Talk:50501 movement

March 4th

Can the article reflect the new protest date? , Rosa Olmos (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No, wait for it to happen. We can't use bluesky for a source. Once it happens, there will be enough reliable sources for us to start adding it to the article. In the meantime, we need to work on adding the other two protests to the article. We are behind and if it stays that way, we won't be able to document all the protests. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. So we have MSNBC & CBS talking about the 4th of March: , . The 50501 event calendar says 4th of March: And we can list future missions to Mars ahead of time: List_of_missions_to_Mars#Future_missions

Or have a full article about a future, yet to be released video game: Grand Theft Auto VI. There's even a whole category for upcoming video games: Category:Upcoming_video_games_scheduled_for_2025 Or products: Category:Upcoming_products Rosa Olmos (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Expecting the article might be updated quite a bit today. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yea, we need to catch up. I am going to finish moving the locations section to the protest section tonight Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Fork out 50501 protests in February 2025?

A number of protests are being held today, so this article is going to continue to grow. One issue is some of the paragraphs don't have specific dates, so this is going to get harder to maintain. I want to float the idea: Should we fork 50501#Protests out to 50501 protests in February 2025? Then, we could keep a summary of February 2025 protests here and have a new section specific to the March 2025 protests? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond, Adolphus79, Opm581, and Sarsenet: Curious if you have thoughts, since you've participated in other discussions related to content organization. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we should just add dates. Considering this article is going to be a first of its kind, we will be the ones setting the precedent for movements of this size in the future. After I finish adding moving protests from locations to protests I am planning on moving the protests section to the 50501 protests page (and removing the redirect that it has). Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond Ok, since I don't object and a couple other editors have expressed support for forking 50501 protests above, I've been bold. Feel free to copy move over the remaining "Locations" listings when you are ready. Meanwhile, I've included a link to 50501 protests within the History section of this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Following another discussion at Talk:50501 protests, there are now pages for 50501 protests in February 2025, 50501 protests in March 2025, and 50501 protests in April 2025. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

De facto flag edit war

@SqueakSquawk4, @Jamie Eilat, @72.230.213.99, @Elipticon, and @Ebedit. As a 3rd party to this situation, I see an edit war developing over whether the US flag should be included as the de facto flag of 50501. Please talk this out, so we can form consensus on whether the flag should be included as the de facto flag of 50501. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been seeing the same thing, and I share this concern. I don't think we should be showing the flag based on observations that it is "de facto" often displayed at protests. That's essentially WP:OR. We need to have a reliable source that says, explicitly, that it is a quasi-official symbol of the movement, or saying that it has come to have a consistent and significant role in the movement, or else it should be removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Not only is it used as the official banner for several of their chapters and demonstrations, but even leading figureheads use it as a defacto banner. There is no source saying that it is official because it is DEFACTO. Not only as removing the banner inaccurate it is counterproductive. We should keep it. 72.230.213.99 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

If that is so, it should be possible to link to websites operated by some of the state chapters, where the flag can be seen being used in this way. And it should be used in a more significant way than simply appearing in photographs of demonstrations, where people do, of course, carry it. Failing even that, this clearly violates WP:NOR, which is policy here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You can easily view it through 50501s official page and subservient chapter pages. If it is commonly used by members as an official symbol then it immediately falls under de facto definition. The flag should stay. Ebedit (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm an active member, and what you just said isn't true. I just looked at the website for the national movement, and the website for the movement in my state, and the only places I see the flag is in photos of demonstrations where some people, individually, are carrying it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Went to several of their demonstrations, and both the organizers and demonstrators were holding the American flag. They even had a American flag on the stage where they were speaking. Hell the theme of their upcoming event is themed about the American flag. Ebedit (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

In the 2023-2024 Georgian protests, for example, the Georgian flag was a prominent symbol throughout the protests, and yet nobody considers it to be the de-facto flag of the protest. I don't see what makes the 50501 protests unique. Again, sources are necessary to demonstrate that this is the de-facto flag, not just "I saw American flags at the protest so it's de-facto the protest flag". Elipticon (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you @Mikeycdiamond for actually formalising this into a discussion.

A lot of people are taking the US flag to the protests *specifically to be a protest flag*. At least on r/50501 where I'm generally connected to the movement, there is a lot of talk about using the protests to reclaim the US flag from nationalists, and make it a flag of progressives too through the association with the movement. The discussion at least is that the US flag represents the goals of the movement - that is, freedom, democracy, etc; what America is meant to stand for. Protestors therefore use it for the movement because it represents the movement, to speak for the movement. IMO, that makes it a flag of the movement.

The point about it being a "De-facto" flag is that it won't really have sources. "De-facto" implies informal. If there were sources from the organisers saying "Yes, this is the protest flag", then it wouldn't be de-facto. IDK how this jives with Wikipedia policy so someone please go check, but IMO if it's widely considered to be the protest flag, then Wikipedia should reflect that, even if there isn't a source specifically saying "Yes, this is used as the protest flag", because IMO wikipedia should reflect the real world. Also if a source is really necessary I could probably write one and bother a news org into publishing it if that'd help.

Disclaimer: I am somewhat biased in favour of it being considered the de-facto protest flag because I want to reclaim the US flag from nationalists. SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I realize that some editors here are probably new to Wikipedia, and unfamiliar with how things work here. I said above that everyone here needs to read WP:NOR if you are not already familiar with it, and I'll now add WP:V and WP:RGW. There is simply no getting around that. This is how things work here. It doesn't matter what discussions an editor has had, or what an editor has seen at protests, and we don't make exceptions if someone argues that being de facto is a way to get around policies. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I should't have tried to go against the idea of Wikipedia. I'll leave SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

No need to apologize and no need to leave. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. The Trump-favorable protests also carry the flag, and sometimes also the Confederate and Nazi flags. So the de facto flag must be documented by the (2) organization and (3) reliable sources. Both are missing right now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a very important point, about how all kinds of movements carry the flag without it becoming de facto the flag of the movement. I also think there is an emerging consensus that, on the basis of the applicable policies, it should be removed from the page. I'm gonna allow a bit more time in case anyone objects further, but I'm just about at the point of removing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

No content without sources. Period. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the flag from the infobox. It has become clear that there is no policy basis for including it, and I think that if anyone edit wars it back in, that would be disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Movement type and organization edit war

An anonymous editor has changed the mobement type from "grassroots movement" to "coalition" and changed leadership from "decentralized" to "centralized, uncertain". Changes were reverted but changed again by the same editor to "political astroturphing" and "coalition" respectively. This editor does not wish to discuss their edits.

The 50501 movement claims themselves that they are decentralized and have no leadership, and that they are a grassroots movement, though their own testimony should be put to scrutiny.

If there are sources claiming that 50501 is neither grassroots nor decentralized, it is suggested a section be added to address the conflicting narratives. Otherwise, it is suggested that the section involving their organization type and and leadership be reverted and protected from vandalism. DaytimeElm (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've changed it back to grassroots in the interim - obviously it's bad to have it be wrong in either direction, but since changing it to astroturfing was just as unsourced as having it as grassroots it should probably stick with the original until sources are found for one or the other claim. Vəssel ^{[talk to mə]} 11:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I changed the leadership back to decentralized. In my view, if the organization doesn't have a clear leader or group of leaders, it is decentralized. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources supporting the claim. I am going to remove the entry from the infobox. Dieknon (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/05/what-is-50501-protest-movement/78248832007/ has the organizers describing the organization as decentralized. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Of the points of the self-sourcing policy, three are doubtful in my opinion.

• "The material is not unduly self-serving." — This is questionable. Movements tend to be very interested in donning the "decentralised" and "grassroots" monikers as a form of advertising. It is very much a self-serving claim. The only question is whether it's unduly self-serving.
• "The claim does not involve claims about third parties." — Suppose that the movement really is decentralised. Wouldn't that make individual organisers third parties in relation to the entire movement? Why would we take their word for anything?
• "There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." — As I understand it, the movement is primarily organised on two forums. One hosted on Reddit and one hosted on Discord. The moderation teams of these two forums have the same leadership. Various other forums and the website for the movement is also likely administrated by this same leadership, as demonstrated by very tight cross-promotion between themselves. And to top it all off, a search on the US Patent and Trademark Office's website shows us that there are multiple 50501-related trademarks currently pending. These applications may be rejected, yes, but they have already costed several thousand dollars. This would be a waste of money if there wasn't a plan in mind to enforce a unified brand image using legal methods, which somehow doesn't sound very "decentralised" to me.

Of course, this is just the self-sourcing policy. If there was a third-party source claiming that the movement is decentralised, then this would all be moot. Dieknon (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dieknon the source is the website 24.125.122.155 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Vəssel grassroots organizations don't apply for trademarks with the USPTO 24.125.122.155 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@DaytimeElm "the editor does not wish to discuss their edits" I did in the edit summary, please read! 24.125.122.155 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I interpreted "the burden of the talk page is not on me" to mean "I don't want to use the talk page" and therefore that you didn't want to discuss it. DaytimeElm (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@DaytimeElm oh so that means you can just revert my edit? yeah no. nice try. 24.125.122.155 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The talk page is here so that we can discuss the content of the page without resulting in an edit war. If you have anything substantial that would contribute to the discussion and content, please provide it for review. DaytimeElm (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You edits has been seen as vandalism because there isn't any sources backing up your claims. Per Wikipedia:No original research, you need reliable sources to state these claims before you can add them (citing the source that said it in the first place). Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Considering you have cited the website as your source, I also think Wikipedia:Verifiability is relivent to this conversation. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond pretty sure you can't get a better source on 50501 than their website 24.125.122.155 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of better sources that supports the movement being grassroots. For example, 1, 2, and 3 all are reliable sources that state that the movement is grassroots. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond ive said repeatedly it's on the website. you need to read better 24.125.122.155 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, that source isn't reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Secondly, the only list of "groups" on the website is a list of protests (making your interpretation of the source fall under Wikipedia:SYNTH). Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable sourcing to indicate that it is a centralized movement, that it is not grassroots, or that it is not progressive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and your source for that it is grassroots and that it is progressive? 24.125.122.155 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Another thing. I'm not an admin, and I'm not going to bother to add the template to this talk page, but this and related pages are subject to the WP:CTOP about American politics, which if memory serves, include WP:1RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Free America Walkout planned on January 20, 2026, along with General Strike USA

There will be another in January 20, 2026, it's called Free America Walkout and it even has its own website, https://www.freeameri.ca/ it is a 50501 event and it is also mentioned in the website https://www.the50501movement.org/p/free-america-walkout-jan-20 Also there is a group called The General Strike or General Strike USA and as of writing this text, on the website it has 408,665 "commited" and the remaining 10,591,335 "needed" https://generalstrikeus.com/ We need to create a article about it as early as possible, i mean USA has guam where the time zone is +10 (Wake Island is +12, but there aren't civilians), therefore it is importatnt to do it as early as possible, actually there already are news articles about it that can be used as reliable sources, here is all i found https://eu.telegram.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/12/what-is-the-free-america-walkout-more-anti-trump-protests-planned/88140963007/ https://tuscaloosathread.com/tuscaloosa-free-america-walkout/ https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/free-america-walkout-january-20 https://www.islandssounder.com/news/free-america-walkout-jan-20-at-the-courthouse/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/free-america-walkout-date-what-it-is-how-to-join-more-info/ar-AA1TUlkf?ocid=BingNewsVerp https://www.hercampus.com/life/whats-trending-2026-it-list/ https://theberkshireedge.com/free-america-walkout-on-jan-20/ https://fullertonobserver.com/2026/01/08/nationwide-protest-planned-for-january-20-2026-as-part-of-free-america-walkout-initiative/ https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/masses-going-to-the-streets-jan-20-in-nationwide-free-america-walkout/ https://patch.com/alabama/tuscaloosa/free-america-walkout-protest-planned-later-month-tuscaloosa https://freespeechforpeople.org/movement-for-impeaching-and-removing-trump-gains-new-momentum/ https://www.sanjuanjournal.com/life/free-america-walkout-jan-20-at-the-courthouse/ https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-protests-one-year-anniversary-womens-march-11200399 https://patch.com/alabama/tuscaloosa/new-aldi-opens-northport-walkout-protest-tuscaloosa ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I suggest working at Draft:Free America Walkout. If you start a page in the main space now someone will just tag it for deletion ahead of the event. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Should this article be reviewed right now because it already has 2 reliable sources, which is the minimum needed and also if it is no longer draft then there would be more information if it was a public non-draft article, right? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

No, the page will just be nominated for deletion. You should work on expanding the draft page until the event. If you work on the draft, you should use news sources to add claims, not primary sources or blogs or official websites. Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

How about you? Why don't you also work on expanding the draft page? You will help this draft page, if you would work on expanding the draft page. And me? i don't know what i will do. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I got the page started, anyone is welcome to expand appropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, i didn't realized you were the person behind the creation of the draft, so what now? Could it be reviewed right now or what? What happens when it gets reviewed right now? I mean it has 2 reliable sources. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I've already answered this, I'm moving on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, ok, how about creating three draft articles about The General Strike US, T1 Phone (mobile phone) and T1 Mobile (mobile service) by Trump Mobile? Yes, T1 Phone and T1 Mobile are real if you haven't heard about it and they are also both mentioned in the "Trump Mobile" wikipedia article, so why not have a dedicated article about it? I mean there are enough sources for there to be a article and there should be a minimum of 2 reliable sources in a article and the T1 Phone and T1 Mobile have like more than 10 reliable sources to it on this wikipedia article, and The General Strike US probably could have 2 reliable news articles (or other) about it, so why not create three articles about these? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

They would almost certainly be merged back. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You think so? There are enough news articles that they woundl't be merged back. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)