![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
"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)
Lmao! Ridiculous, blatant bias. I have no words. CompactSpacez ( talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
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:
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 01:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
EnneDee ( talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)'s response
(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)
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)
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:
Eric.c.zhang ( talk) 21:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 "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...
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)
@ 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
I wikilinked Derek Chauvin because I think he measures up to GNG. Geo Swan ( talk) 13:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I went ahead and made a bold edit to the lead:
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 custodyand 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 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)
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)
Does anyone have objections to changing the second sentence of the second paragraph from:
Protests in some cities resulted in rioting and looting [1] while many were marked by street skirmishes and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters. [2]
to:
Protests in several cities descended into riots, [3] while many were marked by looting, street skirmishes, and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters. [4] [5]
? 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)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.”
Baktar, Reza (Director) (June 7, 2020). State of the Union with Jake Tapper (Sunday talk show). Washington, D.C., United States: CNN Studios.
Please add this to reactions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bataromatic ( talk • contribs)
Not sure where to include mention of this
John Cummings ( talk) 13:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Preliminary studies indicate outdoor risk of transmission is at least an order of magnitude lower than indoors. [1] [2] In addition, sunlight has the potential to rapidly deactivate the virus in a few minutes both on surfaces and in aerosol form. [3] [4]
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. [5] 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)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
Should there be a subheading for this? BetsyRMadison ( talk) 17:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Levivich
dubious –
discuss 18:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "black" to "Black" when referring to race/identity. 72.255.94.126 ( talk) 02:06, 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Details about the Sarah Grossman Bio, Education and Death Cause Sammarabbas90 ( talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
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. [1]
References
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 went ahead and did the split. - Featous ( talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be trimmed. Cole DiBiase ( talk) 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The current mentions of antifa in the article are:
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."
False stories about "Antifa buses" caused panic in rural counties throughout the country, despite there being no evidence they exist
He also shared a post by President Trump regarding the U.S. designating Antifa as a terrorist organization(he being Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro)
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
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)
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)
The lead currently states:
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)
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 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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
CNN covid 19
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
[Redacted] -- 217.234.71.55 ( talk) 19:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
What section would be best to note the damages and costs for protests ?
So where ? Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 13:25, 3 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)
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)
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)
People are obviously insulted by this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
/info/en/?search=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)
This is interesting, not sure where to use it though
John Cummings ( talk) 14:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
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)
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)
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)
New article about this here in the National Review. MonsieurD ( talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
according to a Fox News reportin the first paragraph. FDW777 ( talk) 15:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
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:
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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? [1] Dave Patrick Underwood 53 Oakland Shot (federal officer) [2] Unknown ? St Louis Caught under wheel of FedEx truck [3] Chris Beaty 38 Indianapolis Shot [4] James Scurlock 22 Omaha Shot by bar owner [5] Dorian Murrell 18 Indianapolis Shot [6] David McAtee 53 Louisville Killed by police [7] Italia Kelly 22 Davenport Apparently random shooting [8] David Dorn 77 St Louis Shot by looters (retired police officer) [9] Calvin L Horton Jr 43 Minneapolis Shot [10] Jorge Gomez ? Las Vegas Shot by police (Gomez was armed) [11] ? ? Cicero, Chicago Shot by outside agitators [12] ? ? Cicero, Chicago Shot by outside agitators [13] ? 16 Seattle Shot [14] ? 19 Seattle Shot [15]
References
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 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)
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)
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/us/austin-protest-shooting-foster-perry.html
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)
There is now an article that can be linked under "conspiracy theories" /info/en/?search=July_4_2020_Gettysburg_hoax
2601:543:4205:26B6:C066:6E94:AF75:1BC6 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd riots has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
79.146.43.165 ( talk) 17:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd Riots has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Title should be changed to George Floyd Riots 12.129.16.124 ( talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 23:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change George Floyd protests to George Floyd riots TonySm8 ( talk) 00:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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
Nearly a dozen deaths tied to continuing unrest in US, which listed them as
I will list all the people mentioned in the 3 June news reports in alphabetical order.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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'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)
this needs to be fixed pretty desperately 103.131.193.6 ( talk) 22:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I may need to make a minor edit, because Iran is West Asia, not South. Angrybirdsfan2005 ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
BLM is decentralized-- Hiveir ( talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Slatersteven ( talk) 11:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
police under seigeas 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)
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)
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)
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 vast majority of this is peaceful protestFDW777 ( talk) 13:23, 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
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)
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)
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)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/18/george-floyd-killing-chauvin-trial-verdict-protests. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
They have said they will drop this, I think we can close this. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
"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)
Lmao! Ridiculous, blatant bias. I have no words. CompactSpacez ( talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
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:
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 01:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
EnneDee ( talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)'s response
(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)
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)
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:
Eric.c.zhang ( talk) 21:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 "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...
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)
@ 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
I wikilinked Derek Chauvin because I think he measures up to GNG. Geo Swan ( talk) 13:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I went ahead and made a bold edit to the lead:
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 custodyand 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 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)
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)
Does anyone have objections to changing the second sentence of the second paragraph from:
Protests in some cities resulted in rioting and looting [1] while many were marked by street skirmishes and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters. [2]
to:
Protests in several cities descended into riots, [3] while many were marked by looting, street skirmishes, and significant police brutality, notably against peaceful protesters and reporters. [4] [5]
? 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)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.”
Baktar, Reza (Director) (June 7, 2020). State of the Union with Jake Tapper (Sunday talk show). Washington, D.C., United States: CNN Studios.
Please add this to reactions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bataromatic ( talk • contribs)
Not sure where to include mention of this
John Cummings ( talk) 13:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Preliminary studies indicate outdoor risk of transmission is at least an order of magnitude lower than indoors. [1] [2] In addition, sunlight has the potential to rapidly deactivate the virus in a few minutes both on surfaces and in aerosol form. [3] [4]
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. [5] 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)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
Should there be a subheading for this? BetsyRMadison ( talk) 17:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Levivich
dubious –
discuss 18:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "black" to "Black" when referring to race/identity. 72.255.94.126 ( talk) 02:06, 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Details about the Sarah Grossman Bio, Education and Death Cause Sammarabbas90 ( talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
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. [1]
References
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 went ahead and did the split. - Featous ( talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be trimmed. Cole DiBiase ( talk) 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The current mentions of antifa in the article are:
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."
False stories about "Antifa buses" caused panic in rural counties throughout the country, despite there being no evidence they exist
He also shared a post by President Trump regarding the U.S. designating Antifa as a terrorist organization(he being Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro)
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
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)
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)
The lead currently states:
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)
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 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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
CNN covid 19
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
[Redacted] -- 217.234.71.55 ( talk) 19:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
What section would be best to note the damages and costs for protests ?
So where ? Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 13:25, 3 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)
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)
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)
People are obviously insulted by this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
/info/en/?search=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)
This is interesting, not sure where to use it though
John Cummings ( talk) 14:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
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)
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)
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)
New article about this here in the National Review. MonsieurD ( talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
according to a Fox News reportin the first paragraph. FDW777 ( talk) 15:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
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:
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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? [1] Dave Patrick Underwood 53 Oakland Shot (federal officer) [2] Unknown ? St Louis Caught under wheel of FedEx truck [3] Chris Beaty 38 Indianapolis Shot [4] James Scurlock 22 Omaha Shot by bar owner [5] Dorian Murrell 18 Indianapolis Shot [6] David McAtee 53 Louisville Killed by police [7] Italia Kelly 22 Davenport Apparently random shooting [8] David Dorn 77 St Louis Shot by looters (retired police officer) [9] Calvin L Horton Jr 43 Minneapolis Shot [10] Jorge Gomez ? Las Vegas Shot by police (Gomez was armed) [11] ? ? Cicero, Chicago Shot by outside agitators [12] ? ? Cicero, Chicago Shot by outside agitators [13] ? 16 Seattle Shot [14] ? 19 Seattle Shot [15]
References
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 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)
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)
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/us/austin-protest-shooting-foster-perry.html
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)
There is now an article that can be linked under "conspiracy theories" /info/en/?search=July_4_2020_Gettysburg_hoax
2601:543:4205:26B6:C066:6E94:AF75:1BC6 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd riots has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
79.146.43.165 ( talk) 17:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd Riots has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Title should be changed to George Floyd Riots 12.129.16.124 ( talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 23:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change George Floyd protests to George Floyd riots TonySm8 ( talk) 00:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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
Nearly a dozen deaths tied to continuing unrest in US, which listed them as
I will list all the people mentioned in the 3 June news reports in alphabetical order.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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'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)
this needs to be fixed pretty desperately 103.131.193.6 ( talk) 22:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I may need to make a minor edit, because Iran is West Asia, not South. Angrybirdsfan2005 ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
BLM is decentralized-- Hiveir ( talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Slatersteven ( talk) 11:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
police under seigeas 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)
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)
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)
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 vast majority of this is peaceful protestFDW777 ( talk) 13:23, 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Floyd protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
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)
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)
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)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/18/george-floyd-killing-chauvin-trial-verdict-protests. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
They have said they will drop this, I think we can close this. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)