Talk:George Floyd protests

Active discussions
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer?
A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact.
Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a reliable source; secondary sources are generally preferred over primary.
Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)!
A3: See our Neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help.
Q4: Why is this article calling it a killing instead of a death/murder?
A4:
  • Any time one person causes the death of another – whether intentionally or not, whether criminally or not – that's a homicide. It's a very broad category. Every murder or manslaughter (of any "degree") is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder or manslaughter. A killing in self-defense is a homicide. Even an execution pursuant to a judicially imposed sentence of death is a homicide.
  • In most US jurisdictions the determination of whether or not a death is a homicide is made by a coroner or medical examiner, as a prerequisite to other legal proceedings.
  • The medical examiner in Floyd's case determined that his death was, indeed, a homicide – or in common American English parlance, a killing. A homicide becomes, legally, a murder or manslaughter only once someone is convicted in court.
Q5: Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods?
A5: The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the Cub Foods store chain.

PoliceEdit

The vast majority of violence came from the police, with 54 percent of the police attacking protesters, while only 96 percent were violent. The start of this article does not really mention this and seems to try to portray the protesters being more violent, with no mention of police attacking protesters that have done nothing wrong and instead seek to show the police brutality as just and caused by protester violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.202.94 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I will just deal with the figures, for now, do you have a source for those?Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

SourcesEdit

Hello there. I would like to use Fox News as a source to cite information to add to this article. I have one reference in mind, but this may likely increase in the future, and explanation will follow for each respective source for why I think it should be used. Please allow me to explain:

  • [1]. This source gives statistics for police injuries and other quotes and statistics related to the protests. Without further investigation, this wouldn't be considered reliable (see above discussions), but this source cites a report, and all of the information is consistent between the report and the Fox source. Here is the report: [2]. It takes its information from 'Surveys' of police departments, 'Facilitated discussion' from agencies, and 'After Action reports' from agencies, please see page 2 of the report for this methodology. Therefore, I believe the Fox News source is completely reliable. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    • If it is significant and true other sources would have reported it, this is the very reason fox cannot be used for politics, it can't be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Which you have already been told above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
We do not use Fox for political content due (in part) to its coverage of these protests (this was explained in a thread that has not been archived, in which you participated). So you already had been given the answer to this question, it is not an RS on this topic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
You are mistaken. WP:RSP says that There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Therefore, with appropriate discussion, we can conclude whether Fox News can be used in this specific case. Using caution, analysis and investigation, it is easy to verify the reliability of a given source. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
As I said Fox had already been rejected here, and you knew that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
You didn't read what I just said. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes I did it means that you need to get an agreement that on a given topic Fox news is reliable. You have already been told that editors (as in plural) do not regard it as reliable in this topic area. You are being told it again, find a better source or reword what you want to include.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read WP:RSP. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I have, it does not say it is an RS and should be used with caution, which means don't use it unless you have to (do we have to? is this information not available elsewhere?). Moreover you need to also reread it, and then re-write your proposed text. You have been told it needs re-writing more than once. Fox has been rejected as not suitable more than once. I am telling you I do not consider Fox appropriate, and will now let others chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
You might want to reconsider the definition of "used with caution". Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Return to "George Floyd protests" page.