{{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

Change: "Reporters from a local Seattle-based Fox affiliate were chased out of the Zone by occupants on June 9." to: "Reporters from a local Seattle-based Fox affiliate were chased out of the Zone by occupants on June 9, and a local Seattle journalist from King5 News reported being followed by a protestor who was carrying a 9mm gun."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay5h5dq14mM (time: 3:55) 182.218.15.134 (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source. ValarianB (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be noted the presence of firearms, checkpoints, and extortion has been reported on questionable social media channels but so far there has not been a source that meets wikis standards. Where possible these reports have been mentioned in the article, but largely they have been proven to be false or walked back on, as has been shown by reliable sources. ( A few notes on the neutral tone of the article). Jz (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the news station posted it to their Youtube channel, they haven't written about it on their website, and even then, they're parent company even photoshopped images earlier this week, mentioned in the article. I believe this very incident where Fox reporters were asked to leave the zone is in this article somewhere. EnviousDemon (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of clarification, local Fox affiliates are not subsidiary companies of 21st Century Fox (now fully absorbed into Disney) or News Corp, which owns Fox News. They have a purely contractual relationship to carry Fox Entertainment programming, but there is no contractually relationship with Fox News at all. Their local news operations are entirely independent of it. 2601:602:8C80:6A80:C102:214C:A046:C370 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article sounds like it was written by some advertising agency and lacks a neutral point of view. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Topol, Care to share more specific concerns or problematic text? Otherwise, this is just drive-by criticism... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, see Night and Day post just below. I have to agree with Alexey, there is a clear pro-CHAZ bias in this article. 214.3.138.230 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In both instances here its unclear what the issue is. You see an issue you need to be clear on what it is. Here are several examples, both conservative commentators, and liberal commentators are mentioned in the article. Media bias is mentioned in the national reaction section. Night and Day is an interesting concept and I placed a link above that discusses an attempt to set the police station on fire. There is also a local news report from the station KOMO, about a break in outside the area where the police refused to come. Jz (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, there are now 3 different "Neutrality / NPOV / Night Day" headings in the talk page. I suggest they are joined. I'm willing to risk being redundant, but hereby verbatim copy my support for this opinion from the above "Neutrality" heading.

I support that the article is not WP:NPOV. Reading it downplays the lawlessness / anarchy / "law of the jungle" scenario happening there.

Although I am apolitical I notice that the slant (as with most of Wikipedia) is with rejecting right of center reporting sources on the event and supporting left of center reporting sources.

That bias, coupled to the fact that right of center reporters are not even allowed into the area causes the article to have a distinct POV flavour.

The lawlessness and "law of the jungle" visible in videos and articles like these are not mentioned:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1272428470476214273

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/nobody-showed-up-911-calls-bring-no-response-after-break-auto-shop-near-capitol-hill-protest-zone/O42CQ6VUXVDBHIB3334DI7LPV4/

https://nypost.com/2020/06/16/cops-refused-to-respond-to-shop-under-attack-near-seattle-chaz-report/

https://www.theblaze.com/news/seattle-released-suspect-no-cops

https://www.ntd.com/mayhem-in-seattle-autonomous-zone-as-man-allegedly-breaks-into-store-police-dont-respond_475732.html

The article makes it sound as if the area is a "happy little peaceful commune" while videos emerging show that there are people who are in imminent fear for their life because of lawlessness.

One should view ALL reporting sources to get an informed opinion, not just one type of source, as they are all biased.

I would support the above mentioned disputed NPOV tag, or failing concensus apply for Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard 86.93.208.34 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

None of those, with the possible exception of KIRO-7, are reliable sources, and the "nobody is showing up to 911 calls" claim has been denied by the police themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be added but most of the sources I've seen say this did not happen in the zone itself. Its near it, so possibly relevant. There is a similar article on KOMO, I was going to add it till I read a smilier part, which is quoted in KIRO7. "He said they need clearance from SPD to respond inside the CHAZ/ CHOP zone, but should’ve been able to respond to Car Trader, which is outside the zone. He said the fire department is looking into why no one responded." I may toss up a blurb about it later. Jz (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not posting rightwing outrage sources is not a violation of WP:NPOV. If you want made up right wing conspiracies go to Conservapedia. EnviousDemon (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. You do not get to choose one form of bias over another or blanket label all sources you disagree with as "extremist". From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources

"Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view."

Further news media are reporting that Police are either not able to perform normal police work within the zone and are forced to "observe" from outside or face severe delays in performing their duties within the zone. Both of which affect the safety of people within the zone. These are reports of actual health issues and safety concerns that must be described in the article if on nothing other than ethical grounds.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/seattle-police-no-response-protest-zone/index.html

https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/no-cop-free-zone-officers-responding-to-chop-with-caution/ 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article does not violate NPOV. It is simply a group of protesters who want better law enforcement, and this article accurately describes them. Some of them are violent, while others are not. As a matter of fact, I for one do have generally views of the zone. Their overtly idealistic ideology aside, I doubt it is autonomous, and it certainly still has the police in the broadest sense possible, i.e. by real officers or by community members serving in their place. It is quite false to claim that the zone is "anarchistic", and even a dumb person can agree with that. Nevertheless, I see no specific editorializing anywhere or any bias, but we do see politicians either whitewashing or blackwashing the zone, which is what politicians do in a hyperpartisan era these days. Goodbye, real politics. FreeMediaKid! 00:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your uncivility towards me and other people who equate the lawlessness and anti-authority sentiment within this region with anarchy (n.b. the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the word Anarchy) by insinuating that they must be dumb for not agreeing with your statement. I suggest this dispute is resolved within a day or so before reporting to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "heraldnet.com" item is simply a reprint of a Seattle Times story [1] about an event that the article already describes, and the CNN item does not appear to contain additional significant information. XOR'easter (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I don't think it's worth explaining it to them, it's obvious that they're just here (from behind an IP no less), to gain material about how "Wikipedia is biased against conservatives." He's going to go to WP:ANI no matter how we proceed, and bother the admins, then go to some right wing outrage site to complain about how the admins are all biased when they don't take action since there is nothing to correct here. EnviousDemon (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to extrapolate IP data you would see that I am not right wing, not an American and not even in the USA. Assuming things without checking them is a sign of ignorance. 4 days ago I suggested adding balanced sources showing violence with lack of Police in the area. This didn’t happen and today a 19 year old was shot and killed in the zone.

If only you had reacted objectively to what I wrote on the 17th June above, this addition might have been prevented on the main article on the 21st June (today):

“A 19-year-old man died and a second man was in critical condition in the Intensive Care Unit with life-threatening injuries. The shooting occurred at Cal Anderson Park, one block from the empty East Precinct building, abandoned on June 8. SPD attempted to respond but was, according to its blotter, "met by a violent crowd that prevented officers safe access to the victims."[11][58]

By all means keep ousting people who you think are right wing nutcases because they don’t agree with you. Actual people dying are apparently just collateral damage to your relationship with your own opinion.86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So... not only have you made this personal attack on my talk page, you're now here on the article's talk page making that same personal attack against other users? EnviousDemon (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not paint a false picture that I have addressed other users besides yourself. My issue has only been with your biased views. Labelling my notice of your uncivility towards me on your talkpage as WP:NPA is a very see through attempt. Your actions and the real world death that has unfolded speak for themselves. I am done with this dispute. 188.240.28.207 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look... Eindhoven (Just going to call you that because I don't feel like writing out "86.93.208.34" or whatever other IP you're using, because we're now on a completely different IP, and both IPs Geolocate to that city. Its clear for one reason or another you do not want to create an account) I think YOU need to look at the very wikipedia policies that you keep spamming. I don't want to go to the ANI, but I will if you don't cut it out on the personal attacks and accusing other users on the talk page A. Having a bias against you because the sources you post don't me WP:RS standards, and B. Saying that not allowing you to put those right wing outrage sources to the page caused the death of someone. EnviousDemon (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Recommend the OP submit specific text they want inserted and then that goes under discussion. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be actionable material here, and the POV tag may be removed. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bri. The OP should submit specific, sourced, text that they want inserted. BudJillett (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth mentioning: https://www.foxnews.com/media/andy-ngo-seattle-occupied-zone-night not so much the flower parade many are painting this to be.

By zero stretch of any imagination is Andy Ngo a reliable or verifiable source. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or Fox News for that matter, but they are referenced FOUR times already in the article. But yeah... good lord... Andy Ngo should never be a source for Wikipedia. I know people who were targeted by him and received death threats. EnviousDemon (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above mentioned point about NPOV. Unless we believe that Andy Ngo not being a reliable source makes the people in that video animatronic puppets filmed in a studio backlot. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ngo is still not a reliable source. EnviousDemon (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EnviousDemon (talk · contribs) that you said that proves this article is not NPOV and it's being guarded by pro anarchists like you

Seeing as you are new to Wikipedia, I will not call for administrative action, but I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remind you that this is not a forum. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both K5 and PI are now referring to it as CHOP. Incidentally, the art in the intersection of Pine and 11th that said "Welcome to CHAZ" now says "Welcome to CHOP." Organizers are poo-poohing the use of the CHAZ name as it has led to perceptions of the area as a secessionist movement. I don't know if/why there is any dispute on this. I've edited accordingly, with citations, and I would strongly suggest a move and redirect. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently my edit was reverted unceremoniously. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KeithTyler: It was likely reverted because we still haven't reached WP:CON on renaming the article. EnviousDemon (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CHAZ still seems like the common name so the page should not be moved yet. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems like" is not a valid standard. Show current citations that indicate that the name has *not* been changed. I included two cites that the name had been changed. Also, "common name" is not more important than "actual name." - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems like" was poor verbiage on my part. The "CHAZ" name is definitely the most common name and should come first in the lead and still remain the article's title for the time being. A name change would be very controversial and would need consensus from this talk page. Please don't revert edits that place CHAZ first as this (minor) name change would also be controversial and needs discusssion/consensus. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not the arbiter of truth, rather, it is the recorder of truth as reported. The cart does not go before the horse. There's a reason e.g. Swaziland is now Eswatini. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there should be cites showing that the current "common name" is what you say it is, otherwise it is WP:OR. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KeithTyler: In this section you write, Organizers are poo-poohing the use of the CHAZ name as it has led to perceptions of the area as a secessionist movement. Similarly, in your "reverted unceremoniously" edit, you wrote in Wikipedia's voice that the name was changed to avoid a perception of the zone as an attempt at secession. However, your cited source does not mention secession. Please, can you clarify your basis for making this claim? NedFausa (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misconstruction. I listed that and the PI source as indication that the media is now using CHOP to refer to the area. For a source on *why* the renaming was done, one source for that specifically is this reporting from KUOW, then there's this report from Fox News (fwiw), also this from KOMO.

* KUOW:

Black Lives Matter organizers, a lot of the most visible people who are speaking the most in Capitol Hill, felt that the autonomous zone name wasn't quite accurate. They say it is not autonomous. They are not trying to secede from America or anything like that. So they are rebranding it as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest or CHOP...

* Fox:

“This is not an autonomous zone. We are not trying to secede from the United States,” one protester, Maurice Cola, said Saturday afternoon in a video interview circulating on Twitter.

* KOMO:

Now “CHOP,” Cola says what’s happening on Capitol Hill was never about seceding from the United States

Currently "capitol hill autonomous zone" seems to get 1,950,000 results on Google, while "capitol hill occupied protest" gets 15,800 results, so WP:COMMONNAME is still in CHAZ's favour. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMECHANGES is more relevant here, which says that name changes with secondary citations of usage should be honored. "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." That is clearly happening here as I've cited. Further, a redirect would clear up any issue with people continuing to use the old name. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I know the CHOP debate has hit many time. As part of the noted rezone of the area, both protest leaders and the mayor have agreed on the map of the protest zone. Both at this time seem to reference the area as CHOP. While I'm not 100% on the name change this agreement marks a very clear shift in thinking on this. As it was CHAZ, it seems logical with the rezone that the CHOP name will stick to some degree since it has been officially recognized by both protest leadership, and the mayor. This might be a time to debate how to best transition. Thoughts? Jz (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As above I was long in the leave it camp, however this particular development deserves very strong consideration. Further, @KeithTyler:, raises a good point. The concencus initially resisted this on strong grounds of this not being a PR venue, however with the acknowledgment of both protest leaders, and the mayor, this name seems to be "the name". Clear leadership calls it that, the mayor calls it that, and reliable sources are starting to call it that. Jz (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with that, KOMO seems to be sticking with the CHOP alternative. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to raise a counterpoint to subjugating the CHAZ nomenclature. CHAZ and "autonomous zone" nomenclature are still commonly being used by the media whilst CHOP struggles to make any ledes (several examples from the prior 24 hours below). I don't believe a rename is warranted at the time as its presence in the media oft implies that it's a secondary name to CHAZ (or the name CHOP isn't mentioned at all).

• [2] CHOP mention at paragraph 7 (Published 43 minutes ago from writing)
• [3] CHOP mention in paragraph 2 (Published 3 hours ago from writing)
• [4] No mention of CHOP at all from what I can tell, only CHAZ (Published 42 minutes from writing)
• [5] No mention of CHAZ or CHOP, but "autonomous zone" is used to describe the zone (Published 3 hours ago from writing)
• [6] Paragraph 10 describes it as an "autonomous zone dubbed the 'Capitol Hill Organized Protest.'" (Published 8 hours fron writing)
• [7] Paragraph 2, "Protesters have occupied a six-block zone [...] with some calling it CHAZ for Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone or CHOP for the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest."

It appears that CHAZ is still the most common and prominent name used in publications even in articles mentioning the CHOP name. Until this changes, I don't think a name change is warranted. Luigi970p 💬Talk📜Contributions 22:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. It appears that the sources closer to the source, as it were, have mostly begun to prefer CHOP, but there is definitely no unanimity; my own suspicion is that it probably doesn't matter too much which option Wikipedia goes with at this point. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another example with the terms coexisting: Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone—or CHAZ, although some newer stylings refer to it as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, or CHOP [8]. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this photojournalist for Reuters is accurate, "CHOP" has become the predominant term. XOR'easter (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that CHOP is more common now. I would vote in favor of the change. BudJillett (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the changeover to CHOP seems to have happened in Seattle media and city government [9], at about the same time last weekend the streets were rerouted and the area more or less officially defined. This is a good run-down: How CHAZ became CHOP: Seattle's police-free zone explained, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 16. There is a KOMO-TV clip done the same day that called it the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, or CHOP zone [10] (at 0:30), and KCPQ yesterday afternoon called it "Capitol Hill Occupied Protest" zone in writing [11]. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe our page is too short and too deficient. I suggest things that need to be added:

• What is the time zone in CHAZ / CHOP?
• What is the main media outlet(s) of CHAZ / CHOP - Any newspapers? Radio stations? TV stations? Official website?
• Is there an official motto or slogan for the area?
• We lack a very essential business and economy section, just like we have one about governance werldwayd (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no reliable sources to tell the difference between CHAZ/CHOP affairs and Seattle ones for high-level stuff like media and economy. Adding this kind of information would be original research at this point. SounderBruce 21:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derailment based on the flawed aspersions of people who are trying to cast CHAZ/CHOP as an independent state a la ISIS in order to discredit and condemn it, and lacks rigor. It's fundamentally POV oriented and as such has no merit here. (Time zone? Seriously?) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One presumes that CHAZ/CHOP will use Seattle time, unless Daylight Savings is exposed as a tool of the police. XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone contains four references to Capitol Hill Seattle Blog (CHS Blog), one of which is cited five times. So what exactly is CHS Blog? According to its online About page, "On CHS, anybody can add to the site. You just need to login and start posting." In other words, a typical collaborative or group blog. This is not dispelled by CHS Blog's Wikipedia page, which contains just three sentences:

The Capitol Hill Seattle Blog (also known as CHS Blog) is a hyperlocal news website covering the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, United States. Established in 2006, its publisher is Justin Carder. Its reporting has been sourced by the Seattle Times, Seattle Metropolitan, KCPQ-TV, the Puget Sound Business Journal, and others.

For our purposes, that last sentence is problematic. A handful of WP:RS having cited CHS Blog should not sway us in determining whether or not to cite CHS Blog ourselves. We must rely solely on Wikipedia:Verifiability. And in doing so, it's hard to escape the conclusion that CHS Blog—self-published by its founder, Justin Carder—violates WP:BLOGS, which directs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (Emphasis in original.)

I propose that we replace all citations to CHS Blog in the article space. In each instance, there has been ample coverage of CHAZ/CHOP by better sources. NedFausa (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I will remove them now. StAnselm (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced every occurrence with a citation needed tag; I haven't removed any of the content at this stage. StAnselm (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this prompted a mass deletion of content from Capitol Hill station, I feel I have to respond. If you read the About page, it clearly states that "anybody can add to the site" but that "everything [that these users contribute] appears on Page Two", not the main page. The blog's main contributors are cited by The Seattle Times and are even in the newspaper's local partners network. The news media environment in Seattle lends more credit to decentralized local blogs than in other areas, so this might be strange to some people, but assigning notability via the byline rather than the site as a whole is a better strategy. SounderBruce 21:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the material which does get promoted to their main page is probably about as accurate as one could reasonably hope for, given the swirl of sensationalism that comes at this event from every which way. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used it once and left a note on it. I know its a fairly spot on source only because I'm from the area. As far as standards it's probably borderline but acceptable. It's usually accurate for this reason is used by other more notable publications. Which is all the more reason to source the non borderline publications that source it. Anything reported there will be likely be elsewhere, later. That being said Seattle is strange, the main alt paper for greater Seattle area also calls their online publication a "blog". CHSB features multiple reporters, one who is an intern. The concern is about "self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" this event is not a living person. Mentioning its from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog is probably fine, but again there are other sources on this. Jz (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is about a place and an event but it's also about living people. When the self-published source Capitol Hill Seattle Blog tells us that "Many occupants of the zone have adopted a pink umbrella as an unofficial emblem" and that "Homemade riot shields crafted by the protesters were stenciled with pink umbrellas," the blog is not merely reporting on physical objects (pink umbrella, riot shields) but on the living people who have adopted and stenciled those objects. To pretend otherwise is pretty silly. NedFausa (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no. You can't pull in BLP standards for any article simply because the article's topic might relate to living people. That means every article on every place, every culture, every event is wholly subject to BLP standards, which is just flat out false. That's wholly disingenuous. BLP applies to content referring to specific people by name, not by the entirety of a topic that might relate to people somehow. For example, if the article said "Raz Simone is a warlord" that would trigger BLP. But that doesn't mean it applies to the entire Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a straw man argument. Please read the entry with which I opened this section. I wrote that Capitol Hill Seattle Blog violates WP:BLOGS, which directs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (Emphasis in original.) At no point in this thread have I mentioned WP:BLP. NedFausa (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If accuracy is the metric for RS and V, then there's a lot of presumed-RS mainstream media out there that also needs their RS status taken down a notch, because there's been a lot of inaccurate "RS" reporting not just of CHAZ/CHOP but of BLM in general, among other things, such as political candidates. There's a reason why Snopes, Politifact, FAIR, etc. have to exist. Media bias is a thing. But the bottom line is, local media consider CHS front page to be credible. As the front page is a curated collection of submitted content, it's simply a lie to characterize the site as free-for-all. Frankly, Ned cherry-picked text from the CHS About page to make this assertion that CHS is not RS. Here's the relevant portion of CHS About page, with essential text that was selectively excluded in bold:

On CHS, anybody can add to the site. You just need to login and start posting. Everything appears on Page Two — important, well-crafted posts are promoted to the site homepage

On top of that, the quote from the CHS WP page was also cherry-picked, selectively excluding it's acceptance by the local mainstream media as reliable content. Ultimately the argument here is flawed.... We can't cite CHS because it's supposedly unmoderated (not really true, in terms of the front page), but once, say, KOMO cites CHS, regardless of whether they independently verify, now it's magically valid. That doesn't make any logical sense. Point is, CHS is a locally respected source on Capitol Hill information, and I don't see why WP knows any better. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of fact, seeing as how Fox News was caught deliberately altering photos, by any reasonable metric Fox News is no longer RS. Yet Fox News is still green at WP:RSP, which some people are treating as an RS bible. Go figure. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted Everything appears on Page Two—important, well-crafted posts are promoted to the site homepage because it's nonsensical. Who decides which contributions, added to the site by "anybody" who just logs in and starts posting, are important? Why, the blog's self-publisher, of course: Justin Carder. And what on earth is the big deal about being promoted to the site homepage! That again is a stamp of approval by the blog's self-publisher that in no way satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Point is," KeithTyler concludes, "CHS is a locally respected source on Capitol Hill information, and I don't see why WP knows any better." Answer: WP knows better because this is Wikipedia, where verifiability is a core content policy. NedFausa (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literally every media publication has 1 to N editors whose job is to determine what goes in the paper/outlet. Doesn't matter what their name is. If the argument is that a person determining what content appears might be an unreliable human, then literally every media source is invalid. But verifiability doesn't mean what you think it does. WP:RS repeatedly makes clear that aside from certain specific categories, such as primary sources, if a source has established usage, it should be presumed reliable unless a reputation for unreliability has been established. That is not the case here; instead the argument is that CHS should be presumed unreliable, despite being otherwise respected as valid. That's not a reflection of WP:RS policy at all. So, in short, unless one can show evidence that CHS is unreliable, it's presumed reliable. There's nothing in WP:RS that supports a notion of presumptive unreliability. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using a locally run blog violates both WP:SPS and that articles should be written from a WP:GLOBAL perspective, if it is at all possible to find international publications on the enclave. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a reliable source regarding the CHAZ-CHOP debate? While we're definitely debating it on here, I've also seen people involved arguing over the name themselves on social media, and I think that, if we can find the sources, that debate is worth a section to both inform those who read this article, and accurately document the current infighting at the CHAZ/CHOP. EnviousDemon (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that no-one has done a move request yet. I thought about it, but the stumbling block was not knowing what "CHOP" stood for. I think we should keep the old name until there is certainty about the new name. StAnselm (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably going to tip but has not yet. Jz (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited the page to reflect the change and was going to submit an MR (even though it's not technically necessary) but then my edit got sloppily reverted by someone who presumably ignored an edit conflict warning. And then this dispute over whether the name change is real started happening. CHOP is the name now being used in media (though sometimes CHAZ/CHOP). For some reason, people are fully ignoring the policy at WP:NAMECHANGES in regards to this, despite evidence of the signage at the site being changed, the use in recent media, statements from people in the location, etc. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But CHOP should not be the name of the article. StAnselm (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, the name of the article should be Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, as that is now the name of the topic. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a move is about due by now, though we should double-check which expansion of the O is actually more common and established. Relatedly, is "Free Capitol Hill" actually a prominent enough name to warrant bold text in the first line? I'm dubious on that score. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One indication is that the signage I'm seeing using the CHOP branding with a full name is consistently using "Occupied," from a survey of online images. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, just a couple of hours ago vox.com published an article on the subject which did not even use the word "occupied". StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify, this is not about changing the name of the page, but more about the dispute among protestors themselves regarding differing names for the CHAZ. EnviousDemon (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that "CHOP" is what local media are going with, e.g., [12]. I've also seen "CHAZ/CHOP" and the like, but it seems like the time for retitling this article (and making the appropriate changes in the text) is more or less upon us. XOR'easter (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Facebook page is not much evidence. In any case, are you suggesting that the article name be changed to Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) or to Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). Editors should settle on one or the other before a formal move request is submitted. NedFausa (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's just one data point; but that's the general trend I've observed in the sources added over the last few days. I am not sure whether the meaning of the "O" has actually been fixed. (A "third way" proposal would be to call it something like CHOP (Seattle) so that neither choice is made canonical.) XOR'easter (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we try "The CHOP (refered to as either Capitol Hill Organized Protest or Capitol Hill Occupied Protest) also known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), and sometimes known as Free Capitol Hill..." EnviousDemon (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Occupied" seems to be used more. BudJillett (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that CHOP is more commonly used now, and would vote in favor of that name change. I mentioned this in the "The rename is well established at this point" thread. It seems there are now several threads on this Talk page discussing the name. BudJillett (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CHAZ is the name in common use with our sources and I think we should stick with it, even if some of the ground refer to it differently now. Juno (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPR and KUOW are universally referring to it as CHOP, at this point. The old acronym is dated and dead. Cedar777 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Times and The Stranger have settled on "CHOP" as well (e.g., [13][14]); I think that over the past few days I've seen one solitary insertion of "or CHAZ", and the rest is just "CHOP". XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local media is consistently reporting on CHOP as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, and has been for at least a week. The reason for the name change to Capitol Hill ORGANIZED Protest (over occupied) comes from conversations between participants who chose language that was inclusive of the indigenous protestors. Seattle has a dark and troubled history with the original inhabitants, the Duwamish people (still not a federally recognized tribe despite years of effort) who were banned even from living within the city for a period in history. In light of this, I support minimizing the other temporary names (Free Capitol Hill and Capitol Hill Occupied Protest) and focusing the article on the two primary names Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) and the early namesake of the existing article CHAZ that are appearing in the vast majority of sources, i.e. briefly mention the others in the article but remove them from the infobox and lead. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored a paragraphe about the National Review's coverage : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone&oldid=963134145

I think the information is relevant and well-sourced, and no justification was given for the deletion. Discuss here before reverting. MonsieurD (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph is fine and is valid criticism of the coverage of the event from a reliable source. This goes back to the article not being a PR piece for CHOP. Jz (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit by @NedFausa: adds the response of a socialist organization from Oak Park, Michigan, not to CHAZ itself, but to the response by the local politician, Sawant. Is this really in the scope of "local responses?" A response to a response to a response? Zarnock Watanabe (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CHAZ is a local response to the killing of George Floyd. Sawant (local) responded to CHAZ. World Socialist Web Site (international) responded to Sawant. Since we don't have an International subsection under Reactions, I don't know where else this should go. But I think it's relevant and should be included somewhere in the article. It helps to document the political muddle of the reaction CHAZ has triggered. NedFausa (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by various organizations have been added and removed on the grounds of being "primary" (and sometimes restored after that). Prima facie, it's hard to say why the World Socialist Web Site should be included and the Industrial Worker should not [15], or why National Review should be left in and The Cut left out [16]. I mean, maybe there is a reason; it just looks like a muddle from here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you cite from The Cut may have been cut but if so, it's now back in the article. NedFausa (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was, at some point, used more than once — it's a bit tricky to follow all the comings and goings of text we've had here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content I added about World Socialist Web Site's response to Sawant. NedFausa (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need some feed back. We may need a new section soon. There was an averted sexual assault that took place in the Zone. It may make sense to create a section about major events related to self policing in the Zone. That is the major stated thing the area is doing.

I don't think this fits as a reaction, and I suppose it could be "culture". However this seems very relevant to the article. Thoughts before I add something. Or where should this go?

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/06/19/43938596/chop-medic-intervened-in-a-sexual-assault-in-cal-anderson. Jz (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internal governance section contains this lurid content: On June 17, however, News.com.au said "the lack of proper policing may be giving criminals food for thought", and reported a "disturbingly detailed plan" on social media "to lure and attack vulnerable young women inside Seattle's lawless zone." Your story of an averted sexual assault should fit right in. NedFausa (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reasonable place to include it, organizationally; I'd advise against writing more than a line or two, because so little information is available at the moment. XOR'easter (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also more on the Car Tenders break-in story; the suspect is tied to two other crimes elsewhere in Seattle. XOR'easter (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Security section seems to address the need. Cool! Jz (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for that lurid bit is uncomfortably sensationalist for my taste, for example going on about Raz Simone believed to have assumed the role of leader in the rebel state, which contradicts the reliable reporting. Do we have anything better about that "disturbingly detailed plan" or who "Aaron Solomon" was or whether his sick joke had lasting effects? XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that content, which cannot be verified by additional sources. NedFausa (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/us/seattle-chop-shooting.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3C03:5400:6121:8BE5:34FA:B25E (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: See Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone#Security. NedFausa (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two times now I have seen a comment asking why there is nothing about Raz Simone in this article removed from this talk page. Clearly there should be something about Raz here yet there is not. There was, but it was removed. Please add something about Raz Simone and stop trying to subvert Wikipedia by removing comments. Thanks! MrN9000 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page presently contains one section devoted to Raz Simone. Its most recent comment was made on 12 June 2020, so it is subject to being archived as inactive. Speaking of which, five sections about Raz Simone were archived by Another Believer:

• 05:25, 13 June 2020
• 05:26, 13 June 2020
• 16:25, 14 June 2020
• 16:26, 14 June 2020
• 02:03, 15 June 2020

Please identify which of these removals subvert Wikipedia, and explain why you believe so. NedFausa (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedure for un-archiving a recent, active thread, in order to continue it (related essay, Wikipedia:Don't archive or hat a thread that has ongoing discussion). It could be considered disruptive, so be careful. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bri: The essay to which you link states: One is strongly advised against hatting or archiving a thread with ongoing discussion and instead letting the discussion come to its natural conclusion. How would you interpret "ongoing" discussion? We now have 76 sections in this talk page. I think we should be more aggressive in archiving stale discussions. NedFausa (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I archived any sections too early here. I should note, 2 were 'answered' semi-protected edit requests, 1 was wrapped up with a 'not a forum' comment, and one was marked as 'done' based on previous discussions. I thought I was being helpful by removing resolved/repetitive discussions. Not a big deal, just discuss whatever's needed and I'll quit worrying about keeping this talk page clean. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be more aggressive in archiving those discussions which have gone stale. This Talk page is a bit unwieldy by now. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter, Thanks. I'm not bothered if someone thought I was too aggressive, but I'll leave the archiving to others from now on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer: Of the five diffs I listed above, you archived one section four days after its most recent comment, two sections two days after, one section one day after, and one section the same day. In retrospect, those removals do seem premature, but I disagree with MrN9000's accusation that such removals were done with the intention of "trying to subvert Wikipedia." Now that the issue has become contentious, however, I recommend that we leave archiving on this talk page not to other editors, but to the bots. NedFausa (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, Ok, sure! No need for any more commentary here about my actions... I'm moving on. Happy editing, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has been mentioned in the article before, but those appearances have been edited out, the most recent example being described two sections up. Reliable-source news coverage has scarcely touched upon Raz Simone since the earliest days of the CHOP, and everything the article included about him was ultimately based on tabloids and political commentators rather than reporting. The most I have seen in over a week has been an incidental mention. (A video posted to Instagram by Seattle musician Raz Simone, who's been a frequent presence at CHOP, shows fire department medics waiting a block away, despite the filmer's desperate pleas for them to respond to the scene of the shooting [17].) I am unconvinced that the WP:RS coverage warrants his inclusion here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa My comment was not intended for you. I was not talking about archiving, although by the sounds of it there was a problem with that also which has now hopefully been resolved. If anyone wants to know who my comment was aimed at they can check the page history. Or do you guys not know how to do that? ... idk why you thought I was talking to you Ned? ... I have no interest in fighting about if Raz should be mentioned in this article, but I think you lot thinking he does not need to be mentioned is frigging hilarious. When I see someone else saying that and their comment is removed then I act... IMO Obviously he should be mentioned. LOL. LOL. LOL. This will become obvious in time and you lot fighting this now using your wikilawyering will be a great lol for many in the future. It will expose you. You will see... I have no interest in fighting with you guys, but I will point out if people remove comments from talk pages especially if doing so appears to support an agenda. Stop removing comments from talk pages mkay? MrN9000 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrN9000: If you ever find yourself typing LOL. LOL. LOL. into a Wikipedia talk page, it's probably time for a break. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrN9000: Please refrain from making personal attacks or casting aspersions or you will be subject to banning from this page. There's nothing wrong with archiving closed discussions, particularly on a page with 76 active threads. Accusing editors of "removing comments" to "support an agenda" will not be tolerated, period. As XOR'easter has explained, users have been unable to find adequate reliable sources, which are required in this case due to WP:BLP. Battlegrounding on this talk page is not going to help with that situation. If you want to contribute to this article, help look for reliable sources, rather than simply making demands and attacking people. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a lot. I'm hanging my hat up on this thread. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add a section for the crime rate per capita in the zone, as well as the total death toll so far? This would be really interesting and important facts to contain especially since the purpose of the zone seems to be about preventing violence and deaths. Maybe a separation section after “Territory” called “crime rate and deaths in the zone” Megat503 (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The zone is exactly two weeks old and consists of three blocks and a park. A separate section devoted to crime rate per capita and total death toll would be almost comically WP:UNDUE. NedFausa (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I fall for that? I'm so brainwashed by the commandment Assume Good Faith, I failed to recognize Megat503 is putting us on. OK, you got me this time. NedFausa (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM.EnviousDemon (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no possible way to make a legitimate per capita statement about CHAZ at the moment. It's probably too soon to make any real statements about it's 'population' as it is highly fluid due to it's porous 'borders' and the non-existence of reliable documentation about it. There's been crime, that much is certain. But as far as I am aware there's no solid count established at the moment. A crime section may be warranted. However a per capita would in my humble opinion be farcical. Shush-Lynx (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Black Lives Matter Shrine CHAZ Seattle WA.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is another image of same object w/o copyright concerns: File:A memorial to black lives in CHAZ.jpg☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had too many browser tabs open about this, and they're all blurring together a bit by now. Currently, the article says, As of June 19, it remained unclear who within the SPD had made the decision to retreat from the East Precinct. Has anything been reported on that since last Friday? It seems a bit of basic information that the article would benefit from including, if it's available anywhere. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On June 11, SPD Chief Best said: "Leaving the precinct was not my decision. … Ultimately the city had other plans for the building and relented to severe public pressure. I'm angry about how this all came about." On June 19, Crosscut.com reported: "Nearly two weeks later, not only has no one claimed responsibility for ordering officers to stay away, but it's unclear whether there was an order at all." Per that source, I have revised the text to read: As of June 19, it remained unclear who, if anyone, made the decision to retreat from the East Precinct. NedFausa (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least we're up-to-date, then. Though I wonder if the phrasing can still be adjusted: surely, since they did leave, somebody had to decide to leave, right? In other words, there's a difference between a decision and a formal order, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. People who are exposed and outnumbered instinctively scatter when under attack. Even in a hierarchical paramilitary organization such as SPD, leadership can break down. Nobody has to decide to leave. They just do it. NedFausa (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to find this from a Seattle Times reporter today: he says there is a lingering question over who decided to vacate SPD’s East Precinct amid protests. And, The chief has said the city caved to pressure but it wasn't her call (tho she hasn't said who made it). The mayor says an "on scene commander" decided it, tho she agreed with it. [18]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is my first time ever talking on this website, so please let me know if I messed up in my formatting! I've been following the development and editing of this article for a few days and I was confused to see the re-addition of Kshama Sawant's quote referring to "indications that this may have been a right-wing attack" in the paragraph on the first shooting. I'm no expert on wikipedia guidelines and policy, but the quote seems irrelevant and not worth including at all. She is not providing any proof of indications of a right-wing motive, and the quote seemingly serves to do nothing except to lay blame on the current president in some way? When it was first removed by @TrynaMakeADollar:because, "The opinion, without any evidence, of a random city councilmen is not at all needed especially considering that there are several politicians who have made the exact opposite claims", that seemed valid to me. Can @EnviousDemon:please explain why the quote is necessary? As far as I can see it adds no value to the paragraph from an informational standpoint, is not an opinion worth weighing as there seems to be no concurrence with her point of view from other officials, and frankly it seems to be nothing but a way to drag the president into the argument for blaming purposes. Thank you for reading if you did, let me know if I did anything wrong, like I said this is my first time!2601:409:8400:B00:8CE7:6462:740B:7C35 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I think that is a completely valid point, and I have removed it for the moment, until a consensus develops to include it (there are also BLP issues with it). StAnselm (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you for acting on it! That is very encouraging! 2601:409:8400:B00:8CE7:6462:740B:7C35 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an account so if you want to respond to what I said above you can ping me instead of my IP Sixfish11 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm: Please explain what you mean by BLP issues. That's such a broad area that it could benefit by specificity in this instance. NedFausa (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the gratuitous mention of Trump and the unsubstantiated accusation of complicity in the death. StAnselm (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPUBLIC says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." We had the primary source, and one secondary source copying it exactly. StAnselm (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Can I ask why you feel it needs to be removed? I feel that removing it in the first place was motivated by biases possessed by the editor who called her "some random city councilman" when they removed the quote. I then readded it. Sawant is a local politician, so I feel her reaction is more than appropriate to be in the section. EnviousDemon (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EnviousDemon: Thanks for responding! My issue, as I already laid out in my original post, has to do with the fact that it seems to add no informational value to the topic, seems to be uncorroborated by any official sources, and looks as though it only serves the purpose of roping in the current president. Had Swant's POV being echoed by others in power, and if there was immediate evidence for her claim, I would be all for including it in the article. However, this seems not to be the case. So, I feel it is best to remove it entirely until creedence is given to the claim that the shooting what perpetrated by right wingers, as to leave it in would therefore be entertaining a notion with no other mainstream backing that has been put forward by other editors here. Thanks! Sixfish11 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was fair to include at the time — statements from politicians of the city itself are pertinent, after all, and it seemed to be more about criticizing a climate of fear than alleging a specific conspiracy, so the WP:BLP issues were not so overt. But it was an early statement made based on incomplete information, which Sawant has apparently walked back, and it is probably not our job to track the day-by-day changes in what public statements politicians are willing to make. At this point, it's best to omit it altogether. XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new development puts Kshama Sawant's quotations in a very different light. From his hospital bed, KIRO-TV has interviewed 33-year-old DeJuan Young, who was shot on June 20 by different people and a block away from where Lorenzo Anderson was mortally wounded. Young says his shooting was motivated by racism. "So basically I was shot by, I'm not sure if they're 'Proud Boys' or KKK," said Young. "But the verbiage that they said was hold this 'N-----' and shot me." Proud Boys and KKK certainly fit Kshama Sawant's "indications that this may have been a right-wing attack." In which case, President Trump's rhetoric may well have contributed to what Sawant called "reactionary hatred specifically against the peaceful Capitol Hill occupation." NedFausa (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to restoring mention of her original statement if the reporting on this development ties back to it. (And thank you for adding that to the article promptly!) XOR'easter (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting development, I fully support it's addition to the page granted it can be directly related to CHAZ/CHOP. However, seeing as though it was a separate case which occured outside of CHAZ/CHOP on a different night, Sawant's testimony is still uncorroborated and goes against the, nominally, accepted narrative of gang involvement. It's important that we do not STRIVE TOWARDS the inclusion of the current president in the narrative, but rather impartially report events as they occur with respect to how related the events are to the autonomous zone. Even if white supremacists/right-wingers are found to be the cause of the the shooting on the 23rd, Sawant's quote is irrelevant as long as there remains no proof for her claims on the shooting she was commenting on. Sixfish11 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sixfish11: You appear to be conflating the two June 20 shootings with the June 23 shooting. When Lorenzo Anderson was shot on June 20 at 10th Ave. and East Pine St., DeJuan Young was close enough to hear the gunfire, which prompted him to leave the zone. He reached 11th and Pike, where he was shot. That is a distance of 0.1 miles—a 3-minute walk. As Young himself later put it, "technically I was outside that area [the zone]." (Emphasis added.) It's wildly misleading to suggest that this makes Young's shooting unrelated to CHAZ. And in any case, Kshama Sawant's quotations pertain to the June 20 attacks, not to June 23. NedFausa (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausaHi, sorry for the misconception, but the difference between the June 20th shooting and the June 23rd is exactly what I was talking about. I was referencing the, "A new development puts Kshama Sawant's quotations in a very different light" part of your comment, as the allegations towards the June 23rd shooting have absolutley no connection to the supposed validity of Sawant's claims. Right-winger's being there on the 23rd does not mean there were right wingers on the 20th, that's all i'm saying. Sixfish11 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sixfish11: No one has suggested right wingers were involved in the June 23 shooting. My comment about "a very different light" had nothing to do with the June 23 shooting. Kshama Sawant's quotations had nothing to do with the June 23 shooting. DeJuan Young's interview with KIRO-TV had nothing to do with the June 23 shooting. But he did confirm Kshama Sawant's suspicions of a right-wing attack on June 20, when he was shot. NedFausa (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know why the article says that Young was interviewed on the 23rd. That doesn't seem particularly relevant - or am I missing something? StAnselm (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The June 23rd interview would probably serve better to be cut down, condensed, and inserted into the paragraph covering the June 20th shooting since it covers events concurrent to the June 20th shooting. It's confusing having it clumped in with the separate June 23rd shooting and may cause some readers (I can say from experience) to conflate the June 23rd shooting with the claims of white supremacist activity outside of CHAZ/CHOP on June 20th. Sixfish11 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one involved in CHOP ever called it an autonomous zone. By perpetuating the fear mongering that Fox news and other right wing media called it you are empowering them and actively downplaying what CHOP was meant to communicate. Please remove reference to CHAZ and only use the acronym CHOP or Capital Hill Organized protest. 216.227.109.221 (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME. El_C 03:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "CHOP" is the common name by now, but even if we move the article over (see above), there's no reason to expunge the older term. XOR'easter (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The credibility of the claim that the CHOP is disbanding has been disputed; e.g., the NYT is still seeking confirmation and local journalists are dubious. Who are these "organizers" and how is it known who they speak for? "The CHOP project is now concluded," read a Tweet posted by @CHOPOfficialSEA — but who is @CHOPOfficialSEA? We've already seen at least once website advanced as "official" that turned out not to be. The KOMO story goes on to say, Though not all associated with the protest may agree it's over. One person who would only identify themselves as one of the protesters who has been working at CHOP told KOMO News he takes issue with the statement that initiative had ended and they were not going to release the East Precinct until all their demands were met. So, I think rushing into the lede with this is stopping the presses a bit too hastily. Better if we're a day late than actively erroneous. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to illustrate the challenge of reporting on this topic, a photojournalist lists four other Twitter accounts claiming to speak for the CHOP, two of which also call themselves "official". XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should run with the idea that anyone calling themselves "official" isn't official. We've discussed many things over the past couple of days, including things like the website that was obviously not offical. There are no leaders in the CHAZ/CHOP, and we shouldn't take anyone claiming that they are seriously. If the protest was over, we'd know because there would be either A. Protesters being formidably removed from the park or B. a mass consensus that the protest would be over. We don't seem to have a mass consensus. EnviousDemon (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to always link to twitter accounts officially, I think its fine here on the talk page, to bring attention to the fact people on the ground think the account is fake, as well as the political shift in the last few days. EnviousDemon (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to XOR'easter and EnviousDemon for directing readers of this thread to Twitter, where the bickering between @CHOPOfficialSEA, @CHAZSeattle1, @CHOPVoices, @CapHillOccupy & @CHOPSeattle as to which is the official account reminds me of the People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front vs. Campaign for a Free Galilee vs. Judean Popular People's Front. I trust the journalistic big guns upon whom we rely for WP:RS will sort it out. NedFausa (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the account looks so fake. It ends with "well... vote for Mayor Durkan (as well as Jay Inslee and Joe Biden...)." My personal theory on this is a right wing troll account that wants to A. End the CHOP and B. tie the CHOP to the Democratic Party. Obviously, sorry if sharing that theory violates WP:Notforum but I wanted to throw it out there that I do not believe this account is a reliable source. EnviousDemon (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN story cites the same dubious "official" account and calls Raz Simone a "de facto CHOP leader", which runs counter to the much more detailed reporting from local media that has barely mentioned him in days. People on the ground seem to be staying. Maybe I'm completely mistaken, but I think CNN (and by extension, Wikipedia) is going to get face-egg for this. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter: You previously removed citations to KOMO-TV and KHQ-TV. Now you question a citation to CNN In rebuttal to these sources, you offer numerous tweets that—because they make statements about third parties—cannot be cited on Wikipedia. I'm beginning to wonder if you will ever accept the notion that CHOP has left the premises. NedFausa (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing to tweets — despite Twitter being a platform I strongly dislike for a multitude of reasons! — because that's where local news seems to be reported in this case, and where a journalist from the New York Times was casting out feelers for confirmation. (One of them contained video of an ongoing development — an announcement of a community meeting tonight.) I don't think any of them deserve to be included in the article itself. I'm simply dubious about the quality of reporting from organizations that are generally reliable but potentially ill-equipped to handle how misinformation is spread on the Internet these days. The most I've asked for is a clarification about who the heck this "Capitol Hill Occupied Protest Solidarity Committee" that we've never heard about before actually is, and for — prudently, I think — waiting a day or so for the reports about how many people actually leave. XOR'easter (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should hold off on updating anything related to this, at least for the next few days, or at least include a heavy disclaimed (Something like "a source claiming to be the official twitter for the CHAZ/CHOP stuff. The account's validity was questioned.) As for NedFausa's concern, is that I highly doubt it as well. I don't think they would end this voluntary unless all their demands were met, and still, people would remain behind. I don't see a way this would fully end all at once, I see it either gradual (most of the people leave, some stay behind) or by mass arrests. The real kicker however, it the endorsement for the mayor, the governor and Joe Biden. That sound highly suspect and weird to me. My point above is that this might be an account set up by a right winger to tie the CHOP to the democrats and thinks what they're saying is completely normal, but we're talking about people are usually anti-state or anti-electorialism, and even the ones who aren't are not ecstatic about Joe Biden or the mayor of all people. I've seen lots of criticism of Mayor in the past few weeks from protestors in the zone. The combination of past posts from the account being pro-communist in nature, to going to an endorsement of Joe Biden... is just extremely weird to me and raises a lot of red flags. EnviousDemon (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EnviousDemon: I shouldn't have to remind you of WP:NOTFORUM, but you're really overdoing it. Please, enough with all these reckless ramblings. Let's see some actual WP:RS we can use in the article. NedFausa (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa My apologies about that, I'll take a step back from this conversation. EnviousDemon (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The KRO source was just a regurgitation of the "Solidarity Committee" tweet, with no indication they had done any actual reporting to verify that the "Solidarity Committee" spoke for anyone. Citing tweets is almost always bad; citing copies of tweets is not really better. We should not rely upon such sources or direct our readers to them. KOMO changed the title of their story from 'The CHOP project is now concluded,' organizers say to Is CHOP ending? One organizer says yes, but protesters disagree and added back-pedaling language after it was first posted. To me, this kind of thing warrants moving carefully! My own guess is that CHOP will wind down, in days or weeks rather than months. Maybe by Monday, there will only be street art, memories, and grief. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We now have The Seattle Times reporting that the CHOP's population has detectably dwindled, while casting strong doubt on the veracity of the "Solidarity Committee" announcement [19]. XOR'easter (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If RS say the statement is legitimate, then it's legitimate as far as we're concerned, no matter how many Twitter accounts claim it isn't or no matter how much ground knowledge we may have to the contrary (see: WP:OR). In addition to KOMO-TV and CNN, we also have The Hill [20] and other outlets unambiguously asserting its legitimacy. If some other outlets dispute its authenticity it's fine to also include that. But we can't independently make a judgment as to which among competing RS is more accurate unless the RS in question are examining the reporting itself as opposed to the claims being made in that reporting. Chetsford (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, Mt.FijiBoiz today spelled out the N-word in a direct quotation from a cited source that did not do so. I am advised by administrator El_C that per WP:CENSORED, Wikipedia can spell out that word even when the source itself censors it (for example, in square brackets)—because, we have a lot of readers who do not speak English as their native tongue that might be confused by seeing N_ _ _ _ _ written as such. When I inquired as to whether or not editors are obliged to spell it out, the admin replied: That is an editorial choice subject to local consensus. But it may. Accordingly, I seek local consensus. Should we spell out the N-word in Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone? Having already removed it, I obviously vote no. NedFausa (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning no I'd be inclined to stick to the source; spelling out the slur when the source does not seems a bit too much like indulging in adolescent "edginess". XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @NedFausa: Isn't this editor supposedly retired? I'm quite honestly tired of their disruptive editing, and know that they can do better. If you're not actually going to leave, Mt.FijiBoiz, remove the template please and optionally use one that's more appropriate, like {{can't retire}}. And yeah, if it wasn't obvious, I oppose spelling out this word in the article. N-word is a redirect, use it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a good reason to include the quote in the first place? If we're going to spell it out, there should be a really good reason. EnviousDemon (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EnviousDemon: There is good reason to include the quote. In the second paragraph of the Shootings subsection, we write: SPD has not determined a motive for the shooting. (Contemporaneous reports by The Seattle Times and The New York Times treated the "shooting" as a singular event, but Lorenzo Anderson and DeJuan Young were attacked separately at different locations in or near the zone.) With this edit StAnselm removed reliably sourced quotations from City Council member Kshama Sawant, who dared to suggest "indications that this may have been a right-wing attack" for which President Trump would bear "direct responsibility, since he has fomented reactionary hatred specifically against the peaceful Capitol Hill occupation." KIRO-TV's June 23 interview with DeJuan Young, critically wounded on June 20, presented the first account as to motive from the victim himself. Significantly, Young confirmed Kshama Sawant's indications of a right-wing attack. His shooting, said Young, was motivated by racism. "So basically I was shot by, I'm not sure if they're Proud Boys or KKK," said Young from his hospital bed. "But the verbiage that they said was hold this 'N-----' and shot me." That quotation provides essential insight into his shooting and, more broadly, into the violent forces unleashed by the zone's lawlessness. "Hold this 'N-----'" is the most powerful part of Young's quotation, and should not be removed. But spelling out the N-word is unnecessary, inflammatory, and disrespectful to Black Lives Matter, which is at the heart of this Capitol Hill protest. Spelling it out would contribute to what XOR'easter previously called the swirl of sensationalism that comes at this event from every which way. Wikipedia should not stoop to that level. NedFausa (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the context NedFausa, however I support in this context, spelling it out, since mainly, this was a person of color describing an attack that allegedly happened. However, I also oppose using the quote if it can be avoided. May I suggest using "the victim reported being called racial epithets during the attack"?

• Neutral. I think it depends. If the quote is going to be included in the article at all it needs to either be spelled in full or redirected. To have the censored version not be the aforementioned redirect could possibly be confusing to non-anglosphere readers. Shush-Lynx (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't censor the POC speaker. Either include the quote or don't. Juno (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not spell out - If the source spelled it out we should have no qualms with also spelling it out. In this case, however, the source did not. It wrote "N-----." For us to assume that the missing five letters were IGG-- would be original research. For all we know the source said "Nachos." WP is quoting a source who is quoting the person. WP is not quoting the person directly. Chetsford (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nachos? NedFausa (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He could have called him a newbie or a nudist or a Narwal or a Nordic for all we know. Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those would not merit being censored, though. El_C 00:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the source in question's style guide. Chetsford (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vague epistemological question, common sense should prevail. El_C 02:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't a vague epistemological question" You're right, it's not. The simple fact is we can't directly quote a source if we change the wording of the source. That's no longer a direct quote. We can indirectly quote a source but at that point we're asking if we want to use the "N" word in Wikipedia's own voice instead of that of the source or speaker. To which I also !vote no. Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on the matter, but the it's-possibly-Nachos argument feels weak. El_C 02:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you not only have no strong opinion, you also have no sense of humor. NedFausa (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I found it funny. I'm just talking about the flaws of being agnostic here. El_C 10:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For the avoidance of ambiguity, I think the text, if subject to expurgation, should be hyperlinked to the article about the epithet. We must imagine a reader who is completely unfamiliar with our culture trying to read this and make sense of it. They should have a chance to be educated. Jehochman ^Talk 01:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We must also imagine a reader, particularly a person of color, who is completely familiar with our culture reading this and being infuriated at Wikipedia's insensitivity—especially in an article predicated on Black Lives Matter—in spelling out the N-word. NedFausa (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've been through this before in regards to pictures of Muhammed. And let's face it: Wikipedia policy is to be insensitive. Having said that I oppose spelling it out, since we follow the secondary source. StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-chop-zone-prompts-lawsuit-from-businesses-residents-reports

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/seattle-businesses-and-residents-sue-city-over-chop-zone/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.138.230 (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is already included in the article. XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that much debate about CHAZ/CHOP seems centered around it's crime or lack thereof. Also considering the fact that there's a specific sub paragraph about shootings in relation to the area/protest. Maybe it is time to make a specific chapter on crime within the area/protest? Perhaps the shooting section itself could be re-purposed to a high profile crime section. Shush-Lynx (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that crime/shootings should be placed in a new, separate section and that this section would be more logically placed below/after the Culture and amenities section. Chronologically: First the zone was establish, then it grew culture & amenities, then it suffered from several late-night shootings. Cedar777 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. (By the by, has anyone else been finding the section title "Culture and amenities" oddly humorous? It's like a gazetteer for Cook's tourists visiting some exotic foreign land.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royale, Rosette (2020-06-19). "Seattle's Autonomous Zone Is Not What You've Been Told". Rolling Stone. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved 2020-06-25.

CHOP residents Nim and Jordan want to ensure any potential threats are defused. The pair, who identify as white and use they/them pronouns, have settled in one of the more than 80 tents pitched in an adjacent city park.

We ought to be able to say something about the population with this, no? I'd say that the number of tents is actually the best way to gauge it, as otherwise it's too easy to confuse people who might be renting nearby and hanging out there with the quasi-permanent population. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'd really get a very basic one, and still not all that accurate. Because we don't know if all those tents have people sleeping in them, how many if any are sleeping in them. How many of those tents are other things like communal tents. I'd be careful making assumptions of populations on tents alone. Also it raises the question what to do with the normal legitimate residents of the area. Are those included? If so, are they included as a separate group, seeing as they technically didn't agree to any of it and some may not want to be associated with the protest. Shush-Lynx (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to ping @Psiĥedelisto: Sorry about that. Shush-Lynx (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) The source used as reference for proof that CHOP was disbanded comes from a suspended twitter account

2) Barricades, Guards, and Tents still surround the East Precinct at this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9680:C750:F5CA:F865:3C3:304D (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution date has been removed. While I am not aware of the status of said twitter account, the Seattle Times article from today, June 25 confirms that there is ongoing activity at the site. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitter account is here; it has indeed been suspended, but we are not so lucky to have more detailed information available than that. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cedar777: Please provide a link to The Seattle Times article from today, June 25, that confirms ongoing activity at the site. There is no such story dated June 25 in our References section. NedFausa (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has made it over to the main page. It is also linked in the section below. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources that name and describe an individual's involvement with the garden development. The Crosscut article is subtitled with the individual's name: "In Seattle’s CHAZ, a community garden takes root: Marcus Henderson’s edible act of resistance began with a single basil sprout. Now he wants to feed a revolution and redefine public space." If RS states that an individual was key to the origin of the garden, @NedFausa: why is this seen as a problematic inclusion in the article?

The Seattle Times released an update today stating that protest activity continues at CHAZ/CHOP. The article included an image of three people as part of the leadership of Black Collective Voices, among them was Henderson. Since he spoke to and was photographed by 3 media outlets (Seattle Times, Crosscut, Stranger), it does not seem to be invading his privacy to state his involvement, per RS here. At this point, I support simply including what Crosscut (and to a lesser extent the Stranger) stated about the garden space, i.e. clarifying when it came about during the development of CHAZ/CHOP and who initiated it: a resident of the city rather than an outsider and/or "occupier". Seeking to discuss the matter before modifying the page. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cedar777: Oppose naming Henderson on grounds of WP:UNDUE. The sources you cite report that his involvement predates declaration of the zone, and that other volunteers and people from the neighborhood have provided most of the work and all of the supplies since then. We should keep this paragraph, and indeed the entire page, focused on CHOP, which is leaderless and abhors the cult of personality favored by journalists to inject "human interest" into their stories. NedFausa (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The Seattle Times update to which you link does not mention Henderson, nor is he identified in the photo caption. Your assertion that he is part of the leadership of Black Collective Voices is WP:OR. NedFausa (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is indeed mentioned in the photo caption. It may require that you click on the drop down arrow. Cedar777 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photo caption reads, Members of Black Collective Voices address plans for future protests and the situation at CHOP. Speaking is Naudia Miller, center, with Jesse Miller, left, and Marcus Henderson. XOR'easter (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I stand corrected. NedFausa (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the timing of the garden. Again captions are a source of information, not OR. In the Crosscut article, although Henderson reports being active in the area "ever since the first Saturday" after the cars were set on fire (June 1), it does not state that he was gardening at that time. The article indicates that he began gardening after the police had vacated the precinct on June 8, the start date for CHAZ/CHOP. There is a caption for an image showing Henderson gardening on June 11. Therefore, he/an activist/Henderson planted basil in the park between June 8 - 11, conversations ensued and the garden area expanded. Volunteers supported this effort. Cedar777 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cedar777: Thank you for clarifying the timeline, which I misunderstood. I have restored the text that I changed. NedFausa (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @NedFausa:. It is worthwhile to be cautious when the media single out a personality of a leaderless group. No doubt this story will continue to evolve. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]