Talk:Daunte Wright protests

Heavily politicized language and problems with citations

I checked the citations on two statements and found significant problems of presenting unsubstantiated claims as established fact. Both examples are found in the section "Events," "In Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis–Saint Paul," "Day 1: Sunday, April 11,"

• "Police fired tear gas into the crowd and a non-lethal round at a demonstrator who held a chunk of concrete." Specifically the claim that the demonstrator shot by police was holding a chunk of concrete is not supported by the citation. Rather, the cited news article cites a tweet that cites a video that cannot be viewed because of user settings.
• "After having rocks and other objects thrown at them, police fired used tear gas, flashbangs, and rubber bullets into the crowd, scattering demonstrators." Includes two citations. One source says "Law enforcement begin to use tear gas and flash bangs in an effort to disperse the crowd." This is based on on-the-scene reporting by a journalist and includes no mention of anything being thrown at law enforcement. The closest either citation comes to supporting the claim is in the second source, which quotes Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington as saying there were reports of "rocks and other things" being thrown. It also mentions a tweet by a law-enforcement run Twitter account as claiming protesters were "launching bottles, fireworks, bricks, and other projectiles" at law enforcement, but no evidence is given. Notably, Harrington nor OSN is quoted as saying law enforcement deployed the less-lethal weapons in response to the actions of the protesters, which is what the article originally claimed.

I deleted both statements.

These are the only two citations I checked, but the language throughout appears heavily politicized. Other problems include:

• Attributing violence to "protestors" or "demonstrators" as a whole rather than attributing it to specific actors i.e. "one protestor," "several demonstrators," or writing in the passive voice to indicate ignorance of the actor/s.
• Charged language. For example, the article says nearby residents were "caught in the crossfire between demonstrators and law enforcement authorities" which implies the protestors share responsibility for how law enforcement chose to deploy crowd control weapons and tactics, which is a specious claim at best.
• Selective presentation of facts. For example, assaults on press are given only a single paragraph on a single night.

The errors listed above raise the question of how often the article veers from demonstrable fact to push a narrative.

This article needs substantial checking of citations and a warning at the top until any needed rewrites are complete.

Thanks for your interest in improving the article. Many times, articles about current events are written hastily and the group editing process may steer content away from the original cited sources. Other times, moving text around to improve flow, and other copy edits, results in citations being dropped or cited in the wrong place in the paragraph. I suggest either making the edit to align to the source or being specific about exactly which sentences issues you feel need to be a addressed. The act of flagging an article doesn't help improve it, especially if there isn't a specific set of issues to address. So, if you can be as specific about each issue as possible, that would helpful. Also, if there is a theme that doesn't fit a specific day of protests, such as many the attacks on press, perhaps there should be a subsection under "Response" for "Attacks on press" with more context about it from sources. If you feel there are important sources that should be considered or weighed differently, it would be helpful to know your thoughts. Looking forward to continued collaboration. Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The "crossfire" reference appears to come from the Star Tribune[1] on May 3, 2021. Susan Du writes, "During recent protests in Brooklyn Center over then-officer Kimberly Potter's killing of Daunte Wright, some demonstrators and police exchanged bricks and fireworks for rubber bullets and tear gas. Residents of nearby apartment complexes were trapped in the crossfire." The source uses crossfire. What do you suggest should be stated instead to explain the impact on residents? Minnemeeples (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the word "crossfire" and rewrote the paragraph for more encyclopedic tone. Many reputable sources, however, have discussed how the events, which featured at times clashes between law enforcement and demonstrators, impacted residents. Minnemeeples (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"The errors listed above raise the question of how often the article veers from demonstrable fact to push a narrative." We are all doing our best here, please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The title is not precise: Protests and Riot

I'm not sure why this is a recurring theme on Wikipedia, but, while the term "protests" has not been defined by the US gov't, the term riot has:

(1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

This was a riot by the legal definition in the US. We should rename the article to reflect this. I would like feedback on changing the title to Daunte Wright Protests and Riot. PreciseLanguage (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

A protest can take many different forms. Even violent riots are a form of protest. The events were a reaction to the killing of Daunte Wright. The current title reflects the events. Minnemeeples (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

To quote the link,

Where protests are part of a systematic and peaceful nonviolent campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere protest and may be better described as a type of protest called civil resistance or nonviolent resistance.

This was not a nonviolent incident. I would be fine with calling this Daunte Wright Collective Violence or Daunte Wright Destructive Protests (per cited Wikipedia article, although several statements in that article do not have citations). However, these all seem politically charged. PreciseLanguage (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are non-neutral descriptions. You won't find consensus for that. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I made a few header edits with this edit to indicate which portion of the events featured civil disorder. I believe this to be a neutral way to convey the course of events and note when property destruction and violence took place. Minnemeeples (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kim Potter trial in Minneapolis November 30 2021.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)