Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–present)/Archive 2

Burn it down
This article is a dumpster fire. Presenting contentious opinions as fact, having an introduction which is overwhelmingly long. Just the first line is presumptuous. It would be like presenting pogroms as racial urest against jewish usuary. A better approach is to describe the objective truth: They are a series of riots and violents incidents sparked by media reports of violent police insidents involving blacks and other non-whites in the USA. As for murder of George Floyd, I mean, we know that despite the verdict, it is still contentious, and in cases where police clearly murdered white people, we still use the word "killing", but I guess this is a whole other can of worms. So here are a few suggestion to sort this mess:

Shorten the intro by at least half. A lot of the stuff belongs in a separate section.

Use simple objectivly observable fact without putting any value judgements, positive or negative, towards the rioters or police.

Remove the obvious left wing talking point like "By mid-June, American national culture and attitude towards racial injustice began to shift", which implies that before mid june, Unitedstatians were favorable to racial injustice, which seems like a really big stretch. It also implies that the things being protested are racial injustice, and not simply described as such.

Use the clear non-judjumental term "riot" instead of protest. Protest imply a political motivation, whilst riot simply describe the observable actions. Indeed, it is impossible to know if the rioters were motivated by a desire to protest against police use of force, or simply an opportunity to have consequence-free fun. The other issue is that usally, we have used the expression "race riots" to described such events, like with the Rodney King affair in california. Alternatively, one could use both joined, in order to avoid implying that the riots were not at all motivated by legitimate grievences.

A lot of wikipedia pages on US politics have this really low-quality left-wing partisanry to them, and we use the excuse that traditional media reports the news like this. We are not a for profit organisation, we want to inform people, not sell outrage. We should strive to hold ourselves to a high standard, and avoid emulating the editorial positions of our sources. It is possible to report the events without the commentary, or to directly attribute the commentary to its author, as we should. Francis1867 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So what do you think should be taken out of the lede?Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Specific details about specific riots, and all of the spin. If we stay to the fact, it can be easily shorten in half. The spin can be put in their respective section, or even better, gotten rid of.

"The 2020–2021 United States racial unrest is an ongoing wave of protests and riots motivated by racial issues in the United States. It was initially triggered by the reports surrounding the death of George Floyd during his arrest by Minneapolis police officers on May 25, 2020. Unrest broke out in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area on May 26, and quickly spread across the United States and the world. Widespread property destruction and looting occurred, in, causing National GuardS to be activated and deployed and curfew being established.

(This belongs in a sperate section on "damages") By early June, at least 200 American cities had imposed curfews, while more than 30 states and Washington, D.C, had activated over 62,000 National Guard personnel in response to unrest.[15][16][17] By the end of June, at least 14,000 people had been arrested at protests.[18][19][20] Polls have estimated that between 15 million and 26 million people have participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making them the largest protests in United States history.[21][22][23] According to a September 2020 estimate, arson, vandalism and looting caused about $1–2 billion in insured damage between May 26 and June 8, making this initial phase of the George Floyd protests the civil disorder event with the highest recorded damage in United States history.[7][31]

(Separate section for federal policing) There has also been a large concentration of unrest around Portland, Oregon, which has led to the Department of Homeland Security deploying federal agents in the city from June onward. The move was code named Operation Legend, after four-year-old LeGend Taliferro, who was shot and killed in Kansas City.[32] Federal forces have since also been deployed in other cities which have faced large amounts of unrest, including Kansas City and Seattle.[33][34][35][36] More localized unrest reemerged in several cities following incidents involving police officers, notably following the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, which led to protests and riots in the city. The protests have led to requests at the federal, state and municipal levels intended to combat police misconduct, systemic racism, qualified immunity and police brutality in the United States.[37][38] A wave of monument removals and name changes has taken place throughout the world, especially in the United States. This itself has sparked conflict, between left-wing and right-wing groups, often violent.

(This is propaganda, it needs to be cited as someone's opinion, not objetive fact) The racial unrest precipitated a national American cultural reckoning on topics of racial injustice. Public opinion of racism and discrimination quickly shifted in the wake of the protests, with significantly increased support of the Black Lives Matter movement and acknowledgement of institutional racism.[41][42][43] Demonstrators revived a public campaign for the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials as well as other historic symbols such as statues of venerated American slaveholders and modern display of the Confederate battle flag.[44][45] Public backlash widened to other institutional symbols, including place names, namesakes, brands and cultural practices. Anti-racist self-education became a trend throughout June 2020 in the United States. Black anti-racist writers found new audiences and places on bestseller lists. American consumers also sought out black-owned businesses to support. The effects of American activism extended internationally, as global protests destroyed their own local symbols of racial injustice. Multiple media began to refer to it as a national reckoning on racial issues in early June.[41][42][43][46]" Francis1867 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that all the protests were riots is clearly absurd. FDW777 (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As indeed the lead states, It was also estimated that between May 26 and August 22, around 93% of protests were "peaceful and nondestructive" referenced by the Washington Post. If the protests are "peaceful and nondestructive", how are they "riots"? FDW777 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post article only counted "protests" where people were injured or their lives/well being were in danger, meaning that "protests" where property damage and assaults on police equipment occurred but no one was at risk of being hurt would have been counted as "peaceful". History Man1812 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812
 * If they are peacefull and non-destructive, how can they kill over 30 people, injure over 400 police officer, and cause over 2 bilion USD of damages? I mean, its fine to have an opinion, but opinion from propaganda outlet is just that. I am sure you can find plenty of arabic language newspaper which are credible source that explain why the holocaust never happened. We still have to show some critical thinking when quoting sources, because even generally reliable sources sometime are untruthfull or overly biased. Francis1867 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you intend to keep talking, please let me know and I'll file an enforcement request. FDW777 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, maybe you shouldn't bully other users who don't share your perspective? Francis1867 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Read wp:consensus wp:or and wp:tenditious, wp:bludgeoning a thread never works. You have been answered,Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three" . You are accusing me of precisely what you are doing. Francis1867 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the issue here the use of the word "protest" versus "riot"? If so I believe there should be a simple solution: introduce a third term, "peaceful protest". It is clear that not every protest turned into a riot.  In fact it appears from available evidence and RS that most protests were peaceful.  It is equally clear from many of the same RS that some protests did in fact turn into riots (e.g. 93% peaceful means 7% not peaceful).  So in the article we should use "protests" when we are referring to broadly to "protests" which includes both peaceful and not peaceful, "peaceful protests" when only referring to those that did not involve violence or destruction and "riots" when referring to those that involved violence and destruction. Just my suggestion.
 * As a commentary I must state that I am distressed by tenor of the discussion, including personal attacks and threats. It would be far more productive if we all made an effort to not be disagreeable just because we disagree.  Let's assume everyone is acting to produce a quality product and no one has bad intentions. 184.148.49.8 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating Deaths
The 25 deaths referenced in the Guardian article are just ones that are directly related to political violence during protests and riots, and do not count other deaths related to the unrest. Additionally, the article was written ~6 months ago despite the unrest being categorized as ongoing, so it is most likely outdated.

History Man1812 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812
 * True, so you need to find sources for a number.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Better title
Who's in favor of renaming it the 2020s United States racial unrest? Warlightyahoo (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 2020-2021 is the accurate naming convention as it is ongoing; 2021 being the current year and 2020 being the year in which it primarily started. I don't see a reason why it should be changed to "2020s" as that would imply it has been a constant for the entire decade; since we're in the very start of the decade ATM it'd be quite odd to predict the future in that way. Nekomancer Jaidyn  ( talk ) 08:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the improvement achieved by replacing "2020–2021" with "2020s"? Right now the article is in line with many other articles describing events that have spanned those two years (a quick search shows 2020–2021 Thai protests, 2020–2021 global chip shortage, and 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest for example), whereas articles using "2020s" in the title are those that cover subjects that will inherently continue to accumulate new material throughout the entire 2020s (2020s in political history, 2020s in film, List of animated feature films of the 2020s). It's quite possible that United States racial unrest will continue to span the entire 2020s (in my perhaps pessimistic view, the rate of political change makes it likely) but that's only something that can be known with certainty with the benefit of hindsight that 2030 will bring. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This current racial unrest will be the only such event to happen in the 2020s so it makes sense to name it after the decade as is typically done to name historical events such as the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party revolts of the 1950s that happened primarily in 1950s with 1954 being the only other eventful year therein. When this racial unrest ends, it's unlikely that the 2020s will experience another period of significant racial unrest, and if another period of racial unrest occurs later in the 2020s, wouldn't it just be added to the 2020s Racial Unrest anyway? Like 2020s United States racial unrest
 * first racial unrest: 2020-2022
 * second racial unrest: 2026-2028

So the name change wouldn't predict anything, it would just sumarize it all more concisely. Warlightyahoo (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * THis is about a specific wave, in reaction to a specific set of events.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I might also add that if this unrest span a few more years, then 2020-2023 United States racial unrest would be a non typical, probably only such historical event named after a span skipping years. Warlightyahoo (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2021

 * 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

2020–2021 United States racial unrest → 2020-2021 United States civil unrest – I am requesting that the article be moved to 2020-2021 United States civil unrest - swapping places with the redirect. Though the current title is accurate in that the bulk of the protests are within addressing institutionalized racial issues, it has a large issue in that the much of the protests go beyond racial issues, delving into systematic inequality and police inefficiency itself.

It also paints a picture of the protests as racially divided, as the term "racial unrest" would imply; making it seem as if it's heavily sectarian while, as acknowledged by the article itself and numerous news publications, the wave of protests and resistance has large support on both sides of most racial demographics.

Finally, the term "racial unrest" being used hasn't exactly been used as often as the terms "civil unrest" or "social unrest" or even simply "unrest". Though I don't have sources on this, from what I've seen "racial unrest" doesn't stand out enough from the others enough to quality for WP:COMMONNAME, especially as after June the movement began to expand to address broad systematic inequality rather than the specific cases of police brutality.

In short, the current title is narrow, misleading, and overall inferior to the alternatives. Nekomancer Jaidyn ( talk ) [she/her] 01:08, 31 August 2021 (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.
 * Oppose per MOS:YEARRANGE, year between two should be separated using en dash. In addition, changing the name into "civil unrest" implies that you must expanding the article beyond the scope, such as including information about the 2021 United States Capitol attack to this article. 114.125.236.251 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the article would need to expand massively in scope (e.g., Stop Line 3 protests, protests against COVID-19 mitigation measures, 2020 U.S. elections protests and unrest, etc.). I might suggest 2020–2021 United States racial injustice unrest or 2020–2021 United States racial injustice protests and unrest, if the current title is not preferred. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. Sadly there is so much unrest in this country that we need to specify which topic of unrest this article is about. The current title seems the most NPOV to me. Crossroads -talk- 05:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if we changed the title to civil unrest, the meaning becomes foggy. Which unrest? In regards to what? Racial unrest, although not completely comprehensive, is much more accurate of a term. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 02:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality
Using the Black Lives Matter foundation as a source for rates of violence during protests seems quite biased Dsobol0513 (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Consumer Behavior: Confusing Facebook boycott with self-education
I recommend changing the sentencev "There was also a social media and Facebook boycott on self-education."

To: "Consumer concerns over hate speech on social media platforms caused some companies to implemented temporary boycotts on advertising on certain platforms."

I'll update the text in 24 hours if there are no comments.

Background: The section on consumer behavior includes the sentence "There was also a social media and Facebook boycott on self-education." The reference is VOA article about several companies choosing to not advertise on social media platforms (including Facebook), because of the perceived lack of moderation of hate speech. I think the current sentence implies self-education was being boycotted. (Or that Facebook was boycotting self-education.) Consumer behavior drove industries to change their advertising practices, but that wasn't a boycott of self-education. Waarmstr (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Lack of accuracy and neutrality in the article
The article as written implies that institutional racism exists in policing though this is disputed by many credible studies. I merely changed it to be neutral and not assume facts not known to be true. It also includes information which is not supported by the articles cited, specifically 1) that police have instigated violence at the protests and 2) that there are examples of white supremacist organizations being involved. The articles cited on the police instigation only imply this without providing any specifics or examples. The article cited with respect to “examples” of white supremacist activity deals with only one very limited incident in Stone Mountain, Georgia which as far as I can tell was not even a significant site of protests. I believe my edits significantly improved the accuracy and neutrality of the article. User:Gregausman (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For others reviewing, these are the edits in question.
 * Please provide these sources. The idea that there is no institutional racism whatsoever in policing is a fringe view, and we have many articles that go into great detail about the phenomenon (race and crime in the United States, race in the United States criminal justice system, etc.)
 * Regarding your point 1, can you clarify specifically which statement you're referring to so I can check the citations?
 * Regarding point 2, this is a summary of the article and was verified by other citations in the article, but I've reused another citation directly after the sentence to be clear that it is referring to multiple incidents. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are two credible studies which dispute the existence of systemic police racism and are based on primary research, unlike several of those cited in the article currently which appear to mostly reference other papers (i.e. are secondary sources).
 * (1) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 2021 Statistical Brief NCJ 255969 Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf
 * (Specific text: "Among the most serious incidents of violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault), there were no statistically significant differences by race between offenders identified in the NCVS and persons arrested per the UCR (table 3). White and black people were arrested proportionate to their involvement in serious nonfatal violent crime overall and proportionate to their involvement in serious nonfatal violent crime reported to police. ")
 * (2) "Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings", David J. Johnson, Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, Joseph Cesario, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2019, 116 (32) 15877-15882; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1903856116 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
 * (Specific text: "We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race."
 * Despite there being credible studies (including the two above) disputing the idea of systemic racism in policing I don't believe we need to address it in this article, I suggest we should instead make the article neutral by rewording to "widespread belief of".  This approach is supported by the following study which indicates that a majority (51%) of Americans believe blacks are treated less fairly than whites in policing.
 * "Poll: Americans' views of systemic racism divided by race", University of Massachusetts Lowell https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-09/uoml-pav092320.php
 * Given the relatively slight majority who believe this (51%) and the significant minority who do not (41% believe whites and blacks are treated the same and a further 7% believe whites are treated less fairly), opinion to the contrary of the majority should not be categorized as fringe. My suggestion is to modify the article to be neutral on the topic.
 * Text in article: "According to several studies and analysis, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, with police and counter-protesters sometimes starting violence."
 * I could not read the Washington Post reference as the article is behind the paywall but it appears to be an opinion piece. In the other two articles (also both opinion pieces) there is no evidence provided of "police starting violence".
 * Text in article: "A wave of monument removals and name changes has taken place throughout the world, especially in the United States. This itself has sparked conflict, between left-wing and right-wing groups, often violent. Several far-right groups, including civilian militias and white supremacists, have fought with members of "a broad coalition of leftist anti-racist groups" in street clashes."
 * These sentences do not appear to be summarizing the article but rather introduce new information suggesting that widespread violent conflicts arose between left wing and right wing groups as a result of monument removals and name changes. While it may be true, this assertion is not supported by the articles cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note wp:v a source must explicitly say it, it cannot be how you interpret a source. So if a source does not say "there is no such thing as systematic racism" but rather "there were no statistically significant differences by race between offenders identified in the NCVS and persons arrested per the UCR" it does not say "there is no such thing as systematic racism" (see wp:or).Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: I am not suggesting we should state that there "is no such thing as systemic racism in policing" but rather that we should not imply that the issue of "systemic racism in policing" is a matter of fact. It is clear from the above articles that there is objective evidence to the contrary and therefore we should maintain neutrality on the subject.  Furthermore it is not fringe opinion since it is shared by 48% of Americans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what rs say, not "most people" if the bulk of RS say X we must say X.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not suggesting we should state that there "is no such thing as system racism in policing" but if we are going to imply there is rather than neutrally presenting the subject then we should cite RS including any RS to the contrary to provide balance. Currently the article links to another article which deals with systemic racism broadly rather than the specific assertion being implied that there is systemic racism in American policing.  I do not see any RS cited which provide support for the implication that systemic racism exists in policing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, you may wish to review our reliable sources policy, because your statement about secondary sources leads me to believe you are not very familiar. We prefer secondary sources, and primary sources must be used with caution to avoid doing exactly the kind of synthesis you are attempting. I agree with Slatersteven—you are drawing quite broad conclusions on these two sources, which make no statements to contradict the idea that institutional racism exists in policing. You are also ignoring the extensive sourcing which does explicitly state that there is institutional racism in policing, with no synthesis on our part needed. We do not write Wikipedia articles based on what the majority of people think, we write them according to what reliable sources say. Lots of people, even still, believe that Trump won the 2020 presidential election, but our article on that topic certainly doesn't say that he did, nor do we say that Biden was "widely believed" to have won the election.
 * Regarding your later statement, "I do not see any RS cited which provide support for the implication that systemic racism exists in policing", is currently the third source in the article.
 * Thank you for specifying the sentence you were concerned about. I can access the Washington Post article, which is not an opinion piece. The article states, "When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters" and later, "In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence".
 * On the sentence about clashes between right-wing and left-wing groups, that is summarizing the article, which mentions such clashes in multiple sections including #Stone Mountain incident, August 15, 2020 (clash specifically over a monument removal) and #Portland "Back the Blue" Rally, August 22, 2020 (clash more generally). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To illustrate one of your sources says "Among the most serious incidents of violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault)", there are two problems with using this to say three is no institutional racism in the US police. The first is (as I have said) it does not in fact say there is none (you interoperate it to say it). The second is (as a number of recent cases (including George Floyds murder, the event that sparked all this off) that it is the police reaction to minor offenses (and even people who have committed no crime) that the sources used to demonstrate institutional racism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for directing me to the RS article, I am still learning so I truly appreciate it and would appreciate any guidance you can give me as I become more familiar with the Wikipedia policies. I now understand the secondary versus primary source preference.
 * With respect to the article you cite, it does not explicitly conclude, "there is systematic police racism", rather it starts with that as a given and attempts to dispute a study which provides data to the contrary (even the title of the article illustrates this "Why Statistics Don’t Capture The Full Extent Of The Systemic Bias In Policing"). If an article that begins with the conclusion as a given can be considered a RS for that conclusion, I am surprised.  At minimum it should be treated as opinion since clearly the author is going in with a particular point of view, not attempting to do a scholarly analysis.
 * The comparison to Biden winning the election is not apples to apples.  There is little dispute on whether he won the election (after all he is President).  There is significant difference of opinion on whether there is SYSTEMIC racism in policing, both in academia and in the public.  At minimum the article cited should be treated as being in the realm of opinion, rather than scholarly analysis.  As I understand Wikipedia's RS (and again I will stipulate that I am new so my apologies if I am wrong), opinion articles should be used in the following manner: "So and so says...", rather than taken as fact or prevailing opinion.
 * With respect to police instigating violence, "In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence" and "When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters" are not functionally equivalent to "with police and counter-protesters sometimes starting violence" as it ignores "reportedly" and "or escalated" in the first quote and "reportedly" and "or counterprotesters" in the second. Also the second quote does not address who started the violence even if you ignore the qualifiers.  In order to cite the article accurately these qualifiers should be included.  In addition, when taken in context with the rest of the sentence, "According to several studies and analyses, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful" the statement suggests that the protesters were peaceful and the police violence was not generally a reaction to violence on the part of protesters.  This is a bias not supported by the evidence cited which clearly indicates that in many cases the protesters were not peaceful and there is only one very weak statement which suggests that police started violence.
 * Overall, and I'm not sure why my proposed change is being misinterpreted, I am NOT suggesting we should state that "there is no systemic racism in American policing", just that we should not be implying that this is a settled fact without citing one or more strong RS. I would not put the article above in that category for reasons stated: at best it is biased and should be treated as opinion.   Do we have an unbiased source, ideally scholarly in nature, which as a Secondary Source, reviews either a breadth of data or draws on multiple primary sources and forms a conclusion that "there is systemic police racism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim is now sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The source I linked (which I will note is just one source used in this article that describes systemic racism in policing, not the sole source) treats systemic racism in policing in the United States as a given because that is the mainstream view. That is also why this article treats it as a statement of fact, rather than a contested view. That is precisely what I am trying to communicate to you. There is significant difference of opinion on whether there is SYSTEMIC racism in policing, both in academia and in the public. Refer to my above reply as to why the public's difference of opinion does not affect how this article states facts. But you have yet to demonstrate that this significant difference of opinion exists in academia. Our articles that actually focus on this topic, such as Race in the United States criminal justice system and Race and crime in the United States, both support my evaluation that this is the mainstream view, and state, "Research also indicates that there is extensive racial and ethnic discrimination by police and the judicial system." I see Slatersteven has already pulled in some sourcing to cite this article's mention of systemic racism inline; I suspect any of the five sources that follow this quoted statement in these two articles would also be useful if you are not satisfied with their choices of sources, though if you are, there is no need to citebomb.
 * I have adjusted the statement about police instigation of violence in the lead a bit, both to better represent the existing (WaPo) source and also incorporate two new ones. I also think you are correct that we should incorporate "escalation" into the lead, as the original source and many others have reported on that in depth. The new lead currently reads: According to several studies and analyses, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. In protests that involved violence, violence was variously instigated by protesters, counter-protesters, or police, and police sometimes escalated confrontations. Does this new wording address your concerns? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will take at look at these sources and comment later.
 * The new wording you are suggesting implies that the violence was instigated in similar measures by protesters, counter-protesters and police. I'm sure you didn't mean that because that would be far outside the mainstream and not supported by the articles you cite.  I have adjusted the wording as follows.  "According to several studies and analyses, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. At some protests there were reports that counter-protesters or police instigated or escalated the violence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 01:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed "there were reports"—WaPo uses "reportedly" wording, but the other two sources state this as clear fact. I have no issue with the rest of your edit; I did not mean to imply anything about the frequency.
 * Some talk page etiquette notes: please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. I left a message on your talk page earlier explaining in more detail. Also please avoid inserting replies into the middle of other peoples' comments—it makes it difficult to figure out who said what. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm good with your latest change and thank you for the note on talk page etiquetteGregausman (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition. Lots of bad references and/or opinion pieces. FDW777 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have changed it back. If you have an issue with a reference, please specify and if it is valid, I will remove.  There are several references in this article which are clearly opinion pieces so this should not disqualify. In this case it is in context of "Some people dispute" which is by definition a reflection of published opinion.Gregausman (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of it's a violation of WP:LEAD don't you understand? What part of WP:ONUS don't you understand? As for your "references".
 * WSJ. Irrelevant, as it's talking about arrest rates
 * Freedom Wire. You seriously think the "#1 source for patriotic truth" is a reference? I'm almost tempted to file an WP:AE report based on that alone, since I see you've been informed about discretionary sanctions.
 * WSJ. As previous WSJ article, irrelevant.
 * Sovereign Nations. Another garbage reference, not even worth discussing
 * National Review. See WP:RSP.
 * Arrest rates are completely irrelevant to the point at hand. The movement is called Black Lives Matter. People protest because black people are killed. So arrest rates do not under any circumstances change the fact that black people are killed at a substantially higher rate than white people, which is the systemic racism. FDW777 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please establish consensus for what is obviously a contentious change first. Continuing to try to war it into the article following multiple people raising valid concerns over sourcing and WP:DUE is disruptive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with establishing consensus so I will leave as is until we do. I also accept that this should be outside the lead, not within it. Although I further believe that the original implication should not be allowed in the lead as an unchallenged fact.  My suggestion was to add the "belief in the existence" of "systemic racism" to correct this issue.
 * With respect to sources, the sources were cited with respect to the idea that the existence of "systemic racism is disputed by some" so I feel that even those from sources not considered to be reliable for news should be reliable for their own opinions, in particular National Review which is considered a mainstream opinion journal. WSJ is considered reliable for news and of course would be considered reliable for its own opinion.
 * I do not agree with the specific objections to the WSJ articles. Both articles clearly state that "System Racism" does not exist in the opinion of the author and both authors provide their reasoning. That you do not agree with the conclusions is not relevant.  You are attempting to introduce your own original research.
 * I do not want to engage in original research but since you have introduced it, a single factor analysis such as "black people are killed at a substantially higher rate than white people" is not consistent with proper statistical analysis and frankly does not imply anything at all. It would be like concluding that because blacks are represented in the NBA at a much higher rate than whites that the NBA is systemically racist against whites.  It is a trivial analysis which is invalid on its face.  Proper statistical analysis requires consideration of all relevant variables that might impact outcome, not just one.
 * I suggest including the statement that "some believe" systemic racism does not exist in policing outside the lead to provide balance to the implication in the lead that it is established fact. The challenge I have with the current form is it implies the existence of "systemic racism" without providing due consideration of contrary mainstream published opinion.Gregausman (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any RS that challenge the idea it is not in fact the case?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I provided two WSJ articles which challenge the idea this it is case. It seems like the goal here is to decide whether one side or the other is correct. I believe it is accurate to state one view as a predominant view and to provide balance note that there are mainstream published opinions to the contrary.Gregausman (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Except you didn't, per my above comments. You provided two WSJ that deal with one very narrow aspect of "systematic racism", while ignoring that it's a far broader concept than how likely someone is to be arrested. For example the first one says The report concluded that there was no statistically significant difference by race between how likely people were to commit serious violent crimes and how likely they were to be arrested, this does nothing to refute say, for example, that the treatment George Floyd received was different than that which a white suspect would have received. FDW777 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I had also already pointed that out, either here to in an earlier thread. wp:v is clear, the source must say exactly what you say it says.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One article states "The claim of “systemic racism in law enforcement” defies the best available science and data." This is a clear statement that the author does not believe systemic racism in law enforcement exists.   Whether you or I believe the author's opinion is warranted is not relevant, you are engaging in original research which we should avoid.
 * The other article states "This charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today." and "A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing."  Again, whether we believe the conclusion is correct is not relevant.
 * With respect to your comment on the George Floyd case, whether he received the same treatment a white suspect would have is also not evidence of "systemic racism". If he was treated differently because of his race it could just as well be evidence of personal racism on the part of specific officers rather than systemic racism.Gregausman (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Except the original research is yours, in suggesting that the "systematic racism" talked about by Joe Biden is the same as the "systematic racism" being talked about by the protesters. You can't use an article about the former to say the latter doesn't exist. FDW777 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific assertion of "The claim of 'systemic racism in law enforcement' defies the best available science and data." does not specify Joe Biden's claim. It is clear the author is referring to the general claim of "systemic racism", not just Joe Biden's.  That is not original research at all, I am quoting exactly the article with appropriate context.  The fact that the author is using Joe Biden's position to introduce the topic does not imply that the author is only disputing Joe Biden's specific claims.  In the article the author attempts to disprove claims that are generally made to suggest system racism exists; no where in the article does the author reference specific claims from Joe Biden to make his point.
 * Both of the above articles clearly state that in the authors' opinions "systemic racism" does not exist in policing.Gregausman (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Both articles focus on a single aspect of systematic racism which, conveniently, isn't the aspect of systematic racism being protested about. I suggest reading Institutional racism, or if you would like to bring up a "Wikipedia articles aren't references" strawman you can read the references in the section linked to. FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, one article focuses on arrest rates to make the point while the other focuses on fatal shootings. I believe it is incorrect to state that these are not the types of things that people generally think of when they think of "systemic racism".  They are certainly things that are cited in the RS as indicating that "systemic racism" exists so arguments to the contrary, whether we agree with them or not should be included for balance.   However if you believe the protests were focused on something more narrow than "system racism" in general, would you agree that we should state that the protests were against that thing rather than saying "systemic racism"?Gregausman (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if we accepted that 2019 statistics are in any way relevant to deaths of black people in 2020 (which I don't), that's one opinion piece. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE. FDW777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve read the guidance articles you cite and they support my position.
 * The first guidance article states “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. “
 * The opinion that systemic racism in policing does not exist is a “significant viewpoint” and it is in fact a “widely held view” (some 41% of Americans share that view according to one credible poll).   It does not need to be the majority published view to be included.  While the article goes on to say minority views should not be given as much weight as more widely held views, it does not state the minority view should not be mentioned.   It states the views of “tiny minorities” should not be included at all.  Since 41% of people in America hold this view, this clearly does not apply.  The example given for clarity is that of “flat earth” beliefs.  This is clearly not in that category.
 * The second guidance article states “While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Unfounded conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. “
 * The examples provided are not analogous to the situation of whether systemic racism exists in policing which is subject to conflicting mainstream research and studies cited in the articles.
 * Taking these two articles into consideration it appears clear that we should be presenting the minority view in the context of “some believe that the data do not support that systemic racism exists”.
 * With respect to your personal belief of whether statistics from 2019 are relevant to the argument, that really should have no place in this discussion as the author clearly believes the statistics are relevant. Gregausman (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One opinion piece is a textbook example of WP:UNDUE. In this case it's also a textbook example of WP:REDFLAG, since rather than refute the many studies that have shows systematic racism exists, they simply pretend they don't exist. FDW777 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is two articles and definitely does not fall into the category of WP:UNDUE which refers to examples such as "flat earth" theory. The two articles are mainstream and demonstrate that an alternative mainstream opinion exists. If we are going to attack whether the article is correct we should note the the primary article referenced to support "systemic racism" never mentions this cause by name (stated above as the sole way an article can be referenced in a discussion of the topic) and never actually concludes what the specific cause of the statistical discrepancies is but rather lays out a number of different opinions. Again, your opinion of the correctness of the article, just like mine, is irrelevant. Gregausman (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading this, which refers directly to the study cited by your beloved opinion piece and completely demolishes it point by point, adding that the study was fundamentally flawed, and the authors have admitted as much — which is why they took the extraordinary step of withdrawing it. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are personalizing the discussion by calling the article my "beloved" opinion piece so I would appreciate it if you would argue the facts instead of attacking me personally. The withdrawal of the original study by its authors, whatever the reason, and no matter how valid or invalid, does not change the fact that there are mainstream opinions at odds with the assertion being made.  This is clearly not a "flat earth" comparison, the area of study is complex and differing opinions clearly exist. The fact that the original authors published a study and then withdrew it (rather than merely explaining its results further) is evidence that the area of study is complex.  We should note that there are those who dispute the claim.  Gregausman (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So do you actually have any references which aren't opinion pieces or citing the withdrawn study? FDW777 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to have additional references to support the point that alternative viewpoints exist and that they are mainstream.Gregausman (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In the absence of references, it remains a fringe viewpoint like the earth being flat. FDW777 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, but that does not describe this situation. Mainstream references are noted above so it is not a fringe viewpoint. Gregausman (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we close this? Or is there more to iron out? (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu
Can't we just take out the years and just call it "United States Racial Unrest"? Powerville (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems too vague, especially considering the social unrest in the 1960s, and other times. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. But nothing happened in the new year yet, can't we just wait until something happens, and then put 2022 in? StreamGamer (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said above with either have to remove the year (will we in a year's time have "2020–2023 United States racial unrest", and so on?) or just keep on having the annual (and traditional) page move on Jan 1st of each year. In fact I may have even raised this point last year, are we going to keep having to do this. I think what is needed is (and I said this last year) a page for each year where significant protests take place, and "United States racial unrest" as a coverall page for the nonsignificant years. But until we have an agrement this should be moved back, as page moves should not be made without agreement.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Page protection
If the POV pushing by IP's continues I will ask for it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Update
Hasn't the main phrase of the unrest been long done by now, it's going to be 2022 and this article implies mass unrest is still going on which obviously isn't the case

Hgh1985 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The demonstrations do still continue ,Although in smaller amounts and without media coverage, but still continue. אקסינו (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the main phase has, it does not mean they have stopped. However as the article is titled 2020–2021 we can say that this phase is over (as it is now 2022).Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

We can't keep moving the page on a year, at some point we will either have to rename it "United States racial unrest" or split it into years.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

What about 2020s United States racial unrest? There is a 1960s Berkeley protests for comparison. Minnemeeples (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a better option than just adding a year at a time. Like if there's going to be a 2020–2023 Racial Unrest, it just wouldn't make sense. Powerville (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking for the economic costs and disruptions of the 2020 Demonstrations
I was looking to see how much the demonstrations of 2020 cost the economy and cost individual business owners (both in terms of business lost and in terms of stores damaged and stocks lost (fire, pilferage, etc). The lack of such data (here or in a separate article (my choice)) makes this entry incomplete.  Further, there may be issues of adverse impacts on individual communities, such as people unable to get to work and childhood education disruptions. CRK-Wenonah (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you can assist by finding an authoritative source for the total cost, we have tried and failed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Where is Amir Lockee?
Where? BLM Protests started in the Midwest and big american cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodguyas (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone add this
On February 19th, 2022 Portland Activists/Protesters marching for Amir Locke were victims of a mass shooting, at least 5 injuries and one death occured as a result of the gun violence against the protesters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:68A2:DEB9:429C:A72E (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Source?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/us/portland-shooting-protest.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:68A2:DEB9:429C:A72E (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

PPB not releasing information about the Portland Shooter
''A preliminary investigation into the February 19, 2022 shooting near the intersection of Northeast 55th Avenue and Northeast Hassalo Street indicates this incident started with a confrontation between an armed homeowner and armed protesters.

The scene was extremely chaotic, and a number of witnesses were uncooperative with responding officers. Most people on scene left without talking to police. Detectives believe a large number of people either witnessed what happened, or recorded the incident as it unfolded. This is a very complicated incident, and investigators are trying to put this puzzle together without having all the pieces.''

I believe PPB is being intentionally vague in order to obfuscate the reasons for the shooter.

So far the only information PPB have released re: the shooter, is that they're a "homeowner" - but even this has yet to be verified because their identity is still being protected... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:6902:64B5:D5C9:F9C6 (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And Your point is?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe PPB is being intentionally vague in order to obfuscate the reasons for the shooter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:6902:64B5:D5C9:F9C6 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

''One of the victims, Dajah Beck, who turns 39 on Monday and who was contacted through her attorney, said she was shot twice. One bullet went through her side, and the other grazed her knee. Ms. Beck said she was part of a volunteer motorcade group that was working to set up a safety plan and reroute traffic ahead of the march. “We’re not part of the protest,” she said, adding that no one in the motorcade group was armed.

As Ms. Beck and the group were working, with one woman riding in the back of a truck because she walked slower and with the aid of a cane, a man approached a small group of women, screaming that they were “violent terrorists” and repeatedly calling them a misogynist vulgarity. The man said they were the people responsible for violence in the city, Beck recounted, adding that he said: “If I see you come past my house, I’ll shoot you.”

People in the group tried to calm him down. But as Ms. Beck looked away from him toward one of her friends, “that’s when he started shooting,” she said. She fell to the ground after she was shot and crawled behind a truck tire for cover. Moments later, she said, “the first thing that I saw was my two friends on the ground covered in blood.” One of them was the woman who died. Ms. Beck said that at that point, the shooter had been subdued and people were on top of him.''

Violent Terrorists and If I see you come past my house, I’ll shoot you. seems to indicate that this "homeowner" has political motives
 * And? please read wp:forum, this is not the place to air your beliefs about a subject. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, what edit do you wish to make?Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will add I find this odd, as you seem to be trying to remove mention of the fact they were a home owner, why?Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the shooter was a homeowner. It's curious how dispite the attention that this incident has garnered, the only information released by public officials regarding the shooter is from a small PPB briefing wherein they detail one fact: they are a homeowner. We don't even know the sex of the perpetrator. I sincerely question the intent behind selectively providing information regarding the perpetrator's homeowner status to the press regarding this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:6902:64B5:D5C9:F9C6 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * RS have said he was, thus they may well have seen evidence you have not. We have witnesses saying (quoted by an RS) he was a man. We go with what RS say, not what we think is proven.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's pretty dumb tbh for wikipedia to be taken seriously, but I yield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:6902:64B5:D5C9:F9C6 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

'''PPB has shared little information about the incident. Much of what the bureau has made public appears to be inaccurate. In a press release sent Sunday afternoon, PPB reported that the Saturday incident started with a "confrontation between an armed homeowner and armed protesters." Smith does not own the apartment complex he lives in, and it appears he was the sole individual who initiated the confrontation.'''

'''PPB has also refused to explain whether anyone has been arrested in relation to the shooting. Asked to clarify this position, PPB spokesperson Nathan Sheppard said that the reasoning is "complicated."'''

'''"Unfortunately, not all cases are simple," Sheppard wrote in an email to the Mercury. "In some, a determination has to be made of who is a suspect and who is a victim. Cases can be fluid, and as additional facts are learned, who is a victim and who is a suspect can also change."'''

Another article, includes photos of the suspect in court, he's a white man. Open-and-shut case, name doesn't matter. 2603:7080:CB3F:5032:9C82:DA7D:91EC:C758 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Should right-wing militias be in a third column
As far as I know most of them are hostile to the federal government and frequently illegal. Dronebogus (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"American Spring (2020-2022)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect American Spring (2020-2022) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing?
Is this really ongoing? I feel like it's mostly ended. Every recent protest listed seems like it was relatively local. SusImposter49 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2023

 * 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: moved. per 10mmsocket's request, no need for a discussion. If anyone would like the article to stay at 2020-2023 United States racial unrest, please start a new RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  12:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

– These protests are basically over, and they've basically been over since like early 2022. Most of the protests that are still ongoing are very localized and generally pretty small and, unlike the large and widespread protests that were occuring a couple years back. SusImposter49 (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2020–2023 United States racial unrest → 2020–2022 United States racial unrest


 * I agree; the most recent event in the "Major protests" section of this article happened in July 2022. If there's been major incidents of racial unrest in the US in 2023, they should be added to that section; if not, let's rename this to 2020-2022 United States racial unrest. TheAnnalyst (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Black Lives Matter has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject African diaspora has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Discrimination has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Law Enforcement has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is any discussion needed at all? The individual who moved the page on 3rd January (diff) did so without discussion. It's just a case of reversing a controversial undiscussed moved? JFDI. Move to close the discussion and have an admin / page mover do the revert. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2023 (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.

Unrest?
Should we change the name from unrest to protests? Rioting has been rare during these protests now. DemandGo (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't support such a move. Unrest does not necessarily imply violence, and protests qualify as unrest. And even if it did, this article is about the unrest as a whole, over the course of 2.5 years, and not immediately about what has happened in the past week. Augend  (drop a line) 07:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree, it was unrest. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was unrest. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2023

 * 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. 

2020–2022 United States racial unrest → 2020–2023 United States racial unrest – There are notable events in 2023 that are discussed in the article. A prior discussion occurred prior to more recent events and updates to the article. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

After today, it definitely needs to be 2023 instead of 2022 IDC OliveIt (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you're referring to the Tyre Nichols incident, considering that all 6 parties involved were black... Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since one of the topics of the racial unrest was Police brutality in the United States, it still would be necessary to at least give a mention of the recent events that occurred. Additionally Stop Cop City, there just is more nuance in the situation 98.59.80.64 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here you go ― The police who killed Tyre Nichols were Black. But they might still have been driven by racism. CNN, Jan. 27, 2023
 * Race issues are possibly still relevant, unfortunately. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Recent protests against the killing of Tyre Nichols and the 'Stop Cop City' movement show this is an ongoing event in 2023. Shamaflama (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are they, is this racial unrest or anti-cop unrest? 16:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)


 * Support ― Yes, more events are continuing to unfold. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy support per ongoing events { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This certainly doesn't warrant a speedy move, circumventing a full discussion. Graham (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support considering ongoing developments and protests Augend  (drop a line) 07:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this article needs a hard look, as its scope is very unclear at the moment, and seems to be possibly committing WP:SYNTH or WP:FORK, at least in part. What is the topic here, and how is it distinct from George Floyd protests (for e.g. the "social impact" material), and/or Black Lives Matter (but cutting off everything before 2020)? Given that (sadly) it looks likely that the US will continue to have incidents and issues of this nature for quite some time to come, how long into the future is this going to be extended? What would an end even be - are we expecting that there will someday be a point that a large, diverse country has no race-related crimes/police brutality and ensuing protests? Obviously that's the goal, but we here can't fix the US' social issues, only document them. And how different is what's on now from the pre-2020 BLM protests, linked above? We need to figure out more in-depth what the plan is here, and take a hard look to see if we are synthesizing a new phenomenon distinct from social responses to the Floyd protests and from BLM protests. Crossroads -talk- 20:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This might be a bit of a jump, but how about changing the title to "early 2020s United States racial unrest"? Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That would buy another year by roping in 2024 in advance, but other issues remain. Crossroads -talk- 02:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is racial unrest in 2024 that is deemed not to fall within the scope of this article (i.e. because it is deemed to be best understood as a distinct event), that could create more problems than it solves. Graham (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

At this stage I am going to say, are these the same protests or new waves of protest due to recent events? The ones in 2020 were cleary part of the same movement/reaction. It can be said they continued into 2021, and maybe 2022. But now they are (in essence) separate reactions to separate incidents, not part of a wider national movement. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think that this article already has a pretty broad time span in terms of events. Personally, I would have the article only be 2020 and 2021 to accompany Floyd to Rittenhouse. Obviously, we cannot predict the future but if racial unrest events keep happening and we keep adding years the article will change its name every year which does not seem productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahaml35 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support given that more events have unfolded this year with regards to the racial unrest. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2023 (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.
 * Oppose While protests are still occurring, they are not as widespread as they were at their peak in 2020. --Travisthecrab (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Does the name of the article warrant changing?
Yes, "racial" unrest, but what about... LGBTQ rights? What about all the protests against the emerging tide of conservative governors in the US compromising women's and LGBTQ rights? I'd say they're arguably equally as important during the movement. I feel like the scope of this article should go beyond just racial activism.


 * Peaceful protest or a trans 'mob'? Oklahoma demonstration riles the right
 * CHS students walk out to protest against Youngkin's transgender policy
 * ‘Black Trans Lives Matter': Thousands Gather in Boston for Protest
 * Hundreds rally at Pitt in support of transgender rights

I'd like to see what you think the name should be before making a formal move request. Ernest Macomb (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This article is about the wave of unrest that followed several high-profile killings of Black Americans by law enforcement officers. These protests broadened to issues of historic racial injustice. The article has a clear focus based on how the events were covered in reliable sources.
 * The article is not about the much broader topic of "2020s United States unrest", nor is the article about left-wing protests of right-wide policies. The article is not about protest in support of transgender rights. That is not to minimize them, but the article has a clearly defined scope. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we include the 2023 Monterey Park shooting?
In the above move discussion, an IP user mentioned this article to support the move: "The police who killed Tyre Nichols were Black. But they might still have been driven by racism."

Well, the man who committed the Monterey Park shooting was Asian. But he might still have been driven by racism. I found an article discussing this issue, arguing that "dismissing the tragedy due to the suspect's race ignores the experience of Asian Americans and a history of targeted violence." Ernest Macomb (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

End of the George Floyd protests?
￼According to Minnemeeples and other articles, the George Floyd protests ended on May 2, 2023. Is that true or false? 2600:1002:B166:7608:0:44:EE53:F101 (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, care to provide the actual quote where they say it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He updated the George Floyd protests article saying it ended. I just wanted to make sure if it's the case or not. 2600:1002:B166:7608:0:44:EE53:F101 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hence why I am asking for quotes that it has. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ￼I think I know what he's talking about, because I found this statement. "According the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, Tou Thao's guilty verdict on May 2, 2023, fulfilled a key demand of protesters that all four officers be held accountable for Floyd's murder." It was made by Minnemeples. SpringField23402 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A key early demand of protesters was that all four police officers be held legally accountable for murdering Floyd. It was also one of the 24 demands at George Floyd Square occupied protest, which had other demands to address broader issues of historic racial injustice unrelated to Floyd.
 * Pan, H. Jiahong (May 2, 2023). "Final officer in George Floyd murder case convicted of state charges". Minnesota Spokesman-Reformer.
 * "Thao’s conviction along with Chauvin’s conviction and Kueng and Lane’s decision to strike plea deals means that George Floyd Square’s Justice Resolution 001 demand has been met. The demand calls for the four officers involved in murdering George Floyd to be tried in Minneapolis and is among a list of 24 demands crafted by community activists who reclaimed 38th and Chicago days following his murder."
 * Minnemeeples (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but per wp:v, that does not say they are over, just that they might be. Also that is not all of their demands, so they might not be over. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The other demands at George Floyd Square do not have to do with protesting George Floyd's murder. You can read the list of demands here: George Floyd Square occupied protest. Many items involve other local events that predate Floyd's murder.
 * Community events reflecting on Floyd's murder have shifted in tone and focus. For example, the George Floyd Memorial Foundation is hosting its "3rd Annual Rise & Remember Celebration" in Minneapolis from May 25 to 27, 2023. It is a festival, candlelight ceremony, racial justice workshops, etc. It is also a retrospective on the protests and celebration of those that protested, according to the details for the Rise and Remember event.
 * There is and will be continued memorialization of Floyd and there will continue to be protests of racial injustice, at some point these are no longer protests of George Floyd's murder, especially as the cases against the officers have concluded (with the exception of Thao's possible appeal of the state criminal conviction). Minnemeeples (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Itr still does not say they are over, that is wp:or. If they were saying they, they would say it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was H. Jiahong Pan of the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder that said the key aim of justice resolution was fulfilled with the conclusion of the criminal cases against Kueng and Thao.
 * While the George Floyd Square occupied protest is arguably still ongoing, the disputes there are largely related to broader issues that predate or aren't related to Floyd and about how best to create a permanent memorial to Floyd in a way respects the community's perspective, according to this article. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate casualty count
What reason is there for the number of casualties to be limited to the initial months of the protests? The killings of Aaron Danielson, Michael Reinoehl, Lee Kelter, Manuel Terán, and Brandy Knightly all occurred after the May 26th to June 8th window provided in the article. Bill3602 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please provide a more through explanation so citations and/or location within article for your count can be seen. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Should the January 6th insurrection and the Montgomery Riverfront brawl be included?
The January 6th riot, in some interpretations, can be seen as having a "racial" element on account of the heavy presence of White nationalists and associated factions. The Montgomery fight, though something rather minor, also very much had racial undertones (Blacks fighting Whites), and received widespread media coverage. NocheLluviosa (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Jan 6th was excluded a long time ago. But I think there should be a Discussion before adding the Montgomery Brawl. Qutlooker (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)