Talk:Police abolition movement

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Yoninah (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Defund the police" sign held by a demonstrator at a George Floyd protest on June 5, 2020

• ... that defunding the police is being demanded by protestors (pictured) and proposed by legislators in multiple US cities? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/us/defund-police-floyd-protests.html “'We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department,' Jeremiah Ellison, a member of the City Council, said on Twitter this week. 'And when we’re done, we’re not simply gonna glue it back together,' he added. 'We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and emergency response.' " "At least three others, including the City Council president, Lisa Bender, have also called for taking the Police Department apart." "Minneapolis is not the only city asking the question. Across the country, calls to defund, downsize or abolish police departments are gaining new traction"

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Apple Face Shield

Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 15:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Overall: LittleT889 (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook reads like a news item. Could you say anything more interesting about the subject? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, thanks. I'm not sure the hook still works, anyway, as another article has been created at Defund the police, which might have turned the boldlink into an easter egg. The article's had huge additions by multiple editors, I'll go give it a read and see what's there. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the demand in question (abolishing the police) sounds radical enough that simply stating that it is being made is plenty hooky. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Vanamonde. But first we have this merge tag to deal with. Yoninah (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nomination is still on hold since the merger discussion is ongoing. Flibirigit (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal has been closed as "no merger". Yoninah, can you proceed from here, since you were the one with the question on the hook? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Valereee: do you have anything else to say about the hook? If it runs without the image, does it still work? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, yeah, the article Defund the police was started, so this hook's bolded link is now an Easter egg. Maybe we just fail it?

• valereee, Yoninah, I agree that the Easter egg is a problem, but is there any reason why the bold link cannot be changed to "abolishing the police" (we'd have to drop that photo):

• ALT1: ... that abolishing the police is being demanded by protestors and proposed by legislators in multiple US cities?

I don't know whether the "demanded by protestors" or "proposed by legislators" facts are supported in the article for abolishing (as opposed to defunding), and I see the "History" section has a neutrality template on it, which would need to be addressed. valereee, if you think it's best, you can always withdraw the nomination; it doesn't need to be failed if you simply prefer not to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The person who added that tag has not responded to Valereee's question in a while, so at this point just removing the tag would be justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the section, I would say that it's very much off-topic, and spends a lot of time on private police, which are not connected into the rest of the article in any significant way. Further, the opening felt like it lacked neutrality. I hadn't expected to say this, but I don't feel the tag removal can be justified. (Note: have struck the original hook; the Easter egg should not be used.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just fail this? —valereee (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Valereee: It's up to you. Do you want to withdraw it? Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom. Thanks for the help and sorry for the work, all! :) —valereee (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]