday-iowa-prayer/3161796001/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/des-moines-not-immune-iowa-protesters-march-racial-justice-get-n1225976). Would it go in the 'Elsewhere in the United States' section or just the List of George Floyd protests in the United States article? Or somewhere else? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Here 2020 United States racial unrest.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

im pretty sure it didnt end.

how do we know it ended? it isn't like a scheduled event, with a definite ending. where did it end? New3400 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There is aa WP:RS declaring its end, regardless it was a protest not a war like American Civil War that there has to be an official declaration of its end, protests ends when the final series of protests are reported and no for ther protests are reported as with 1992 Los Angeles riots, there was no declaration the riots ended on May 3/4, but after that date due to army deployment rioting ceased, same goes with the 1980 Miami riots, no protests were reported after May 20, but there are never any "official declaration of the end of the protests>" There are no longer any individual protests linked to George Floyd Protests alone, now the sparodic protest that goes on are part of the 2020 United States racial unrest and the Black Lives Matter movement which speaks not of George Floyd alone but also other victims of racial killings such as Eric Garner, Breonna Taylor and so on. Protests "individually over "George Floyd" have ceased, there are absolutely no WP:RS taht individual protests on George Floyd are going on, when it really was on May-July it was all over TV, not the case anymore, events after taht are the over all 2020 United States racial unrest which are also about other victims of police killing besides George Floyd which are getting mixed with the individual George Floyd protests. And stuffs like "remembering George Floyd in his birthday" isn't protesting, I am sure his death will be remembered and for ages and his death date people will remember him, but the original series of protests have ended and absolutely no WP:V exists that protests individually over George Floyd are ongoing, no WP:RS stats that it is still ongoing, although he is remembered along with other victims in the ongoing 2020 United States racial unrest protests individually over George Floyd (which this article is about) have ended. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

first paragraph typo

This sentence in the first paragraph should be corrected to say "nearly nine minutes". I would edit it, but the article is semi-protected.

Culdesacjungle (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

why so much bias in an article that is not freely editable?

"While the majority of protests have been peaceful" in the third paragraph with a citation. However, there is _no_ such reference in the paywalled(!) article, only a comparison to the 1992 Los Angeles riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:B10A:900:CCCE:1D9A:BDEE:CDDF (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Caution in declaring an end of protests

There should be caution by editors in declaring the George Floyd protest movement over. For example, this source that was used in a prior edit does not say the protest movement over Floyd's death actually ended on November 1. The article is about how people in Third Ward of Houston in the U.S. state of Texas were motivated by the killing of Floyd and other Black Americans to vote in the November election. The article's headline is a bit misleading, so maybe that created confusion.

While the global protests movement has waned since June and the U.S. protest movement over Floyd's death has taken on broader themes, it is presumptuous to say that unrest has ended as of a certain date, despite whatever commentary there may be out there in a particular news article and on the Internet. The protests are ongoing. For example, there is an occupation protests at the Minneapolis intersecton of Floyd's arrest where community members, among many demands, are seeking justice over Floyd's death. This particular protest is covered extensively in reputable secondary sources. Many smaller protests no longer receive the same level of media attention they once did, but they are happening, so be cautious in declaring a premature end to the George Floyd protests without substantial secondary sourcing. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, but come Jan 01 we can say the 2020 ones are over.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Well...2020 events seem likely to continue into 2021. The George Floyd protest movement began on May 26, 2020, at the intersection of East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis, and the ongoing occupation protest there is likely to continue in at least some form well beyond January 1, 2021. Several secondary sources have reported that local authorities are preparing for the possibility of future unrest with the looming trial of the four police officers. Recent developments in the case, such as Chauvin posting bail in October, resulted in protests and unrest. Until there is an acceptable judicial outcome for many, the protests will be "ongoing". Ferguson unrest is discussed over a three-year period. There is no reason why George Floyd protests must be limited to a calendar year. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would rather a new article on racial unrest 2021.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I get that. A 2021 racial unrest article will likely emerge for broader themes of continued unrest, but the George Floyd protests should not be declared over based on one flimsy article. Also, the George Floyd protests article will still need to be updated with new developments in 2021 and thereafter. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There is aa WP:RS declaring its end, regardless it was a protest not a war like American Civil War that there has to be an official declaration of its end, protests ends when the final series of protests are reported and no for ther protests are reported as with 1992 Los Angeles riots, there was no declaration the riots ended on May 3/4, but after that date due to army deployment rioting ceased, same goes with the 1980 Miami riots, no protests were reported after May 20, but there are never any "official declaration of the end of the protests>" There are no longer any individual protests linked to George Floyd Protests alone, now the sparodic protest that goes on are part of the 2020 United States racial unrest and the Black Lives Matter movement which speaks not of George Floyd alone but also other victims of racial killings such as Eric Garner, Breonna Taylor and so on. Protests "individually over "George Floyd" have ceased, there are absolutely no WP:RS taht individual protests on George Floyd are going on, when it really was on May-July it was all over TV, not the case anymore, events after taht are the over all 2020 United States racial unrest which are also about other victims of police killing besides George Floyd which are getting mixed with the individual George Floyd protests. And stuffs like "remembering George Floyd in his birthday" isn't protesting, I am sure his death will be remembered and for ages and his death date people will remember him, but the original series of protests have ended and absolutely no WP:V exists that protests individually over George Floyd are ongoing, no WP:RS stats that it is still ongoing, although he is remembered along with other victims in the ongoing 2020 United States racial unrest protests individually over George Floyd (which this article is about) have ended. Also Minnemeeples i find your edit pattern and joining dates similar to this spi blocked user: [40]. Anyway no WP:RS says its on going and it is pure Wp:OR to say "protests individually over George Floyd" are ongoing, do not mix up the 2020 United States racial unrest over other victims including Floyd (like Brianna Taylor, Eric Garner, etc)) with the individual George Floyd protests. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I responded to your opinions about the sources under the subhead, "So has the protests date?" Other issues can be discussed on user talk pages. Thanks! Minnemeeples (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

So has the protests date?

I am adding an Dubious discuss on the date, other editors have stated that the George Floyd protests are ongoing. While inequality and police brutality protests are all ongoing can we state that specifically that the George Floyd Protests are ongoing? I lean towards them being ongoing but I would like to discuss it here. Vallee01 (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The user who started this discussion has been recently blocked for three months for edit warring in an unrelated article, so I think this disqualifies the discussion. Also my last edit sumary explains why a dubious tag is not a good idea. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Again it is extremely difficult to say if the George Floyd Protests ended, sources state there is a mass amount of demonstrations ongoing but are they part of the George Floyd Protests?

It can't really be stated either way, these protests are obviously centered largely around the killing of George Floyd but again it's extremely tricky I think Wikipedia start date -> end date doesn't really work here. Users like Minnemeeples and Slatersteven chiming in would be helpful to try to establish an understanding. It would be helpful for creating a discussion going. Thanks!

This isn't a single editors position users like Minnemeeples were the ones editing the page to state it is ongoing, other users have also disputed this. I wasn't even involved, I actually didn't even revert your edits stating it was over, I didn't even state it was ongoing. Making personal attacks isn't helping your case however, it doesn't help in winning people over and tends to shoot yourself in the foot.

Dilbaggg this is a personal attack, please don't make any, you don't know anything on Wikipedia if you think "The user who started this discussion has been recently blocked for three months for edit warring in an unrelated article, so I think this disqualifies the discussion," is complete nonsense no it doesn't disqualify me from making edits on this page, and it doesn't help you in establishing consensus. Vallee01 (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I had some misgivings I apologize Vallee01, when I saw your revision history and saw the block tag i thought you were fully blocked, not realizing its partial block, but bring this up is in no way a personal attack. Regardless there are no Wp:RS that states individual protests over George Floyd are still on going, no Wp:RS states that 1980 Miami Riots ended on May 20, 1980, it was however the last day of reported incident, you might as well claim that the event is still going on after 40 years and disputed tag to that and all other protests article.... Protests are not wars that have official declaration of being over like the American Civil War. Protests ends after the last reported case, and there are absolutely no WP:RS that says "individual protests over George Floyd" are still ongoing, Watts Riot in 1965 was a part of the Civil rights Movement, not the movement itself and had a specific e d date "with the last reported individuaql incident", similarly George Floyd was a part of the [[Black Lives Matter[[ movement and the 2020 United States racial unrest, but now protests individually over Floyd are not happening, though he is mentioned with other victims like Brianna Taylor, Eric Garner, Ahmaud Arbery protests, etc, so please do not mix up protests individually over Floyd with the overall 2020 United States racial unrest and to say that individual protests over George Floyd (which is what this article is about) are ongoing, without any Wp:RS saying so is pure Wp:NOR violation. I urge you to please refrain from it. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg claims that a Reuters article declares the protest movement over. It makes so no such claim. The reporter interviewed a handful of people in the Houston, Texas area who said that the killing of Floyd and other black Americans was a motivating factor to vote in the United States 2020 general elections. I think the user may be misled by the headline, "In George Floyd's hometown, a season of protest ends at the polls", but according to Wikipedia practice a headline is not a reliable source. An editor should also be cautious about extrapolating broader conclusions from one particular source that relies on the opinions of a few people, I think that is called undue weight.

Dilbaggg is ignoring and deliberately removing more recent sources about the protest movement over George Floyd's death. For example, several highly reputable local and national media outlets have covered the ongoing occupation protest at the East 38th and Chicago Avenue intersection in Minneapolis where Floyd was arrested on May 26, 2020. Here is a WCCO article from August about the protest and the media's link to the list of demands. In the news report, WCCO highlights the demand of "holding the trial for the four ex-Minneapolis officers accused in George Floyd’s death". There are many sources from after November 1, 2020, that discuss this protest and the demands of the protesters there, such as reports by Wall Street Journal, PBS Newshour, a Minnesota Public Radio monthlong series, and a recent article in Minneapolis area news source ("not going anywhere"). According to reputable sources (1, 2, and 3) local authorities in Minneapolis-Saint Paul are preparing for the possibility of continued unrest with the trial of the fours officers scheduled for March 2021.

The ongoing protest movement over Floyd's death continues, according to multiple recent reputable sources, at the very same place same place it began. Here is an article and photo essay by Minnesota Public Radio from Monday, December 16, 2020 about it. Sources do not have to specifically use the word "ongoing" in order for protest movement to be considered ongoing. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to report a user, do so, but do not make a song and dance about it here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Will do. Removed "song and dance" comment and will address it on user talk pages. Thanks for the feedback. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Do not misinterpret sources Minnemeeples, nowhere on your given source https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/12/15/from-schoolmarm-to-sentry-mpls-teacher-responds-to-george-floyd-killing Monday, December 16, 2020] is it said that the protests are ongoing, the word "protest" isn't even used on this article and do not confuse individual protests over George Floyd with the overall 2020 United States racial unrest. The Nytimes source is back in July and /www.mprnews.org/story/2020/12/15/from-schoolmarm-to-sentry-mpls-teacher-responds-to-george-floyd-killing Monday you provided doesn't even use the word protests, it is just about a school teacher "talking about the protests", not anything about protesting. Properly quote your sources where they say the protests "are still going on", and please refrain from misinterpreting sources and WP:NOR violation.. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the Minnesota Public Radio source from December 16, 2020:

"Today, she volunteers daily at the intersection, which neighbors and activists from around the region have been holding as an autonomous zone for nearly seven months. They’re calling for restitution from the city for Floyd’s killing and what they consider neglect of an historically Black neighborhood.

“We said ‘no justice, no streets.’ And part of that is simply taking over the streets and occupying them every single hour of the day,” Howard said. She took a leave of absence from teaching English at nearby Roosevelt High School to do so."

That seems to fit the description of an ongoing protest over the killing of George Floyd. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the word protesting? All these seem to fit "aftermath", rather than the protests itself, in 1992 Los Angeles riots, "Although Mayor Bradley lifted the curfew, signaling the official end of the riots, sporadic violence and crime continued for a few days afterward. Schools, banks, and businesses reopened. Federal troops did not stand down until May 9. The Army National Guard remained until May 14. Some National Guardsmen remained as late as May 27.[112]" LAPD chief of police Daryl Gates, who had seen his successor Willie L. Williams named by the Police Commission days before the riots,[143] was forced to resign on June 28, 1992.[144] Some areas of the city saw temporary truces between the rival gangs the Crips and the Bloods, which fueled speculation among LAPD officers that the truce was going to be used to unite them against the department.[145]

but the main protests ended on May 4, the event was talked about and celebrated for years, that did not make it part of the main protests. 

Anyway do whatever you feel, I will be busy a few days, I will fix the article again after coming back probably next week. best wishes, but please do not confuse the aftermath with the main protests and also do not mix up the individual protests on George Floyd with the 2020 United States racial unrest of which the George Floyd protests were just a part of. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is another Minnesota Public Radio story, from November 25, 2020 about the ongoing occupation protest at East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis.

In an audio clip, Tom Crann, the host of All Things Considered and narrator of the piece, says this from the 0:20 to 0:36 mark, “Today, we want to go back to where it all started, because while the angry demonstrations that consumed much of south Minneapolis and other cities have largely disappeared, a protest with deep roots has taken hold at the intersection of 38th Street and Chicago.”

The article says, "Six months later, much of that energy has waned, poured into an historic election and diversity initiatives. But at the movement’s epicenter, a protest with deep roots has taken hold."

I think it is fair to say that the protest movement has evolved over time, but it not accurate to say that protests over the killing of George Floyd entirely ended on November 1, 2020. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, from the Minnesota Daily on November 16, 2020 about the continued occupation of the intersection, "It’s not looking at the winter as an adversary to the protests, but a part of the protests,” Austin said. “The environment is very much so a part of this. The ground bore witness to the death of George Floyd."

I don't it is necessary for a source to literally say certain words, such as "protests" or "ongoing", to establish that something is an continuing civil demonstration, but there are sources that post-date the November 1, 2020 Reuters article with much deeper context than a headline. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

According to WCCO on November 25, 2020, "The streets have been blocked off by protesters since May, and that’s become a concern for some people living in the neighborhood." I would think protesters blocking a city street would be considered an ongoing protest as of the date of the news source.

Keep in mind that the article content in the Reuters source on November 1, 2020, which is the source an editor is using to say the George Floyd protest movement already ended, is about the voting motivations for a handful of people in Houston, Texas. Many reputable secondary sources, by both local and national media outlets, have after November 1 described an ongoing occupation protest about the killing of George Floyd at the East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue intersection in Minneapolis where the protest movement began on May 26, 2020. It is not original research to say that the George Floyd protests are still going on, but a fact discussed in many secondary sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a letter from the City of Minneapolis to activists representing the protest at East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue dated November 9, 2020. It states, "This fall we have been working on plans in a very public manner through council meetings and community surveys that would preserve space in the street for memorialization, grieving, visitation, protest, or other community uses" (emphasis added).

Here is a photo essay by Minnesota Public Radio about how barricades "remain intact today" (I believe the source date is December 2, 2020) at East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue and that the "people in the square say they will maintain the barricades around the memorial unless the city meets their list of 24 demands." That sure seems like an ongoing protest. (The list of demands was posted in a WCCO source earlier in the discussion.)

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but one editor has pledge to return and revert changes that suggest the protest movement is ongoing. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I've read here, I think as long as the intersection occupy protest is ongoing and local media are still writing articles on it, the George Floyd protests should be considered ongoing. I was initially in agreement that the protests should be considered largely over, but there appears to be some dedicated street activity specifically regarding George Floyd that last lasted past November 1st. RopeTricks (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus on the George Floyd protests as ongoing, as the arguments in favor as well as the sources provided are more numerous and also make more sense, there also seems to be unanimity among editors with the exception of one. We need not to confuse the fact of ongoing racial protests with the George Floyd Protests the George Floyd protests are specific section of racial protests. However consensus seems to be that ongoing protests are centering still around the killing of George Floyd.

The argument against stumbles however. The argument is based around 2020 Racial unrest being ongoing while the George Floyd Protests having been passed. This does not appear to have a consensus of scholarly, news, or popular position with only one citation provided that isn't reliable enough to be considered have ended. While the ongoing section provided multiple citations of reports of George Floyd Protests, which is the best kind of source a source that simply document event.

The George Floyd protests are defined by protests based around the killing of George Floyd, and therefor it seems there is an unanimity on the matter from most sources that state is as ongoing. Only one editor has opposed it as ongoing. Indeed protests are still occurring and the sources provided prove that. As well as this protests centering around George Floyd are ongoing so therefor we must state it as ongoing. Thanks, this has been a good discussion, there seems to be a consensus on the matter, with one editor opposing the changes. If the editor wants to keep on debating making new arguments for it being finished we can keep discussing it here. For now however it seems like the protests should be defined as ongoing. We need to confuse racial protests and the George Floyd protests as identical however and that I think we have made clear. Vallee01 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Since some editors alluded to George Floyd protests ending despite the consensus discussion above, here is a monthlong series that Minnesota Public Radio ran in December 2020 about the ongoing protests in Minneapolis at the location Floyd was killed. The last story in the series ran on December 30, 2020. Here is another MPR article from December 29, 2020 about city council engagement with protesters at the site. No sources since have discussed resolution of that situation, or declared the entire protest movement over, so presumably it is ongoing into 2021. I hope this is helpful. Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Misinterpretation and undue weight to Nov. 1 Reuters article

There is a separate discussion about whether the protest movement should be considered ongoing. Since it seems to be an issue of controversy, I think another discussion topic is warranted about how best to interpret and weigh the following source:

Brooks, Brad (1 November 2020). "In George Floyd's hometown, a season of protest ends at the polls". Reuters.

The source is being used to argue that the George Floyd protest movement ended on November 1. That claim is not even supported by the headline, which is contextualized to a specific location ("In George Floyd's hometown..."). According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source." The body of the article does not say that "a season of protest ends at the polls" or even that protests outside of Houston have ended.

Some key points about the source:

• The article is about George Floyd's hometown is a historically Black neighborhood in Houston, Texas.
• Floyd's death resulted in increased Black American voter turnout, in Houston and nationally.
• In the Third Ward (of Houston, Texas) some people said they emerged from the summer's protests to be more politically active.
• The article quotes and/or mentions six Houston, Texas residents and one police chief.
• The article makes no claims about the protest movement outside of George Floyd's hometown.
• A person feels we are in a new Civil Rights area.
• Voting is a first step, but not the end-all-be-all, according to a person quoted.

The article is not a reflection on the George Floyd protest movement in Minneapolis, in the United States, or around the globe. At best, I think the article could be used as a source to explain how the protest movement evolved for some people into greater voter participation, particularly in the Third Ward of Houston, Texas. But it certainly cannot be used to definitely state that the George Floyd protest movement everywhere ended on November 1 because it never said that in the article. Minnemeeples (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You can differentiate between the large scale protests that ended awhile ago and the minor ones that continue with little media coverage. So list the dates for when the large scale ones ended as one period and the small scale ones that continue as beginning from when the large scale ones ended. That's what they do on pages about wars. Otherwise its misleading to say just that they are ongoing without qualifying what is ongoing. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems like a reasonable approach, to explain what has already run its course, and to explain exactly what notable protests are still ongoing that receive extensive media coverage, such as the occupation protest at East 38th and Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis. Historians will eventually do the lumping into various periods, so I would be cautious about rigidly assigning and labelling periods or phases. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Extremist Participation Section

I think the following sentence in the "Extremist Participation" section may be a bit too strongly worded based on the cited sources: "Episodes of looting were committed by "regular criminal groups" and street gangs[175][173] and was motivated by personal gain rather than ideology.[3] "

Proposed change: "According to CNN and New York Times reporting, most episodes of looting were committed by "regular criminal groups" and street gangs.[175][173]" I'd recommend removing the second portion -- motivations seem very difficult to report neutrally, although maybe I missed something in the referenced article?

First time contributor, let me know if I'm doing something wrong!

Pedranda (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is ambiguous as to whether it refers to "most" or "some" episodes of looting. If it's "some", it's fine as is, but can be clarified by "Some episodes...". If it's "most", then it's not really supported by the sources. What the first two sources support is that most of the looting in NYC and LA (according to the NYPD and LAPD) and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (according to the PA AG) was done by regular criminal groups/street gangs. The third source only supports that "some" of the looters were motivated by personal gain (the relevant sentence in the ABC article is A smaller group has admitted to using the moment for personal gain through acts like looting.). Maybe we can say: Most episodes of looting in New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia were committed by "regular criminal groups" and street gangs, according to police and prosecutors. Lester Mobley (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Welcome, Pedranda, and thanks for taking a careful look at the sourcing of this sentence! Lester Mobley (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Skirmish in Minneapolis on May 26

The only skirmish (as in actual physical one) I've seen mentioned is between vandal protestors and peaceful protestors trying to stop them. The only source that mentioned it was NYT. It is not mentioned as the reason police fired at the crowd. Why wasn't this corrected?

"They rallied peacefully on the steps with a megaphone and signs. Then, as night closed in, they started wandering home. But a rowdy group peeled away, spray painting graffiti on the police precinct house wall. Someone smashed the window of an empty police cruiser. “This is not OK,” a young female protester can be overheard saying on a video later posted to Facebook. A scuffle broke out. “Everybody go home,” someone screamed." LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a skirmish between police and demonstrators on May 26. Greta Kaul, a reporter for the MinnPost, published a seven-day timeline on June 1, 2020. Here's what she reports about Tuesday, May 26:

Thousands gathered, with a peaceful protest marching from Cup Foods to the Minneapolis Police Department’s Third Precinct Headquarters on Minnehaha Avenue near Lake Street. But as the evening wore on, tension escalated. The MPD’s Third Precinct headquarters was damaged, and at around 8 p.m., police began firing chemical agents and rubber bullets at protesters, some of whom had allegedly thrown water bottles at the police. Later, as rain set in, most protesters dispersed, per MPR’s Jon Collins.

Is this helpful? Minnemeeples (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing

Really? They virtually stopped in August, see File:Graph of BLM demonstrations 24 May - 22 August 2020 by ACLED.png. Wikisaurus (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The data source for that graph is ACLED on September 3, 2020. They discussed how protests in U.S. summer months broadened and then declined in number. And they said, "The demonstrations remain ongoing. Though reported events associated with the BLM movement have gradually declined since their peak in late May and early June, ACLED still continues to record dozens of demonstrations each week (see graph below)." Even the source behind that graph doesn't make the claim that George Floyd protests are over. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that it is no longer ongoing, I do not agree that August is really a definitive end date.

Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The date is November 1, and I had sourced it, but a new editor removed it, and Wikipedia is notorious enough for letting "anybody edit" and including personal views that contradict WP:RS or the literal fact that the protests ended LONG ago, just based on individual users opinions. So I don't bother helping with that reputation anymore. For more accurate media we know that George Floyd protests are over, here they are just including the ongoing BLM features on an article over the individual protests over the death of George Floyd protests that ended back in November 1. Regardless I don't care about this WP:Fancruft anymore!Dilbaggg (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What was the source for November 1? What was the basis for their conclusion that the protests ended then? Kire1975 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The November 1, 2020, source did not say the protests had ended. A Reuters article that interviewed a handful of people in Houston, Texas, United States described how Floyd's death was a motivating factor to vote in the U.S. elections. This article was discussed in the talk archive here. Minnemeeples (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The protest movement over Floyd's death is not over according to many reliable secondary sources. There is an ongoing occupation protest at George Floyd Square, the street intersection of East 38th Street and Chicago where Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. Protesters have blocked off the street and made several demands of the city, including the immediate trial of the four officers. Here two articles from January 7, 2021 about it: [41] and [42]. The protest there was the subject of a monthlong series by Minnesota Public Radio in December 2020. More recently, one of the arguments for delaying the trial of the officers is the anticipation of further demonstrations[43]. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2 where the issue was discussed extensively. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Minnemeeples. Massive things have been going on every day in Portland since May. The only thing that's over is either that it's not getting news coverage, or people have stopped updating these pages. Kire1975 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In that case it would help to include the January events in the article, or add a chronology of sorts. NoNews! 01:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I added some recent sources and context to help explain the ongoing nature. I will add more soon. Several secondary sources from late January 2021 discussed the prospect of continued unrest around the trial of the four officers (e.g., this article). There might need to be a way to capture potential unrest related to new developments in the case against the officers. Minnemeeples (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No Riots and Looting Section?

There was widespread violence from Black Lives Matter protesters in various cities all around America which has caused the death of police officers and destruction of property. I'm concerned about there being no section explaining the violence. I feel like the editors are biased and left leaning. Please add a deicated sextion explaining the violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.2.198.75 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If only there was a section called "Violence and controversies" we could do just that.... FDW777 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes thank you.Can yo create this section?

You could try looking, its already there.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but there is no section explaining rioting and looting. There is Police attacks on journalists, Attacks on law enforcement, Injuries caused by police projectiles, Extremist participation. All of these seem to portray the protesters as victims when police have been killed in retaliation yo George loyd'sdeath. Come on guys let's be real don't you see the bias? There should also be a section called Destruction to private property which is more politically correct.

How is "Attacks on law enforcement" about "the protesters as victims when police"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

lead falsely claims "protests" began "peacefully", when in fact violent riots came first

The lead claims that "While the majority of protests have been peaceful, demonstrations in some cities escalated into riots, looting, and street skirmishes with police and counter-protesters." But this is exactly backwards. Per Politifact, "a review of demonstrations in five major cities found that all of the protests started with violence, but then became largely peaceful."[44] Further, in the large cities where the riots began: "while all of them started with violence, demonstrations are now largely peaceful."[45] The fact is that overlapping violent riots in several cities expanded into "mostly-peaceful protests"—and the article needs to be corrected to clarify that. This isn't to say that violent riots didn't continue to be a prominent feature of the protests—just that the current summary of the beginnings is inaccurate. Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources present in the article seem to contradict Politifact. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The first protests was in Minneapolis on May 26 at midday at the location Floyd died. Organizers there emphasized keeping it peaceful. This is cited and discussed in the article. It didn’t start violently. And when violence occurred, in Minneapolis especially, it was noted as a stark contrast to daytime protests that were mostly peaceful. Minnemeeples (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That sentence involved a very long arduous process of gaining consensus because some people wanted to mention riots first and some people didn't want to mention riots whatsoever. You're lucky this page even mentions riots at all. I don't expect you to get enough consensus to change it without sacrificing the rest of the article Anon0098 (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Attacks on law enforcement

Hello Slatersteven, how are you doing on this fine day? Here's a nice place where you can explain why you reverted my edits. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You revert content that has been on the article for a while, and you tell me to explain why it needs to be kept? That makes no sense. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

For a start ", and picked up and threw temporary barriers at the gates of Downing Street." 10 downing street is not a policeman or police station. wp:blp is clear, we should not include crimes that are only alleged where we can ID the accused. I am not sure many of your sources would pass RS. Some of the killings may not even be part of the protests "The FBI has not yet determined a motive for the" shooting and is still investigating the matter. This is why we have wp:rs. Also this has been removed more then once and readded, so we need to discuss it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you reverted the whole section when you only have a couple of issues with it? It makes no sense at all. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If you can't bring yourself to believe that 'peaceful protesters' would dare hurt a police officer, I suggest you take a look at these:[46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I can, but this needs serious reworking. It needs to use better sources, that are clear which attacks were protest related, which attacks were by far-right agitators and leave out ones that have not been linked (by, for example, the FBI) to the protest, but may have just been random attacks. For example "Bottle and flares were thrown at Grey's Monument on Saturday, with counter-protesters later targeting officers, Northumbria Police said.", in other words, not BKL but the anti-BLM protestors attacked the police. THis is why this needs writing with more care.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific when you say "use better sources" as I don't see any problem with the sources. As for the rest of it, I never said it was anyone specific attacking the police, I just said that police were attacked. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not RS. Also (and again) this needs more balance, why not say "and counter-protestors"?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What blog? What balance? And please be specific where sources mention counter-protesters. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There's already a section which goes into detail about the involvement and violence of right-wing extremists. It could be mentioned, but the WP:BALANCE is already there. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The blog that has blog in the title, this blog "nationalinterest.org/blog", I have already quoted a source you have posted in the thread about "Bottle and flares were thrown at Grey's Monument on Saturday, with counter-protesters later targeting officers, Northumbria Police said.", this is my concern, you are not checking sources and appear to be cherry-picking. I have no more to say, it needs re-working, and any re-working should be first put here so we can discuss it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fox News isn't reliable. FDW777 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 please show me where it says that. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I already did, and don't ping me thank you. FDW777 (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure where you are referring to? Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, it would help if you had told me on the talk page as sometimes the edit summary can be harder to understand. On WP:RSP it say There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. Seeing as the articles used are on injuries to police officers, which are not political or science related, Fox News is reliable. I hope that helps, please place the content back in. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about police injuries, it's about a series of the political demonstations.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That's correct, but we are talking about a section in the article, if you hadn't noticed. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So? the article is about a political matter, thus its contents must conform to our policies on politics. Fox news is prohibited for politics at least in part due to its coverage of the BLM protests and its dishonest reporting of them.14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

So? The section isn't about politics, thus the contents does not need to conform to our policies on politics. Fox news is considered generally reliable. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

An article claiming police under seige as part of the George Floyd protests is certainly making a political claim; and a section titled "attacks on law enforcement" in an article about political protests is certainly political as well. The entire reason Fox isn't considered reliable on political topics is because they will distort and, in some cases, outright misrepresent facts in order to suit the political narrative they were founded to advance; obviously, this means it makes no sense to say "yes, but this isn't directly about politics, just stating facts with political implications." Any time Fox states something with clear political implications, we have to treat it skeptically due to their history of unreliability on similarly political-hotbutton topics (eg. COVID-19, climate change, etc.) Their unreliability on COVID-19 in particular was central to the outcome of the most recent RFC (it was the biggest thing that had changed since previous RFCs.) And the common thread between such topics - issues with hot-button political implications in the US - plainly applies here, so they can't be used as a source for this. --Aquillion (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Two cents: for a dedicated section header, it's probably a good idea to have sources which talk about the subject in general (a trend, several instances covered together, etc.) and we shouldn't be using either Fox News (yes, this is a political subject) or National Interest (not one I'm all that familiar with, but a conservative publication published by Nixon's think tank doesn't strike me as an ideal source for issues at the intersection of politics, policing, and race).

To be clear, though, I think it's likely sourcing exists to justify including some of this material. Part of the issue is the current organization of the "violence and controversies" section. It's unclear to me why we have the subheadings we do there, which don't seem to effectively summarize the material that's largely covered in other articles at this point. Part of why the material you added about violence against police seems undue (beyond the sourcing) is because of proportionality in this section. It would be very hard to argue that there's not far more coverage critical of police response and/or of violence by police than there is violence against police (again, broad coverage of these phenomena). I'd suggest finding the best sources and going for a single short paragraph just before "police attacks on journalists". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hence why we need to discuss it, both tone and content. But the current situation was hard-won by consensus. So we need to be careful about inserting (what was) in essence) a list of selected incidents.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

hard-won by consensus the most laughable conclusion to this discussion. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think SS is talking about [multiple] past discussions, not this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I was, going back months.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I just took out "London" content. We spun off the "violence and controversies" bit because there were hundreds of protests worldwide and it's just undue to focus on the various incidents of violence and controversies that occurred in various places. It's WP:UNDUE to highlight London, for example, or any other single city (perhaps with the exception of Minny). What's WP:DUE in this article about violence is a summary of the spin-off, not a selection from it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That content shouldn't have been added to Impact on police activity, since there is no information about impact. Had that been suggested before the edit was made, that rather obvious flaw in the plan would have been pointed out. FDW777 (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why the injury of police officers, which has been widely covered in sources and is certainly notable, especially as hundreds if not thousands were injured, doesn't have a place anywhere in this article. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Its about wording, so try and make a new suggestion here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The section it was added to is called "Impact on police activity", which begins by talking about morale, resignations and recruitment. The sub-section injuries isn't an indiscriminate collection of injuries to police officers during the protests, but specifically deals with injuries, including PTSD, causing officers to leave their jobs. Hence, it is dealing with "Impact on police activity" still. Adding text that simply says "x number of officers were injured in location y" adds nothing. FDW777 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Peacefull

The source says "Peaceful protesters, both in-person and online, far, far outnumber any bad actors" and "the vast majority of this is peaceful protest", so it literally says most were peacefull.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The first statement doesn't support the fact that the vast majority of protests were peaceful because it's referring to the protesters, not the protests. The second statement can't be used as it was a quote from a biased person called Amy Iandiorio. Both statements cannot back this up. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So then we change it to "the majority of protestors".Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I was just doing what you did previously by deleting the content instead of trying to improve it. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

See wp:point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's funny because you roll in here with the battleground mindset, pushing the revert button as soon as you see my username, then accuse me of disrupting Wikipedia. Get your act together. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Your user name has sod all to do with it, why would you assume it does?Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You took two minutes to decide you wanted to revert my edit. You clearly saw my username, remembered the previous events at George Floyd, then reverted because you don't like how I edit. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WYou really need to read wp:agf and stop these wp:pa's. I was not even aware...no I do not have to justify myself.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when it takes you two minutes to decide you want to destroy my work. You didn't even read it or the sources. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Odd then I knew one of them was a blog, and we have been through this a month ago (and before that, last year), your sources were not knew, and every objection I made has been made before. I also knew that it talked about 10 downing street, I did read it, it was not long. So lay of the PA's, now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between a personal attack and questioning the competence and intentions of a user. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You made the revert at 10:45 and only offered a justification at 11:22. It took you 40 minutes to come up with a justification, but only two to revert the edit. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference next to the sentence says The vast majority of this is peaceful protest FDW777 (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I advise you to cast your eyes a few lines up to read my response to this. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Three sources added (though it's also covered pretty well by those that are already here, these use the phrase exactly). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding these sources. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Police

The vast majority of violence came from the police, with 54 percent of the police attacking protesters, while only 96 percent were violent. The start of this article does not really mention this and seems to try to portray the protesters being more violent, with no mention of police attacking protesters that have done nothing wrong and instead seek to show the police brutality as just and caused by protester violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.202.94 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I will just deal with the figures, for now, do you have a source for those?Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Hello there. I would like to use Fox News as a source to cite information to add to this article. I have one reference in mind, but this may likely increase in the future, and explanation will follow for each respective source for why I think it should be used. Please allow me to explain:

• [57]. This source gives statistics for police injuries and other quotes and statistics related to the protests. Without further investigation, this wouldn't be considered reliable (see above discussions), but this source cites a report, and all of the information is consistent between the report and the Fox source. Here is the report: [58]. It takes its information from 'Surveys' of police departments, 'Facilitated discussion' from agencies, and 'After Action reports' from agencies, please see page 2 of the report for this methodology. Therefore, I believe the Fox News source is completely reliable. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If it is significant and true other sources would have reported it, this is the very reason fox cannot be used for politics, it can't be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Which you have already been told above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not use Fox for political content due (in part) to its coverage of these protests (this was explained in a thread that has not been archived, in which you participated). So you already had been given the answer to this question, it is not an RS on this topic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. WP:RSP says that There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Therefore, with appropriate discussion, we can conclude whether Fox News can be used in this specific case. Using caution, analysis and investigation, it is easy to verify the reliability of a given source. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said Fox had already been rejected here, and you knew that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You didn't read what I just said. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I did it means that you need to get an agreement that on a given topic Fox news is reliable. You have already been told that editors (as in plural) do not regard it as reliable in this topic area. You are being told it again, find a better source or reword what you want to include.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:RSP. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have, it does not say it is an RS and should be used with caution, which means don't use it unless you have to (do we have to? is this information not available elsewhere?). Moreover you need to also reread it, and then re-write your proposed text. You have been told it needs re-writing more than once. Fox has been rejected as not suitable more than once. I am telling you I do not consider Fox appropriate, and will now let others chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider the definition of "used with caution". Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

At what point can we say the protests stopped?

Ever since the summer of 2020 ended, the protests have mostly diminished. There will always be people who protest against racial injustice, but at what point can we say this particular wave of protests has ended? PBZE (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The protests are over when the protests are over. But they aren't over. Reputable secondary source continue to cover an active protest movement, mostly notably at George Floyd Square in Minneapolis (see an article dated March 3, 2021). A key aim of protesters over George Floyd's death is an acceptable outcome from the judicial process of the four police officers. Preparations are underway for demonstrations as the trial of Derek Chauvin begins March 8, 2021. The other three police officers are to be tried in August 2021. Minnemeeples (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

MAJOR ERROR FOUND in opening paragraph of this article.

Hello, I am a South Minneapolis resident who noticed in the first paragraph on this page, it says that Officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on Mr Floyd's neck for "nearly 8 minutes". However, one of the biggest symbols of this event (and movement spurred by this event) was that it was actually *WELL OVER* 8 minutes. It should say "nearly nine* minutes". Or, actually it should just say 8 minutes and 46 seconds, as this is extremely symbolic and relevant to the protests.

I am honored to have made a contribution to this subject and my first to wikipedia as a whole! Thank you for your consideration.

-Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronj2k (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If you go back through the archives you can see we have discussed this issue at some length.14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

I would like to suggest that the word "fortnight" be replaced with "two weeks" in second sentence of the second paragraph under the "Economic impact" subsection, which is under the "Social effects" section. The reason why I am requesting this is because the talk page says that this article is written in American English. However, "fortnight" is not a term that is used in American English, so I believe that it should be changed to "two weeks", which would be the term that would be used in American English instead of "fortnight". Thank you in advance for you time and for reviewing this request.R2d1000 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC) R2d1000 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic subsection

This section sits there without any real explanation of how it ties in to the rest of the topic. Is the reader simply supposed to discover that times were bad? I think there are ways that it could be tied in more clearly but I'm probably not going to try it. Maybe someone else could give it a try. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

This Wikipedia article's formating is very poor in wording and it's sources are contested at best, so in general it's a very infantile Wikipedia article which needs better formatting and sources than what it's current editor can provide. LeoAntero (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests are not for generalised moaning about the alleged state of the article. FDW777 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

Please add Daunte Wright protests to See Also. I think they're tied closely enough together to link to each other in their see also sections--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:71C0:EACD:1843:F925 (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation

Go the www.theguardian.com and search for at least 25 Americans were killed during protests and political unrest in 2020 Thecornerwiki (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

But this is about the George Floyd protests, not all of the unrest.Slatersteven (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Status of protests ongoing?

In the wake of the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, I would like to raise the question as to whether or not these protests are ongoing. I feel as if the height of the protests was last summer (May–July-ish) with the wave of people that took to the streets. Nowadays with any protest that takes place, I feel as if it is more having to do with the entire BLM movement rather than just specific to Floyd, God rest his soul. Therefore, I would to like to suggest that these specific protest start to be referred to in the past tense. Jimania16 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the question as others will likely do the same. But your opinion is not support by the present situation, my friend. The protests about Floyd's murder are still ongoing. The 38th and Chicago street intersection in Minneapolis where Floyd was killed is being held as an occupation protest / autonomous zone until the trials conclude for all four police officers, and other demands are met. The other officers are to be tried in August. See the George Floyd Square article about the occupation protest, and this update from one of the protest groups occupying the square today: [59]. The very people protesting Floyd's death wouldn't agree with your view that this is in the past tense. :) Minnemeeples (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We go with RS vernacular, not the protesters. Jimania16 is right, they are being referred to more broadly as BLM protests. That's for the 2020–2021 United States racial unrest page Anon0098 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Media sources have reported on the protesters' demands to hold the occupation zone until the trial for the four officers concludes. In the past day or so, several reputable sources have covered the ongoing, 10-month-long occupational protest at George Floyd Square: New York Times, The Nation, The Undefeated, Time, Associated Press, etc. It is original research for Wikipedia editors to declare the George Floyd protests over when the same people who started this protest movement at the location Floyd was murdered are still protesting for justice and accountability for the four officers they deemed responsible for his death. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This page is about the entirety of the george floyd protests, not a single "occupational protest." It's original research to claim that it is still ongoing, as none of the sources refer to them as George Floyd protests. Anon0098 (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say very soon, after the Chauvin trial protests die down. RSs aren't really referring to them as George Floyd protests anymore Anon0098 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That depends on which RS you read. Reputable sources are still referring to continued protests over Floyd's death. Minnesota Public Radio on April 21, 2021, said, "It was a similar sight at George Floyd Square in south Minneapolis, where Floyd died and where activists have continued to protest." (emphasis added). As reported in Slate on April 20, 2021, "Nearby, [Marcia] Howard began to lead a chant, referring to the three other officers who will be tried this summer: "One down! Three to go! ... We got a guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, but there’s still so much stuff left to do. It’s a battle won in the war." Minnemeeples (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yea I initially sided with it as ongoing but I think the protests centering around George Floyd have largely ended and I think Jimania16 makes a decent point, with that in mind there are immense protests going on in relationship to George Floyd currently but I do think much of the consensus from sources is it passed. Thoughts? Des Vallee (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Protest movements don't have defined end dates. It's not like a football season that ends after the championship match when a winner is declared. Several decades after the U.S. Civil rights movement and there still isn't an agreed upon end date, though 1968 is often used in hindsight. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what they feel the end of the George Floyd protest movement should be to fit the narrative they want to tell about it, especially so close to the events and when a key protest is ongoing. Multiple, reputable sources have continued to cover the occupation protest at the street interaction where Floyd died that protesters have claimed as George Floyd Square. In fact, the entire George Floyd protest movement began right there at East 38th and Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis, as protests emerged spontaneously in response the video of Floyd's murder that started circulating widely on May 26, 2020[60], and protesters are still occupying the exact same space to protest Floyd's death and seek accountability and justice. A key demand of the protesters is they will hold the square until after ALL of the four police officers' trials finish. People occupying the square didn't end the occupation when the Chauvin verdict was read. They are still there, right now, protesting.[61][62][63]. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Protests don't have defined end dates but they certainly don't go on forever. None of the sources you provide call it "george floyd protests" like they used to. That singular street corner does not support the fact that the worldwide George Floyd protests, which is what this page is about, are still ongoing Anon0098 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The entire protest movement started at that singular street corner and it is still very much going on there today. The article is about protests of George Floyd's murder. Sources do not have to use the magic words, "George Floyd protests", to be about George Floyd protests. Here are some articles from today:

Pagones, Stephanie (April 22, 2021). "Activists allegedly refusing to leave George Floyd Square after Chauvin verdict, call for demands to be met". Fox News.

Burks, Meghan (April 22, 2021). "‘Right now, it is the soul of this nation’: What’s next for George Floyd Square". Minnesota Public Radio.

While it is important to discuss how the protests have evolved and changed over time, the protest movement over his death is still very much alive. A key demand of protesters, who are the ones that began the global protest movement, is that they will continue to occupy the street intersection where Floyd died until after the trial of the other three police officers that is scheduled for August 2021. Maybe this conversation should be revisited then, unless there new developments. Minnemeeples (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Minnemeeples Yes but isn't there a consensus from sources that is the main time frame of the protests are starting to end? You use a good example, the Civil Rights movement is ongoing, but the specific time frame of the Civil Rights movement from the 1950s-1960s has passed, of course people and the struggle for racial justice is ongoing and protests around famous historical figures like MLK and other activists are still ongoing and there is a clear increase in protests around George Floyd currently currently, and indeed it's currently ongoing. I do however see how it is currently ongoing however as there is an immense increase of protests centered on George Floyd. However with the guilty verdict it seems like protest have blossomed into a much bigger movement then George Floyd, I agree that "I feel as if it is more having to do with the entire BLM movement rather than just specific to Floyd, God rest his soul" to a certain extent, but it's still ongoing for the time being with the current explosion of protests. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A guilty verdict was reached for one of the officers who participated in Floyd's attest. "One down, three to go! And we mean it!"

Allen, Jonathan (April 23, 2021). "After landmark policing trial, a debate over reopening George Floyd Square" Reuters.

It is premature to declare protests about George Floyd over when those protesting for justice over his death are being reported on by reliable sources daily. Minnemeeples (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I would add that local officials in Minneapolis are preparing for the possibility of unrest in August, according to the The New York Times on April 23, 2021. "The city plans to add safety resources if needed when the other three officers charged in George Floyd’s death go to trial in August."[64] Using the April 19 date of Chauvin's verdict as an end date to George Floyd protests is original research and synthesis of materials, and even contradicted by RS after April 19. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The protests ended in October 2020, there were even reliable sources, and every protest have aftermaths 1992 Los Angeles riots ended in May 4, 1992 but there were aftermaths and some protests after that, but many new editors never saw protests before and think aftermaths and protests are the same things. The will keep this one's status ongoing even a decade later because there will always be references back to this protest some times. The George Floyd Protests were a part of the Black Lives Matter protests just like Long, hot summer of 1967 was a part of the Civil Rights Movement, George Floyd along with other victims like Brianna Taylor, Eric Garner, etc. will always be referenced but individual protests over George Floyd ended long ago, and by the logic, this is going, the Civil Rights Movements which ended in 1968 are stil ongoing but at least senior editors are protecting those articles (there actually have been attempts to say its still ongoing, thank God for WP:RfPP. But this one remains unprotected and is being taken advantage of, aftermaths of the protests are being counted as protests despite no WP:RS saying that the protests that started in May 26, 2020 are still ongoing into 2021. Anyway, I gave up on the article and anyone reading it can see its a mess, sad it only harms Wikipedia's image. Wish senior pre 2015 editors give a clear consensus here. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, you already made these arguments here and consensus did not agree with your claim about an end date. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Minnemeeples Those that did not agree are mostly new 2020 editors and have seen very few protests in life and have limited experience on Wikipedia too. I would like to see a consensus with pre 2015 editors (they are senior to me btw), but most of them have lost interest in the article and have left it as a mess, and new editors think that protests like these never happened before and cannot differentiate main protests form their aftermath, the Civil Rights Movement had numerous protests like the modern-day Black Lives Matter protests, numerous articles on each of those individual protests and the main matter of the protests were brought in subsequent protests, individual protests about George Floyd protests ended as in the WP:RS I provided that time on November 1, and aftermaths of protests can continue long after the main protests, possibly decades, sit ins, etc can be held as tribute, there is zero WP:RS supporting that the current aftermaths of the protests are ongoing. Anyway i have decided to leave the article as the mess it currently is, I haven't edited the article since November 2020, maybe in 2030 it will still be listed as ongoing as aftermaths of the protests like Montgomery bus boycott happened till 1963 and had been referenced and payed tribute to till 1968 but the main protests happened between December 5, 1955 – December 20, 1956, just like the main protests happened between May 26, 2020 - November 1, 2020, but aftermaths will last and George Floyd along with other victims like Eric Garner, Brianna Taylor, etc. will be referenced till 2030 and so on, new editors do not understand the difference between main protests and aftermaths, thats the problem, and since senior editors are not stepping in (busy with other articles that are actually properly taken care of), if I want I can start another consensus, but I no longer care if this article stays as the mess it is at current status I only answered the query of the original asker. Maybe my last reply here, bye and best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/18/george-floyd-killing-chauvin-trial-verdict-protests.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It could be a new series of protests, does the article say that its a continuation of the mAY 26 Protests? Its implied as protests after a break and could be a separate protest as a whole regarding the same matter, like Greece and Turkey fought many wars, but they were separate wars rather than the continuation of the first war that begun in 1568, ending in 1570 and later there were many other wars between them: History of the Russo-Turkish wars. Either ways if WP:RS states that these are the continuation of the May 26 George Floyd protests rather than a new series of protests over George Floyd, no more issues. Azlso the source you gave states "it is a protest against police killing", it never says its soley about George Floyd, the trials are only resparking the protests against police killing which have been going on along with the overall Black Lives Matter protests since like 2013. Many things have "flared it up". The article never says the George Floyd protests are being flared up, but rather protests against overall police killings of the black community is being flared up due to the trial of Derek Chauven. Anyway I had to say this one more thing, going away from this talk page again like I did for the past few months, put in whatever you want, take care and best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, several sources cited in the article have covered the continuous, ongoing nature of the protests over Floyd's death (e.g., this one. Other sources are cited in the article. People are still protesting Floyd's death at the location where he died, as they have continuously done since May 26, 2020. Another thing, George Floyd protests have ALWAYS been about broader racial justice issues. The article even explains this context: "It is unclear if demonstrators were reacting to the graphic video of Floyd's death or the culmination of a string of black American deaths, preceded by Ahmaud Arbery in Atlanta on February 23 and Breonna Taylor in Louisville on March 13." Minnemeeples (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I will clarify again: these protests are solely about protests regarding Mr. Floyd, protests. those regarding Mr. Arbery and Ms. Taylor do not belong here, they all belong to the Black Lives Matter protests going on since 2013, George Floyd Protests are a part of that (just like the Watts riots were a part of the Civil Rights movement) but this article is solely dedicated to the protests that occurred regarding Mr. Floyd's deaths. Anyway cheers and like Slatersteven said I dropped the matter and have chosen to leave this article in the mess it already is. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

They have said they will drop this, I think we can close this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Status of George Floyd protests

Let's get an RfC on this one since the last edit request consisted of 4 people. For months people have been asking to change the status of this page from "ongoing" to past tense. At this point I think the protests are largely over, as RSs are not referring to any protests as "George Floyd protests" anymore like they used to. All other protests are filed under 2020–2021 United States racial unrest. However, Minnemeeples claims that the George Floyd Square occupation validates this article as ongoing. That being said, I don't think that a single street corner protest constitutes the 2020 global protests as still active.

I know people are going to ask for an end date so I would suggest April 21st, as the Derek Chauvin verdict was the last major series of protests that RSs directly attribute to Floyd.

Previous proponents were @Jimania16:, @Dilbaggg:, @Shawnqual:, @FDW777:, @PBZE:, @Des Vallee: and @Wikisaurus:. Current opponents are @Slatersteven: and @Minnemeeples:. I'll put an RfC on a few relevant articles but feel free to spread it more. Thoughts? Anon0098 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support change in status/tense as explained above. Anon0098 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's original research to say the protests ended on April 21. And that date is note supported by any reliable sources. The global protest movement started at a single street corner and it's still very much going on strong there today. Here's two sources from April 22, 2021, about the continued protest movement over Floyd's death.[65] [66]. The Independent also reported on the "active" protest there on May 7, 2021.[67] Minnemeeples (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, these are all referring to the George Floyd Square protests which are not representative of the global protests. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is George Floyd protests, not Global George Floyd protests. George Floyd Square is a literally a George Floyd protest, but because the main article is long, it has been split off. From the beginning, protesters have demanded that all four officers at the scene of Floyd's death receive judicial consequences. According to the Washington Post on April 25, 2021,[68] activists are gearing up for the long haul. Why not use the end date of the trial for Lane, Thao, and Alexander, if we are making up a date for when the George Floyd protest movement ends? Minnemeeples (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is about the global protests though. For sub-protests see linked pages such as in List of George Floyd protests in the United States Anon0098 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's the main George Floyd protests article. It's not the "global protest" article. (Side note: it's fascinating how all of these Wikipedia articles about George Floyd protests started out as this: [69]). Granted, the article could use better context about how the protest movement has evolved and even abated in many places around the global, but a rather significant George Floyd protest at the very spot he was killed is going on today just as it was on May 26 2020. Minnemeeples (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It may be original research to set some exact date as a final date of protests. But we can just reference protests in past tense and make a statment that after some time there was very little or no action. ·Carn·!? 18:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I only came because of the ping, I have already discussed my points in the above discussion that whats happening now are just the aftermaths of the protests, and people are confusing the Black Lives Matter protests with the prottests individually over Mr. Floyd's deaths, the George Floyd protests were a part of the BLM protests going on since 2013 much like the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955, were a part of the Civil Rights Movement which lasted till 1968 and the Montgomery bus boycott was referenced and even repeated for many years, but the original event was exclusive to 1955, as was the Long, hot summer of 1967, and protests are nmot wars like American Civil War that have official declarations that protests ends, protests ends when there are no more WP:RS of them happening or there is a large gap, in which they can be couinted as seperate protests, the 192 LA riots ended in May 3/4 but aftermath went on for many months and tributes were there for a long time. Some are even misinterpreting the sources: [70] was used to claim that the protests are going on, but article never says the George Floyd protests are being flared up, but rather protests against overall police killings of the black community is being flared up due to the trial of Derek Chauven. Protests individually over the death of George Floyd were last addressed in August 2020. in November 1, 2020 it was said to be over per WP:RS [71] t, this revision says it [72] and the protests were refered to as events of the past here [73]. So yes the official end of the George Floyd Protests is November 1, 2020 but George Floyd will continue to be referenced within the BLM protests along side other victims like Brianna Taylor, Eric Garner, etc. But some young people never seen protests before in their lives and are mixing up the main protests with the aftermaths of it. Not a single WP:RS says the original protests individually/exclusively over the death of George Floyd are ongoing, they ended on November 1, 2020 and whats happening now are just aftermaths and tributes and maybe in this way even in 2030 when people will still reference him, this article will absurdly claim that the protests are still on going. Even though the exclusive George Floyd Protests are over, he will be mentioned alongside other victims of the Black Lives Matter protests of which it was a big phase of (much like the Civil Rights Movement had many exclusive phases). Those editing this article, I request them to learn about past protests and do not mix up main protests with aftermaths. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, the protests were largely over by August, and one certainly should not give a wrong impression that the largest protests in US history are ongoing, like the article gives now. One can write status like "mostly finished", not "finished", and one should've done it month ago. Wikisaurus (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The source for that chat chart, from ACLED on September 3, 2020, says "The demonstrations remain ongoing." An August 2020 end date is therefore not only original research, but also contradicted by the actual source that prepared the data. Minnemeeples (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• oppose It is unclear if (or even when) they ended. We need as RS saying (not implying, saying) they are over or we need a clear ending (as in "not more" not "not a lot") of the protests.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Protests are not wars, there are never official declarations that protests are over, please study older protests like there were so many seperate ones in the Civil Rights Movements, the 1980 Miami Riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, etc. The current status of the article is as if Long, hot summer of 1967 continued into 1968 till the end of the Civil rights Movements, where as protests exclusively over the death of Mr. Floyd ended in November 1, 2021 (I gave WP:RS myself) [[74]], it was a part of the Black Lives Matter movement and in the aftermath, Mr. Floyd will naturally be mentioned alongside other victims like Eric Garner, Briana Taylor, etc, but exclusive protests over him ended long ago.. Its the other way around of what you said, there is 0 WP:RS that says that protests exclusively about the death of Mr. Floyd are ongoing and nowhere other thatn this mess of an article based on pure WP:OR is it claimed that the protests that begun on May 26, 2020 are still ongoing. Its like court hearing attendances are being counted as protests. Let me ste a barrier, when was the last police confrontation between protesters and the police? All the way back last year, now there have never been exclusive protests regarding Mr. Floyd since November 01, 2021 and Mr. Floyd is just a symbol of the Black Lives Matter movement as is other victims. In short you can't provide a single WP:RS that the protests are still ongoing (above you gave one I debunked its misinterpretation), protests are not wars that end in formal treaties and declarations, like all past protests, even the recent 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests ended after no further protests were reported, this article as it is now gives total misleading information as someone pointed out, that as if the largest protests in US history since the civil rights era is still ongoing, and I can only see two editors who try to push this protests are still ongoing, anyway I will respect whatever the outcome of this voting goes. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This argument is backwards. Saying the protests ended on April 21, 2020, or another date, is original research and editorial interpretation by editors. The burden is on those claiming an exact end date to fully and adequately source it, and then for that sourcing to withstand later sources and scrutiny. Here is a source from April 30, 2021[75] , that describes an "active protest" at 38th and Chicago in Minneapolis where people are still protesting, with the demand that justice be served over Floyd's death by holding the trial for Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the November 1, 2020,[76] source was already discussed here[77]. It does not support the November 1, 2020, end date to the protest movement over his death. Minnemeeples (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I am yet to see anyone here who claimed the protests ended in April 2020 , Minnemeeples, please remember no false accusation. Btw if it was a typing error and you meant 2021, then its fine (in case you edit to fix it, I wrote the comment before you did, mistakes happen, no big issude). Also there are no WP:RS which states the exclusive protests regarding Mr. George Floyd are still ongoing, and protests on other Black Lives Matter issues are getting mixed up here. The source you provided merely mentions a crowd outside the court durin the trial, no mention of them protesting, no cops-protesters clash or anything that qualifies random court gathering as a Protest (its best if you read this to understand the protest terminology, just saying at this rate), and the source itself appears weak, no other source describes court gatherings as a protest. Also no date on when these so-called active protests were held is provided here. Just an opinion of one individual outside the court named Mileesha Smith. Weak sources are usually discouraged. The November 1, 2020 source was only disagreed by you, no other editors engaged in it, I myself was busy at that time. Regardless lets see what this discussion voting results in, whatever the voting yields will be decided as the status of the protest. Good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

2020 was my typo. Fixed above. Thanks for pointing out my typo. A protest can have many different forms, and is not limited to a "cop-protests clash" or a mass demonstration. Here's more from after April 21, 2021:

"George Floyd Square is a police-free zone, created after an impromptu memorial was built near the site where Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer last year. It has been a continuous site of protest since the day he died."

Hendricks, Trisha. (April 25, 2021). "ASU professor creates ‘George Floyd Square’ documentary". 12 News KPNX.

"The area where George Floyd lost his life on May 25, 2020, has become a combination of a healing ground, memorial, protest location, and reminder of needed police reform."

Blackston, Andrea (April 23, 2021). "BLACK-OWNED BUSINESSES STRUGGLE AT GEORGE FLOYD SQUARE, PLEAD FOR FINANCIAL HELP". Black Enterprise.

The George Floyd protest movement has from the very beginning on May 26, 2020, included themes about police reform, Black Lives Matter, and racial injustice. You can't disentangle them fully as the protests didn't emerge in a vacuum environment. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking about protests pertaining specifically and solely to the incident of Floyd's death or to wider protests about BLM, racial injustice, police brutality, and police reform that utilize Floyd as one of many illustrative examples? --Khajidha (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The former. Other protests are categorized accordingly under 2020–2021 United States racial unrest. Anon0098 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a sudden urgency right now (on May 18, 2021) to declare the George Floyd protest movement over? The one-year anniversary of George Floyd's death, on May 25, 2021, is a week away. Several major events are planned that will certainly include protests.[78] The television network PBS has a major documentary airing on May 25, 2021, Say His Name: Five Days for George Floyd.[79], about the protest movement. Why not wait for events to play out and for the many retrospectives to be published? Also, keep in mind that Breonna Taylor protests are still considered ongoing. Have those also ended? Minnemeeples (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Seriously you cannot differentiate between tributes and protests? And nowhere in the source [80] you gave is it stated there are planned protests regarding George Floyd alone, its protests against police brutality, counting all victims, so please do not misinterpret source. Individual protests over George Floyd ended in November 1, 2021 and speculating that 1 year anniversary tribute has to be a part of the protests is pure original research, please read what Protest really is, the protests were over by November 1, 2020 and George Floyd will forever remain a symbol of future protests regarding police brutality and racial injustice, but do not mix up aftermaths, tributes and other Black Lives matter related protests with the exclusive protests over the death of George Floyd that existed from May 26, 2020 to November 1, 2020. There is not a single source after November that states that there are protests exclusively over the death of Mr. Floyd, rather he is mentioned alongside other victims and other issues of the Black Lives Matter movement. The Civil Rights Movements also had many different phases, one phase even after its end was always mentioned in next phases, George Floyd protests were a part of the Black Lives Matter protests, but now protests exclusively over the death of Mr. Floyd are over and most importanly do not misinterpret tributes as protests. Anyway I gave my vote, done with this discussion, whatever the consensus is will be agreed on and in case of no consensus (as most senior editors gave up on this mess of anm article, lack of participation is expected), there will always be room for future consenus. This is it from me, bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

A protest, according to the Wikipedia article, can take many different forms, including rallies, memorial services, marches, ceremonies, symbolic displays, vigils, etc. And it's not original research to speculate about the one-year anniversary. Here is from the Star Tribune on May 18, 2021[81], "Friends and family of George Floyd will gather for a daylong celebration of his life next Tuesday to commemorate one year since he was killed by Minneapolis police....The event will end with a candlelight vigil honoring Floyd at 8 p.m. at the site where he was killed..... The area (George Floyd Square), which remains blocked off from traffic, serves as an ongoing protest and memorial site and has been visited by thousands of people from throughout the world." we'll have to agree to disagree here and leave it at that. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, we are talking about street protests. Plz see File:Graph_of_BLM_demonstrations_24_May_-_22_August_2020_by_ACLED.png ·Carn·!? 18:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read the actual source for that chart, from ACLED on September 3, 2020[82]. It said then, "The demonstrations remain ongoing." At no point did the author say that street protests had ended. It is original research for editors to interpret a chart with their own analysis. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NOR and WP:NORUSH. If and when reliable sources clearly state the these protests are over then the article should reflect that. Otherwise it should retain the present tense. Generalrelative (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support because they're over. Apparently there are protests going on in relation to 2020–2021 United States racial unrest, but those are surely distinct from George Floyd protests. The two cannot be equivalent if they're separate articles and apparently separate things. Additionally, I would not say a temporary recurrence on an anniversary constitutes 'ongoing protest'. So if every year on the anniversary there's a day of demonstrations we would say the protests are ongoing forever? As for the end date concern, choosing any single date does seem to be OR, but one might say it's equally OR to say they're ongoing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "George Floyd Square...has been a continuous site of protest since the day he died." Emphasis added; source April 25, 2021[83]. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per what everyone else has said. Protests solely or predominantly about Floyd's death have ended or become so sporadic as to not really fit the term "on-going". --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "George Floyd Square, which remains blocked off from traffic, serves as an ongoing protest...." Emphasis added; source May 18, 2021[84]. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Chauvin's sentencing, the trial of the other three officers, and the federal trial - not to mention the inevitable civil cases - haven't even begun to start yet. Relax. Kire1975 (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd like to follow reliable sources. If they start using the past tense we should. Since there have been marches in Minneapolis marking the first anniversary of Floyd's death, I think it's reasonable to consider these an ongoing thing. Guettarda (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No WP:RS calls those "tributes" as protests, tributes over such incidents may happen for ages to come, just like in the case of many Civil Rights era victims even after the movements ended back in 1968. Beside WP:RS does not say that those are protests, please do not cofnfuse aftermath and tributes as protests. According to this article 10 years from now when people may mark a decade since Mr. Floyd's tragic demise, this article will claim that is a protest, by the logic of youngeditors who never saw protests in their life protests over the deat of MLK are still happening when they just pay tribute to him, even though theyw ere over in 1968, protests and tributes are not the same thing and please provide a [[WP:RS[[ that states these tribute marches are protests. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No WP:RS calls those "tributes" as protests? Really Dilbaggg? What about: NYC marks 1 year since murder of George Floyd with solemn observances, protests, or NYC mayoral candidate among those arrested during George Floyd protests Tuesday. I put almost no effort into searching and came up with these two. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The issue is politicized, it can be perceived in an ideological vein, but it is obvious that the street protests are over. ·Carn·!? 18:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There were several demonstrations on May 25, 2021, that reputable sources described as a "protest" taking place in the "street". E.g., [85][86] Minnemeeples (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Your sources mention protests as a context of the past, please provide a quote from your own source that they are protesting rather than paying tribute on the anniversary of his death, find a quote from that two sources that solidify your claim that they are still protesting now on May 25, 2021. Please do not misinterpret tributes as protests. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The first source calls it a protests in the headline, multiple tweets from their reporter, and this line in the body "Chivona Newsome spoke with the PIX11 Morning News as she was headed to the protest and reflected on the year since Floyd’s death." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Ok I won't deny this particular article does give the impression the protests are ongoing, but there aren't many articles that claim that the protests that begun on May 26, 2020 are still ongoing a year later, and I gave a source that statted the protests were over on November 1 [87]. Even though protests individually over Mr. Floyd ended he is still mentioned alongside other victims in the Black Lives Matter protests. Anyway I have stated my points, and whatever the WP:RfC result is, will go, this is my final reply here. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Question: why not have two sets of dates, one for "global protests" and one for "continuing/local protests"?

I've seen it done on other articles - for the date, you have two different sets of dates given. Often one will be called "Main phase" or similar, and the other will be called "Ongoing" or "continuing". In this case, we could give a set of dates for "Global protests" and another set of dates for "Ongoing local protests". Ganesha811 (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

keep in mind this article is mainly about the protests within United States, though it does mention international reactions in subsection, the international protests have its own article: List of George Floyd protests outside the United States, also this is a consensus, you should have stated your point on a new section. Regards. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I converted this to a separate section, which I believe was your intention as this was getting in the way of the RfC, if you disagree with me please WP:AGF and feel free to revert my edit. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a fair compromise and would support this change Anon0098 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Which other articles have you seen it done on? Kire1975 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested closure of two biased, improperly filed RFCs about the ongoing protests

I suggest closure of two biased, improperly filed request-for-comment (RFC) discussions here and here about the "ongoing" nature of the protests. Anon0098's original request was not a neutral and brief statement, it made no reference to any reliable sources, and involved lobbying of Dilbaggg to re-join the discussion and support their point of view (see user talk). Many points that ended being made in these discussions could be refuted by the article's content and the simplest of internet searches, which sort of gives off the appearance of trolling, though that may not be anyone one's motive here. These discussions have not been particularly constructive. Unless there are newer, more reliable sources to consider than those already cited in the actual article, let's move on, please. Minnemeeples (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Revised by Minnemeeples (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Minnemeeples DO NOT WP:Personal Attack other users just because they disagree with your opinion and all I am doing is complying with Wikipedia policy. If I wan't I could report you for it, but I don't have the time, but this record of your personal attack on Anon0098 and myself will stay. With that stated, I still stand by the fact that George Floyd protests are being confused with Black Lives Matter protests. individual protests over the death of Mr. Floyd were over in November 1 and I also gave a source. Its my right as a Wikipedia editor to vote on RfC and comment my opinion, just like you are doing yours, you have no right to personally attack users just because they disagree with you. People are mixing tributes and aftermaths of the protests, and you fail to counter-argue my points and just because people disagree with you, you want to Harress them? Keep going, but I have no time for this and have a busy life, regardless I will tell to respect the decision of the WP:RfC, anyway be WP:Civil next time and I said it before, but this time I REALLY mean it, this is my final edit on this talk page and I leave the article as the mess it is. Take care and best wishes. Someday someone will fix the article. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"These discussions have not been particularly constructive" — You should not confuse the constructiveness of the discussion and its inconsistency with your ideas, thank you. I see that Dilbaggg "lobbying" on one side and you — on the other. Obviously, someone else needs to evaluate your arguments. ·Carn·!? 05:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I should have used the term canvassing instead of lobbying. Let me explain further. A constructive conversation would involve how to improve the content of the article using the most reliable sources, and if reliable sources differ, then how best to weigh or interpret all of the sources. Numerous reliable sources already cited in the article have described protests of an active or ongoing nature, and have described protests that happened after the previously suggested end dates of November 1, 2020, and April 20, 2021. If there are other sources that are either more reliable or more recent that suggest the protests ended, then edit the article with the appropriate citation or discuss how it can be improved with new information in the source. Rehashing old discussions, improperly filed RFCs, and discussions without consideration for the content of reliable sources are not helping to advance the project. Minnemeeples (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it particularly bizarre that you accuse us of "trolling" considering this is a long standing issue and got more support votes than opposes. As Dilbaggg said, the disscussions were constructive and we came up with a good compromise that I still support and I frankly do not understand why you do not. I can only assume your WP:Personal Attack is an attempt to discredit us, but so be it. Apologies for the improperly filed RfC I guess, I don't make wikipedia my life and don't know every proper procedure. Of course, you could have told me at the time but whatever. It doesnt invalidate the supports. Anon0098 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:Verifiability. The opinionsbeliefs and experiences of editors do not matter. All edits must be supported by reliable sources and not original research. Please read WP:what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia talk pages are not a discussion forum, and consensus is not merely the act of voting on an editor's opinionunverified beliefs. The project is also Wikipedia:Notnews. The article does not need to track every aspect of an event in real time, in fact, it is better if it doesn't so as to avoid WP:Recentism. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC). Revised by Minnemeeples (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Er, why did Cluebot suddenly archive them? Anyway. I do agree that the RFC was non-neutrally worded and that pinging a sharply unequal number of former participants isn't really an appropriate way to begin an RFC. In theory pinging all participants in a previous discussion equally can avoid WP:CANVASS, but just at a glance I can see a bunch of people who participated in previous discussions who seem to have been missed, and they seem to all be people who were at least skeptical that the protests had ended, whereas it looks like just about any person who had ever expressed support for the idea that the protests are over was pinged regardless of how long ago it was, which raises WP:CANVASS issues. (The wording of the pings even seems to acknowledge this - "Previous proponents were" vs Current opponents are, ie. every previous person who has ever one side was pinged, whereas only people who were currently active on the page who supported the other position were pinged.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Murder of George Floyd section: Update it? Streamline it? Other thoughts?

The background section includes a subsection for the murder of George Floyd. The content is a bit lengthy, contains outdated information (e.g., 8:15 minutes), and it draws from many sources in the days after his death. How should that section be improved? Should it be streamlined to one paragraph? What details are important to note? If an editor makes a bold edit to revise it, what should they consider? Other thoughts? Minnemeeples (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I personally think it is fine the ay it is. Other views are welcome. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)