Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon

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

May 30 videos by The Oregonian on YouTube[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COVID-19[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 04:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope of parent article[edit]

@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)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that was my train of thought. My thoughts were basically if a reader is looking at the article for Portland, Oregon, they're probably most specifically interested in protests in the US. I considered also adding the link to the international list, but figured that would make an excessively long hatnote above a section, so opted to omit it. Additionally, List of George Floyd protests (singular) was the original title of List of George Floyd protests in the United States before being converted to a redirect to Lists of George Floyd protests (plural), so anything that linked to [[List]] probably should have its wikilink updated to the US page. However, List of George Floyd protests outside the United States started on List of George Floyd Protests in the United States while it was just titled List of George Floyd protests, so it's particularly complicated. I'm definitely willing to hear others' opinions on the matter. Thanks for the ping! Phuzion (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the background. It seems to me that in this case (a multi-faceted and fast-evolving story around the world) navigating among the various articles is an especially high priority, so I like the current model of listing the worldwide, US, and Oregon pages. I don't think excessive length is really that much of a problem, and I'd err on the side of making sure readers have ready access to whatever "level" they're interested in. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in mind, if a background section were fleshed out with prose, some of the links could potentially be integrated and not display as main/see also. Just a thought. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources for gap[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Llywrch, Agreed, but right now I'm just trying to easily identify to readers where there are major gaps. Initially I was doing pretty good at updating the page each day, but I've struggled to keep up. I'm sure some trimming can be done longterm, but for now, I'd actually ask folks to help expand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another Believer, I think you are mistaking a suggestion about something to be done "down the road" with something to be done more promptly. (And I did suggest this refactoring be done after the protests end. Have they? I haven't heard about any tonight.) And even when they have ended, it may be a while before it is acted on. (Based on my experience with Wikipedia articles, I don't expect anyone to act on this for a year or two.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asking for an update & not as criticism -- have the protests in Portland been continuing up to now? (A quick look with Google News shows there was unrest downtown over the July 4 weekend. We need to find jobs for these people.) It's gotten to the point that local tv news is treating the nightly unrest downtown as a "dog bites man" story, & it could come to an end without anyone noticing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, multiple events every day. Just added some items with a July 4 KOIN story. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Llywrch: Yes, I'm pretty sure there have been demonstrations every day since late May. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's going to get harder to document the later demonstrations if the usual news sources don't cover them. -- llywrch (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me that the Oregonian and OPB have done a reasonably good job of establishing context on a regular basis. For instance in my most recent edit, the Oregonian affirmed that there have been demonstrations of hundreds to thousand every day for 39 days (that was as of Sunday). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Llywrch: News outlets are covering the demonstrations. The Wikipedia article is just not being updated daily. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not the ones I watch, I regret to say. -- llywrch (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Llywrch Today's Oregonian speaks directly to your question, worth a read. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elk statue[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

Let's work on the lead section[edit]

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:

  • Police aggression, ACLU lawsuit
  • Cooperation and tension between local police and Federal officers who arrived in July
  • Large marches, often over 1,000 people, as well as small neighborhood events, every day often had no police interaction whatsoever; contrasted with actions at the Justice Center downtown, and the PPA building in North Portland, that are characterized by confrontation, violence, etc.
  • Reforms demanded and reforms implemented (e.g. reduction of police budget)

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)Reply[reply]

Suggested new sections[edit]

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):

  • Precipitating events would detail the killing of George Floyd and other recent/prominent national cases, as well as local police killings in recent decades (many of which do not have their own Wikipedia pages).
  • Advocacy for reform would include the specific reforms called for by the various protest groups, indicating which have achieved success.

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peteforsyth, Sure!, and thanks for your work on this article. I was doing a pretty good job initially at building this article's foundation and keeping up to date, but lost momentum. I am a little disappointed to see the date headings removed, only because those identified where there were content gaps, but I know we need to start summarizing and converting the many bits of text into better prose. While the recent 'abductions' are concerning hopefully this will at least get more eyes on the page for further improvement. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another Believer You did excellent work getting things going, glad to be able to contribute and build on that. On removing the sections, a few things:
  1. I thought it would be uncontroversial, because it seemed to me that you had likely done it at a time when measuring things on a scale of days made sense, but as we got into the sixth and seventh weeks of daily protests that has shifted some;
  2. I only removed them after noting that the balance had been somewhat restored, after a period when several of the sections had been completely empty for a while; and
  3. I'm always cautious, based mostly on this journal article from 2011, of using the temporal frame too strongly on Wikipedia articles. The article argues that imposing a timeline on coverage of an event can introduce bias, as history does not evolve in an orderly way; some days or weeks will merit much more coverage than others, because much more happened then. ::All that said, though, if you feel it's important to bring back somewhat more granular headings, I'm not opposed. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I've been specifically asked to weigh in on the "vandalism" section suggestion (see below). I'll try to be brief. I think this suggestion is preposterous, offensive, and cannot possibly be justified by the preponderence of news coverage, which focuses on issues of human life and governance. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peteforsyth, Offensive? Er... ok, I was just trying to think of ways to organize this article. I'll consider that a strong no, but I sure don't mean to offend you or anyone else. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another Believer It's possible I didn't understand you properly. You've done a great deal of good work on this and related articles. My understanding was that you felt that vandalism of property (much of which is no more than fences that can be replaced, paint that can be removed, etc.) merits an amount of attention in this article that's similar to matters of life and death, human dignity, and how a city governs itself and its police force. If that's the case, I find it offensive to anyone who cares about the people who have been killed or hospitalized. Enough so that I had stopped looking at this section I started. Seems like something that belongs in a presidential strategy memo, outlining what excuses will be used to justify sending militarized forces against his own citizens, than in a Wikipedia article. Your suggestion did not seem like something worthy of serious consideration. If I've misunderstood, let me know. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peteforsyth, I was/am trying to think of ways to organize existing text within the article. I proposed a section about vandalism because news outlets have reported on this, and at least four statues have been torn down during these demonstrations. I didn't suggest giving more weight than the issues you've mentioned. I'm still not sure I fully understand what's offensive (is this a semantics issue?)... all one has to do is walk around downtown to see graffiti all over the place. If you take issue with the word "vandalism" itself, I'm just basing this off sources:
There are other sources confirming total damages, cleanup efforts, etc. Pete, I think you probably have some sense of where I land on the ideological and political spectra. I'm working in good faith, aware of the seriousness of the issues being discussed here, and supportive of the BLM movement. All I'm trying to do is make this article more informative and easier to read; I have no other agenda. If my response here is offensive then maybe I should just leave this discussion because I feel like I'm stepping on toes but not understanding how or why. I would also like to hear from other editors about other ways to organize this page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Knowing you both, I'd encourage a deep breath and a shared acknowledgement that this is a really hard f'in time. I know you're both trying to do what's best for the article. Keep that in mind. We need you both doing your best work. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 23:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ocaasi, I agree and thanks for the reminder. I have no issues with Pete, but when someone says I've offended them I try to understand why. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. has a section called Vandalism, George Floyd protests in Columbus, Ohio has the sections Business actions and mural artwork and Damage and statue removals. We can also borrow from how George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul is organized. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, text can be very impersonal at a stressful time. I value both of you, and everyone working to improve the content, apart from specifically liking and valuing you as a human being. My comment was not meant to reflect on you as a person, but on the specific change you proposed (as I understood it, and I acknowledge, I may have misunderstood some nuance.)
Maybe it will be easier if I explain what comments I've found problematic in the wider world, and which define some of the context in which I heard your suggestion. There are indeed places where you will find "vandalism" mentioned as a significant part of the dynamic. For instance a NY Post article today leads with a sentence about vandalism. "Portland endured yet another night of violence and vandalism Monday..." Wikipedia editors have generally classified the Post as a tabloid which is not preferred as a source. The Post is also an organization that is 3000 miles away, that not have its own reporters on the ground in Portland. Meanwhile, here's a comment from Alex Zielinski, news editor of the Portland Mercury, who's been covering these events on the ground since May: "These federal police are pointing firearms at members of the public because some people broke windows, graffitied walls, and threw rocks at them last night." Notice how the cause-and-effect are reversed? If you look through the local coverage, the coverage from reporters who are basing their stories on what they see with their own eyes, you'll find they're pretty close to 100% aligned with Zielinski's take. They don't tend to talk about vandalism much at all, and when they do, they're talking about how the police use vandalism as an excuse to step up their attacks on protesters.
If you look below at the section #Fox apologist nonsense you will see what I believe is the main factor driving publications like the NY Post to focus on vandalism as a central topic: the Trump administration has specifically used vandalism as the justification for sending officers to Portland. Acting Secretary Wolf speculated (an act, in itself, which lazy journalists without reporters on the ground will consider newsworthy) that if the feds left, that the protesters would burn down their building. This is not a cabinet secretary using his platform to help the public make sense of what's going on, it's basic propaganda in service to a political end (building public support for federal intervention, in the run-up to the November election). The news editor of Oregon Public Broadcasting summed it up like this: "Dear national media: This press conference is filled with federal officials saying things that run completely counter to what journalists on the ground in Portland have observed and documented."
It's possible you intend something different from what the NY Post and Acting Secretary Wolf are talking about, but if so, I have not yet grasped the difference. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peteforsyth, What do you think about the local sources I bulleted out above? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you have two reasonable choices: (1) ask me for my opinion and then take some time to think about what I tell you, or (2) don't worry too much about what I think and do your own thing. (Which doesn't mean ditching this article entirely, as you suggest above -- it doesn't need to be anything so dramatic.) (1) doesn't seem to be working out so well. So maybe try (2)? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peteforsyth, Ok. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Peteforsyth that additional sections for Advocacy for reform and Precipitating events (&/or revising the background section), would improve the article. Also agree with Another Believer in that clarity and accuracy regarding property damage to statues is relevant precisely because it is being used as justification for the creation of executive orders that allow federal agents to enter areas uninvited by state and local officials. Not opposed to a section for vandalism, but with so many areas in need of editors attention, it is a lower priority. Cedar777 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

URGENT: Bringing attention to reports of "secret police" abductions[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

@Tutombist: Was just logging in to work exactly on this, but I appreciate the reminder and the links (I'd missed a couple of those stories, spares me the effort of tracking them down). Would appreciate your eyes on what I add. I'm moving this section to the bottom, regular Wikipedia editors will be more likely to notice it here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify, by "exactly this" I meant to work on this topic -- there may be a time to spin this off into its own article, but for the time being I'm just planning to add a paragraph or two. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Protecting American Communities Task Force has been created as a split from this article. I'm not sure how accurate or appropriate that is, given that much of the media coverage that I've seen has emphasised that no one really knows which agency the feds are from, but I haven't reviewed all the sources. @Tutombist: If you think another article is necessary you might want to place {{split section}} in the relevant section of this article. You might also find it useful to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – while I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said, and I'm sure that you're not planning on adding non-neutral content to any articles, espousing strongly-held views about political topics on article talk pages is usually not appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I struck the Forbes contributor entry above per Wikipedia:RS/Perennial. I've worked in the other sources mentioned (except the Nation article which I haven't gotten to). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a fairly new contributor, I appreciate any offering of pointers to help me understand this medium. I would have to admit I am too inexperienced with Wikipedia to offer my own language or formatting to place within the articles themselves, but I will not hold back on these "Talk" pages. My goal is to share what should be basic civics info which I once misunderstood to be common knowledge. However, after recognizing the de-emphasis of government and civics lessons within the primary and secondary public education systems here in the U.S., I have come to acknowledge that there is a huge gap in the education of our young folk as to how our government structure operates.
I am not here to "right any wrongs"; I save that for the ballot box, and I urge every member of a free democracy to exercise their own franchise, as is their right and duty as well-informed citizens of a properly functioning free and open society. However, any "wrong" that has been so clearly exposed to the light of scrutiny *must* be examined and brought to broad public awareness. I don't think there should be any controversy over the illegality of the actions of federal agents in this instance.
The "due process" clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution state clearly that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law by federal and state authority, respectively. Arbitrary and indiscriminate "detention" or "arrest" -- or whatever this is ultimately claimed to be -- is nowhere within the ballpark of due process of law as it has been understood thus far in the history of the U.S.
My apologies if an inflamed passion seeped through in my initial post, but I do indeed feel that coverage of unlawful behavior by the government of a "free" nation is a matter of great urgency, and not just within the context of this one article. And I am eager to see the contributions of you all and the rest of the community on this matter. So, thank you.
--- Tutombist (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tutombist Your comment was most welcome. In my view having an opinion is not a disqualifier for discussing or collaborating on an article, as long as you approach it with an open mind and are not overbearing, and IMO you were nowhere near that line. Appreciate the input. You're right, this has become a very important article very quickly, and at the time you wrote it was not getting nearly enough attention from Wikipedians. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"50 days of protest"[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For more than 60th days in a row now.--93.211.215.14 (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is important! After Trump's 'little green men' arrived in Portland:

"Deployment of federal agents"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

@NedFausa, Cedar777, and Peteforsyth: Pinging you all as recent article contributors. See also: Thoughts on Vandalism section per above? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes sense to have a separate federal subsection under Government responses, but it's a mistake to have one under Demonstrations in July. We repeatedly assert that federal officers were deployed "in early July" without (unless I missed it) giving a precise date. But even taking the vague "early July" inception, federal officers have thereafter been an integral part of the protests. Instead of moving the "Deployment of federal agents" subsection, we should merge it chronologically into the Demonstrations section where it now exists, creating a seamless running narrative. NedFausa (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The separated sections do pose their own challenges with gaining a well-rounded understanding of events as they developed in time. Still reading about the protest events in Portland but clearly the duration is long and may continue indefinitely, with or without a federal deployment. I will delete the subsection for Deployment of federal agents as it doesn't fit well with the way this article is currently structured.
A concurrent observation is that the public dialog between various key local, state, and federal officials can be swift, as with the tensions at the CHOP in Seattle in June. In my view, the major reactions of public officials to events are better digested when included (sparingly) in the form of a chronology, as something is lost when these various spoken actions (and reactions) are removed entirely from the timeline. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

  1. ^ 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)
  2. ^ 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)Reply[reply]

Fox apologist nonsense[edit]

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

  1. ^ Kaplan, Talia (July 20, 2020). "Acting DHS secretary hits back at Portland mayor's 'completely irresponsible' claim that feds are 'escalating' unrest". Fox News. Retrieved July 20, 2020.

I would appreciate guidance from editors to help make my good-faith contribution acceptable. NedFausa (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The basic problem here is that you are giving Wolf a platform to air his false narrative. The "violence" he reports is not actually hurting people; it is instead one broken window and some graffiti, costing around $5000.[2] So the federal response responds by spending about a half million on troops, something like 100 times out of proportion to the damage, which was never "violence" against other people. Don't give Wolf a platform; don't quote him. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So there is no way to make my good-faith contribution acceptable because you personally have decided that Acting Secretary Wolf's remarks present a "false narrative." Isn't there a Wikipedia policy about No original research? I could've sworn I read about that somewhere. NedFausa (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would you call assisting a politician in promoting a false message? We have a guideline about that. I especially love it when he says "the facts don't lie." Golden. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NedFausa, this is ultimately an issue of WP:UNDUE, as in Undue Weight. Wikipedia intentionally rejects the false equivalence balance of traditional journalism, where all sides get equal time regardless of their position or its validity, prominence, popularity, or evidence-based nature. In this situation Wolf is parroting the government's narrative on Fox and Friends, which is essentially state media. We may excerpt a single phrase or sentence from this kind of media, but we don't amplify acts of spin and propaganda. Simply: we don't carry water for dictators and tyrants, from any State. They can broadcast their message elsewhere. Ocaasi t | c 12:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me give you an example of what I mean by WP:UNDUE weight. Consider:
  • Politico: "Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler urged the Trump administration Sunday to call off its intervention in the city, accusing the federal forces of “sharply escalating the situation” and employing tactics that are “abhorrent” and “completely unconstitutional.”
  • Washington Examiner: "The federal government cannot put troops or military personnel or police on the streets without the invitation of the governor or the legislature of the state. That is not only federal law, that is in the Constitution. And as horrific as it is for people who believe in the sanctity of the person and of private property to watch this destruction, there is very little that the feds can do about it," the Fox News commentator said Monday...What happened in Portland over the weekend was not only unlawful and unconstitutional, it was just plain wrong."
  • The Nation: "“It’s like stop and frisk meets Guantanamo Bay,” attorney Juan Chavez told OPB. He added that these detentions were not following any rules of probable cause. “It sounds more like abduction. It sounds like they’re kidnapping people off the streets."
  • Congressmen Merkley, Wyden, Blumenauer, and Bonamici: “DHS and DOJ are engaged in acts that are horrific and outrageous in our constitutional democratic republic,” Merkley said. “First, they are deploying paramilitary forces with no identification indicating who they are or who they work for. Second, these agents are snatching people off the street with no underlying justification. Both of these acts are profound offenses against Americans....“Oregonians’ demand for answers about this occupying army and its paramilitary assaults in Portland at the direction of Donald Trump and Chad Wolf cannot be stonewalled,” Wyden said. “That’s not how it works in a democracy. It’s painfully clear this administration is focused purely on escalating violence without answering my repeated requests for why this expeditionary force is in Portland and under what constitutional authority... “The jarring reports of federal law enforcement officers grabbing peaceful protestors off the street should alarm every single American. This is not the way a government operates in a functioning democracy,” Blumenauer said. “We are demanding an immediate Inspector General investigation into these incidents to get answers from the Trump administration and ensure these disturbing abuses of power stop immediately.”...“The overly aggressive conduct of federal officers in Portland is alarming and unconstitutional. Oregonians must be able to exercise their First Amendment rights safely, without being picked up and detained by unidentified federal officers,” Bonamici said. “The President is intentionally provoking unrest and discord, and our community will not stand for it. He purports to be a law and order President, but his Administration’s actions are political bluster and are making our city and our country less safe. We will not rest until we get answers on behalf of Oregonians.”
  • ACLU: "This is a fight to save our democracy,” said Kelly Simon, interim legal director with the ACLU of Oregon. “Under the direction of the Trump administration, federal agents are terrorizing the community, risking lives, and brutally attacking protesters demonstrating against police brutality. This is police escalation on top of police escalation. These federal agents must be stopped and removed from our city."
  • NPR: "“What is happening now in Portland should concern everyone in the United States. Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street we call it kidnapping. The actions of the militarized federal officers are flat-out unconstitutional."
  • NBC: "Trump and his acting secretary of homeland security, Chad Wolf, have now unleashed these agents like an occupying army — complete with fatigues, military-style equipment and tactics that are utterly unacceptable in an American city."
  • Axios: "Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that he "absolutely" believes the Trump administration is violating the Constitution by deploying unidentified federal agents to arrest protesters in the city."
  • Newsweek: ""The American people will not tolerate a dictator," Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) tweeted."
  • US News: "[Governor] Brown's spokesman, Charles Boyle, said Friday that arresting people without probable cause is “extraordinarily concerning and a violation of their civil liberties and constitutional rights.”
  • KCRW: "KCRW speaks with Yale professor Jason Stanley, whose new book is titled “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.” He says, “Are there fascist forces in America today that are ascendant and threatening our status as a democracy? Is Trumpism a fascist, social, and political movement? I think it is.”
  • Independent: "‘The tactics of a dictator’: Portland leaders demand removal of masked federal agents sent by Trump admin following spate of arbitrary arrests"
  • Washington Post: "“Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping,” Carson said. “Protesters in Portland have been shot in the head, swept away in unmarked cars, and repeatedly tear-gassed by uninvited and unwelcome federal agents."
  • BBC: "Senior Democrat Nancy Pelosi said "unidentified Stormtroopers" were "kidnapping protesters". Another Democrat Ro Khanna described those involved as "secret federal agents".
  • Lawfare: "There’s definitely reason to be alarmed about what’s going on in Portland. And even if the federal officers are technically complying with the relevant statutes, there’s something more than just unseemly about camouflaged officers who refuse to identify themselves or their employer purporting to conduct arrests on the streets of American cities. Whether these officers are in fact abusing their authorities or not remains to be seen, but either answer would be deeply troubling."
  • PBS: "“The idea that there’s a threat to a federal courthouse and the federal authorities are going to swoop in and do whatever they want to do without any cooperation and coordination with state and local authorities is extraordinary outside the context of a civil war,” said Michael Dorf, a professor of constitutional law at Cornell University."
  • Fox News: "“They certainly can't do what they have been doing in Oregon, which is arresting people without a warrant and without probable cause, holding them for a few hours and then letting them go,” he went on to explain. “So they have to be restrained and they have to confine their activity to the federal property.”"
  • The Nation: "In Portland, Ore., heavily armed federal agents in full military camo are now roaming the streets. Some, wearing no identification, picked up protesters and bundled them off in unmarked vans. These federal officers are, apparently, from a range of agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and the US Marshals Service. Their mandate is officially limited to protecting federal property, and they’ve used Trump’s executive order about protecting monuments as justification—but in practice, they seem to be treating Portland’s streets as legitimate stomping grounds."
  • Newsday: "While protesters in Portland, Oregon, go on staging an extended rebellion, President Donald Trump poses as the Great Suppressor, bringer of order. Trump likes to show off the use of force. Whether it has any impact, or is constitutionally legitimate, may be an afterthought. He strives to look and sound tough. He wants to humiliate critics and haters."
  • Vice: ""The federal troops came in, they used their unconstitutional tactics, they injured nonviolent demonstrators, and the whole thing blew up again like a powder keg.”"
  • CNN:"Trump's 'law and order' is starting to look like martial law"
  • AP News: "“What they were doing was unconstitutional,” David said. ”Sometimes I worry that people take the oath of office or the oath to the Constitution, and it’s just a set of words that mean nothing...There was no talking. The federal officers, in full tactical gear, came charging out of the federal building.They came out in this phalanx, running, and then they plowed into a bunch of protesters in the intersection of the street and knocked them over. They came out to fight,” David said. One officer pointed a semi-automatic weapon at David’s chest, he said, and video shows another shoving him backwards as he tried to talk with the officers."
  • NY Mag: "In the past few weeks, federal agents in military fatigues have been deployed in Portland to protect federal property, garnering national attention by grabbing demonstrators off the street, detaining them in unmarked cars, and attacking peaceful protestors. For those concerned about the authoritarian nature of the actions, their anxieties were not dispelled."
  • Newsweek: "Lincoln Project Rebukes Trump for Sending 'Paramilitary' in 'Unmarked Vans' to Portland: 'This Is How It Starts'"
  • The Hill: "“You have a lot of peaceful demonstrators,” Napolitano argued. “The complaint filed by the attorney general of Oregon against the Department of Homeland Security recounts horror stories of peaceful people being kidnapped, held blindfold, handcuffed, and incommunicado for just two hours and then let go. There is no reason to disturb those people. The people they should stop are the ones with the baseball bats...The federal government can’t do what it doesn’t have the authority to do,” he added. “And it shouldn’t do anything without the coordination of the locals.”
  • Congressman Rand Paul: "“We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will,” Paul tweeted Monday."
  • Boston Globe: "“It is a standard move of authoritarians to use the pretext of quelling violence to bring in force, thereby prompting a violent response and then bootstrapping the initial use of force in the first place,” Dorf said."
  • NY Times: "“This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes, whether it’s Franco’s Spain or whether it’s the Russian Empire,” said Snyder. “The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.”"
Do you see what I mean about WP:UNDUE Weight??? Ocaasi t | c 14:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twitter links as external media[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Good point Another Believer. The specific videos included have been covered in reliable sources, but it's important to make that clear to the reader. I'm working on adding a bit of context. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Litigation by journalists[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

The disputed source writes: 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)Reply[reply]
I don't see any reason why we cannot extend the net farther than just this one Bellingcat source. But for starters, Robert Evans is a seasoned journalist who submits some of his works to Bellingcat. The New York Times quotes Evans on the topic of Portland protests.[3] NPR quotes Evans about extremist shooters.[4] At the very least we could use his assertions about a lawsuit while attributing him, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Everything else he writes as a reporter should be accepted as reliable.
The wider net brings in this article in The Oregonian and this one in the Chron. The lawsuit can be discussed easily in these WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the link to The Oregonian, which reports: 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)Reply[reply]
Nobody's arguing that these matters shouldn't be considered, only that we should consider them carefully. Another point to throw in the mix: Sergio Olmos is also a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit, and (I believe since after the lawsuit was filed, though I'm not certain of the sequence) has multiple bylines, in a reporting capacity, for the New York Times. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote above that Bellingcat is not The Oregonian. Let me assert now that Bellingcat is not The New York Times, either. We should not evaluate the reliability of Robert Evans based on the reliability of other journalists at other publications. Please try to focus. NedFausa (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other journalists rely on Evans. That's the focus. He's reliable. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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:

  1. The reporter's status as a plaintiff disqualifies his writing, due to a conflict of interest
    If you acknowledge (as you seem to) that the reporting of Sergio Olmos in the NY Times or Beth Nakamura in the Oreonian is acceptable, that undercuts any argument that #1 is a clear-cut principle, because Olmos and the Oregonian (on Nakamura's behalf) are both plaintiffs in similar lawsuits.
  2. Bellingcat is an inferior publication to the Oregonian or the New York Times.
    As stated above, Bellingcat has been discussed at WP:RS/Perennial, and thus far has been accepted at a high level. Is it possible that their editorial policies and/or their adherence to them are in fact significantly inferior to other publications, and that Wikipedians have missed important stuff in those past discussions? For all I know, sure! But it's not a "given" that you can rely on to make this point; it's something that would have to be discussed and evaluated.

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)Reply[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say Bellingcat is inferior. I meant merely that its smaller size gives it fewer resources than The Oregonian or The New York Times. Since it cannot be as selective in acquiring content, Bellingcat may be tempted to overlook conflicts of interest among its contributors. But again, I insist for latecomers, Bellingcat is not the issue. Robert Evans is the issue. We should evaluate his acceptability as a source in this particular instance based solely on his status as a litigant in a lawsuit against the PPB, which he alleges caused him direct injury during the George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon. NedFausa (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“After that first week, it quickly escalated to us being treated like protesters. We weren’t being treated as neutral observers,” said Sergio Olmos, a freelance reporter who has been at the protest nightly capturing footage." - source link
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.
The Bellingcat article is one of the most detailed regarding the Who? What? Where? When? How? Why? of this subject to date. The timeline and trajectory is well aligned with what is known about the Seattle protests, as both cities, in the early days, were locked in a pattern with a similar cycle of violence at a fence, plus plenty of tear gas in a residential urban area. The article also more clearly defines the participation of the two red-linked subgroups in the Organizers section. I cannot see a reason to avoid its use. Cedar777 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You write, 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)Reply[reply]
It looks like you, NedFausa, do not want reliable reporters to be heard. It looks like you wish to silence them. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Between the personal barbs, I think we're doing good work here in sorting through the relevant issues. Maybe I've contributed to that; my apologies if I failed in my attempt to reflect back what I was hearing, Ned I can assure you it was only in an effort to better understand you, I'll happily grant that any mischaracterization was my mistake. But, I'd urge us all to focus on the topic at hand, rather than one another's motivations. The article is what matters, not what we think of each other. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not just one reporter that had this issue. NedFausa, I do agree that under ideal circumstances with one conflict between a single reporter and their subject, that the agency would send in a replacement. However, the dynamic is quite different here as there are several reporters stating, essentially, that in order to cover the story, that they had to endure being treated like protesters, breathing the gas, feeling the flash bangs, and worse, through no fault of their own. (again similar to Seattle w/ Omari Salisbury's reporting at Converge). The events between people and groups at these interfaces are complex, with many things occurring simultaneously in often contradictory ways. The bones of an article are best built from the major news agencies Reuters, Associated Press, BBC but for the details, regional on-the-ground reporting is essential. Cedar777 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When Cedar777 said 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.
I still haven't heard any objection to my original point, which is that it's publications (and their editorial process) that we evaluate as reliable or non-reliable, not individual journalists. It's the publication's job to vet and manage the reporter, and they build their reputation on how well they do that. In a situation like this (and having served as an editor myself), I'm confident that would involve a focused conversation between editor and reporter (Evans), about how to ensure any bias he has related to the lawsuit does not compromise the integrity of the reporting. It might also involve a clear disclosure of the lawsuit to the reader -- which is the reason we're discussing any of this. That's the kind of thing responsible news publishers do, and the existence of the disclosure should increase our trust in this source, rather than decreasing it.
Overall, I've been following news about this closely, and I have yet to see another report as comprehensive as this one. Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall also recommends it as well, calling out the specific qualifications of Bellingcat and Evans for a story like this, and noting the "density and lucidness of the reporting". I recommend reading Marshall's entire characterization of Evans' story. In addition to the extensive NY Times interview with Evans discussed above, Buzzfeed featured him on its podcast, highlighting the article in question. The New Yorker and any number of other publications have talked about his reporting favorably. Evans comments on the actions of both protesters and police in a way that permits both positive and negative interpretations. This is clearly a useful piece to use as a basis for the Wikipedia article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Buildings and sites[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riot Ribs[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raffi[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barr, fact checking[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About "Naked Athena"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Website tracking relevant news[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Violence[edit]

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.

  • Somewhat tangential to this point, a Multnommah County judge has barred the Portland Police from live-streaming the protests: [5]

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

We also should add coverage of violence against protestors by third parties. Willamette Week is currently the only source I can find outside of twitter:
FiduciaryAkita (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impacts on policy, government, society[edit]

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).

  • Reduction of Portland Police Bureau funding
  • City Council disposition toward upcoming contract negotiation
  • Mike Schmidt assumes DA office months early, announces new policies on prosecution.[1][2][3] Characterization of Schmidt's election as marking a turning point from the legacy of Mike Schrunck.[4] Underhill initially planned to serve out his term,[5] but retired five months early to make way for Schmidt.[6]
  • Portland State University disarms police[7]
  • Special sessions of Oregon Legislature
  • What else?

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/476553-385149-multnomah-da-mike-schmidt-wont-charge-some-protest-related-cases
  2. ^ https://www.opb.org/article/2020/08/11/multnomah-county-da-plans-to-drop-significant-number-of-protester-charges/
  3. ^ https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2020/08/11/district-attorney-mike-schmidt-will-drop-the-majority-of-current-charges-again-portland-protesters/
  4. ^ https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/05/portland-gets-first-outsider-district-attorney-in-mike-schmidt-part-of-national-wave-of-progressive-prosecutors.html
  5. ^ https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/05/mike-schmidt-wins-multnomah-county-district-attorney-race-oregon-election-results.html
  6. ^ https://www.koin.com/news/civic-affairs/multco-da-rod-underhill-to-step-aside-for-mike-schmidt/
  7. ^ https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/476821-385355-portland-state-university-will-disarm-its-campus-police

When the storytellers become part of the story...[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Note this (and other related) article from Columbia Journalism Review: Portland’s independent journalists team up to cover the front lines -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Willamette Week profiles Andy Ngo: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/09/16/portland-protesters-say-their-lives-were-upended-by-the-posting-of-their-mug-shots-on-a-conservative-twitter-account/ 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Heading should be changed.[edit]

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.

[1]

Your own source refutes your claim; it describes the events as "protests." A neat counterexample is the Unite the Right rally - while clearly marred by violence, including literal right-wing terrorist murder and assault by vehicle-ramming attack, we still describe the event as a "rally," not a riot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally police declaring something a riot does not make it so. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/protests-in-portland/283-21d67e10-4b33-46d4-a81e-7d3b437a7519

"Portland protest turns violent, brutal assault caught on video"[edit]

--TMCk (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uploaded videos from 7/22[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Important sources that we've missed[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I'll add another:

  • Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020 , source: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, a non-profit that seems well-respected. It may be that I should add it to the external links on George Floyd protests instead or in addition, but I'm just going to note it here for right now. "With supplemental data collection extending coverage back to the week of Floyd’s killing in May, the dataset now encompasses the latest phase of the Black Lives Matter movement, growing unrest related to the health crisis, and politically motivated violence ahead of the November general election." This includes data on / discussion of Portland. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

caustic gas polluted the water[edit]

Thanks, I added a brief item to the end of the "Police" section. Not sure if it's the right section or enough detail, but it's a start. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done

"Developer: Businesses leaving downtown Portland over riots"[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 22:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yesterdays clash between militia and protesters[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. It was actually added before your comment, but maybe not in a prominent enough way. Worth considering carefully where to place this info. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article currently says, "On August 29, clashes erupted between supporters of President Trump and Black Lives Matter protesters in Portland. A person was shot and killed, and several others arrested." Please share your suggested changes or additions, if you have any. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something worth considering, at least two other people have been killed with some level of connection to the protests. So we should be thoughtful about how we frame this. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that the shooting of occured during a Pro-Trump Rally in downtown Portland:

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)Reply[reply]

Unfounded statement[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

A very good point. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coverage of fatal shootings[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I wonder if Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl might be an appropriate title? I've never seen that done before but I don't see why not. I'll be honest, Danielson's killing never appeared on my newsfeed, but Reinoehl's killing has been covered by all the papers I check regularly — the NYT [11][12], the BBC [13], the Guardian [14][15], the AP [16], Reuters [17], and it's also been covered by the WSJ, and Fox News [18], etc. That seems to indicate the killing deserves its own article. I think Trump's tweet and the hail of bullets has had some impact on the coverage. -Darouet (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And even by the major papers in France, via the AFP and/or on their own initiative: [19], [20], [21]. -Darouet (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fairly sure the killing Aaron Danielson was also covered by most major media at least initially e.g. [22] [23] [24], also in the French English media at least e.g. [25] [26]. Definitely I read about it around the time it happened on the BBC, and it was also mentioned in Al Jazeera's live news coverage. I may have also read it on the NZ Herald, can't remember [27] [28]. Of course at the time the identity of the victim was unknown and details surrounding the shooting were fairly unknown, it was often covered in the context of the clashes between protestors or politician responses, although most media did keep mentioning how he had a 'thin blue line' and infidel patch (or maybe it was patches) suggesting he may have been a Trump supporter. I assume at least some coverage continued although I admit I didn't pay much attention. (I was somewhat surprised that the arrest was only occurring now.) I'd note that unlike the Kenosha ones, I believe the only video that emerged at least in the early day or two was from the aftermath. The Kenosha ones other than involving 3 victims 2 of who died was also partly caught on video adding to the media sensationalism angle (i.e. coverage), and it was also in the relatively early days of the protests when media focus was still very high. Also in that case even the aftermath caused some controversy. BTW, even putting aside Kenosha, this wasn't the first death at one of these protests and it won't be the last. I don't think we will or should have articles on them all, some of them seem to have been fairly disconnected from the protests e.g. the CHAZ/CHOP ones. The latest killing is of course a little different since it was by the police in during an attempted arrest rather than during or near the protests. Whether we should have a singular article which mentions them all, I make no comment although I note we already have Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, so it's likely you'll need to articulate a reason why a separate article just on the killings and/or deaths is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(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)Reply[reply]

Just so it isn't missed above, I think you'll need to articulate why you feel that the specific article for deaths is needed instead of simply covering it in the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to reiterate here, since there is a discussion on Talk:George Floyd protests, the Floyd protests and the Kenosha protests are separate. We made 2020 United States racial unrest for clarification Anon0098 (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the Portland riots stopped being about the murder of George Floyd long ago. it should be made clear what the link is between the murders of Aaron Danielson and George Floyd in the relevant section of this article. the line about Reinoehl being 'an Antifa supporter' is a little weak, given that he said "I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!". by the way, the discussion above to move this to 2020 Portland riots should consider that there were also some 2020 riots long before the George Floyd murder. 173.85.192.32 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have any proof that they stopped being about police brutality or? FiduciaryAkita (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

@Aeroview854: Generally we only use "murder" if a person's been convicted of, or at least charged with, murder. It's reasonable to think that exceptions might be drawn in cases where the killer themselves was killed before they could be arrested, charged, etc., but that would require a consensus among the available reliable sources. In this case lots of sources seem to use "clash" – CNN, Buzzfeed News, Fox, etc. – though there are probably other sources using other words. What wording would you prefer and what sources do you think we ought to cite? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are focussing solely on my reference to 'murder'. I think that's not the main issue, here. I used the term 'murder' for accuracy, not because I think that word must be used in this article. I complained about the intentionally-misleading lede, falsely indicating that a person was 'killed in a clash'. The fact that sources refer to what happened earlier in the day as being a "clash" isn't the issue, either: Danielson wasn't killed in THAT "clash". We do not have to use clearly misleading references, like the one you referred to by CNN, especially when it is obvious that other sources show that they are false or misleadingly used. The CNN cite you referred to said: "Danielson was fatally shot in the chest Saturday during clashes between pro-Trump groups and left-wing protesters, according to police." I didn't see any "clashes" DURING the killing on the video? And in this case, what is their definition of "during"? What were the police actually referring to? I think that this report misrepresents, or is at least being intentionally misused to suggest what relation Danielson's murder by Reinoehl had to other, GENUINE "clashes" that occurred that day, minutes or hours earlier. What do you propose gets done about that? And in any case, it should not be difficult to find reliable sources which use the term "murder" to refer to Reinoehl's killing of Danielson. Aeroview854 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the BuzzFeed News cite clearly says, "Portland Police Have Identified The Man Killed Following Clashes Between Trump Supporters And Protesters". [emphasis by italics mine]. NOT DURING clashes. Further, while the Fox article you cited said: "Danielson, 39, was shot in downtown Portland on Aug. 29, as supporters of President Trump and of the Black Lives Matter movement clashed in the city. He was declared dead at 8:55 p.m., about 10 minutes after the shooting was reported to police, according to OregonLive.com.", I think it's clear that this referred to the incident occurring on the day of the clashes. This paragraph cannot properly be used to place the murder at a close point, either in time or location, to other "clashes" which occurred "in the city". Let's not try to be slick, here. Aeroview854 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've posted this on the Talk page of the person responsible for the sentence in the lede I am referring to: Aeroview854 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I am asking you to concede on the Talk page that the current wording in the lede of the main article is highly misleading, and needs to be changed. I notice that the wording of the 'Note 7' cited states: "Portland police tried to determine Sunday whether the shooting was related to clashes between Trump supporters..." Clearly, this wording is far from supporting the text in the article which states: "One person was shot and killed in a clash between protesters and counter-protesters.[7]". And obviously, the murder of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl did not involve "protesters" (plural) and "counter-protestors" (also plural). Videos clearly show that no one else nearby was "clashing", or even aware that Reinoehl intended to murder Danielson. Notice that this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4A7n-mG-hA&t=51s is dated as having been uploaded Sept 4, 2020. Why is it well over a month later and this major misrepresentation hasn't been corrected?" Aeroview854 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, I still have to object. The word "aftermath" attempts to associate the murder with that specific day's events, as if there was some special connection there. Other than the fact that it occurred on one specific day and in the City of Portland, there is no obvious relationship. Why wouldn't it be equally appropriate to say, "in the aftermath of 100+ days of protest and rioting in Portland..."? Or any one of a number of possible event and time relationships? I think what the use of the word "aftermath" does is called "WP:synthesis". From WP:NOR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." And while it is certainly conceivable that you could search and find a source stating something like this, you could also search and find just about any other arbitrary relationship you've decided you want to find. That doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Yet, I agree that this murder is notable: There can't have been many murders committed during the months of rioting in Portland, or we would remember more of them. So, let's not mislead the reader into believing that this murder was triggered by anything else atypical that happened that day, or actions that others took. And, in order to dissociate what Reinoehl did from the actions of other people, we should note that Reinoehl lied in the Vice interview, claiming that he was "protecting" himself or a "person of color" from Danielson, since we clearly know from the videos that this wasn't true. Reinoehl was planning to get away with murder, a plan foiled mostly because of the fortuitous placement of a surveillance camera that caught him stalking Danielson, as well as a bystander who just happened to be taking a video at the right time and location, and aiming his camera in the right direction. Because of that, we can see and hear that Reinoehl's first gunshot instantly pierced the can of bear spray that Danielson was carrying on his person. Some very early reports suggested that Danielson was using the bear spray on Reinoehl, and perhaps these reports were due to people's confusion about the reason for the large and sudden release of bear spray at the moment of the attack. Aeroview854 (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aeroview854: You said 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)Reply[reply]
P.S. Quoting from our article text:

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

  1. ^ What is the right-wing group Patriot Prayer linked to Portland confrontations and who is Joey Gibson?
  2. ^ "Docs: Reinoehl hid in garage, followed Danielson before shooting". KOIN.com. 2020-09-04. Retrieved 2020-09-05.
  3. ^ Portland clashes: Fatal shooting as rival groups protest
  4. ^ Campuzano, Eder (August 30, 2020). "Man fatally shot after pro-Trump caravan was Patriot Prayer 'friend and supporter' Jay Bishop". OregonLive. Retrieved August 30, 2020.
  5. ^ "Man Linked to Killing at a Portland Protest Says He Acted in Self-Defense". Vice. September 3, 2020. Retrieved 4 September 2020.
  6. ^ Gurman, Sadie; Carlton, Jim; Barrett, Joe (September 4, 2020). "Michael Reinoehl, Suspect in Portland Shooting, Is Killed by Law Enforcement". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  7. ^ "Portland suspect shot dead by police during arrest". BBC News. September 4, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
And you say 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)Reply[reply]
If all you can say is "Come on." and "Are you serious?", I think you are trying to push POV here, and you don't have a backup to that. Has it been established that the murderer, Reinoehl, KNEW that Danielson had "participated" in that parade earlier in the day? Or did Reinoehl merely know that there had been a huge parade, earlier in that day, and he figured that any identifiable Trump-supporter who dared show his face later that day deserved instant death for that offense? Which Reliable Source news report stated this? That's far from obvious! Even if it is established that Danielson had been one of the participants in the parade, as I understand it there were many hundreds of cars: Is there some reason to believe that Reinoehl remembered Danielson, specifically? From what I recall reading some unknown person cried out something like "we've got a couple right here", washingtonpost.com/national-security/michael-forest-reinoeh-killed-portland-shooting/2020/09/04/652f6e98-ed44-11ea-99a1-71343d03bc29_story.html just before Reinoehl stalked and murdered Danielson. THAT sounds much more like Reinoehl was simply targeting ANY person seen as being 'pro-Trump', and Danielson just happened to be the one they spotted. Further, you said: "...that's just absurd. The protest and counterprotest are why they were both there." NO! As I recall from reports, Danielson worked, and maybe lived, in that area! That's why HE was there! You are adding WP:Synthesis to this. Where did Reinoehl live? Clackamas, maybe? Reinoehl had probably attended the protests/riots on many days prior to that, so he wasn't there simply because of Danielson, or even because of a parade. Reinoehl was there, that day, for his usual reasons, but eventually he decided to murder a Trump-supporter, any Trump supporter he happened to run across, and he did so. Don't try to make it sound like Danielson did something, specifically, that caused Reinoehl to murder him. That's giving Reinoehl far too much 'credit'. Reinoehl prepared his lies, delivered to Vice later, to make it sound like that murder was somehow justified. Aeroview854 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, one more reality check and then I'm done wasting my breath. Reread the first sentence of my quote above: "A participant in that caravan, a supporter of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, was shot and killed." Danielson had been in in the Trump parade, part of a group of Patriot Prayer members. That's why he was there. And he was wearing clothing, not Trump-related, but Patriot Prayer-related. But this discussion is pointless. I'm going to add "aftermath" to the article because it is more accurate, and this will be my last comment on this subject. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it sounds like you're rudely trying to WP:Synth a relationship between the murder and other barely-connected events earlier that day, just like I said you shouldn't do. And you are trying to conceal the fact that a MURDER occurred, rather than merely a shooting. A person reading even the wording you proposed wouldn't know that Reinoehl was actually CHARGED with MURDER before he was killed, rather than merely issued an arrest warrant. This article calls it a MURDER, as did the PROSECUTOR. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/multnomah-county-district-attorney-provides-new-information-in-homicide-case/283-629b983a-620a-469e-bc03-4b365a99a547 It states: "Documents in the Aaron Danielson murder were unsealed on Friday. They reveal the evidence police brought forth connecting Michael Reinoehl to the murder." You didn't, and that was not a mere accident: You clearly want that fact hidden from anybody who didn't already know it. You are deliberately misusing your power. And, you are also rudely refusing to accept any other discussion, and you are even failing to seek input from others. You are persistently trying to bias the article. Typical nasty WP editor who thinks she owns the article. You have ignored virtually everything I said. No wonder WP has such a reputation for biased partisanship. Aeroview854 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pure projection. -- Jibal (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to include poll of public opinion[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I've notified the NPOV noticeboard. Crossroads -talk- 18:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd support inclusion, but maybe a more succinct version. Reading the paper by DHM research shows good methodology, although the poll size seems small. 89.241.196.77 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crossroads: Why do you say it's "the only poll we have on this subject"? The OBP article that you linked to (which is the only source I've looked at so far) cites an earlier poll. Did you search for additional polling? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My statement was more in regard to our article here, and was rebutting the claim by an editor who reverted me that single polls are not included. On subjects where there are many individual polls, like a political race, that may be, but there is no reason to expunge public opinion of this situation entirely. Also, my search for sources was on Google News, and I didn't go back to July, so I didn't catch this earlier poll. We certainly could include both polls. My main point is that public opinion (not just pundits and politicians) should be covered. Crossroads -talk- 02:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the lack of rebuttal to my points above, and the support received for inclusion, I will be re-adding the text. Further adjustments, trimming, and/or addition of previous polling can of course carry on afterward. Crossroads -talk- 19:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front‎, Rose City Justice[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

"Revealed: pro-Trump activists plotted violence ahead of Portland rallies"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Indigenous Peoples Day of Rage[edit]

Should this article mention the recent Indigenous Peoples Day of Rage? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Background[edit]

"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)Reply[reply]

Hmm, actually much of the editing world (at least in the US) has adopted a capital B. See this announcement from Associated Press. I'm not sure what WP:STYLE says, without taking some time to search for it. Does anybody know? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's an ongoing (though dormant for the last couple of weeks) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

added CBP photos[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Nightmare Elk[edit]

Related: Nightmare Elk ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article "Senior Homeland Security leaders pushed unfounded antifa conspiracy at 2020 Portland protests, report states"[edit]

This might be useful. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added sentences here, at 2020 deployment of federal forces in the United States#Lawsuits and investigations 2, and at Antifa (United States)#George Floyd protests (2020). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article[edit]

To add later: Homeland Security Admits It Tried to Manufacture Fake Terrorists for Trump Kire1975 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Floyd_protests_in_Portland,_Oregon&oldid=1138199539"