Talk:2015 Baltimore protests

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rdduncan1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Improvements to be made

We need to fight less and argue more.

Need for Background: Established User, Please Help

To remain consistent with the format of the "Baltimore Riots of 1968" and "Baltimore Riots of 1861," the page should include a "Background" section that describes some of the ultimate sources of unrest. The report Place Matters for Health in Baltimore, 2012 contains excellent data describing the stark disparities in wealth, race, life expectancy, education, exposure to violence, and other key factors for health and well-being that can be found in Baltimore. For instance, it includes a map showing adjoining 2009 census tracts that have a ~20 year disparity in life expectancy.

I am currently restricted from editing the main page because I am not an "established user." If possible, could someone able to edit the main page add the section below, or similar? Ideally, it should be modified to appropriately reference the link above.

// BACKGROUND

The proximal cause of the Baltimore Riots of 2015 was the death of Freddie Gray of the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood of Baltimore, which was a result of injuries sustained while he was held in police custody. Additionally, however, significant underlying causes include a legacy of ethnic segregation in Baltimore City, huge disparities in health, education, and ethnic composition of Baltimore neighborhoods, and a history of police misconduct and other forms of systemic racism. For example, analysis of the 2010 United States Census revealed that the average life expectancy of individuals in adjacent Baltimore neighborhoods can vary by as much as 30 years. The report Place Matters for Health in Baltimore, 2012 contains data describing the stark disparities of wealth, race, life expectancy, education, exposure to violence, and other key factors contributing to health and well-being that can be found among Baltimore neighborhoods. Therefore, the Baltimore Riot of 2015 can be viewed in conjunction with the Ferguson unrest of 2014 and other similar events as part of a larger, ongoing conflict driven by social injustice and inequality.

The Baltimore Riots of 1861, 1968, and 2015 all occured during the month of April. // Nijato (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

New developments

... [1] [is] reload-friendly.... EllenCT (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Live blogs: Baltimore Sun, CBS Baltimore, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN Slate. EllenCT (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Added to external links. EllenCT (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The AG Lynch reaction still needs inclusion. EllenCT (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative perspectives on initiation narrative

It is not clear whether the police, indirectly and possibly unwittingly, participated in the social media incitement campaign:

“ When school let out that afternoon, police were in the area equipped with full riot gear. According to eyewitnesses in the Mondawmin neighborhood, the police were stopping busses and forcing riders, including many students who were trying to get home, to disembark. Cops shut down the local subway stop. They also blockaded roads near the Mondawmin Mall and Frederick Douglass High School, which is across the street from the mall, and essentially corralled young people in the area. That is, they did not allow the after-school crowd to disperse.

Meghann Harris, a teacher at a nearby school, described on Facebook what happened: "Police were forcing busses to stop and unload all their passengers. Then, [Frederick Douglass High School] students, in huge herds, were trying to leave on various busses but couldn't catch any because they were all shut down. No kids were yet around except about 20, who looked like they were waiting for police to do something. The cops, on the other hand, were in full riot gear, marching toward any small social clique of students…It looked as if there were hundreds of cops." The kids were "standing around in groups of 3-4," Harris said in a Facebook message to Mother Jones. "They weren't doing anything. No rock throwing, nothing…The cops started marching toward groups of kids who were just milling about."

A teacher at Douglass High School, who asked not to be identified, tells a similar story: "When school was winding down, many students were leaving early with their parents or of their own accord." Those who didn't depart early, she says, were stranded. Many of the students still at school at that point, she notes, wanted to get out of the area and avoid any Purge-like violence. Some were requesting rides home from teachers. But by now, it was difficult to leave the neighborhood. "I rode with another teacher home," this teacher recalls, "and we had to route our travel around the police in riot gear blocking the road… The majority of my students thought what was going to happen was stupid or were frightened at the idea. Very few seemed to want to participate in 'the purge.'"

”

-- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge EllenCT (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how to summarize this. Here is the hegemonic narrative. Help? EllenCT (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that a form of kettling? EllenCT (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I stumbled across this and added it on my own, but the whole article is so incomplete - the part about the big riot itself is three sentences! Wnt (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's about what the cops did before the riot, and whether they were influenced by the social media "purge" campaign and decided to try an extrajudicial form of false imprisonment, kettling, in retaliation against what they saw as organized incitement. EllenCT (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Police patterns and practices when interacting with mass media

http://fair.org/home/unverified-threats-uncritically-reported-a-tradition-as-old-as-protest/ is considerably disturbing. EllenCT (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, if you're in the community, you can see that the police are trying to spin stories...BUT, there also have been several professional agitators travelling to each city and creating these riots and frustrations between the cops and residents. They saw that there were 30-50 social media accounts from Ferguson linked to Baltimore. Professional agitators! It's up to people to do their own research. The gang members were even singing church songs, handing out books to school kids and stopping them from fighting among themselves and others. The police overall have been good as well with a few rotten apples. They will leave dead rats at your house and on your car if you "snitch", you know, Blue Wall of Silence. It's a nightmare. Who to trust these days? Gangs come in all forms. Sad. But again, overall, people are good with a few bad seeds sprinkled in. Chic3z (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that these pages are not a discussion forum. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We added information, maybe someone thinks it's interesting. Instead of assuming and attacking, you can do something productive, like add to the article, as I have done. Chic3z (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Video could be converted to .webm

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psTJL5Q0MjY
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIjaVF4ZQyM

Victor Grigas (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Converted--

Baltimore Riots Smash McDonalds

the protests during the day of April 25th, before rioting started

Can you confirm the caption on https://www.facebook.com/COEDMagazine/videos/949662471732277/ ? EllenCT (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed. EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Role of Social Media in Violence Escalation

I think it would be helpful and appropriate to include details regarding the use of social media to organize violent actions, specifically related to the movie, The Purge. Fliers were circulated among high school students that indicated specific details of a city-wide "purge" in Baltimore for April 27, 2015. Here is a copy of the flier that was distributed: [2]

Meistervision (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You'll need much more than just an image of a flier; in order to include claims about the role of social media in violence escalation, you need reliable, third-party sources to make the claim first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this as well and just finished adding some RSes about it - there are many, many more available. Definitely this is a big part of the story. I am still a bit unclear on the relationship of the "flyers" and the "social media" - I assume somebody, somewhere, was printing out an image and making copies informally, but I don't actually know that. I'd really like to see us nail down all the details about how this happened because I have the (at this time wholly unsubstantiated) suspicion we could trace it all the way back to Russia. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Still an interesting question five years later FTIIIOhfive (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on allocation of blame

The sentence "some protesters became violent. They damaged at least five police vehicles" is very striking given the context. Nobody has been convicted of damaging police vehicles. It is very obvious that it was the protesters, but it is also very obvious that the police beat Freddie Gray to death, which the respective article does not assert nearly as confidently. Surely for consistency we should simply be talking about the objective violence without allocating blame prior to conviction. Wikiditm (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid the implication that protesters became rioters until more facts are in. On the 27th, from the reports I saw, there was a peaceful funeral with the families, civil rights leaders, politicians - everybody who is anybody protesting - held at a church, and there was an entirely different "purge" convened on social media and advertised by flyer that called in people looking to attack cops and loot stores. (I don't know if the 25th was similarly a separate set of people or not) It's acceptable to say that rioters damaged five police vehicles because anyone damaging a police vehicle that day is pretty much a rioter by definition. Wnt (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll suggest just follow the cite - give the phrasing used in media to accurately convey the meaning out there, maybe starting with 'reported that'. Basically use cites and avoid making your own (WP:OR) analysis no matter how obvious it may be. Markbassett (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Orioles

A second Baltimore Orioles game has now been postponed - http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12780175/baltimore-orioles-postpone-tuesday-game-vs-chicago-white-sox 173.160.130.14 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been done. "On 28 April the game was postponed a second time, a makep date has not been announced. On the same day, the Baltimore Ravens also cancelled their NFL Draft Party in response to the protests." Zell Faze (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well it's not so much that the one game was postponed a second time, it's that there are now two games (and, in all likelihood, three, and quite possibly as many as six) that need to be rescheduled. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the daily timeline including this is a bit misplaced as it's not part of the rioting itself, and seems like that gives too much weight into the baseball schedule compared to he coverage of closures of schools, businesses, and government offices just get a short bit under Reactions. Maybe move the sports stuff to there as well ? Markbassett (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Information that should be included

I think it is an important fact to include that the six police officers were suspended with pay.

• Lieutenant Brian Rice, 41. Member of Baltimore Police Department since 1997.

• Sergeant Alicia White, 30. Member of Baltimore Police Department since 2010.

• Officer William Porter, 25. Member of Baltimore Police Department since 2012.

• Officer Garrett Miller, 26. Member of Baltimore Police Department since 2012.

• Officer Edward Nero, 29. Member of Baltimore Police Department since 2012.

• Officer Caesar Goodson, 45. Member of Baltimore Police Department since 1999.

I am a confirmed user, but cannot edit the page, so if the community agrees, please include this fact.

--Childoftherion (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would ask over on the talkpage of Death of Freddie Gray article, it makes more sense to have this information there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, this information is about Freddie Gray and has nothing to do with the riots. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand how it does not have anything to do with the riots. The department has a long history of misconduct. Suspending them with pay is like a slap on the wrist, for what can be seen as murder. I suppose this is just my opinion, but if there were any accountability this probably would not be happening. --Childoftherion (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't because the riots are the subject of this article, not police misconduct. If you want to express these opinions, go post them on a forum, because Wikipedia only accepts neutral points of view. Epic Genius (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Was not police misconduct the cause of the riots? Waiting for a court to decide on the subject at hand before documenting all aspects of the event seems more bias than neutral. Now seeing it pan out, I am glad to see the fact they were charged on this page (being the two subjects are not related /sarcasm) --Childoftherion (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

See also [3]. EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Only Police Officers Nero and Miller are suspended with pay as they are charged with misdemeanors. The other four officers are suspended without ay as they are charged with felonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoBlue85 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Historical move

If it isn't mentioned it should be that the Oriels are planning to go ahead with one of the scheduled games tomorrow (4/29/15 local time) with no fans (or watchers for that matter) present. This is making baseball history as a first of its kind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox conversion?

There's an infobox for civil unrest that allows for expanded information... should it be used? FriarTuck1981 (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend not trying to fit into a template which requires opposing sides be identified until the issue with the agents provocateur becomes more clear, but if that is an optional part of the template that people can stay away from until the investigations into incitement conclude (2-20 months?) then I have no objections. Perhaps a comment in the template code would solve that potential problem? EllenCT (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I did a test case and it fits and allows for an ambiguous answer to certain entries. For example, "no centralized leadership" for the protesters and "numerous" for numbers. I have the template filled and ready to go if there's a decent consensus or i'll automatically add by the 10pm EST. Thanks! FriarTuck1981 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The interests of the authorities, rioters, and agents provocateur are all mutually unaligned as far as we know, and to imply otherwise violates WP:V. Let me try. EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I left the authorities in, and where you had "select citizens/numerous" we should just leave that blank for now, until we get the reliable and verifiable agents provocateur story, please. EllenCT (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate the help. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Start date

Should April 25 actually be used as the 1st day of the riots? It doesn't seem like what's been happening was described as a riot until April 27. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree.  Done EllenCT (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is completley wrong. Read the April 25 section. There's even a video of rioters attacking a McDonalds. PLease chang eback to April 25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.227.129 (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have changed it back, see my section down below for my proposal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Baltimore protest actual start date

Could someone add the following information to this page since it is about protests as a whole and riots as a sub-category. The protests began on April 18 (13th was art protest) then slowly turned into a riot on the 25th, protest 26th, the big riot on 27th then back to protests 28th on...Here's a few sources, someone else would be better equipped to summarize this information:

Add info to timeline, maybe other refs too

Art protest

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/baltimore-artists-exhibit-inspired-by-police-brutality/32345716

http://www.bmorenews.com/community/baltimore-artful-protest-against-the-killing-of-bl.shtml

Protest 4-18-15

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-shooting-20150418-story.html

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/19/freddie-gray-passes-away-after-being-injured-in-police-custody/

4-23-15

6 nights of protests, starting getting emotional with no answers; 2 people arrested http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/23/5th-day-of-protests-in-freddie-grays-death-expected/

4-25-15

Thousands march, first riot, small http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thousands-march-in-baltimore-to-protest-police-custody-death/

http://ktla.com/2015/04/25/protests-over-freddie-grays-death-nearly-trap-fans-in-baltimore-ballpark-12-arrested/

4-27-15

Many rioters came straight from High school http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/28/police-commissioner-most-rioters-came-right-out-of-the-high-schools/

Maybe add another category, fill in date/info

-Clean up etc http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/28/baltimore-riots-residents-start-clean-glass-debris/

-Gangs unite, protecting businesses from looters http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/baltimore-gangs-cops-freddie-gray_n_7162350.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-baltimore-riots-gangs-analysis-0429-20150428-story.html#page=1

-Christians, Muslims and Jews all came together to bring peace to the community etc…http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/05/02/this-baltimore-teen-will-give-you-hope-for-the-future/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/baltimore-clergy-march_n_7171828.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/26/baltimore-clergy-issue-call-for-peace/ http://jewishtimes.com/36511/the-whole-world-is-seeing-this/

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/baltimore.riots.the.church.must.be.a.moral.voice.says.pastor.as.leaders.urge.peace/53025.htm

-Asian beauty supply store North-West Variety store was spared after being tipped off, Randy Lee opened next day

-A few regional celebrities joined in the marches, Melo, Kevin Lyles, Wale, Martin O'Malley; a few MD-connected celebs came through Baltimore, Ray Lewis and Raven's players, some of the Wire cast members etc

This is all I could do for now...someone help with this. Chic3z (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Street gangs recruited in crisis before?

Have street gangs ever been recruited to help enforce a curfew before? EllenCT (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Background info. EllenCT (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of it in my something-teen-or-so years. Anyway, it should be added to the article, because it's interesting. Epic Genius (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Black Guerilla Family needs its own section FTIIIOhfive (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Charging papers not filed against arrestees

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-riot-arrests-20150428-story.html

Not sure what to say about that yet. EllenCT (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Toya Graham line completely inaccurate

A lot of this article is poor due to the police being considered the only reliable source in most cases. However, really striking is the Toya Graham line, which says "Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts praised a mother, Toya Graham, who had pushed and hit her son in order to prevent him from participating in the rioting, stating "I wish I had more parents that took charge of their kids out there"" In actual fact, an interview with the woman in question found that she was trying to protect her son from the police. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/baltimore-mother-toya-graham-on-why-she-smacked-son-i-dont-want-him-to-be-a-freddie-gray/ She said specifically of her son "That's my only son and at the end of the day I don't want him to be a Freddie Gray." The narrative in the article on this is simply wrong. Wikiditm (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. The key phrase here is to prevent him from participating in the rioting. Please don't jump to conclusions because the source doesn't say that "she was trying to protect her son from the police". Yeah, that could be implied on further thought, but that doesn't mean that the line is "completely" inaccurate. The Baltimore PD still praised Graham, regardless. Epic Genius (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC) (edited 19:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC))

She said she didn't want him to end up like Freddie but she told him rioting is not the way to release anger, meaning, she didn't want his actions to end him up dead since he's her only son. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/04/28/woman-called-mom-of-the-year-after-beating-a-young-man-out-of-baltimore-riots/ Chic3z (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Beginning of the violence

I changed a couple of sentences in the first part of the article to read: "After the final stage of the official protest event, some people became violent and damaged at least five police vehicles, and pelted police with rocks." The significant change was changing protesters to people. I did so because the source cited did not state that protesters turned violent. It stated that residents began throwing things. There is no documentation (at least in the cited article) to claim that the protesters were the ones who became violent.

The Letter J (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Destruction of property video

See here. Epic Genius (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Salon: "Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy "

The "Reaction" section of this article consists exclusively of criticism of the rioters. I think this defense of the rioters from Salon should be added to that section:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/28/baltimores_violent_protesters_are_right_smashing_police_cars_is_a_legitimate_political_strategy/

"Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy"

74.98.36.200 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, okay.  Done. Epic Genius (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In a Salon.com editorial one WHO? If they not notable why do they have a section all to themselves. Who seriously supported this nonsense. And can we have a section on cost to city, property damage etc. --Inayity (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree this seems pretty non notable to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, so, most of this "reaction" section is opposition to the riots. Epic Genius (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree we should have balanced coverage but the people giving the info have to be notable here too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so let's only have two sections for now: preventative (disinterested/unbiased) and critical (biased) coverage. Epic Genius (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that is more balanced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Habaeus corpus suspended

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/29/baltimore-justice-system-protests-curfew

Analysis on Reddit. EllenCT (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2015

Please delete the ridiculous, racist Salon magazine quote. Salon is a self-described Communist organization and their comments are insulting, immature and evidence of low intelligence. Of course they want to bring down society. I don't think Wiki should be a part of that effort.

199.116.174.58 (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

All other critical opinions are negative of the riots. Removing this would only cause point-of-view problems. Epic Genius (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

While that is true surely you can find a better source, it is so vague. And to stand alone like that is a weight issue. While balance is needed One article in Salon said: a lot of nonsense. There must be a serious source which says :The riots are the language of the unheard and a good because they shake up America. If all we have is this Salon article then, we are supporting a POV for the sake of a POV. --Inayity (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Epic Genius (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this is the text. Epic Genius (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In a Salon.com editorial, one writer supported the riots and upheld them as a political strategy and an attention-gatherer, stating:

Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.

References

Global search and replace for incorrect usage?

Throughout this article, the adjective "Baltimorean" is used where it should be "Baltimore," e.g., Baltimore Mayor, Baltimore Police.

"Baltimorean" is at best the adjective describing a resident of the city of Baltimore.

Is there any way to globally search and replace this incorrect term in the entire article, or does it have to be done section by section. And is there any place where things like this can be flagged? I see it all the time, but this is the first time it's bugged me enough to want to do something about it. I realize that many/most of your contributors are not US residents, but incorrect usage still needs to be addressed. Zlama (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Use Control-F (Cmd-F on Mac) and type "Baltimorean". Epic Genius (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't "Baltimorean" grammatically correct though in an adjectival sense? For example, it's "British soldiers" and not "United Kingdom soldiers". Illegitimate Barrister 07:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case, either is grammatically correct. Its like saying "New York police" rather than "New Yorker police", or "Boston police" rather than "Bostonian police". In this case, nationality is not being described here. Epic Genius (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Photos to migrate

Here are some images to migrate

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/fibonacciblue/16697701023/in/photolist-smHsf7-9gVkr6-kAWefP-bJFHhV-bCbWa6-s3UcnH-s6gwKZ-skqYe9-rrw5LX-s6qvsE-snFD7z-rrweLk-s6Kskm-s6JX1j-rrwjr2-rrjTch-s6LcdL-so91VH-s6Ad79-rriQsG-rrac2q-s6JL5v-rruYw4-soaxK6-s4R9zi-sogTox-soaTiW-s68Af9-s3X6xa-bCb9Hz-4JXERF-sno6Z-5AQbwr-di3TWU-skqY2W-s4oMUn-snyxnd-snyxDf-rqHH3u-kgdr3T-kgfcAj-ac55u-snhiYK-5wAJph-4FiSwi-s5FVMY-sjZfcy-9eH9hU-kgf8py-6dC6NP
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/fibonacciblue/17130481120/in/photolist-9gVkr6-kAWefP-bJFHhV-bCbWa6-s3UcnH-s6gwKZ-skqYe9-rrw5LX-s6qvsE-snFD7z-rrweLk-s6Kskm-s6JX1j-rrwjr2-rrjTch-s6LcdL-so91VH-s6Ad79-rriQsG-rrac2q-s6JL5v-rruYw4-soaxK6-s4R9zi-sogTox-soaTiW-s68Af9-s3X6xa-bCb9Hz-4JXERF-sno6Z-5AQbwr-di3TWU-skqY2W-s4oMUn-snyxnd-snyxDf-rqHH3u-kgdr3T-kgfcAj-ac55u-snhiYK-5wAJph-4FiSwi-s5FVMY-sjZfcy-9eH9hU-kgf8py-6dC6NP-6pj9Ac
  •  Done using c:Com:Flickr2Commons. Epic Genius (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of damage or victims

Some of the victims of the riots have come forward and identified themselves, like the Papa Pizza guy, would it be worthwhile to discuss them and the damages they describe happening to their property in the chaos? Ranze (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. From what I've seen, we usually don't include testimonials in articles, such as damage testimonials. I don't see a similar section in Ferguson unrest, for example. However, including these narratives is possible. Epic Genius (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the title to "Protests"?

The rioting took place on only one day (27th) while the events have so far lasted for four days. I don't know what the WP:COMMONNAME is but feel that we shouldn't be focusing on just one day here if we keep the current title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Jumping up and down on cars and setting fire to property isn't exactly "protests", more like "unrest". I suggest 2015 Baltimore unrest instead. Epic Genius (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would go with that too, but want to have more editors weigh in their opinions first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that 2015 Baltimore unrest is a redirect. In general, the term "unrest" is what we use for any civil disturbance in an American city that has risen beyond demonstrations but not up to full-scale riots. (See, for example, Killing of Michael Brown/Ferguson unrest.)

How about swapping 2015 Baltimore unrest and 2015 Baltimore riots (so that 2015 Baltimore unrest becomes the direct title of the article). We could also add 2015 Baltimore protests, 2015 Baltimore demonstrations, and 2015 Baltimore civil disturbances as other redirects. Then if three months or a full year goes by (see WP:10YT), we can change it again, if future developments so warrant.

I will swap the names in a day or two, if no one objects. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We would also have to include the "peaceful protests" on April 21st thru the 24th in any "unrest" article. Except for one brief mention in the lead, the current article doesn't cover that period. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You should make a formal move request to give others the chance to weigh in, I don't think the move would be 100% routine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The line that separates a protest from a riot is the moment when the protestors begin to hurl objects at police (in this case 2 officers are still in hospital) and destroy property (in this case vehicles, stores). I understand that there are big riots and small riots, but to me "civil unrest" is a lousy title because it lacks specificity (fails to imply violence,) and lacks a common English meaning. Riot is brief, specific, and has a plain meaning. It's the world Hemingway would have used.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. "Riot" focuses on a particularly negative aspect of the protests, likely carried out by a minority of the protestors. By and large these are protests. In contrast "unrest" implies purposelessness, which is certainly incorrect. "Demonstrations" can imply commitment to non-violence. On the whole, "protests" explains that there is motivation and is flexible enough to accommodate both peaceful and violent approaches. Leegrc (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: the consensus emerging is that "civil unrest" is a more appropriate title. which I support. - - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If that's true then I have no problem with the move, but feel we should at least wait a day as not all editors share the same time zone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I also support "civil unrest". However, the page is move protected, so we need to find an admin and ask them to move the page based on this discussion. Epic Genius (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support; I think 2015 Baltimore civil unrest is a bit clearer than 2015 Baltimore unrest. RoyGoldsmith's suggestion of breaking out subtopics as/if needed makes sense.--The Cunctator (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2015

The following discussion 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.

---

Note: also see previous section.

2015 Baltimore riots → 2015 Baltimore protests – "Riots" and "unrest" imply a certain amount of purposelessness and/or substantial disregard for peaceful approaches. "Uprising" implies a greater goal that is not apparent. "Demonstration" and "civil disturbances" imply more-or-less completely peaceful protests. Only "protests" is broad and neutral enough to convey that the actions had purpose and were mostly peaceful. Leegrc (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: I support my own proposal and wish to add that the rioting was carried about my a minority of the protestors, another reason not to focus on it, despite that covering the rioting gets better media ratings than covering the peaceful parts of the protests. Leegrc (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. It is possible, even likely that 2015 Baltimore protests is an article worth splitting from Death of Freddie Gray. However, that article is not this one. This one is about police being injured by thrown bricks, buildings on fire, everything you could call a "riot", and only incidentally (WP:Summary style, ideally) referencing the protests and the death itself. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (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.

It looks like someone already moved the page?

Why did someone move the page without discussion? It was 2015 Baltimore riots, that is the WP:COMMONNAME (11 million hits for "Baltimore riots" 2015, 735k hits for "Baltimore protests" 2015). We need to move the page according to proper policy. If you want to move it, have a discussion first. There already IS a discussion on the page about moving it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. Please discuss the move in the appropriate section before unilaterally moving it. It is common for articles about events to cover the surrounding events which are not just the event itself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall much protesting, I recall rioting you neanderthal apologists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.108.142 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move May 2

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2015 Baltimore protests. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

---

2015 Baltimore riots → 2015 Baltimore civil unrest – Per discussion above, there is emerging consensus that "riots" is not appropriate. Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support either "2015 Baltimore civil unrest" or just ""2015 Baltimore unrest" - Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support "protests" would also be a good word which is more all-encompassing, but riot only describes a narrow aspect of this article, and does not capture enough of what is being described in it. "Unrest" or "civil unrest" are better than "riots", though I think they are a little too euphemistic. Protests is better, because the article covers both non-violent protests and violent protests (aka riots). Since the article is covering both subjects, we need a word which covers both. "Protests" does that nicely. But I also would not object to other synonyms other than "riots", which is not an inclusive enough word. --Jayron32 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and my thoughts above overall it was one day of violence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Riots would be POV view of the events. Even though unrest is not perfect, it is better than the current title and is also the common term. Mbcap (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. My first choice is 2015 Baltimore unrest (per precedent). Anyway, I support this RM because this mostly deals with the protests and riots on April 25-28. It is also the common name because this is not just about rioting. However, 2015 Baltimore civil unrest is fine, too. Epic Genius (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support (Protests more than Civil Unrest, but either is better than riots) per above. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC) ^{Modified 18:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}
• Support Is this article suppose to cover the entire events? It would make sense if it did then the name (to be inclusive) would have to open up to include all forms of "unrest" violent and non-violent, that way the article would be more balanced.--Inayity (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose/Do Not Merge. This article should be about the actual riot that occurred on April 27, and the small precursor riot on April 25, and the security measures and reaction to the damage that occurred. The protests should either be at Death of Freddie Gray or some other, separate article about the reaction to it. Somebody at Death of Freddie Gray put up a note to send all the protest material here (listing this article under a redirect) but that has just created a mess. If we try to cover protests all over the country and all the rioting, damage, police preparations, etc., what's going to happen is that people will start complaining it's too long, that whatever is included is a subjective "coatrack" and so forth, and they'll be taking out whatever they don't like the POV of, and it will just be a huge mess. Wnt (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  Considering the text is already here, a reasonable solution would be to move this article to the new title, then go back to the redirect we just created and create the article just' about the April 27 riot back here again. That would actually create the same result you want, with less work. --Jayron32 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Repurposing an article, when no one is willing to take credit for a beginning-to-end edit of the entire text, is very difficult. The article was laid out to concern the riot - i.e. it does not start with the April 18 protest, and focuses heavily on the police response. It also lacks many of the later protests, protests in other cities etc. that are in the Death of Freddie Gray article. If repurposed, it is likely to retain POV issues for a very long time, because there will be this sort of structural legacy. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I would object to a split as that would create a WP:POVFORK. In any case, I see that we are close to a WP:SNOW consensus to move. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is emphatically not a POV fork to have separate articles about the protests and the rioting, no more than to have separate articles about the World Trade Center and the various attacks made on it. An indication that the scope of this article is already too broad can be found in edits like [4] - clearly it doesn't have too many videos, rather too much competing content shoehorned into what is already a notable topic on its own. Indeed, if we're forced to abandon this article to its fate and split, maybe there should be one article about the April 25 protest and one about the April 27-early 28 riot. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It will be an obvious case of POV forking. I fail to see how can you defend that split. The riots and protest (aka civil unrest) happened as a result of the death of Mr. Gray. Both riots and protests are interlinked and should not be separated.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how someone could even claim it's a WP:POV fork. That guideline seems pretty clear. The idea is not to have a pro-rioter article and an anti-rioter article, but to have an article about protests in general and one or more articles about particular riots where police were injured and property damaged. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Almost all news articles (including the sources used for this article) and analytical pieces are referring to the entire event as the "Baltimore Riots". It is by far the most commonly used name. A quick Google search will reveal that the term "Baltimore Civil Unrest" is rarely used outside of Wikipedia. Therefore, we should use the most recognizable and common name per WP:COMMONNAME. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 19:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The protests and the riots are intertwined to the point that it would be difficult to maintain two separate articles without substantial redundancy. In this case, the riots are an event that are a smaller part of the larger protests; at the very least, the protests created an environment in which the riots were able to develop. Of course there are more Google hits for "Baltimore riots"; violence tends to get people's attention, some might say that's the point. But it was still just a highly-publicized portion of the larger picture, which this article should strive to capture. Re-direct "2015 Baltimore riots" to a dedicated sub-section if it's important to have a working link for a popular search term. (Really, I think "2015 Baltimore protests" is a better title that "2015 Baltimore Civil Unrest" as that term does not seem widely adopted.) Antepenultimate (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I like "protests" as it covers both the peaceful protests and the violent protests, which is what the article does (should) cover. Leegrc (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• I Support showcasing Protests which were the majority. You do the math: 10 plus days of protests, 2 days of riots. You must not be from Maryland or you are only receiving outside information. I was under the impression that I added information to the protest talk page, not riot. That term undermines the truth about the situation. Riots are a SUB-CATEGORY of the protests, period. Change it back to 2015 Baltimore Protests ASAP. By the way, since when did peaceful protests become civil unrest? You know what to do and I don't think it's right for anyone to hijack this page and rename it unfairly based on misconceptions. Chic3z (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If this article is to cover two days of rioting, then yes it should be titled "riots" ... if it's covering what has transpired over the last two weeks with protesting and demonstrations... "unrest" is the proper term. Teammm ^talk
  _email 19:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Baltimore Protests is the most appropriate name. I thought I would come back to a change in name. Whoever is in charge, we've given you the information, where are you? Riots can redirect to the protests page but what's right is right. Chic3z (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2015 Baltimore unrest or 2015 Baltimore protests. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support a change to 2015 Baltimore protests. I'd like to point out that on Wikipedia's front page, the "In the News" section links to this article with the phrase "a week of protests". Not "a week of riots" or "a week of civil unrest". "Riots" is clearly wrong; "civil unrest" seems like a weasel-word compromise position meant to appease those editors supporting "riots" because of a political agenda. Protests are what happened for over a week, and there was some civil unrest during that time, but "civil unrest" doesn't describe what happened for the whole week. Rockypedia (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support the change to 2015 Baltimore protests. Although I would like to note that its still technically ongoing, if the protests continue for an extended period of time, with more large (confirmed) outbreaks of violence, then we should return to this topic and re-disscuss at that time. While I like the term 'civil unrest', we would run the trouble of making these protests seem 'special', just my two cents on that matter. Also note that civil unrest usually applies to a region or country, not a city. (though do correct me if i'm wrong) BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been a week since the first proposed move. How much time does it generally take an administrator to change to the appropriate title? Chic3z (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's only been four days. A week is seven days. I also noticed that you have !voted twice. Something very unusual is going on.. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 19:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The first discussion was April 29th, exactly 7 days ago. I didn't vote twice, I stated an opinion. Plus, no one is stupid, they'll do the right thing so I'm not too concerned. Chic3z (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading something wrong, this move request was started on May 2, not April 29. Would you consider moving your second !vote as an indented comment under your first one so it does not confuse anyone? Keep in mind that these are technically discussions, not votes. The majority does not automatically win, so !voting multiple times is unnecessary. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 22:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not important, but the "discussion" started on April 29th (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2015_Baltimore_riots#Maybe_we_should_change_the_title_to_.22Protests.22.3F). That's what I referred to previously...it wasn't a second vote, just an opinion/question...but I took the bold off so no one is "confused". Chic3z (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, no matter where you decide the discussion started, it's definitely been more than seven days at this point. It seems consensus is solidly behind this article not being named "2015 Baltimore riots", but opinions on whether it should be "2014 Baltimore protests" or some variant of "2015 Baltimore civil unrest" seem less unified. (I'm looking at not just this discussion, but the two related discussions on the article name that preceded this one.) It may be helpful for people to state clearly their preferred title, especially if it was not clearly stated in their opinion above. (I support 2015 Baltimore protests as it seems to be the most inclusive title, and was commonly used in the media coverage of the events.)

Additionally, I am wondering how these go about being closed... per the closing instructions, no-one who participated in the discussion may close and determine consensus, and contentious discussions should be closed only by Administrators. Is this then something that should be posted at the Administrators' noticeboard, requesting a close by an uninvolved party? Or does someone usually come along, eventually, making their way through a list of unclosed discussions? Antepenultimate (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the administrator on leave? Every time I come back, I'm expecting a title change, but nothing. What's the point of the discussion if the title remains unchanged, despite the consensus. Chic3z (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I will ask an uninvolved admin to help close this. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV: Article conflates protests and riots

This article is the "main article" for the public response to the death of Freddie Gray, and discusses both riots and peaceful protests under the subject of "riots". The article should be moved to 2015 Baltimore civil unrest. --The Cunctator (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

i think that just "unrest" is also appropriate, having proposed this name before. Epic Genius (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I see what the problem was - someone put a comment in that section of the Freddie Gray article sending all the protest data to this article. That was just a mistake - it belongs back there, or in a third article, but not here. We should keep this one tight and well defined around its original subjects: purge emails, barricades, rock-throwing, looting, arson, curfews, habeus corpus, martial law, that kind of stuff. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I know what I said before but at this point we should follow WP:COMMONNAME here is there is any. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Google gives me 11 million results for "Baltimore riots" 2015 but only 735k for "Baltimore protests" 2015. There is already a section above about a proposed move; we should have the discussion there, rather than all over the page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There were also riots here in Baltimore in 1968 after MLK Jr's death, which may inflate the 11 million+ number. Locally the term used for what is happening is Baltimore Unrest. Just an F.Y.I. Teammm ^talk
_email 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Videos

Do we really need four videos on this page? It seems like it's a violation of WP:NOTGALLERY because, well, it looks like a gallery of videos. Epic Genius (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the videos are a problem in themselves, I have a problem if we do not establish a criteria for inclusion. --Inayity (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are that one video clip is illustrative of the riot, so it should be left in the riot section (and that hasn't been an issue). The other three videos illustrate the protests that happened on March 25th. One is an independent production, the other was a professional production of WEAA that had been split into a part 1 and part 2. My thinking for copying and uploading both of these is that it gives a wider perspective of the event, rather than just showing the video of the riot. My feeling is that if the gallery aspect is an issue, then maybe in the info under the video it could say something like "This is part 1 of a documentary about the protests of April 25 (before rioting started) that was produced by WEAA. Part 2 of the documentary is available here. And an independent documentary of the protest is available here." That way, there is direct hyperlink access to all the video content directly from the article (2 clicks away instead of one), and there is no gallery violation. I would also like to comment that leaving it as a 'gallery' would allow the user to choose between both independent or professional on-camera reporting. Victor Grigas (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Victor Grigas asked for my thoughts. I suggest (if possible) splicing the two WEAA videos into a single video, and interspersing the three remaining videos amongst the text. I agree that the current layout looks like a gallery. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Good recommendation, but there's an issue - the file upload size limit is 1GB and the first video is 520.66 MB and the second video is 554.02 MB, we'd be just over the upload limit. Victor Grigas (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, or we can link to the actual, original YouTube video in the external links. Epic Genius (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Damage estimates, Anyone

THe total damage to the city is that info available? I did not read every single word but I think we should get some figures in the lead.--Inayity (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There's an estimate to the number of small businesses destroyed: at least 200. There are 19,000 sources on Google News, but not one of them provides a rough monetary estimate, of the couple of articles that I've read. Epic Genius (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

April 18th?

I have removed un-sourced info regarding the protets, Freddie didn't die until April 19, 2015 so how could there be protests regarding his death the day before? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The citizens protested his arrest/hospitalization before his death so it's credible information. May not have gained national attention until the riot, but all included information is correct. With sources. Chic3z (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge! Merge! Merge! Belle (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose that 2015 Baltimore curfew be merged into 2015 Baltimore riots. I think that the content in the 2015 Baltimore curfew is largely covered in 2015 Baltimore riots, and the 2015 Baltimore riots article is not so large that the merging what little additional information in 2015 Baltimore curfew will not cause any problems. I'll also note that there have been many curfews in the world far more notable than the Baltimore curfew, but we have no articles on them.I am One of Many (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that anything related to the Freddie Gray incident is linked to the one article, but not under "riots", under protests. The curfew wasn't a big enough event to have it's own page, in my opinion...it can be a sub-category and it's fine...the riot wasn't big enough to trump 10 protests either, should be sub-category...but we'll see what is done... Chic3z (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chic3z: By you logic this whole thing should be part of Death of Freddie Gray (a bad idea). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not my logic. Freddie Gray's article is separate from the protests that occurred because of his hospitalization and death. His article is also separate from the curfew that occurred because of the riot. But the riot and the curfew are both sub-categories of the protests...clearly my comment confused you. Chic3z (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the curfew article covers specific controversy related to the curfew and impacts such as the economic impacts of the issue. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. This seems to me to be an completely-contained aspect of the protests/riots, rather than a standalone event worthy of its own article. Removing the discussion of a five-day curfew from its immediate context seems strange to me. The unique information in the other article should be preserved, but it could be condensed considerably without much being lost... for instance, instead of a day-by-day arrest count formatted as a section with a bullet list, a single line noting that "between 18 and 46 violators were arrested each night of the curfew" with the appropriate sources would be sufficient. The fact that many small paragraphs get their own sub-sections artificially inflates the article's apparent depth, in my opinion. There is considerable redundancy with this article in the intro and the "Changes of Plans" sections as well. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support per Antepenultimate. The curfew can only be understood well in the context of the protests, and there's really not enough text to support a separate article anyways. All the relevant information can be contained here. --Jayron32 02:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support - There is no need for a sub article unless there is an issue of WP:SIZE - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support - No need for this kind of article. Aria1561 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:SIZE. The riots article is already extremely long, and as the creator of this article, I am aware of what can be added. It is just something I am working on building gradually. It already has over 9000 characters, and counting. And per WP: EVENT, it is notable for a standalone article for several reasons. This includes WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as it was covered in sources all over the world, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, as the event lasted for 5 days and continues to be in the news, WP:EFFECT, as it had lasting effects by leading to cancellation and rescheduling of numerous events which themselves received coverage, and WP:ROUTINE, as a curfew like this is anything but routine and is in fact quite unusual. Sebwite (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SIZE does not deal with page size in characters, but rather deals with readable prose (that is, the page size after removing markup, headings, references, etc.). Using prosesize, the current 2015 Baltimore riots page clocks in at 17kB (2048 words); WP:SIZE does not even begin to recommend splitting until >50kB, and it's not a sure thing until >100kB. The current 2015 Baltimore curfew page, even before removing info redundant with the 'riots' article, only contains 5kB (845 words). I fear the remainder of your arguments could be applied to many individual aspects of this event; it was a huge news story, and everyone was looking for an angle.

This is not intended as an affront to you, or your very well-sourced article. The information you have collected is excellent. I believe it would be much more effective, however, when presented concisely alongside the events it was wholly dependent upon. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is yet to be completed to its potential. There are in fact so many news articles about it that exist that the process of going through each one to see what information in them can be applied to this article is neverending. There is a lot of information I am still looking for, such as how many people were arrested on the third night of the curfew. I know there is an article somewhere that would provide it. It is just a needle in a haystack of the thousands of news stories.

WP:SIZE is not the only guideline that is used in determining whether to include something in another article or make it into a standalone one. WP:NOPAGE goes into that too. Under NOPAGE, one of the criteria given is whether or not the article would be a permastub. This article is clearly larger than a stub. Another is whether the sources pertain mainly to the topic or the parent topic. In this case, there are a plethora of references spread out over many days about the curfew alone as opposed to the riots. They cover a wide range of issues pertaining to the curfew, such as the legality of the curfew, the effect it had on businesses, etc. Even after the curfew ended, there have been some news articles written about the curfew, Sebwite (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: Per other arguments. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Support a merge into 2015 Baltimore protests. Not only is the curfew a part of the week of events surrounding the protests and riots, it's a small part. Size isn't an issue with the 2015 Baltimore protests page either, at least not yet, and it appears that page isn't going to grow significantly at this point, since the protests are over. Rockypedia (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support a merge. WP:SIZE could be dealt with separately, but it is not uncommon to have over-100kB articles anyway. This is just bloating the importance of the curfew in the protests. Epic Genius (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support a merge. Finding information and discussion in a single article would be a service to readers.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Support a merge. The two are closely connected as the Baltimore Curfew was enacted in response to the protestors

Jpaluska (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support merge because the curfew was a response to the riots and was lifted not long after the rioting ended.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Support the merger. On the 1992 Los Angeles riots page, their curfew is mentioned. There is no separate page for LA curfews, I think this page should follow suit. [A few days of rioting/curfew in LA was more significant than the curfew for one big disturbance in Baltimore]... Chic3z (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

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.

Unbalanced

Now that the page has been moved, we need to expand and include material about the many peaceful protests that took place after the initial outburst of violence. Added the {{unbalanced}} tag. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There were actually two separate sets of events: the peaceful protests performed within the confines of the law and the riots that left a trail of looting and destruction. With the enormous amount of info and numerous news articles and continued effects of each, it might be worth having a separate article on each, with info in the lead sections noting the differences. Sebwite (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be two separate articles. Both "Baltimore protests" and "Baltimore riots" are inaccurate titles as they are both separate events. It is impossible to refer to both under one name. Peaceful protesting is not rioting and rioting is not protesting. There is more than enough content for both to merit a split. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There were certainly two separate sets of events, but I think splitting the article would very likely be a mistake, because they stemmed from an identical cause, and their difference was rooted in the intentional acts of the agents provocateur and the police authorities. The fact that the vast majority of protestors did not riot should be reflected prominently in the intro and body, and probably even the infobox, too, although I don't know exactly how. EllenCT (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the title isn't perfect and, although it is the one I support, I think there were a lot of well-thought out opinions about other alternatives in the title change discussion above. Many (including mine) point to "protests" as being the best at encompassing the variety of reactions to Freddie Gray's death. When you say "rioting is not protesting", I feel that is more of an opinion than fact. (Though my feeling that riots are sometimes used to send a message may be equally an opinion - but there is no requirement in any definition I've seen that protests must be 'peaceful' to be accurately described by the word. I guess that's why we have adjectives - you could validly describe some riots as being 'violent protests'.)

It is hard to believe that the riots would have happened were it not for the protests; either they came about because of protestors' frustrations at not being heard, were the inevitable result of officials' mismanagement of the situation, or were started by agent provocateurs seeking to directly discredit the message of the protests. No matter what you believe, the riots were wholly dependent on the protests and it would be hard to explain them without that background. Any separation of articles would need substantial redundancy to effectively explain the events, and that is why I believe it should all be done in the same article. We don't need additional havens for vandals on this issue, or a bunch of potential POV playgrounds. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Now that the article has taken form, can we take a look at the lede (opening of the article)? I think it needs to be more concise and summarize the entire event, from the start to the finish. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2015 Baltimore protests

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2015 Baltimore protests's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named ":0":

• From Pokémon: Symphonic Evolutions: Seiter, Chad (June 29, 2014). "Pokémon: Symphonic Evolutions Live Orchestral Concert Tour Kicks Off in Washington, DC, on August 15, 2014". Chad Seiter, Composer. Retrieved February 16, 2015.
• From Death of Eric Garner: Blidner, Rachelle (July 21, 2014). "Friends: Man in NYC chokehold case 'gentle giant'". Yahoo! News. Retrieved July 21, 2014.
• From Death of Freddie Gray: McLaughlin, Eliott (April 21, 2015). "Freddie Gray death: Protesters rally in Baltimore". CNN. Retrieved April 22, 2015.
• From 1992 Los Angeles riots: "LAPD Police Flee Angry Mob - begin of the La riots". YouTube. December 19, 2011. Retrieved June 6, 2015.
• From List of cases of police brutality in the United States: Izadi, Elahe (20 April 2015). "Officer charged with assault in beating of unarmed black man during traffic stop". Washington Post. Retrieved 14 August 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2015 Baltimore protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2015/The-latest-on-Baltimore-police-custody-death-More-than-150-fires-in-Baltimore-city-says/id-0b32a37d8b0440b8a444403f5c7ad647
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2015/The-latest-on-Baltimore-police-custody-death-More-than-150-fires-in-Baltimore-city-says/id-0b32a37d8b0440b8a444403f5c7ad647

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporary RPP

FYI I made a temporary request for page protection since there have already been several vandalism attempts in the short time since the news came out earlier today about the verdict for the officer driving the van. —PermStrump(talk) 19:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 Baltimore protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gazette.net/article/20150501/NEWS/150509843/1124/montgomery-county-police-sends-40-plus-officers-to-assist-beleaguered%26template%3Dgazette
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430150259/http://www.abc2news.com/news/region/baltimore-city/university-of-maryland-baltimore-closing-early to http://www.abc2news.com/news/region/baltimore-city/university-of-maryland-baltimore-closing-early

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Baltimore protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430191520/http://gothamist.com/2015/04/30/nypd_lrad_police_state_fascism.php to http://gothamist.com/2015/04/30/nypd_lrad_police_state_fascism.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Protests or riots?

I'm seeing a lot of sources which describe these events as riots, shouldn't the article title reflect this fact? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Please review the discussion at Talk:2015 Baltimore protests#Requested move May 2 (and any linked discussion, of course). --Izno (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I did, and per that it needs revisiting as was mentioned in that discussion, I'm thinking common name really comes into play here Darkness Shines (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This article should really be titled '2015 Baltimore riots'. WP:COMMONNAME Xxavyer (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The page itself shouldn't be called the "riots" because, among other things, the page is not simply talking about just the violence that occurred after the death of Freddie Gray. It is discussing the wide variety of protests after his death, most of which was peaceful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.87.44.208 (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed "riots" to "protests" in 3 places

It seemed strange to me that the article title was "protests" but the hatnote and infobox said "riots". Looking at the recent history of the page, I found that those used to says "protests", but IP address edits changed them. I changed them back, because I think that they need to reflect the article title. Now, looking at this talk page, I see that the title is, or at least, was, under discussion, but that's a different argument. If the title gets changed to "Riots", then the hatnote and the infobox should also say that, but as it stands now, I think those spots should mirror the current title. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

incorrect terminology

Refers to people as being a different race instead of a different ethnicity. Our race is human. Race should be changed to ethnicity. Racial discrimination should be changed to ethnic prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.184.59 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)