Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 United States racial injustice reckoning


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The question is whether this is original research by synthesis. Numerically, we have 11 delete/merge and 7 keep opinions. That's no consensus so far. In terms of arguments, I think the "keep" side has the substantially stronger ones: Czar has provided numerous references in support of their view that this is not something made up by Wikipedians, but discussed as a topic in reliable sources. The subsequent "delete" opinions do not engage with these sources, e.g. to attempt to show that the "reckoning" discussed in these sources is something other than the "reckoning" discussed in this article. Instead, almost all merely assert original research without further arguments. That's not much more than a pure vote under these circumstances, and accordingly I must give it very little weight. As such, I am of the view that, going by strength of argument, rough consensus is to keep the article (possibly bordering on no consensus, but the outcome would be the same). This does not prevent editors, of course, from agreeing to rename the article if this is deemed necessary.  Sandstein  07:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States racial injustice reckoning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entire premise for the article is synthesis and original research. It's not a thing discussed in the sources. We have articles covering the things that are discussed within the sources: George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter and Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. Bacondrum (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 2.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete (nominator) - Article is OR and synth. Legitimate content already covered elsewhere. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom - Honestly it could probably be PRODed, but as it is, I'll vote delete here. Jdcomix (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into George Floyd protests or Black Lives Matter with a view to spinning it off later as appropriate, although I think it doesn't actually fit into either as well as it does its own topic. I'm not sure what the nom means when they say it's not a thing discussed in the sources, as literally every source I've added has discussed it at length. Most have it in the title. Maybe we're talking past one another. Maybe it's that we don't have the right title pinned down. But multiple, multiple sources are discussing. —valereee (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The longer I think about this, the more I'm convinced that the reason people are supporting this AfD is because the sources aren't all using the exact same term, like 'Arab Spring'. That doesn't make this not a thing. We can argue about the name later, but let's not get confused about what represents OR or synth. This phenomenon is neither. Multiple, multiple sources have commented on it. I am puzzled by the delete !votes here. How many June/July 2020 articles TITLED some combination of America/US + race/racial + reckon(ing) do we need before we say, "Hey, this appears to be a thing"? —valereee (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The talk page already went into independent notability.
















 * The subject of these articles is not the George Floyd protests or Black Lives Matter or Removal of Confederate memorials. It is a variously defined cultural reckoning/fallout/backlash (by no single name) that is widely accepted to be in progress, especially within the United States but extending globally. There has been no justification to back up the above claims of "OR and synth"—the article paraphrases the crux of the above sources, namely the wider cultural trend they describe. The Floyd protests are obviously influential here but the sources quite clearly most often describe the many dozens (hundreds?) of company/building name changes, job resignations, canceled programming, and the like as responding to "changing times" than demands from the Floyd protests. Again, as I preemptively said on the talk page, this phenomenon hasn't been named, hence the current, generic title. Totally open to changing it but think this is way more neutral than titling it some pithy variant of cancel culture. When the article is fully expanded, it should cover an overview of cultural changes that have occurred in the wave following the George Floyd protests. Happy to add additional sources, if needed, as there are plenty more. czar  07:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like you googled "reckoning" and "race" and simply combined all the material you found in multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is original research and synthesis. I do hope America is reckoning with its racism, but the subject here is a synthesis of articles more suited to building existing articles about actual things like BLM, George Floyd protests and statue removals etc. It's nothing personal, it's just a really obvious case of original research. Bacondrum (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "an overview of cultural changes that have occurred in the wave following the George Floyd protests" belongs in the George Floyd protests article. Bacondrum (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't my method. Please read the articles or I can provide quotes if you prefer. They describe what I said they describe—a unique phenomenon extending but separate from the protests. What conclusion does the article make that has not been stated by the sources? Everything in the article is sourced to the letter. It's fine to summarize this article within the respective section of the protests article (in summary style), but there is plenty more sourced than would properly fit within the protest article alone, hence the split. czar  02:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I shouldn't make assumptions about your method. I read the articles and I can't see the conclusions made in the article being explicitly stated by any of the sources. Bacondrum (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , let's leave aside the 'conclusions made in the article'; that's not a reason to delete. It's a reason to fix. The question here is whether this is a thing or not. If it's a thing, we should fix it. If it's not a thing, that's a reason to delete. —valereee (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't "leave aside the 'conclusions made in the article'" that are not made in the cited sources, that's exactly what synthesis is: combining reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new conclusion not supported by any one of the sources. Sorry. I found these really handy when learning about synth WP:ORIGINAL WP:SYNTHNOT Bacondrum (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first statement and I have proposed the use of the name "Cancel culture" since there is not a common name, as you say. Unfortunately, at this point people such as say there are no reliable sources for my observation, only opinion pieces. Sometimes following the rules of Wikipedia gets in the way of achieving what should be its goals.—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is getting into WP:competenceisrequired territory here. Cancel culture? What else are we going to draw into this synthesis? It's synth-a-geddon!! Why not draw in Jeffrey Epstein and the death of Michael Jackson, we could have a subsection on bubbles the chimpanzee, and fentanyl, why not? I'm sure there's some connection to be made, we could make a YouTube video about it. Bacondrum (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that if we need to strip out something in the the article that represents synth, fine. That is not an argument for deletion of a notable topic. The mere presence of problematic content is not a reason for deletion. And I found WP:DTR really handy when learning not to be condescending to people. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we strip out the parts of the the article that are synth there would be nothing left. Sorry if I was condescending. I just couldn't help but be a little cynical once we started trying to draw more subjects into this synthisis, like cancel culture...where in any of the sources used is this 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning or cancel culture discussed? Almost all claims made are a synthesis. This really is a 100% synth article. Regarding templates, I linked those two for you as you clearly had not read them or chose to ignore them "let's leave aside the 'conclusions made in the article'; that's not a reason to delete." is antithetical to the guideline and a direct contradiction of the first sentence of the guideline on WP:SYNTH "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." which makes it clear that what you were arguing for there is to ignore the original research guidelines - so I thought you might want to read the relevant guideline. But hey, lets tone it down, I'm a big fan of AGF and CIVIL. No hard feelings. Bacondrum (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is badgering and it responds to a claim of condescension with more condescension. Please stop. I've also now asked multiple times for any examples of synthesis/conclusions not made within the sources and have received none, while I have showed dozens of sources whose primary subject is a cultural reckoning with race. And yet you repeat the same claim. Please take any such examples to the talk page so they can be addressed. czar  21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you say no hard feelings after you, for the second time, question my good faith and accuse me of choosing to ignore policy? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Chill out mate. Bacondrum (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to George Floyd protests. The content of the article as it is now looks like it's been derived from a "Reactions" section and therefore seems more suited as such. Love of Corey (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article adds next to nothing new to the topic. It feels like a copy and paste student paper influenced by the "Reactions" section. It's also poorly tied together from its sources. The bottom line is: the main articles already describe very well how the death of George Floyd re-opened discussions and feelings towards racial relations in the United States. This page is entirely redundant. Songwaters (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR and synth.—  Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 02:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Or maybe merge as a sub section, or something like that, in another article. It does make sense for this to be removed, but at the same time, we're not sure how the year can go or if more relating to a "racial reckoning" and not necessarily (although highly unliking) relating or directly linked to George Floyd can happed. but for now, maybe it's better if it is just merged, and remade if something does end up occurring that of relevance. SnowingCrystals (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * DELETE I agree this is original research and WP:synth violations. Anything related to the protest can be in that article.   D r e a m Focus  18:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. KidAd (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * delete/merge - This is Synth-city. There may be some useful refs in here, but otherwise we are making our own conclusions. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge. Where else will we find the concept of "Erasing history"? If there is another article on that general practice, which has been going on since at least 2015, merge the content there, but these recent actions are a big deal. There has been action before, but never on this scale.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two articles regarding the knocking down of statues (I assume by "erasing history" you mean knocking down confederate statues and the like?) in general terms this is called Iconoclasm and regarding the specific issue you are referring to there's a Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials article. Where else will we find the concept of "Erasing history" is no reason to keep an OR and synth article. Bacondrum (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the article was acceptable on its own, but the concept has to be covered somewhere as it became much more serious after the George Floyd protests. On their own, removal of statues, name changes and other results of the protests deserve their own article somewhere but I am absolutely opposed to merging with anything specifically related to George Floyd.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this "erasing history" "concept has to be covered somewhere", but it doesn't. Where are you sources? As for removal of statues "deserve their own article somewhere", I've directed you to that article a number of times now: Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. Sorry if I seem curt, but you aren't listening. Bacondrum (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is one example of "erasing history", but it's not all of them. And yes, the concept has to be covered somewhere, because it is all over the news. That's the very definition of notable. It's just a matter of what articles cover it. If no reliable sources define "cancel culture" then I can't do anything about that, but somewhere on Wikipedia, the information should be presented somehow.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "If no reliable sources define "cancel culture" then I can't do anything about that, but somewhere on Wikipedia, the information should be presented somehow" first, "If no reliable sources" then no article, end of story, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia if it is not covered by reliable sources. But hooray, it is covered in reliable sources "somewhere on Wikipedia" and the information is "presented somehow", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Cancellation it may just not be as significant as you think it is. But if you think the subject deserves more attention, try expanding the section I've linked here, if there's enough material to expand the section sufficiently, we split it off into it's own article. Nothing stopping you improving that section with reliable sources. Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you can't expand something if it's about a different topic. As I've said before, that article is about online shaming, and all these unreliable sources are defining "Cancel culture" as something else. Right now there IS no appropriate article to expand and the sources aren't there yet.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then there's nothing more to be done. Drop it. Also, this is not the place to discuss cancel culture. We are here to discuss deleting or keeping the 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was just an idea, since said there was no name for what could be an expanded article based on what is in the article we are discussing.—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Czar's excellent reasoning and sources. While I'm not sold on the term reckoning, there does seem to be a notable topic here. Having worked on the ever-expanding lists for changes, names changes, and removed monuments, I can tell you Wikipedia still lacks an article that adequately addresses these phenomena in prose. This is essentially a companion article to List of changes made due to the George Floyd protests. Historians who look back on this time period will frame it like this, and as demonstrated by the article's sourcing, some reliable sources already do. It is understandable that this is mistaken for SYNTH, as there are many parts here. Still, they all have a common origin and theme. Many references, both in the article and not yet there, tie these all together and describe them as a singular phenomenon. gobonobo  + c 08:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Awakening can be painful. But in America, a reckoning is overdue."
 * "What started as a renewed push for police reform has now touched seemingly every aspect of American life."
 * "The feeling of a dam breaking has drawn analogies to the fall and winter of 2017, when sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein triggered a deluge of disturbing accounts..."
 * "there does seem to be a notable topic here" Great news, what is it? Where are the individual sources which explicitly cover this notable topic? If you can lay those on us we can improve the article and put this to bed. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Also, it may be the case that "Historians who look back on this time period will frame it like this", but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we do not know how this will be framed in the future. My guess is it will be remembered as the Black Lives Matter protests, but we are not here to advocate, guess or make our own conclusions using synthesis and original research. Bacondrum (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop bludgeoning this discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * make you a deal, I’ll stop contributing to the discussion when you do. Sound fair? I think you are being unreasonable. Stick to content, not other editors. Bacondrum (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between contributing to a discussion and bludgeoning. I haven't gone after people aggressively to demand they justify their arguments to the point I'm personally convinced by them. For instance, just above you say "there does seem to be a notable topic here" Great news, what is it?. That's bludgeoning. —valereee (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * mate, you are just attacking me. Make a report to ANI, or leave me alone. Bacondrum (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * make you a deal, I’ll stop contributing to the discussion when you do. Sound fair? I think you are being unreasonable. Stick to content, not other editors. Bacondrum (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between contributing to a discussion and bludgeoning. I haven't gone after people aggressively to demand they justify their arguments to the point I'm personally convinced by them. For instance, just above you say "there does seem to be a notable topic here" Great news, what is it?. That's bludgeoning. —valereee (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * mate, you are just attacking me. Make a report to ANI, or leave me alone. Bacondrum (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The article covers changes in public opinion which currently are not covered in Reactions to the George Floyd protests. Reported changes in Merriam-Webster and suggested changes in phraseology have not been included either. The reported changes in consumer behavior and increase in sales of certain books do not seem to be covered either. Should these sections be merged to the "Reactions" article, or are there other articles which cover the current social climate in the United States? Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do think that if this article gets merged into Reactions, it'll need a new subsection under Domestic. I'm not sure it's great there; the Reactions page is much more focused on specific changes by specific actors rather than sweeping cultural changes. But that would be the most likely home for the topic. Which is fine; if it gets big enough it can be spun off, and perhaps by then there'll be enough agreement within media/academe on what, exactly, is going to be the 'Arab Spring' sort of term for what's happening so that it will not feel like synth to some. —valereee (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge per WP:SYNTH - many journalists and headline writers have used the phrase "reckoning" covering the reactions to the George Floyd protests, but atleast as I understand it, this could be due to pure chance or just because it's just apt word for similar pieces. For instance, columnists could also use a figurative phrase like "a tsunami of something" without it being an encyclopedic topic itself. --Pudeo (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is exactly WP:SYNTH. The title is also editorial like. Depending on what side of the issue you are on it is a "reckoning" or it is senseless destruction and rioting. That title alone makes me cringe. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , just to clarify -- you do understand the article in question barely mentions the protests? It's strictly about public opinion and debate happening as a result of the protests/riots/violence/destruction. There's literally almost nothing about the (however you want to term them) in the article. There's been talk at the article talk about whether the title is the right one. Not trying to change your mind, just asking for clarification. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to those already listed above, below are additional sources that treat this untitled "reckoning" as independently notable from the protests or reactions to the protests. To be crystal clear, the entirety of these articles are about not the protests but a shift in public perception/attitude and its fallout, though this shift has not been christened with a name. Most sources refer to or introduce it as a "reckoning" in their ledes as opposed to an "awakening", etc., but the article doesn't need to re-use the word "reckoning" repeatedly to demonstrate that the shift in public perception is its subject. The title is a matter for the talk page. The question is whether this topic is independently notable and these, together with the sources listed above, should show that this is an independent outgrowth from the protests and how it is described as such:


 * So it seems the country is having a racial reckoning — again. ... Some major shift appears to be happening with a large cohort of white people. But why now? ... these messages suggest that much of this political foment among white people is happening because of contact with other white people.
 * The national conversation about systemic racism has found its way to the sports media world, forcing companies to address their shortcomings around coverage of race and their own internal diversity. ... Sports media has long been dominated by mostly white, male voices. Now, under pressure to resolve years-long shortcomings in both employee diversity and coverage of race, companies are addressing some of those criticisms head-on.
 * Until recently, most of America saw all that as no cause for alarm. It was just the way things were, and have been to a greater or lesser degree since the founding of the republic. ... But since the world witnessed a Minneapolis police officer nonchalantly squeeze the life out of George Floyd by pressing his knee into his neck, there has been a seismic shift. ... It is as if Floyd’s death removed the scales from the eyes of many Americans, allowing them to see how the country fosters and tolerates racial inequity, and even honors those who maintain it. ... The moment has also spurred uncomfortable racial conversations and confessions that might have been hard to imagine just weeks ago. ... The ongoing reckoning is reaching even the most buttoned-up corners of American society.
 * A moment of reckoning is upon us. The murder of George Floyd was the spark for an American intifada built on 400 years of kindling laid by colonizers and slave traders. ... This awakening, this public reckoning with our history, which Cornel West referred to as a moment of “escalating consciousness,” is long overdue and has a long way to go still.
 * The killing of George Floyd by a white police officer — and the viral video of the agonizing 8 minutes and 46 seconds with the officer’s knee on Floyd’s neck — has prompted a reckoning with racism for not only Biden, but for a wide swath of white America, according to polls conducted since Floyd’s death and anecdotal evidence from around the country.
 * Until recently, most of America saw all that as no cause for alarm. It was just the way things were, and have been to a greater or lesser degree since the founding of the republic. ... But since the world witnessed a Minneapolis police officer nonchalantly squeeze the life out of George Floyd by pressing his knee into his neck, there has been a seismic shift. ... It is as if Floyd’s death removed the scales from the eyes of many Americans, allowing them to see how the country fosters and tolerates racial inequity, and even honors those who maintain it. ... The moment has also spurred uncomfortable racial conversations and confessions that might have been hard to imagine just weeks ago. ... The ongoing reckoning is reaching even the most buttoned-up corners of American society.
 * A moment of reckoning is upon us. The murder of George Floyd was the spark for an American intifada built on 400 years of kindling laid by colonizers and slave traders. ... This awakening, this public reckoning with our history, which Cornel West referred to as a moment of “escalating consciousness,” is long overdue and has a long way to go still.
 * The killing of George Floyd by a white police officer — and the viral video of the agonizing 8 minutes and 46 seconds with the officer’s knee on Floyd’s neck — has prompted a reckoning with racism for not only Biden, but for a wide swath of white America, according to polls conducted since Floyd’s death and anecdotal evidence from around the country.
 * The killing of George Floyd by a white police officer — and the viral video of the agonizing 8 minutes and 46 seconds with the officer’s knee on Floyd’s neck — has prompted a reckoning with racism for not only Biden, but for a wide swath of white America, according to polls conducted since Floyd’s death and anecdotal evidence from around the country.
 * The killing of George Floyd by a white police officer — and the viral video of the agonizing 8 minutes and 46 seconds with the officer’s knee on Floyd’s neck — has prompted a reckoning with racism for not only Biden, but for a wide swath of white America, according to polls conducted since Floyd’s death and anecdotal evidence from around the country.


 * czar 05:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is an encyclopedia. We could also locate sources to say this is a lawless bunch of malcontents destroying things and looting. Which one is true? Which one is encyclopedia worthy?
 * Rob Smith: Floyd protesters vandalism shows 'stunning lack of knowledge of American history'
 * Shattered storefronts and 'eat the rich' graffiti: Photos show the aftermath of destruction in luxury stores that were looted and vandalized during the protests Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would seriously argue the independent notability of Vandalism during the George Floyd protests, especially based on those sources, unless it was a summary style split situation. In the sources I listed, the protests barely factor into their content, which is predominantly about a cultural moment, not a response to Floyd or even to the Floyd protests. czar  16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Czar. The article title can be changed but I do not believe that the nom's claim that this article is SYNTH or original research is true. The article hews very closely to RS, including those listed by Czar above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per convincing arguments by CZAR. This is a significant social phenomenon (much wider than just the reaction to George Floyd protests), and there are multiple RS describing it as a single coherent topic. The exact title of the page can be changed in the future if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.