Talk:Capitol Hill Occupied Protest/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

C.H.A.D vs C.H.A.Z

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Flag and coat of arms

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

The caphillauto.zone website

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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 , but it doesn't state who operates the website. EnviousDemon (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

References

Camp Maroon

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)

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)

The article should refer to ”the zone” as an unlawful assembly and not a “zone”

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)

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.[1] 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)

"part commune"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removal of Al Jazeera commune reference

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Changing the Zone to the zone

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)

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)

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)

Citation for Autonomous Zone

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

BLM SHRINE PHOTO

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)

File:Black Lives Matter Shrine CHAZ Seattle WA.jpg

BLM Shrine in CHAZ area of Seattle WA June 10 2020

@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)

@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)

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

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

@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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

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

 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)

Attempt to set Police Station on Fire

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)

Mass Deletion of See Also

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)

@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)

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

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)

future of wokadishu

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)

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

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)

See also

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

---

@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)

---

@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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

Time for a !vote

@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)

• Y Support as nominator. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Y Support Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

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.

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

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

Adding a note about the "CHOP" name

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Neutrality

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Technical error or glitch?

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)

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)

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