This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Frequently asked questions Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer?
A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a
reliable source;
secondary sources are generally preferred over
primary. Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)!
A3: See our
neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help. Q4: Why is this article calling it a murder instead of a death/killing?
A4: As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at
WP:MURDERS. Q5: Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods?
A5: The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the
Cub Foods store chain. Q6: Why does the article use such a shocking photo? Isn't it in poor taste?
A6: The lead image was determined by the community in a
formal Request for Comment process. The RfC reached an "overwhelming consensus" that "...the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic." Q7: Why was my request or comment removed?
A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and essays, including
WP:Requested moves,
WP:Common name,
WP:Article titles,
WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and
WP:Reliable sources. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary. Q8: Why do we not call the protests riots?
A8: Because multiple reliable sources call them protests, not riots. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Phuzion: In this edit you changed the scope of the "parent article" from worldwide to the United States. (The other level worth considering would be the state of Oregon, which also has an article.) This seems worth soliciting perspectives from article contributors. To me, it seems that the previous (highest-level) link is the best one, as that's the "great grandparent" of all the various protest articles. But maybe since the US is the original and main scope, that's the right one? I'm assuming you were thinking along those lines. Thoughts? - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 07:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Once the protests come to an end, the time line ought to be refactored into a narrative. This would reduce the length of the article while increasing its content. -- llywrch ( talk) 16:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that the title of that story you linked was changed when the (pro-BLM?) author learned what really happened: https://www.koin.com/news/protests/fire-set-at-elk-fountain-in-downtown-portland-causes-little-damage/ I doubt elk are racist. It's all being done in the name of a criminal whom many "peaceful" protesters would never want to actually live near. They make no effort to understand high black crime rates, and cops' constant fear for their own lives when arrests are resisted. The Floyd case was a random bad outcome, since neck-holds had been used many times before. Even a black economist (Roland Fryer) found no clear connection between racism and police killings of blacks. The media sensationalizes only cases where blacks get killed, leaving out the full context of dangerous arrests and the daily hazards faced by police. Also left out is the fact that cops save far more blacks than they kill, and the roots of black crime in broken family structures. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings & /info/en/?search=The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action
Now that we're 7 weeks in, there's a wealth of news coverage to guide how we compose the lead section. The declarations of riot need to be put into proper context (restrictions on things like tear gas unless riot is declared). Stating that police officers have been injured, without mentioning the protesters who have been injured, is a significant NOPV problem. The emphasis on property damage is an odd non-sequitur, I don't think this is borne out as one of the major themes by the news coverage that has been generated. Here are things that stand out to me based on the Oregonian, OPB,and other coverage I've been following:
One specific point worth watching -- it's been alleged that PPB caused the "riot" that they declared, by breaking their own window. Will be good to see what comes of this. [1]
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 00:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
As this event continues and evolves, it's becoming clear that further context would be helpful. I'd like to suggest two new sections (and of course, I'm open to better section titles):
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
What about a section for Vandalism? I know at least 4 statues have been removed (Elk, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and part of the William Clark memorial), and obviously there's coverage of some of the vandalism to buildings downtown. This might help organize the article body a bit more, and separate text about Demonstrations from text about Vandalism. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Several media outlets are now reporting on the literal abductions of American citizens in Portland. This is unlawful. Period.
This flagrantly unlawful government action, coming less than two months after the 2020 Lafayette Square assault, reveals the urgency of need for American citizens to push back on the escalating use of force against its citizenry in a purported self-governing democracy. I believe the "July" subsection of the "Demonstrations" section of this article can now be spun off into its own article detailing a clear and present governmental abuse of power in line with the federal government's assault on peaceful demonstrators in Washington, D.C. on 1 June 2020. If this has already been done, please direct me to the page of the new article. --- Tutombist ( talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
For more than 60th days in a row now.-- 93.211.215.14 ( talk) 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
When did federal property first become the primary target of Portland protests? and why did it replace city hall and city property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 ( talk) 01:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Currently the "Deployment of federal agents" subsection appears under the Demonstrations heading. Should this be moved into the Responses sections, specifically the Federal subsection? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Cedar777: I don't understand your concurrent observation, where you advocate including reactions of public officials in the form of a chronology, as something is lost when these various spoken actions (and reactions) are removed entirely from the timeline.
If by that you mean such reactions should be part of the Demonstrations timeline, rather than segregated under the Responses section, I disagree.
Earlier today I moved a comment by President Trump to the Federal subsection because, frankly, I thought it had been situated in the July Demonstrations subsection in a way that violated
WP:NPOV. Here's how it appeared before I moved it:
On July 11, protester Donavan LaBella was shot in the head with a " less lethal" round by federal police, suffering facial and skull fractures and having to undergo facial reconstruction surgery. [1] Two days later Trump praised federal agents for their work in policing protests in Portland, saying they had done "a great job". [2]
References
- ^ Levinson, Jonathan (July 12, 2020). "Federal Officers Shoot Portland Protester In Head With 'Less Lethal' Munitions". OPB. Retrieved July 19, 2020.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status ( link)- ^ Crombie, Noelle (July 14, 2020). "Trump says feds in Portland have done 'a great job' on protests". The Oregonian. Retrieved July 16, 2020.
As you see, this proximity made it look as though Trump had specifically praised officers for inflicting facial and skull fractures on a protester. I believe the cited source does not support such an inflammatory interpretation. This should serve as a cautionary example of why it's sometimes imperative to keep the reactions of public officials out of the protest timeline. NedFausa ( talk) 23:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
With this edit,
Binksternet reverted what he called "Fox apologist nonsense" that I'd added to the article space. I had indeed cited a post at the
Fox News website bylined Talia Kaplan, reporter for FoxNews.com. It excerpted Acting DHS Secretary Wolf's response, delivered on
Fox & Friends, to criticism from local leaders in Portland. Regrettably, I failed to grasp the distinction at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources between Fox News (news and website), determined by consensus to be generally reliable per
WP:NEWSORG
, and Fox News (talk shows), including Fox & Friends, where content is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be
attributed.
Please help me correct my mistake. How can I upgrade this content to Wikipedia standards? I added in-text attribution as bolded below, but fear I'm still missing something.
On July 20, Acting DHS Secretary Wolf appeared on the daily morning conservative news/talk program Fox & Friends, where he responded to criticism from local leaders in Portland. He rejected as "completely irresponsible" Mayor Wheeler's charge that DHS and other federal agents were "sharply escalating the situation" in the city. "The facts don't lie," said Wolf, "and the facts are that these violent anarchists and extremists were violent well before DHS surged federal assets into Portland." Wolf added, "We're not trying to escalate, we're trying to hold those folks accountable. What we're not going to do is allow them to attack a courthouse and then simply step across the street on to city property and say you can't touch me. That's not how this works." He asserted that "almost all of our activity has taken place in the one, two or three blocks around that courthouse and will continue to do so." [1]
References
I would appreciate guidance from editors to help make my good-faith contribution acceptable. NedFausa ( talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
There are now a handful of "External links" boxes directing readers to videos on Twitter. Are these appropriate / reliable? I've added a couple external links to videos myself, but to Oregonian videos hosted on YouTube, not just random Twitter users. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa reverted my addition of an article published on Bellingcat, with the edit summary: "This is very troubling. The author is "actively suing the Portland Police Bureau" over events our Wikipedia article describes. A litigant is hardly an independent reliable source" I disagree about the "very troubling" frame, but it does pose a bit of a challenge that should be discussed.
I agree this is a point that must be taken into consideration, but it is not a reason to exclude a source. When evaluating sources, our guideline emphasizes organizations not individual reporters. It is not for us to second-guess Mr. Evans' editor at Bellingcat, who has already deemed that any conflict of interest Evans may have has been managed sufficiently to make the story worth publishing. Bellingcat is a source deemed "generally reliable for news" at WP:RS/Perennial.
The lawsuit referred to indeed includes a large chunk of the Portland press corps, including The Oregonian, a paper that has won multiple Pulitzer prizes spanning a century. Any decision to exclude sources on this basis would be sweeping. I encourage others to consider this and weigh in. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 21:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
At this point, most of the Portland press corps, including myself, are actively suing the Portland Police Bureau.Has the author, Robert Evans, joined other journalists or news organizations in a lawsuit? Or is he suing as an individual, for example over a personal injury he alleges he sustained at the hands of PPB? This demands clarification. If we cite The Oregonian, we can probably trust that any of its staff who are individually named plaintiffs will not be reporting on the continuing news story underlying that suit. But Bellingcat is not The Oregonian. I submit that we should not blindly presume that Robert Evans has no conflict of interest in advancing this narrative. And I object to the admin's attempt to broaden this dispute into having "sweeping" implications for editing Wikipedia. Please, let's just focus on the source in question. NedFausa ( talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The lawsuit describes several interactions Evans had with police while he was documenting the protests, from May 30 to June 30. The interactions included police allegedly threatening him with arrest if he did not leave the area, shooting him in the foot with a tear gas grenade and spraying him, and repeatedly shoving him.Yes, I'm sure that after having been shot in the foot by PPB with a tear gas grenade, Robert Evans can be relied upon to write about these events with complete and unimpeachable objectivity. NedFausa ( talk) 23:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa You are arguing that this should be a simple, clear decision. If that's the case, it should derive from a clearly articulated, shared principle. You seem to advance two possible arguments, and move between them rather fluidly. As I understand you, the two principles you've advanced are:
As I made clear by starting this section, I agree that it's worthwhile to be mindful of conflicts of interest around these matters. But up to this point, I have yet to see a convincing argument that this source should be rejected. If you still feel it should, I'd suggest you clearly state which of these principles you want to work with, and then lay out your argument. Maybe you do want to make an argument that's a hybrid of both; but if that's the case, I think you'd do well to acknowledge that you're opening up a discussion that will involve a complex balancing act to evaluate principles in relation to one another, and that it's anything but clear-cut. I'm happy to hear you out (up to a point) if you want to take that path. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 00:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems like a good way to reduce coverage of the actions of an entity would be to violate the rights of a group of reporters, have them seek justice for the mistreatment, and then claim that they could not cover the story anymore due to bias.Just to be clear, are you alleging that's what happened here? The Portland Police Bureau deliberately targeted Robert Evans by shooting him in the foot with a tear gas grenade, spraying him, and repeatedly shoving him, all in order to provoke him into a lawsuit against PPB so that I could claim Evans should not cover this story anymore due to bias. Wow. Just wow. NedFausa ( talk) 01:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems like a good way to reduce coverage of the actions of an entity would be to violate the rights of a group of reporters, have them seek justice for the mistreatment, and then claim that they could not cover the story anymore due to bias.That did not read to me like Cedar accusing any wiki user of seeking to reduce coverage, but rather urging us to consider the context within which we're attempting to summarize reports.
Based on the very well argued points for inclusion, I have restored the Evans piece in Bellingcat. Binksternet ( talk) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Willamette Week has a link to the podcast where they interview the woman behind the label. (I tried to listen to it; it is 2 hours long. The hosts rambled & digressed so much that after 15 minutes I decided I had better things to do than try to find some bit of information not in the articles about the podcast.)
For the record, while believe she deserves to be included, the article at this moment covers her in sufficient detail. More information would be bogging it down with trivialities. Maybe this could be included as an "External link". -- llywrch ( talk) 03:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
My friend Andy shared this website he's created to track news about these protests. May be useful to wiki editors: http://portlandprotests.andysylvester.com/ Andy Sylvester's Portland Protests Reading List] - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 17:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
There has been a good amount of coverage of violence in the protests. Oregonian reporting estimates 19 law enforcement officers and dozens of injuries to protesters at the hands of la enforcement. Court rulings have specifically sought to protect journalists and legal observers, with the judge explicitly emphasizing the importance of documenting how protesters are treated. Here are a few links that could help improve our article's coverage of this aspect of the protests.
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 16:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
August seems to have really kicked off. The protests have taken on a newer form. Have included Ted Wheeler's response to the increasing virulence of the protests and violence. Alexandre8 ( talk) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Starting this section to track the impacts of the protests. Some things are already mentioned in the article. It might be time to start pulling them out into a separate section (or at least ensuring they are all appropriately covered).
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 18:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Coverage of these demonstrations has a strong theme about the emergence of local, independent journalists. It has arisen partly due to police attacking and/or arresting journalists, which prompted judicial orders constraining the police's actions (see the discussion above of #Litigation by journalists). Regional and national media has noted the quality of reporting by independent journalists, and in some cases published interviews with them. [6] [7] [8] [9]
I suggest a new section titled "local and independent journalists" or similar to capture some of these themes. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Continuing to call these protests while including up to the present day, is not accurate. They have been riots now since June 1st, 2020. That is when the demonstrators starting lobbing projectiles, fireworks and mortars at the police and it was first declared a riot. It has continued since then to be a riot every night with damage, fires, looting, attacks, etc. To continue to call this a protest is just not accurate at all.
References
--TMCk ( talk) 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
wow, it's been a month. I finally uploaded videos from when Ted Wheeler was there. I think the filenames are a decent summary. There are probably some good sound clips, maybe a few stills or short snippets can be pulled out of them.
The source files are 2-20gb, except for the third, which I must've deleted. FYI in case anyone really wants a meaty file to edit, I have them. tedder ( talk) 17:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There are some significant sources we haven't yet worked into the article, parking them here for later use:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteforsyth ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll add another:
Done
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
one militia guy got shot and killed, might want to add that
https://apnews.com/6706c916dc6a156b9847baca437a91de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:900:1E:6897:9D45:6834:CDBC ( talk) 12:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Are we ready to identify the victim at this point? I was watching the 11:00pm KGW news, & they declined to identify the deceased -- they're waiting for the PPB to officially identify him. However, the article provides one name, yet the source cited (apparently OregonLive) gave a different name. (Well, if I read that correctly before they closed the pay wall on me.) IMHO, we should wait until his identity is officially announced, despite what local media might say.
His name will meet notability guidelines, since he is the first on that side to be killed in these protests, & is likely to lead to more civil unrest. -- llywrch ( talk) 07:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The sentence:
"In early July, the federal government deployed law enforcement officers to Portland to protect federal property."
is not supported by established facts. The best that can be said is:
"In early July, the federal government deployed law enforcement officers to Portland for the stated purpose of protecting federal property."
The Wikipedia article should stick to what is known, and should not automatically accept government claims as fact. 216.161.117.162 ( talk) 17:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I was shocked how little coverage this article has given to the fatal shooting of Aaron Danielson at one of the protests - merely a passing mention in the "August" section. Similar deaths at other protests have large sections in their articles, with proposals (so far unsuccessful) to split them off. I have added a little more detail to this article. But while I was doing that I discovered that someone has created an article about the accused shooter, Michael Reinoehl, called Killing of Michael Reinoehl. I oppose that article and that title; if anything we might have an article Killing of Aaron Danielson, but I would prefer to deal with it here rather than split it off. However, at the very least it needs a section of its own. What say you? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually: the more I consider this, the more I think we need a catch-all article George Floyd protest related deaths. That would cover the killing of a federal officer in Oakland, allegedly by a boogaloo sympathizer; the killing of a counter-protester in Portland, apparently by someone with antifa ties, and his subsequent death during an attempted arrest; the killing of two people in Kenosha by a teenaged wannabe cop; and any others that slip my mind. That would allow us to give extended coverage to those cases without having them overpower the "protests in..." articles and without spawning a whole new article every time there is a new incident. It would be non-partisan, giving treatment to all such deaths as justified by the reporting, rather than amount of coverage based our editors' sympathy with one cause or another. What do you think about this idea? I'm going to suggest it at other such articles and see if there is interest. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
MURDER, NOT "CLASH"
I have to challenge the reference in the lede, "One person was shot and killed in a clash between protesters and counter-protesters.[7]" That's a clearly misleading reference to the event of the killing of Aaron Danielson. While it did occur on the same DAY as a parade of people driving through Portland, it occurred substantially later. And videos of the incident exist: Both from a fixed security camera showing Reinoehl stalking Danielson, but also a longer shot, by a bystander, of the actual event. This was not in "a clash", or even nearby an active "clash", it was arguably well AFTER anything that could be labelled "a clash". Neither Danielson, nor Reinoehl, or anyone else nearby at that time, appeared to be actively "clashing". The minutes leading up to the murder were apparently quite peaceful. The bystander's video/audio clearly showed that Reinoehl's first bullet apparently pierced the can of 'bear spray' that Danielson had on his person, leading to a cloud of mist. Some very early media accounts seem to falsely say that Danielson was actively, deliberately 'macing' Reinoehl, but they were probably not aware of Reinoehl's first bullet piercing the 'bear-spray' How they could know that Danielson was intentionally 'macing' Reinoehl immediately prior to Reinoehl's gunshot(s) is certainly unclear. Presumably an audio analysis of the bystander's video will show the presence of or lack of a characteristic 'hiss' emitted by such a can of bear spray. Some days later in a Vice interview, Reinoehl lied and claimed that he was protecting himself and another, despite the apparent lack of anybody nearby fitting that description in the video. The phrasing currently in the lede deliberately makes it sound like it was a "clash" that caused the death of Danielson, when it was actually a premeditated murder committed by Reinoehl. They are trying to 'blame the victim'.
Aeroview854 (
talk) 22:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be more accurate to say "One person was shot and killed in the aftermath of a clash between protesters and counter-protesters.[7]" If there is no objection, I will make that change. Also, that reference #7 is way outdated, written shortly after the incident when everyone was still trying to figure out what had happened. We should try to find something more recent that reflects what the authorities actually concluded. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Other than the fact that it occurred on one specific day and in the City of Portland, there is no obvious relationship.Are you serious? Both of them had been participants in the warring protests that day - one on one side, one on the other. To pretend that is just a coincidence is to stretch the limits of credulity. Even so, my wording does not suggest that being on opposite side of notable clashes that day was the cause of the shooting - just that it occurred in the "aftermath". But to pretend it was unrelated, or that there's no obvious relationship - that's just absurd. The protest and counterprotest are why they were both there. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
A participant in that caravan, a supporter of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, [1] [2] was shot and killed. [3] The victim was identified as Aaron Danielson, initially referred to by his alias "Jay" by Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson. [4] Portland police issued an arrest warrant for Michael Reinoehl, a self-declared anti-fascist and supporter of antifa, who had regularly attended past protests in Portland and said he had provided "security" for the protests. [5] [6] [7]
Sources
|
---|
|
let's not mislead the reader into believing that this murder was triggered by anything else atypical that happened that day? Come on. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This material, about a poll of public opinion, should be included. It makes no sense to me that the views of these events by the general public are not worthy of inclusion. Some editors may not agree with the public, but that is irrelevant. While single polls of subjects like the presidential race that have many polls are not normally included, I see no good reason to exclude the only poll we have on this subject. And it is covered in various sources: [29] [30] [31] [32] It's certainly no less noteworthy than stuff like "N1789M, a Cessna 208 Caravan surveillance plane linked with the U.S. Marshals Service circled overhead for 3 hours", "About 1,000 demonstrators marched to Jefferson High School on June 14", and so forth with details of how many protested each day, and who was there, etc. Not saying any of that should be removed, but rather showing that by any reasonable neutral standard, the poll should be included. Crossroads -talk- 18:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I've notified the NPOV noticeboard. Crossroads -talk- 18:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if standalone articles are appropriate, but I've redirected Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front and Rose City Justice to this article for now. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
This Guardian piece could probably be summarised somewhere in this article. I'm not sure where it would fit in though. Perhaps there should be a subsection for the far right under "Responses". – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 10:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Should this article mention the recent Indigenous Peoples Day of Rage? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"Black" should be "black" in the opening sentence. Black is not a proper adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:7900:D4D:185E:59DE:529C:6D99 ( talk) 23:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, after a FOIA, I got seven very high quality photos from CBP. I've uploaded them to Commons into the expected categories plus a category that doesn't exist to lump them together. I may see if there's a place for them, but FYI for those that are closer to the page to consider them. tedder ( talk) 15:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Related: Nightmare Elk --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This might be useful. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
To add later: Homeland Security Admits It Tried to Manufacture Fake Terrorists for Trump Kire1975 ( talk) 19:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Frequently asked questions Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer?
A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a
reliable source;
secondary sources are generally preferred over
primary. Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)!
A3: See our
neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help. Q4: Why is this article calling it a murder instead of a death/killing?
A4: As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at
WP:MURDERS. Q5: Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods?
A5: The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the
Cub Foods store chain. Q6: Why does the article use such a shocking photo? Isn't it in poor taste?
A6: The lead image was determined by the community in a
formal Request for Comment process. The RfC reached an "overwhelming consensus" that "...the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic." Q7: Why was my request or comment removed?
A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and essays, including
WP:Requested moves,
WP:Common name,
WP:Article titles,
WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and
WP:Reliable sources. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary. Q8: Why do we not call the protests riots?
A8: Because multiple reliable sources call them protests, not riots. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Phuzion: In this edit you changed the scope of the "parent article" from worldwide to the United States. (The other level worth considering would be the state of Oregon, which also has an article.) This seems worth soliciting perspectives from article contributors. To me, it seems that the previous (highest-level) link is the best one, as that's the "great grandparent" of all the various protest articles. But maybe since the US is the original and main scope, that's the right one? I'm assuming you were thinking along those lines. Thoughts? - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 07:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Once the protests come to an end, the time line ought to be refactored into a narrative. This would reduce the length of the article while increasing its content. -- llywrch ( talk) 16:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that the title of that story you linked was changed when the (pro-BLM?) author learned what really happened: https://www.koin.com/news/protests/fire-set-at-elk-fountain-in-downtown-portland-causes-little-damage/ I doubt elk are racist. It's all being done in the name of a criminal whom many "peaceful" protesters would never want to actually live near. They make no effort to understand high black crime rates, and cops' constant fear for their own lives when arrests are resisted. The Floyd case was a random bad outcome, since neck-holds had been used many times before. Even a black economist (Roland Fryer) found no clear connection between racism and police killings of blacks. The media sensationalizes only cases where blacks get killed, leaving out the full context of dangerous arrests and the daily hazards faced by police. Also left out is the fact that cops save far more blacks than they kill, and the roots of black crime in broken family structures. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings & /info/en/?search=The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action
Now that we're 7 weeks in, there's a wealth of news coverage to guide how we compose the lead section. The declarations of riot need to be put into proper context (restrictions on things like tear gas unless riot is declared). Stating that police officers have been injured, without mentioning the protesters who have been injured, is a significant NOPV problem. The emphasis on property damage is an odd non-sequitur, I don't think this is borne out as one of the major themes by the news coverage that has been generated. Here are things that stand out to me based on the Oregonian, OPB,and other coverage I've been following:
One specific point worth watching -- it's been alleged that PPB caused the "riot" that they declared, by breaking their own window. Will be good to see what comes of this. [1]
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 00:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
As this event continues and evolves, it's becoming clear that further context would be helpful. I'd like to suggest two new sections (and of course, I'm open to better section titles):
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
What about a section for Vandalism? I know at least 4 statues have been removed (Elk, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and part of the William Clark memorial), and obviously there's coverage of some of the vandalism to buildings downtown. This might help organize the article body a bit more, and separate text about Demonstrations from text about Vandalism. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Several media outlets are now reporting on the literal abductions of American citizens in Portland. This is unlawful. Period.
This flagrantly unlawful government action, coming less than two months after the 2020 Lafayette Square assault, reveals the urgency of need for American citizens to push back on the escalating use of force against its citizenry in a purported self-governing democracy. I believe the "July" subsection of the "Demonstrations" section of this article can now be spun off into its own article detailing a clear and present governmental abuse of power in line with the federal government's assault on peaceful demonstrators in Washington, D.C. on 1 June 2020. If this has already been done, please direct me to the page of the new article. --- Tutombist ( talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
For more than 60th days in a row now.-- 93.211.215.14 ( talk) 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
When did federal property first become the primary target of Portland protests? and why did it replace city hall and city property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 ( talk) 01:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Currently the "Deployment of federal agents" subsection appears under the Demonstrations heading. Should this be moved into the Responses sections, specifically the Federal subsection? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Cedar777: I don't understand your concurrent observation, where you advocate including reactions of public officials in the form of a chronology, as something is lost when these various spoken actions (and reactions) are removed entirely from the timeline.
If by that you mean such reactions should be part of the Demonstrations timeline, rather than segregated under the Responses section, I disagree.
Earlier today I moved a comment by President Trump to the Federal subsection because, frankly, I thought it had been situated in the July Demonstrations subsection in a way that violated
WP:NPOV. Here's how it appeared before I moved it:
On July 11, protester Donavan LaBella was shot in the head with a " less lethal" round by federal police, suffering facial and skull fractures and having to undergo facial reconstruction surgery. [1] Two days later Trump praised federal agents for their work in policing protests in Portland, saying they had done "a great job". [2]
References
- ^ Levinson, Jonathan (July 12, 2020). "Federal Officers Shoot Portland Protester In Head With 'Less Lethal' Munitions". OPB. Retrieved July 19, 2020.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status ( link)- ^ Crombie, Noelle (July 14, 2020). "Trump says feds in Portland have done 'a great job' on protests". The Oregonian. Retrieved July 16, 2020.
As you see, this proximity made it look as though Trump had specifically praised officers for inflicting facial and skull fractures on a protester. I believe the cited source does not support such an inflammatory interpretation. This should serve as a cautionary example of why it's sometimes imperative to keep the reactions of public officials out of the protest timeline. NedFausa ( talk) 23:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
With this edit,
Binksternet reverted what he called "Fox apologist nonsense" that I'd added to the article space. I had indeed cited a post at the
Fox News website bylined Talia Kaplan, reporter for FoxNews.com. It excerpted Acting DHS Secretary Wolf's response, delivered on
Fox & Friends, to criticism from local leaders in Portland. Regrettably, I failed to grasp the distinction at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources between Fox News (news and website), determined by consensus to be generally reliable per
WP:NEWSORG
, and Fox News (talk shows), including Fox & Friends, where content is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be
attributed.
Please help me correct my mistake. How can I upgrade this content to Wikipedia standards? I added in-text attribution as bolded below, but fear I'm still missing something.
On July 20, Acting DHS Secretary Wolf appeared on the daily morning conservative news/talk program Fox & Friends, where he responded to criticism from local leaders in Portland. He rejected as "completely irresponsible" Mayor Wheeler's charge that DHS and other federal agents were "sharply escalating the situation" in the city. "The facts don't lie," said Wolf, "and the facts are that these violent anarchists and extremists were violent well before DHS surged federal assets into Portland." Wolf added, "We're not trying to escalate, we're trying to hold those folks accountable. What we're not going to do is allow them to attack a courthouse and then simply step across the street on to city property and say you can't touch me. That's not how this works." He asserted that "almost all of our activity has taken place in the one, two or three blocks around that courthouse and will continue to do so." [1]
References
I would appreciate guidance from editors to help make my good-faith contribution acceptable. NedFausa ( talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
There are now a handful of "External links" boxes directing readers to videos on Twitter. Are these appropriate / reliable? I've added a couple external links to videos myself, but to Oregonian videos hosted on YouTube, not just random Twitter users. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa reverted my addition of an article published on Bellingcat, with the edit summary: "This is very troubling. The author is "actively suing the Portland Police Bureau" over events our Wikipedia article describes. A litigant is hardly an independent reliable source" I disagree about the "very troubling" frame, but it does pose a bit of a challenge that should be discussed.
I agree this is a point that must be taken into consideration, but it is not a reason to exclude a source. When evaluating sources, our guideline emphasizes organizations not individual reporters. It is not for us to second-guess Mr. Evans' editor at Bellingcat, who has already deemed that any conflict of interest Evans may have has been managed sufficiently to make the story worth publishing. Bellingcat is a source deemed "generally reliable for news" at WP:RS/Perennial.
The lawsuit referred to indeed includes a large chunk of the Portland press corps, including The Oregonian, a paper that has won multiple Pulitzer prizes spanning a century. Any decision to exclude sources on this basis would be sweeping. I encourage others to consider this and weigh in. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 21:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
At this point, most of the Portland press corps, including myself, are actively suing the Portland Police Bureau.Has the author, Robert Evans, joined other journalists or news organizations in a lawsuit? Or is he suing as an individual, for example over a personal injury he alleges he sustained at the hands of PPB? This demands clarification. If we cite The Oregonian, we can probably trust that any of its staff who are individually named plaintiffs will not be reporting on the continuing news story underlying that suit. But Bellingcat is not The Oregonian. I submit that we should not blindly presume that Robert Evans has no conflict of interest in advancing this narrative. And I object to the admin's attempt to broaden this dispute into having "sweeping" implications for editing Wikipedia. Please, let's just focus on the source in question. NedFausa ( talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The lawsuit describes several interactions Evans had with police while he was documenting the protests, from May 30 to June 30. The interactions included police allegedly threatening him with arrest if he did not leave the area, shooting him in the foot with a tear gas grenade and spraying him, and repeatedly shoving him.Yes, I'm sure that after having been shot in the foot by PPB with a tear gas grenade, Robert Evans can be relied upon to write about these events with complete and unimpeachable objectivity. NedFausa ( talk) 23:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa You are arguing that this should be a simple, clear decision. If that's the case, it should derive from a clearly articulated, shared principle. You seem to advance two possible arguments, and move between them rather fluidly. As I understand you, the two principles you've advanced are:
As I made clear by starting this section, I agree that it's worthwhile to be mindful of conflicts of interest around these matters. But up to this point, I have yet to see a convincing argument that this source should be rejected. If you still feel it should, I'd suggest you clearly state which of these principles you want to work with, and then lay out your argument. Maybe you do want to make an argument that's a hybrid of both; but if that's the case, I think you'd do well to acknowledge that you're opening up a discussion that will involve a complex balancing act to evaluate principles in relation to one another, and that it's anything but clear-cut. I'm happy to hear you out (up to a point) if you want to take that path. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 00:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems like a good way to reduce coverage of the actions of an entity would be to violate the rights of a group of reporters, have them seek justice for the mistreatment, and then claim that they could not cover the story anymore due to bias.Just to be clear, are you alleging that's what happened here? The Portland Police Bureau deliberately targeted Robert Evans by shooting him in the foot with a tear gas grenade, spraying him, and repeatedly shoving him, all in order to provoke him into a lawsuit against PPB so that I could claim Evans should not cover this story anymore due to bias. Wow. Just wow. NedFausa ( talk) 01:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems like a good way to reduce coverage of the actions of an entity would be to violate the rights of a group of reporters, have them seek justice for the mistreatment, and then claim that they could not cover the story anymore due to bias.That did not read to me like Cedar accusing any wiki user of seeking to reduce coverage, but rather urging us to consider the context within which we're attempting to summarize reports.
Based on the very well argued points for inclusion, I have restored the Evans piece in Bellingcat. Binksternet ( talk) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Willamette Week has a link to the podcast where they interview the woman behind the label. (I tried to listen to it; it is 2 hours long. The hosts rambled & digressed so much that after 15 minutes I decided I had better things to do than try to find some bit of information not in the articles about the podcast.)
For the record, while believe she deserves to be included, the article at this moment covers her in sufficient detail. More information would be bogging it down with trivialities. Maybe this could be included as an "External link". -- llywrch ( talk) 03:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
My friend Andy shared this website he's created to track news about these protests. May be useful to wiki editors: http://portlandprotests.andysylvester.com/ Andy Sylvester's Portland Protests Reading List] - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 17:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
There has been a good amount of coverage of violence in the protests. Oregonian reporting estimates 19 law enforcement officers and dozens of injuries to protesters at the hands of la enforcement. Court rulings have specifically sought to protect journalists and legal observers, with the judge explicitly emphasizing the importance of documenting how protesters are treated. Here are a few links that could help improve our article's coverage of this aspect of the protests.
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 16:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
August seems to have really kicked off. The protests have taken on a newer form. Have included Ted Wheeler's response to the increasing virulence of the protests and violence. Alexandre8 ( talk) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Starting this section to track the impacts of the protests. Some things are already mentioned in the article. It might be time to start pulling them out into a separate section (or at least ensuring they are all appropriately covered).
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 18:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Coverage of these demonstrations has a strong theme about the emergence of local, independent journalists. It has arisen partly due to police attacking and/or arresting journalists, which prompted judicial orders constraining the police's actions (see the discussion above of #Litigation by journalists). Regional and national media has noted the quality of reporting by independent journalists, and in some cases published interviews with them. [6] [7] [8] [9]
I suggest a new section titled "local and independent journalists" or similar to capture some of these themes. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Continuing to call these protests while including up to the present day, is not accurate. They have been riots now since June 1st, 2020. That is when the demonstrators starting lobbing projectiles, fireworks and mortars at the police and it was first declared a riot. It has continued since then to be a riot every night with damage, fires, looting, attacks, etc. To continue to call this a protest is just not accurate at all.
References
--TMCk ( talk) 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
wow, it's been a month. I finally uploaded videos from when Ted Wheeler was there. I think the filenames are a decent summary. There are probably some good sound clips, maybe a few stills or short snippets can be pulled out of them.
The source files are 2-20gb, except for the third, which I must've deleted. FYI in case anyone really wants a meaty file to edit, I have them. tedder ( talk) 17:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There are some significant sources we haven't yet worked into the article, parking them here for later use:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteforsyth ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll add another:
Done
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
one militia guy got shot and killed, might want to add that
https://apnews.com/6706c916dc6a156b9847baca437a91de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:900:1E:6897:9D45:6834:CDBC ( talk) 12:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Are we ready to identify the victim at this point? I was watching the 11:00pm KGW news, & they declined to identify the deceased -- they're waiting for the PPB to officially identify him. However, the article provides one name, yet the source cited (apparently OregonLive) gave a different name. (Well, if I read that correctly before they closed the pay wall on me.) IMHO, we should wait until his identity is officially announced, despite what local media might say.
His name will meet notability guidelines, since he is the first on that side to be killed in these protests, & is likely to lead to more civil unrest. -- llywrch ( talk) 07:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The sentence:
"In early July, the federal government deployed law enforcement officers to Portland to protect federal property."
is not supported by established facts. The best that can be said is:
"In early July, the federal government deployed law enforcement officers to Portland for the stated purpose of protecting federal property."
The Wikipedia article should stick to what is known, and should not automatically accept government claims as fact. 216.161.117.162 ( talk) 17:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I was shocked how little coverage this article has given to the fatal shooting of Aaron Danielson at one of the protests - merely a passing mention in the "August" section. Similar deaths at other protests have large sections in their articles, with proposals (so far unsuccessful) to split them off. I have added a little more detail to this article. But while I was doing that I discovered that someone has created an article about the accused shooter, Michael Reinoehl, called Killing of Michael Reinoehl. I oppose that article and that title; if anything we might have an article Killing of Aaron Danielson, but I would prefer to deal with it here rather than split it off. However, at the very least it needs a section of its own. What say you? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually: the more I consider this, the more I think we need a catch-all article George Floyd protest related deaths. That would cover the killing of a federal officer in Oakland, allegedly by a boogaloo sympathizer; the killing of a counter-protester in Portland, apparently by someone with antifa ties, and his subsequent death during an attempted arrest; the killing of two people in Kenosha by a teenaged wannabe cop; and any others that slip my mind. That would allow us to give extended coverage to those cases without having them overpower the "protests in..." articles and without spawning a whole new article every time there is a new incident. It would be non-partisan, giving treatment to all such deaths as justified by the reporting, rather than amount of coverage based our editors' sympathy with one cause or another. What do you think about this idea? I'm going to suggest it at other such articles and see if there is interest. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
MURDER, NOT "CLASH"
I have to challenge the reference in the lede, "One person was shot and killed in a clash between protesters and counter-protesters.[7]" That's a clearly misleading reference to the event of the killing of Aaron Danielson. While it did occur on the same DAY as a parade of people driving through Portland, it occurred substantially later. And videos of the incident exist: Both from a fixed security camera showing Reinoehl stalking Danielson, but also a longer shot, by a bystander, of the actual event. This was not in "a clash", or even nearby an active "clash", it was arguably well AFTER anything that could be labelled "a clash". Neither Danielson, nor Reinoehl, or anyone else nearby at that time, appeared to be actively "clashing". The minutes leading up to the murder were apparently quite peaceful. The bystander's video/audio clearly showed that Reinoehl's first bullet apparently pierced the can of 'bear spray' that Danielson had on his person, leading to a cloud of mist. Some very early media accounts seem to falsely say that Danielson was actively, deliberately 'macing' Reinoehl, but they were probably not aware of Reinoehl's first bullet piercing the 'bear-spray' How they could know that Danielson was intentionally 'macing' Reinoehl immediately prior to Reinoehl's gunshot(s) is certainly unclear. Presumably an audio analysis of the bystander's video will show the presence of or lack of a characteristic 'hiss' emitted by such a can of bear spray. Some days later in a Vice interview, Reinoehl lied and claimed that he was protecting himself and another, despite the apparent lack of anybody nearby fitting that description in the video. The phrasing currently in the lede deliberately makes it sound like it was a "clash" that caused the death of Danielson, when it was actually a premeditated murder committed by Reinoehl. They are trying to 'blame the victim'.
Aeroview854 (
talk) 22:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be more accurate to say "One person was shot and killed in the aftermath of a clash between protesters and counter-protesters.[7]" If there is no objection, I will make that change. Also, that reference #7 is way outdated, written shortly after the incident when everyone was still trying to figure out what had happened. We should try to find something more recent that reflects what the authorities actually concluded. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Other than the fact that it occurred on one specific day and in the City of Portland, there is no obvious relationship.Are you serious? Both of them had been participants in the warring protests that day - one on one side, one on the other. To pretend that is just a coincidence is to stretch the limits of credulity. Even so, my wording does not suggest that being on opposite side of notable clashes that day was the cause of the shooting - just that it occurred in the "aftermath". But to pretend it was unrelated, or that there's no obvious relationship - that's just absurd. The protest and counterprotest are why they were both there. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
A participant in that caravan, a supporter of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, [1] [2] was shot and killed. [3] The victim was identified as Aaron Danielson, initially referred to by his alias "Jay" by Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson. [4] Portland police issued an arrest warrant for Michael Reinoehl, a self-declared anti-fascist and supporter of antifa, who had regularly attended past protests in Portland and said he had provided "security" for the protests. [5] [6] [7]
Sources
|
---|
|
let's not mislead the reader into believing that this murder was triggered by anything else atypical that happened that day? Come on. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This material, about a poll of public opinion, should be included. It makes no sense to me that the views of these events by the general public are not worthy of inclusion. Some editors may not agree with the public, but that is irrelevant. While single polls of subjects like the presidential race that have many polls are not normally included, I see no good reason to exclude the only poll we have on this subject. And it is covered in various sources: [29] [30] [31] [32] It's certainly no less noteworthy than stuff like "N1789M, a Cessna 208 Caravan surveillance plane linked with the U.S. Marshals Service circled overhead for 3 hours", "About 1,000 demonstrators marched to Jefferson High School on June 14", and so forth with details of how many protested each day, and who was there, etc. Not saying any of that should be removed, but rather showing that by any reasonable neutral standard, the poll should be included. Crossroads -talk- 18:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I've notified the NPOV noticeboard. Crossroads -talk- 18:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if standalone articles are appropriate, but I've redirected Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front and Rose City Justice to this article for now. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
This Guardian piece could probably be summarised somewhere in this article. I'm not sure where it would fit in though. Perhaps there should be a subsection for the far right under "Responses". – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 10:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Should this article mention the recent Indigenous Peoples Day of Rage? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"Black" should be "black" in the opening sentence. Black is not a proper adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:7900:D4D:185E:59DE:529C:6D99 ( talk) 23:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, after a FOIA, I got seven very high quality photos from CBP. I've uploaded them to Commons into the expected categories plus a category that doesn't exist to lump them together. I may see if there's a place for them, but FYI for those that are closer to the page to consider them. tedder ( talk) 15:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Related: Nightmare Elk --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This might be useful. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
To add later: Homeland Security Admits It Tried to Manufacture Fake Terrorists for Trump Kire1975 ( talk) 19:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)