Talk:Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests

Why capitalize antifa?

I think this gives a misleading impression of a single organization, rather than a movement. Similar to the use of capitalized and uncapitalized forms or "big-[letter]" and "small-[letter]" forms to refer to political parties and to political movements, respectively. So outside direct quotes where the source capitalized the term, I don't think antifa should be capitalized in the article, and in those quotes, it may need (sic). 138.88.18.245 (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I fixed twice where it was capitalized outside of quotes. Inside the quotes, I'm not opposed to adding [sic], but I'll leave that to someone else to make a call on. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Antifa not a proper noun, though (like "Million Man March")? Netside (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This could use a section for counter-protester or anti-protester violence, other than from the police.

e.g. the alleged pipe bomb attacks against protesters in Portland. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This does seem separate from protestors, and would probably paint a better picture of the time, IMO.

Netside (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Forbes

@Calton: you say the Forbes reference is to their blog site and NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE (curiously while restoring this reference, which is presumably the one you meant?). However according to WP:FORBES articles written by Forbes Staff are reliable, and it is by "Jemima McEvoy Forbes Staff". As the Forbes Contributors entry below it states Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites", so it appears, to me at least, that the article was written by Forbes Staff and can't be considered unreliable just by having a "forbes.com/sites" URL. FDW777 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen that concern raised about Forbes, but it had to do with people who contributed without their oversight, and so it clearly doesn't apply to articles written by their staff. Also, every single incident in the instant article links to other sources—as someone else pointed out, linking to each of those would be absurd and is totally unnecessary. Complaining about the reliability of sources in the abstract when there's zero actual reason to doubt the veracity of the information cited is unhelpful, defies common sense, and frustrates editing. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: You say that, "[c]omplaining about the reliability of sources in the abstract when there's zero actual reason to doubt the veracity of the information cited" is unhelpful, but, if you actually look at the Forbes story and some of the references, you would see that there is ample reason to doubt the veracity of the information. I will cite only a few examples, I do not wish to make this an exhaustive search. The second death (Oscar Lee Stewart Jr.) that was "associated with the protests" is an individual who "appeared to have suffered thermal injuries" and whose body was found in a building that had been torched in protests over a month earlier. With regard to the third death (Javar Harrell), "police claimed the incident had no connection to the protests". The fourth death "associated with the George Floyd protests" was labeled as "an act of domestic terrorism" by the Department of Homeland Security and it was perpetrated by Boogaloo movement member Steven Carrillo, who was charged with the murder on June 16. Perhaps identifying the Forbes reference as "not a reliable source" is inaccurate, but so is claiming that there is "zero actual reason to doubt the veracity of the information". Temadison (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Accusation of "police brutality" in Wikivoice is a BLP violation

I've been reverted for changing "police brutality" to "alleged 'police brutality'" in "Lawyer T. Greg Doucette and mathematician Jason Miller have compiled a list of videos posted on Twitter showing police brutality, which as of June 6 contains 428 videos." Police brutality is described as a crime by Wikipedia: "Police brutality or excessive use of force by law enforcement can be legally defined as a civil rights violation, where law enforcement officers exercise undue or excessive force against a subject." To claim, in Wikivoice, that thousands of police officers in 428 videos are guilty of a crime, despite few if any ever having been charged, seems to me to be a gross BLP violation. It should be obvious that "police brutality" suggests wrongdoing, and that to unquestioningly assume that all these officers are guilty of such is unnecessary, when it's easy to make clear that "police brutality" is the subjective opinion on one lawyer and one mathematician, who surely don't know all the circumstances surrounding each of the 428 videos. We owe those thousands of officers, none of whom are public figures and some of whom have been doxxed, special protections thanks to BLP. Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources mainly use "police violence" in their own voice, presumably to avoid this type of complaint.

If we're concerned about this type of BLP issue then we should also reconsider the use of "riot", particularly in image captions where we don't know that the individuals have been charged or found guilty. –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I also noted that "police use of force" or "police violence" is generally favored—but thought in the instant example it was worth describing the term that the video compilers used, since they were clearly alleging "brutality" as opposed to simple use of force. I have no issues with using the term where it has been proven—or even formally charged. And I do appreciate what you're saying about the issues with "riot". For what it's worth, I don't think "riot" presents quite the same issue—although "rioting" can certainly be a crime under US and state laws. Part of the problem is that I'm not quite sure how one would euphemize "riot"—as "civil disturbance" also sounds legalistic to my ear. "Protest" doesn't capture it, and sometimes riots don't involve any clear-cut protestation, especially when it comes to violence, looting, etc. How would you go about describing a riot in which no one was charged but during which wanton violence was involved—in a way that doesn't impute criminality to those not formally accused? Definitely worth discussing! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've also edited the lead, which again stated that "police brutality" occurred in Wikivoice—while citing six sources, not one of which states that as fact. The only source to even use the term "police brutality" to describe law-enforcement response was The Washington Post, which prefaced it with an "alleged"—in the headline. This is a blatant violation of some of Wikipedia's most basic guidelines, including WP:REF, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. My last edit was reverted twice, with no explanation other than a false accusation that I'd used "weasel words"—by people clearly unfamiliar with the definition of that term or the guidelines found under MOS:WEASEL and MOS:ALLEGED. The latter makes clear that: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined."—as is obviously the case in the instant article. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Further note: the page List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests, which is presumably the source for the information on this page, does correctly preface the phrase: "Lawyer T. Greg Doucette and mathematician Jason Miller compiled a list of videos posted on Twitter showing evidence of alleged police brutality." Yet I'm still being reverted here, by the same editor who reverted my prior edit here, and who refuses to discuss the issue on this page. Quite frustrating—would appreciate any suggestions about how to proceed. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added a few sources to the lead that unequivocally support "police brutality". Of particular interest is a Denverite article that covers a report on police actions from Denver's Office of the Independent Monitor that was officially accepted by the police chief. –dlthewave ☎ 03:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Organization of lead

The lead would be improved by some organization: the alleged police brutality sentence could be the start of a new paragraph, without a break between it and the sentence about "reports and videos". Also, it's odd to include accusations against police, then have the police response, then have Amnesty International's further criticism about the police, which was not prompted by the police response. (I also question whether it belongs in the lead, at all—they routinely issue such press releases, and it's hardly a critical component of the article). Logically, the accusations and criticism should be grouped together, with the police response last. Thoughts? Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Article seems to bias in the wording.

I would suggest that in dealing with type of article that we do our best not to take a side and remain neutral . Example is brutality used by police but no mention of the violence displayed by the other side.. anyone reading thiis can easily see the article is scewed to one side. We lose readers based upon the obvious bias account. Stick with facts and not opinonn. Just my thoughts Jacob805 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The article mentions violence by protesters throughout. FDW777 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Secoriea Turner

Why was info about Secoriea Turner's death removed? X-Editor (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a George Floyd protest. FDW777 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Secoriea Turner still redirects here. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Who/what determines whether to classify groups of violent people at protests as protestors or rioters?

Inquiry for information Netside (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No longer protests these are riots

I noticed that these are called protests. It should be called riots.

Here is the wiki definition :

A riot (/ˈraɪət/) is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property, or people.

Riots typically involve destruction of property, public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings.[1]

Riots often occur in reaction to a grievance or out of dissent. Historically, riots have occurred due to poverty, unemployment, poor living conditions, governmental oppression, taxation or conscription, conflicts between ethnic groups (race riot) or religions (sectarian violence, pogrom), the outcome of a sporting event (sports riot, football hooliganism) or frustration with legal channels through which to air grievances.[2]

While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots typically consist of disorganized groups that are frequently "chaotic and exhibit herd behavior."[1] There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that riots are not irrational, herd-like behavior (sometimes called mob mentality), but actually follow inverted social norms.[3]

Dealing with riots is often a difficult task for police forces. They may use tear gas or CS gas to control rioters. Riot police may use less-than-lethal methods of control, such as shotguns that fire flexible baton rounds to injure or otherwise incapacitate rioters for easier arrest.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.20.168 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason it is categorized under protests is that they are picking out specific rioting incidents from a series of protests, not all of which had any level of rioting. EytanMelech (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Raccoon and trash can lid incidents

Hi @HHelmsley10, I realize your first edit after mine wasn’t a pure revert, so apologies for the misunderstanding. There are still a couple of issues with the two incidents you re-added, and I’d like to avoid an edit war.

• Raccoon incident: This should be removed. The Fulcrum source doesn’t seem to be a reliable news source. It has tags like “social justice, stupid” and is sourced from newspunch.com, which also seems to be a predominantly opinion source. Neither are at WP:RSP, so it might be worth getting other opinions on those sources. The Law Enforcement Today source is clearly labeled as an editorial. It also doesn’t support the incident as being “violence by protesters” since it explicitly questions whether the perpetrator was a BLP protester or whether he was hijacking the movement. Without a clearly reliable source clarifying that this took place during the George Floyd protests and committed by a protestor, it should be removed.
• Trash can lid incident: This should be removed, or moved to “Criminal activity”. The local source is fine, but they don’t identify the perpetrator as a protestor, nor say that the protests were related to George Floyd. The Newsweek article does briefly mention George Floyd, but WP:RSP is mixed on Newsweeks reliability, so it would be better to have a more reliable source that connects the incident to George Floyd protests. If kept in the article, it should be moved to “Criminal activity”.

POLITANVM ^talk 05:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

End date

Should we use an end date for this article on when did the event end or something? Persesus (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Mention criticism of 93% peaceful number

There have been instances of commentators criticizing the 93% peaceful number as misleading as it equates large and small protests in the data, for example giving equal weight to a peaceful protest that was attended by less than 100 persons as protests with tens of thousands that turned violent.Foward123456 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE since the person thinks that if one big demonstration is violent and nine smaller ones aren't, that makes over 50% of them violent. FDW777 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I wish to include this sentiment expressed by some commentators, not as a new number based metric, but to mention legitimate criticism in relation to scale. I feel as though this would add to the article by stating an additional perspective. Is there a way this could be expressed in another part of the article. Foward123456 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I would also dispute calling that Fringe, as opinion polls expressing large portions of the population to believe the protests to be largely violent in nature, including this info gives additional insight into how many came to believe this Foward123456 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If you tell a reasonable person that 50% out of ten protests turned violent, they would think five were violent. Not one. That method of counting makes flat earthers look positively normal. FDW777 (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not proposing introducing a differing statistic into the article that would weight based on size of the protest. I am simply preposing adding the sentiment expressed by some political commentators that the 93% percent number is misleading on the logic that a protest event with tens of thousands of attendees is more relevant versus that of an event with under 100 attendees. The larger protest events received significantly more media coverage. Furthermore, this would help put into context why so many Americans polled believe that the protests were largely violent events. This would in no way endorse these beliefs, just state them. I don't understand why you would bring up flat earthers. The sentiment, is not all that hard to understand. Foward123456 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Except, as pointed out, your commentator thinks 1 protest out of 10 being violent equals 50% of protests being violent. The true numbers don't lie, 93%–96.3% of demonstrations were peaceful and nondestructive, involving no injuries or no property damage. FDW777 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You can’t just give arbitrary weight to different sizes of protests because you want to! There has to be some kind of calculus from a reliable source! This is basic math here! Dronebogus (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, what is more relevant: a protest event in which 100 people attend or which 10,000 people attend? The 93% percent figure assigns equal relevance to both events when measuring the overall peacefulness of the entire movement. I may not agree with it, but it is not "flat farther logic" to point that out. I did not find the 50% statistic reasonable or logical so I did not put it in my original edit. I find this point highly relevant to the content of the article when considering that many Americas believe the protest movement to be inherently violent in nature. It is not an endorsement of the position, simply an addition of a held perspective by a political commentator (whose beliefs are frequently cited in wiki articles of this sort). Foward123456 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Political commentators in general not referring to the specific person Foward123456 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I simply believe that this is relevant discourse on the subject matter, especially in the context of public opinion of the violence of the protests which is unquestionably relevant to this article Foward123456 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well in any case the rule is WP:RS— do you have them? Do they discuss this point in particular? If not this is WP:SYNTH at best and WP:POV WP:OR at worst. Dronebogus (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes this political commentary, ( which is often used throughout wiki articles of this type, as the political discourse surrounding the issue like this is highly relevant) makes the exact point I mentioned above. Foward123456 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The wording is not the same but my previous edit summarized the point made by the commentator. Foward123456 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This commentator's podcast is ranked in the top 50 of apple podcasts in the United States Foward123456 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Foward123456, these points aren't really addressing what Dronebogus is saying. Political commentary (and editorials in general) is almost never considered a reliable source (WP:RSEDITORIAL). Is there any reliable secondary source for the claim that some people dispute the statistic? Even if there are more primary/editorial/opinion sources, putting them together to make a different claim would be synthesis (WP:SYNTH). Politanvm ^talk 22:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Foward123456 seeks to use this reference, which includes the absurd claim If 99 small towns each have peaceful protests that 100 people show up to and a large city has a protest that 10,000 people show up to that turns violent this study would claim that the protests were “99% peaceful,” when in reality they were slightly more than 50% violent. The "more than 50% claim" means we're way into WP:FRINGE territory. FDW777 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Hill thought “over 90% peaceful” made for a more convincing headline to their audience than “220 protests became violent.” Their methodology is sloppy too in that it doesn’t account for the size of the protests. If 99 small towns each have peaceful protests that 100 people show up to and a large city has a protest that 10,000 people show up to that turns violent this study would claim that the protests were “99% peaceful,” - this is the full quote that I am using. Foward123456 (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn’t really matter what the quote is if it’s not from a reliable source. The discussion will keep going in this circle unless someone brings in a reliable source. Politanvm ^talk 23:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." - Right from the policy you directed me to. supporting information on the different viewpoints of this topic. Foward123456 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a reliable source as provides an analysis that is perfectly logical on the statistic reported. It seems as though you two simply do not like the analysis. I am simply following the guidelines for bringing in differing viewpoints on the statistic. It seems as though you two do not like that viewpoint. Foward123456 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

From the next paragraph: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". An opinion piece typically wouldn't meet that, since it's stating the author's own views rather than providing editor-reviewed and fact-checked news.

Also, the edit said "some political commentators have described..." rather than "Matt Palumbo has described...", which would probably still be unhelpful. WP:RSEDITORIAL reads Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. and When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. It isn't clear to me that Palumbo is a recognized expert. Perhaps others disagree, but then it's necessary to show some reliable sourcing that he's a credible expert.

Further, a podcast blog would also probably fail to be a reliable source per WP:RSSELF: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

If you want another opinion about whether this opinion piece in a podcast blog would be a reliable source, you can post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I would expect to get a similar response.

The clear resolution would be to provide any reliable, secondary source for the claim. The second best would be to provide reliable secondary sources that Palumbo is an expert in protest violence, and then attribute the claim in the Wikipedia article to him. Politanvm ^talk 00:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines clearly state that biased sources can be used to bring in differing perspectives to uphold article neutrality. Foward123456 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Foward123456, your claims have no reliable sources. Dan Bongino is not a reliable source, he’s a right-wing fringe theory proponent and conspiracy theorist from an alternate universe where basic calculus apparently doesn’t exist. If you don’t stop pushing this claim without sources you may be blocked for WP:bludgeoning Dronebogus (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• To be clear we're talking about this edit. I'm not aware of the Dan Bongino Show having an editorial board or a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, so opinions published there don't carry any weight around here. That's not just my opinion, it's policy: WP:WEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" which means that we don't use opinions from unreliable sources even if they're widespread among commentators or the general public.

I can think of half a dozen ways to quantify violence at protests, and each one would probably support a different viewpoint. We could debate all day about which one is "best" but that would be a waste of our time as well as a policy violation because we look to reliable sources, not our personal opinions/analysis, to tell us which one to use. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Foward123456 has some clear WP:POV push WP:CIR issues here. Dronebogus (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't think it's WP:DUE to include that. Dan Bongino is not a subject-matter expert or someone of towering significance, so why is what he said important? Beyond that, statistics are not a matter of opinion, so we shouldn't cite opinion-pieces on them. WP:RSOPINION sources are for subjective things like "I think the mayor should resign"; they're not supposed to be used to introduce alternative facts. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)