Talk:U.S. national anthem kneeling protests

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Presephany.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NicoleVisconti.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cxndyoh, Lyniewong, E.frazin. Peer reviewers: JeshuaKJohn, Thesubtleart, Seanjaelee, Meghana Krishnakumar, Dallasnguyen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Notdamcat03.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Ratings decline"
To start, the citations are based on some very low polling numbers, (approximately ~2000 participants between the Yahoo and Sharkey Institute polls) bearing in mind that millions of Americans view these events. As for the Rasmussen Reports, the company is frequently accused of using a likely voter model to affirm its conservative bias. This hardly seems substantial enough to support the article's conclusion. I'm removing these statements for now. Please discuss them here before re-adding them to the article. 98.86.104.97 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV in reaction section
The reaction section has NPOV issues. It is skewed in favor of the criticism and away from the support. The Obama quote was editing in such a way that it read as if Obama was criticizing Kaepernick, when in fact he was offering measured support. Also, the section on the Kaepernick page is more developed, and should be integrated here on what is supposed to be the main page. --Theredproject (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I added a few statements from Bob Costas, Jim Harbaugh, and Dale Earnhardt Jr. to show both perspectives. --The steno pool (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Is "tradition" too weak a word to describe standing for the national anthem?
Looking into this, I learned that standing during the National Anthem wasn't just tradition, it seems to be the law. 36 U.S. Code § 301 - National Anthem spells it out. Of course, this isn't the sort of law that get's enforced in the US, but public figures disrespecting the National Anthem sets a bad example, and should probably be considered civil disobedience rather than simple protest. Burt Harris (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Burt Harris, thank you for pointing this out. I added "and law" with citations to the lead. KalHolmann (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The BBC citation added says: "The code is never enforced, however, and there is no punishment for breaching it." It is undue to state in the lead that it is against the law when there are apparently no legal repercussions for not standing. I propose to remove its legal status from the lead and explain the details with full NPOV in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Bagumba, that sounds good. At your convenience, please do so. We don't have to use the BBC's word "enshrined"—perhaps the more neutral phrase "codified in law" would work. KalHolmann (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * With the article's current structure, I'm not sure where's an appropriate place to provide a one paragraph or so background on the customs and legal aspects of behavior during the anthem. Article probably needs a reorg, as it currently reads like a blow-by-blow account of Kaeperick's and now the NFL's kneeling, and will probably just grow further as an WP:EXAMPLEFARM.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I added the section about the significance of kneeling. I also feel the article doesn't really explain the substance of what they are protesting very well.  I might add a summary of that as well. Then the protests and reactions can be more of a chronology? What do you think of that approach? --The steno pool (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I added that section, which I think is accurate until the Presidential tweets. After that, I think players gave a lot of reasons for why they protested.  The next step might be to summarize all of that. --The steno pool (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Just an FYI the code says "should," so to say it is "enshrined" in law is mostly false. 2:07, 24 September 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah I'm taking it out. Saying "enshrined in law" implies there's jail time involved for breaking it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This is WP:SYN territory: You're citing a section of the US flag code and applying it to a particular situation. Even if the actions are technically illegal, the overwhelming majority of coverage treats the controversy as a disrespectful breach of etiquette and not a law enforcement issue. –dlthewave ☎ 05:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The point in my mind is this particular form of protest crosses a line beyond simply exercising free speech, and gently moving into civil disobedience. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But calls to fire those disrespecting the flag are certainly justified as well.   As someone who's family, friends, and neighbors have put their lives on the line for this country, I tend to think that NFL players, coaches, and owners could find a more effective way to raise the issues of inequality than disrespecting the flag and national anthem.  Burt Harris (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * UTC)


 * "Officially, the rule is this: 2) Players, coaches, and trainers are to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or on the foul line during the playing of the National Anthem. You can see it in the league’s official rulebook under the “Player/Team Conduct and Dress” section, below a rule requiring players to be “uniformly dressed” and above one requiring coaches to wear a sports coat." from: https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/25/16358070/national-anthem-protest-kneel-kneel-rule 77.9.103.2 (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are the NBA's rules, not the NFL's.—Bagumba (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Not all countries are as permissive as the US. India for example, seems to have provisions for fines and imprisonment for violation of it's flag code. The US Supreme Court has found that private individuals violating the flag code for political purposes is protected under the first amendment, but that doesn't imply that the law doesn't have teeth under other circumstances. Those serving in the US Armed Services for example are expected to behave to a higher standard than private individuals under the uniform code of military justice. Similarly, NFL players have additional rules they are expected to comply with, particularly when in uniform. If NFL Players or their teams can be fined for showing skin against the rules, it seems appropriate to me that they risk fines imposed by their teams or the league for disrespecting the national anthem. The First Amendment limits the power of government, it does NOT apply to rules of business, professional associations or to use the public airwaves. Burt Harris (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

23 U.S.C. 301 says should and may -- mere suggestions. To have teeth, it would say shall. This matter already went to the Supreme Court in 1943, at a time of all times that one would have expected compliance. I rather doubt flag conduct is in an NFL contract beyond professional and sportsmanlike manner. Rhadow (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to further the discussion West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette protects those who don't salute or stand during the national anthem. If the Flag Code or National Anthem Code are going to be included then this case should be mentioned. In addition there is nothing in the NFL Rulebook that requires standing for the national anthem. There is however a game operations manual that does include a requirement that people stand during the anthem, however an NFL spokesman has said that it's an encouragement and not a requirement and that there will be no punishment if players choose not to stand. I haven't found anything regarding whether an employer can compel an employee to speak or stand and salute. The First Amendment protect citizens free speech rights from the government but not from private employers, so an employer can fire an employee for saying something that the employer disagrees with, however the employer may or may not be able to fire an employee if the employee refuses to say that the employer wants or stand and salute if the employer wants it. I haven't seen anything one way or the other on that issue. Ian m (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This thread rather misses the point. Us puny wikipedia editors do not interpret and apply the law. Instead, we write encyclopedia articles from a WP:Neutral point of view, and our text must be WP:Verifiable using sources Wikipedia defines as "reliable". So all the above arguments over the actual language of this court case or that statute is classic original research, which is prohibited here. The best way to avoid this pitfall is to distinguish between primary and secondary sources and to make abundant use of inline attribution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Kneeling
Maybe the finer points in the interpretation of kneeling during the National Anthem could be explained in the article - to readers from outside America. Apart from this old law mentioned above, to the innocent European bystander it only looks more respectful than standing, indeed, over-zealous. Glatisant (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The definition of kneeling could be explicitly defined here. If there are multiple definitions in different locations, this is the place the terms should be defined. Kneeling could then be differentiated into kneeling for the national anthem versus showing respect for the national anthem as well. Meghana Krishnakumar (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The main article U.S. national anthem protests describes the historical background of refusing to stand, which includes either "taking a knee" or remaining seated. The posture of protest is less significant than the deliberate act of not standing. KalHolmann (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see how the significance of kneeling during the anthem might be confusing to people outside the United States. English Wikipedia is read all over the world, so I think it is useful to read this article from eh perspective of someone not living in the Unites States. We also need to explain why some Americans are offended by it and others are not. I took at try at doing that and am adding a section about it.  I would love for a non-American to read it see if it makes sense. --The steno pool (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It'd be useful for Americans too.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that an explanation of the law/etiquette would be useful as background information. I would lean towards the BBC source which was written to explain the law and its lack of enforcement to a non-American audience. The flag code itself is primary source and doesn't explain the lack of enforcement. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added language about the Flag Code using the BBC article as the source. --The steno pool (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh ...it seems that has been edited to say the the Flag Code does not say that one should stand at attention during the national anthem. I am so confused.  The link to the Wikipedia article says that it does? Or at least that is how I am reading it.  I would say that IF the Flag code really does not apply then  we shouldn't mention it at all. If it does apply, than maybe revert to how it was?  --The steno pool (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a claim in this discussion that the Anthem is technically covered under a different section of the law than the Flag Code. However, [this source] and the BBC article imply that it's all considered part of the Flag Code, at least in common usage.
 * The whole thing is quite silly. Whether or not it's part of the Flag Code does not affect the letter of the law. However, stating that it is not covered by the Flag Code has no purpose other than POV pushing. –dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, CNN says that the NFL confirmed that players are encouraged but not required to stand for the national anthem. "Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem," the NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said last year. Can we just say that? --The steno pool (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The confusion is what is really the U.S. Flag Code? According to the Wikipedia article and this from miliary.com, the Flag Code is in United States Code Title 4. The BBC article points to "The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions", which seems to be a compilation of points related to the flag. As it alludes to "United States “Flag Code”" (the quotation marks around Flag Code are from the report itself), I believe it is conveniently expanding what is considered the Flag Code for report purposes.  It clearly says, "This report presents, verbatim, the United States “Flag Code” as found in Title 4 of the United States Code and the section of Title 36 which designates the Star- Spangled Banner as the national anthem and provides instructions on how to display the flag during its rendition.".  If we accept that Flag Code applies to Title 4, then Title 36 which deals with the anthem is not part of the Flag Code.  At any rate, since it is unclear at best which is the "real" Flag Code, we should remove from the article until there is clarity.—Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper
In view of the attention given to Week 3 of the 2017 season, which is already six paragraphs long and still growing, it may be time to review the essay Wikipedia is not a newspaper. How detailed must we be in keeping up with week-to-week developments? I suggest a one-paragraph summary of each week in which protests occur would suffice to offer encyclopedic coverage. KalHolmann (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: As a matter of fact, Week 3 can be summarized along the lines of "several players protested President Donald Trump's comments by either locking arms, raising fists, continuing to kneel, and in some cases, refuse to leave the locker room during the national anthem." Then it becomes a matter of which reference to use: New York Times, ESPN, or both. Just a brief one-liner; a full paragraph would stand out better. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose:The events that took place on September 24 in the NFL are significant. A protest of this magnitude as never happened before in the NFL.  It is not about a weekly accounting of who protested and who didn't.  The week before President Trump made his comments, 6 players kneeled, this week over 150 did.  Entire teams did not take the field during the national anthem.  Most others locked arms. If this were to happpen at this magnitude every week, I would agree with you. The protest s that happen most weeks should not be included. This is different though.  This has never happened before though and it may never again. We'll have to see what happens next week. This section of the article could use better framing, though. I suspect that will happen in the coming days and we get an understanding of just how significant this was. --The steno pool (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * strong oppose very notable events, can trim with time, agree above --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support However, practically speaking, it might end up being less of a headache to just cleanup later instead of trying to get a consensus on what is or isn't recentism. I'm pretty sure even week-by-week summaries will be overkill, as some weeks will be irrelevant in the bigger picture.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The people who read this article aren't going to care about exactly what each player on each team did during week 3 of the 2017 season. Most of that material is trivia. --05:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

US Flag Code is something different
While references to the US Flag Code in the article may be well intentioned, it is not technically correct. The flag code is 4 U.S. Code Chapter 1, while the National Anthem is covered in 36 U.S. Code § 301. Some parallels are valid, both seek specific respect for a patriotic symbol, but there are fine points which might make a difference. For example, the Flag Code seeks continuous protections of flags, while the respect of standing is called for only during playing of the National Anthem.

So for example, the Seattle Seahawks choosing not to take the field for the playing of the National Anthem is an effective yet respectful form of protest, which was not civil disobedience; but players or teams appearing on field (and on television) not standing for the anthem is disrespectful civil disobedience. Burt Harris (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The points I raised concerning the flag code still apply: Taking the law and using it to define this particular situation as civil disobedience is WP:SYN. Most coverage describes it as a respect or etiquette issue. Critics are calling for NFL sanctions, not prosecution under the law. –dlthewave ☎ 01:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

US Code 301 is actually a code that isn't enforced much like all other US Codes and is the current and accurate US Code adopted for playing of the National Anthem and displaying of the flag of the United States of America which is what the majority of these protests are doing. Below is a word for word representation of US Code 301. Clearly in section b it states the conduct or what you are supposed to do when the National Anthem is played both when the flag is displayed and not displayed. No matter what, according to Section 301, you are supposed to stand and place your right hand over your heart and face the flag when displayed, or face the singer or band playing or singing the National Anthem as if they were the flag. All active service members are required to stand and salute during the rendition of the Anthem. All former service members have the choice of either saluting or standing with their hands over the hearts. Section 4 talks about how you are to display the flag and what it represents mostly where the majority of the discussing here is both the flag and most important in this discussion the National Anthem which Section 301 covers. So if Section 301 were to be enforced then every player or anyone of that does not follow the law described in Section 301 could be held accountable for their actions and punished to whatever the law designates as the appropriate punishment. Remember in some countries, even if you are visiting them, you don't dare disrespect their Anthem or Flag because some punishments are far worse than imprisonment.

a.Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem. b.Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem— 1. when the flag is displayed— A. individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; B. members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and C. all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and 2. when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed. Charles-Joseph (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What changes to this article are you proposing?—Bagumba (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting the lead needs a rewrite to express a more NPOV.  I disagree with Dlthewave, raising issues of respect for the flag isn't synthesis, other NFL players are clear in their intent to show the respect that's called for in this country, e.g. [|Saints QB Brees: We should be standing for national anthem].  Burt Harris (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "show the respect that's called for in this country" is pretty strong POV there, so we're not going to just add the POV template to the page based on your POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to make sure that the lead paragraph is neutral as well. Couple thoughts: The article is about the protest, so the lead should give a summary of the protest without saying whether it is good or bad.  I feel like it does that, for the most part. I don't see a lot of adjectives, which is how it should be. That said, I am not sure if the link to the Trump protests is appropriate in this part of the article.  The protest started when Obama was President. While the protest on Sept. 24 certainly has a connection to Trump, I don't think it is fair to imply that the overall protest is directly related to Trump.  I think that link would be more appropriately placed further down the article. The steno pool (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The biggest reaction to date has been in response to Trump's comments. Many sources have said that response was more about Trump than what Kaeperick was originally protesting.  Given the magnitude of the reaction, it seems major enough to mention Trump in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LEADSECTION. We can describe Trump's involvement in the body of the article but the lead should be the overview from 30,000 ft.  At that level, the protests have received a lot of attention, both in support and opposed.  At this point, I don't see any reason for any greater detail in the lead.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Being that the reaction to Trump has received the most coverage since the protests began, it's one sentence in the lead seems like due weight.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of article tag
The revert of my tagging this article for attention was not done with due regard for Wikipedia policy. WP:WNTRMT WP:DRNC Burt Harris (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be consensus that an NPOV issue exists at the thread you started above at —Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Disputed information
The listed goals of ending "police brutality" and "racial inequality" have not been referenced to an authoritative (or any) source.

In fact, Kaepernick's reason for starting the protest have been consistently, and as recently as August 2018, been about "oppression." Although that oppression may be manifested in police brutality and racial inequality, if he (or other protestors) have state the goals are to end those actions, then it should be referenced.

Assumptions, speculation, and personal opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. If, as one editor has stated, the goals have been "oft-reported," then providing a reference should be trivial. Personally, despite repeatedly searching, I have never found any statement even close to "When XXX happens, we'll end the protest." Certainly, if the nebulous and unmeasurable ending of police brutality and racial inequality are the goals, then the protests will have to continue forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4100:B50:5C8:A9E0:7129:CB74 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well,, so there. Your opinions on what's nebulous and what isn't are, I am sure, well-suited for a Facebook page. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "So there" what? You've only provided more reasons of the protest - which is not the same as the end goal(s).  There are plenty of referenced reasons for the protests already given.  What is needed are referenced "goals" - what do the protestors want?
 * To make it simple, for the "police brutality" aspect, is it when the rate of police killings of black and white males are the same? Or no police killings of black Americans for the next year?  Or is it when legislation is passed mandating a certain sentence for any police killing?
 * For the "racial inequality," is it some federal legislation that isn't already in place?
 * One of the referenced reasons for the protests is "racism." Why do you not list "Ending racism" as a goal?  Or "Ending oppression of people of color"?  Or "Ending injustice in our criminal system"?
 * And please follow Wikipedia rules about ending disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.22.172 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me? Ask Kaepernick, though he's probably got better things to do than to discuss things with you. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You just proved my point. I am asking YOU, because YOU'RE the one making edits claiming what the goals are, not Kaepernick.  If you can reference Kaepernick (or other protestors) saying what needs to happen to end the protest (i.e. the goal), then this can be resolved easily.  Don't provide more causes of the protests, provide desired outcomes of it to end the protest.  3O dispute resolution started.
 * Please follow the rules for dispute resolution, and do not unilaterally end the dispute in your favor without actual resolution. Also, I ask you not to misuse the Disruptive reporting on me - I am following the rules and making reasonable requests to keep Wikipedia factual.  There is a dispute, and let's follow the process.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4100:B50:5C8:A9E0:7129:CB74 (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "YOU'RE the one making edits claiming what the goals are, not Kaepernick" is bullshit, and my citation of the NYT article proves it. You're just trolling. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies, seriously, you don't think there's a difference between causes for a protest and the end goals of a protest? Your NYT article talks about the causes.
 * In the 3O talk, a Volunteer note, IP editor: "Have you considered that the protestors may not have a specific ending in mind? Nothing prevents someone from protesting against "police brutality" without defining what that means or when they would end the protest. Also, what rule are you accusing Drmies of breaking?"
 * – Yes I have considered that a specific ending may not be in mind. In fact, my original edit stated the Goal was "Not Stated."  That was repeatedly removed by Drmies.
 * – The rule (actually process) is not following the Dispute Resolution process by unilaterally removing the Dispute Banner without us coming to a mutually agreeable resolution (or one by a 3O arbitrator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Sal (talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate to say goal "not stated" when this reliable source explicitly states Kaepernick is kneeling to "protest racial inequality and police killings of black people".  DynaGirl (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the real dispute is the wording of the infobox parameters. Perhaps “purpose” would be a better choice than “goals”, since not all protests have a clearly defined end in mind. That’s more of a discussion for Template talk:Infobox civil conflict, however. The template does have a causes parameter that might be useful. clpo13(talk) 03:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , since you're such a policy expert, please sign your messages and indent properly. This section looks like a mess. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * clpo13, user is at 5R with their two IPs. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I updated with DynaGirl's explanation that perhaps the Goal is to raise awareness. But it still needs to be referenced to someone saying that's what they want to come from it, if that's even the case. Sorry about the formatting, but rather than deflecting, let's deal with the dispute. What do the protestors want from the protest? Not what caused them to start protesting, but what outcome do they want from it?2Sal (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * clpo13, user is now at 6R. User does not seem to understand that I am not Colin Kaepernick, and needs to perhaps write Mr. Kaepernick a letter. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report, that's it. The rest is just a bunch of timewasting hogwash. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2Sal, you changed the wording from one which is explicitly supported by the reference to a wording which is not explicitly supported and then added a disputed tag . This honestly seems disruptive. Let's just stick to the source. The source says this is to "protest racial inequality and police killings of black people" . DynaGirl (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I significantly refactored this section to thread the discussion and avoid list gaps to improve readability and accessibility. The changes can be seen here. I hope it was acceptable and preserved the intended reply chain.Now, presumably, the goal of their protests—as with any protest—is to increase consciousness about that which they are protesting, especially when no other goals are explicitly stated. Perhaps it is also to normalize public protest and opposition of those issues. In both cases, the goal is achieved simply through the act of protesting. Consequently, the infobox's value for "Goals" are acceptable, especially given the sourcing. With that said, I did some searching and this is what the reliable sources say:Perhaps some of the sources above are worth inclusion, but overall they seem to agree that the goal of the protests are to raise awareness, provoke discussion, and set the preconditions for more actionable change. The protests have been criticized for lacking clear, specific, and substantive goals, but that the protests have the minimal goal of publicizing the issues about which they are protesting is uncontroversial. Now, do you have any changes to propose to the article? I have provided many sources above commenting on the apparent goals of these protests. Do they adequately address your concerns? If not, then what will? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 04:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Woo-Hoo!!! Some actual references that say it's to raise awareness about, not to end, police brutality, racial inequality, etc. IMO it would be best to state "Raise awareness about the oppression of black people" ("Oppression" is what Kaepernick repeatedly uses.) But I'm good as is. Thanks!2Sal (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I indented your message to thread the discussion,, by adding two colons before your post. My reply to you has three colons  to indent it so that it clearly shows I'm replying to you. In the future, please be sure to follow this convention; it helps ensure the discussions are readable and easy to follow, especially for those using screen readers.The sources I provided above demonstrate that the protests were about various things,  police brutality (which was one of the major ones and which was Kaepernick initial point). What I don't understand is what, specifically, you want changed here. Much of what you just said, and much of what the sources I provided above said, is already included in the article. It is explicit about the variety of reasons why the protests occurring, among which were police brutality and "oppression of black people" (your words)—the former is often seem as exemplary of the latter, especially among African Americans, as well. In fact, it's literally the first sentence of the article.If all you wanted was some sourcing, then okay, but I found all this from the top few pages of search results from a single web search. In the future, you can probably satisfy your curiosity by doing that yourself. If you have an actionable suggestion about this article, though, then it's best to be explicit and specific about it, such as in "change X to Y because Z". —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Addition of referenced text regarding "raising awareness" seems useful. Actually my main concern regarding 2Sal's edit was changing article text from "protest" to "raise awareness" so that it's no longer supported by reference cited and then adding a disputed tag. If we add sources for "raising awareness" then we do not need to tag it. There are plenty of reliable sources explaining the "goal" or "purpose" (and either "goal" or "purpose" seems appropriate ways to phrase this in my opinion), but IPs/2Sal, who appear to be same person, keep removing ref or changing text so that it doesn't match ref and then tagging it. DynaGirl (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If that is really all this fuss is about, then that's easy to resolve., this is a case in point of why being explicit and specific is so important here (as is being bold and doing the work yourself): it would have avoided all this stress and dispute and ended largely the same. If that's what you want changed, though, then now's the time to clarify that. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the sudden silence, did the one (or both) of the two blocks on the IP addresses above also block ? If so (and regardless, to the IPs), and you're reading this, it's best to read Appealing a block and Guide to appealing blocks, appeal your block, maybe in a day or two after you've given it some thought. Whatever changes you want done can wait, but any of the changes you want to make on Wikipedia are much less likely to occur if you remain blocked, so the focus right now should probably be on taking a break and considering that. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been so much written during this dispute but after reading it I still don't understand what was decided. The NYTs states that Kaepernick was kneeling to protest racial inequality and police killings of black people.  Kneeling was his method of protest.  He wasn't protesting to protest; he was trying to raise awareness with the end goal of ending racism.  This edit seems silly:   I've made this edit:   Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Goals vs causes There's the option in Infobox civil conflict to use causes parameter here if goals doesn't seem appropriate at this time.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but all this talk, all these electrons. Hey, Kap, what's your reason for protesting? Police brutality. What is your goal? To stop police brutality. You can insert a few other terms there if you like... Drmies (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually has Kap said either of those things?  If so, reference them and edit them in, instead of continuing to put words in Kap's mouth.  You make my point again that goals haven't been given - reasons for the protest a zillion times, goals not so much.  According to one of the protestors, Jenkins (ESPN reference above), "The goal isn't the protest.  The goal is to move beyond the protest and make some changes"  The currently listed goal "Protest police brutality and..." is obviously wrong. "To make some changes" - That's what should go in the box even though it leaves everyone hanging.  It's the only goal mentioned that's given by an actual protestor (vs people with speculative opinions about what the goals are).2Sal (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you can call him "Kap", but yeah, he said those things to me the other day. We were having millennial avocado toast. Anyway, I see your block expired. I hope that you took the time to read our policies on edit warring and socking, but I had also hoped that you'd expand your knowledge of Wikipedia by reading DEADHORSE, for instance. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Background information on anthem lyrics
Article has good relevance, has semi-detailed background. Neutral and well-balance. There could be some updates on more recent events and elaboration on the connecting events during and after occurrences of anthem protests. Underrepresented viewpoints from the context of the National Anthem and its background. I believe that background information regarding the lyrics of the National Anthem as it pertains to conversations of race is missing, thoughts?

JeshuaKJohn (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked there isn't already information about the lyrics. Some potential sources:
 * "Colin Kaepernick and the Radical Uses of 'The Star-Spangled Banner'", The New Yorker
 * "Colin Kaepernick and the Legacy of the Negro National Anthem", ''New York Times
 * "‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ and Slavery", Snopes
 * "COLIN KAEPERNICK IS RIGHTER THAN YOU KNOW: THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IS A CELEBRATION OF SLAVERY", The Intercept
 * "The unexpected connection between slavery, NFL protests and the national anthem", CNN Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2019

Should the name include "present" in it?
The name of this article is "Talk:U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present)". Should "present" be included in the name, or a timeline (2016-present) be there in the title? This article's title (and its link thereafter) will necessarily change once these events pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possible that as time passes, this article will be viewed to be about Kaepernick's kneeling and the chain of reactions to it, and the title will be changed. Then a summary of this can be placed at U.S. national anthem protests.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nike Sponsor pros/cons
I think the article can be improved by also mentioning some more research behind Nike's sponsorship of Kaepernick. Specifically, how people expected the backlash to lead to a fall in demand for their products and shoes in the long-run (not just the short-term) indicated by the protests and boycott, but also the recent reports that sales have remained very steady. Perhaps this could be a combination of appealing to the younger, more liberal population, while at the same time shows the in-elasticity of demand of Nike's products. Regardless, I think more information on the Nike deal might provide more insights in a corporate standpoint and what precedent this sets. Seanjaelee (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cause needs reducement, Critics not reflected, missing statistics
The critics section could be extended and/or seperated. In the causes there is debatable neutrality like pledging money. So the cause is that some rich guys spend some money??? It should be mentioned as consequence/reaction.

Also the current status of police brutality with statistics of black-black, black-white, white-black and white-white police-citizen murder rate should be included. Do you have any numbers from a democratic source regarding that to back up the claims of the protest? Or do you have a neutral source for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:8A60:C000:1:A535:4460:E442:C59D (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Cody Walker protests Australian anthem
This would make a good addition to the article. The Australian national anthem is "offensive to First Nations peoples".

"Anthony Mundine urges white players to support [State of] Origin anthem protest" Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Usually Not Televised
I am not quite where this should go in the article, or how to source this without doing "original research", but I will still go ahead observe that the pre-game National Anthem ceremony is usually not televised, except on special occasions such as the Super Bowl or a college bowl game. During the regular NFL season, the ceremony typically happens while the TV audience is being shown a long pod of commercials right before kickoff. In college football, the home team's pep band usually plays the Anthem about 15 minutes before kickoff while the players are in the locker room. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it doesn't seem relevant to the protests.—Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because all that fuss is over something which is (or was, before 2016, at least) a minor (and generally perfunctory) part of the game-day routine. Before the 2016 season, no one really cared what the players did during the anthem.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * U.S._national_anthem_protests_(2016–present) does say that players weren't required to participate until 2009. Like you mentioned, due to OR concerns, I wouldnt be comfortable mentioning the televised part unless a protest-related article mentions it.—Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Missing Links
Further down in the article where the events are time lined, there is coverage on the 2019 season which states Albert Wilson of the Miami Dolphins as one of three noted players that still protest, but there is no working link to his wiki as there is for the other two players. This is an important piece of information connection in the article as there are now so few people participating in the movement. Kilfmuny (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Title is misleading, it needs to be changed
The title makes it seem as if the anthem was subject to the protests, when everyone knows that Kaepernick started kneeling to protest police brutality and racial injustice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:2153:8f00:9464:fa11:100b:b21e (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence says as much. It is probably based off of the earlier created page, U.S. national anthem protests. If you have an alternative title in mind, feel free to initiate a requested move to a new title.—Bagumba (talk)

I would recommend a title of "Protests during U.S. national anthem (2016–present)". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What about "Taking the knee"? Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Distortion of taking a knee or doing the fist
One takes the knee or does the fist of Black Panthers, as a sign of disrespect towards a racialist state during the performance of a national anthem and/or in front of a flag.


 * 1) some people lie because of fear of punishment and claim they respect their racialist nation
 * 2) some people do the knee in front of nothing or in front of the cameras, because they want the state to remain racialist, but with new meaningless trends

Do the finger in front of the flag of Hawaii. The Union Jack (used as the canton) is triply Christian.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410c:2d62:4514:5346:2aa:1cb8 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) the majority rule doesn't authorize the nationalization of personal beliefs; the majority rule has limitations of authority according to human rights
 * 2) Christianity isn't aboriginal as many white-brained Native Hawaiians erroneously claim

"Taking the knee" redirection
"Taking the knee" (and similar) redirects to this article, but: Should "taking the knee" etc redirect to a more general article, covering other countries as well? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is exclusively American with little or no mention of other countries
 * The expression and action of taking the knee has apparently spread to other countries . Eg Google search for "take the knee Australia" returns . Searching for other countries: . Apparently the gesture is both in support of the US/international Black Lives Matter campaign, but also within Australia explicitly in support of the Australian Aboriginal deaths in custody issue.
 * Another option is to rename this article. The current title has always potentially misleading, as it began as a protest during the U.S. national anthem as opposed to being defintively a protest about the anthem.—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * my proposal : change the redirection now - review later :-) --Präziser (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Worth including something on any predecessors?
https://www.facebook.com/LittleKnownBlackHistoryFacts/posts/1831127126994718

EDLIS Café (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Eminem kneeling in the half-time break of the 2022 super bowl
Worth mentioning? --109.66.132.145 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source that makes the connection between Eminem kneeling and the national anthem protests? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Bogus "Human Rights Documents Online" citation
In the 23:12, 10 April 2019 revision, the "Human Rights Documents online" citation appears to be bogus. Kaepernick's direct quotes are available in various sources: Fabrickator (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Deafening Silence of Colin Kaepernick (The New York Times)
 * Garoppolo on Kaepernick protest: 'America, it's a great thing, we're all very blessed' (USA Today)
 * Colin Kaepernick explains why he sat during national anthem (NFL)
 * Colin Kaepernick’s Protest: Not Ideal But Effective (The Bottom Line (UCSB))
 * Colin Kaepernick joined by Eric Reid in kneeling for national anthem protest (The Guardian)
 * Did Colin Kaepernick Really Insult the Troops? (The Atlantic)
 * That source may have been in the article three years ago, but it isn't now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What would lead you to suggest such an idea? 10:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

2019 Superbowl
I just added this section U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_protests. I copied the text directly from Maroon 5, because I did not see anything about the controversy here. Right now the paragraph starts with Maroon 5, but it should instead start with those musicians who refused to perform. I'm hoping someone else might be interested in doing the rewrite and maybe providing some more WP:RS about the other musicians who refused to perform and anything they had said. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)