Talk:George Floyd protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Protest needs to be changed to riots[edit]

the definition of a riot is as follows: A violent public disorder; 2600:1016:B002:5ACE:E19D:ED4F:6DFB:D915 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them were. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the majority of them were riots: this is history. Even when seen from Europe 86.6.148.125 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on citations of reliable sources. Reliable sources refer to these actions as protests, not riots. Therefore, the Wikipedia likewise refers to these actions as protests and not riots. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is empty talking. Quote the sources. No journal from the left can be used for this. Only records. I will add a NPOV for this article. 86.6.148.125 (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, The Guardian, and Vox are both not a reliable source of information buddy. NH51907646 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, The Guardian, and Vox are in fact reliable sources. If you do not recognize this, you are likely to be frustrated by trying to edit contentious topics like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
haha you don't have a brain do you? 66.27.190.13 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Should be changed to George Floyd Riots (Mostly peaceful) to give homage to our "reliable" sources.. Wikipedia is such a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.117.214.231 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Do we need a FAQ on this? 16:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Yes, it seems we need a FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a FAQ, but we need to add this frequently asked question to it. Go for it, Slatersteven. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is what I meant. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contrverosial title and use of sources[edit]

The article is controversial to say the least. Most of these alleged "protests" were violent and resulted in widespread vandalism. These were not protests. Moreover, they took place during the Covid lockdown, in violation of the law. The motivations for continuing the protests shifted from George Lloyd's death to wider political demands, leading to the weaponisation of Floyd's for political gain. Little or none of this is acknowledged in this article, which often uses false or biased sources, mostly from only one side of the political spectrum. Discussion is silenced. In short, the article is very unbalanced and needs to be substantially rewritten. NPOV must not be removed until all these issues have been addressed. 86.6.148.125 (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nationwide riots, a virus that has killed more than 100,000 Americans, a President threatening to unleash the military on citizens–how much more can the country bear? Every day in this awful, exhausting year feels like rock bottom, and then we tunnel further into some hideous crawl space. More than 40 million jobs have vanished in 10 weeks. One in four Americans is out of work. And the reckoning continues." Time Magazine. Isn't that one of your "reliable" sources? Here's another from the same TIME article: "Not all Republicans are convinced. “Trump’s re-election chances are going down in flames,” says Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and Trump supporter. “It’s hard to see how these riots don’t boost Joe Biden’s claim to be the Alka-Seltzer America needs to soothe its stomach right now.” Stuart Stevens, a Trump critic who served as chief strategist to 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, notes that Trump won in 2016 with 46% of the vote because nonwhite turnout declined for the first time in 20 years. “You can call them protests, but you could also call them nonwhite voter-turnout rallies,” Stevens says of the racial-justice demonstrations. 'It’s hard to imagine anything that’s going to be more motivating.'" 170.117.214.231 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read wp:or (and wp:soap]]), what I meant was, do they have any sources (not your opinions), such as newspapers or books. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024[edit]

Title incorrectly uses the word "protests" should be changed to "riots". Sections that mentions cost of damages use the word "insured" it is irrelevant and should be removed from each section mentioning it. NH51907646 (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RS say protests. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change Protests to Demonstrations[edit]

Yes the George Floyd Demonstrations where largely peaceful, however they also included the largest amount of damage for any riot and over 30 dead, so I feel like a more nuteral term like demonstrations would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:102:2FC0:E042:8310:1E31:4E6E (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is nothing about the word "demonstration" that implies violence. Thus this seems to be a name change for no reason other than having one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV & Copy Editing[edit]

Hello all, I'm still relatively new here so I'm hoping I formatted this correctly and it isn't too long. Constructive criticism is always appreciated.

This is regarding the George Floyd Protests#Murder of George Floyd subsection; last sentence of paragraph three and first two sentences of paragraph five. For reference, I've included the sentences as they currently appear:

A May 26 autopsy conducted by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office found that there were "no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation"; the preliminary findings stated that underlying health conditions, the police restraint, and potential intoxicants likely contributed to Floyd's death.[83][84]
On June 1, a private autopsy commissioned by the family of Floyd found the death to be a homicide and that Floyd had died due to asphyxiation from sustained pressure, which conflicted with the original autopsy report done earlier that week.[88] Shortly after, the official post-mortem declared Floyd's death a homicide.[89]

Missing POVs[edit]

The paragraphs above compare the findings from the two autopsies. They cover cause of death (CoD), physical signs of asphyxiation and contributing factors. To maintain balance and a NPOV both autopsies' POVs on these topics should be included since they are of equal weight. However, there a several instances where only one POV is mentioned.

The private autopsy's POV on the CoD is included, but the medical examiner's (ME's) POV isn't. According to [84], the ME's full report concluded the CoD to be “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression”.

The ME's POV is that there were no physical signs of asphyxiation, but the private autopsy's POV on the topic isn't included. According to [A] and [B] (both linked at bottom of this post), the private autopsy found hemorrhaging over the vertebral bodies, in the cervical region and on the outside of the carotid artery as physical evidence of asphyxiation.

The ME’s POV on whether underlying medical conditions and drugs contributed to death is mentioned, but the private autopsy's POV isn't. According to [A] and [88], the private autopsy said that neither drugs nor underlying medical problems contributed to death.

Copy-Editing[edit]

Consider adding the ME's homicide ruling in the second sentence of paragraph five into paragraph three. The sentences from paragraph three discuss the ME’s findings, while the sentences from paragraph five deal with findings from the private autopsy. Keeping all the ME’s findings together makes more sense and improves readability. The information that the death was a homicide is included in [84] so [89] can remain in paragraph five.

The first sentence of paragraph five references an "original autopsy report done earlier that week". There was no autopsy report from earlier in the week. According to [88], some preliminary findings from the May 26 autopsy were independently released by the county attorney's office in charging documents on May 29, but the only actual autopsy reports were from the ME’s office and the privately commissioned doctors, both released on June 1. I'm going to assume the reference was to the preliminary findings and propose it be edited accordingly for accuracy.

Add some wikilinks for the medical terms so readers know what they are.

Proposed changes[edit]

Copy-edit for clarity, add wikilinks, [A],[B] and missing POVs (additions and copy-edits underlined):

A May 26 autopsy conducted by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office found that there were "no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation"; the preliminary findings stated that underlying health conditions, the police restraint, and potential intoxicants likely contributed to Floyd's death.[83] On June 1, the medical examiner’s full report declared Floyd’s death a homicide, finding that “law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” caused “cardiopulmonary arrest.”[84]
On June 1, the report from a private autopsy commissioned by Floyd’s family was released shortly before the medical examiner's report. It found the death to be a homicide but found hemorrhaging over the vertebral bodies, in the cervical region and on the carotid artery as physical evidence that Floyd had died due to asphyxiation from sustained pressure.[89][B] It also stated that neither drugs nor underlying medical problems contributed to his death.[A] These findings conflicted with the medical examiner's preliminary findings from earlier that week.[88]

Sources[edit]

  1. Gors, Michele (June 1, 2020). "Family autopsy: Floyd asphyxiated by sustained pressure". KTTC. Archived from the original on June 3, 2020.
  2. Robles, Frances (June 2, 2020). "How Did George Floyd Die? Here's What We Know". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 3, 2020.

Pierce Havoc (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q3 of the FAQ? I've read through the NPOV page, but I must have overlooked something. What have I missed? Pierce Havoc (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In essence question 4, we do not really mention the other autopsies, as they court found this to be murder. Slatersteven (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of violent riots needs to be added.[edit]

There is a biased emphasis in this article made several times on how 93% of all protests over the career criminal floyd were peaceful. The number 7,750 is given as the total number. If 93% were “mostly peaceful,” that means 543 were violent. 543 violent riots across the US is not insignificant and gives context as to why these riots were unpopular with most Americans. Bourbonberserkerbear (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? I am sure our readers are bright enough to work that out. This is just adding words. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
number 8 on the FAQ Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 14:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After he was paroled in 2013, he served as a mentor in his religious community and posted anti-violence videos to social media. In 2014, he moved to the Minneapolis area and worked as a truck driver and bouncer. In 2020, he lost his jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic and very shortly thereafter was murdered. Referring to this murder victim who was turning his life around as a career criminal is just plain wrong. Happy Good Friday. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying Garrett Foster's Involvement[edit]

Garrett Foster was not actually a part of the Bugaloo Boys, and never had any official or unofficial affiliation with the group. He was legally carrying a long gun in the State of Texas, that was pointed towards the ground at all times. Moments before his death, he engaged in deescalation tactics and was then murdered by Daniel Perry. Garrett Foster was never a part of extremist groups whatsoever. 2603:8080:1001:E372:75D1:17AB:4BEA:85DF (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that a couple of sources claim he was, one referenced in the article (which is, still, very few in comparison to the amount of news articles about this, most of which seem to not mention it... not like they would state a negative, either)... and Murder of Garrett Foster doesn't mention, either. So, I guess, it depends on where those couple of sources got their information from, as usually such details are more widely reported... 92.21.86.180 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Floyd_protests&oldid=1223767258"