This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Presephany.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NicoleVisconti.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cxndyoh, Lyniewong, E.frazin. Peer reviewers: JeshuaKJohn, Thesubtleart, Seanjaelee, Meghana Krishnakumar, Dallasnguyen.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Notdamcat03.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
To start, the citations are based on some very low polling numbers, (approximately ~2000 participants between the Yahoo and Sharkey Institute polls) bearing in mind that millions of Americans view these events. As for the Rasmussen Reports, the company is frequently accused of using a likely voter model to affirm its conservative bias. [1] This hardly seems substantial enough to support the article's conclusion. I'm removing these statements for now. Please discuss them here before re-adding them to the article. 98.86.104.97 ( talk) 22:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The reaction section has NPOV issues. It is skewed in favor of the criticism and away from the support. The Obama quote was editing in such a way that it read as if Obama was criticizing Kaepernick, when in fact he was offering measured support. Also, the section on the Kaepernick page is more developed, and should be integrated here on what is supposed to be the main page. -- Theredproject ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Looking into this, I learned that standing during the National Anthem wasn't just tradition, it seems to be the law. 36 U.S. Code § 301 - National Anthem [1] spells it out. Of course, this isn't the sort of law that get's enforced in the US, but public figures disrespecting the National Anthem sets a bad example, and should probably be considered civil disobedience rather than simple protest. Burt Harris ( talk) 03:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The BBC citation added says: "The code is never enforced, however, and there is no punishment for breaching it." It is undue to state in the lead that it is against the law when there are apparently no legal repercussions for not standing. I propose to remove its legal status from the lead and explain the details with full NPOV in the body.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Just an FYI the code says "should," so to say it is "enshrined" in law is mostly false. 2:07, 24 September 2017 (EST)
This is WP:SYN territory: You're citing a section of the US flag code and applying it to a particular situation. Even if the actions are technically illegal, the overwhelming majority of coverage treats the controversy as a disrespectful breach of etiquette and not a law enforcement issue. – dlthewave ☎ 05:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not all countries are as permissive as the US. India for example, seems to have provisions for fines and imprisonment for violation of it's flag code. The US Supreme Court has found that private individuals violating the flag code for political purposes is protected under the first amendment, but that doesn't imply that the law doesn't have teeth under other circumstances. Those serving in the US Armed Services for example are expected to behave to a higher standard than private individuals under the uniform code of military justice. Similarly, NFL players have additional rules they are expected to comply with, particularly when in uniform. If NFL Players or their teams can be fined for showing skin against the rules, it seems appropriate to me that they risk fines imposed by their teams or the league for disrespecting the national anthem. The First Amendment limits the power of government, it does NOT apply to rules of business, professional associations or to use the public airwaves. Burt Harris ( talk) 17:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
23 U.S.C. 301 says should and may -- mere suggestions. To have teeth, it would say shall. This matter already went to the Supreme Court in 1943, at a time of all times that one would have expected compliance. I rather doubt flag conduct is in an NFL contract beyond professional and sportsmanlike manner. Rhadow ( talk) 18:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This thread rather misses the point. Us puny wikipedia editors do not interpret and apply the law. Instead, we write encyclopedia articles from a WP:Neutral point of view, and our text must be WP:Verifiable using sources Wikipedia defines as "reliable". So all the above arguments over the actual language of this court case or that statute is classic original research, which is prohibited here. The best way to avoid this pitfall is to distinguish between primary and secondary sources and to make abundant use of inline attribution. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Maybe the finer points in the interpretation of kneeling during the National Anthem could be explained in the article - to readers from outside America. Apart from this old law mentioned above, to the innocent European bystander it only looks more respectful than standing, indeed, over-zealous. Glatisant ( talk) 06:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
In view of the attention given to Week 3 of the 2017 season, which is already six paragraphs long and still growing, it may be time to review the essay Wikipedia is not a newspaper. How detailed must we be in keeping up with week-to-week developments? I suggest a one-paragraph summary of each week in which protests occur would suffice to offer encyclopedic coverage. KalHolmann ( talk) 00:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
While references to the US Flag Code in the article may be well intentioned, it is not technically correct. The flag code is 4 U.S. Code Chapter 1, while the National Anthem is covered in 36 U.S. Code § 301. Some parallels are valid, both seek specific respect for a patriotic symbol, but there are fine points which might make a difference. For example, the Flag Code seeks continuous protections of flags, while the respect of standing is called for only during playing of the National Anthem.
So for example, the Seattle Seahawks choosing not to take the field for the playing of the National Anthem is an effective yet respectful form of protest, which was not civil disobedience; but players or teams appearing on field (and on television) not standing for the anthem is disrespectful civil disobedience. Burt Harris ( talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
US Code 301 is actually a code that isn't enforced much like all other US Codes and is the current and accurate US Code adopted for playing of the National Anthem and displaying of the flag of the United States of America which is what the majority of these protests are doing. Below is a word for word representation of US Code 301. Clearly in section b it states the conduct or what you are supposed to do when the National Anthem is played both when the flag is displayed and not displayed. No matter what, according to Section 301, you are supposed to stand and place your right hand over your heart and face the flag when displayed, or face the singer or band playing or singing the National Anthem as if they were the flag. All active service members are required to stand and salute during the rendition of the Anthem. All former service members have the choice of either saluting or standing with their hands over the hearts. Section 4 talks about how you are to display the flag and what it represents mostly where the majority of the discussing here is both the flag and most important in this discussion the National Anthem which Section 301 covers. So if Section 301 were to be enforced then every player or anyone of that does not follow the law described in Section 301 could be held accountable for their actions and punished to whatever the law designates as the appropriate punishment. Remember in some countries, even if you are visiting them, you don't dare disrespect their Anthem or Flag because some punishments are far worse than imprisonment.
a.Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem. b.Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem— 1. when the flag is displayed— A. individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; B. members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and C. all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and 2. when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed. [1] Charles-Joseph ( talk) 12:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
References
The revert of my tagging this article for attention was not done with due regard for Wikipedia policy. WP:WNTRMT WP:DRNC Burt Harris ( talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The listed goals of ending "police brutality" and "racial inequality" have not been referenced to an authoritative (or any) source.
In fact, Kaepernick's reason for starting the protest have been consistently, and as recently as August 2018, been about "oppression." Although that oppression may be manifested in police brutality and racial inequality, if he (or other protestors) have state the goals are to end those actions, then it should be referenced.
Assumptions, speculation, and personal opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. If, as one editor has stated, the goals have been "oft-reported," then providing a reference should be trivial. Personally, despite repeatedly searching, I have never found any statement even close to "When XXX happens, we'll end the protest." Certainly, if the nebulous and unmeasurable ending of police brutality and racial inequality are the goals, then the protests will have to continue forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4100:B50:5C8:A9E0:7129:CB74 ( talk) 00:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
"'Absolutely,' he [ DeShone Kizer] says. 'I think the first thing happened with Colin (Kaepernick), that was the ultimate goal, is to be able to use our platform as a league to bring attention to the inequalities that are out there in our country and as we continue to move forward, and the conversation continues to grow, I think we're doing our job in terms of bringing the recognition to that.'"
— Cleveland.com 25 September 2017
"Kaepernick's goal was to bring attention to the many cases of police brutality against African-Americans, using both the high profile platform as an NFL player and the large stage provided by NFL games to raise awareness."
— The Tennessean 25 September 2017
"Yet, despite all that, there is much more evidence that the protests have been effective. First, we're still talking about it, aren't we? That's one of the main goals of any prolonged protest: to keep the issue in the public eye. To keep the conversation going. All progressive movements met with strong resistance at first, but constant protest leads to reform."
— The Guardian 3 February 2018
"Colin Kaepernick began kneeling a year ago in order to make a statement about police brutality. Other players have said that they are protesting racial inequality more generally."
— Bloomberg L.P. 12 October 2017
"Meanwhile, [ Malcolm] Jenkins says his only goal was to have players united to fight issues important to them – he was moved to action when police killed Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, the same as Reid and Kaepernick. 'We got to this moment, we're all here for the same reason,' he says, 'and that is we want to see change in our communities, especially black communities. The goal isn't the protest. The goal is to move beyond the protest and make some changes.'"
— ESPN.com 26 January 2018
"Can someone tell me what NFL players are trying to achieve here? Some sort of generalized awareness of ongoing racism? What are ordinary Americans supposed to do in response to this display? Are they offering a goal we can all agree on or debate the merits of? No one has any idea. So this protest, in the absence of a clearly defined point, looks like millionaire athletes throwing a tantrum, no matter how incredibly important the issue animating them is."
— The Federalist 26 September 2017
"Their [the NFL players'] goal was to bring attention to the issue of injustice and inequality, and the ultimate form of attention is to have the leader of the free world tell the American press that he recognizes the intent of their mission. Even if he [Trump] disagrees with their tactics and rejects their methods, ultimately, the players won."
— The Root 8 June 2018
"The problem is the players haven't come together on goals and objectives. What does a win look like? Is it, for instance, a demand to form a permanent commission of players, owners and league officials to evaluate social causes? Is it a series of televised public service spots during NFL games, where players can state their case? [...] Lacking a definite end game, the movement has been hijacked by opportunists who have turned the well-intentioned protest into a political—yep, I'm gonna say it—football. Candidates are campaigning on demands that the players stop disrespecting military veterans, which was never part of the agenda."
— The Press Democrat 18 November 2017
"How is success measured in protests and counterprotests? Is it mere heightened awareness, or do we need to point to concrete change? Is the goal [of the protests] to create division or cohesion, disruption or appeasement?"
— The New York Times 1 January 2018
[ Calais Campbell:] "'I think first things first, the ultimate goal is to try to create some social change.' [...] As for Campbell, he clearly understands it's a sensitive subject but he continuously points out that using the platform to create change is the ultimate goal."
— Big Cat Country 25 May 2018
Perhaps some of the sources above are worth inclusion, but overall they seem to agree that the goal of the protests are to raise awareness, provoke discussion, and set the preconditions for more actionable change. The protests have been criticized for lacking clear, specific, and substantive goals, but that the protests have the minimal goal of publicizing the issues about which they are protesting is uncontroversial. Now, do you have any specific changes to propose to the article? I have provided many sources above commenting on the apparent goals of these protests. Do they adequately address your concerns? If not, then what will? — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 04:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)"But if their goal was to spotlight injustice – even if that message has been muddied along the way – it's mission accomplished. Three of the most prominent protesters were nominated for the NFL's Walter Payton Man of the Year award, given for community service."
— Deadline Hollywood 10 December 2017
oppression of black people" (your words)—the former is often seem as exemplary of the latter, especially among African Americans, as well. In fact, it's literally the first sentence of the article.If all you wanted was some sourcing, then okay, but I found all this from the top few pages of search results from a single web search. In the future, you can probably satisfy your curiosity by doing that yourself. If you have an actionable suggestion about this article, though, then it's best to be explicit and specific about it, such as in "change X to Y because Z". — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Goals vs causes There's the option in {{
Infobox civil conflict}} to use |causes=
parameter here if |goals=
doesn't seem appropriate at this time.—
Bagumba (
talk) 06:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
References
U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present)
I would like to contribute reactions from law enforcement to the wiki page. https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/9/6/17827348/colin-kaepernick-nfl-protest-police-unions-boycott
https://qz.com/1380985/nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad-is-dividing-us-police/
http://www.napo.org/washington-report/latest-news-updates/napo-calls-boycott-nike/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleVisconti ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Really well detailed story of how the events developed. Yet, I would like to see some more information about the other side of the story and also maybe try to add new information to this article that is related to the topic on hand. But overall, relevant information was provided. Marquez94n ( talk) 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The content of the article was relevant to the topic and the article was mostly neutral, besides the fact that it seems to be biased because it contains longer quotes from participating individuals and portraying one side of the issue at a time with no middle ground. It does not seem that statements other than quotes included biased opinions. Many citations are news broadcasting networks which many networks carry a bias towards on political side. Due to this fact, the information may or may not be completely reliable. Viewpoints are mostly well-represented, except Law Enforcement which could use more content. There seems to be much more legal background to this issue that has not been covered in the article, which would be helpful to include. Cxndyoh ( talk) 08:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Article has good relevance, has semi-detailed background. Neutral and well-balance. There could be some updates on more recent events and elaboration on the connecting events during and after occurrences of anthem protests. Underrepresented viewpoints from the context of the National Anthem and its background. I believe that background information regarding the lyrics of the National Anthem as it pertains to conversations of race is missing, thoughts?
JeshuaKJohn ( talk) 07:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The name of this article is "Talk:U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present)". Should "present" be included in the name, or a timeline (2016-present) be there in the title? This article's title (and its link thereafter) will necessarily change once these events pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the article can be improved by also mentioning some more research behind Nike's sponsorship of Kaepernick. Specifically, how people expected the backlash to lead to a fall in demand for their products and shoes in the long-run (not just the short-term) indicated by the protests and boycott, but also the recent reports that sales have remained very steady. Perhaps this could be a combination of appealing to the younger, more liberal population, while at the same time shows the in-elasticity of demand of Nike's products. Regardless, I think more information on the Nike deal might provide more insights in a corporate standpoint and what precedent this sets. Seanjaelee ( talk) 06:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The critics section could be extended and/or seperated. In the causes there is debatable neutrality like pledging money. So the cause is that some rich guys spend some money??? It should be mentioned as consequence/reaction.
Also the current status of police brutality with statistics of black-black, black-white, white-black and white-white police-citizen murder rate should be included. Do you have any numbers from a democratic source regarding that to back up the claims of the protest? Or do you have a neutral source for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:8A60:C000:1:A535:4460:E442:C59D ( talk) 12:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This would make a good addition to the article. [8] The Australian national anthem is "offensive to First Nations peoples".
"Anthony Mundine urges white players to support [State of] Origin anthem protest" [9] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not quite where this should go in the article, or how to source this without doing "original research", but I will still go ahead observe that the pre-game National Anthem ceremony is usually not televised, except on special occasions such as the Super Bowl or a college bowl game. During the regular NFL season, the ceremony typically happens while the TV audience is being shown a long pod of commercials right before kickoff. In college football, the home team's pep band usually plays the Anthem about 15 minutes before kickoff while the players are in the locker room. Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 18:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Further down in the article where the events are time lined, there is coverage on the 2019 season which states Albert Wilson of the Miami Dolphins as one of three noted players that still protest, but there is no working link to his wiki as there is for the other two players. This is an important piece of information connection in the article as there are now so few people participating in the movement. Kilfmuny ( talk) 07:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The title makes it seem as if the anthem was subject to the protests, when everyone knows that Kaepernick started kneeling to protest police brutality and racial injustice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:2153:8f00:9464:fa11:100b:b21e ( talk) 09:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend a title of "Protests during U.S. national anthem (2016–present)". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
One takes the knee or does the fist of Black Panthers, as a sign of disrespect towards a racialist state during the performance of a national anthem and/or in front of a flag.
Do the finger in front of the flag of Hawaii. The Union Jack (used as the canton) is triply Christian.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410c:2d62:4514:5346:2aa:1cb8 ( talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
"Taking the knee" (and similar) redirects to this article, but:
Should "taking the knee" etc redirect to a more general article, covering other countries as well? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/LittleKnownBlackHistoryFacts/posts/1831127126994718
EDLIS Café ( talk) 21:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Worth mentioning? -- 109.66.132.145 ( talk) 04:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
In the 23:12, 10 April 2019 revision, the "Human Rights Documents online" citation appears to be bogus. Kaepernick's direct quotes are available in various sources:
Fabrickator ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I just added this section U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_protests#2018_season. I copied the text directly from Maroon 5, because I did not see anything about the controversy here. Right now the paragraph starts with Maroon 5, but it should instead start with those musicians who refused to perform. I'm hoping someone else might be interested in doing the rewrite and maybe providing some more WP:RS about the other musicians who refused to perform and anything they had said. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Presephany.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NicoleVisconti.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cxndyoh, Lyniewong, E.frazin. Peer reviewers: JeshuaKJohn, Thesubtleart, Seanjaelee, Meghana Krishnakumar, Dallasnguyen.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Notdamcat03.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
To start, the citations are based on some very low polling numbers, (approximately ~2000 participants between the Yahoo and Sharkey Institute polls) bearing in mind that millions of Americans view these events. As for the Rasmussen Reports, the company is frequently accused of using a likely voter model to affirm its conservative bias. [1] This hardly seems substantial enough to support the article's conclusion. I'm removing these statements for now. Please discuss them here before re-adding them to the article. 98.86.104.97 ( talk) 22:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The reaction section has NPOV issues. It is skewed in favor of the criticism and away from the support. The Obama quote was editing in such a way that it read as if Obama was criticizing Kaepernick, when in fact he was offering measured support. Also, the section on the Kaepernick page is more developed, and should be integrated here on what is supposed to be the main page. -- Theredproject ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Looking into this, I learned that standing during the National Anthem wasn't just tradition, it seems to be the law. 36 U.S. Code § 301 - National Anthem [1] spells it out. Of course, this isn't the sort of law that get's enforced in the US, but public figures disrespecting the National Anthem sets a bad example, and should probably be considered civil disobedience rather than simple protest. Burt Harris ( talk) 03:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The BBC citation added says: "The code is never enforced, however, and there is no punishment for breaching it." It is undue to state in the lead that it is against the law when there are apparently no legal repercussions for not standing. I propose to remove its legal status from the lead and explain the details with full NPOV in the body.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Just an FYI the code says "should," so to say it is "enshrined" in law is mostly false. 2:07, 24 September 2017 (EST)
This is WP:SYN territory: You're citing a section of the US flag code and applying it to a particular situation. Even if the actions are technically illegal, the overwhelming majority of coverage treats the controversy as a disrespectful breach of etiquette and not a law enforcement issue. – dlthewave ☎ 05:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not all countries are as permissive as the US. India for example, seems to have provisions for fines and imprisonment for violation of it's flag code. The US Supreme Court has found that private individuals violating the flag code for political purposes is protected under the first amendment, but that doesn't imply that the law doesn't have teeth under other circumstances. Those serving in the US Armed Services for example are expected to behave to a higher standard than private individuals under the uniform code of military justice. Similarly, NFL players have additional rules they are expected to comply with, particularly when in uniform. If NFL Players or their teams can be fined for showing skin against the rules, it seems appropriate to me that they risk fines imposed by their teams or the league for disrespecting the national anthem. The First Amendment limits the power of government, it does NOT apply to rules of business, professional associations or to use the public airwaves. Burt Harris ( talk) 17:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
23 U.S.C. 301 says should and may -- mere suggestions. To have teeth, it would say shall. This matter already went to the Supreme Court in 1943, at a time of all times that one would have expected compliance. I rather doubt flag conduct is in an NFL contract beyond professional and sportsmanlike manner. Rhadow ( talk) 18:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This thread rather misses the point. Us puny wikipedia editors do not interpret and apply the law. Instead, we write encyclopedia articles from a WP:Neutral point of view, and our text must be WP:Verifiable using sources Wikipedia defines as "reliable". So all the above arguments over the actual language of this court case or that statute is classic original research, which is prohibited here. The best way to avoid this pitfall is to distinguish between primary and secondary sources and to make abundant use of inline attribution. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Maybe the finer points in the interpretation of kneeling during the National Anthem could be explained in the article - to readers from outside America. Apart from this old law mentioned above, to the innocent European bystander it only looks more respectful than standing, indeed, over-zealous. Glatisant ( talk) 06:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
In view of the attention given to Week 3 of the 2017 season, which is already six paragraphs long and still growing, it may be time to review the essay Wikipedia is not a newspaper. How detailed must we be in keeping up with week-to-week developments? I suggest a one-paragraph summary of each week in which protests occur would suffice to offer encyclopedic coverage. KalHolmann ( talk) 00:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
While references to the US Flag Code in the article may be well intentioned, it is not technically correct. The flag code is 4 U.S. Code Chapter 1, while the National Anthem is covered in 36 U.S. Code § 301. Some parallels are valid, both seek specific respect for a patriotic symbol, but there are fine points which might make a difference. For example, the Flag Code seeks continuous protections of flags, while the respect of standing is called for only during playing of the National Anthem.
So for example, the Seattle Seahawks choosing not to take the field for the playing of the National Anthem is an effective yet respectful form of protest, which was not civil disobedience; but players or teams appearing on field (and on television) not standing for the anthem is disrespectful civil disobedience. Burt Harris ( talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
US Code 301 is actually a code that isn't enforced much like all other US Codes and is the current and accurate US Code adopted for playing of the National Anthem and displaying of the flag of the United States of America which is what the majority of these protests are doing. Below is a word for word representation of US Code 301. Clearly in section b it states the conduct or what you are supposed to do when the National Anthem is played both when the flag is displayed and not displayed. No matter what, according to Section 301, you are supposed to stand and place your right hand over your heart and face the flag when displayed, or face the singer or band playing or singing the National Anthem as if they were the flag. All active service members are required to stand and salute during the rendition of the Anthem. All former service members have the choice of either saluting or standing with their hands over the hearts. Section 4 talks about how you are to display the flag and what it represents mostly where the majority of the discussing here is both the flag and most important in this discussion the National Anthem which Section 301 covers. So if Section 301 were to be enforced then every player or anyone of that does not follow the law described in Section 301 could be held accountable for their actions and punished to whatever the law designates as the appropriate punishment. Remember in some countries, even if you are visiting them, you don't dare disrespect their Anthem or Flag because some punishments are far worse than imprisonment.
a.Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem. b.Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem— 1. when the flag is displayed— A. individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; B. members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and C. all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and 2. when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed. [1] Charles-Joseph ( talk) 12:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
References
The revert of my tagging this article for attention was not done with due regard for Wikipedia policy. WP:WNTRMT WP:DRNC Burt Harris ( talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The listed goals of ending "police brutality" and "racial inequality" have not been referenced to an authoritative (or any) source.
In fact, Kaepernick's reason for starting the protest have been consistently, and as recently as August 2018, been about "oppression." Although that oppression may be manifested in police brutality and racial inequality, if he (or other protestors) have state the goals are to end those actions, then it should be referenced.
Assumptions, speculation, and personal opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. If, as one editor has stated, the goals have been "oft-reported," then providing a reference should be trivial. Personally, despite repeatedly searching, I have never found any statement even close to "When XXX happens, we'll end the protest." Certainly, if the nebulous and unmeasurable ending of police brutality and racial inequality are the goals, then the protests will have to continue forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4100:B50:5C8:A9E0:7129:CB74 ( talk) 00:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
"'Absolutely,' he [ DeShone Kizer] says. 'I think the first thing happened with Colin (Kaepernick), that was the ultimate goal, is to be able to use our platform as a league to bring attention to the inequalities that are out there in our country and as we continue to move forward, and the conversation continues to grow, I think we're doing our job in terms of bringing the recognition to that.'"
— Cleveland.com 25 September 2017
"Kaepernick's goal was to bring attention to the many cases of police brutality against African-Americans, using both the high profile platform as an NFL player and the large stage provided by NFL games to raise awareness."
— The Tennessean 25 September 2017
"Yet, despite all that, there is much more evidence that the protests have been effective. First, we're still talking about it, aren't we? That's one of the main goals of any prolonged protest: to keep the issue in the public eye. To keep the conversation going. All progressive movements met with strong resistance at first, but constant protest leads to reform."
— The Guardian 3 February 2018
"Colin Kaepernick began kneeling a year ago in order to make a statement about police brutality. Other players have said that they are protesting racial inequality more generally."
— Bloomberg L.P. 12 October 2017
"Meanwhile, [ Malcolm] Jenkins says his only goal was to have players united to fight issues important to them – he was moved to action when police killed Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, the same as Reid and Kaepernick. 'We got to this moment, we're all here for the same reason,' he says, 'and that is we want to see change in our communities, especially black communities. The goal isn't the protest. The goal is to move beyond the protest and make some changes.'"
— ESPN.com 26 January 2018
"Can someone tell me what NFL players are trying to achieve here? Some sort of generalized awareness of ongoing racism? What are ordinary Americans supposed to do in response to this display? Are they offering a goal we can all agree on or debate the merits of? No one has any idea. So this protest, in the absence of a clearly defined point, looks like millionaire athletes throwing a tantrum, no matter how incredibly important the issue animating them is."
— The Federalist 26 September 2017
"Their [the NFL players'] goal was to bring attention to the issue of injustice and inequality, and the ultimate form of attention is to have the leader of the free world tell the American press that he recognizes the intent of their mission. Even if he [Trump] disagrees with their tactics and rejects their methods, ultimately, the players won."
— The Root 8 June 2018
"The problem is the players haven't come together on goals and objectives. What does a win look like? Is it, for instance, a demand to form a permanent commission of players, owners and league officials to evaluate social causes? Is it a series of televised public service spots during NFL games, where players can state their case? [...] Lacking a definite end game, the movement has been hijacked by opportunists who have turned the well-intentioned protest into a political—yep, I'm gonna say it—football. Candidates are campaigning on demands that the players stop disrespecting military veterans, which was never part of the agenda."
— The Press Democrat 18 November 2017
"How is success measured in protests and counterprotests? Is it mere heightened awareness, or do we need to point to concrete change? Is the goal [of the protests] to create division or cohesion, disruption or appeasement?"
— The New York Times 1 January 2018
[ Calais Campbell:] "'I think first things first, the ultimate goal is to try to create some social change.' [...] As for Campbell, he clearly understands it's a sensitive subject but he continuously points out that using the platform to create change is the ultimate goal."
— Big Cat Country 25 May 2018
Perhaps some of the sources above are worth inclusion, but overall they seem to agree that the goal of the protests are to raise awareness, provoke discussion, and set the preconditions for more actionable change. The protests have been criticized for lacking clear, specific, and substantive goals, but that the protests have the minimal goal of publicizing the issues about which they are protesting is uncontroversial. Now, do you have any specific changes to propose to the article? I have provided many sources above commenting on the apparent goals of these protests. Do they adequately address your concerns? If not, then what will? — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 04:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)"But if their goal was to spotlight injustice – even if that message has been muddied along the way – it's mission accomplished. Three of the most prominent protesters were nominated for the NFL's Walter Payton Man of the Year award, given for community service."
— Deadline Hollywood 10 December 2017
oppression of black people" (your words)—the former is often seem as exemplary of the latter, especially among African Americans, as well. In fact, it's literally the first sentence of the article.If all you wanted was some sourcing, then okay, but I found all this from the top few pages of search results from a single web search. In the future, you can probably satisfy your curiosity by doing that yourself. If you have an actionable suggestion about this article, though, then it's best to be explicit and specific about it, such as in "change X to Y because Z". — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Goals vs causes There's the option in {{
Infobox civil conflict}} to use |causes=
parameter here if |goals=
doesn't seem appropriate at this time.—
Bagumba (
talk) 06:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
References
U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present)
I would like to contribute reactions from law enforcement to the wiki page. https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/9/6/17827348/colin-kaepernick-nfl-protest-police-unions-boycott
https://qz.com/1380985/nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad-is-dividing-us-police/
http://www.napo.org/washington-report/latest-news-updates/napo-calls-boycott-nike/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleVisconti ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Really well detailed story of how the events developed. Yet, I would like to see some more information about the other side of the story and also maybe try to add new information to this article that is related to the topic on hand. But overall, relevant information was provided. Marquez94n ( talk) 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The content of the article was relevant to the topic and the article was mostly neutral, besides the fact that it seems to be biased because it contains longer quotes from participating individuals and portraying one side of the issue at a time with no middle ground. It does not seem that statements other than quotes included biased opinions. Many citations are news broadcasting networks which many networks carry a bias towards on political side. Due to this fact, the information may or may not be completely reliable. Viewpoints are mostly well-represented, except Law Enforcement which could use more content. There seems to be much more legal background to this issue that has not been covered in the article, which would be helpful to include. Cxndyoh ( talk) 08:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Article has good relevance, has semi-detailed background. Neutral and well-balance. There could be some updates on more recent events and elaboration on the connecting events during and after occurrences of anthem protests. Underrepresented viewpoints from the context of the National Anthem and its background. I believe that background information regarding the lyrics of the National Anthem as it pertains to conversations of race is missing, thoughts?
JeshuaKJohn ( talk) 07:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The name of this article is "Talk:U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present)". Should "present" be included in the name, or a timeline (2016-present) be there in the title? This article's title (and its link thereafter) will necessarily change once these events pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the article can be improved by also mentioning some more research behind Nike's sponsorship of Kaepernick. Specifically, how people expected the backlash to lead to a fall in demand for their products and shoes in the long-run (not just the short-term) indicated by the protests and boycott, but also the recent reports that sales have remained very steady. Perhaps this could be a combination of appealing to the younger, more liberal population, while at the same time shows the in-elasticity of demand of Nike's products. Regardless, I think more information on the Nike deal might provide more insights in a corporate standpoint and what precedent this sets. Seanjaelee ( talk) 06:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The critics section could be extended and/or seperated. In the causes there is debatable neutrality like pledging money. So the cause is that some rich guys spend some money??? It should be mentioned as consequence/reaction.
Also the current status of police brutality with statistics of black-black, black-white, white-black and white-white police-citizen murder rate should be included. Do you have any numbers from a democratic source regarding that to back up the claims of the protest? Or do you have a neutral source for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:8A60:C000:1:A535:4460:E442:C59D ( talk) 12:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This would make a good addition to the article. [8] The Australian national anthem is "offensive to First Nations peoples".
"Anthony Mundine urges white players to support [State of] Origin anthem protest" [9] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not quite where this should go in the article, or how to source this without doing "original research", but I will still go ahead observe that the pre-game National Anthem ceremony is usually not televised, except on special occasions such as the Super Bowl or a college bowl game. During the regular NFL season, the ceremony typically happens while the TV audience is being shown a long pod of commercials right before kickoff. In college football, the home team's pep band usually plays the Anthem about 15 minutes before kickoff while the players are in the locker room. Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 18:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Further down in the article where the events are time lined, there is coverage on the 2019 season which states Albert Wilson of the Miami Dolphins as one of three noted players that still protest, but there is no working link to his wiki as there is for the other two players. This is an important piece of information connection in the article as there are now so few people participating in the movement. Kilfmuny ( talk) 07:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The title makes it seem as if the anthem was subject to the protests, when everyone knows that Kaepernick started kneeling to protest police brutality and racial injustice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:2153:8f00:9464:fa11:100b:b21e ( talk) 09:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend a title of "Protests during U.S. national anthem (2016–present)". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
One takes the knee or does the fist of Black Panthers, as a sign of disrespect towards a racialist state during the performance of a national anthem and/or in front of a flag.
Do the finger in front of the flag of Hawaii. The Union Jack (used as the canton) is triply Christian.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410c:2d62:4514:5346:2aa:1cb8 ( talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
"Taking the knee" (and similar) redirects to this article, but:
Should "taking the knee" etc redirect to a more general article, covering other countries as well? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/LittleKnownBlackHistoryFacts/posts/1831127126994718
EDLIS Café ( talk) 21:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Worth mentioning? -- 109.66.132.145 ( talk) 04:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
In the 23:12, 10 April 2019 revision, the "Human Rights Documents online" citation appears to be bogus. Kaepernick's direct quotes are available in various sources:
Fabrickator ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I just added this section U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_protests#2018_season. I copied the text directly from Maroon 5, because I did not see anything about the controversy here. Right now the paragraph starts with Maroon 5, but it should instead start with those musicians who refused to perform. I'm hoping someone else might be interested in doing the rewrite and maybe providing some more WP:RS about the other musicians who refused to perform and anything they had said. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)