Talk:Capitol Hill Occupied Protest/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Spelling out N-word

With this edit, Mt.FijiBoiz today spelled out the N-word in a direct quotation from a cited source that did not do so. I am advised by administrator El_C that per WP:CENSORED, Wikipedia can spell out that word even when the source itself censors it (for example, in square brackets)—because, we have a lot of readers who do not speak English as their native tongue that might be confused by seeing N_ _ _ _ _ written as such. When I inquired as to whether or not editors are obliged to spell it out, the admin replied: That is an editorial choice subject to local consensus. But it may. Accordingly, I seek local consensus. Should we spell out the N-word in Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone? Having already removed it, I obviously vote no. NedFausa (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning no I'd be inclined to stick to the source; spelling out the slur when the source does not seems a bit too much like indulging in adolescent "edginess". XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• @NedFausa: Isn't this editor supposedly retired? I'm quite honestly tired of their disruptive editing, and know that they can do better. If you're not actually going to leave, Mt.FijiBoiz, remove the template please and optionally use one that's more appropriate, like {{can't retire}}. And yeah, if it wasn't obvious, I  oppose spelling out this word in the article. N-word is a redirect, use it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a good reason to include the quote in the first place? If we're going to spell it out, there should be a really good reason. EnviousDemon (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

EnviousDemon: There is good reason to include the quote. In the second paragraph of the Shootings subsection, we write: SPD has not determined a motive for the shooting. (Contemporaneous reports by The Seattle Times and The New York Times treated the "shooting" as a singular event, but Lorenzo Anderson and DeJuan Young were attacked separately at different locations in or near the zone.) With this edit StAnselm removed reliably sourced quotations from City Council member Kshama Sawant, who dared to suggest "indications that this may have been a right-wing attack" for which President Trump would bear "direct responsibility, since he has fomented reactionary hatred specifically against the peaceful Capitol Hill occupation." KIRO-TV's June 23 interview with DeJuan Young, critically wounded on June 20, presented the first account as to motive from the victim himself. Significantly, Young confirmed Kshama Sawant's indications of a right-wing attack. His shooting, said Young, was motivated by racism. "So basically I was shot by, I'm not sure if they're Proud Boys or KKK," said Young from his hospital bed. "But the verbiage that they said was hold this 'N-----' and shot me." That quotation provides essential insight into his shooting and, more broadly, into the violent forces unleashed by the zone's lawlessness. "Hold this 'N-----'" is the most powerful part of Young's quotation, and should not be removed. But spelling out the N-word is unnecessary, inflammatory, and disrespectful to Black Lives Matter, which is at the heart of this Capitol Hill protest. Spelling it out would contribute to what XOR'easter previously called the swirl of sensationalism that comes at this event from every which way. Wikipedia should not stoop to that level. NedFausa (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the context NedFausa, however I support in this context, spelling it out, since mainly, this was a person of color describing an attack that allegedly happened. However, I also oppose using the quote if it can be avoided. May I suggest using "the victim reported being called racial epithets during the attack"?

• Neutral. I think it depends. If the quote is going to be included in the article at all it needs to either be spelled in full or redirected. To have the censored version not be the aforementioned redirect could possibly be confusing to non-anglosphere readers. Shush-Lynx (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Don't censor the POC speaker. Either include the quote or don't. Juno (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Do not spell out - If the source spelled it out we should have no qualms with also spelling it out. In this case, however, the source did not. It wrote "N-----." For us to assume that the missing five letters were IGG-- would be original research. For all we know the source said "Nachos." WP is quoting a source who is quoting the person. WP is not quoting the person directly. Chetsford (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Nachos? NedFausa (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

He could have called him a newbie or a nudist or a Narwal or a Nordic for all we know. Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Those would not merit being censored, though. El_C 00:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source in question's style guide. Chetsford (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a vague epistemological question, common sense should prevail. El_C 02:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"This isn't a vague epistemological question" You're right, it's not. The simple fact is we can't directly quote a source if we change the wording of the source. That's no longer a direct quote. We can indirectly quote a source but at that point we're asking if we want to use the "N" word in Wikipedia's own voice instead of that of the source or speaker. To which I also !vote no. Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the matter, but the it's-possibly-Nachos argument feels weak. El_C 02:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears you not only have no strong opinion, you also have no sense of humor. NedFausa (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I found it funny. I'm just talking about the flaws of being agnostic here. El_C 10:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of ambiguity, I think the text, if subject to expurgation, should be hyperlinked to the article about the epithet. We must imagine a reader who is completely unfamiliar with our culture trying to read this and make sense of it. They should have a chance to be educated. Jehochman ^Talk 01:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We must also imagine a reader, particularly a person of color, who is completely familiar with our culture reading this and being infuriated at Wikipedia's insensitivity—especially in an article predicated on Black Lives Matter—in spelling out the N-word. NedFausa (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, we've been through this before in regards to pictures of Muhammed. And let's face it: Wikipedia policy is to be insensitive. Having said that I oppose spelling it out, since we follow the secondary source. StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I vote Yes I'm about a million years late to this, but I've always believed censorship is never good. If the quote must be included, than quote it. My mother is not a native english speaker, and had no idea what N----- meant, as a personal example to add.
• No Again, late on this, but Chetsford is correct. The source of the quote is the paper, not the speaker (which would be WP:PRIMARY), and the paper, i.e. the source, says "N-----". Thus, that is how it should be included in the article. The question of what the actual word was, regardless of how obvious it may be, is not for WP to presume, or even elaborate upon. WP should print what the source -- the paper -- printed. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Naming individual participants

There are two sources that name and describe an individual's involvement with the garden development. The Crosscut article is subtitled with the individual's name: "In Seattle’s CHAZ, a community garden takes root: Marcus Henderson’s edible act of resistance began with a single basil sprout. Now he wants to feed a revolution and redefine public space." If RS states that an individual was key to the origin of the garden, @NedFausa: why is this seen as a problematic inclusion in the article?

The Seattle Times released an update today stating that protest activity continues at CHAZ/CHOP. The article included an image of three people as part of the leadership of Black Collective Voices, among them was Henderson. Since he spoke to and was photographed by 3 media outlets (Seattle Times, Crosscut, Stranger), it does not seem to be invading his privacy to state his involvement, per RS here. At this point, I support simply including what Crosscut (and to a lesser extent the Stranger) stated about the garden space, i.e. clarifying when it came about during the development of CHAZ/CHOP and who initiated it: a resident of the city rather than an outsider and/or "occupier". Seeking to discuss the matter before modifying the page. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cedar777: Oppose naming Henderson on grounds of WP:UNDUE. The sources you cite report that his involvement predates declaration of the zone, and that other volunteers and people from the neighborhood have provided most of the work and all of the supplies since then. We should keep this paragraph, and indeed the entire page, focused on CHOP, which is leaderless and abhors the cult of personality favored by journalists to inject "human interest" into their stories. NedFausa (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, The Seattle Times update to which you link does not mention Henderson, nor is he identified in the photo caption. Your assertion that he is part of the leadership of Black Collective Voices is WP:OR. NedFausa (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

He is indeed mentioned in the photo caption. It may require that you click on the drop down arrow. Cedar777 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The photo caption reads, Members of Black Collective Voices address plans for future protests and the situation at CHOP. Speaking is Naudia Miller, center, with Jesse Miller, left, and Marcus Henderson. XOR'easter (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. I stand corrected. NedFausa (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no problem with the timing of the garden. Again captions are a source of information, not OR. In the Crosscut article, although Henderson reports being active in the area "ever since the first Saturday" after the cars were set on fire (June 1), it does not state that he was gardening at that time. The article indicates that he began gardening after the police had vacated the precinct on June 8, the start date for CHAZ/CHOP. There is a caption for an image showing Henderson gardening on June 11. Therefore, he/an activist/Henderson planted basil in the park between June 8 - 11, conversations ensued and the garden area expanded. Volunteers supported this effort. Cedar777 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cedar777: Thank you for clarifying the timeline, which I misunderstood. I have restored the text that I changed. NedFausa (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @NedFausa:. It is worthwhile to be cautious when the media single out a personality of a leaderless group. No doubt this story will continue to evolve. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I found this an apt summary: Some of those sharing vocal opinions of the zone — anarchist hellhole? Utopian model for a police-free world? Coachella? — never set foot inside it. By contrast, numerous local journalists, citizens and activists covered the movement from the ground for days and nights, working to share the quickly shifting picture via streaming and live tweets. Part of the reason the area was difficult to capture was its fluid and leaderless nature, which continues today. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Source used to claim CHOP has disbanded is unfounded

1) The source used as reference for proof that CHOP was disbanded comes from a suspended twitter account

2) Barricades, Guards, and Tents still surround the East Precinct at this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9680:C750:F5CA:F865:3C3:304D (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Dissolution date has been removed. While I am not aware of the status of said twitter account, the Seattle Times article from today, June 25 confirms that there is ongoing activity at the site. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Twitter account is here; it has indeed been suspended, but we are not so lucky to have more detailed information available than that. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cedar777: Please provide a link to The Seattle Times article from today, June 25, that confirms ongoing activity at the site. There is no such story dated June 25 in our References section. NedFausa (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it has made it over to the main page. It is also linked in the section below. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on the trend of reporting that seems to indicate some remnant activity remains, I'd agree not datelining disbandment just yet and a cautious approach is best. Having said that, the fact that a RS chose to source this from a Twitter account that is now suspended is irrelevant. Neither the Twitter corporation - nor any profitmaking company - is the final arbiter of reliability and the fact it chose to suspend that account from hosting content on its server, for whatever reason, has no bearing on the reliability of statements sourced to it from a RS. Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that activity remains is well attested. We have a reliable source reliably reporting that on the ground, the announcement was called "fake news". We have a local news reporter doing the same [1][2]. We also have local news explicitly contrasting "rampant rumors on social media" with the actual situation [3]. We have a local newspaper criticizing the TV station's original report as being absurdly over-credulous [4]. We have the station that originally ran the story literally changing its title after publication, from "'The CHOP project is now concluded,' organizers say" to "Is CHOP ending? One organizer says yes, but protesters disagree". At the very least, we have grounds to give this weird little episode rather little weight. XOR'easter (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

For every source you cite that is calling it an unfounded rumor we have a source declaring it is valid. We don't have the leeway under the policies to conduct original analysis and decide which side is factual. In this case we need to present both sides. That said, fundamentally, neither of us are in disagreement. I agree it should be given very little weight. All I'm saying is that the reason it should be given little weight is due to more current reporting that indicates a remnant presence. The fact that Twitter suspended the account is irrelevant to that conclusion. A contract content reviewer working for Twitter is not the final arbiter of fact on Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Another shooting

Would somebody please add? https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-chop-shooting-protest 192.107.159.198 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. NedFausa (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate archiving of NPOV dispute

Why is the NPOV dispute archived (missing) on this talk page? [Afterthought added 14:30, 30 June 2020:] Warnings were dismissed that people might get hurt mere days before people were actually killed. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines advise: Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. What constitutes a "stale" discussion is left to local consensus. In this case, automatic archiving by lowercase sigmabot III has been set for threads with no replies in 7 days. This was done only after the talk page had surpassed 75 sections and editors agreed that more aggressive archiving was appropriate. The archived NPOV discussion can now be found here. While a thread may be unarchived by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive, that would best be done as the result of consensus. The guidelines further advise: Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion. NedFausa (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Territory

The Seattle Times article from June 29 contains a statement within the graphic map stating "Core area of CHOP-specific boundaries vary daily". At the least, the article should mention something to this effect, no?

I have read a few news reports defining the shrinking boundaries over time but have yet to organize and relocate the sources for specifics. Territory section would be improved by more clarity on where the boundaries were at the outset, followed by how they have changed week by week. Must step away from this for a bit (after a mighty dark news day) but plan to look for details on territory later. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Questionable use of {sic}

At a June 29 news briefing, Police Chief Best identified herself as "an African American woman." She also said, "Two African American men are dead, at a place where they claim to be working for Black Lives Matter." In reporting this, The Seattle Times added, "Seattle police initially said the person who was killed Monday was an adult, but later corrected that to 16 years old." Wikipedia originally quoted Best verbatim. Now Bri has inserted {sic} after "men" in Best's quotation, explaining in his edit summary: we said "boy" prior. note discrepancy with "sic". If there is a significant error in the original, MOS:SIC advises, follow it with the template {sic} to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. As it stands, however, our pinpointing of "men" as a significant error by Chief Best, without informing readers about the SPD's early misidentification prompting the chief to misspeak, seems like Wikipedia is drawing attention to the political correctness of an African American public official straining to avoid using boy (with its racist connotations) in describing a fellow African American. This is not a good look. NedFausa (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should identify the individuals by age instead of man/boy. I noted that the June 20 death, called “man” by most media, was an individual who had graduated high school one day before he died. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I've questioned your tinkering with GF edit of the verbatim quotation from the chief of police. You can revise content before and after that quotation as you see fit. But inserting {sic} therein is problematic. NedFausa (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please don’t describe GF edits as “tinkering”, it’s kind of condescending. I’ll wait and see what other people say here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of that quote in the lede seems like excessive detail to me. It should be saved for the appropriate section of the main text, where the needed correction or clarification can be given in full sentences, rather than hoping that the meaning of a "sic" will be clear. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it is confusing for readers to have the 16-year-old referred to as both a man and a boy. Summarizing Police Chief Best's position (as expressed during the press conference of June 29), without directly quoting her words, would clear this up. I also support the above suggestions to list the victims by age rather than man/boy and to shift the details of the quote into the main article, rather than the lede, to better serve readers. In my view, it makes sense to simplify the language of several other views currently quoted there as well. Cedar777 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Government

The government in Anarchist. Someone should add that. Nitric Acidd (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"The government in anarchist?" Nah. Personally, I don't think the article is worthy of its own entry on Wikipedia either.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

June 29th shooting updated details

African American Antonio Mays Jr was the victim. Reaper7 (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Cited source does not identify race of victim, which I have removed from our article. NedFausa (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Update. I found a reference to identify victim's race, and added it to our article. NedFausa (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Background "location"

I've posted under talk before but it's been a while. Under the "Background" section in this article it lists Capitol Hill as being in "Downtown" Seattle. I live a couple of blocks from CHAZ/CHOP on Capitol Hill and it is very much not "Downtown". In fact, the Wikipedia article about Capitol Hill claims it is "just east of the city's downtown central business district". Capitol Hill is east of I-5 and downtown is west of I-5. Since there's no "Edit" option for the "Background" section I'm not sure how else to correct this. I believe describing Capitol Hill as "just outside of downtown Seattle" or "northeast of downtown Seattle" would be valid. EDIT: You could even call it "central Seattle" but it's just not downtown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill,_Seattle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasm69 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have modified that sentence to bring it in line with the description in the Capitol Hill, Seattle article. There isn't an "edit" option because the article is currently semi-protected, meaning that it can only be edited by users whose accounts are at least four days old and who have made at least ten edits. This is a fairly common precautionary measure for articles that attract drive-by vandalism, including controversial current events that are much in the media spotlight. XOR'easter (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Time for a page move?

The possibility has been raised before, with no firm consensus emerging, but that was multiple weeks ago. To my eye, the coverage since then seemingly settled upon "CHOP" as the common term, with "Capitol Hill Organized Protest" the preferred expansion. What do the folks here think? XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Support moving the article to CHOP for Capitol Hill Organized Protest as this was the most commonly used name after the first week. Better to have CHAZ as a redirect. The CHAZ/CHOP was an entity for approximately three weeks, two weeks of which it went by the modified name CHOP. There was a lag until some of the media outlets made the change but it is clearly documented in the article as an agreed upon choice by the majority of demonstrators made on June 13. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: please use the procedure outlined at WP:RM. Are you proposing CHOP? StAnselm (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I wanted to sound out the idea and find if there would be any support at all before starting the whole WP:RM process, with the templates and all (and to see if I'll have a contiguous block of available wiki-editing time this week...). A more detailed proposal will be forthcoming, I hope. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Leadership Mentions - Currently Only Raz Simone - Shouldn't Others be Named?

According to this KIRO7 report:

suspect-arrested-near-i-5-downtown-seattle-after-fleeing-police

• SEATTLE — Seattle police on Thursday arrested a prominent leader of CHOP, the protest zone they cleared Wednesday.
• Multiple sources identified the man arrested after a brief chase from Capitol Hill to I-5 as a protest leader known as River.
• He was among the CHOP leaders who met with Mayor Jenny Durkan last week.

So, there is at least one other leader, "River." This man has been in the media in reference to CHAZ described as its leader, in one story confronting Seattle activist Andre Taylor (founder of the Seattle based group, Not This Time, www.notthistime.global) and in other reports is shown leading internal rallies in the capitol zone. There are at least three media sources referencing him as a CHAZ leader such as the Seattle Times and KOMO-TV news. Would adding to the section Internal Governance, besides the sentence naming Raz Simone, another reference to this man, River, be prudent?

Thanks for any comments. This is Wikipedia. Please participate.

Keep up the good work. 172.250.237.36 (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC) בס״ד

Naming additional individuals who had some kind of leadership role is, in principle, fine; however, we must be careful to distinguish between those who led an individual protest event (e.g., marched at the front of a single specific march), those with a greater organizational role, and those who get tagged "leader" in some media coverage simply because it is a convenient designation for an identifiable public face who is willing to go on television. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

We have settled on the duration of Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone from June 8, 2020–July 1, 2020. However, protests in the area have continued, as reported by multiple sources that we cited in documenting the occupation. On July 20, for example, MyNorthwest.com reported:

Police say 12 officers were injured, several businesses damaged, and two people arrested during a large demonstration that began in downtown Seattle on Sunday. ...
The group made its way up to Capitol Hill where police say people committed more property damage and looting. A fire was set inside one of the businesses after the windows were busted out. Several people smashed the front windows at the East Precinct. Someone threw a large, mortar-type firework inside the precinct's lobby, causing a small fire. It was quickly extinguished.
Once at Cal Anderson Park, the group of demonstrators dispersed.

My question is: should these protests be included in our article? CHAZ/CHOP sprang from and existed within a larger sociopolitical context, which it then profoundly affected. Subsequent demonstrations on Capitol Hill, particularly involving the East Precinct, may in part comprise the occupation zone's legacy. To ignore that seems unencyclopedic. NedFausa (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In the 11 hours since I created this talk page section, there has been another development that illustrates the need for continuing coverage past July 1, 2020. Donnitta Sinclair, mother of Lorenzo Anderson, the 19-year-old man shot dead in the zone on June 20, has filed a wrongful death claim against the city of Seattle, alleging that city officials created a dangerous environment and failed to provide medical help to her son as he lay dying. Her claim, reports KOMO-TV, "is the first step toward a lawsuit that she plans to file against the city of Seattle. Under state law, a claim must be filed 60 days before filing a lawsuit." Obviously this relates to CHAZ. Just as obviously, it's unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. How do we deal with this? NedFausa (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I had contemplated writing an "Aftermath" section of some sort, since I'd seen some retrospective coverage (here's a browser tab I had open, which led to this item on the wrongful death claim you mention). I'm a bit concerned that the article, which is already on the bulky side, could become a catalogue of every protest happening in the Seattle area, but that's an issue we can face when we come to it, I suppose. XOR'easter (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right to resist cataloging every protest in Seattle, and of course we should not do so in this article. However, when a violent protest on Capitol Hill targets the East Precinct, or when Lorenzo Anderson's mom files a wrongful death claim against the city, it's clear that our task of documenting CHAZ is not done. NedFausa (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Though a bit of sifting through the reports on, for want of a better term, local politicking will be necessary to find the items that are pertinent here, rather than to area protests more generally. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I concur these issues are pertinent. Both the successive vandalism and riots, the wrongful death claim, are pertinent. Additionally, the case of Horace Lorenzo Anderson Jr. and his father's claim that the Mayor, J. Durkan, has not made any condolence call (yet actually President Trump did call him) is an issue that should be noted in the article. The fatal shootings were crucial in making the Mayor aware that this situation had to be shut down. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of the aftermath section w/ some additional content, provided it is well aligned with CHOP. Aware there are several reports of other cities in the US that engaged with similar actions (brief in duration). A few events with a strong connection to CHOP are worth a mention, in particular the group of marchers who regularly gathered in the zone, were also the ones run down by a car on I-5 on July 4, killing one and severely injuring another of them.

Portland has its own page for the lengthy protests whereas Seattle currently does not (only a section in WA state and the CHOP). It may require one eventually. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added a "see also George Floyd protests in Washington (state)" so there's at least that much of a pointer to the more general context. I followed the I-5 incident [5][6] but don't have reporting on hand that directly states the marchers there were CHOP regulars. It's a natural inference, of course, but we shouldn't put that in print without explicit confirmation. XOR'easter (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Seattle has a separate page now. Agree that the July 4 event on I-5 is less clearly connected to CHOP than other actions, and that it and other events outside CHOP are better served on the new Seattle protest page. Cedar777 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional coverage

Here are some additional stories that may merit inclusion into the CHOP article. Cedar777 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• June 9 KUOW Woman in cardiac arest after being hit w/ blast ball

• June 12 BBC George Floyd: Trump told to back off Seattle's Chaz police-free zone

• June 15 Crosscut Black clergy voice strong support for Seattle Police chief

• June 17 BBC George Floyd protests: Who are Boogaloo Bois, antifa and Proud Boys?

• June 17 Crosscut The future of Capitol Hill’s protest zone may lie in Seattle history

• Jun 18 Seattle Eater What It’s Like to Eat Inside Seattle’s Much-Discussed Protest Space

• June 26 Crosscut Meet the citizen journalists inside Seattle's CHOP

• July 2 The Intercept Seattle's CHOP Went Out with Both a Bang and a Wimper

• July 18 Tech Crunch, For Seattle’s cop-free protest zone, tech is both a revolutionary asset and disastrous liability

• July 21 BBC Seattle sued by family of man killed in autonomous protest zone

• July 2 KUOW As city workers dismantle the CHOP, Omari Salisbury reflects

• July 3 KUOW What protesters learned from CHOP's dueling Twitter accounts

Unclear

"Local governance in the zone was decentralized, with the goal of creating a neighborhood without police."

Unless I'm missing something this really could do with re-casting, and probably reframing. It's not clear what it's trying to say, or what it says.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough:, I agree that wording in the lede and the entire Internal Governance section needs to be more fully researched and rewritten. This seems to go along with addressing leadership (another section below), a contested issue that involved several individuals and a handful of loosely defined groups that had temporary webpages and twitter accounts. Singular leadership was deemphasized, but there were a few names that came up more than once.

Challenges also exist for finding the protesters concrete demands in actual RS, not just on Medium, and how they evolved over the three week period of CHOP. Perhaps its worth compiling a list of sources specifically addressing these issues here in talk, or in a new section. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of media bias in reporting

I believe this may warrant an entry on the article. The inclusion or exclusion of news coverage regarding CHOP, even news that can be considered critically important, varies strikingly between US news organisations depending on their political affiliation. https://www.foxnews.com/media/seattle-chop-violence-media-insisted-peaceful 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe - let's see how it develops. Ed6767 talk! 01:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox News focuses on what it calls "spin" by The Seattle Times, making it "perhaps the most egregious when it came to celebrating the cop-free area." Our Wikipedia page relies heavily on The Seattle Times, which accounts for 18% of our references (32 of 177). If we editors have succumbed to spin, this article will require a significant overhaul to comply with WP:NPOV. NedFausa (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree and see no logical correlation between the news source and your inferred conclusion. Your worry that the Wikipedia article will require significant overhaul if we are to question “The Seattle Times” is false logic. The wikipedia CHOP page is created by editors who weigh all reputable sources and therefore cancel out any potential inherent bias of using only one source. This is proven by the fact that “The Seattle Times” only accounts for 18% of the sources used, far from a “significant” percentage. The editors have therefore not succumbed to spin and there is no need to overhaul the article.

The allegation in the source of some media channels “picking and choosing” which news to publish on CHOP and which to hide are easily verified. The absence of negative news articles on CHOP (including violence, shooting, murder, even its dissolution) on CNN and MSNBC front pages, are noteworthy.

If this political censorship reaches a level that garners attention, it may need to be reflected in the article. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox News literally Photoshopped pictures of the CHOP [7]. Why should they be taken as arbiters of who is biased? Moreover, the allegations of media bias in the aforelinked are recapitulations of claims from NewsBusters and the Media Research Center, essentially propaganda outfits deemed generally unreliable by Wikipedia consensus. Nor have the Seattle Times — or any local media that have reported at any substantial length about the event — flinched away from the violence that took place. XOR'easter (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

But MSNBC and CNN are totally reliable and unbiased and not by any stretch of the imagination essentially propaganda outfits? Hahahahaha! They’ve both been that for at least the past four years. Boscaswell talk 03:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In terms of political news we should try seeking out alternative sources. CNN, Fox, CBC etc have shown extreme bias as of late.Even the general public has started noticing. Kysier (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

These protest events are complex and often not a matter being either/or, i.e., either peaceful or violent, either they generated needed dialog or engaged in pointless destruction. Rather the protests are, in fact, BOTH/AND, both peaceful and violent, they both generated needed dialog and engaged in pointless destruction - which is why it is genuinely hard work to act as a Wikipedia editor to carefully read large amounts of material and then distribute WEIGHT accordingly.

Thankfully, there are nearly always alternatives to CNN and FOX, the latter of whom made the news itself for poor quality reporting on the CHOP as they photoshopped a fabricated composite image of a man with a rifle as part of their news coverage (a totally appalling act for a news outlet and not unlike a tabloid might do!). Later in their coverage of CHOP, one of the FOX reporters got into a conflict with a group of activists near the zone who then hassled and boxed the reporter in, demanding an apology, which also appeared in the news cycle. Earlier this year, FOX ran aground when trying to report the news recently in Washington DC.. The Seattle Times inevitably, has some inherent bias, as with all organizations, yet it has somehow managed to avoid photoshopping images for its stories.

The CBC generally does solid reporting on par with the BBC, and has high credibility for their factual reporting. Not sure what the source is for the "extreme bias" mentioned about the them above. CBC has a bit of distance from the US and are not as enamored with American culture, which can provide some objectivity and useful perspective, especially when things get whipped up into a frenzy frothy down here during an election year. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox News has apparently been under review at Wikipedia during June/July with a modification to their reliability status. WP:RSP The result has been a downgrade but the details are still being finalized. Posting this for anyone else who may be unaware, (though it's likely I am the only one not following the relevant pages). Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Tusitala "Tiny" Toese is a member of Patriot Prayer

I don't know where KOMO-TV gets its information, but Toese has been long associated with a group based in Vancouver, Washington known as Patriot Prayer. I know this because this scumbag group has been an annoyance in Portland, insisting that, although as welcome as a COVID-19 outbreak, they exercise their "Freedom of Speech" in our city, & Toese is one of the most prominent members. His association with Patriot Prayer is attested in these sources: Willamette Week, 12 September 2017; Willamette Week, 24 May 2018; Willamette Week, 20 February 2019; Oregon Public Broadcasting, 23 June 2020; & countless other sources which I'd be happy to share here. Reliable sources have been known to be wrong. Besides, he's not Caucasian, so Proud Boys would not be eager to let him join, no matter how well he abstains from masturbation. Unfortunately, Toese belongs to this local RWNJ group -- not the better known RWNJ group, Proud Boys, although he has probably associated with them. -- llywrch (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Slowly learning more about Patriot Prayer, Proud Boys, and in particular, Toese who has apparently been covered by news media for his activities in the Pacific NW for several years now. From the WW articles linked above, he seems to have a pattern of associating with individuals from both groups: Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. From what I can gather, Patriot Prayer is a regional group more specifically linked to the Pacific Northwest while the Proud Boys are both more widely known and distributed with classification as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center.

It may be worth concisely summarizing his notoriety, and the history of law enforcement enabling him for a time, in order to contextualize what his appearance at CHOP meant to activists at the site. There are several other articles that specifically cover his involvement with CHOP that I will make an effort to add in another comment. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Llywrch: It appears Toese, who a number of reliable sources report as associating with both groups, made a public announcemnet of his change over to the Proud Boys, sometime before February 2019, according to this report. Cedar777 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Name change logic, edit summaries needed

Mt.FijiBoiz, There is a wealth of evidence in reliable sources that the main name in use is Capitol Hill Organized Protest. Review the inline citations for confirmation before you change things. I understand many have strong opinions regarding what this place was and what it "should" have been called. However, Wikipedia required reliable sources. Yes, there are still outliers calling it the other names, but the overwhelming majority setted on Capitol Hill Organized Protest. Cedar777 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I still favor "CHAZ" its the original name, its what the founders called it, and I still see that in the news. Juno (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• The balance of usage tilted heavily in favor of CHOP, with "O" standing for "Organized". We go by common names, not original ones. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Once again, anyone who thinks the same should be changed ought to propose the new name via WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo with the word 'seperate' in the article. I love TV and pizza! (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Disputed content

I have concerns about the sourcing and prose of the content removed last month, restored, removed (by me for reasons I'll explain momentarily), and restored again. It seems that discussing these points in more depth is the way to go. I think we can workshop the prose to address all of these.

• SPD had attempted to respond but was, according to its blotter, "met by a violent crowd that prevented officers safe access to the victims." This puts SPD's intentions in wiki-voice, rather than merely stating what they claimed their intentions to be; following the sources given, the according to its blotter is a qualification that should apply to the whole statement, rather than only the second half.
• The teenager who was killed was an African American... This version of that sentence reads more awkwardly to me and is partly redundant with the previous sentence, which identifies the late Lorenzo Anderson's age and race.
• The deceased victim's father told Sean Hannity on July 1... Per WP:RSP, "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, [...] should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions." This skirts uncomfortably close to that line. Sources further from the origin would help evaluate how much we should say on this point. The remainder of the paragraph goes into spokesperson language, incorporating a verbatim quote that sounds much like any memorial service anywhere, imparts no specific information and was not itself given the kind of close study by secondary sources that would make including the exact words a matter of due weight. Moreover, mentioning the telephone conversation with Trump but not the one with Durkan reported in the same source is uncomfortably polemical. (Since the activists of Seattle seem to want her removed from office, both left- and right-wing partisans might have an interest in portraying her as callous, but it is not our job to serve either.)

Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Executive Order

It should be noted that the executive order to end CHOP was issued by Jenny Durkin on the day after protestors marched to her house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

They love violent riots until it comes to their backdoor. Azaan H 09:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Summer of Love

Can we include Jenny Durkan comparing the protest to the Summer of Love on June 11th? I'd suggest adding it after "block party atmosphere" in the lead, and in either the Internal governance or Reactions sections. --Steverci (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see anything wrong with including it somewhere, but I'm not sure where the due-weight considerations end up. To make that judgment, we'd probably need additional sources; for example, the Washington Examiner is yellow-flagged at WP:RSP, and the Baltimore Sun item is an opinion piece, which we shouldn't cite for claims of fact. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's some more additional sources. Steverci (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I will have to return when I have more time; for now, I'll note that the Olean Times Herald item appears to be another op-ed, and the Forbes item is a "contributor" piece (which doesn't actually attribute the "summer of love" remark to Durkan — though I suppose plenty of other people might have said it too). XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Will the Canyon, Q13, and NYTimes sources be sufficient? Also, I found one more. --Steverci (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"Shootings" Missing Information

The information in the "Shootings:During the Zone:June 29th" mentions a publicly available video that covers the shooting and mentions quotes from that video about "multiple vehicles" and "multiple shooters" but fails to mention the portion of that video in which audio appears to capture the alleged execution of one of the shooters. This can be viewed in a tweet here. A person can be clearly heard in the video saying, "Oh, you're not dead yet?" then asking, "Yo, you want to get pistol whipped?", with what some are calling a single gunshot following. It's unclear if it is a gunshot or something like auto glass being broken, and honestly to me it sounds nothing like a gunshot especially compared to the other gunshots recorded from the same distance. This audio should still be mentioned as the current mentions lead the reader to believe the video ended after the jeep crashed when it does indeed continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C4:202:C5C1:20:1B9F:9B58:73BE (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Are there secondary sources on the topic? Wikipedia isn't in the business of forensic investigation; we report and summarize the conclusions of others, and when it comes to crime, we have to hold ourselves to a high standard about what is determined versus merely alleged. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 2 September 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:

• Bt-spd (50057534427).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Good article?

Thoughts on whether or not this entry meets Good article criteria? Anyone interested in nominating? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The intro is overlong and overly detailed, and I'm not sure about the quality of all the sourcing (a few mediocre items may have slipped through in the rush of documenting an ongoing event). But maybe it's not far. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, Agreed. Meantime, I've submitted a request for a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Can't hurt, right? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: The copy edit has been completed (see banner at top of talk page). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Video content

it would be great to include video stuff such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUO8secmc0g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:C400:D240:E479:A671:2C2E:76F2 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHw5ZosmgO8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:C400:D240:E479:A671:2C2E:76F2 (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Recording of entirety of CHOP refused?

Hello, I am a Capitol Hill resident who spent much of CHAZ/CHOP systematically recording and broadcasting live streams of CHOP for the Seattle community, without commentary or monetization, while relating them all to a consistent timestamp. In December I truncated some 24+ days of almost continuous live broadcast of June into a half-hour timelapse and a few days ago tried to add it to the External Links on this page as a resource for researchers.

However, the edit was undone within a half hour for the reason of "self-promotion." I do not understand this - surely it is not just because I chose this account name? This is the name of the account that did the original broadcast, and nothing else; there is no identity to promote. I cannot imagine that the CHOP page refuses to have listed an almost full video record of the entirety of the page's topic while it happened, but I am not used to editorial on Wikipedia. I just want to see this historically relevant overhead record to be available to researchers of the topic on this page - what can I do if not add to External Links? Is this kind of resource really the kind of thing Wikipedia intends to exclude?

Fieldcharge (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources to primary ones, and has pretty stringent guidelines for when self-published sources (blogs, social media, personal YouTube videos, etc.) can be used. There are times when I've wished this wasn't the case — I've certainly written things that I've thought were better than any of the references in an article — but it's a limitation imposed by the nature of the project. We don't have the resources to fact-check every blog post or scrutinize every video to make sure it wasn't deceptively edited. No doubt we lose some good things with this ethos, but that's the price we have to pay for keeping out a whole lot of bad content. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fieldcharge, would you be interested in releasing some of the footage/timelapse under a Creative Commons (free use) license and uploading to Commons? Then it could be used across all Wikimedia and free culture projects. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There's consensus to move, based on analysis of sources published after the name change that show that the new name was adopted by independent sources per WP:NAMECHANGES. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone → Capitol Hill Occupied Protest – This was last discussed back in July, though not as a formal request. Looking at RS it seems to me that CHOP is more common than CHAZ, though perhaps the most common is "CHAZ/CHOP" or "CHOP/CHAZ" or things like "CHOP, formerly known as CHAZ". It is rarer, in my experience, to see RS say CHAZ without also mentioning CHOP, but not the reverse so much. Pfly (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The balance of sources seems to have tipped that way. XOR'easter (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm not seeing it. Look at News hits within the last month. The current title is way dominant. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be much anything in the way of News hits for the past month (as makes sense for an event that has largely dropped off the radar except for the occasional pundit indulging in rhetoric). I'm finding a couple instances of what look like the modern Internet equivalent of local-radio shock jocks, and a Bellingcat piece that incidentally mentions the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest) [8]. Of course, who knows the basis on which Google decides to show things, but that's a data point at least. By the end of it, "CHOP" was preferred by local [9][10] as well as national [11] media. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Does... anyone... have... sources? I mean, in my subjective experience, the current title is more common. But normally people provide sources when they claim that a title is more common and request a move based on that claim. Red Slash 02:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support The existing article details, with numerous sources, how and why the name changed in the Names for the area section under the Internal governance heading. For those seeking sources, the ten or so already listed in the article would be the place to start. Why would Wiki-voice still be emphasizing the old name when so many media outlets from the New Yorker, to Vox, to the Intercept, to Tech Crunch, (and the recent Bellingcat article) also address the name change following the abundance of reports during the second week of formation that the name had been changed by The Seattle Times, KUOW, Crosscut, King5, The Stranger, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? We have more than enough support from RS. The name change to the article is long overdue. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Numerous sources using CHOP. Mukedits (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent move: Organized vs. Occupied

The recent move is a positive development and a shift in the right direction towards accuracy that is supported by many reliable sources. Much appreciation to the editors involved in initiating the move request and making it happen after a vote.

Regrettably, I did not recognize that the targeted title was actually slightly different than the one listed by many RS in the section Names for the area. Sources support that a majority of leading participants had agreed to rename the activity in the area formerly known as CHAZ to the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, not the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest. Many of the names for the area are still in occasional use, but the majority of media outlets clearly reported on the change to the Capitol Hill Organized Protest. Is it still possible to amend this ruling with a correction? Or will it be necessary to relaunch a brand new move request from scratch? I still support this move but it is not yet fully accurate. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be Organized rather than Occupied. (Very carelessly, I neglected to make this point in the previous section, even though "Organized" was in the source I quoted and used by the others I cited.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Female Experiences

Can we make space to talk about the numerous rapes and sexual harassments that women experienced here or are women only ungagged to shout the party line?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:1405:b600:a8d4:fc79:7dae:622d (talk)

This talk page isn't a forum to discuss the subject of the article, so we can only discuss it in the context of improving this article. If you have reliable sources to verify what you're referring to, it should be included in accordance with due weight. --Equivamp - talk 00:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Schrodinger's CHOP meets Heisenberg's Capitol Hill Principle

"The CHOP became a focus of national attention when President Donald Trump tweeted his disapproval on June 10 and 11" Yes, it flew under the radar until then. P'fft. Robin J Thomson (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Historicity

The area being described was called CHAZ before it was called CHOP, the first sentence says otherwise. Source: i was there 2601:602:9402:BDB0:DC3E:9BB9:E588:5E54 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, first hand accounts cannot be cited. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The pertinent sources are already cited on this page, it began as Free Capital Hill on the 9th of June per the earliest citation, source 10, becomes known more commonly as CHAZ by the 10th, and only after begins to be known as CHOP. First sentence plainly has it wrong. See source 9, an article titled "How CHAZ became CHOP: Seattle's police-free zone explained". Source 6 references a name change, CHAZ to Chop, source 7 states that it was originally CHAZ and began to be referred to as CHOP no more than 9 days after the protest again, Source 11 specifically cites references to a name change from CHAZ to CHOP. 99.43.136.38 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in proposing it as a new source, but per FOX, it seems that people began to talk about calling it CHOP around June 13th or 14th, pretty definitively after the mentions of Free Capitol Hill on the 9th, and CHAZ as early as the 10th. 99.43.136.38 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect information on size of CHAZ

The description of the extent of the CHOP (and the accompanying map) is wildly incorrect, it was nothing close to 5 blocks. I can confirm this as I was there, and I can find articles on it if nobody else can. It controlled: Pine St. from the eastern edge of it's intersection with 10th to halfway between the intersections with 12th and 13th The portions of 11th immediately on either side of the intersection with Pine The portions of 12th extending form the intersection with Pine to the edges of the intersections on either side The Cal Anderson athletics field, and the parts of the park adjacent to the controlled streets. It's hard to delineate control of the park, as protest-related tents and such just sort of gradually petered out. Protesters did not enter any buildings, including the precinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhhillman (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I created this map to show where it actually was.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chopmap.png Litch (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)