Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024
Title incorrectly uses the word "protests" should be changed to "riots". Sections that mentions cost of damages use the word "insured" it is irrelevant and should be removed from each section mentioning it. NH51907646 (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RS say protests. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Contrverosial title and use of sources
The article is controversial to say the least. Most of these alleged "protests" were violent and resulted in widespread vandalism. These were not protests. Moreover, they took place during the Covid lockdown, in violation of the law. The motivations for continuing the protests shifted from George Lloyd's death to wider political demands, leading to the weaponisation of Floyd's for political gain. Little or none of this is acknowledged in this article, which often uses false or biased sources, mostly from only one side of the political spectrum. Discussion is silenced. In short, the article is very unbalanced and needs to be substantially rewritten. NPOV must not be removed until all these issues have been addressed. 86.6.148.125 (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Nationwide riots, a virus that has killed more than 100,000 Americans, a President threatening to unleash the military on citizens–how much more can the country bear? Every day in this awful, exhausting year feels like rock bottom, and then we tunnel further into some hideous crawl space. More than 40 million jobs have vanished in 10 weeks. One in four Americans is out of work. And the reckoning continues." Time Magazine.  Isn't that one of your "reliable" sources? Here's another from the same TIME article: "Not all Republicans are convinced. “Trump’s re-election chances are going down in flames,” says Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and Trump supporter. “It’s hard to see how these riots don’t boost Joe Biden’s claim to be the Alka-Seltzer America needs to soothe its stomach right now.” Stuart Stevens, a Trump critic who served as chief strategist to 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, notes that Trump won in 2016 with 46% of the vote because nonwhite turnout declined for the first time in 20 years. “You can call them protests, but you could also call them nonwhite voter-turnout rallies,” Stevens says of the racial-justice demonstrations. 'It’s hard to imagine anything that’s going to be more motivating.'" 170.117.214.231 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:or (and wp:soap]]), what I meant was, do they have any sources (not your opinions), such as newspapers or books. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV & Copy Editing
Hello all, I'm still relatively new here so I'm hoping I formatted this correctly and it isn't too long. Constructive criticism is always appreciated.

This is regarding the George Floyd Protests subsection; last sentence of paragraph three and first two sentences of paragraph five. For reference, I've included the sentences as they currently appear:

Missing POVs
The paragraphs above compare the findings from the two autopsies. They cover cause of death (CoD), physical signs of asphyxiation and contributing factors. To maintain balance and a NPOV both autopsies' POVs on these topics should be included since they are of equal weight. However, there a several instances where only one POV is mentioned. The private autopsy's POV on the CoD is included, but the medical examiner's (ME's) POV isn't. According to [84], the ME's full report concluded the CoD to be “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression”. The ME's POV is that there were no physical signs of asphyxiation, but the private autopsy's POV on the topic isn't included. According to [A] and [B] (both linked at bottom of this post), the private autopsy found hemorrhaging over the vertebral bodies, in the cervical region and on the outside of the carotid artery as physical evidence of asphyxiation. The ME’s POV on whether underlying medical conditions and drugs contributed to death is mentioned, but the private autopsy's POV isn't. According to [A] and [88], the private autopsy said that neither drugs nor underlying medical problems contributed to death.

Copy-Editing
Consider adding the ME's homicide ruling in the second sentence of paragraph five into paragraph three. The sentences from paragraph three discuss the ME’s findings, while the sentences from paragraph five deal with findings from the private autopsy. Keeping all the ME’s findings together makes more sense and improves readability. The information that the death was a homicide is included in [84] so [89] can remain in paragraph five. The first sentence of paragraph five references an "original autopsy report done earlier that week". There was no autopsy report from earlier in the week. According to [88], some preliminary findings from the May 26 autopsy were independently released by the county attorney's office in charging documents on May 29, but the only actual autopsy reports were from the ME’s office and the privately commissioned doctors, both released on June 1. I'm going to assume the reference was to the preliminary findings and propose it be edited accordingly for accuracy. Add some wikilinks for the medical terms so readers know what they are.

Proposed changes
Copy-edit for clarity, add wikilinks, [A],[B] and missing POVs (additions and copy-edits underlined):

Change Protests to Demonstrations
Yes the George Floyd Demonstrations where largely peaceful, however they also included the largest amount of damage for any riot and over 30 dead, so I feel like a more nuteral term like demonstrations would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:102:2FC0:E042:8310:1E31:4E6E (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is nothing about the word "demonstration" that implies violence. Thus this seems to be a name change for no reason other than having one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)