{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

Template:Annual readership

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism Open tasks: Black Lives Matter Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Cooperatives (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives Micronations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronationsWikipedia:WikiProject MicronationsTemplate:WikiProject MicronationsMicronations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Mid-importance). Urban studies and planning Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPUS50

Please add this as the wesite: https://caphillauto.zone/ ... it's official (as official as it can be from an autonomous zone)

 Done Added to External Llnks. NedFausa (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there is already a list of Anarchic Communes on Wikipedia, and that this one has only been alive for 1 day, I'm not convinced that this topic qualifies for a separate article. I also question if the article was written by someone not directly involved in the CHAZ. Also, this article would definitely benefit from the "current events" header (ie the one that says something to the effect of "This article is about a developing event, as such details may change") but I'm not a smart enough man to know how to do that. 50.83.179.58 (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Pennsylvania, so I have no connection to the commune IRL. However, I believe that the commune article is notable and should stay. An article about a newly-founded "autonomous region of the US", which has multiple credible sources, should stay up despite how "soon" the article was written. -- Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mt.FijiBoiz, it remains to be seen if this has a long-term impact. These kinds of demonstrations are quite common for the area (specifically Capitol Hill). Trying to insinuate that it's official in any way without appropriate reliable sources is misleading and runs afoul of WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. SounderBruce 04:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce, It doesn't seem that the "formations" of autonomous regions is that common in Capitol Hill or anywhere in the US really. Multiple credible sources lend credence to the notability of the Zone. As for it being official, a statement about it being self-declared is probably in order. -- Mt.FijiBoiz

Mt.FijiBoiz,SounderBruce I'd err on the side of inclusion this time. The present moment doesn't feel like just another demonstration to me. The closest thing in memory is Occupy Wall Street, and the Occupy Seattle article still stands, and seems pretty good too. Groceryheist (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groceryheist Add to the discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone if you haven't already. Thanks! -- Mt.FijiBoiz

What makes you think its anarchist in nature? The anarchist part desperately needs sourcing. 92.8.90.232 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. So far as I can tell, no WP:RS in article make any connection to anarchism. Accordingly, I have removed such mentions. NedFausa (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The President just tweeted about it and said the mayor had to take care of the anarchists who have taken over the city or he will do it himself. While he did not reference the zone specifically, it is very likely that he was referring to it. Also, should probably be added to the articleTheMemeMonarch (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The zone appears to be a self-governed area with no known leader or hierarchy that practices mutual aid as seen with the various food co-op stands, medical tents, community garden, area reserved for tents, commons areas, etc. Those are inherently anarchist traits, and I'm not sure how to describe the "government" here as anything besides anarchist. I can't point to a WP:RS at the moment to prove that these things exist, but if you look at the #chazseattle hashtag on Twitter you can find lots of proof, including some from WP:RS reporters. InvisibleUp (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the president is siting it should make us skeptical rather than feel sure things are the way he says they are. With over 18K documented lies in less than 4 years by the WaPo, it seems Trump can't be a credible sources of information about much. CDC reports people drinking bleach based on Trumps recommendations. Paxus Calta (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While most sources list it as CHAZ, there is enough of a dissenting opinion and a growing opposition that has its sights on renaming it to the Capitol Hill Autonomous District. I feel that the fact that multiple people have edited the page to change it to this at least warrants the inclusion of it was an alternative name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Guy With Crocs (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added "C.H.A.D." as an alternate name for the time being. If you can, please add a reference for the C.H.A.D. name. Thanks! -- Mt.FijiBoiz (talk03:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the movement is more aligned with CHAZ with the motive of differentiation from the already-used CHAD acronym meaning Capitol Hill Arts District. I've only seen CHAZ used so perhaps too soon to tell, but most mentions of CHAZ are in the interest of specifically disparaging the CHAD acronym, which is actually a bit derided by a subsection of Capitol Hill locals. Neonsigh (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe CHAD is a backronym in reference to the meme that is not widely or seriously adopted, also see Post-irony Faissaloo (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CHAZ or No cop co-op are the only name being used by folks on the ground. CHAZ seems to be in most use. Lennon (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both "CHAD" and "CHAZ" are in use. There is a dispute over whether it is a "zone" or a district. Both are covered in WP:RSs. 84percent (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Guy With Crocs (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)The Guy With Crocs[reply]

• I can assure you that someone's randomly created flag from Reddit isn't the official flag of the C.H.A.Z. We should wait to see if the commune officially adopts a flag or a certain flag becomes associated with the commune before adding one to this page. -- Mt.FijiBoiz (talk 04:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like you misunderstood my point. The inherent decentralization of this communities internal structure means that it will probably be a while until ONE flag is agreed on, therefore we should instead add the one we see the MOST in order to increase this pages credibility and thoroughness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Guy With Crocs (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that'd be particularly helpful; anyone can put a flag on the net and I don't believe that the zone has an online presence of any sort... Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 04:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a flag is pointless at the current time. There is no widely agreed upon flag and no organization that can state that such a flag exists. However there seems to be a consensus that the pink umbrella is the defining insignia of the zone. Rougetimelord (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who just added the flag and coat of arms? I have never seen either in any of the Twitter threads I have been looking at for news on this event. I'm taking the liberty to remove the flag and coat of arms unless a citation can be found. (Update, cannot remove flag / coat of arms due to protection of the page) 108.49.158.36 (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For discussion only, here are the two flags that have been uploaded to Commons.

NedFausa (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add the following to the bottom of Foundation or another appropriate section: Many members quickly adopted the use of a pink umbrella as a emblem. (https://twitter.com/lindseywasson/status/1270553746691375104). This edit has previously been undone as the source has been dismissed as just "some random Twitter user(s)", despite being from a professional photographer clearly displaying the factual nature of the assertion made, and removed after being labelled "vandalism". EdepolFox (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to find a creative commons image of the umbrella emblem. Maybe tomorrow I'll go get one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groceryheist (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous? sovereign? CHAZ needs a symbol of anarchy and decentralization. Why USD and not Bitcoin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychedelicSpartan117 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They're not using Bitcoin, so the currency isn't listed as Bitcoin. If you think the page ought to read Bitcoin then I guess the first step would be to head up to Seattle, join the commune, and propose they switch over to BTC. 209.169.72.233 (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are using USD because that was the adjacent banks and businesses are using. Lennon (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added back in the bitcoin claim in this revision. It's unsourced and I removed it. –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Sputnik (news agency) is publishing articles related to the subject and that none of them are considered reliable sources by wikipedia, so can't be used for the purposes of supporting content in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for RT. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Canary has also been deemed to not be a RS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please replace main image (depicting CHAZ territory) with the included image. The updated image corresponds with the territory currently claimed to be within the autonomous zone.

additionally, replace reference of "six city blocks" with "approximately ten city blocks" to reflect territorial expansion. This expansion also resulted in an increase of area to 0.139 square kilometers, making the old figure of 0.036 square kilometers inaccurate.

Within the Territory section, replace the paragraph reading,

The Zone is concentrated around the East Precinct building. It stretches north to East Olive Street, east to 13th Avenue, south to East Pike, and west to Nagle Place. The southern half of Cal Anderson Park falls inside of the zone, while the northern half is contested.

with,

The Zone is centered around the East Precinct building. It stretches north to East Denny Way, east to 13th Avenue, south to East Pike, and west to Broadway. The entirety of Cal Anderson Park falls inside of the zone. ThatGamingSheep (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we lower the protection from extended confirmed to semi protection? There were a lot of good faith editors (including me) who have now been blocked out of being able to quickly edit the page, which is especially important for current events. I understand there was a griefing problem, but all but the saddest of trolls should be deterred by the Semi Protection. The Guy With Crocs (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updated map! Juno (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the northern edge of the region is the park, and people across the street are not in the zone, and then the southern edge is different, all the shops on Pike on the south side of the street are within the zone because they are not accessible? The map should be clearer. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am skeptical of this edit. This Seattle Times story, last updated today, shows a much smaller area. What is the basis (independent reliable source) for the substantially larger map we're running in the infobox? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that trade in USD is taking place internally in CHAZ, as opposed to "imports" from the surrounding area? I'd prefer for the “Currency” field to be removed entirely if we don't have a source for that. Mouthpity (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, services and goods are being provided for free (movie screenings, kebabs, water). But those who are providing those goods and services are using USD. Lennon (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked closer before my original comment. There are several businesses operating in side The Zone, such as The Unicorn, The Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge, Elysian Capitol Hill Brewery, and may others are using USD. Lennon (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the Territory section, please include information stating,

"Activists using social media have been instrumental in determining the extent of the zone. Orginial geographic information has been regularly released on Twitter." and please cite https://twitter.com/PartyPrat/status/1270650476040577025 as a source. (The tweet includes various maps, and the twitter user has been especially essential in mapmaking of the region.) ThatGamingSheep (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatGamingSheep: I have reached out to this user on Twitter, after being asked to by someone there who knows I edit Wikipedia far too much. They have provided me with further information. After a review of the sources, I was able to cite this information to a WP:RS. In future, it is typically not appropriate for you to just make maps based on Twitter posts which a reliable, independent source has not republished. Fortunately, in this case, Industrial Worker republished it, and although they got the author wrong, per WP:ABOUTSELF, we can use Chloe's admission. When you make a map in future, you should cite the data source in the article, if it's not some widely known fact like a nation's borders. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This claim of 300 members (or "residents", which is a misleading word as it would seem to imply that people who already lived in the area would automatically have anything to do with this) does not appear in the telegraph source, nor could I find it in any of the other sources. 72.196.31.11 (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When German unification happened in 1990 would you not consider the 16 million East Germans as German citizens? Lennon (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone article, not making jokes 72.196.31.11 (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to make a joke. I'm sorry it came off that way. Borders form. The people inside those borders are considered part of the population inside those borders. Lennon (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If you look at the most recent posts on reddit, the "zone" is basically devoid of any activity except for local residents and businesses. --Skarz (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor herself says there are 500 residences in the area.[1] 'Recent posts on reddit' are not reliable sources. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... All I'm saying is you should be leery of including people in a population / census just because they happen to live in an area. The CHAZ is an arbitrary zone with no foresight or planning. The majority of the 'population' just happen to be there already. --Skarz (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

people happening to live somewhere is the reason for every census in history. 2601:601:9D01:8C0:AD80:AA1E:156F:DC6C (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

I participated on the "Delete Comment Page". This is local to me. Curious I checked it out and I did take a photo. I'm not sure this is where the final article will be, but the BLM shrine seemed like an important thing. I'm not a great photographer, I leave it to the editors to decide what to do if anything.

Cheers! ( Logging in Helps for signing off :-) ). Jzesbaugh (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzesbaugh: Thank you. I'd like to add this to the top of article. Can I ask you, where was this photo taken? Is this outside the abandoned precinct building? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Yes, it is basically around the corner. One direction is the police station, around the corner is the shrine. It is very visible and people are gathered there. They cleared out a moment so I could take it. Jzesbaugh (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzesbaugh: So, to confirm, the brick building is not the precinct, right? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Confirmed. In the zoned off area but not the precinct itself. Jzesbaugh (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzesbaugh:  Done—thank you! If I may be so bold, I have a request: if you make it back there, please photograph the vandalized sign of the Seattle Police Department East Precinct. I think it deserves a prominent place in the article, as it really is something like their declaration of independence. (OK, maybe that's a bit dramatic; definitely wouldn't write that in the article, haha.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Will do. Many people were taking photos of that. They should appear soon, I saw a good number of journalists and 'journalists'. This is what spoke to me the most. Jzesbaugh (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzesbaugh: Swoggle was awesome enough to upload one to Commons. [2] Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence for the "ten city blocks" claim? The barricades seem to cover only one short segment of one street. The cited reference doesn't support the claim. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netwalker3: I've seen a few different maps. The one in the article right now, you can simply count the blocks. KCPQ reports four blocks (see timecode 1:13): [3]. We may need to write between four and ten, but it's a rapidly developing situation. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map from Twitter doesn't seem like a WP:RS. And between four and ten is a very wide range. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was republished by Industrial Worker, see a few sections above. A very wide range, yes, it's a rapidly developing situation. Google's revenue has also been between $0 and $162 billion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Industrial Worker counts as a WP:RS. What do the media in Seattle say? -- Netwalker3 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're a WP:BIASED RS. Heavy.com says six.[4] (So does RT, but they're unusable on Wikipedia.) Manhattan Institute for Policy Research corroborates.[5] Actually, I can see why. Most of the "blocks" in the map I counted are parks, or only half-blocks. I'd support changing the number to six, cited to Heavy and MIPR. If you agree, I'll make the change. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are things for which Industrial Worker is a reliable source (such as the current positions of the org that it's the mouth piece of), but the size of the Zone isn't one of them. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Sounds like a good idea. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more commentary for editorial interest in general, I was there today. There is quite a bit of hype on what this is or is not. The barricades are pretty haphazard, and local people are walking their dogs through it. However 'inside' people are organized and doing lots of different things, in different areas that are zoned off. Some areas like the park have tents set up, again in different areas, a kind of sprawl. None of this is being well reported, yet, I'm sure someone will do a good article. So I think it's fair to say the size changes based on how many people are there and how many organized events are going on. There are people living there in tents a generous count would be 40(tents), in different distinct areas. The biggest thing that happened to me when I was there is one of the three free tent areas gave me a power-aid, and I donated them 20 dollars. Theses are pretty good approximations of "Free Stores" that we saw in the Abbey Hoffman era of the 60s. There is going to be tons of distortion on this till someone with some journalistic chops does something with it. I would expect a broader edit war to come on this page, especially with political season coming and this being panned as some kind of full on revolt(Again people are walking their dogs through this). It's more symbiosis. But again, not reported, just seeing the political landslide headed this way. Jzesbaugh (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Tucker Carlson calls it a "seven-block area".[6] That more accurately fits the map we are currently using (File:CapitolHillAutonomousZoneMap10Jun20.jpg), which has CHAZ taking up at least seven blocks as well as the entirety of Cal Anderson Park . Whatever we end up going with, let's make sure the map we use and the article's text are in sync. gobonobo ^{+ c} 10:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map needs updates. The zone doesn't really extend into the northern half of Cal Anderson park, nor do I see reason why the it shades in the block to the left of the park either ("Mitchell Activity Center" area); there's nothing set up there unlike in all the other highlighted spaces.

In addition, as far as the western boundary goes (maybe this is too nitpicky?), the area of Pine Street west of the intersection of 10th Ave should not be included – there are no barricades here and cars drive here freely and even make the turn from Pine onto 10th.

The eastern boundary should not include any of 13th Avenue either; those streets are open access. The only barricade at the eastern boundary is on Pine right before 13th. And the southern boundary does not include Pike Street, as that street is fully open to normal traffic.

Finally, none of E Olive St. should be blocked off, nor should any of 12th Ave. above Olive. I think the person who made this map/image is trying to make this area (which I'd define as "where barricades have been placed and where people regularly occupy") seem larger than it is. –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that we have quoted the mayor as saying "4 blocks." I suggest we edit the article to match, or at least remove the inaccurate maps. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The protesters released a list of demands on Medium. While the demands are described in part in Daily Dot, Reason and other sources, only the original document has the full detailed list of their 30 demands. The protesters don't have a website and this is the only document they have produced that I know of. We don't generally allow Medium as a source, but per WP:PRIMARY, such a source can be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this seems to make it more a PR piece, especially where the size, population and governance are relativly unknown. This really should not be in the article until some clarification exists. The PR issue is this makes the article looks like a list of demands, rather than encyclopedic. This is especially true due to the volume of content the list of demands takes up on the article. Jzesbaugh (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Your argument seems to preclude the possibility of a leaderless organization. Or at least that such an organization has agency. I assure you that many organizations exist that do not have leaders but do have demands. Besides, we already know these are the demands of the protesters because reliable sources have said so. The only question is whether we can link to the full list of demands. Many articles on Wikipedia for organizations have links to their website, usually in external links, but also often when linking to their mission statements and the like. Again, WP:PRIMARY specifically allows the use of a link such as this one. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo: No, in fact, we don't know that at all. Per WP:RSP, The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. This is not internet culture. Reason also says, purporting to be a list demands, not "these are the demands". I disagree that the lone Daily Dot source is strong enough. If it is, and we add this back, then we need to clarify what we mean when we say there's no central authority. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about Daily Hive? gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo: Good source for the six blocks, but it says written by medium user FreeCapitolHill, and does not address the issues I've mentioned. Your reversion was probably undue, but I won't revert you again as I removed it, though I encourage Jzesbaugh to do so. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Capitol Hill Seattle then? I'm fine with tweaking the wording in a way that qualifies the statement or somehow states with more precision who it comes from. Given the number of reliable sources now though, the section itself should be preserved. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually lack the editorial authority to do that. But my point stands. I pointed out this danger in the deletion page. The issue is that it does not really seem to clearly represent the aims of potentially everyone involved. It moves it into the PR area that is going to potentially steer a political narrative about this that may not even exist. That is not what Wikipedia is for, though often attempts are made to use it this way.Jzesbaugh (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo:@Psiĥedelisto:Further the president just tweeted about it, and this page is a resource. It may not be wise to use this as a venue to list demands we do not know represent this group. Jzesbaugh (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo and Jzesbaugh: I've made another attempt at cleanup; hopefully this one satisfies all parties. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: That satisfies my concerns. Jzesbaugh (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a truncated version of the 30 demands made by a subset of the protesters from the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. The complete version is much more detailed and can be seen in their post on Medium. This is only intended to give the gist and be an internal resource. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Radical Left Governor @JayInslee and the Mayor of Seattle are being taunted and played at a level that our great Country has never seen before. Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will. This is not a game. These ugly Anarchists must be stooped IMMEDIATELY. MOVE FAST!". It is quite likely that he referring to the zone.TheMemeMonarch (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMemeMonarch: Oh, I love it. No way is this article getting deleted now. I anticipate an imminent snow keep. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He made another tweet, "Domestic Terrorists have taken over Seattle, run by Radical Left Democrats, of course. LAW & ORDER!".TheMemeMonarch (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Justify your tags please. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are self-explanatory. The article is not neutral and does not discuss anything beyond what the pro-CHAZ side seeks. The choice of sources sis also poor, with RealClearPolitics, Heavy, Going Down, and tweets from random people among other unreliable sources. No matter the outcome of the deletion discussion, this article is in extremely poor shape. SounderBruce 05:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Hmmm...tweets from random people? Like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz? Heavy is allowed per WP:RSP. I will remove RCP and GD. What would you like to see added? And certainly, that AfD is going nowhere except into the archive. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily agree with Psiĥedelisto. The article's topic have been proven notable and not a violation of WP:TOOSOON (plus many of the arguments against it are inaccurate claims that WP:RSP approved sources are not credible). The AfD dispute should be resolved later today or tomorrow. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Mt.FijiBoiz[reply]

@SounderBruce: can you please point out areas of the article that appear impartially in-favor of the CHAZ so other editors can fix this. BTW, I see multiple parts of the article criticizing the CHAZ, with some opinions coming from the Seattle PD, President Donald Trump, and Senator Ted Cruz. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Mt.FijiBoiz[reply]

I agree with Psiĥedelisto and Mt.FijiBoiz. SounderBruce's only contributions to the article have been nominating it for deletion, removing references, and adding cleanup tags. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clear conflict of interest from the police chief here Goldenplumage (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo: Why did you do this? It was flatly denied, yes, and we should add that, I agree, sorry for the oversight, but the police chief saying extortion is happening is WP:PRIMARY allowed in this article and it is not WP:NPOV to not even mention the police response. Please reinstate the info. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. The quote is “We have heard anecdotally of citizens and businesses being asked to pay a fee to operate within this area, this is crime of extortion" and it was the Assistant Police Chief. As the article says, they said there was "definitely no extortion." We don't report on rumors and speculation. gobonobo ^{+ c} 09:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo: Please accept my sincere apology. I 100% WP:CONCEDE. You are correct. I misremembered the video. Very, very sorry to have made this request in error. I've been up a while and editing this for a while, but that's no excuse at all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I tend to hit a wall when I'm editing the same article for a long time too. On the up side, this article received 150,000 views yesterday. gobonobo ^{+ c} 10:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Isn't that your second significant mistake in two days? Perhaps this is a sign you are too heavily involved and aren't thinking clearly? Maybe you need to distance from this project for a while. Your first major oversight which you were scolded for was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Skarz_and_Talk:Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone. --Skarz (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarz: User talk:Psiĥedelisto § ANI report. It's amusing you think that the result of that AN/I thread was me being scolded, by the way. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedia editor who is fascinated by what is going on in the Zone right now, I want to be able to helpfully contribute to this page. What sections need to be created, and what needs to be researched in-depth? This may seem like me randomly throwing out my help... and, well, it is. I want to help. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Stay safe, y'all. PickleG13 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PickleG13: First off, please read through the article and see if there's anything you think is missing or needs cleanup. Personally, I feel that we should continue to expand the article as much as sources allow. The lead section is very short, and should summarize the article. We could also use a more detailed section on the demands. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PickleG13: What we need most are images. If you live in Seattle, upload as many as you can to Commons! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PickleG13: Reactions might needs come clean up to Local, National and International before too long. Jz (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to find a source that mentions these, but there are six live webcams of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone that can be seen on Twitch. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to enter in a sentence or two under the culture and ammenities section detailing the diet of the local inhabitants. It appears that inhabitants for the most part dine on "Soy, Vegan meat, oats, fruit" as well as anything they can get their hands on (source: https://nationalfile.com/report-antifa-creates-autonomous-zone-in-seattle-immediately-has-food-stolen-ousts-leader-for-being-serial-abuser/) Additionally, a section dedicated to the on going famine plauging the nation, reportedly sparked by the homeless population taking all the food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:344:C300:4DC0:60CC:6E8:6DC1:4F51 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that the "soy, vegan meat, oats" etc. claim is true. I follow the private account that article cites, and nothing like that has been tweeted from it. The tweet claiming that the homeless population has stolen food is also fake. It appears most protesters are eating whatever is donated, along with some stands set up that give away food. Tanuion (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure nationalfile is a proper source; seems iffy to me and it seems that it hasn't appeared on Wikipedia before. Thoughts? Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 16:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Thing I saw about it was a Tweet by Andy Ngo, who, shouldn't be taken seriously anywhere, especially not on Wikipedia.EnviousDemon (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article author's bio, he had work with Alex Jones and Breitbart prior, both of which are considered WP:PUS. It also states that he wrote for Big League Politics, which was also started by Breitbart employees. I reckon we should pass on this source... "Tom Pappert is the editor-in-chief for National File. He has previously written for Big League Politics, has had bylines at Breitbart News, and is a regular guest on The Alex Jones Show." Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 22:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Soy", "vegan", etc. are often used as derogatory claims by the alt-right when referring to leftists. The idea is to paint them as weak and effeminate and childish, ex: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Soy%20Boy. There's a lot of misinformation flying around due to the unorganized and decentralized nature of this zone. That said, there are photographs circulating on Twitter of a community garden and a "No-Cop Co-op" food stand consisting of fresh fruits and vegetables, bottled water, granola bars, etc. InvisibleUp (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently in Category:Black Lives Matter, but the article's prose says nothing specific about the movement, unless I'm overlooking. I just see a photo caption w/ mention of Black Lives Matter. Can the article clarify, or should the category be removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a mention, though the connection may still not be clear enough for the category to be justified. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Actually, Gobonobo got there first. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had this concern with the history page no one has cited a direct relationship. The shrine photo seemed relevant to the event itself as George Floyd was the catalyst, and that is covered in the history page. However BLM, or any particlar group is not taking credit for it, so linking the two might be give a false impression. If its not I think it would be more accurate to link it to police brutality in general as that seems to be the primary issue and driver of this, and there are clear and documented link made in articles. Jzesbaugh (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This lettering on the main street is now a prominent feature of the zone (as of its completion yesterday), and today individual artists each decorated/painted each letter. The George Floyd memorial is also in the zone, and BLM-related topics and issues of race (and police violence) are discussed daily at the People's Assembly forum in the 12th/Pine intersection. No group can take "credit" for it – any leadership or organization is decentralized and shared – but it should definitely be within Category:Black Lives Matter, IMO. –Fpmfpm (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change the word "residents" to "occupiers" in order not to confuse actual residents of the area with occupiers. 24.19.123.51 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow another editor to weigh-in, but I don't think this is neutral. Certainly, some of the protesters/supporters of the Zone live there. It's not fair to call them all occupiers. But it also may not be fair to call them all residents. Let's see if another editor has a better word, shall we? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment (and this changes by the minute) neither "resident" nor "occupier" appears in the article. The neutral word "occupant" appears four times. NedFausa (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use as accurate and definite a word as possible; I can't think of a better word than rebels. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Article says, "covering approximately six city blocks." This should be changed to past tense like, "As of June 7, 2020, it covered at least 6 blocks." Too many times in Wickepedia there are statements which become false because in time the facts change. In this case, the blocks may change, leaving a false statement. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Please move the Trump tweet up so there is not so much unnecessary white space in the article. Also, change it to the tweet he reposted (where he changed the word "stooped" to "stopped") as the current link is dead.

It seems to fit using my skin --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, editor here that originally suggested the edit. The President said "Stooped", not "Stopped" in the tweet I was referencing at the time. Unless there is a precedent to correct spelling errors in quotes, I believe it should stay, since that is what the tweet read.EnviousDemon (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The currently-included tweet is the reposted one, reading "stopped," not the original one reading "stooped" [sic]. Should this be changed, or what's the policy/standard here? –Fpmfpm (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gov. Inslee's reply for Trump to "stoop tweeting" isn't currently mentioned in the article. If it is changed back to "stoop" we just need to make sure we have a [sic] and maybe a footnote explaining that the original tweet has been deleted. gobonobo ^{+ c} 07:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was referring to Trump's original (now deleted) tweet with that spelling of it. Agreed, though. What determines whether that first typoed one (archived here, although it stayed up for a long time – enough for both the mayor and governor to quote tweet it) or the current, reposted one gets included in the article? –Fpmfpm (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was unclear there. My point was more that if Inslee's response were in the article, it would necessitate including the original mispelling in Trump's tweet. I'd say just change it if you like. The worst that can happen is that someone changes it back. gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did this. Hopefully everything looks good. Both the original tweet, archived, and the reposted version are linked in the references, with dates that are correct/match now. –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone changed it back, despite the tweet not being "shortly deleted" as they claim. Oh well. –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone blur the faces of people being displayed in pictures? This have been recommended many times by several press NGOs like the FPF: https://twitter.com/FreedomofPress/status/1271138146567237632 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.142.107 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article space contains three pictures showing the faces of individuals:

0px

Everyone shown is an adult photographed in public. Most are wearing medical masks covering the lower half of their faces. No one appears to be engaged in criminal activity. I'd really like to know why you feel Wikipedia should blur their faces. NedFausa (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is to protect those individuals against retaliation (note that the POTUS is calling them "terrorists"). This is a pretty hot topic nowadays in photojournalism:

• Face-blurring comes into focus for journalists
• You should blur the faces in your protest photos. Here’s how.
• These free tools blur protesters’ faces and remove photo metadata
• Wear a mask, then cover your face with Signal

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.142.107 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does not blurring the faces of individuals who cannot be recognized anyway due to masks, expose them to retaliation? NedFausa (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: While I agree on a personal level in regards to this, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.EnviousDemon (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I accidentally pinged the wrong person thinking NedFausa was the OP. I should clarify that I personally would like to blur faces since I agree with OP's concerns, but again, I refer to WP:NOTCENSORED)) EnviousDemon (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EnviousDemon: Right, but there is also these other points one should consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights

@98.247.142.107: One of the reasons that specifically, "Do Not Require Consent" is "An anonymous person in a public place, especially as part of a larger crowd." Capitol Hill is a public place. (Also, remember to sign your comments)EnviousDemon (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gray area in my opinion, again from WP:IMAGEPOL: "a similar shot of an anonymous member of the public may or may not be acceptable"

I think it is also important to consider the current context (both politically and technologically). 98.247.142.107 (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we don't normally blur faces in a photo like this, so maybe that would be the topic of a general guidelines discussion, but I could be mistaken. The "similar shot" in the quote above ("similar shot of an anonymous member of the public") refers to "[a] secretly taken shot of a celebrity caught in an embarrassing position in a public place".

Either way, because people who might be less familiar with some details are taking part of this discussion and are concerned about the safety and anonymity of the persons involved: Anyone can of course create a new version of these photos and upload for use on English Wikipedia if that is what the community here wants to do, but the existing versions a) live on Wikimedia Commons (which is a separate wiki) and b) are used on other Wikipedias; a discussion about the current files would have to take place on Commons. We can't decide for others wikis, outside of English Wikipedia, so that wouldn't solve the issue outside of this wiki. /Julle (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little misleading. It's true that we cannot blur faces or make any other alteration of files that we insert from Commons. But we certainly have the option of deleting them from the article space—if that's what consensus supports. Perhaps that's what we should be discussing here. NedFausa (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, it's entirely possible to create a separate blurred version. The license certainly allows you to make new versions of any file on Commons.

2020 United States anti-lockdown protests for example are not blurred, though those protests – as far as I understand, I'm not in the US – led to quite a bit of anger towards the people involved. Is there a significant difference here? (There might be.) I've got the feeling – and I might be mistaken – that we're moving into the territory of principles we haven't previously adhered to on Wikipedia, and that this might be a fairly big change that would merit a discussion larger than on this talk page. If there are real safety concerns, then maybe the files should be removed in the meanwhile. /Julle (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removing image files on the basis of the flimsy arguments set forth above. NedFausa (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Julle: While white supremacists and antifa activists have been known to doxx each other, there are so many photos and videos out there of the autonomous zone that I don't think blurring faces here would make a lick of difference. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one arguing this should be done, to be clear. I've just tried to explain what can be done and what can't and where I think the discussions should be held. /Julle (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Wikipedia is not censored; Wikipedia shouldn't be righting great wrongs under the concerns that the protesters who haven't committed crimes might be rounded up by Donald Trump under a round of authoritarian persecution; these people consented to being photographed by leaving their homes, and therefore explicit consent is not required; based on US law, personality rights do not apply to photographs taken in public locations, and the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located in Florida and thus follow US law.

  Even if someone might make the flimsy argument that the so-called autonomous zone is no longer "part of the US" and therefore US laws on personality rights do not apply, firstly I have yet to see this so-called autonomous zone pass their own laws regarding personality rights, and secondly even if they did, Wikipedia does not need to respect the laws of the so-called autonomous zone, in the same manner that Wikipedia does not need to respect the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran (for example, Wikipedia does not recognise Iranian copyright law as legitimate per U.S. Circ. 38a., unless a work created in Iran is also published overseas and therefore becomes protected by that other country's laws). --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As written in the "Internal governance" section of the page: "According to a June 10 article by City Journal, hip hop artist Raz Simone acts as "co-leader and enforcer" of the Zone". The article cited is this one, which does not contain the quote "co-leader and enforcer" at all. At most, it suggests that Raz has committed violent acts in the area, and some are afraid that he might attempt to take control -- Not that he has any authority as recognized by other members, and especially not that he is a co-leader.

The citation does not back up the written sentence, and it contains a false quote, implying it came from the citation, which it does not. Could this part of the article be removed, and later rewritten?

Cole128 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed the erroneous content from that section. Thank you for pointing it out. NedFausa (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debate exists on the killing of George Floyd page. This might warrant a short section/link if such a page is made, or simply a section in the reaction section of that page. The deletion discussion has passed, so it makes sense to create such a link. Since the page change is being debated I thought to leave it here, so it can be amended if the change happens. Jzesbaugh (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum) George Floyd protests page also has some link and relevance since this page has passed the deletion threshold. The history section suggests this is a direct reaction, and any reasonable person would draw that editorial conclusion. Jzesbaugh (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it does mention protestors patrolling with automatic weapons, it fails to mention the extortion of protection money and making people show IDs to get into their own homes. What a bunch of hypocrites these people are. See [7] and [8] [[Special:Contributions/2600:8805:5802:AA00:7C46:B4C1:FC9F:7C31|2600:8805:5802:AA00:7C46:B4C1:FC9F:7C31] (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely merits inclusion if it can be substantiated. Has it been? Quoting the KOMO article, “We have heard anecdotally of citizens and businesses being asked to pay a fee to operate within this area; this is crime of extortion," Nolette said and During our six-hour afternoon visit, we did not see any examples of what police are talking about, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening is a bit on the weaker side, reference-wise. /Julle (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is something to this as the police are relevant to this. Foundational is some respects to its formation. However if included, it should note the police(representatives) are making a statement they are unable to back up with facts while making it clear they are only going on rumors. I would say include it as long as its clear there is no actual proof. The counter-statements from observers/protesters should be noted. This is in my view a relevant political controversy surrounding the 'zone's legitimacy. Jzesbaugh (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how these people are kicking out press organizations, definitely some at least, what they consider negative news will be harder to get and prove. Common sense tells you that since they're kicking out some press orgs but not all (apparently), they're going to kick out ones they don't like. And there are photos of them walking around with automatice weapons and forming gates and barricades, so they're actiing like police when they claim they don't want any. Again, total hypocrites.

A police report filed over an attempted extortion would defiantly be news worthy, and notable for the article. That would start with an actual business reporting it. The fact Fox reporters were asked to leave was mentioned(at time of posting) in the article. That issue is covered. Jzesbaugh (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[9] The Seattle Police Department walked back its claim, widely repeated in the news media, that denizens of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone are extorting businesses. Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source that meets Wikipedia standards, but it appears that the claims of extortion stem from a blog post by a failed City Council candidate with a history of making outlandish claims to support his "law and order" agenda. It was a egregious failure on SPD's part to promote this story without doing any vetting whatsoever.2601:602:8C80:6A80:D9A3:3DD3:44AB:E6BE (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this statement belongs in the article. The source is dubiously reliable — we need something better than a partisan opinion piece that's basically a blog post (regardless of what chunk of the political spectrum it hails from). Moreover, in the actual video, Inslee is asked not just about the existence of the CHAZ, but that "the protesters are not allowing people to come and go freely", to which he replies, "Well, that's news to me". Taking this as ignorance of the Zone existing stretches credulity. XOR'easter (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed the disputed content. It misrepresented what the governor said. NedFausa (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[10] This image would be a good addition to this article as it is a prominent feature of the zone now and convey's the zone's message pretty well. I don't know how copyrights work and I don't have instagram to contact the poster if they would be willing to license it freely, but if it could be included that would be great. DTM9025 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC) DTM9025 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DTM9025. There are only two ways that we can use a contemporary photo of this type in a Wikipedia article. The first way is if the photographer has irrevocably released the photo as free of any copyright restrictions whatsoever, in writing. The second way is if the photographer has freely licensed the photo under an acceptable Creative Commons license or acceptable legal equivalent. A problem is that Instagram provides no easy mechanism for licensing photos that way, although Flikr does. If you want to pursue this, the most straightforward way is to join Instagram and persuade the photographer to upload the image under a free license to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, the photo cannot be used. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now. As Cullen328 said, a photo would have to be released under a free license by the creator. If you end up asking for one, see about getting one where the letters are painted. gobonobo ^{+ c} 10:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did it! File:Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone Black Lives Matter Mural 1.jpg is beautiful. Thank you DTM9025 and Kyle Kotajarvi. gobonobo ^{+ c} 06:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence in the article introduction is incorrect:

Purported demands associated with the Zone include rent control, de-gentrification, police abolition or defunding, funding of community health, and the dropping of charges against protesters

The very first demand is the complete abolition of police: https://medium.com/@seattleblmanon3/the-demands-of-the-collective-black-voices-at-free-capitol-hill-to-the-government-of-seattle-ddaee51d3e47

To say that they demand abolition or defunding of police is false. Number3son (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number3son: It seems as though different individuals and groups have released different demands. There's the above-linked list of demands published on Medium, but also other demands posted on a wall, as noted by the New York Times. The latter apparently includes defunding the police as a demand in and of itself; the former only discusses defunding in connection to abolition. So unless there are good reasons to foreground one set of demands and downplay the other, the current wording seems about right. Do you think we should prioritise one set of demands over the other in the lede? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other name for this is “People’s Republic of Capitol Hill” and it has no form of government

Cited June 10 2020 95.144.102.66 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very first signs that were written said "Free Capitol Hill" and "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone." There are signs now (and for the past couple days) that have the "People's Republic" moniker written on them as well, but I'm not sure if it's in-scope to exhaustively list all the names for this area that various community members have written out and about. –Fpmfpm (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single leader of this autonomous zone as of today. The source referenced is incorrect and biased. Please edit this out, I can’t since it’s locked. Thank you. Gwydon (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@84percent: "Heavily sourced" is an awkward phrase that I wouldn't use myself, but I'd understand it to mean "supported by more than one source," which clearly isn't the case with the material you've restored. Can you point to other reliable sources supporting the claim that Fox News described Raz Simone "self-positioning as a leader"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Fox News' editorial partisanship were to come through anywhere, it would be on this topic (as has already been commented upon), so further sources would indeed be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: The New York Post is also not an acceptable source for this claim – aside from being a tabloid source reporting tabloid gossip that hasn't been covered by reliable sources, it also very clearly doesn't support the specific claim currently in the article, which is that "Fox News described Seattle rapper and activist Raz Simone self-positioning as a leader within the Zone". Why are editors who feel this material belongs in the article refusing to engage at the talk page? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: The reference from The Cut (https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/whats-going-on-in-chaz-the-seattle-autonomous-zone.html) states that the claim that Raz Simone is a "warlord" originates from a " pernicious Twitter post" and was parroted by "right-wing outlets The American Conservative, the New York Post and other outlets and pundits like Tucker Carlson". I added this to the article; I changed the verbiage to reflect that this is an accusation and not Simone's official position like some reporting may make you believe. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to the {{by whom}} but I'm still not convinced it belongs in the article at all. "Right-wing media outlets falsely report on protest" is not unusual or remarkable, and in this case doesn't seem to have been widely reported on by reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Right-wing media outlets falsely report on protest" is, sadly, unremarkable; major right-wing media outlet possibly Photoshopping an armed man into pictures is a bit ... interesting. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a highly unusual circumstance (and I doubt it pertains to this article) where it would be worthwhile to cite the opinions of a commentator like Tucker Carlson. Fox News as a news product is one thing; its opinion commentators are another thing entirely. The opinion of somebody paid to generate provocative opinions is not of particular interest to an encyclopedia. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While they obviously have different ideals, it seems notable for this page that Orania, Northern Cape has remained autonomous for more than 20 years and has established cordial relations with the country it declared autonomy from.

Possibly worth just putting a link in the "See also" section? 94.105.96.193 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this, being part of a city, would be more similar to Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen. But I'd argue it's too early to draw any such parallels yet. /Julle (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I had missed that had already been added. Nevermind. /Julle (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-protesters-seattle-chaz-hijacked-message

Please add something about this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.138.230 (talk)

Its Fox, but due to the events that sparked this incident, George Floyd, this is significant criticism of the 'zone'. Another source would be helpful. Specifically the response from the African American Community is important(especially organized groups), both positive & negative. Jz (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzesbaugh: So what if it's criticism of the zone? Isn't wiki supposed to be neutral? You're showing blatant bigotry towards Fox, as are the occupiers. Shame on you. No wonder wiki has such a lousy reputation. Here's NY Post on the same topic but my guess is you'll find a reason to shoot that down too: https://nypost.com/2020/06/12/seattle-protesters-accused-of-hijacking-black-lives-matter/

Anonymous poster, 'significant' means important or relevent. Per Webster "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy." Meaning I was agreeing it was important to the article and suggesting how it could be integrated. Further I added how to make the tone neutral. I'm not sure how to further respond. Jz (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post is a tabloid of dubious reliability. Better sources should be preferred when available, and claims supported only by tabloids should not be included. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may function as a counter point however it's not really from a 'recognized' African American Organization organization. https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/06/12/43897621/meet-the-farmer-behind-chazs-vegetable-gardens?fbclid=IwAR1GOjdh2qnc6JFU_HB1f7XfCNBICm0k505Fcu6r7qDpxJUIika9PjRmfgI Jz (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox News article says the criticism of "co-opting" the message came from the African American Community Advisory Council. Who makes up that council? What makes them noteworthy, other than an attempt by Fox News to sow division? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the line: 'Approximately 6 blocks" to reflect the correct number of blocks shown on your map - which is shown as roughly 10 to 11 blocks. 47.216.167.18 (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Need a reliable source for attribution. El_C 17:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source is the basis for the map? This is unclear to the reader (or even to an editor familiar with how wiki works). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this section there is a claim attributed to "Fox News." The only nearby footnote to Fox, however, is to a news article that calls into question the claim -- it's not an assertion of the claim. My hunch is that in an earlier version of the article, it was a Fox commentator who made this claim, and that was edited out.

"Fox commentator John Doe claimed..." is not the same thing as "Fox News claimed..." If that was indeed the origin of this text, it should be removed. Or if not, a footnote to the actual source should be added. (See section above in talk for further commentary on Fox commentators, too...) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was a second Fox News citation in that passage a while ago (last night), pointing to a commentator interviewing Andy Ngo. The paragraph has since been edited down significantly. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current citation 10, a Wall Street Journal article about protestors negotiating with city officials to leave the area, is under a paywall. Are there any citations that do not have paywalls, and can be verified without a WSJ subscription? BrythonLexi (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The story may be viewed here at archive.today. NedFausa (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanting to note for any newer Wikipedians reading this, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy that says a paywalled article can't be used. Of course, if a non-paywalled alternative exists, it's valuable to add to Wikipedia to supplement (but not replace) the WSJ. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On June 12, 2020, Mt.FijiBoiz restored disputed content with the edit summary: Re-added the comments from Gov. Lee. The source states that Lee's comments were in response to a pro-Free Capitol Hill demonstration happening in Tennessee (that News Channel 5 Nashville would stated they would be covering). The source in question mentions Seattle only once, saying it's where an "autonomous zone" has recently been highly publicized. The "Free Capitol Hill" demonstration in the story relates to Capitol Hill in Nashville, Tennessee. Governor Lee's reported statement in no way connects Nashville to Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, and for Wikipedia to do so violates WP:SYNTH. This content should be removed. NedFausa (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: Please prove that the protest is related to Capitol Hill, Tennessee and not this Capitol Hill (or Capitol Hill in Washington DC). Even if the protests are centered around Capitol Hill, Tennessee — Seattle is mentioned in the article and Lee did condemn the creation of autonomous zone, like CHAZ. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: Please prove that the protest is related to Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone and not to Capitol Hill in Nashville, Tennessee. Until then:

• The "Free Capitol Hill" rally is planned to "reclaim the plaza for the people of Tennessee" starting at 5 p.m. Friday evening at Legislative Plaza in Nashville.
• Another protest was held at Legislative Plaza on Friday night.
• The location for the protest is listed as the "Capitol Hill autonomous zone," which is then labeled "formerly Legislative Plaza."

NedFausa (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The event in Nashville has now come and gone. WKRN-TV's news report makes no mention of Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. I reiterate, the disputed content does not belong in our article space. Being irrelevant, it should be removed as a violation of WP:UNDUE. NedFausa (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have made that change now. DTM9025 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided to be renamed C.H.O.P. Or Capital Hill Occupational Protest. The area is not actually autonomous as this was noted by many protesters, but it is an occupation of land for a protest. 2001:569:7465:D00:489C:F443:6588:408C (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Again, reliable source, please. And also again, please keep WP:COMMONNAME in mind. El_C 00:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If true this needs to be sourced. The same debate existed regarding "demands" in the article. The same danger cited in the delete debate, and demands debate exists here. Some users in that debate felt the page was a PR piece for the group, and did not warrant keeping. The media coverage negated that concern. The delete debate was fairly extensive, and defiantly worth considering "what it is" and how its classified. Who ever initially created the page did it in this way, that does not mean it will always exist in this format as it is an ongoing event. My two cents. Jz (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever reliable sources tend to call it, is the name that should be displayed. El_C 01:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement on that. The delete page discussion was extensive, and a few points on this seemed relevent. The initial page listed things like 'formal currency', and things like that. Citing the ongoing event doctrine in this case. The delete page is now archived but there was some relevant agreement that seemed worth citing here. The 'delete' debate basically ended when Trump tweeted about it, and key points fell to the wayside IMO. My suspicion is this point will rise again so offering some insight in anticipation of that. Jz (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it states that the Police cheif said "She added, "Rapes, robberies and all sorts of violent acts have been occurring in the area and we have not been able to get to it."[13]".

This statement has been unsubstantiated by any evidence and is WP:UNDUE and an article directly quoting one person's words as fact should not appear on the lede, especially considering SPD has walked back many of their claims about this before. I personally am not sure the last paragraph in the lede belongs there to begin with, but at the very least that statement should be removed. DTM9025 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC) DTM9025 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Police chief's statement seems noteworthy, even if its veracity is in question. El_C 02:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it isn't noteworthy, but it shouldn't belong in the lede. If we are going to place it anywhere, it should be the local reaction section and would move it there if removing it isn't a possibility. DTM9025 (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with DTM9025 on this point: it's noteworthy, but not lede-worthy (and it smells like the kind of remark that's going to be walked back once people start looking at the data and asking pointed questions, but that's just my cynical guess). XOR'easter (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your judgment, XOR'easter. El_C 03:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it belongs in the "local reaction" section. If the veracity is in question, it would be good to quote a source that actually questions it (or quotes somebody questioning it). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Activists are already doing so; it would be unsuitable for us to cite social-media posts, but reasonable to be on the lookout for local news and other commentators picking up on their statements in the next day or so. XOR'easter (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: I'm apparently at my NYT limit on this computer, but here's their reporter on the scene talking about the mayor visiting the Zone. She tells me she didn't have any concern about her safety or the safety of others there. She also says she's not aware of any serious crimes reported inside the zone. XOR'easter (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quality source, XOR'easter. That does seem to contradict, or at least offeset, the police chief's aforementioned statement. El_C 03:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to pull it up on a different computer, and so I added it to the article. XOR'easter (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, glad you pulled it off. NYT free article limit is a drag. El_C 03:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sign itself is based upon a one erected by Irish Republican freedom fighters in “Free Derry Corner” Bogside, occupied northern Ireland.

^[1]

^[2] 2A02:C7F:7481:5B00:142A:8CEC:DA9F:BD99 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image is captioned "Western entrance to the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone on June 10, 2020." Despite the visual similarity, we cannot add that the sign is based on one erected by the IRA in Derry without citing WP:RS stating as much. If you know of such sources that specifically connect the signage at Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone with that at Free Derry, please advise. NedFausa (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: https://www.irishpost.com/news/seattle-protesters-takeover-of-city-blocks-echoes-free-derry-of-the-troubles-186738 The reference has been noted many times by residents/locals and other users across social media (Twitter, Reddit, etc.) and the visual resemblance is pretty obvious, matching exactly in color, text position, etc. –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you. I have expanded the caption accordingly. NedFausa (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe the article is correctly referencing the area In Seattle being Illegally occupied by an unlawfully assembly by an unlawful militia. It is not an autonomous zone. it is Also Not recognized by the United States nor any other sovereign states and nations.

otherwise, I can “Self-declare“ my home to be an autonomous zone. Does that Mean I can kick out any officer from entering even if they had an American warrant? No it does not. Because I wouldn’t have made an autonomous zone because that isn’t how this all works.

What we are witnessing in Seattle is a crime being largely ignored by police. An armed militia Was formed (a crime itself) and then assembled in the city center (another crime). They have no legal ground to stand on to refer to their occupation as a zone. Megat503 (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum or soapbox. We go by the common name that is used by reliable sources — legality or lack thereof is not a consideration. El_C 06:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EL_C. It is clearly not “just a name” in the article . The first sentence of the lead paragraph states that the area the occupants are in is “a self-declared autonomous zone.” That sentence is incorrect. It is legally not an autonomous zone Because the area is under the jurisdiction of the state of Washington in accordance with the revised code of Washington as well as the constitution of Washington and the United States constitution. It is not autonomous.

EL_C, You legally cannot “self declare” an autonomous zone. The “occupied area” is under jurisdiction of the revised code of Washington as well as the constitution of Washington, making it land of the state of Washington with an unlawful assembly occupying it.

So to put it Blankly, that “area” is not autonomous. Also, The airspace directly above the zone is federally regulated by the United States FAA. Not the occupied area. They have not ratified any sort of doctrine or treaty either that outlines how they acquired the land that The state of Washington Currently owns (which they are illegally assembled on). Megat503 (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it and replacing it with what exactly? Is there some legal expert reporting that? The fact it's 'self declared' implies its not recognized by any legal authority. The article thus far does a good job of showing how it interacts with the city(at this time, ongoing event), and local authorities at this time. Which there are documented sources on. Given time the article might read "was" as self declared autonomous zone. I don't see a strong case to change this. Other than 'self declared' is really the operative term here. I think it would be fair to add that its not recognized by any government I'm aware of, beyond some local officials comparing it to the local block party at the same location. Jz (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a source a section on "Legal Status" would be warranted, and likely helpful. Jz (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the burden of proof is on you or anyone who believes land and airspace that has been owned by Seattle/Washington/US for hundreds of years is no longer American territory. I mention airspace because the area also does not have any sort of treaty or doctrine outlining anything about only acquiring land. Also the FAA still has control over the airspace over the zone, affectively nullifying the occupants claims that they own the zone Megat503 (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really material. This is not a soapbox. As was pointed out. A section on the legal status is certainly something to consider. At present this seems to be an exercise in creating busywork for other editors to add unsourced material. Jz (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megat503, again, the common name used by reliable sources is what determines the title. Wikipedia reflects what those reliable sources publish. No more, no less. Any other determining factor would likely constitute original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. El_C 07:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not contesting the common name. You must have ignored or skipped the part where I clearly pointed out the first sentence of the article declares that the CHAZ is “a self declared autonomous zone” when legally it is not an autonomous zone. The chaz is under jurisdiction of the city of Seattle, State of Washington, and the United States. It really is not a complicated matter. The sentence is simply incorrect. It’s not even sourced. Megat503 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we report realities, not merely legal constructs. If things illegally accomplished were to be ignored by Wikipedia, we should be deeming many countries parts of the territories of other countries. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the reality is that the sentence declaring it an autonomous zone is not sourced with any sort of proof to show that it is autonomous. The other reality (That you seem to want to ignore) is that the CHAZ is NOT an autonomous zone. If they were autonomous, they’d have control of airspace in the zone. They do not. They’d have control of the water system under the CHaZ. They do not. They’d have control of the laws in the area. They do not (police are allowing the protestors to LARP, but are in constant communication w with private business owners in the zone). The police are investigating allegations of extortion occurring in the zone. That’s means the jurisdiction of local police. The FAA has control of the airspace, further eroding the argument that the zone is autonomous. Megat503 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on legal status. The thinking being it seems to be a logical section for a zone, and editorially it makes sense for reader clarity. As the zone a human occupied area on a map and the map is clearly displayed in the article. Any further guidance on this from other editors is welcome, and hopefully the effect for reader clarity is understood. An encyclopedias entry on an occupied zone should have a section for legal status, if only to clarify that it currently has none. I considered adding mention by local officials as a sort of quasi legal status, but through I would take it here for further debate if needed. Not sure that fits what the section needs to relay to the reader seeking clarity on the legal status of the zone. Jz (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for adding the section on legal status. We are making progress on improving this page. Where exactly is the section. I’m not seeing it. By the way, Can you add a ^{[citation needed]} Tag to the part that declares it is an autonomous zone? As long as someone can cite legal proof it is an autonomous zone, it would greatly improve the article. Megat503 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The area is still a zone, definitionally, i.e. a space/area/section within a larger one – in this case a few blocks of a city – even if not legally an "autonomous zone." –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the article claims it is an autonomous zone when it is not. If it were, the entire occupation would be considered an act of treason, and that is not being reflected on in the article for some reason.

The current claim is both supported by appropriate sourcing and an accurate description of the situation. It is a "self-declared autonomous zone". Whether it is a legal autonomous zone or not, they people there have self-declared it. If it were otherwise we would call it a land-locked enclave or some such thing, similar to Gibraltar or The Vatican. --AdamF in MO (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the majority of people there are not declaring it an autonomous zone, and never have. It was simply a name/title – coined anonymously/collectively and by chance, that then happened to spread – written in jest after police unexpectedly vacated the area. There are now ongoing discussions to "rebrand" the zone as CHOP – standing for either "occupied/occupancy protest" or "organized protest" as the name has been misconstrued and misread as if it were a 100% serious claim of secession. –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the Wikimedia Commons Data talk:CapitolHillAutonomousZone.map page. The map should be updated for accuracy. –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag and coat of arms exist. Can I add them to the article? Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

flag for what? The area of the zone is under jurisdiction of the city of Seattle, state of Washington In accordance with the revised code of Washington and the constitution of Washington, and the United States In accordance with the US constitution. So unless the flag is of these territories, it is a made up fictitious flag that has no bearing on the situation. Megat503 (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are they in common use in the zone, with reliable citaitons? If not, do *not* add them. BrythonLexi (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomer1557: Why did you ignore BrythonLexi? They gave you very good advice. See also § The flag issue. Consensus is clearly against these images without reliable, third party sources proving their officialdom. This is a very big deal, as we can easily cause WP:CITOGENESIS by having them in the article. That is to say, due to this article's popularity, it can cause CHAZ members to start using the symbols, and then they'll get cited in an RS. We must not influence things. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was not very attentive. It would be funny if the protesters saw this page and started using this flag. Doomer1557 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: please look over https://time.com/5851774/seattle-police-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ (this is cited on the Wiki page). The article shows a flag that the author says "[is] being adopted within the zone and by supporters ". Do you think we should add this flag or wait? I'm personally not sure. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: I recommend waiting for more clarity in sources, so as not to gaze into the WP:CRYSTAL. That statement is very WP:AWW on Time's part. Is being adopted...really doesn't say much. What percent of total is this? No way to know. If an WP:RS says, most supporters are seen with the pink umbrella flag, this is notable. Or, especially, we couldn't find anyone without some reference to the pink umbrella flag. Until then, Mr. Peter Clark could have just looked at tweets/live video, saw a few people in the CHAZ with pink umbrella flags/insignia, and decided it's being adopted. If one of the people we know to be de facto leaders, (like Mr. Simone,) likewise, raises a flag, this too is notable. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "National" section should have a paragraph on the disparity between portrayals of the CHAZ in national media vs local media. In particular the photo manipulation issue on Fox News as discussed in this Seattle Times article seems very relevant to the political reactions already discussed in the section. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/2601:602:8C80:6A80:D9A3:3DD3:44AB:E6BE (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a CNN story already in the article that discusses disparities in media coverage, FWIW. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's in the "Internal Governance" section. The "National" section describes the disparity between how some national political figures and local political figures describe it, then references how two niche media sources have editorialized it. I think a more useful picture would include the difference in reporting from major local and national sources, as these sources are providing background to the politicians cited. 2601:602:8C80:6A80:D9A3:3DD3:44AB:E6BE (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have entered that weird phase where the media is now covering the medias coverage. Which is always a weird milestone. I'd say if it continues it might warrant a 'media coverage' section in the reactions. Not sure there is quite enough yet. There was also an initial RT story on this that was fairly bold. I'm not sure if its still referenced, and to my knowledge no other media outlet has commented specifically on RTs initial story. More citing it to show the disparities in how its covered, since media is now reporting on media. Jz (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the background section near the bottom of the second paragraph it says "Later that day, a car drove into a crowd of protesters, after which the driver shot a protester in the arm before running behind police lines." this does not fully conform to the source which states the the driver "shot a man at the protest who attempted to disarm the driver".

I believe the current wording leads to an incorrect painting of the situation due to only being half true. The sentence ought to be changed to something like "Later that day, a car drove into a crowd of protesters, after which the driver shot a protester, who had attempted to disarm the driver, in the arm before running behind police lines."

P.S. sorry if this isn't the correct way I ought to request a potentially contencious edit I'm still pretty new to editing wiki's and thus don't know the etiquette. Jkevo (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkevo:, Looked right to me. Done. Jz (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In March 1871, left-leaning Parisians founded an autonomous commune and wrote an egalitarian manifesto. The Paris commune was a celebratory affair, and real hope was engendered among its thousands of participants for a less nationalistic and more fair society to evolve. It could not last. The national guard and army under General Thiers assaulted them in May. The communards erected barricades and tried to fight back, but by the end of May it was over. Thousands died. Those running CHAZ should look to the lessons of history. Maybe the Paris commune of 1871 should get a mention in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koryushka (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOR. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate what XOR'easter said, please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOR. However, the Paris Commune is mentioned in the "See Also" section. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There any several issues with it. As said before [Reply|Koryushka], WP:NOTFORUM, but what you'd be asking us to do, i.e. comparing it the CHAZ to the Paris Commune, would also be a violation of WP:NOTOPINION and WP:CRYSTALBALL EnviousDemon (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some perspectives (and ideally, some sources) on my comment above. I think the map we are using in the infobox indicates too big an area, at least according to the Seattle Times article I found; it's based on a self-declaration, not an independent report. What's the deal here? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should base this on independent reporting, not their own declarations. /Julle (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyth: Interactive map appears to have been added to infobox at 16:43, 11 June 2020 by AntiCompositeNumber. Perhaps he can enlighten us as to the source of the map's data. NedFausa (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa and Peteforsyth: it was drawn by another user from File:CapitolHillAutonomousZoneMap10Jun20.jpg, which was drawn from https://twitter.com/PartyPrat/status/1270650476040577025. If there are sufficient sources to establish the boundaries, I can redraw the map. Wholesale copying of someone else's map is generally considered problematic, so I can't just copy the Seattle Times map. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

c:Data:CapitolHillAutonomousZone.map

Here's what I was able to get from the photos on Commons. Again, if you've got good sources for boundaries that don't raise a copyright problem, let me know. (And if you know anyone who could walk around the boundary with Mapillary...) --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to raise this at #Map_boundaries too and in the Wikimedia Commons talk page Data talk:CapitolHillAutonomousZone.map. The map's boundaries should be updated. I've been maintaining my own map with boundaries based on daily personal observations at https://chaz.zone/. I could take pictures/videos showing the general perimeter of the entire zone if this needs some more verification, or whatever would be best. I haven't heard of Mapillary but just read your comment, @AntiCompositeNumber:, and could do this tomorrow. Can you provide any simple instructions on what to do (the app is a bit janky...), or what the goal is here (photos? location data?) –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa, Peteforsyth, Fpmfpm, and AntiCompositeNumber: I've added a cite for the map data source twice, and it's been removed twice. I think that it makes editors uncomfortable to see that our source is literally...Map data sourced from @PartyPrat, as published by James 2020 (Industrial Worker). Confirmation by @basicflowrrr...In another section, Stuartyeates wrote that they don't feel Industrial Worker is RS. I understand the objection, given the subject matter. I've been reverted twice adding this back, but now @PartyPrat is messaging me again, complaining about the encyclopedia using her work without license. ThatGamingSheep declared it CC over on Commons...I have no evidence at all that that's true. If it is, the author is upset that she's not being cited, and it's CC-BY, so I think we have to. If the citation will not be added back, the entire map needs to go for now. I'm sorry, but she feels the encyclopedia is stealing her work repeatedly, and is annoyed. If she is not reliable enough to cite, then she is not reliable enough to have her work on the page at all. I don't want to be accused of breaking 3RR, so I won't add the cite back, and I don't want to just cut the map out without discussing it. I'd prefer one of you do it, now that you know why. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Thanks for your response, which is indeed troubling. However, I don't understand the matter well enough to make the edits you suggest. I came to this thread simply to help Pete Forsyth discover where the infobox map originated. Beyond that, I am an infographic babe in the woods. NedFausa (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: Now that I know you agree, I'll remove the map. Just wanted to discuss first. I'm enough of a wiki-syntax nerd to do it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: If you're misconstruing my use of the word "troubling" as agreement that any edit should be made, I object. That's not what I meant. I ask you to please revert any change you make based on this false "consensus," and allow other editors to weigh in. NedFausa (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: Indeed, that is how I understood troubling. I self reverted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several news sites claiming that the people in the CHAZ are trying to change the their name to CHOP. Should we just mention this in the article or change the the name of the article and/or create redirects for various names for the CHAZ back to this article. Jkevo (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

https://mynorthwest.com/1945236/rantz-chaz-chop-name-change/

https://www.seattletimes.com/subscribe/signup-offers/?pw=redirect&subsource=paywall&return=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/dubbed-a-lawless-state-by-some-the-chaz-or-chop-seattles-newest-neighborhood-tries-to-create-its-own-narrative/

Definitely don't change the article name per WP:COMMONNAME; as of now the media is still referring to the commune as CHAZ and there isn't any substantial evidence of CHOP being a common name even among residents. Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 05:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CHOP name is mentioned in the Internal governance section (with a reference from the Seattle Times). If the name becomes more prominent and receives more media coverage in the coming days, the name should definitely be added to the lead and redirects that link "Capitol Hill Occupied Protest" and "CHOP" to this page should be created. As for now, though, I recommend we wait. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some are saying it is Captiol Hill Organized Protest, not Occupy.

There is an organized effort among some residents to "rebrand" the area as CHOP. Various "CHAZ"/"autonomous zone" references are being taken down (in effort to convince others & much of the media that any claims of autonomy were never intended to be taken seriously, and re-center the discussion and space on the fact it is, or "should be," a protest) – the "AZ" part of the large, central graffiti tag was covered over with "OP" today and a homemade mounted sign by the precinct was covered up then later taken down, and new CHOP graffiti is (intentionally) being put up a couple places. However, I recommend waiting as well, as many locals (not to mention essentially anyone online/globally) do not know about the attempted change. If the new label does stick, I don't think the CHAZ name will ever fall out of use or become forgotten though – if anything, people will just know it as having (or having had) both names. Also, over the past 2-3 days, I've heard "occupancy," "occupied," and "organized" as for what the O in CHOP stands for… –Fpmfpm (talk)

It wouldn't be anarchy without somebody trying to rebrand it, and other people saying "you don't speak for us!". We can wait until the terms settle a bit. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goes back to the day one creation of the article where a list of demands was posted. It was one source, and there was no way to verify the demands were representative. It was changed to the current sentence to prevent the article from looking like a PR piece. As the list dominated the article, and started to circulate in conservative media. Same thinking applies here, worth mentioning somewhere, but not enough coverage to justify dominating the headlines. Editorially most people seeking the article are looking up CHAZ as that is the most used(sourced) name. Changing the article title with out sufficienct sources is more in the PR realm, than the encyclopedic realm. My two cents. Jz (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On June 14, SPD Chief Best said, My understanding is they've actually changed the name to the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest area. NedFausa (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? I would just say a redirect from a 'Capitol Hill Occupied Protest' page, so a second page does not crop up. Might be a bit pre-emptive though. Jz (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best followed that remark by saying, There are a lot of folks there, a lot of differing objectives and agendas and people who have congregated into the area. One of our real challenges there is trying to determine who is a leader or an influencer. And that seems to change daily. So, it's not like anybody should expect unanimity of terminology. A redirect for the moment seems reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with that, I was looking at doing so and realize there are multiple takes on what the "O" in CHOP even means. It's usage on the lead line of the article may be problematic, as its not Wiki editors job to define it where dispute exists. IMO Jz (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's concerning. If there are decent sources that give alternate expansions for the acronym, we could list the variations somewhere in the article body. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went in to do it thought about it, and mentally hit the pause button as I was doing it. Good to note here, but might warrant waiting for clarity. So far the source used is 1 Seattle Times article. Jz (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xchange seems to have added the CHOP name to the lead (I added The Seattle Times citation to support it). I don't think that "Capitol Hill Occupied Protest" belongs in the lead yet when there's still conflicting reports on what the "O" in CHOP actually stands for. I think XOR'easter's idea about adding information about the supposed name change and the various things "CHOP' may stand for to another section is a good idea. 19:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there any update on customs and immigration control ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.19.254.25 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section title reminds me of WP:NOTBATTLE. Additionally, if you find a reliable citation on CHAZ policy re: customs and immigration, please request an edit then. BrythonLexi (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of links in the See also section. Perhaps we should have a navbox for autonomous sites, to make trimming possible across various articles? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer: That's an excellent idea. There are 12 bulleted items under See Also. Please go ahead and implement a navbox per Wikipedia:Be bold so that editors can see what you have in mind. If consensus disapproves, we can easily remove it. NedFausa (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchies does something quite similar, I think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose using Template:Anarchies, which yields the heading "Anarchist-related territories." No reliable source has reported that Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is anarchist-related. It may be true that some anarchists, eager for a contemporary real world example of their moribund political philosophy, have pounced on CHAZ to claim a connection. But that connection has yet to find a single expression from the community itself. CHAZ's only purported communiqué is a 1,461-word DEMANDS OF THE COLLECTIVE BLACK VOICES AT FREE CAPITOL HILL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. Not once does the word anarchism appear. NedFausa (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your tendentious, verbose opposition to something that nobody proposed is noted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious! I guess you mean my adjective "moribund" to describe the political philosophy of anarchism. But honestly, I did not intend it to be pejorative. I thought it was widely accepted usage, like Archaic Greek alphabets or Obsolete German units of measurement. As for verbose—well, that's my middle name. What can I tell ya? NedFausa (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support {{anarchies}}. This source is enough to call it anarchist-related, in my view. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: The source you cite mentions "anarchy" twice (emphasis added):

• Indeed, for some conservative commentators and parts of the political establishment, the occupation of this small stretch of Seattle has become the latest symbol of failed progressive politics and the unchecked rise of anarchy and protests.
• Near one of the newly planted gardens, a person named Clem described the emerging community in terms of something called a "social change ecosystem," in which participants take on critical roles, such as disrupters, builders, healers, experimenters and front-line responders, to create a new kind of society. "It isn't just necessarily anarchy," says Clem. "But it's allowing people to do what they want to do."

These two incidental allusions by a single source do not justify calling CHAZ "anarchist-related." Clem is one person who does not speak for CHAZ. And if you're seriously relying on parts of the political establishment to justify this claim, why not cite Donald Trump, who has called CHAZ "ugly Anarchists"? It's a completely bogus connection. NedFausa (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry NedFausa, I simply don't agree. I think that Trump calling them anarchists is already a prima facie basis to call the CHAZ "anarchist-related". I would never support wording like anarchist territories or anarchic territories, but related very much softens it. It is related to anarchism, in that many perceive them as anarchists and draw parallels to Antifa and the 1999 WTO protests. I continue to agree with Arms & Hearts, {{anarchies}} is the right template. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose the addition of {{anarchies}} to this page (a majority of credible sources do not link the Zone to anarchism). While some, like Donald Trump, have deemed the occupants "Anarchist" and there may be anarchists in the Zone, this doesn't mean the Zone itself is based on anarchism. Anarchists exist in the UK but that doesn't mean the UK is an anarchist stateless society. I would (weakly) support the creation of a navbox for autonomous sites, but what exactly would be the criteria for this type of navbox? Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China with increased levels of autonomy, would this be included? Hong Kong's internal governance doesn't seem at all connected to that of CHAZ and Freetown Christiania or other areas with "autonomy". Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add this seems centered around rejection of police authority in a given area. Some reference points would be how anarchy is defined in the linked article, how anarchy is defined period, and how that relates to an area where police authority is, or largely is rejected. My two cents. (Addendum) I'll add I don't know. They seem to have accepted the toilets, but rejected the police. I'm trying to add criterion here, uncertain, odd. Jz (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: Between them Temporary Autonomous Zone, permanent autonomous zone (not a great article) and autonomous administrative division do a good job of explaining the different senses of autonomy to which you refer (CHAZ is perhaps the first, Christiania the second and Hong Kong the third). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: I didn't say that I think {{anarchies}} should be used in this article, just that it covers similar ground to the navbox Another Believer suggested. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa and Mt.FijiBoiz: How would you guys prefer to title the navbox? I can edit a parameter into the template, so we can use it as e.g., {{anarchies|Our custom heading here}}. I'm not married to the wording, and I think that's an easy way for us to get consensus while keeping everyone happy. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How should we regard the https://caphillauto.zone/ website? It seems to be the official website of CHAZ, though the decentralized nature of the Zone would make this hard to prove. I ask, because the website has an Events page (https://caphillauto.zone/calendar.html), and I think the Zone's events should be mentioned in the Culture and amenities section. But I'm not sure if the site should be regarded as official or credible. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the website makes reference to the supposed name change (to CHOP) saying "CHAZ will always be CHAZ. The attempt at a name change is an operation to detract and disorient. A name is important, but it does not need to be literal". It also refers to CHAZ as an "occupation of Capitol Hill" and as "protesting ground", so maybe we should add occupation protest to the lead? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz:, The demand list might be more official than the current one posted where conflicts exist, or at least should be noted. I would hold off on the official status of the site till there is some strong reference too it as such. ex "A site has appeared/been produced claiming to be", might be more on tone. Jz (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzesbaugh:, What about the protest part? The Seattle Times seems to be covering CHAZ as more of a protest than a truly autonomous zone and NBC News described it as "part protest, part commune" (other sources also refer to it as a protest, or even like a block party/festival). Should the opening sentence say something like "The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), referred to simply as the Zone and Free Capitol Hill, is a occupation protest and self-declared autonomous zone in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, Washington" instead of what we have now? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: Seems balanced. I think that line was from the day one creation of the article. I would not be the one to pull it, that's for sure. I was in the camp on the delete page that the article should be kept, but would likely need/undergo significant revision.Jz (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even caphillauto.zone refers to itself as the "official" website of Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. And note this at the bottom of the home page: For secure communications, you can find my PGP key here. That suggests it's one individual's self-published website. There is no way Wikipedia should coronate this fanboy site as an official anything. NedFausa (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For now, we should probably ignore it? Until conclusive proof it's in some sort of way official – which might be impossible, given the nature of the occupation – we should be very careful about indicating it might speak for the people involved. /Julle (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do any reliable secondary sources refer to caphillauto.zone as "official" or even of particular importance? XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I'm now of the mindset that https://caphillauto.zone/ is most likely a fanpage or a website established by an occupant of the Zone rather the the commune's official website. However, this Fox News article https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-police-chief-retake-precinct-occupied-chaz links to the website and calls it the "The CHAZ movement’s website" - while New York describes https://chaz.zone/ as "the CHAZ website". Both, I recommend, should be regarded with causation. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]