Talk:George Floyd protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer?
A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact.
Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a reliable source.
Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)!
A3: See our Neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help.
Q4: Why is this article calling it a killing instead of a death/murder?
  • Any time one person causes the death of another – whether intentionally or not, whether criminally or not – that's a homicide. It's a very broad category. Every murder or manslaughter (of any "degree") is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder or manslaughter. A killing in self-defense is a homicide. Even an execution pursuant to a judicially imposed sentence of death is a homicide.
  • In most US jurisdictions the determination of whether or not a death is a homicide is made by a coroner or medical examiner, as a prerequisite to other legal proceedings. The medical examiner in Floyd's case determined that his death was, indeed, a homicide.
  • Thus Floyd's death is no longer simply a "death" but a homicide – or in common parlance, a killing. A homicide only becomes officially a murder or manslaughter after someone is convicted in court.

Split proposal: Reactions

Given the strong support for splitting here, I have implemented the proposal. I moved anything more than words, donations, media blackouts, and the Trump photo-op back to different parts of the main article, and summarized those things in the much shorter "Reactions" section. Several editors were in favor of trimming some or all non-encyclopedic reactions, but there were also editors opposed to trimming all reactions. My recommendation is to start trimming the least encyclopedic quotes first and see how far that it supported by consensus. This may trigger new discussions on Talk:Reactions to the George Floyd protests. -- Beland (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
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.

Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and part of it should be split to a new page entitled Reactions to the George Floyd protests. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think international reactions are definitely a split. However, "domestic reactions" (as currently written) are not really reactions, but either actions or words by actual participants of the events. For example, On June 1 he [Donald Trump] spoke from the Rose Garden, where he proclaimed "I am your president of law and order" and said he was "dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers" to deal with rioting in Washington, D.C. That belongs to this page, but possibly should be moved to a different section. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Concur with My very best wishes. Domestic reactions are not just a product of the protests, but also affect the protests. They should remain in the main article. userdude 18:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Split I need a better reason than a page size, which still falls within the limits, to support a split. Reactions, international or otherwise, are an integral part of this protest and affect the movement. Also, Per WP:SIZESPLIT, this falls into the category of "Length alone does not justify division". DTM9025 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed they are, and that is why it deserves a dedicated article to talk about it. RBolton123 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support split - As I said above, the reactions to this protest are as important to understanding the topic as the protests themselves, and it deserves its own page. RBolton123 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Sort of confused by this reasoning as if they are important to understand the protests, shouldn't they be in the protest article? DTM9025 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support split - Seems reasonable. Love of Corey (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support split as per all the arguments above. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support split or trim for the same reasons Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani was created 6 months ago. Reaction sections for big events are always bloated since everyone has something to say, so just give it its own page, or, alternatively, trim the section way down to only relevant and actually notable reactions. RopeTricks (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Support trim and split - The article is way too long. As usual, I think "reactions" sections are unencyclopedic and should be removed; second choice, though, is to split. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the split. - Featous (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that there was consensus yet, especially in the question of the fact that the reactions are fundamentally a product and a part of the protests, which I believe means that it should remain in the article and would like an answer about why that fact would mean it should be in a different article as one of the posters was mentioning. As such, I have reverted the split for now but would love to understand RBolton123 explanation on his points. DTM9025 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You are the only person of eight who opposes and it was two days since the last response. Shall we give it another two days for the surge of opposes that you are expecting? - Featous (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
There are three people opposing the split? userdude and My very best wishes including me? DTM9025 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
DTM9025, it's now been another week. Are we good to go ahead and split? Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 01:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be trimmed. Cole DiBiase (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support split Yeah, per the reasons stated by others, this is way too long of a page, and might I add that it even loads much slower comparatively. As a side note, perhaps other sections may need splits as well? I can also see the section about the covid concerns needing a split, to create an article that can go alongside all the other covid related articles. boldblazer (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose split – Reactions to the protests are important context, I think the separate section is enough and splitting the article would make it more difficult to find relevant information. The page isn't too long and the table of contents is there for a reason. SpockFan02 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support international split per My very best wishes Anon0098 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)\
  • Support split Yes, support the split. Also, I think "Reactions" could be expanded to include reactions from various corporations, organizations etc thus the "Reactions" page has considerable room to grow -- which makes it even more necessary to have it on a separate page. EnneDee (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support split per Reactions to Occupy Wall Street and Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Tvc 15 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose split – Reactions are a core part to the page and are necessary for its interpretation. Removing it to another page cripples this page in its entirety, nor is the reactions strong enough to fill its own page. Violence and controversies has more strength as an independent page, and I'd oppose the removal of that section as well. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A reactions section should go to Wikiquote. We do this literally every time that a major breaking news story happens, and people want to insert everything they find online into an article. GMGtalk 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support split - I believe it is important to keep reactions like Donald Trump's and other important political officials on this page because of their large impact on the protests. But I do think reactions from celebrities and corporations should be separated. Although many of them did supportive things like join protests and donate, they did not have a massive impact on protests in terms of largely changing their outcome. I believe celebs and corporation's reactions should be separated, but largely important politicians, governments, and organization's reactions should stay since many protests were targeted at them to make change, and how they reacted and the laws they passed as a result of this have had a massive impact on their countries and the goals of these protests. Uelly (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Split - Could we not split articles based on protests and riots? There have been protests all over the globe, but the attention right now is on protesting the death of George Floyd and police brutality and the actions of rioting and looting. Unless the article just needs to be renamed George Floyd Protests and Riots. I think the goals and actions of each party differ greatly and deserve their own pages and would split the information nicely. i.e leave the event of the death of George Floyd, the protest against police brutality, and the reaction from government and civil leaders. Put the destruction of property, statues, fires, violent clashes between police and rioters, etc. on another page. Just a thought. You could also reference external protests taking place in a section and have separate pages for those as well since they are protesting against police violence or other issues, but probably have more to do with their local experience and history within their own country or area. New to Wikipedia conversations so if this is not the correct way to reply to a talk section please let me know =P (Doomsdaysquid (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC))
  • Support split Already too long. Bvatsal61 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2020 (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.

"Violence during the George Floyd protests" should have its own article within this main one

That way, it'll help the fix the issues the article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Should a separate article I propose be created within this main article, it also should include violence that happens internationally in relations to the protests. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a reasonable suggestion, there is a lot to talk about when it comes to violence, especially police violence, surrounding the protests. BeŻet (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this main article is about protests/unrest in general and yet all of the violence displayed here is from the U.S. That's why a separate article should be proposed in order to fix this problem that applies both inside and outside the U.S. equally and to alleviate the problem this main article is currently having. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
XXzoonamiXX, are you proposing to WP:SPINOFF the Violence and controversies section into a separate article, and if so, is it OK with you if we make that "official"? (With a split proposal notification template on the article.) Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 01:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm proposing, yes. Violence and controversies should have its own separate article in order to reduce the main article being too long to navigate, and that way, it can include violence both inside and outside the U.S. However, I won't get involved in creating that separate one, so it's up to anyone here to do it if they wish. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Does anyone object to this split being done boldly? Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 06:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • By all means, go for it. No one's gonna stop you and if you want to do it, do it now rather than wait for others. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Many instances of violence and controversy are already covered in the George Floyd protest articles of various U.S. states and cities. Perhaps this article can note the most significant things and summarize some of what happened? Maybe more of effort should go into Improving those articles and adding controversial developments? Also, worth reading the Los Angeles riots article and MLK riots article for how things though of as critical to note now, may not be so in the future. Just a friendly thought, not a vote. VikingB (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support split - I support this size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I will probably take a crack at this in the next day or so. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 18:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
     Done The "Violence and controversies" section has been copied to Violence during the George Floyd protests (with a few minor changes); the lead of that article and the summary of this article are constructed from the opening paragraphs of the various subsections. The section left behind here, and the sub-article, could still use further improvement/condensing. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
May I suggest to add violence and deaths from other countries as well? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes I agree a global perspective would be best. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 02:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you get at least started on that? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Are the protests over? The article is unclear

I get most of my information from Wikipedia, but this article is confusing. Why doesn't it have a neat timeline, like the Yellow Jackets Protests article? I can't even get the picture of what was the last day of the rioting.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I agree there are evidences that they are, no new reports of street protests, most protests never announce that "the protests are now officially over", they are considered over as people stop going out to the streets to protest, and there havent been any new source or mention of George Floyd or any ongoing new protests, marches or violence. There will never be decleartion of an end to the protest, it is not a war or anything officilal, they are over when people literally stops protesting. Just like people will argue no WP:RS that the protests have ended, we can counter argue no WP:RS that the protests are ongoing. Protests are not offical wars that have declarations, like the 1992 Los Angeles riots protests ends when situation calms down and no more street protests (marches, violence, etc). Never the less a deceleration of the end of the protests was made on June 21: [1], I haqd even included it: [2] and no more protests on George Floyd have been reported since then. I support that protests are over, and the timeline between May 26 to June 21. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
When was the last demo reported?Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Last demo was reported on June 21 as per WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
That is one demo ending has (for example) the free zone been reoccupied?Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Also this [3] pretty much says that there were still protest on Tuesday.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC) there's still plenty of protesting going on, media coverage is dropping off however. There's a rally scheduled in my tiny town in southeastern CT for Saturday. I'm fairly certain we will be seeing protests for weeks yet, but there were definately some yesterday. (edit)I didn't intend for any specific changes of the article, just wanted to caution against jumping the gun on declaring the protests over. (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the protests are not at all over, at least not the events in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. Some type of protest gathering occurs each day, but the most newsworthy and notable events tend to happen over the weekends. That being said, peaceful protests with thousands of participants that feature boring stuff like speeches and chants and card board signs tend not to get as much media coverage and do not become the source of Wiki edit wars as when buildings are set on fire. What you might describe as rioting behavior occurred in Minneapolis-Saint Paul largely between May 28 and May 30, so I guess you say the rioting is over, but protests began May 26 and continue to today. VikingB (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

not even close..probably go one indefinitely 2600:1702:2340:9470:75CF:F0D7:D27B:FDC9 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Today (Friday) in New York City, there were 14 separate prayer vigils/marches/BLM Pride dance parties/outdoor movie viewings of 13th (film)/sit-ins/children's story hours, according to the IG account that has become the de facto announcement board for the city. News media largely moved on once they couldn't get new images of fires and tear gas. Just in NYC, thousands of people this weekend will participate in dozens of events that count as a "protests." If you're interested in places where protests just happened for the first time, the history of Template:George Floyd protests map is probably your best bet. So, no - the protests aren't over. - Featous (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Monday, 29 June 2020 marked the 33rd straight day of anti-racism protests in Portland. The chanting heard are: 'no KKK, no fascist USA'.
Policere used riot control munitions to clear out the demonstrations, but it's unclear what type of munitions were used. Loud booms and smoke were reported by witnesses, KOIN reported. Twitter account Portland Independent Documentarians shared a reported photo of the munition used:
So, no - the protests aren't over.-- (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
An updated timeline would still help tremendously.Doyna Yar (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Voice actor recasting

Should there be mention in the impact and effects section about the various voice roles being recast (The Simpsons, Family Guy, Central Park, Big Mouth, surely more to follow), in light of these protests and higher awareness of BLM?--Pokelova (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No as I am not sure they are protests.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
These are currently being captured at List of name changes due to the George Floyd protests#Personnel, though there is discussion at Talk:List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests#Further splitting? on the structure of these subtopics. - Featous (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
These are now mentioned in this article in the new section "Media takedowns, rewrites, and recasting". -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Opening a Trump/antifa can of worms

The current mentions of antifa in the article are:

  1. Arkansas senator Tom Cotton also pushed for the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division to be deployed to quell the unrest, calling protesters "Antifa terrorists."
  2. False stories about "Antifa buses" caused panic in rural counties throughout the country, despite there being no evidence they exist
  3. He also shared a post by President Trump regarding the U.S. designating Antifa as a terrorist organization (he being Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro)
  4. His Second Deputy Prime Minister, Pablo Iglesias, posted a tweet with the word "ANTIFA" in response to Trump's intentions to declare Antifa a terrorist organization
  5. Cavusoglu also endorsed Trump's announcement that he would designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization

It strike me as somewhat strange that uses #3, #4 and #5 all relate to comments by Trump that don't actually appear in the article. So should Trump's comments be included, or should the reactions relating to them be deleted? Or neither as well I suppose? FDW777 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a problem. The reactions should be deleted. The whole Trump-designating-antifa-a-terrorist-org thing belongs in articles about Trump and Antifa, but not here. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussions about antifa are directly related to the unrest, they deserve mention in this page Anon0098 (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I think they should be mentioned as well. Gandydancer (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
So do I 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Alt text in photo montage

The photos in the montage all need alts, they're currently using their filenames, but I don't know how to insert them in a photo montage. I'm willing to do the work if someone will do the first one so I can see how it's done. Or go read up on how, if someone can point me in the right direction. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Here you go. It's documented, as you might expect, at {{photomontage}}. —Cryptic 01:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Cryptic, oh, duh. I was using Vis Ed like a dummy. :) —valereee (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Using Forbes magazine in the lead

The lead currently states:

The economic impact of the protests has exacerbated the 2020 coronavirus recession by sharply curtailing consumer confidence, straining local businesses, and overwhelming public infrastructure with large-scale property damage.[1][2]

We really cannot state this information as factual. It is the opinion of several Forbes reporters of no great fame that I'm aware of. They can speak for Forbes but they can't speak for Wikipedia. I'm removing it from the lead and I'd suggest that editors take a look at they way it is being used in the body as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on including the House bill for Statehood of Washington D.C. - relevance ?

The section currently states -

Statehood for the District of Columbia

In response to the protests, the Democrat-controlled United States House of Representatives passed a bill 232-180 to statehood to most of the District of Columbia.[203] The change is opposed by President Trump and most Republicans, and was not expected to pass the Senate.[203] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the situation of taxation without representation in Congress a "grave injustice"; 46% of the population is African-American.[204]

I question how this is relevant to the subject.

I also observe that the bill by the Senate to address police behavior is not listed at all. One could easily argue that the George Floyd death was the result of illegal police actions, so a any bill if it were related to correcting or highlighting better/correct police actions would be relevant. I am not proposing it be added, but use it only to illustrate how a relevant action is not listed, where the issue of statehood for Washington D.C. is inserted ?

Htebault (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the Washington D.C. bill should be included. The other legislation you mention and the D.C. bill could be included in a section termed "Legislation" perhaps? Gandydancer (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, it doesn't seem relevant to me, and that language seems loaded to begin with. Anon0098 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove, per WP:SYN. There is nothing in the cited sources that says the House was responding to the protests with this action. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Name

I don't think that this article should be called George Floyd Protests. The vast majority of protesters claim that they are protesting in support of Black Lives Matter. Additionally, several protesters have claimed that they are also protesting the 2020 deaths of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor, which occurred before George Floyd's death. I think that the best title for this article would be 2020 Black Lives Matter Protests. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are way may call it what you want but the rest of us refer to it as the George Floyd Protests as it has been precipitated by his murder 2600:1702:2340:9470:ACBA:5CDD:5E2:89D3 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I can live with either, yes (technically) these protests are about a wide range of issues (and not just BLM, thought it is the major factor). But the spark was the killing of Floyd. So either name can be seen as accurate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Plus there are multiple other BLM-related protests going back to 2014. We'd have to make this 2020 Black Lives Matter protests or something, and then do we need to move Ferguson protests etc.? And what happens if these stop, but (god forbid) something else sparks renewed protests in November. I'm not sure BLM is the only thing going on here, but for sure this series of protests was directly sparked by Floyd's death. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we should move away from "protests" as the story has gotten bigger than that. The NASCAR action, Mississippi flag, and statues removed by governments don't fall under the heading of "protests." Something like "Aftermath of" or "Reactions to the killing of George Floyd" GreatCaesarsGhost 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this started from Floyd, and continues to be about the protests. George Floyd protests works fine, as it always has since it moved out of Minneapolis. Anon0098 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Facebook information deleted should be returned to article

With the edit summary: (To avoid an edit war I'm conceding the Trump quote since that is relevant. But not every barely-pertinent runoff effect deserves mention here) the following information was removed:

Civil rights groups including the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, and Color of Change organized the campaign "Stop Hate for Profit", urging companies to stop advertising on Facebook during June 2020, to pressure the social network to do more to block hate speech on its platform.[3] As of June 29, 246 brands were listed as confirmed participants, including Verizon, Eddie Bauer, The North Face, Patagonia, REI, Honda, and the Mozilla Foundation.[4] Coca-Cola, Ford, and Starbucks also announced participation.[5] Unilever announced it would suspend ads on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for the remainder of 2020.[3] Facebook announced policy changes with regard to hate speech and misinformation on June 26, which organizers dismissed as insufficient.[3]

This is so obviously connected to the George Floyd protests that I hardly even know how to defend it. This all started with Trump's quote and Facebook's resistance to condemn it and that is well-documented. However since my personal opinion means less than what RS says, here is a quote from The Guardian.


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CNN covid 19 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Beer, Tommy. "Experts Fear Minneapolis Protests Will Trigger Spike In Coronavirus Cases". Forbes. Retrieved May 31, 2020.
  3. ^ a b c "In Reversal, Facebook To Label Politicians' Harmful Posts As Ad Boycott Grows". Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  4. ^ "CONFIRMED LIST OF #STOPHATEFORPROFIT ADVERTISERS - Google Drive". Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  5. ^ Facebook Boycott Grows: Ford Joins Coca-Cola, Starbucks And Other Brands
"The swathe of announcements marked the first concessions from Facebook towards the aims of a coalition, Stop Hate for Profit, that was formed in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in May."[4] Gandydancer (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Again, while your sources are accurate, this is WP:UNDUE. Not every case that is indirectly a result of the protests deserves mention. This is a separate issue. Anon0098 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support George Floyd has only been dead for FIVE WEEKS. More progress has been made on race relations in the US in one month than the 40 years preceding. There are no "separate" issues; everything stems from Floyd. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

[Redacted] -- (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2020

Correct form in: "An educator form the University of Washington said" to from. 2601:3C1:102:D20:40C0:BEB9:66D7:8D80 (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
What is Wiki.RIP There is a free information resource on the Internet. It is open to any user. Wiki is a library that is public and multilingual.

The basis of this page is on Wikipedia. Text licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License..

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an independent company that is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation).

Privacy Policy      Terms of Use      Disclaimer