# Talk:2023 Union Square riot

This article doesn’t really use “Wikipedia-style” language and sounds copy and pasted from news websites. Lmao 69.126.185.5 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD and edit it. Earwig disagrees with you that this article was "copy and pasted from news websites". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
My toxic boss once said:
"I don't need problems or suggestions. Eithet you have a solution or fuck off."
And that is what WP:BEBOLD is for. 2A02:A020:1:CB9C:D89D:BB71:BE52:1F32 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
lmao and your name is literally your IP why don't you do something productive with your life instead of give out baseless info like this. use WP-BEBOLD Wikieism (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Ahem. Unproductive comments notwithstanding, IP editors are human too. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:917D:D4E0:9CA4:9277 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Then you change it 52Timer (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
If you don't like something in the article, then be bold by editing it yourself and fixing it. This article isn't protected yet, so you can edit it just fine, without any restrictions. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Then why did you decide to come here and talk shit about it? Be bold by clicking/tapping the "Edit" button on the top right, and edit it yourself!  (P.S. sorry I'm late for this, but eh, better late than never right?) — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 12:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

In many places on the globe transmited info about it 2A02:3038:409:C52C:C407:7D39:1A00:693F (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"The giveaway caused a riot in Union Square Park, in which thousands of people engaged in a state of civil unrest during the time of the giveaway."
There were only 2000-5000 people present. How the fuck do you get 40-100%+ of a crowd to engage in civil unrest? Claiming that anyone present at a gathering where civil unrest occurs is automatically engaged in the unrest seems absurd, especially given this was a legal gathering with no known calls for violence by the organizers. Even if we assume that the !!!one thousand!!! police are included in that civil unrest, that's still only 3000-6000 people. Claiming that 33-100% were in a state of civil unrest seems very dubious unless the organizers or crowd were some kind of revolutionaries or whatnot.
This article seems like it was written by the NYPD or by a government that bans free assembly, essentially assuming anyone who goes to an event organized by a popular Twitch streamer: A popular *black* Twitch streamer at that, is *automatically* a rioter rather than an innocent civilian caught in a rowdy crowd, though it seems like this is not more rowdy than the aftermath of an average soccer game in many countries. It should be entirely obvious why claiming over half the people there were rioting needs better sourcing. 50.38.32.222 (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Changed a few sections to sound less like a everyone present was guilty by association. 50.38.32.222 (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Calling it a "Riot" is contentious at the moment. While there was certainly unrest, I think the word riot should be changed to something like "Mob" or "UnnSquare Unrest" io for the time being as there are only charges and no prosecutions at the moment.
Edit: Will edit myself if there is no disagreement.

Rayanblaq14 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Go with what the sources say. All the sources are calling it a riot. Nobody seems to be calling it "unrest". Databased (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I looked at several of the sources and none of them referred to the event as a "riot". I would suspect for the same reason as OP -- "riot" is charged terminology and not particularly neutral. I think "Unrest" would be a more preferable, neutral description. Alexwennerberg (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that the dust has settled on the AfD, anyone interested in bringing this article up to Good Article status? It probably will take a while based on the ensuing aftermath and coverage of his trial, but I think it's a good idea to look ahead and plan for it in advance. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have considered it, but don't count on it. I don't actively seek GAs until I am positive an article is the best it could be. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. There's no deadline but I think this could make for a decent DYK nom in the future if anyone wants to bring it to GA. In the meantime, it would definitely be more beneficial to focus on just maintaining the article, especially within the next few days. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Should we nominate it right now? 199.216.45.1 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)