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

Black Lives Matter 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link https://industrialworker.org/the-birth-of-the-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ isn't working for me. I've tagged it as a dead link in the article, but it's been removed. I'm not going to re-add, since the pace of the article is pretty fast right now and I don't want to disrupt that. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with https://web.archive.org/web/20200609224556/https://industrialworker.org/the-birth-of-the-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ that actually works. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article will be re-posted later today: https://twitter.com/iww/status/1270700374505250818 --Boklm (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modify currency: USD for BTC, or at least add BTC.

Bitcoin is a censorship-resistant, apolitical, decentralized and sovereign form of ditital and absolutely scarce form of money PsychedelicSpartan117 (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As above. Jack Frost (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Seattle and I can tell you this page is incorrect on many points. I request sources to each piece of information. Double check your facts. 2600:100F:B059:85EF:DB3:A24E:3ACF:1B6A (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you have any specific changes or corrections, then please list them (with sources). Jack Frost (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Within the Territory section, replace the paragraph reading,

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

with,

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

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

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

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

Why are we relying on a Chinese source for so much of this article? Doesn't seem appropriate - surely there must be sources closer to Seattle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretteket (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's because this is not a legitimate movement, it's largely seen as a joke, hence why no one is covering it. --Skarz (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

in the Territory section, please include information stating,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howdy,

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

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

File:Black Lives Matter Shrine CHAZ Seattle WA.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best not dig more into this without RSes --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lots of video circulating online of someone named Raz Simone claiming to be the leader / authority figure of the CHAZ. Isn't this considered noteworthy? --Skarz (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Skarz: I saw an admin oversighted you adding that. I've seen a few quotes by Simone in local news, but where is he claiming to be the leader, and has a reliable source republished that? He's definitely heavily involved, I agree. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Psiĥedelisto: It was caught on video https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1270852156086599680 --Skarz (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] One source refers to him as just the voice of the protesters, not a leader. [7] Is this Raz Simone? gobonobo + c 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Gobonobo: Yes it's the same guy. KIRO calls him a "Seattle musician"[8], and it's easy to see from Simone's Facebook that it's him. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The quote is older than the live video where he declares himself as the police of the CHAZ and makes verbal assaults against attendees. --Skarz (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] OK Skarz, but until a reliable source reports on the live video, we should not do so. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--2601:400:6:33E0:9961:CB47:6D55:14A6 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)--2601:400:6:33E0:9961:CB47:6D55:14A6 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that they covered up the death of a child should be enough. there is a dead kid there in one of dumpsters right now. are you going to do something about it? the cops ran away wtf? holly white knows who did what.
2601:400:6:33E0:9961:CB47:6D55:14A6 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:400:6:33E0:9961:CB47:6D55:14A6: Request declined. Please re-open the request with the exact wording you wish to add, and, most importantly, reliable sources backing up your desired wording. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, President Donald Trump made two statements on his twitter account. "Radical Left Governor @JayInslee and the Mayor of Seattle are being taunted and played at a level that our great Country has never seen before. Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will. This is not a game. These ugly Anarchists must be stooped IMMEDIATELY. MOVE FAST!"^[1], read one, and "Domestic Terrorists have taken over Seattle, run by Radical Left Democrats, of course. LAW & ORDER!"^[2] read the other. I am requesting the addition of;

On June 10th, 2019, President [[Donald Trump]] claimed that "Domestic Terrorists have taken over Seattle"<Ref>https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270923257844301836</ref> and called upon Mayor Durkan to "Take back your city NOW." adding that "If you don’t do it, I will. This is not a game. These ugly Anarchists must be stooped IMMEDIATELY. MOVE FAST!"<ref>https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270914092295950337</ref>

EnviousDemon (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EnviousDemon: I'm very happy to add these. Can you please provide a reliable, secondary source though? Please see WP:RS. I'd need one that says these are about the CHAZ. I know, it might seem like WP:COMMONSENSE, but it's important that everything on Wikipedia be WP:Verifiable. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Here is a source: https://nypost.com/2020/06/11/trump-demands-seattle-officials-take-back-cop-free-protest-zone/ TheMemeMonarch (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Still new to wikipedia and these are my first edits in a while. Does this work? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-seattle-trump.html EnviousDemon (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EnviousDemon: Great sources, thank you!  Done Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This posting was from a domestic terrorist organization and should not be considered as factual information. Oxlakston (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This is not a specific request. Please say exactly what you want changed. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add climate information of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Amcandio10 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Equivamp - talk 17:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The following statement is false "hip hop artist Raz Simone acts as "co-leader and enforcer" of the Zone" Raz Simone has used this space to promote his own music and image while attacking his critics and actual organizers. He is not even close to the enforcer there. The space is for the people and the point of the space is to have no police there. Please edit him out of this. It is an insult to have him in the same space as an actual organizer like Nikkita Oliver. Raz does not represent the Autonomous Zone at all. Kgebresuss (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this issue was identified in a lower request and addressed by NedFausa Msherby (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Could someone blur the faces of people being displayed in pictures? This have been recommended many times by several press NGOs like the FPF: https://twitter.com/FreedomofPress/status/1271138146567237632

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fix the spelling of "protesters" under the demands section of internal governance. 82.0.177.124 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I can't see a spelling error here past differences between American and British English? Ed6767 talk! 21:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While it does mention protestors patrolling with automatic weapons, it fails to mention the extortion of protection money and making people show IDs to get into their own homes. What a bunch of hypocrites these people are. See [9] and [10] [[Special:Contributions/2600:8805:5802:AA00:7C46:B4C1:FC9F:7C31|2600:8805:5802:AA00:7C46:B4C1:FC9F:7C31] (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

extortion of shop owners 50.206.88.67 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No specific request made. XOR'easter (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under reactions is a statement made by Assistant Police Chief Deanna Nollette saying that the site had armed individuals and were extorting people. However, they have walked back these statements as shown below after a bunch of news and media incorrectly repeated those facts:

[12] The Seattle Police Department walked back its claim, widely repeated in the news media, that denizens of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone are extorting businesses.

The paragraph should be trimmed of the Assistant Police Chief's statement and mention that they had walked back these claims should be included. DTM9025 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC) DTM9025 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]