Jump to content

Talk:No Kings protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada ‘No Tyrants Day’

[edit]

In Canada it’s called No Tyrants day. Should we include it in the first or ‘Locations and activities’ section? Cherry567 (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think possibly renaming to to “ June 2025 North American anti-authoritarian protests” would be a good resolution. However, before formally opening a conversation into this I think getting some feedback under here would be a good start. Dahawk04 (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article already states "Outside of the U.S., protests are planned in the following countries, in some case cases with a different name to avoid the appearance of anti-monarchism:", with Canada linked and ref'd... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Restore Balanced Language on Trump and Protest Rhetoric

[edit]

I recently added the following to clarify Trump’s stance on protests: “Donald Trump’s statements on protests often employ rhetorical language that is provocative or blunt. For instance, during his speech on January 6, 2021, he said, ‘I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,’ indicating support for peaceful protest. His calls for law enforcement action focus on responding to violence or unlawful behavior rather than peaceful assembly.” Source: Rev transcript of Jan 6 speech The content is neutral and sourced, and reflects the balance needed to avoid misinterpreting rhetoric as literal policy. I’d like consensus on including this or similar wording to ensure NPOV is upheld. 2601:883:C000:1FB0:B5D2:47CD:B99C:55DD (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your opinion, which falls under original research and synthesis. Do you have a reliable source that backs up your implied statement? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6 — at 18:16 2601:883:C000:1FB0:319C:49BC:D085:7E93 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a transcript of a speech. Where is the content that says "he supports peaceful protest"? or "he focuses on responding to violence rather than peaceful assembly"? Adding your opinion of what he meant by what he said, or what you think he thinks, is original research. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier protests

[edit]

There were earlier No King's protests from the 50501 movement, particularly very large ones on April 19, 2025: [1]. This page needs to cover that as well, and not just treat this as a single-day phenomenon. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article probably needs to focus on the one day, but there is a 50501 protests article. I'm not sure what the solution is, given that there have been other protests called "No Kings". I reverted an edit of yours because the article currently focuses on the one day, but that could always change.
Maybe this article could be called No Kings Day. A decision would have to be made about whether to call the 50501 article No Kings protests.
I just checked that article. I don't know if it can be changed enough for that to be a solution.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting a parallel post at Talk:50501 protests#No Kings protests. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here is what I said there. Tryptofish said say it all in one place.
Not one mention of the term "No Kings", but we have a bigger problem.
Tryptofish says the No Kings protests article should cover the earlier protests. I disagree given that there is a No Kings Day (currently a redirect to the other article). One solution is to move the No Kings protests article to No Kings Day. That would give us the opportunity to move this article to No Kings protests and cover all of them. To do that we'd have to actually use "No Kings" here and summarize the protests in later months. I'm not prepared for such an overhaul of this article, but something needs to be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We are dealing with a current event, where things are happening fast, so it stands to reason that there will be conflicting information coming in, and that's OK. I posted in talk because the page itself is being edited very rapidly, and I don't want to get in the way of that, so I'm happy to discuss this here. Just above, I gave a reliable source about the use of "No Kings" for the April protests, so it's verifiable. I'm aware of protests that were "No Kings on President's Day" and "No Kings on D-Day". I also remember clearly that the Hands Off protests were very large and very well-covered, and they were on April 5. All of these interrelate with 50501, and we'll probably need a couple of days for sources to tell us how to sort this out. Perhaps this page will just need a section about the earlier ones, or perhaps we'll decide to make individual pages for each. I just want, for now, to point this out, but I'm not in a hurry to change this page for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried. I incorporated earlier protests into the article, then that got removed. So I tried again. This time, someone shortened it, so it's still making the statement that the name does not refer to just one day. I suppose that will be enough. I never did find the D-Day protest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did. I also just added back some of it, that had gotten shortened, but shouldn't have. I think it's fine like this, and I also think it will take a few days before the very rapid editing calms down. As for the D-Day protest, it turns out that it was only in one state, and I no longer think we need to include it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to disagree until I tried looking for what Wikipedia calls a reliable source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table for Locations

[edit]

@Another Believer: can you explain why showing the locations in fragmented text is more organized than a table? You have reverted my edits without providing an explanation. The table in my opinion provides better readability and manages the sources better. What is your argument against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahawk04 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About this: I suggest using the official website, but there are still a lot of gatherings not mentioned here (e.g. Paramus, NJ on Route 4) ItzSwirlz (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is prose, not a list of cities. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a table of cities is beneficial and your response doesn’t provide a counter argument. Could you please be more specific on how a table of cities would detract from the article? Dahawk04 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to gain a consensus to convert this into a table of cities, I am going to continue updating the article's prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback so far. I'd like to open this up for broader input to determine the best format for presenting the list of locations.
Proposal: Convert the list of known locations into a table format for better readability, organization, and easier source attribution.
Rationale:
  • The number of locations is growing, and a table keeps them concise and visually manageable.
  • It allows for clearer referencing and avoids repetition.
  • This follows MOS:TABLE which allows for tables when they improve clarity.
Concerns have been raised about using prose instead, but I haven’t yet seen specific issues with using a table (e.g., accessibility, formatting problems, style violations). If there are policy-based reasons against the table format, I'd appreciate hearing them.
Otherwise, if others support the table format or have alternative suggestions, please weigh in. I’d like to gain consensus before proceeding.
Dahawk04 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose using a table format. The number and locations of protests is still fluid. Creating a table is far too restricting to edit. I don't think a table would add clarity. I think it should stay as prose divided by state. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, @WomenArtistUpdates. I understand the concern about fluidity, but I’d argue that a table can actually help with that by making it easier to track updates and new entries in a structured format. Tables are not inherently restrictive — they can be expanded or edited just like prose, and each row can be sourced clearly without cluttering the article body.
Organizing by state is still possible within a table, either by including a "State" column or grouping entries. The key benefit remains readability — for readers trying to quickly scan for a location, a well-structured table is more efficient than dense prose.
I believe the table format improves both clarity and maintenance and supports verifiability more effectively.
Dahawk04 (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dahawk04 You have opened this topic up to gain a consensus. Obviously I don't agree with you about editable-ity. And I know how tables work. I don't need a tutorial on table structure. Are you going to respond to every opposition with a repeat of your preference for a table? I think there is a term for that...bludgeoning. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: I’m participating in good faith and responding to concerns raised, which is how consensus-building works. Accusing me of “bludgeoning” is not appropriate. Let’s keep the discussion focused on content and policy. Dahawk04 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok then. I suggest you try to read a structured table on a phone or tablet. It does not scale. As it is currently formatted it fits just fine. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support that there should be a table made available. I visited this article looking for something like the List of 2017 March for Science locations table. Vastly more skimmable and allows to gauge relative numbers per location at one glance. Is there something about how tables are technically structured in wikipedia that makes them hard to edit? I have never worked on one.
All that being said, in the March of science example, the decision was made to locate the table in a separate article. Maybe a similar compromise would work here? Cheese and Games (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the benefit of prose, and the benefit of a list.
Following the example of 2017 Women's March and List of 2017 Women's March locations, in two articles, we can have both.
I especially like the list’s array of state abbreviations at the top of the list, which serve as shortcuts to the respective anchors tied to the state flags, providing a direct jump to any particular state’s entries.
I think that such a list allows the record to attempt to be exhaustive, which is impractical in prose. JackGavin (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is an article, not a list, and should include prose about background, development, organizers, preparations, locations and activities, conflicts, reactions, etc. There are quality examples of what this article could look like with further expansion: Not My Presidents Day, Impeachment March, etc. If someone wants to create a separate list of locations, by all means, but I don't see how converting this article about 2,000 events into a single table is helpful to readers. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Merge Protests by U.S. state, Protests by U.S. territory, and International protests into one List of Locations and create a Notable Protests section. The List of Locations section would be three tables (one for each of the current sections, organized into rows of states, territories, and countries) and the Notable Protests section would be prose. I think Not My Presidents Day is a good example of what the Notable Protests section could look like (except by city not state). CupCait1 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to draft up example tables for us to review, so we can decide if that's a better format than prose. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Draft. From Alabama to Louisiana, I separated the protests into their own rows. Everything after that is the prose in table form in case that's preferred (and also cause im lazy and new to editing wikipedia). CupCait1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow CupCait1, That is an amazing editing accomplishment for your 7th edit on English Wikipedia! Unfortunately I do not find the presentation of information in table form better than prose form. The table is static (not sortable), so there is no functionality to it. The column "Estimated attendance" is missing a lot of data and the data that is there are unsourced estimates. It being in a column suggested it could be totaled, which would not produce any accurate data. Looking at the example page you refer to, Not My Presidents Day, doesn't have any tables in it, so I don't understand what your point is there. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:NO-TABLES. Tables are meant to collect and sort comparative data, not provide a visual layout for prose. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2025

[edit]
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: Not moved * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Kings protests → 2025 No Kings protests – “2025 No Kings protests” follows Wikipedia’s standard naming for time-specific protest events (e.g., 2020 George Floyd protests). The protests are tied to a single day (June 14, 2025), and major sources use this name. Adding the year improves clarity, disambiguates from any future events, and aligns with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. While there were international solidarity actions, the core movement is U.S.-based and widely referred to with this phrasing. Dahawk04 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is the only one of its kind with the name. DCAllStar (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now I give it a year until another one of these is held. Until then, the old title works just fine, as there aren't any other no kings protests that have occurred outside of 2025. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Those events had the year attached due to similar protests taking place in other years. There has been more Brazilian protests since 2013, more since 2021 in Cuba. Unless we have another "No Kings Protest" in a separate year its not needed. BelowFlames (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Democrats Abroad

[edit]

Can Democrats Abroad be used as a source? If not, several instances should be removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think we shouldn't as it is not neutral in any way and is a conflict of interest. BelowFlames (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rule (WP:RSBIAS) is that Wikipedia articles have to be neutral (which does not mean even-Steven), but reliable sources do not. When you are trying to write a neutral article, a source that shrugs its shoulders and says 'viewpoints differ' is not necessarily as useful as a pair of sources each arguing cogently and clearly against each other. That's true regardless of whether we're talking about American politics or about whether the Cardinals or the Royals should have won the 1985 World Series.
  • It would only be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if the Wikipedia editor who added the source has a close connection to the reliable source (think: Fox News employee adds a reference from the Fox News website). Even then, a small amount of this behavior is explicitly allowed in the WP:CITESELF section. The source might not be independent, but independence is not mandatory for all sources in an article. (If it were, then we'd have to remove a large number of foxnews.com sources from the article about Fox News.)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to archive sources on the Internet Archive

[edit]

For posterity, make sure that you’re archiving sources, especially those that relate to individual protests. This is the type of article liable to get hit hard by link rot. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can be completed after the bare URLs are converted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spirit of Eagle, I understand that under normal circumstances, links added to a Wikipedia article get archived automatically, without any manual intervention by any human. They might get hit hard by link rot, but that probably won't happen in the next few days.
Also, as with any other current event, the ultimate goal is to replace WP:PRIMARYNEWS reports with high-quality secondary sources, to the maximum extent possible. That usually means waiting until someone has written a book about it, but it also means that it's not a disaster if we lose some of the breaking news URLs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Protestors in the "Party" section

[edit]

The Indivisible Movement also partecipated and organized protests https://indivisible.org/statements/indivisible-and-partners-announce-no-kings-nationwide-day-defiance-flag-day-during

The Democrats Abroad organization also did, abroad. https://www.democratsabroad.org/dems_abroad_organize_no_tyrants_no_kings_demonstrations_worldwide

And for last, a local Guam group named Prutehi Guåhan, helped to organize protests. https://www.guampdn.com/news/prutehi-gu-han-joins-no-kings-movement-rally-set-for-saturday/article_4154d432-2727-453b-bbd4-bed2f6a3340c.html VitoxxMass (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NYT map w/ locations

[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culpeper

[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NYC photos

[edit]

Just uploaded a bunch of photos from the Manhattan event here: commons:Category:No Kings protest in Manhattan, New York City. Raining, unfortunately, but I think it was one of the flagship events, so editors here may want to add one. FYI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Added a photo to the NY section ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just edited together a video of the same event, in case it's of use. --> — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina

[edit]

I know there were protests planned in Spartanburg and Anderson, likely others as well. Could someone help me find sources? 2600:1004:B346:49E1:D0B5:DDD2:7910:7E10 (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11 Million

[edit]

@Des Vallee, the 11 million figure in the KERA article is a guitarist's estimate of the number of immigrants Trump wants to deport, not the number of protest attendees. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Celjski: I see, misread the article. The Axios information should be readded however. Des Vallee (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is. The five million figure is in the lead, and it's referenced in more detail in the body of the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the estimate actually between 4 and 6 million? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "More than 5 million people took part in "No Kings" demonstrations in over 2,100 cities and towns across the country" Celjski Grad (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MoveOn

[edit]

NPR says MoveOn is "one of the dozens of groups behind the No Kings protests". ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

[edit]

The Minnesota header claims that No Kings events were cancelled, but these events objectively did still occur and were attended in large numbers. 23.93.177.145 (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source for information

[edit]

Someone has created a Google Sheet for aggregating protest sizes, which could prove useful here not for the sheet's estimates, but instead because most of the listings report a news source, upon which it relies. For instance, I was able to address a "Citation needed" tag because I quickly found the protest in question on this Sheet, followed the source link, verified the info, then used that reliable source back here in the article.

To be 100% clear, the sheet itself is not a reliable source. It is merely a collection of many potential reliable sources, all in one place.

Just thought I'd share.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DC in Infobox Photos

[edit]

Heads up that I removed a DC protest photo from the infobox that was dated Feb 17; this appears to have been from the earlier "No Kings on Presidents Day" protest. Right now the article seems principally about the June 14 protests and the infobox identifies photos as being related to the June 14 protests. Might still be useful elsewhere in the article (e.g. background section). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico

[edit]

Looking through the edit history, seems like people keep removing references for that subsection. What gives? Arlo James Barnes 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance figures

[edit]
Section renamed from No Kings

Hello, the latest number of people at these demonstrations in the USA are over 13 million, according to 50501 staff. 96.43.76.160 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you (or anyone) link to a source we can cite? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.al.com/news/2025/06/alabama-protest-kicks-off-50-day-national-campaign-targeting-trump-supporters-in-congress.html (Quote: "The protest is part of a follow-up to the “No Kings” events that occurred in 2,000 cities nationwide, drawing approximately 13 million people.") ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If other sources uphold that number, that places this in the neighborhood of the 3.5% rule (but don't rely on my arithmetic!). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to source the 13 million number to one of the protest organizers (Alt National Park Facebook Post). Additionally I have found other sources that state 5 million. (ACLU) (MoveOn). (The aforementioned source shared by @Another Believer appears to have updated as well to use both numbers.) In my view, the 5 million number is more reliable given it's sources and potential issues with the 13 million number's source. However, in the time it has taken me to source and write this, the number has been swapped in the lead once again. ExiaMesa (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding onto this, I have tentatively added the sources to both claims in the article, as it now appears both numbers are stated in the lead. ExiaMesa (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that sources will become clearer about this in a few more days. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

The refs take up over half the article space. They are one column on my laptop even with {{Refs|30em. Cou;d also be on font size smaller. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No single source exists that can act as a citation for all of the events on this page and font size is dictated by MOS. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there is not one single source. That is "common sense". And I did not say reduce the number of sources. Do you want to show me where in WP:MOS (you should have known that. MOS is a dab page) is says refs must be a certain font size? Also, you can be WP:BOLD. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what, exactly, is your point? If you have a solution then be bold and implement it instead of complaining. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Layout is my point. And I cannot edit unless I log in because it is protected. Why don't you edit it instead of replying? 161.29.202.46 (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because you haven't identified an actual problem that I'm interested in fixing. If you're not a blocked user then you can easily create an account and make semi-protected edits yourself. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the font size for the refs is a bad idea anyway. We want the refs to be readable, and none of the complaints give above seem more important than that. A more relevant question is whether there are more refs than needed – on a quick look I see a number of places where what appear to be simple statements have multiple refnotes. Sometimes there are reasons to do that, but probably some of these could be trimmed. --RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Background

[edit]

The current text reads like Trump changed the date of the Army anniversary to his birth date. He did not. That is also Flag Day. 2603:6011:C8F0:B030:22:4467:8720:14DE (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to this: [2]. He didn't change the date, but he did seem to choose the date on that basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Underreporting of No Kings Day participants in USA is rampant.

[edit]

though an official count shows, as of Tuesday, June 17th, 2025, that there were 13.14 Million people who took to the streets in protest of the US president's actions and decisions against the US people, most news agencies are under reporting it as "hundreds of thousands." This has been alarming and needs to be looked into. It was also reported by many news agencies that "tens of thousands" attended the military parade which shared the date with the president's 79th birthday. Attendance there was sparse at best. Even photos of 'crowd' scenes showed individuals, which indicates between 3000 and 5000 people present. When we trust the news to deliver unbiased information that allows us to think for ourselves, we need better accountability in reporters and editors. This should be alarming to everyone. 131.191.24.56 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this so called "official" count comes from entirely unverified and likely illegitimate sources. 5 million is the only official number reported by verifiable sources. "Alt National Park Service" is NOT a viable source. 2A02:A474:F1:0:B95A:A6B7:8A16:43F7 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need a picture for the US territories protests

[edit]

There are many images online circulating about the Guam and the Puerto Rican one. It seems only fair since the International and States section have multiple pictures! VitoxxMass (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

final numbers

[edit]

per the usa parks and rec the final numbers are 13.14 million ppl and counting 72.234.105.36 (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Alt National Parks? Regardless, we should go by WP:SECONDARY sources EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add Porto, Portugal to the list of international cities with a No Kings event?

[edit]

Our volunteer-organized protest, which was included on the official No Kings website, was held in Praça de Gomes Teixeira in front of the Universidade do Porto. I haven't seen any official release of number of attendees, but I was there and took photos of the crowd and would estimate approximately 100 people. There were musical performances and many speakers from the US (myself included) as well as people from Mexico and Brazil who had lived in the US. Here is a local news article that was published prior to the event. Jdgoulet (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Celjski Grad (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like complete astroturfing

[edit]

Is there a reason this article on a protest that was barely any different from a dozen other similar anti-Trump actions like the 50501 and such gets such a massive article? The only source for the claims of the massive turn out are a partisan outlet whose data seems to have take self reporting into account and as such is not reliable, especially when the comments in such article are divided into half of them saying the numbers are inflated and the other half that actually it had a much larger turnout but Trump is suppressing it. Not the sort of source that would be acceptable to Wikipedia usually, but for some reason seems to be accepted here. I wonder why?

This page should look more like the 50501 page in both size and formatting style. 155.2.219.155 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that reliable sources, as cited in the article and which are listed in its References section, indicate that the June 14 protests were far more widespread and well-attended than previous anti-Trump demonstrations. To be sure, the "5 million" number comes from the organizers, and it will be interesting to see what, say, Harvard's crowd-counting center says about it. Which "50501" page are you talking about? PRRfan (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "self reported" number of protests is actually over 13 million, and this article has been edited multiple times in order to keep from using sources that don't meet Wikipedia's standards. DaytimeElm (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Size

[edit]

"The scale of last weekend’s “No Kings” protests is now becoming clearer, with one estimate suggesting that Saturday was among the biggest ever single-day protests in US history."

---Another Believer (Talk) 00:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

I'm wondering whether or not the Casualties entries in the infobox are WP:DUE. Just because information is verifiable, doesn't mean it has to be in the infobox. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to remove it if no one objects. It is more appropriate, I think, to cover it in the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespect for the army

[edit]

I heard on NPR that certain things weren't done because it would be disrespecting the army. Also, I saw a letter to the editor that said it was disrepectful to the army.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... And? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess at this point this point of view isn't important enough.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free America Weekend

[edit]

Related: Free America Weekend

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free America is linked in the article. When googling, it is hard to find any information beyond the planning stage though. Lova Falk (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the recent changes suggesting there was no coverage of the No Kings 2.0 / Free America Weekend protests, which is clearly inaccurate. See Draft:Free America Weekend. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, good job! Lova Falk (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope to see the page back in the main space soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2025

[edit]

Please add to Main organizers (under Democrats Abroad (international) Indivisible Abroad (international) Christinanevada67 (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. UmbyUmbreon (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.theflorentine.net/2025/06/05/no-kings-day-protest-florence/ Christinanevada67 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate info about No Kings protest in Florence, Italy

[edit]

The No Kings event in Florence on June 14, 2025 was organized by Good Trouble Firenze, a local group of progressive activists aligned with Indivisible. It was NOT organized by Democrats Abroad. Christinanevada67 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that information based on the source you provided, but there is also reliable sourcing for Democrats Abroad, so I included both. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Kings_protests&oldid=1303522931"