Talk:No Kings protests (October 2025): Difference between revisions

@BelowFlames: Feel free to add back Colorado cities confirmed by reliable news sources (instead of the official website). Thanks! —Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that not many news sources are covering the topic so its difficult to get reliable sources. I think the official website should suffice. BelowFlames (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BelowFlames Best to wait until news coverage allows claims to be added. I am sure press will confirm in the coming days. —Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I agree. BelowFlames (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added Denver. —Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-protest: https://www.gazettextra.com/news/local/citing-threats-organizer-cancels-planned-america-first-rally-in-janesville/article_97819a9e-66b6-4c9b-9f0a-f2b9dc26fd9c.html —Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 100 locations listed at USA Today. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Networks Plan Coverage Of Next Round Of No Kings Protests On Saturday”

—Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came across the reactions section in rough shape earlier and made some edits. Seemed like some WP:WEIGHT problems, and also written kind of unclearly with unsourced passages. I tried to condense it while communicating the central points communicated by the cited sources, but it looks like that was reverted. I’d encourage someone else to reinstate the condensation. Separately, IMO merge single-sentence state-based sections into a single section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododentrites, Thank you for making an effort to improve the article. As the writer and now the reverter of that section I disagree with your conclusion, but the work you put in is still appreciated.

(idk, does that sound too unctuous?)

I laid out my reasoning at inconvenient length in my edit summaries, that these events leading up to the rally are relevant and significant to it. I am, however, tightening the section a bit. I also changed the section name back to “Republican accusations” from “reactions”, which it acquired on the way and which was a poor fit since this bit is exclusively about things that happened leading up to the rally. A move to a subsection of the background section could be appropriate when and if that section is heftier. I didn’t think there were unsourced sections, if you point them out I’ll look into them. Lastly, this is a quickly growing article so the relative WEIGHT of the rest of it is increasing rapidly. —Kizor 20:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]