Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going with the keeps on this, particularly with what User:Rhododendrites thoughtfully presented. Please feel free to clean up anything and discuss renaming on talk page. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a random list of news events. Apart from one instance in Buffalo, NY (the city I'm closest to :)) most of these events listed have only garnered one-or-two WP:ONEVENT local news articles, none of which this article has citations from national news too, making them and this list not meet WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some example of listings I found particularly problematic were:
  • Journalist Jonathan Ballew was broadcasting the protest when he was assaulted with a chemical agent, but the citation [1] only says he alleged that was so.
  • Police shoot a protester with a pepperball round without provocation as he filmed them. the person who was reportedly shot said it was without provocation [2]. Making a claim that it was "without provocation" is completely unacceptable in this case.
  • Several officers pepper sprayed a man who was yelling at them from the side of the street. in this case, the statement offers no WP:BALANCE. The source [3] clearly states defence for the officers involved, but the article makes no mention of this. Seems like WP:NPOV to me.
Another issues I have is that police are often violent - per the Cambridge Dictionary, violence is "extremely forceful actions that are intended to hurt people or are likely to cause damage". This is a common occurrence in law enforcement as arrests and force often involve hurting a suspect or causing damage. This list seems inappropriate as we would be here for years trying to list every example of police force. During the protest, the police likely arrested thousands of people, many of which would meet the definition of 'violent', but of course we do not list all of these. Also, I think the nom summarises the deletion argument pretty well. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make changes to the article, based upon the bulleted items, but I see that Feoffer already took care of it. Willbb234, Regarding the last item, would it help to have a definition of police violence - like use of excessive force than is needed for the situation? something else? to put in the article and to use as criteria for what gets added to the list?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listed three examples of the many issues with this article. Fixing them three will not magically make the article fine. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. You made very valid points - so why not address them? I took a stab at a definition here and of course there is a link to police brutality.
I am thinking it would be really good to identify, and likely delete, any instances that were in accordance with standard police procedure for the given situations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be close to impossible to do that; most of the sources were written on the day or days after the incident occurred. Proper investigations most likely did not or will not happen due to the shear number of said incidents and the already stretched workforce. As for addressing the aforementioned issues, I believe the article should be deleted and so I have no incentive to improve the article. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment above makes several points about the perceived quality or shortcomings of the present article, but doesn't articulate any reason why the principle underlying the article's existnce (i.e. LISTN) is not fulfilled. The assertion that the article content is also covered under George Floyd protests#Violence and controversies is inaccurate. Perceived problems with individual list items or the criteria for inclusion determined by consensus, should be dealt with directly or on the article talk page, not by deletion of the article. Cambial foliage❧ 23:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 19:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Civil Rights Movement-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 19:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the relevant test is WP:LISTN. The other issues mentioned have to the with the inclusion criteria, which can be changed on the article's talk page (for example, tightening sourcing requirements for inclusion). There is no requirement that individual incidents be individually notable, as LISTN says. To pass LISTN, we need to see coverage as a group. Here's what I'm seeing: The Guardian, BBC, Vox, NY Times, The Guardian, The Hill, Slate, Insider, Vice, Newsweek, NPR, The Guardian, Vox, CBS News.... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This coverage is good for talking about police violence at the George Floyd protests in general, with the most notable examples here and there. It does not justify listing every single event covered in the local news that may not be covered from these national and other-country sources. And like Willbb234 said, there is a section already in the Floyd article as general as these sources. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: just adding that reframing as an article rather than the list is fine with me if someone wants to take that on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might be willing to do that. I am trying to sort out if that would make it a {{main}} article for Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests#Violence_by_police or if that section at the prose style version of the list should be merged.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • List form offers a lot of benefits, like brevity and visual cueing. It's much easier to skim/read when there's clear visual boundaries between incidents. It would take a LOT of skill and time to turn this information into prose without it becoming a repetitive, monotonous wall of text. A prose makeover would remove reader's ability to toggle between "sorted by location" and "sorted chronologically across all locations". Feoffer (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Makes sense to me (to keep it in list form).–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know you're not replying to me but I suggested article form over list form and what you've described doesn't seem like a response to any of the reasons I gave. The point is that a list of all incidents is not desirable or acceptable. We've seen factual errors in the list, indiscriminate content, and a page too long to navigate meaningfully. If I'm looking at this page, I want to see the ten most important/widely covered/egregious incidents, not hundreds of random events. The point of changing to an article would not be to do the list again but in prose, but to summarise the extent to which these incidents occurred, the main characteristics of the incidents (e.g. was there a racial bias in who was targeted?) and the way they inform people's ideologies and policy suggestions.— Bilorv (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your points, and they are valid. I just started thinking about how much easier it is to read and manage the article of a lot of incidents in list form. If it is possible, it would be nice to narrow them done to those that are clear issues... and perhaps add a column to identify race-related incidents.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think a table can convey the nuance of "This person said the incident was race-related in this way, while this person argued this other thing", and I can't imagine a reader seeing it anything other than "these incidents were really bad because they were racist" (or, "Wikipedia is calling these things racist; that's not neutral"). It also prevents the drawing of connections between different events. A list is not a good way to organize a serious analysis of a systemic issue. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • You say: "I want to see the ten most important/widely covered/egregious incidents, not hundreds of random events." That makes sense. But for my part, I want to see an exhaustive tabulation of the hundreds of events that were documented by Duocette & Miller, backed up by RSes. Wikipedia is plenty big enough for a list AND a prose summary of the "top ten" incidents. Feoffer (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Batmanthe8th and Rhododendrites. WP:LISTN is the test and it's easily met. Nor are the events INDISCRIMINATEly drawn from news reports, they were first cultivated by Doucette & Miller, whose cataloging of the events was widely cited. Other concerns are talk page material. Feoffer (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Willbb234. This seems like it's just a run-down list of every single incident that involved police violence against a protestor, with absolutely no other context than "protestor got hurt real bad", which creates NPOV concerns. We don't need to list every single incident where a cop fired a pepper ball at a crowd and it gave an anarchist an ouchie. AdoTang (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN and edit based upon comments by Willbb234. I will work on the edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that his is  Done already. I have an open follow-up question above about the definition of police violence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Police violence during George Floyd protests. The scope of the list is too indiscriminate and this is a magnet for bad content (some indication above of factual issues in the current list). However, the topic is extremely notable and existing sections like George Floyd protests#Police attacks on journalists and Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests#Violence by police come nowhere close to giving it its fair coverage. The main contention by protesters is that the police are unduly and unfairly violent towards certain groups, and many people would further argue that police response to the protests themselves exemplifies that argument: giving fair weight to that view and the evidence for/against it is needed. Perhaps it will become clearer in years to come, when there is proper academic analysis of the police violence in the protests rather than rushing-to-the-publish-button news coverage, but it is already notable from Rhododendrites's list of sources covering the topic as a whole. If a move doesn't take place, this shouldn't be read in favour of keeping or deleting. — Bilorv (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Police violence during George Floyd protests, per Bilorv. The sourcing provided by Rhododendrites shows a discrete topic/spin-out topic, but the list-based framing in the current article is way off-base for an encyclopedia article. — Goszei (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN. Many of the references affirm that these incidents have been discussed "as a set or group". A stand-alone list is probably the best way to present the information. In Minneapolis, our City Council passed a resolution opposing the use of "less lethal" crowd control methods as a direct result of the many incidents where protesters and journalists were injured. gobonobo + c 00:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It's a good article. I have closed a similar article (SpaceX Crew-3) for the same reason.JTZegersSpeak
Aura 16:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the primary LISTN criterion of whether it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources is fulfilled multiple times over, in journalistic sources, as well as in the scholarly literature. (e.g.[1]) Cambial foliage❧ 15:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fields, Shawn (2021). |"Protest Policing and the Fourth Amendment". UC Davis Law Review (forthcoming)
  • Keep the relevant criterion of WP:LISTN has been met (not going to repeat it here): the topic of which individual instances are under discussion have been discussed collectively as part of a broader issue. They do not need to be individually referenced. ——Serial 13:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – LISTN is clearly satisfied. Arguments for moving and restructuring as something other than a list are fairly convincing, but doing so shouldn't be a precondition of keeping. While I think some of the issues raised by Willbb234 are surmountable problems, the question of the definition of violence is indeed more complex. One possible, though possibly counterintuitive, solution would be to ignore LISTN's sentence beginning "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability"; i.e., rather than trying to formulate our own inclusion criteria, to only include incidents that have been mentioned in the context of lists, overviews, databases etc. (several of which have been linked above). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying. A lot of it makes sense, but I think that there could be some logic that's not too cumbersome to differentiate whether an incident is excessive (police brutality in the United States) / against peaceful protestors or according to police procedure. I think the key question is: what were the protestors doing before they were attacked? Otherwise, I think the list loses it's meaning.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I have a hard time imagining that the final outcome would tease out conditions for including or excluding incidents. I am just stating my opinion if the article is kept. I am still a keep vote (without conditions).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests&oldid=1022002684"