{{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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"CHOP" is now also being used "Capital Hill Organized Protest" Hist ed (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Jzesbaugh: Swoggle was awesome enough to upload one to Commons. [1] Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: ::@Nice4What: Looks like the photo was removed as irrelevant. Not sure I totally agree, as its a popular part of the zone, and sorta encapsulates what its about. See if anyone else has thoughts on this. But I'll mention it as it required me physically traveling an hour to take and add to this under a commons license. Jz (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned in several sources, Guardian + USA Today. I've added more references to clarify. The one in the photo is the one both the Guardian and USA Today have featured. Jz (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jz: There are too many photos on this short article already. We have the huge BLM mural already. This shrine does not add any additional context for the reader. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears as if people are undoing this edit. My guess would be protestors in Nashville. I included the fact that it's been mentioned in passing, but people are trying to insist that this is a thing. That particular article is also nominated for deletion. Maybe make a protected edit request? Monstarules (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• According to RSs the NAZ has been in effect at minimum through Monday ^[1][2] Juno (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Fpmfpm:, "the majority of people there are not declaring it an autonomous zone" - that's actually a well worded way to put it. Though I'd say the article as it stands is not doing a great job of initially making this point. Possibly due to fuzzy sources. While I'm not calling for restructuring the article by any means, the first reading leads to a very strong impression till you get to the descriptions of it like a block party or burning man. Jz (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is if it has regular use by protestors inside the zone. I'd recommend you review WP:Soapbox since this isn't a place to push your personal opinions about the CHAZ. EnviousDemon (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The pink umbrella (no unified/singular design as it's usually hand-drawn) is definitely seen as an insignia of the zone, I'd say, and can be seen in many locations throughout the space. In past days the BLM/black power fist has seen increased posting around as well, on graffiti, signs, etc. There is no flag/coat of arms seen on-the-ground/in the space, much less ones that are agreed upon by locals or really that most people even know about. –Fpmfpm (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

c:Data:CapitolHillAutonomousZone.map

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

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

{{edit request}}

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

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

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

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

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

The initial map by @PartyPrat was a bit of a joke (the account tends to shitpost a lot) – it uses phrases like "regime-occupied Safeway" which are not meant to be interpreted seriously – and does not accurately show the boundaries for the area. This tweet talks about how the boundaries are inexact. It was also created the day after this whole thing began and boundaries are a lot more solidified now.

@AntiCompositeNumber, NedFausa, and Psiĥedelisto: I walked around the zone today – within the perimeter as close to the "borders" as I could get – and uploaded the geodata and image sequence to Mapillary. I did this right as sunset though and the quality didn't turn out great, and for some reason the last 1/4 of it doesn't show up in certain views on the site…? So I'm going to re-do it tomorrow (on a weekday there will probably be less people too). The one inevitable misrepresentation in the location data is that, as of today, the No Cop Co-op extends all the way into the street making me have to walk inward (as it goes right up against the buildings). So, the intersection of 11th/Pine should be completely included in the zone. This route is what I captured although the GPS is definitely a bit off in places. Please confirm if you still want me to do this and if this will be a good enough basis/data to be used to update the map here showing the area's boundaries. –Fpmfpm (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fpmfpm: Hello, thank you for the useful map! Unfortunately, sorry to say, it's original research. However, your effort is not for nothing. You have confirmed which map in the reliable sources is correct, and are now a WP:EXPERT. Congrats! Please make something that looks like [2] (except only covering part of the park) and source it to [3], which is very similar. For now though, I once again ask you to remove the current map for being WP:COPYVIO, and, as you now know, incorrect WP:OR. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of crazy, even Fox (as described in the tweet linked above) and CNN (see here) are struggling with the same questions, and doing badly with it. I suggest that rather than try to create the one true map of the boundary, that we try to build a graphic that captures a variety of information: a boundary that has been reported by certain news sources, the locations of barricades, etc. In the past I've found people at WP:WikiProject Cartography very helpful for this kind of thing. If we can decide on a few things we'd like included, and what sources justify those things, we can probably get somebody to make us a very nice map. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Thanks! In an earlier post I mentioned I've already made a map at https://chaz.zone/ (screenshot here) which essentially matches the [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/welcome-to-the-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-where-seattle-protesters-gather-without-police/ source you linked – the only (small) difference is that the barricade on 11th above Pine is actually a little bit more to the north than what ST has marked. I've also included the park/playfield as part of the zone as there are tents/booths set up all around it and behind it, and there are regular events there part of the protest (mentioned in news sources). I can confirm the ST map is more correct than the one that's here now, though. It sounds like I should be good to go ahead and update the .map later, then, when I have a chance, and if you'd agree – and then maybe someone else from WP:WikiProject Cartography could help us out later? –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that this section has a {{edit request}}?  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 00:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthFlappy: Yes. I am making this request directly on behalf of @PartyPrat, and would not be making it had she not asked me to. I think the copyright violation is clear and the map needs to be removed, but my friendship with her makes me hesitant to do it myself. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn Decided this needs addressing on Commons instead, this isn't an enwiki-only concern. See c:Data:CapitolHillAutonomousZone.map. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1 to the redirect for now. There's a new sign up today by the main western barricade/entrance that says "CHOP" and a new mural in the park that says it too; the push to "rebrand"/"rename" the space as CHOP, at least among locals and/or those who spend a lot of the time in or identify with the space, is definitely there and growing. So maybe eventually these two pages will switch, i.e. CHAZ will redirect to CHOP (once we agree what the 'O' actually stands for…) rather than the other way around as it is now. –Fpmfpm (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth reading too: https://twitter.com/3liza/status/1272048477652938752 –Fpmfpm (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: I just noticed that in the source currently used for the CHOP name, which you added, The Seattle Times refers to it as both Organized and Occupied (in the very same news update) – and there's no clear consensus on which it "really" stands for throughout the rest of the articles/page either. –Fpmfpm (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news coverage shows that the people in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone have renamed to the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest as a means to re-focus on the goals of the protest.^[3][4] BrythonLexi (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from Captiol Hill Autonomous Zone should definitely be added if this change is made. BrythonLexi (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new source from the New York Post (https://nypost.com/2020/06/14/clueless-in-seattle-protesters-debate-on-name-for-cop-free-zone/) which covers the confusion over the "Capitol Hill Occupied Protest" & "Capitol Hill Organized Protest" names. Because of the confusion, I think the redirects for both CHOP names should still exist but the CHOP name should be removed from the lead. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting on "The State of CHAZ" today at City Journal, Christopher F. Rufo calls CHOP "an onomatopoeia for the swift downward flight of the guillotine." Great line. That acronym is sure to appeal to right-wingers lusting to connect Seattle with the Reign of Terror. NedFausa (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion forum; see WP:FORUM BrythonLexi (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance your observation is directed at me, I'll remind you that this subsection is headed Two new CHOP sources. In good faith, I provided a third new CHOP source that I thought might be of interest to editors considering the change in nomenclature. NedFausa (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had added what appeared to be soapbox-style discussion with the comment about "right-wingers lusting to connect Seattle with the Reign of Terror". I apologise if I went overboard (I am new to the Wiki) but I feel it's best to strictly leave additions of citations as additions of citations. BrythonLexi (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa and BrythonLexi:, Would you be in favor of the removal of the CHOP name from the lead, while having a mention to the CHOP name (or names) in another section? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa and BrythonLexi:, Note: the opening sentence in the Internal governance section reads: " The Seattle Times has referred to demonstrations in the area as the 'Capitol Hill Occupied Protest' and the 'Capitol Hill Organized Protest' (CHOP),^[5] with NBC News saying CHAZ is 'part protest, part commune.' "^[6] Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrator note - This page has been move protected for two months. If an uncontentious local consensus to rename the page is formed here, please file a technical move request. If the dispute continues and a consensus cannot be reached, the next step is a controversial move request, which is a binding, formal discussion. The two month protection period is intended to cover this possible outcome. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is: "protected for a period of two months from the date of protection", not as I read it "for the past two months". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  

There is no way in the world this would be an uncontroverisal technical request. Please use WP:RM instead. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM encompasses both technical requests and controversial requests. I've individually distinguished and linked to the two different sections. As I said, if an uncontentious local consensus to rename the page is formed, then it is eligible for a technical request. That scenario is, by definition, an uncontroversial technical request situation. Short of that, it should go forward to a controversial move request. This discussion does not seem contentious and it is not an unrealistic possibility that an uncontentious local consensus can be reached. I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue about. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing for a formal discussion, because a move is potentially controversial if "there has been any past debate about the best title for the page" OR "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". Both are true here. StAnselm (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the name change is a done deal: Known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) at first, several protesters in the area made a push for the name to better reflect its purpose and renamed the roughly six-block area. CHOP, the new acronym, now stands for the Capitol Hill Organized (or Occupied) Protest. NedFausa (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Several protestors" do not themselves have the capacity or authority to "rename the area." The article doesn't demonstrate that a consensus on a new name has been developed.50.29.97.206 (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the coverage is solidly CHAZ. This is the common name now. Juno (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Psiĥedelisto: When I paste {anarchies|Our custom heading here} into my sandbox, I see the standard template results but not "Our custom heading here". And Template:Anarchies does not show an optional parameter for a custom heading. Please, what I am doing wrong? NedFausa (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: I said I can do it, not that I had already done it. But, I just did do it: Special:PermaLink/962579497. Try it out now Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: I oppose insertion of any template that yields the heading "Anarchist-related territories" because that is a false description of CHAZ and we should not confuse readers by insinuating that CHAZ is somehow connected to anarchist-related territories. NedFausa (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchies @NedFausa: Not sure you tried it... Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: When I click "Show" on the template you added here the second line displayed includes "anarchist community projects." To me, that is unacceptable because it misleads the reader, as I indicated before. NedFausa (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: Such subheading is repetitious anyway when we can define a heading, so I made it so that when a custom heading is defined, there is no subheading. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: I'm tired of playing this game. You keep sending me on fool's errands to look at stuff that turns out to violate WP:NPOV. I'm done with you here. NedFausa (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: What on Earth have I done to warrant such incivility? Template editing is like a type of programming, it can take multiple times to get it right. "Anarchy" is no longer in the template when it's given a parameter. What else is wrong with it? Clearly the only fool here is me, for wasting my time editing the template. You realize I did not put this in the article, and would not do so myself? I agree that Mt.FijiBoiz way jumped the gun on that, and actually them doing that made things harder for me too as I have to be more careful when editing the template. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchies @NedFausa and Psiĥedelisto: My take on the navbox (this has been added (perhaps) prematurely to the article and I am willing to remove it). Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: Please remove this immediately. You know very well that this is contentious content that has been under discussion today in this thread, and that consensus to include has not materialized. Please do not jump the gun this way. NedFausa (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: I removed it from the article. Sorry the premature addition. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa, Psiĥedelisto, Arms & Hearts, and Another Believer:, Would you be opposed to renaming {{anarchies}} to something like "Areas with increased autonomy" and have it include current government-declared and self-declared autonomous areas like Hong Kong, Macau, MAREZ, CHAZ, NAZ, Wa State, Rojava, Orania, Indian reservations, and others - while also including former autonomous areas like the Paris Commune? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should rename the existing template, but I'd be fine with making a new one called "autonomous zones". I don't think we should be mixing in real countries. Perhaps we should go with "self-declared autonomous zones". Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the autonomous administrative division page, I think a blanket navbox covering all autonomous areas would be too massive, confusing, and unnecessary. A navbox titled "Current self-declared autonomous zones" would probably work best. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz, Jzesbaugh, Another Believer, and Fpmfpm: So, what's the consensus on adding {{anarchies}} with parameter "Unrecognized autonomous zones"? NedFausa's unwarranted incivility (you keep sending me on fool's errands) is no reason to discard the whole request, and consensus doesn't mean unanimity. If there is enough agreement, this can move forwards. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Support as nominator. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Y Support Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• N Oppose insertion of any template that yields the heading "Anarchist-related territories" because that is a false description of CHAZ and we should not mislead readers by implying that CHAZ is somehow connected to anarchist-related territories. NedFausa (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, when the parameter "Unrecognized autonomous zones" is provided, the statement does not appear, and the word "anarchy" and its derivatives does not appear. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Support I'm fine with it, with the Ongoing Event concept in mind. Based on accounts on talk the event itself is trying to "re-focus" its message. However we are not the messengers, but if a significant body of reliable sources start to go in a different direction we should revisit this. To me the no police concept conveys the definition of anarchy or more accurately semi-anarchy. PR implications of the use of this term should be ignored, not our job. Jz (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzesbaugh: Comment Right, and to me anyway, it's quite unclear how much support the rebranding has. Even if the rebranding has wide support and RSs begin using that, the rejection of police is autonomy per se. A zone need not have "autonomous" in its name to be autonomous; indeed, most of the ones in the template do not. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Support The items included in the template box are diverse enough that we aren't implying too much by including it, while being similar enough that linking to them would be useful. On the whole, I'm OK with it, though I don't find it vitally necessary either. XOR'easter (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Y Support While this was never (nor never meant to be) an "actual" autonomous zone or territory like some of the others in that list, it is an "anarchist community project," per the infobox sub-heading – so it makes sense to include. I'm in agreement with XOR'easter in that "I don't find it vitally necessary," but I do support including it here. –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Fox News really a reliable source in this context though. Is there any more reliable secondary sources that refer to it as the zone's offical website? I'm going to see if I can't find anything. EnviousDemon (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Google Search gives me a Washington Times article titled "Seattle anarchists and their lunatic fringe list of demands" which I don't think is the best source to cite in a situation like this. I a slightly more relatable source gives me this ^[1], but it doesn't state who operates the website. EnviousDemon (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an official site – a concept that can't exist because of the fact it's decentralized "leadership"/organization. The "demands" page there is just copied from the anonymously-published Medium post and the events calendar is just the BLM Seattle–King County one, transcluded in their page, and same with the Twitch stream embed. I've talked to people on the ground and the vast majority haven't heard of any website (it's an in-person space!) – there's no consensus anymore about what the "official" name "should" be much less web presence created by a random person. There's also https://chaz.zone/ and https://capitolhillaz.com/ as well, just that these haven't happened to pick up as much traction. –Fpmfpm (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the concept with the thing. Of course the concept can and does exist. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With today's update, the proprietor of caphillauto.zone has answered our question definitively. "I am one person," he acknowledges at the bottom of his home page. "I do not speak for CHAZ, and I am NOT there right now." So much for an official site. NedFausa (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been requested. While its always a good idea on wiki to cite things, this may be a very meta area. The common name(referenced name) includes this, thus the self declaration is evident in the name itself. I would argue because it is the actual name and it leaves little room for ambiguity, it may not need a source as most of the sources used to construct the article reference this name. Adding this because citations were requested, but it seems self evident. Jz (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a bad thing, just a rare instance where the name itself is pretty much doing the job. Jz (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, it's no longer claimed to be an "autonomous zone" by the people there. It's now CHOP, and all that stuff about autonomous zones in the article needs to go. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the info about "autonomous zone," it could be moved to a "History" section as the article grows. BudJillett (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the most recent contretemps in the editing history... The template "part X, part commune" has been used by reliable sources at least twice (NYT, NBC). These descriptions have been copied by others across the spectrum (here's CNN for an example about in the middle, with Vice and Politico on either side of it). I wouldn't object to including "commune" in the lede and/or infobox. XOR'easter (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced and helps the reader conceptualize it. One of the issues with the article is that it DOES NOT fit a particular template. Comparisons made through good sources help alleviate that problem for the reader. I'm not saying that is where it should go, only that is a primary source of debate on this page is lack of ability to classify it. Removing comparisons that might help the reader understand should be considered carefully. My Two cents. Jz (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the complete removal of the word "commune" from the article as it helps the reader conceptualize the Zone but the removal of "commune" from the infobox is understandable without a source. My two cents. - Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No cited reliable sources currently call it commune, thus we can't call it as such. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two reliable sources describe it as "part commune", so we can say that it is, in some respects, like a commune. XOR'easter (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like a commune ≠ a commune. I believe more sources simply call it an occupation protests (even the new name CHOP reflects this), so we should incorporate that description into the infobox. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the language, images, and descriptions used in the text, perhaps it would be preferable for the article to be marked with the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" banner at the top.Astroceltica (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article has disputed neutrality. Refusing to put right wing conspiracies/unverifiable information is not "disputed neutrality". EnviousDemon (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing event is fine IMO. The thing is going to be a mess for a while. (Opinion: even the people on the ground don't know how to define it, and in the media, how the h*ll should we). That being said, work to do. Jz (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ongoing event" is probably the best banner we can use for a situation as intrinsically confounding as this. XOR'easter (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One should view ALL reporting sources to get an informed opinion, not just one type of source, as they are all biased. I would support the above mentioned tag, or failing concensus apply for Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard 86.93.208.34 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any official sources yet (beyond twitter and a youtube video from Status Coup), but it appears a similar autonomous zone formed in Philadelphia. Obviously, I'm not sure if it is notable for its own article, but I'm currently trying to find sources to have it in this article, much like the NAZ. EnviousDemon (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too! It looks like they're starting to get some local coverage. If I had to guess, sometime this week there will be enough sources for a Philadelphia Autonomous Zone. Juno (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• BLM Seattle on June 9, 2020 - 4.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so other editors are aware, this is very unlikely to succeed on the merits, as Crimethinc released the rights to the art, and the photograph on Flickr is CC-BY.[4] So, we should not preemptively remove the image, as one would normally do when there is a DR at Commons (because most DRs are likely succeed, but this one is not). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 15, 2020, Nice4What removed the sentence "Commune operating via mutual aid" from the infobox which was supoported by this Al Jazeera source, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/seattle-project-cop-free-world-200612213944832.html , which states "The result is a nascent commune, built through mutual aid and driven by a singular progressive message to address racism in the police. No cops may enter, and almost everything is free." The user removed the sentence with the claim that the source "describes it as appearing to become one" and that "nascent" means something "[in the] beginning stages of becoming" while it the world actually describes something that exists but is "just coming into existence" (which is the definition that Al Jazeera seems to be using). Nice4What's edits appears to violate WP:SYNTH and the removed content should be re-added. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about how Al Jazeera is using the term "nascent" (as opposed to, say, "proto-commune" or "aspiring future commune"). I don't have a strong emotional attachment to the removed content, but it seems more warranted than not. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Nascent commune" ≠ commune. This is a very controversial description of the CHAZ/CHOP. As I stated above, "occupation protest" is a more accurate description and the entity's new name reflects this reality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that new (or nascent) commune = commune. Multiple credible sources describe CHAZ/CHOP as a "self-declared autonomous zone" (i.e. a commune). "Commune" is not a controversial term, a commune simply "is an intentional community of people sharing living spaces, interests, values, beliefs, and often property, possessions, and resources in common." This all applies to the zone and was supported by the Al Jazeera source. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many other sources call it "part-commune". The hesitation to call it a commune (period) needs to be noted. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera and these sources refer to it as a "commune" or having a "communal hierarchy" (https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-chaz & https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/06/11/43892873/residents-of-chaz-respond-to-the-president-i-feel-more-at-peace-with-chaz-around/comments & https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/chaz-seattle-autonomous-zone.html) Please show the multiple sources that refer to it as "part-commune" apart from the source that's cited in the CHAZ article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the addition of a note describing the two names that CHOP supposedly stands for should be added. I added this note previously (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone&oldid=962772998) but it was removed without by NedFausa without discussion. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: Without a diff, I cannot tell which edit you mean. But if it's this one, the discussion ensued immediately following at your user talk page. NedFausa (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa:, no the discussion on my talk page was seemingly about the edits using the word "commune" (which is still being debated on this talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone#Removal_of_Al_Jazeera_commune_reference - please add in the discussion) but was made about "the zone" vs "the Zone". Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: The section on your talk page I linked to is headed Edit warring (The Zone to CHAZ). That section does not contain the word commune. Please provide a diff to my edit that you are disputing. NedFausa (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: Okay, but what does all this have to do with the "CHOP name"? Reminder of WP:NOTAFORUM, which I seemingly need a reminder of as well. Back on topic - would you be in favor of adding a note or at least a mention with the word "Organized"? It doesn't seem right that us Wikipedians have seemingly decided what the "O" stands for when credible sources are reporting two different things. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mt.FijiBoiz: Indeed, what does all this have to do with the "CHOP name"? You're the one who tagged me in this talk page section. I came here only to reply to your misrepresentation about there being no discussion of my reversion of your edit warring. Beyond that, I have no interest whatever in this thread. Please leave me out of it. NedFausa (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa:, I'm going to re-add the the note then per consensus with 135.23.94.254. Please do not revert and make claims of edit warring Thanks! - and thanks for your hard work on Wikipedia! Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Until it's positively clear that the CHOP reporting isn't citogenesis or something similar, we should probably keep a note of the originating source. 135.23.94.254 (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa and 135.23.94.254: Would you be opposed to the re-additon of the note (or a similar note) because the sources cited in the article state that the "O" in CHOP could represent both "Occupied" or "Organized"? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a series of edits Mt.FijiBoiz has, without discussion (much less consensus) at this talk page, globally changed the Zone from initial cap Z to lowercase the zone throughout the article. Since there have been intervening edits, I don't know how to undo this, so I am raising the issue here. NedFausa (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added from credible site CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/us/seattle-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-monday/index.html) shows the word stylized as "zone" and not the proper noun "Zone". This is not a name change that needs a consensus, it is a simple fix of a grammar mistake. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please find credible sources that refer to CHAZ/CHOP as simply "the Zone" (with the "Z" capitalized). Thanks! Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a few items that deserve looking at, I undid the mass deletion. Made a section to review anything that might be suspect in the see also section. Much of the talk page has been issues with classification, so sweeping edits like this might be problematic.Jz (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzesbaugh: Looks like it was undone by Nice4What. Given that a consensus seems to have been reached at § Time for a !vote, perhaps it's best for you just to implement the approved template therein, with the parameter. It was to replace "See also" anyway. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for more feed back here, before digging in. Add the template tomorrow.Jz (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wholesale removal of the "See also" section was uncalled for - it should be re-added but only concepts related to CHAZ, like mutual aid and counter-economics should be included. The other autonomous zones and areas can be included in the navbox, which hopefully will be added to the page soon. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add "also known as "Wokadishu". 73.239.218.203 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done—Tucker Carlson's aspersions are not yet relevant. If enough reliable sources (for example, many other pundits critical of the CHAZ) begin calling it this, we can reconsider it in the "Reactions" section. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting For Later addition: https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2020/06/with-seattle-police-staying-out-of-the-capitol-hill-protest-zone-the-camp-neighbors-and-businesses-struggling-to-solve-public-safety-issues/ Jz (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so what do you think super smart wiki people think the result of this antifa occupation of america's gonna be? 199.96.177.187 (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@199.96.177.187: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, I think at some point CHAZ/CHOP will be dismantled and us editors at Wikipedia must be prepared to change the article to past tense. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "heraldnet.com" item is simply a reprint of a Seattle Times story [5] about an event that the article already describes, and the CNN item does not appear to contain additional significant information. XOR'easter (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add under Reactions > National:

On June 15th Monty Python co-founder John Cleese critiqued a Fox News report that falsely claimed there were complaints about an unelected Warlord. The confusion came after a Reddit post quoted a scene from the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail.^[1]

🤘֍Ȼ╠╣Ḻ֎🤘 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Done, with slightly adjusted phrasing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* KUOW:

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

* Fox:

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

* KOMO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example with the terms coexisting: Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone—or CHAZ, although some newer stylings refer to it as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, or CHOP [12]. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• I agree the changeover to CHOP seems to have happened in Seattle media and city government [13], at about the same time last weekend the streets were rerouted and the area more or less officially defined. This is a good run-down: How CHAZ became CHOP: Seattle's police-free zone explained, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 16. There is a KOMO-TV clip done the same day that called it the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, or CHOP zone [14] (at 0:30), and KCPQ yesterday afternoon called it "Capitol Hill Occupied Protest" zone in writing [15]. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to announce that I am "retiring" from editing on Wikipedia as of today - June 16, 2020. I thank everyone who has contributed to the collaborative effort that has been the CHAZ/CHOP article.

However, I think I've found a technical error with the article. I was viewing the page from my wife's computer, which isn't logged into my account, and it appears to show a version of the article from yesterday. Can anyone else confirm experiencing this problem and, if so, how does Wikipedia go about fixing it? A glitch like this would rob readers without a Wikipedia account the opportunity to view the most accurate and up-to-date edits. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The browser was probably showing a cached version of the page from it's own browser cache. Not a WP issue. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Keith D. Tyler's assessment. BudJillett (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that "CHOP" is what local media are going with, e.g., [16]. 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]

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

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

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

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

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

Statements by various organizations have been added and removed on the grounds of being "primary" (and sometimes restored after that). Prima facie, it's hard to say why the World Socialist Web Site should be included and the Industrial Worker should not [17], or why National Review should be left in and The Cut left out [18]. I mean, maybe there is a reason; it just looks like a muddle from here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has been mentioned in the article before, but those appearances have been edited out, the most recent example being described two sections up. Reliable-source news coverage has scarcely touched upon Raz Simone since the earliest days of the CHOP, and everything the article included about him was ultimately based on tabloids and political commentators rather than reporting. The most I have seen in over a week has been an incidental mention. (A video posted to Instagram by Seattle musician Raz Simone, who's been a frequent presence at CHOP, shows fire department medics waiting a block away, despite the filmer's desperate pleas for them to respond to the scene of the shooting [19].) I am unconvinced that the WP:RS coverage warrants his inclusion here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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