Talk:June 2025 Los Angeles protests

Post-RM "riot" discussion (pinned section)

Note that a previous discussion has assessed whether these events should be referred to as riots. The discussion was closed as a no consensus, meaning that no consensus has formed for whether to include or exclude such a descriptor. If you would like to continue discussing whether to refer to these events as "riots", please do so in this discussion, and please do so civilly. guninvalid (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This section should also serve as a WP:RFCBEFORE or a pre-RM discussion, if a RfC or RM is initiated. Also note that I was the editor who closed that discussion, but it seems to stand as is. guninvalid (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see additional discussion at Talk:June 2025 Los Angeles protests/Archive 1#Protests or unrest? that began before the prior RM and continued after its close. As this question has been raised repeatedly, this is not intended to provide a complete history. Please review the Talk page and Archive(s) for relevant discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of FAQ section discussing why article doesn't include "riot"

Due to the repeated questioning as to why "riot" isn't included in the title, should we add why to an FAQ section? — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 01:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This might be a good idea considering how much it's asked. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't. I understand the desire to enshrine the lingering division of beliefs about what actually happened during the protests because of how heavily the news coverage was slanted compared to many of the first-hand accounts by people who were actually there.

Like it or not, these events are still extremely fresh and the battle over the political framing surrounding them will still be waged for years, if not decades.

It's deeply troubling, but Wikipedia editors covering current events need to be wary of creating dry tinder for misinformation peddlers historical negation myths.

2001:56A:7130:8700:C756:4EB9:DAEC:6CA6 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The FAQ would appear on the talk page here, not in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Support given continued questioning. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added the section above. In the future, riot discussion outside this thread could likely be archived and funneled into this discussion. guninvalid (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't fully aware of what happened with the prior discussion, so thank you for pointing it out. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is worthwhile. It won't prevent all repeat inquiries but it is helpful to have a place to point people to centralize discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Riot

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.

---

Riots is when property is destroyed and people were assaulted and attacked in the streets which happened this year in Los Angeles. Stop being politically biased and call it the riot it was 2600:1700:7BA0:F870:4488:5F94:AB04:119C (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The second sentence starts with "some protests turned into riots". What changes are you suggesting? And do you have reliable sources to cite for your changes? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2025 (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.

Untitled

Photo description of the "California National Guard" is incorrect; the unit patch displayed in the photo is of the Washington State National Guard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.10.194 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2025

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: no consensus. No consensus currently either way, closing with no prejudice against a speedy re-opening or new RM if circumstances change. (closed by non-admin page mover) CoconutOctopus talk 13:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

---

June 2025 Los Angeles protests → 2025 Los Angeles protests – It's currently July 2025 in Los Angeles and 2025 Los Angeles protests already redirects here. Sebbog13 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

If it continues through July and August, maybe. 189.176.27.103 (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Speedy close oppose. This was already discussed in multiple discussions. The consensus appears to be that given the fact that February 2025 Los Angeles protests also occured, it is not appropriate to change this article as such at this time. See the old RM, a post-RM discussion, a separate thread, and an unprocessed request at WP:RM/TR that is unfortunately unarchived. guninvalid (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

As I see it, this change could theoretically happen, but it would need a full WP:COMMONNAME analysis to pass a WP:10YEARTEST. And even then, it's impossible to know if these protests will actually eclipse the February protests in notability or if both will fall into obscurity. guninvalid (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand this point. 2025 Los Angeles protests redirects here and February 2025 Los Angeles protests is a redirect to 2025 United States protests against mass deportation#California. The February protests is not even an article. - Sebbog13 (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There have been several protests around LA throughout the entire year, including the Feb protests, 50501, No Kings, these protests, and many others since. This article is not specific in its naming and its scope is simply too broad, and broadening the scope would not be meaningfully helpful. guninvalid (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

None of the Reliable Sources cited in the article have reported them as ongoing, extending into July. Once they do, Strongly support. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. No strong evidence that the protests extended past June and as noted we already have February 2025 Los Angeles protests (a redirect to 2025 United States protests against mass deportation#California) so disambiguation with the month is appropriate. The Events section of the article ends a June 2025. There was apparently some protest activity on July 1 but most source on my cursory news search describe the protests as having occurred "last month", noting there are more planned protests for the Fourth. I agree there needs to be a more complete analysis, whether for the existence of a true common name or a better descriptive title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: Wait and evaluate content/scope. There is now some content about protests that have occurred in July but not all of the July events are mentioned. It's not clear whether these need to be described in detail nor whether they could be considered part of the aftermath of the June events or whether this warrants a change in scope and article title. These content decisions require more consideration outside of an RM and as this is a developing story, the scope of the article may change in the coming weeks. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Rename to summer 2025 Los Angeles protests. 2601:586:4600:97D0:253D:6D1:1F6B:9C8D (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: If the protests aren't ongoing, then shouldn't the article reflect that? It currently does not. "Date June 6, 2025 – present (1 month)" - Sebbog13 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There's been protests on July 1st,[1], July 4th,[2][3] and July 7th[4][5]. मल्ल (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree to the move. Protest and ICE raids are ongoing. Redspork02 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject California, WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force, WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Current events have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 17 July 2025 (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.

Auto-archiving

I notice that this talk page is set to auto-archive discussions after 30 days. I wonder when and how we might reassess whether that is the appropriate time frame. I understand that pages are free to set this up as they see fit and that, like anything on WP, any editor can make a change. As the activity has died down, I changed the minimum # of threads left to 10. It is valuable to keep discussion history highly visible. I am not experienced with these bots and of course I am open to other perspectives on how to organize this page. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Idk if there's any guidelines over archiving but it's typically done by WP:BOLD consensus, or someone can discuss if they want something specific. I set it to 30 days because I felt that most of the immediate discussion had already subsided, so it's much easier to navigate this thread. I feel like the only "active" discussion right now is the RM though. guninvalid (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with 30 days, with the min. thread limit set to 10. Keeping inactive discussions visible, even years-old discussions if there aren't too many, is helpful, especially for newer editors. If the page becomes highly active again, I'd be in favor of decreasing the age limit from 30 to something much lower but keeping the minimum thread number at 8–10. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Source

I happened upon this revert done by Guninvalid saying Court Listener isn’t a valid source. I don’t quite understand that - Guninvalid are you able to explain your thinking since Court Listener is a reputable site that stores court documents? Dahawk04 Talk 💬 06:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I've seen this litigated a few times before but I don't remember any exact discussion, so I'll just give the simple explanation. In short, for a source to be considered WP:RS, a source must be secondary, in-depth, and independent of the subject. CourtListener is only independent. The documents on CourtListener are provided by the plaintiffs, defendants, and the court, all of which are primary sources. CourtListener provides no meaningful commentary on these documents, and thus is not in-depth. guninvalid (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification — I see where you’re coming from in terms of WP:RS requiring sources to be secondary, in-depth, and independent. That said, I’m not suggesting CourtListener be used as a secondary source to interpret facts, but rather as a primary source to verify what was said in a legal filing or by a party in a case. In that context, it seems functionally equivalent to citing the court documents directly, just hosted via CourtListener for accessibility.

Do you see a distinction there, or would you consider any use of CourtListener inherently unsuitable regardless of the context (e.g., even for something like “X said Y in filing Z”)? Dahawk04 Talk 💬 12:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Court documents are primary sources and, at best, should be used with caution. Here is an example of a discussion about court documents in general, not specific to CourtListener. In the instance you raised, the citation supports a plain statement of fact that isn't likely to be controversial, but a secondary source would be better. I couldn't find much reporting on the ruling, perhaps this or this could be used. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Cases being dropped against protesters

Cases are being dropped against protesters due to false and/or misleading claims in officers' testimonies, according to federal files and court records.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/28/doj-la-protesters-false-claims

I've seen this report and wanted to add it to the Wiki article, but I usually edit music-related articles, so a topic of this importance is a little out of my wheelhouse and I thought I should ask for some advice on the talk page. How should this be incorporated? Should this be under the chronological Events heading or somewhere else? 81.105.71.37 (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)