{{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

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., [1]. 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., [2][3]); 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'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. [4]. 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]

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 [5]. 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 [6] 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]

Based on the trend of reporting that seems to indicate some remnant activity remains, I'd agree not datelining disbandment just yet and a cautious approach is best. Having said that, the fact that a RS chose to source this from a Twitter account that is now suspended is irrelevant. Neither the Twitter corporation - nor any profitmaking company - is the final arbiter of reliability and the fact it chose to suspend that account from hosting content on its server, for whatever reason, has no bearing on the reliability of statements sourced to it from a RS. Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that activity remains is well attested. We have a reliable source reliably reporting that on the ground, the announcement was called "fake news". We have a local news reporter doing the same [7][8]. We also have local news explicitly contrasting "rampant rumors on social media" with the actual situation [9]. We have a local newspaper criticizing the TV station's original report as being absurdly over-credulous [10]. We have the station that originally ran the story literally changing its title after publication, from "'The CHOP project is now concluded,' organizers say" to "Is CHOP ending? One organizer says yes, but protesters disagree". At the very least, we have grounds to give this weird little episode rather little weight. XOR'easter (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For every source you cite that is calling it an unfounded rumor we have a source declaring it is valid. We don't have the leeway under the policies to conduct original analysis and decide which side is factual. In this case we need to present both sides. That said, fundamentally, neither of us are in disagreement. I agree it should be given very little weight. All I'm saying is that the reason it should be given little weight is due to more current reporting that indicates a remnant presence. The fact that Twitter suspended the account is irrelevant to that conclusion. A contract content reviewer working for Twitter is not the final arbiter of fact on Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 01:48, 27 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]

Yes. I found this an apt summary: Some of those sharing vocal opinions of the zone — anarchist hellhole? Utopian model for a police-free world? Coachella? — never set foot inside it. By contrast, numerous local journalists, citizens and activists covered the movement from the ground for days and nights, working to share the quickly shifting picture via streaming and live tweets. Part of the reason the area was difficult to capture was its fluid and leaderless nature, which continues today. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the NPOV dispute archived (missing) on this talk page? [Afterthought added 14:30, 30 June 2020:] Warnings were dismissed that people might get hurt mere days before people were actually killed. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines advise: Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. What constitutes a "stale" discussion is left to local consensus. In this case, automatic archiving by lowercase sigmabot III has been set for threads with no replies in 7 days. This was done only after the talk page had surpassed 75 sections and editors agreed that more aggressive archiving was appropriate. The archived NPOV discussion can now be found here. While a thread may be unarchived by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive, that would best be done as the result of consensus. The guidelines further advise: Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion. NedFausa (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody please add? https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-chop-shooting-protest 192.107.159.198 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. NedFausa (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Times article from June 29 contains a statement within the graphic map stating "Core area of CHOP-specific boundaries vary daily". At the least, the article should mention something to this effect, no?

I have read a few news reports defining the shrinking boundaries over time but have yet to organize and relocate the sources for specifics. Territory section would be improved by more clarity on where the boundaries were at the outset, followed by how they have changed week by week. Must step away from this for a bit (after a mighty dark news day) but plan to look for details on territory later. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a June 29 news briefing, Police Chief Best identified herself as "an African American woman." She also said, "Two African American men are dead, at a place where they claim to be working for Black Lives Matter." In reporting this, The Seattle Times added, "Seattle police initially said the person who was killed Monday was an adult, but later corrected that to 16 years old." Wikipedia originally quoted Best verbatim. Now Bri has inserted {sic} after "men" in Best's quotation, explaining in his edit summary: we said "boy" prior. note discrepancy with "sic". If there is a significant error in the original, MOS:SIC advises, follow it with the template {sic} to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. As it stands, however, our pinpointing of "men" as a significant error by Chief Best, without informing readers about the SPD's early misidentification prompting the chief to misspeak, seems like Wikipedia is drawing attention to the political correctness of an African American public official straining to avoid using boy (with its racist connotations) in describing a fellow African American. This is not a good look. NedFausa (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should identify the individuals by age instead of man/boy. I noted that the June 20 death, called “man” by most media, was an individual who had graduated high school one day before he died. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I've questioned your tinkering with GF edit of the verbatim quotation from the chief of police. You can revise content before and after that quotation as you see fit. But inserting {sic} therein is problematic. NedFausa (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Please don’t describe GF edits as “tinkering”, it’s kind of condescending. I’ll wait and see what other people say here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of that quote in the lede seems like excessive detail to me. It should be saved for the appropriate section of the main text, where the needed correction or clarification can be given in full sentences, rather than hoping that the meaning of a "sic" will be clear. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it is confusing for readers to have the 16-year-old referred to as both a man and a boy. Summarizing Police Chief Best's position (as expressed during the press conference of June 29), without directly quoting her words, would clear this up. I also support the above suggestions to list the victims by age rather than man/boy and to shift the details of the quote into the main article, rather than the lede, to better serve readers. In my view, it makes sense to simplify the language of several other views currently quoted there as well. Cedar777 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this may warrant an entry on the article. The inclusion or exclusion of news coverage regarding CHOP, even news that can be considered critically important, varies strikingly between US news organisations depending on their political affiliation. https://www.foxnews.com/media/seattle-chop-violence-media-insisted-peaceful 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - let's see how it develops. Ed6767 talk! 01:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News focuses on what it calls "spin" by The Seattle Times, making it "perhaps the most egregious when it came to celebrating the cop-free area." Our Wikipedia page relies heavily on The Seattle Times, which accounts for 18% of our references (32 of 177). If we editors have succumbed to spin, this article will require a significant overhaul to comply with WP:NPOV. NedFausa (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and see no logical correlation between the news source and your inferred conclusion. Your worry that the Wikipedia article will require significant overhaul if we are to question “The Seattle Times” is false logic. The wikipedia CHOP page is created by editors who weigh all reputable sources and therefore cancel out any potential inherent bias of using only one source. This is proven by the fact that “The Seattle Times” only accounts for 18% of the sources used, far from a “significant” percentage. The editors have therefore not succumbed to spin and there is no need to overhaul the article.

The allegation in the source of some media channels “picking and choosing” which news to publish on CHOP and which to hide are easily verified. The absence of negative news articles on CHOP (including violence, shooting, murder, even its dissolution) on CNN and MSNBC front pages, are noteworthy.

If this political censorship reaches a level that garners attention, it may need to be reflected in the article. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The government in Anarchist. Someone should add that. Nitric Acidd (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The government in anarchist?" Nah. Personally, I don't think the article is worthy of its own entry on Wikipedia either.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]