Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–2023)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protest order

Thinking either chronologically or in order of notability. Not sure if there is a standard for these types of pages though Anon0098 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I went (I think) with chronological for no other reason then it avoids value judgements.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, figured I'd posit the question regardless Anon0098 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Would this page qualify for the addition of an infobox on the upper-right hand portion of the article, listing parties to the conflict and death toll (encompassing all of the protests/riots/etc that fall under racial unrest in the US in 2020)? I noticed the death toll on the George Floyd protests page has been halved, I can assume why. Perhaps the original death toll could be reworked into this article. Temeku (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I would be against anything that contradicts what the mains articles say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not asking to change any of the original article's death tolls, what I'm saying is we would be combining all of those (as well as injuries, where applicable) for each protest/riot page that falls under the racial unrest category for this article, right? For instance, the number of deaths shown for the George Floyd protests was changed back to 30, but the Kenosha unrest shows two deaths of its own - combining those for this article would make 32 deaths on this page. Temeku (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, yes that would be fine.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Black vs black adjective

For consistency, the four articles linked use lowercase, MOS currently says non-proper adjectives are lowercase, and general discussion of this specific topic generally favors lowercase. In addition, every RS linked in this article uses lower case (obviously with the exception of BLM which is an organization). I don't know why this is even remotely controversial. Anon0098 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Started to expand and organise

I have started to expand the page and establish a structure for further content; I have also rewritten the lede to conform the MoS based only on the content currently in the article—to be an appropriate summary the lede will most likely eventually need to be several paragraphs. —Kilopylae (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

International Unrest

Considering this page is about United States racial unrest, should we link the UK unrest as a See Also page instead? I foresee this getting long and messy if we start to include other countries on here as well Anon0098 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

And can someone replace the UK picture in the infobox, there are plenty of others we can use from the US. Frankly, I don't know how to Anon0098 (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We should establish a consensus first. —Kilopylae (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

wp:ONUS says you should establish consensus for inclusion, not exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have outlined above (perhaps this conversation and that one should be merged—I was reluctant to move your comments without asking!), the racial unrest that the article is about has gone beyond the US. Though originating in and centred on the US, it is an international wave of protest, with the unrest in other countries focusing on domestic race issues rather than solidarity with the American struggle. I am not totally opposed to calling it 2020 United States racial unrest and also including content about how the United States racial unrest has manifested itself in other countries—with constructions like "2020 United States racial unrest in the United Kingdom", perhaps as sub-articles with only a brief mention here. This is supposed to be the overarching article covering the whole present wave of racial unrest, though, and arbitrarily limiting its scope to the US is something I would strongly argue against. —Kilopylae (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue in the USA is not the same as elsewhere, and the focus is not quite the same.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Also how can there be US Unrest outside the US? I mean common.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:brd when reverted you do not add back, you talk.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I like this page. I see no problem with the section, only with the title. This could be a useful top-level main page, in time. The best thing might be to re-title to 'International ramifications'. Johncdraper (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Then revert back to the undisputed version and lets see some argument why we need to expand the scope. As well as a new name for the article suggested.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The page title works. A Main Heading section on International ramifications/consequences also works. To make it international, someone would have to collect all the related protests from the separate pages and summarize them here. Somewhere on a continuum, the page then transitions from 2020 US racial unrest to 2020 global racial unrest.Johncdraper (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not if it is about global unrest, the USA is not the world. We rename before, not after we change its focus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason this page was created was as an overview of the racial unrest that is linked to killings other then Gorge Floyd, the international unrest is linked to the George Floyd killing. We have an article on the international protests over the George Floyd killing. We do not need two articles that cover the same subject.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly my thinking too, international protests are irrelevant and don't align with the purpose of the article Anon0098 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you please show me the link to that article? Johncdraper (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I put it in the see also section of this one, but here you go List of George Floyd protests outside the United States.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a list. I suggest creating a separate page in Draftspace on 2020 global protests related to George Floyd to see what it looks like. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts Johncdraper (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It still duplicates what we are going to have here. We can turn that list into an article, by expanding it. What we should not do is weaken the focus of this one, it defeats the object.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your aim on creating this page was for it to be a top level main page for 2020 United States racial unrest, basically this page along thematic grounds?Johncdraper (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No it was that that George Floyd protests did not become a repository of every race related protest in the USA this year. So it could remain focused on George Floyd.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it. But, why don't you just rename this article? I also suggest (talk) creates a new article based on expanding this List article List of George Floyd protests outside the United States into a main article titled something like 2020 global race protests. This could be best done in Draft space. Or am I missing something here? Johncdraper (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We do not discus page renames on another page. This page was created after discussion at George Floyd protests over how to deal with other race protests in the USA.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I just visited that Talk page, and I'm with you now. But, I still suggest (talk) creates a new article based on expanding this List article List of George Floyd protests outside the United States into a main article titled something like 2020 global race protests. Do yo agree with that? Johncdraper (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already said we should.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Kilopylae Do you agree? Johncdraper (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I will wait for the centralised discussion mentioned in the thread below—the haphazard approach hasn't helped thus far and I don't think me creating another start-class fork will do any good until we've got a consensus on overall direction. In principle, I agree; there should be one article for the overarching international "reckoning", which includes sporadic peaceful protests outside the US and regular protests/riots in the US, and another, this article, for the unrest in the US. —Kilopylae (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We also have the option to include some international protests in the See Also section, instead of having it as a header in the actual page Anon0098 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The see also makes more sense.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Killing of Julian Edward Roosevelt Lewis"

Considering no notable protests arose from this (to my knowledge), does this belong on this page? Especially as its own subheading Anon0098 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say not, this is "racial unrest" not "racist killings".Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That's my thinking. Removing per WP:ONUS, please comment if anyone disagrees with removal Anon0098 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone had added the name "Julian Edward Roosevelt Thompson (sic)" to the page in roughly that place and I turned it into a subsection so it was at least formatted correctly, but I agree that it has little bearing on the unrest and can be removed. That said, the structure of the page is not quite clear to me. The section is titled "Killings and shootings by police" while the next is "Major protests and riots", and there's obviously overlap in that the killing of George Floyd sparked George Floyd protests, and Jacob Blake the Kenosha protests. Does "Killings and shootings by police" really mean "Killings and shootings by police that sparked unrest"? Lester Mobley (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Originally "Major protests and riots" wasn't on the page. Considering this page is specifically talking about the rest, yes the connotation is "Killings and shootings by police that sparked unrest" Frankly I don't know why we need a "Major protests and riots" section anyways. It's just repetitive. Anon0098 (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Bold new reorganization

All the information has been kept but I rearranged it to put emphasis on the unrest rather than the shootings and killings so it aligns more with the original purpose of the article. Let me know what you guys think. Anon0098 (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Makes more sense to me. Lester Mobley (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

BOLD move to new title

As the heading, plus I have rewritten the lede to match the proposed new title. Revert and discuss if you disagree. —Kilopylae (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States racial unrest is perfect. Not all protests are attributed to BLM and racial unrest gets a lot of hits for a variety of these protests. WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions I'd much prefer the current title. Anon0098 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The racial unrest—and I agree that's a better term than Black Lives Matter unrest—has gone beyond the United States. In the UK, for example, though there is a recognition that the movement is centred on the US there has also been a significant anti-racism wave here that is both a part of the same wider unrest and centred on British issues (as opposed to solidarity with the US). Phrases that reference the unrest like "in the present climate" have been appended to several post-George Floyd anti-racism initiatives that really have nothing to do with the US or the original George Floyd protests. The intention of this article is to provide a broad overview of the whole thing, so arbitrarily limiting it to the US would rather defeat the point, as well as not reflect how "the present climate" is talked about in reliable sources. I went for Black Lives Matter unrest as a possible title because it has all been broadly aligned with the wider BLM movement and the other main point of commonality, origins in the George Floyd protests, would seem to go against the emerging consensus that that page should be limited to protests that have an explicit connection to Floyd and are not simply part of the wider unrest his death and the subsequent protests triggered. —Kilopylae (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, there are issues about this unique to the US. The Focus in the UK was rather on Britain's colonial past, not its current policing (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Slatersteven, there are enough differences that constitute different pages Anon0098 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kilopylae. No this is purely American unrest. Black Lives Matter(BLM was founded in the United States of America over the racial killing by George Zimmerman that occurred in Florida. Merely having BLM supporters in other countries such as the UK does not make it a British movement. Moreover the initial event that caused the unrest was a killing in the US by American police. Any international unrest is not the same event. Warlightyahoo (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As the Plummer quote in the article says, Floyd's killing was "the dam-break moment for the global protest movement." --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 08:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is a photo from Bristol, UK in the head images?

Why is a photo from Bristol, UK in the head images?This page is about racial unrest in the United States. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, international protests should be mentioned in the See Also, and the picture should be removed. Anon0098 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Update the name and causes?

There has been recent housing protests in Philadelphia (still going on). with Loads of evictions soon looming, should we turn this from

“2020 United States Racial Unrest”

to

“2020 United States Racial and Civil Unrest”? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

How about just 2020 United States Unrest/Protests, (something along those lines) in that case? User:Alexiod Palaiologos 17:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Injuries

Does anyone have any recent figures on the number of injuries and arrests? I used numbers from early June which of course must be a lot lower than what they are now. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 17:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox 2

I will be removing the egregious violations of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which says keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. If you want to include all the parties, mention them in the text first. FDW777 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

we are trying to, but it’s hard when you delete the belligerents entirely before we can do anything Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you adding them to the text first. FDW777 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

which I am going to do right now Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering your first 11 edits, prior to your erroneous revert, were all relating to the infobox, your claim of we are trying to doesn't hold water. FDW777 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I just added new info in the main text. “August 22”. Search for it in the page Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

adding Stone Mountain protests to the list right now Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty much every civil unrest has an infobox in it. Here are some examples 2019–20 Chilean protests, 2020 Belarusian protests, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests and the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Stop with this garbage. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 17:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And what's that got to do with this discussion? FDW777 (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Housing/rent protests. Also potential name change

Currently in Philadelphia, there is a situation going on where protest groups are protecting a homeless encampment from the police who were going to evict them. Currently the encampment is still barricaded and guarded/on watch for any law enforcement after the PD retreated yesterday/day before.

Should we add this to the unrest? Also; should we name this page from “United States 2020 racial unrest” to “United States 2020 racial and civil unrest”? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

NO and NO.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Slatersteven—the racism-related unrest is a distinct topic. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 17:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

alrighty then Bruhmoney77 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Deaths?

Should someone bring the deaths spreadsheet from the violence in George Floyd protests page and copy it to this page, but add the Boogaloo killings and Kenosha shooting? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Should there be mention of Ahmaud Arbery as well?Kdotlamar39 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Kdotlamar39

I would say yes Bruhmoney77 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to objectively capture/portray how senseless these murders have been? In many instances the victims have been doing absolutely nothing that led to their deaths and this would highlight how endemic excessive police force is in the US. Kdotlamar39 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Kdotlamar39

Change to 'Related racial unrest outside the US'

Should we revamp the section to a summary of the List of George Floyd protests outside the United States and the international section of George Floyd protests (and link it as a main article)? It would be much more relevant and provide a more accurate summary of what exactly is going on. Thoughts? Giraffer ^munch 14:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Constant IP vandalism, needs semi-protection

There has been constant IP vandalism, including from user:82.81.85.239. Need to semi-protect this page quite quickly. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 12:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, someone blocked me from editing as I forgot to take out a certain section.

One of the guys also seems to insist that Israel and the FBI are support BLM, which is pretty funny but yeah, really needs to stop. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 13:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

They also are editing the main section as "domestic terrorism." Please be on the lookout for such things in addition.ExplosiveResults (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they seem unrelenting in their constant attacks. The request for protection was declined however, but a few of the problem IP's were blocked. Hopefully that is enough, but I doubt it. If it persists, request Extended Protection again. Let's all just stay vigilant and keep on the lookout for more vandalism. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright we got it, it's semi-protected. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Federalist

I have reverted the addition of this "reference", and text supposedly referenced by it. The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274#The Federalist (website) casts significant doubt on the reliability of this website, confirmed by the section at The Federalist (website)#"Black crime" tag on our Wikipedia article. Per WP:ONUS, it is up to the editor wishing to include text referenced by this to prove its reliability. Also since the article contains no breakdown or inclusion criteria, I fail to see how it is known that the protests over the Breonna Taylor killing and Boogaloo killings are separate from the 30. FDW777 (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have something on the deaths during the unrest

Right now their is nothing on the number deaths at all ,shouldn't something be added.

The section above "Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed" is an ongoing discussion about the deaths issue. I assume it will be re-added once a general consensus is reached about the number of deaths and sources used. Temeku (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Asian Americans

Where do they play a role in this article? I think it's weird there's not one mention of them for an article with a title such as "2020 United States racial unrest". After all, they make up to 7% of the total population in the entire United States so it can't be all that insignificant. What about the anti-Asian sentiment that's been on the rise due to the COVID-19 pandemic? Telsho (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources treat that as a separate topic from BLM-adjacent protests and unrest. We cover COVID-related racism at Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States and List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that's the best place for it in my opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 19:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah they do seem to be separate topics in sources. As per the list of incidents dlthewave links to the anti-Asian COVID-related racism is an extremely international phenomenon and although there are lots of incidents in the U.S., as with anti-Semitism which is also on the rise here it's not tied to incidents of civil unrest. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

May we tweak the title? So it may more accurately fit the nature of this event.

Breif assessment: Is this the year 2020? Yes. Is this a summary of unrest in the United States? Is this civil unrest? Yes. Is it all racial? Well probably not.

The title is 2020 United States racial unrest However the overall nature of it does not seem completely race related, though it does have some racial motivation. Could it be more a case of a citizen versus police unrest? You know since the goal has been to defund the police and the police brutality has affected both races, and you have incidents of political violence between groups that are both white such as Antifa versus Proud Boys. So it seems a case of Left Wing versus Right Wing and US government.

If we would change the title to fit the overall political unrest and anti cop uprisings, what would it most likely be? Warlightyahoo (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I agree with tweaking the name a bit. Other incidents have and currently are happening right now that splintered off of the George Floyd protests. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of the article was to mention all the political unrest which wasn't directly linked to George Floyd. So perhaps we could get a new title. But I think also quite important here is that the entire article has a horrible structure and no flow to it, and it comes off as more a list of random incidents. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC) User:Alexiod Palaiologos has been blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE and the blocking administrator confirmed a sockpuppet account and noted, Any appeal needs to address the socking, disruptive behavior, and how you would like to build the encyclopedia away from Black Lives Matter --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The title of the article has always been "2020 United States racial unrest" and it has mentioned race since its creation. Even attempts to take the focus off of racism like "Blue Lives Matter" are explicitly a response to racial issues. Protests against the breakdown of the Post Office or unrelated violence between left and right political groups can go in other articles; this one is about 2020 racial unrest in a country with a long history of racial unrest and conflict. The title and topic of the article should remain the same. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

only thing is, isn’t that what 2020 United States racial reckoning is for? Why not use that article for racial unrest and this article for general civil unrest in America 2020? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The creating comment for that article says the national cultural response to institutional racism is now independently notable from the protests. There are lots of "2020 United States 𝑥" articles; if a case can be made that broader unrest is notable as a topic on its own, someone can create that article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 02:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the proposal to rename this article as 2020 United States civil unrest? I'm neutral to this, but I thought I'd frame it in a way that allows people to either support or oppose. Albertaont (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As I think I said above, I am dubious about rename proposals that look like attempts to add content unrelated to what the article is about. This was created because of an issue at another article, and this sought to redress that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the racist aspect of the unrest is not the whole, and while BLM is involved, right from the very beginning of the protests it was first anti police as protestors cohersed the defunding the police with arson and rioters with looting. The protestors were interacial and the police is interacial so it can't be considered a racial target, if anything political. Had it been black gangs attacking white people like the LA riots, then perhaps it can be considered racial unrest, but alas even the George Floyd Protets are more anti police unrest by left wing groups than racially motivated.

The 2020 US civil unrest is best described as a left wing versus right wing and government unrest. Perhaps you can call it 2020 United States political unrest or 2020 United States anti-police unrest Warlightyahoo (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States Political Unrest sounds good Bruhmoney77 (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - We can certainly discuss the appropriate scope for this article, but in its current state the focus is clearly on issues of race. Calls to defund the police stem from the Black Lives Matter movement and reliable sources treat it as such. This article also rightly excludes other significant unrest that happened in 2020 such as the widespread civil disobedience and building occupation in protest of COVID restrictions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed

I have removed the unreferenced breakdown of deaths from the infobox, per WP:BURDEN. The claim of 30 is not supported by the referenced total of 19 at the George Floyd protests article. It is up to anyone wishing to restore the breakdown to provide references that support it. FDW777 (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added the deaths just now, however I have found the sources and added them to it. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Next stop AE for the next person to ignore policy regarding this. FDW777 (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, any totals need sources stating that total specifically. Whether an individual death qualifies as part of this unrest is obviously a judgment call involving interpretation and analysis, so editors cannot simply add up what they personally consider deaths related to the topic and then list the total as a fact - it is original research. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, lews stick to RS totals.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The death toll is given in the article, adding all the citations in the infobox would make a mess of an article. I can remove George Floyd Protests, and just leave it as 32 dead in protests (for example, how it looks on the 2019-20 Chilean protests article, but the actual number is correct. The article about the George Floyd protests also claims there are 19 deaths, but then goes on to explain there are 31 deaths, which includes one of the Boogaloo Killings but not the other. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 12:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please list here the reference(s) that support(s) your total of 32. FDW777 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Violence and controversies during the George_Floyd protests It establishes there are 31 deaths (plus two from Kenosha), but it includes one of the Boogaloo Killings (mentioned in a different part of the infobox), so in total that is 32 deaths. I actually do not understand where the 19 figure came from on the main article. When I look on the violence and controversies article, it says 19 deaths by June, 31 deaths by September. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 13:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not a reference. Please list the references here that support your total of 32, or 30, or 31, or whatever else you claim it is. FDW777 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I added "at least 19" to the George Floyd Protests section which is supported by Forbes. This source is from June 8, so it should probably be updated if a newer source is available, but whatever number is used needs to cite a specific source somewhere in this article. It's not a good idea to calculate our own total death toll since the numbers are from different dates and we can't be sure that we haven't missed anything. –dlthewave ☎ 14:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So the other article did say 31 deaths, but now User:FDW777 went ahead and edited it and changed the death count to 19. The information is clearly cited but you just simply refuse to look at it. And no, adding 500 citations in the infobox is not some kind of reasonable solution, IT IS IN THE ARTICLE. I just pasted this from the article, the citations didn't get carried over:
:So the other article did say 31 deaths, but now User:FDW777 went ahead and edited it and changed the death count to 19. The information is clearly cited but you just simply refuse to look at it. And no, adding 500 citations in the infobox is not some kind of reasonable solution, IT IS IN THE ARTICLE. I just pasted this from the article, the citations didn't get carried over:

Long copied passage
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
May May 27: In Minneapolis, one mile (1.6 km) from the main protest site, Calvin Horton Jr. died after being fatally shot at a pawn shop that was being looted. The owner of the pawn shop was initially arrested in connection with incident, but he was later released without charges and the case remained open as of late June 2020. Also on May 27, a man known as "Umbrella Man" dressed in black clothes and gas mask, carrying an umbrella and sledgehammer, was recorded on video breaking windows of an AutoZone store, spray painting graffiti, and encouraging looting. Some protesters confronted him and asked him to stop. Initial claims that the "Umbrella Man" was a Saint Paul police officer were debunked by surveillance video released by the Saint Paul Police Department. Police later received an anonymous tip via email that the man may be a 32-year-old man with ties to white supremacist organizations, according to an affidavit obtained by the media. However, the suspect in question has not been charged and the identity of the "Umbrella Man" remains unconfirmed. May 28: In Minneapolis, on July 20, federal and state authorities recovered a body—which appeared to have suffered thermal injuries—at a local pawnshop that was torched during protests a month prior. Max It Pawn, located several blocks east of the city's third precinct station and in an area of heavy rioting, was destroyed by fire on May 28. In June, a 25-year-old man from Rochester, Minnesota was federally charged with arson for the fire at the pawn shop. May 29 In Downtown Detroit, a 21-year-old man was killed when his car was fired upon. He was shot in the middle of police brutality demonstrations, although police claimed the incident had no connection to the protests. In Oakland, California, amid unrest, a Federal Protective Service officer, David Patrick Underwood, was fatally shot outside a federal courthouse in a drive-by attack that also wounded another guard. Underwood had been providing security at the courthouse during a protest. The Department of Homeland Security labeled the shooting an act of domestic terrorism. Boogaloo movement member Steven Carrillo was charged with the murder on June 16. He was also implicated in the murder of a Santa Cruz County deputy. The white van allegedly used in the murder had "Boog" and "I became unreasonable" written in blood on the vehicle's hood. Investigators also found Boogaloo symbols including a ballistic vest with a US flag with an igloo instead of stars. In Minneapolis, a woman's body with visible trauma was found in the backseat of a car in an area that had been overrun with violence during the overnight hours. Police initiated a suspicious death investigation in response to the suspected killing on May 29th. May 30 In St. Louis, Missouri, 29-year-old protester Barry Perkins died after being run over by a FedEx truck that was fleeing from looters. In Omaha, Nebraska, 22-year-old protester James Scurlock was fatally shot outside of a bar. The shooter was Jacob Gardner, the bar-owner, who had a scuffle with some protesters and fired several shots, one of which killed Scurlock; the altercation outside and shooting were caught on surveillance video. Two days later, authorities announced that there would be no charges for the bar's owner and that he had opened fire in self-defense. However, after pushback, the matter was referred to a grand jury for review. May 31 In Kansas City, Missouri, 50-year-old Marvin Francois was shot and killed by robbers while picking up one of his sons from a protest. In Chicago, 32-year-old John Tiggs was fatally struck in the abdomen by shots fired inside a Metro by T-Mobile store while walking into the building to pay his bill during lootings in the city's South Side. In Riverside, Illinois, 22-year old Myqwon Blanchard from Chicago was fatally shot by a gunman during the looting of the North Riverside Park Mall. In Indianapolis, two people were fatally shot in the vicinity of protests or riots downtown. One of them was 18-year-old Dorian Murrell, killed around 2:30am on June 1; a 29-year-old man turned himself in to the police, maintaining Murrell had pushed him down, and was subsequently charged with murder on June 2. The other was 38-year-old Chris Beaty, a local business owner, who was shot shortly before midnight May 31. June June 1 In Louisville, local restaurateur David McAtee was killed as a Louisville Metro Police and Kentucky National Guard curfew patrol fired at him. Authorities stated that the patrol returned gunfire after McAtee fired at them. McAtee's gunshot occurred after the patrol appeared to fire a pepper ball into McAtee's restaurant, nearly striking his niece in the head. According to McAtee's sister, the gathering was not a protest but rather a regularly scheduled social gathering at which McAtee served food from his barbecue restaurant. An investigation of the killing is ongoing. LMPD Chief Steve Conrad was fired later that day, as officers and troops involved in the shooting did not wear or failed to activate body cameras. Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer admitted that the city had shown an "inability to apply [curfew] evenly." In Davenport, Iowa, two people were fatally shot on a night with significant rioting. One of the victims was 22-year-old Italia Marie Kelly, killed in an apparent random shooting as she was leaving a demonstration. Another person, Marquis M. Tousant, was found dead at the scene of an ambush on an unmarked police truck that left a police officer wounded. In Cicero, Illinois, two men were fatally shot in separate incidents following an "afternoon of unrest"; this was confirmed by Cicero Police. Town spokesman Ray Hanania said the shots were fired by "outside agitators." The two men were both described as bystanders and were identified as 28-year-old Jose Gutierrez and 27-year-old Victor Cazares Jr. In Las Vegas, police shot and killed Jorge Gomez, who was walking among protesters and reportedly reached for his firearm when he was shot. June 2 In Philadelphia, two deaths occurred during the fourth day of unrest. A man in his twenties was fatally shot by the owner of the gun shop Firing Line Inc., while trying to break into the store in the south section of the city. Mayor Jim Kenney said he was "deeply troubled" by the killing and that he did not condone vigilantism. In a separate incident, a 24-year-old man was severely injured after attempting to use an explosive device to destroy an ATM. He was rushed to a local hospital before being pronounced dead. In St. Louis, 77-year-old retired police captain David Dorn was shot and killed by looters at a pawn shop. The shooting was streamed on Facebook Live. In Vallejo, California, Sean Monterrosa, a 22-year-old man, was shot and killed by police while on his knees. Monterrosa lifted his hands, which revealed a 15-inch hammer tucked in his pocket police said they mistook for a handgun. A police officer in a vehicle then fired on him five times through the windshield. Monterrosa later died at a local hospital. The police were responding to a call over alleged looting at a Walgreens, according to police chief Shawny Williams. The day after his death police revealed that "there had been an 'officer-involved shooting'" at a press conference, yet declined to offer further details, including the name of the officer involved. The event reportedly sparked intense outrage in the Bay Area, particularly in Vallejo, which was identified as having a long history of police violence, excessive force complaints, and high-profile killings like the shooting of Willie McCoy. June 3–29 June 3: In Bakersfield, California, Robert Forbes, a 50-year-old man was killed after being struck by a vehicle while marching between California Avenue and Oak Street. The incident was caught on video and distributed widely on social media. Forbes was transported to Kern Medical Center, where he remained in critical condition for three days before dying. Police deny that Forbes was hit intentionally, while others dispute this claim. The police did not restrain the driver with handcuffs and allowed him to smoke a cigarette, which caused indignation on social media. A candlelight vigil was held for Forbes on June 6. June 6: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department deputies arrived at the residence of Carrillo, previously responsible for the murder of a security guard in Oakland, in Ben Lomond, California. In response, Carrillo fired at the deputies with an AR-15 style rifle, seriously injuring one deputy and killing Sheriff Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller. Two nearby California Highway Patrol officers responded to the scene, and were met with gunfire, wounding one officer. Deputies and officers were also attacked with improvised explosive devices. During the shootout, Carrillo was hit and fled on foot to a nearby highway where he hijacked a car. He abandoned the car minutes later. According to the criminal complaint against him, Carrillo scrawled messages in his own blood on the hijacked car that said "I became unreasonable", "stop the duopoly", and "Boog". Carrillo tried to take another car from where it was parked at a home, but was restrained by the homeowner and another civilian. Carrillo was arrested in connection with the attack. June 20: In Seattle, a 19-year-old man, Lorenzo Anderson, was killed and another person was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries after being fired on multiple times inside the city's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Police stated they were denied entry to the area to render aid; instead, Capitol Hill Organized Protest medics took the two victims to Harborview Medical Center. A later investigation by KUOW showed that miscommunication between Seattle Police and Seattle Fire delayed city response to the victim. June 27: A shooting occurred at Jefferson Square Park in downtown Louisville, Kentucky during a protest. A 27-year-old photographer who supported the protests against racism and police brutality was killed. Another person was injured. Overnight camping at the park was banned after the shooting, and police removed tents from the park. One suspect was arrested, interviewed by homicide detectives, and charged with murder and wanton endangerment. The suspect was hospitalized as he was wounded by gunfire from civilians defending themselves. June 29: In Seattle, a 16-year-old boy was killed and a 14-year-old was critically injured in their Jeep Grand Cherokee after being shot in the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) zone. July–August July 4: In Seattle, 24-year-old Summer Taylor died after being hit by a vehicle while protesting on Interstate 5. A second person also hit was in critical condition. A suspect was taken into custody a few hours later after the incident. July 4: In Atlanta, 8-year-old Secoriea Turner was fatally shot when the driver of an SUV (in which she was a passenger), tried to get past what police say was a "makeshift roadblock manned by various armed individuals" near the site where Rayshard Brooks was killed in June. Police have said as many as four people fired in the shooting that killed Secoriea, but only one has been arrested. 19-year-old Julian Conley, one of the men who had been at the scene, turned himself in to police after his photo was released as a person of interest. Conley said he was armed but did not use his weapon when he witnessed the SUV hit one of the men at the roadblock, who then fired at the vehicle. July 5: In Indianapolis, 24-year old Jessica Doty Whitaker was killed after she, her fiance, and two other friends got into an argument with another group of people regarding the Black Lives Matter movement. The argument between the two armed groups allegedly began when someone in Whitaker's group used a slang version of the 'N-word.' Whitaker responded to chants of "Black lives matter" by saying "all lives matter," and though her fiance seemingly deescalated the situation, as the two groups were parting, Whitaker was hit by gunfire and later died in the hospital. July 25: Downtown Austin, 28-year old Garrett Foster was killed in a shooting at a Black Lives Matter protest. The incident happened around 9:52 p.m. near East Sixth Street and Congress Avenue, according to Austin-Travis County EMS. Police said initial reports indicate that Foster was carrying an AK-47 style rifle, and was pushing his fiancee's wheelchair moments before he was killed. Witnesses on the ground reported a driver accelerating their vehicle into a crowd of people. The suspect then pulled out his own firearm and shot Foster. Foster was then taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. The driver accused of shooting Foster was brought in by police for questioning, and his handgun and car were secured for evidence. The driver was released pending further investigation. Two memorials to Foster were built in downtown Austin within 24 hours of his death. On July 28, one of the memorials was defaced by an unidentified person. August 25: In Kenosha, Wisconsin, two protesters were fatally shot and a third was injured by Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois. Rittenhouse was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and other charges; his attorneys have said his actions were self-defense. August 29: In Portland, Oregon, Aaron “Jay” Danielson was shot in the chest and killed on the night of August 29, amidst protests and riots in the city. In videos of the incident and its aftermath, two shots can be heard ringing out, and Danielson lying in the street, face-down and motionless. He was wearing a hat which had an insignia of Patriot Prayer, a far-right group based in Vancouver, Washington that has clashed with protesters in the past. Michael Forest Reinoehl, responsible for the shooting, and a self-described supporter of Antifa, said, in an Associated Press video interview earlier in the summer, that he had provided security for other protesters. September September 3: Michael Forest Reinoehl was shot and killed when authorities attempted to apprehend him on a murder warrant. He was allegedly responsible for the fatal shooting of Aaron “Jay” Danielson of Patriot Prayer during clashes between pro-Trump groups and left-wing protesters in Portland, Oregon on August 29. He was wanted by the Multnomah County Circuit Court on a charge of second-degree murder.

User:Alexiod Palaiologos 14:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, the content of another article is not a reference and I will not even waste time discussing it. I will however add that you absolutely didn't get that information from the current version of the article. FDW777 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The citations are clearly in THIS article, how many times do I have to explain this to you? How hard is to understand? And you debate whether certain deaths are a part of the George Floyd Protests, but they are a part of this greater unrest, full stop. On every single page, you go around deleting stuff with your favourite line It is your burden to provide citations that this happened. THE CITATIONS ARE ALREADY THERE. Please learn to read before going on Wikipedia and deciding your own opinion dictates fact. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 14:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem listing the references you claim support your claimed total. If you don't, next stop AE. FDW777 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What we're asking for is a specific reference that supports 31 deaths. I'm not sure what this long copy-pasted section with no references is supposed to show (are we supposed to count up the total ourselves?) but it's not a reference. You need to back up your claims instead of blaming folks who revert your unsourced edits. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"the content of another article is not a reference". Yes it is. This number is based on the figure given in another article, specifically the Violence and Controversies page of the George Floyd Protests which lists 31 deaths in the article, all have sources supporting that claim. The sources are there in that article that the number is based on, therefore it is a reference. Warlightyahoo (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. See WP:CIRCULAR. That's non-negotiable policy. FDW777 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777, it is according to Wikipedia:CIRCULAR it says "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources." The article is backed by reliable sources. Therefore it is a reliable reference. Warlightyahoo (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You'll find that each death Inside the US section has reliable citing sources. We could perhaps link those directly. Warlightyahoo (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You will find that many of the references don't mention George Floyd, so aren't references for anything at all. Feel free to cite them if you want, you can have a trip to AE as well. FDW777 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

They all do. Each death has a source linking it to the unrest over George Floyd. Warlightyahoo (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are so sure I suggest adding them next to the offending text, since it requires an inline citation as it has been challenged. FDW777 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Then I could just link the article since I am sure the sources are accurate otherwise they wouldn't be included in the article deaths section. Glad we are in agreement. Warlightyahoo (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, see WP:V. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The sub-section WP:CIRCULAR states Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly (my emphasis). If you wish to use the references from another article, they are required to be cited in this article. So feel free to add them, if you are so convinced of them. FDW777 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you do understand that the figures on the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests are completely correct. If we are required to add the sources directly so beit. Warlightyahoo (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't accept the figures on that article are correct. IF you are so sure they are and that the references are correct, then add them to the text in question in this article as they are required to be per policy. FDW777 (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes we are required to have it sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources are sufficient enough to be used as references whether or not you accept the sources are correct is irrelevant. They all link each event to the George Floyd protest, currently numbering 29, possibly more if additional events that occurred are added with sufficient sources. Warlightyahoo (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As Aquillion said way up at the beginning of this talk page section, you can't pick deaths from separate sources and add them up yourself, that would be original research. It's not, for example, how casualty numbers from wars are arrived at in Wikipedia articles: one or more reliable sources has to be the one doing the analysis and characterizing the manner in which deaths are connected to the topic of the article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 01:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we've pointed out multiple times that this is original research, and the continued push is beginning to be disruptive. You're citing multiple sources that add up to 29 (or is it 31?) when what we need is one source that gives the total figure. –dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So, as I've removed a predictable attempt to add an unreferenced total to the infobox, I guess we still need to discuss this. At present there's no total, or even mention of deaths in the infobox. I thought it inappropriate to list only the notable deaths of people killed by police without mentioning the other deaths. So how shall we proceed? My preference would be to include the 19+ referenced by Forbes plus notable deaths, but without giving a total. But I'm willing to flexible, within policy of course. FDW777 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with listing 19+ as a minimum total, if someone could find another reliable source that also gives a higher total (as a maximum) then we could possibly list a range (like 19-29) per those sources. But I agree with adding 19+ at the very least. Temeku (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added back the Forbes figure. That's not my preferred permanent solution although I'm not opposed to it, so there can be further discussion as to what else can be included in the infobox regarding deaths. FDW777 (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not have a solution to the infobox dilemma, but I do have a suggestion for reporting deaths in the body of the article. Similar to the 'Violence and Controversies' page for the George Floyd protests, in which there is a table of deaths (name, age, place of death, and date of death) in addition to a literary description of the circumstances of each death, I think that it would at least help readers to have both a visual and a text-based representation of deaths. The 19+ figure should be kept in the infobox for now, as finding credible sources that list a death total with a reference to the general racial unrest appears to be very difficult. In this way, we can avoid summing up deaths and violating the original research policy while acknowledging that there are many more deaths during the unrest than the 19 listed in the article from June. Ajs2004 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd section

There are like 30 different articles relating to the George Floyd protests. Do we really need to rehash everything in here again with 4 block grafs? Thinking of cutting it down to like a graf max and keeping the main page link Anon0098 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge with

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Talk:2020 United States racial reckoning#Merger proposal

 – Procedurally closing duplicate thread, per WP:TALKFORK. These mutually redundant discussions will need to be assessed together, when the other thread is closed. (non-admin closure)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

---

This page needs to be merged with 2020 United States racial unrest 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning and then retitled and cleaned up. Until it is, I'm going to start flagging both with relevant warning templates. Johncdraper (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

John, this article is "2020 United States racial unrest". What do you mean by "This page needs to be merged with 2020 United States racial unrest"? —Kilopylae (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

My bad, a copy-paste error: I meant 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning. In fact, I think that article should be merged into this article. Would you please contribute on the Talk there? Johncdraper (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment As stated by Kilopylae here, we need to focus on the broader question of how we structure our coverage on the 2020 race-related civil unrest and political/cultural shift in America, the UK and Europe. At present we have George Floyd protests, 2020 United States racial unrest, 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning, List of George Floyd protests outside the United States, List of George Floyd protests in the United States, Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, a whole lot of George Floyd protests in xxx article, and probably some others if I look. This is a natural consequence of people, either deliberately or inadvertently, creating a fork of existing content in some other article with a new name, often one that's been rejected. There needs to be a centralised discussion about what articles we have instead of new articles focusing on slightly different aspects of the situation popping up every five minutes. FDW777 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

FDW777 What about suggesting the BLM Project taking this role? Johncdraper (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd definitely hope they'd have some input. My point is probably a bit meta, how it's quite simple to create articles but a lot more difficult to get rid of them. But I definitely don't see it being useful to have discussions on a single article such as the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 United States racial injustice reckoning, the articles and content can't be looked at in isolation. FDW777 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm neutral on whether the BLM project should lead. I strongly agree there is a need for a single, central discussion on how to structure and organise our coverage of this and the sooner we can establish a consensus the better. The situation at the moment borders on being chaotic. —Kilopylae (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The central discussion can be the name of the page — racial unrest. I'm opposed to using Black Lives Matter as a lasso because BLM as an organization isn't directly related to all of the protests Anon0098 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment / Likely support In my opinion, we do not need as many pages as there are on this topic, and so merging them would do some good. However, I think it is important to focus on names in at least some capacity. "Racial unrest" seems to imply something of a race war, even if I agree it's a better and more encompassing term than George Floyd protests. "Racial injustice reckoning" is a very lengthy title, but I think I might prefer its term over racial unrest. I don't know entirely, and support some way of merging these pages, perhaps even combining them all into George Floyd protests in some greater capacity. In any case, the unrest seems more like a category of pages than just one page these days. PickleG13 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Racial injustice reckoning" reads like a "the first ones up against the wall" type statement. It is POV loaded, and may not even be accurate (has there been a reckoning?).Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support The racial reckoning is mostly just a side-effect of the unrest. It's also hard to define "racial reckoning," so the whole article is very subjective. I think if we kept the same title for this one, and just sort of tied in the whole reckoning part of it or added a section, it would work best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaiBrown1204 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the racial reckoning page should be more about the social impacts, while this one should be more about the unrest itself. --66.189.155.75 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support it is worth moving the reckoning article into this one. Juno (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support The racial reckoning is a byproduct of the unrest. It merges into this article vs the other way around. Albertaont (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support The racial reckoning article should probably be merged into this article and given its own section (Social impacts section, as an example). User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Alexiod Palaiologos above has been blocked indefinitely --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Support The reckoning page is hilarious in how useless, redundant, and unnecessary it is. If it is not merged, it should be deleted. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Bruhmoney77 (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Both topics seem highly interconnected, so I'd say it makes sense. Love of Corey (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Both topics are highly connected, it makes sense. Mangokeylime (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - It's entirely subordinate to the unrest. -- Veggies (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The creating comment for that article says the national cultural response to institutional racism is now independently notable from the protests and that's true. Issues like Mississippi removing the Confederate battle flag from its state flag or 2020 attention to racism in rock climbing are not simply subordinate to, or merely a byproduct of, the protests in response to police brutality, they're parallel issues of ongoing systemic racism that have also come to a cusp in 2020. If you look at our articles on the Kent State shootings for example, a far more confined event of political unrest in United States history, in addition to the main article there's Bibliography of the Kent State shootings and Kent State shootings in popular culture which are of independent notability and an entire Category:Kent State shootings, and that's all for one event on one college campus; the topics of these articles document something far larger. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a malformed merge request. There are two weeks of discussion at the other talk page (Talk:2020 United States racial reckoning#Merger_proposal) and its arguments only rehash the AfD, which already closed as "keep". The "racial reckoning" article clearly describes a social/cultural response borne out in reliable sources. It is distinct from protests in response to the killing of George Floyd. It is distinct from subsequent protests, demonstrations, and unrest. There are a litany of cited sources that discuss its distinctness and that discuss it as a "reckoning with racial injustice". Indeed, all of this has already been hashed out on the other talk page and the AfD, with ample source quotations. If there are sources that show no distance between "injustice reckoning" and "unrest", I would be interested in seeing them.

Additionally, by the sourcing alone, there is far more discussion of a "racial reckoning" (which goes by many other names, as described on the other talk page) than of "racial unrest". In sources, "unrest" infers demonstrations, fighting, and rioting, none of which are associated with the social pressure and cultural changes related to the reckoning. "Unrest" itself has POV implications. I have not seen sources describe the arc from the Floyd protests to the present day as "racial unrest"—that is at best a coat rack and at worst, original research. To the point of how all these articles fit together, it really is a separate discussion, but while the waters have already been muddied, I'd argue that the protests section of Black Lives Matter should be split out on its own per summary style. While the line is not stark, the list of name and misc. changes are a subset of the cultural reckoning, not the Floyd protests, and should be renamed as such. All of the location-based subarticle of the protests are its own article. Again, this is a separate matter from this single merge proposal. However, to paint the whole as "racial unrest"—the sources don't back up its existence by that name. Whereas read the sources in 2020 United States racial reckoning: Through the headlines as well as the article text, they clearly describe a cultural reckoning. I'd like to see equivalent sources to justify keeping this unrest article.

czar 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support merging the "reckoning" page (which is a PoV-pushing title anyway) into this one. Whether this merge proposal was "malformed" in some way is immaterial, since people are treating it as valid (WP:CONSENSUS can form anywhere and by whatever means the community chooses to engage in), and per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. To the extent there is anything like rules for merging, rules serve us not the other way around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Property damage section needs to revised

I have request for comment to this articie, in Property damage infobox, they stats that damage due to unrest is $650 million (including $50 million in Kenosha and more than $500 million in Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area), but i found that in Axios exclusive article about damages from riots, i see that the riots costly insurance $1 billion to as high as $2 billion, which is notablily high for man-made disasters given that the unrest occured in 20 US states. Any opinion about this and can this number be revised? 110.137.184.148 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason for an RFC. There's no dispute here. If your sources are reliable the info box can be changed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That reference is about more than property damage, it's about losses to the insurance industry. As the article states While U.S. companies have learned the hard way that their insurance doesn't cover business interruption related to the coronavirus, most policies emphatically do cover riot-related losses. You can find out what business interruption coverage is here, it says a typical insurance policy will include wording such as We will pay for the actual loss of business income you sustain due to the necessary suspension of your “operations” during the period of “restoration.” The suspension must be caused by the direct physical loss, damage, or destruction to insured property. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a covered cause of loss. So while property damage might be x amount of dollars, the actual losses to the insurance industry will be higher as they will have to cover the income of affected businesses while they are unable to trade due to damage. FDW777 (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Lost wages and/or income is property damage unless they are part of and the result of a personal injury claim.

Likewise the actual property damages will be much higher since small businesses in urban America are typically underinsured or uninsured. Regardless, a national record of insured man made damages has occurred because of the 200+ riots associated with these protests. It is an RS encyclopedic fact and should be added to the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:949:25C9:2ECE:BC7A (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The breonna taylor search warrant was not a no knock warrant, revert and cease edit warring

'The warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant,' Kentucky AG says https://www.whas11.com/article/news/investigations/breonna-taylor-case/breonna-taylor-decision-no-knock-warrant-louisville-officers-announced-attorney-general/417-7dd8174f-53f1-4af6-8baf-c36eb4bd7cc1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:949:25c9:2ece:bc7a (talk)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-police-had-no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-apartment/3235029001/ Stonkaments (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The AG's report came out last week, that untrue fact checker came out months ago. As if an USA Today fact checker is going to trump the state attorney general regardless. See WP/Verifiability:Untrue

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:949:25c9:2ece:bc7a (talk)

They had a no-knock warrant, but received additional orders to knock and announce before entering. "While the department had received court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves." - https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html

Notice the AG's report says "was not served as a no-knock warrant". The sources are in agreement. Stonkaments (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The text on the page said executed a no knock search warrant which was completely untrue misinformation.

As I've now pointed out on the talk page of the Shooting of Breonna Taylor article, (thanks for pointing this out to me, IP editor, you've been super helpful) it's great that Mr. “I condone violence in all of its forms” Cameron, who is now facing having to respond to a lawsuit from a grand juror who says he misrepresented the grand jury proceedings, (I mean he disclaims that statement as a slip of the tongue but really? Really?) held a press conference definitively stating it wasn't served as a no-knock warrant but his word of honor may turn out to be thin ground to rest this claim on.

As it says here, “The [court] notice, considered ‘tremendously uncommon’ by legal experts, suggests that Cameron’s public comments about the case do not align with what his office presented to the grand jury.” I guess we may find out later today; maybe the NYT will change its story again. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 06:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys logo

Given this I have removed the Fred Perry logo from the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

When do you plan on updating the property damage with the most recent RS material where an inaccurate distinction was made between property and lost wages or income? The dated wild guesses of non expert RS should be under weighted compared to more current expert opinion. Besides national record man made insurable losses are also notable, topical RS and should be in the lede.

Furthermore the highly esteemed with Princeton study cites 200+ riot locations with 500+ incidents of violence despite 93percent being peaceful. This is notable RS, topical and desperately missing balance to an article trying to portray a national man made record billions of dollars in damages from mostly peaceful protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:18A0:C2:6FF0:31DF (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

NFAC

For the NFAC, I believe we should add them as a belligerent. They are a huge militia that has participated in multiple protests and armed demonstrations. If we are including the Three Percenters on the counterprotester side, the protester side should have the NFAC. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key points of the article. FDW777 (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8802817/Hundreds-members-black-militia-raise-guns-Louisiana-rally.html

https://reason.com/2020/07/29/the-second-amendment-is-not-restricted-to-white-conservatives/

https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article245525970.html

https://chicagodefender.com/the-birth-of-the-nfac-americas-black-militia/

Surely the NFAC can be a key point, right? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, they aren't mentioned in the article. FDW777 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What article? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This article! Again see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which says keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. So there's no point having a discussion about adding anything to the infobox unless it refers to information that is in the article already. FDW777 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

Can someone please tell me why we are only using the death count for the George Floyd protests as of June 9th? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any references giving an updated total? FDW777 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/26/almost-none-deaths-linked-recent-protests-are-known-have-been-committed-by-protesters/ Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that is it includes Tyler Gerth (killed during a Breonna Taylor protest) and Secoriea Turner (killed near a Rayshard Brooks protest). So we could update the total, but we couldn't claim the 24+ as part of George Floyd protests. FDW777 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds good Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That I only chose two examples of non-George Floyd protest deaths doesn't mean they are the only ones. The breakdown you added was unreferenced. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Since the reference says A review of 27 deaths linked to either protests or subsequent violence since late May indicates that those ultimately alleged to be culpable, in cases where a suspect or perpetrator were identified, were almost never actually part of the protest movement there might need to be further discussion as to whether 27 in the infobox is actually referenced, or whether that's actually misrepresenting what the reference says. Opinions of others about this? FDW777 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for that. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose basing a single-number infobox deaths total on this source. And frankly seeing them all laid out with short descriptions like that is kind of souring me on the notion of having a single number in the infobox at all; the ones which must have been included in the previous figure of 19+ are not what I'd expected, at all, so it seems misleading to me. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, after reading the Washington Post article a major rethink could be needed. It's actually the type of reference we've been wanting all along, one that analyses which deaths are linked to protests and which aren't. FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I found another source from October 1 that also provides a detailed breakdown of deaths during the protests as a whole, though in this case it relates to gun violence (this article references the deaths of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl, which occurred after the Washington Post article was written). The Post article does not describe the death in the Minneapolis pawn shop on May 28 (death by suspected arson), the death of Berry Perkins on May 30 (death by Fed-Ex truck), one of the deaths in Philadelphia on June 2 (death by improvised explosive when attempting to destroy an ATM), and the death of Jessica Whitaker on July 5 (death after an argument with a group of armed protestors regarding a slang form of the 'n-word'); on the other hand, it contains the deaths of Tyler Gerth on June 27 (death from gunshot at a Breonna Taylor protest) and the death of Secoriea Turner on July 4 (death by gunshot near the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed), both of which are not currently in this article (but that I believe used to be here). The Vice source that I mentioned ([1]) lists 22 deaths from gun violence at the protests as of October 1, so there is a lot of overlap between the two articles, but the Post article does not include the Portland deaths, while the Vice article is more selective than the Post article. If we accept the Post deaths as all 'canonical,' then we could cite 29 deaths in total - the 27 from the Post article and the two Portland deaths from the Vice article, if this is proper Wikipedia protocol. Ajs2004 (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not citing 27 from the Post article, since the Post article makes it clear that they don't agree with 27 at all. I've removed the total of 31 which is unreferenced, and completely misrepresenting what the Post says. FDW777 (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added the total from VICE. What we can't do is add individual deaths mentioned by the Post to that total to end up with a total that neither the Post or VICE say is the total. We could state both (22-27), except that as mentioned already the 27 total from the Post isn't their actual total, only the number of deaths they examined and lowered to their (unclear) final total. FDW777 (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents

I have added the belligerents NFAC, AIM, PSJBGC after adding their part in protests in the article. They are properly sourced, and I am following the guidelines set in place. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What sources?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In the riots and protests section, I have them listed off in their respected separate occasions. In the George Floyd protests, I have AIM and PNWYLF sourced and added. I have also added multiple NFAC armed demonstrations with properly sourced articles, and the CHAZ/CHOP thing with PSJBGC that is also properly sourced Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This relates to the content you removed. As per the section above, a cherry picked selection of incidents was added with no regard as to whether they were significant or not, in order to add those specific belligerents to the infobox. As the addition has been reverted, per WP:ONUS it's up to those seeking inclusion to make the case. FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, at this time the George Floyd sources do not mention NFAC (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just noticed all the incidents I have added have also been removed.

I would like to state that the NFAC’s marches have garnered large amounts of buzz via social media and mainstream news, naturally making sense to include it to the major protests and riots. CHAZ/CHOP was a huge news topic, and in the display photos of this article there is a photo of CHAZ/CHOP yet no mention of it.

I would request that my additions be reinstated, if the sources are not good enough I will find other sources since there is an abundance of it per incident. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add that per my additions, I had added properly-cited sources per group and per incident. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to make a case by case case. Some of your additions might have been notable, others might not even be about race.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I hate this talk of "belligerents"--as if it is really that simple. We're doing all this, essentially, just so we can fill up an infobox? With cute little flags and stuff? Drmies (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Proud Boys rally was to “combat Black Lives Matter and antifa”

  NFAC was a show of force that black Americans are armed and will fight back, as a result of the police killings

  CHAZ/CHOP happened directly because of the George Floyd protests Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• What? Isn’t that the point of an infobox? And it’s not just to “fill it up with cute flags”, its there to show people who don’t know what’s going on which group is on which side Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What the point of an infobox is is not entirely clear; in case you missed it, we have been arguing over that for years. And your last sentence, that's exactly what the problem is: this talk of "sides" is just silly, as if BLM is going to go out and storm an Army base because the Army is on "the other side". Drmies (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not agree the Proud boys march (as a starter) is significant enough to mention.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It's unrest--it's not a civil war. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

So the Hong Kong protests and the Chilean Protests both can have belligerents in their infobox, but protests here in the US can’t?

The US Protests have sides, either pro-BLM or anti-BLM. It isn’t a huge conglomerate mess of groups protesting without a reason. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• No one says it's "without a reason". Please don't do this childish "protests here in the US can't". I'm not talking about those other articles, and the protests in Hong Kong, by the way, are quite different than the unrest in the US. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The proud boys rally can be removed if need be, sure. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Per wp:brd all of your additions should be removed and discussion had about adding it back.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What? Your seriously going to be removing all that and making me argue my case per incident? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I already have argued my side to the additions in this talk space, per what wp:brd said Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Slatersteven, Bruhmoney77, can y'all please follow proper indentation guidelines for talk pages, as well as Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• When reverted you are supposed to discuss, not revert the revert.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And I apologize for that, but I had believed we reached a mutual standing about it Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • No, you have not reverted back to before your additions. I have not agreed to any of your additions yet, please revert your additions.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are you not agreeing with my additions? I never got a clear answer Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• You have not made a case, it is down to you to make a case for inclusion (see wp:ONUS. Now above there is a discussion about why we are including so many (what look like) minor protests. The page is about "racial unrest" not "protests.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The NFAC, PSJBGC, and other groups and their respected incidents are directly related to the racial unrest. Unrest means anything from the “norm”, including protests and demonstrations. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor protests should not be here. Now you know some of my objections, so kindly remove it until you have wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

These aren’t minor protests. I don’t recall 100-400 armed members of a paramilitary marching in downtown demanding justice being “small” Bruhmoney77 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose your edits, and you should revert them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The case for NFAC being added to the infobox actually does seem legitimate to me. I wouldn't add them to the George Floyd protests infobox, as they haven't really been participant in that movement itself at all, but more-so the much larger unrest surrounding it and other racial tensions in the US. We just need to organize the RS that mention NFAC as the main subject in relation to the racial unrest, and add the source(s) next to it in the infobox. The other belligerents like PSBGC and AIM are iffy to me at this point, probably best to leave them off unless/until they play a more significant role. Temeku (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify how we got to this position. At #NFAC I objected to the addition of belligerents to the infobox that weren't mentioned in the article, since MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the infobox summarises key points of the article. Bruhmoney77 then cherry picked certain incidents mentioning the belligerents they wanted to add to the infobox, and added those incidents to the article. Concerns have been rightly raised about what selection criteria apply, since there is no evidence of the protests/riots being major, or significant, or any other term people would like to use. They were picked solely because they involved certain belligerents that Bruhmoney77 wanted to add to the article. Since there is no consensus regarding these, I have removed them, while leaving in Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone which is significant. FDW777 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we going to need an RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully not. The infobox content is based on the article content, so in theory we only need to discuss the article content then the infobox content automatically follows from that. FDW777 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem is no one is, just just keep adding stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Do any of you guys actually keep up with what’s going on here in the US? like, seriously am I arguing with people from Europe about stuff I, an American, am experiencing? I’m not cherry-picking incidents, if you actually would keep up with what’s going on you would see that every major news source has reported on them. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting you added a broad spectrum of protests, and not just ones relating to specific groups you wanted to add to the infobox? FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I presented my argument, included sources for it, and stated my case yet apparently it’s still not good enough because “it’s cherry picked”. It’s not cherry picked, literally if you search up “NFAC”, the incidents will pop up for them (Louisville, Lafayette, Stone Mountain). Genuinely tell me how it’s cherry picked? I never get a straight answer from you guys Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting that, I am protesting the fact that we aren’t including major displays of armed demonstrations because I’m “cherry picking it” Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are they major, define how they are major?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that an armed paramilitary marching through the streets of downtown Lafayette in a show of defiance of a government representative threatening violence is a pretty big deal and should be included. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Why, this is the USA we are talking about, Louisiana is an open carry state. What they did was perfeclty legal, it was not unrest. Nor is this even unique https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_20a1c56a-ecad-11ea-b65f-b35c2887aba4.html.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Like Drmies I don't really think making lists of supposed belligerents or parties to a conflict in the infobox with little icons is great, and bouncing off of the preceding #NFAC talk page discussion was not a good way to get to this point, but if there really were three large protests in different parts of the country attended by NFAC members in the hundreds, and those are reliable sources Bruhmoney77 is presenting substantiating the events, they do seem appropriate to include in the article; though if there were other attendees too, no need to primarily characterize them as NFAC events.

Also can I reinforce Drmies's request regarding list formatting for accessibility in talk pages by disabled editors? The indentation levels you choose aren't what's important—I'm no big fan of being fussy about that either—it's switching in and out of list formats or between bullets and plain indentation which is the problem. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So 400-600 members, all armed, marching downtown and basically saying “if anyone kills another black person there will be retribution” not unique? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the NFAC attended the protests but they soon split away from protesters themselves each time to do their own thing. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, as its pissing people off, I will not respond to any incorrectly indented comements.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know why this editor isn't getting it--I warned them, and at some point I might actually block them. Look over these discussions--they're disorganized and almost unreadable. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So how am I able to make my case if you’re just going to leave? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Bruhmoney, we are all tired of your lack of formatting, which--at least to me--suggest you are not interested in adhering to the guidelines of this collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

My lack of formatting? I have confirmed to the format for this article when I added info. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Dude, in the very post in which you complain that you are following the formatting guidelines, you are ignoring the formatting guidelines. Yes, we are talking about the talk page--maybe please reads more carefully. You didn't even indent this post of yours. Did you see this? I even pinged you. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

They're objecting to your formatting in the talk page. The guidelines Drmies and I have linked to have lots of technical and extraneous details but it boils down to something like this:

"If you are responding to a comment beginning with a colon (:), begin your comment with at least one colon. If you are responding to a comment beginning with an asterisk (*), begin your comment with at least one asterisk. Don't put any blank lines between lines beginning with colons; if you need to space the text out for easy reading of the code while editing, use a line with one colon on it."

I've reformatted the whole talk page section to conform to that as an example (except that we also should not have been switching between bulleted and non-bulleted indenting.) They might be objecting to the specific indentation levels being chosen too but the above rules are the really important ones because not following them can make it difficult for some disabled users to follow talk page conversations. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Deja Stalling from protests

FDW777 has deleted the following, please provide your rationale.

Deja Stallings protests, October 1

On September 30, Police arrested 25-year-old Deja Stallings at gas station and convenience store in Kansas City, Missouri in relation to an alleged 15-20 individuals fighting on the business's property. Video footage showed an officer kneeling on the back of Stallings, who is nine months pregnant. In response to the video, demonstrators began protesting outside city hall demanding the resignation of Kansas City Police Department Chief Richard Smith and for the city to redirect 50% of the police department's budget to social services. Albertaont (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Try reading the talk page before edit warring. Inclusion criteria are being discussed in a section above. FDW777 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

FDW777 how is this edit warring? This is a first time inclusion. What inclusion criteria are you using for removal of this if its not part of the original chat in the above. Albertaont (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you haven't chosen to participate in the ongoing discussion about which incidents should and shouldn't be included, it's edit-warring. Do you plan to take part in the discussion? FDW777 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow. Which ongoing discussion about which incidents to be included. This is a new addition, it is not part of any events you have discussed previously. Albertaont (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I see which ongoing discussion you are talking about. Please see my responses in the above. Albertaont (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

"Major protests and riots"

It would appear this section has been significantly expanded, but not adding "major" ones but ones relating to particular groups in order to allow them to be added to the infobox. Are any of the additions "major" or should they be removed? FDW777 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well first we need to define major.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Could you at least self-revert the change to the "fatalities" field in the infobox? That would appear to be collateral damage from your edit.

This needs to be replaced.

21 * [[George Floyd protests]]: 19 (as of June 8, 2020)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/06/08/14-days-of-protests-19-dead/|title=14 Days Of Protests, 19 Dead|author=Jemima McEvoy|publisher=[[Forbes]]|accessdate=2020-09-08}}</ref> * [[Kenosha unrest]]: 2

With this.

22 (as of October 1, 2020)<ref>{{Cite web| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gwm3/we-tracked-the-shocking-amount-of-gun-violence-at-us-protests | title = We Tracked the Shocking Amount of Gun Violence at U.S. Protests |author= Tess Owen |publisher= [[Vice (magazine)|Vice]] |date = 1 October 2020| accessdate=2020-10-05}}</ref>

Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

About to have a shower, can you?Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

So can we now discus inclusion criteria, what do we add?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to talk about criteria in vague terms. Possibly we'd be better off assembling a list of incidents, and then we can discuss which should be included/excluded? FDW777 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure its that hard. For example, we can say an ongoing series of protests related to an a specific incident. There is one criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, well first of all I don't like the current format the article uses, with Rayshard Brooks protests, June 12 for example. As Killing of Rayshard Brooks#Reactions says, protests didn't just happen on that day, it includes a death of an 8-year-old girl on July 4. I think we would be better off grouping by people (where possible), but without dates. FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would rather we decide what to include before discussion of hww, it will only confuse things.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the point I'm making is that if you group the protests by the person whose death is being protested, it does tend to make the inclusion criteria more obvious. FDW777 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a death to have a protest? That would lead to removal of Shooting of Jacob Blake? Albertaont (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahh I see, Seems valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So for example the Louisville Standoff, July 25 incident would, if consensus is for inclusion, be covered in a Breonna Taylor section, since that's the apparent reason for that protest. FDW777 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, we do not need separate sections for each protest.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If its being reported in front page news on major organization (i.e. CNN), would seem obvious for inclusion as major protest. Or if it continues to get coverage over more than 3-4 days? Albertaont (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Getting overly indented, so lets try some proposals. Add any you think might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

getting continued coverage

I would say yes wp:notnews comes into it. I think if its still getting coverage after a week its major and should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Anything past 5 days should be considered major, alternatively any one incident results in solidarity protests in more than one city is should be considered major. In either case, should require some coverage from a national news channel. Albertaont (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be a lot more than 5 days. That's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things; ultimately it comes down to how notable it is. Normally that'll probably be a few weeks at least. — Czello 21:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this serious, we dont include into wikipedia until a protest has lasted a few weeks? Articles on 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests and Indonesia omnibus bill protests (latest iteration) don't even meet the weeks threashold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertaont (talk • contribs)

As I say, it comes down to how notable an event is, or what the sources say. My point is that it being 5 days doesn't automatically count as something being "major", unless it is adequately shown as such by sources (such as in the first article you linked; the second actually proves my point as the article was created 6 months after protests started). — Czello 07:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent death in Denver

Apparently another Portland-esc shooting happened in Denver.

“ A man participating in what was billed as a ‘Patriot Rally’ that also included a presence of self-described BLM-Antifa protesters, sprayed mace at another man and that man shot him with a handgun. Ambulances responded to the scene. Police said Saturday afternoon they were working on a homicide investigation.”

Full article here: https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/10/denver-protests-saturday-civic-center-park/

This brings me to my point. There are multiple other deaths that have occurred as a result of the protests like Portland and Denver, when are we going to add them? I think until we can get a definitive death toll article, we should use multiple articles for the deaths. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should leave all out until we can get a definitive death toll.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​As I said above, I don't think there's even a legitimate reason to reductively file information about deaths down to a single number to stick in an infobox, not when those deaths are as varied in cause as (much of this detail laid out in Bruhmoney77's own WaPo link above)

• state violence by police and maybe National Guardsmen in one case (but against a shop owner who may have mistaken them for looters, not a protester) and members of other US military forces (in one case a USAF officer who killed a federal law enforcement officer)
• killing by police in the course of law enforcement
• vigilante executions by shop owners for suspected property crimes (though it's not even that clear because some cases involve the shop owners firing indiscriminately into crowds?)
• vehicular deaths that may or may not have been ISIS-style vehicle ramming attacks against protesters
• people struck by bullets from careless discharge of firearms, some of whom have been charged as criminally liable and some of whom haven't
• and a handful of cases of actual interpersonal violence between protesters

All of that should be dealt with qualitatively in the article body. The distinctions should not be wiped away so we can put a number in the infobox like a fucking counter in a video game or something. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Wholly in agreement with this. There are such a wide spectrum of people who've died, be they police/bystanders/protesters/others, the whole idea of some accurate total that neutrally summarises that wide spectrum is cloud cuckoo land thinking. FDW777 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(responding to ping) The Denver shooting further illustrates the pitfalls of trying to categorize these incidents, since it was initially reported as a conflict between opposing rally participants and now appears to be a "Patriot Muster" attendee shot by a private security guard contracted to a local TV station. I would hesitate to describe this as "racial unrest" since the only connection would be that there was a Black Lives Matter presence. However, it's not up to us to make this judgement call, since we rely on reliable sources to do that. This difficulty in categorization may be the reason that reliable sources don't seem to be keeping any sort of running "death toll" count that I'm aware of, and this is a strong sign that we shouldn't try to either. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Determining whether each specific death is connected to the racial unrest, and therefore determining the total and how to describe it, is something that needs to be left to reliable sources; it involves interpretation and analysis, so we cannot simply add them up for the infobox ourselves. Wait until we have a reliable source with an updated total. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Antifa should not be included in the infobox

Antifa is a label that is given to separate groups that do not form a coherent organization. It's the equivalent putting the alt-right in the infobox.

seems valid, its not an organisation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Wouldn't that apply to the Boogaloo and QAnon movements as well, as they're not organizations either? And why is the rather vague "Other groups" label allowed especially with no sources? Antifa has played a significant role in the unrest per both RS and their own claims (Perpetrator of the fatal shooting in Portland said he was "100% Antifa" before he himself was later shot and killed by police). I agree that Antifa isn't an organization but this rule seems to be arbitrary and not make any sense, and is being selectively applied. Also people have already been re-adding Antifa to the infobox, which I expect to continue as everyone reading the article is going to be wondering where it is every time. Temeku (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Temeku -- antifa absolutely should be included given how significant their presence is (far more than other vague groups mentioned). At most it could be changed to "Antifa groups" or something similar. — Czello 21:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Accelerationism, Antifa, QAnon, and Boogaloo should not be listed as "parties", certainly not with little flag icons in the infobox, because they are not coherent organizations. If you look at the infobox in the Russian Civil War article, for example, the White faction and the Green faction are only represented as "parties" by specific organizations and the Red faction is broken down into many different specific organizations, and that's after more than a century of scholarship on the event where "the Whites" and "the Greens" and "the Reds" very frequently are spoken of generically. In this article about something which is happening right now and is primarily documented with ongoing mass media citations accelerationism, Antifa, QAnon, and Boogaloo should only be mentioned as influences on participants in the body text of the article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 09:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Only one source used in the article reports antifa presence at the demonstrations and that article, which appeared in the Washington Post, referred only to their presence in Portland. No doubt out of the millions of people who have participated in the demonstrations, some of the dozens of people who belong to antifa attended. But it is so miniscule that it does not belong in the info-box. TFD (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree antifa should not be listed. If qanon/others are also not groups, they shouldn't be listed, i have not read much on qanan/others so i don't have input there. --Hiveir (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, along with BLM needing to be removed. Makes NO sense and seems to have been there just to push an agenda. The information in those articles linked is also in direct contradiction with its supposed validity being in the infobox, as they state they are decentralized groups and ideas. Thus they cannot orchestrate anything or declare themselves, or be found, to be a "party" to anything. The same goes for any of the other things listed there, e.g. qanon. They are not an organization either and their inclusion also seems agenda-pushy. Lfax-nimbus (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Why remove them though? We could just change it to "Antifa groups" or "QAnon groups" or something similar as I suggested above. They were there, after all. — Czello 13:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the middle ground option yet this one person continually attempts to revert the edits, claiming it's "already been discussed" on the talk page, even though listing things affiliated with them rather than just the whole things outright is exactly where the topic of doing that left off, with nobody attempting to further dispute that or disagree with it, even with it being mentioned two times and in response to the user in question. It's the middle ground option that should satisfy both parties here. Lfax-nimbus (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you prompt the question—no, this does not satisfy me, I still think that this stuff should be left out of the infobox and dealt with in the body of the article qualitatively. And if that means that the lists of little flags in the infobox present an incomplete picture (more incomplete than before, that is) then the whole infobox section can go, and more infobox crap can go too besides. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 00:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Patriot counter-protests

So I saw the NFAC May 12 incident in riots and protests which basically summarized all their armed demonstrations, and I thought we should have one similar for the Trump Caravans, Patriot Musters, etc. that summarizes them. If need be I can find some sources for it.

Thoughts? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"2020 United States racial unrest" this is not racial unrest.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if by "Trump Caravans" you're talking about Central American migrant caravans § Late 2020 caravans, As the United States prepared for elections in 2020 unknown groups promoted messages on social media sites for another caravan, that does not appear to be connected to the topic of this article, and should probably go in that article if it's supported in RS. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 10:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(:) the “trump caravans” were long strings of cars filled with Trump supporters going from point A to point B while causing chaos against protesters along the way. It happened in Portland and San Francisco, both direct results of the racial unrest. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What "Trump caravan" in San Francisco? Are you referring to this action by "about a dozen pro-Trump demonstrators"? Please provide more concrete details and citations if you want to continue this discussion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"Social impact" intro paragraphs

I removed the two intro paragraphs of the "Social impact" section, but they have since been restored by User:Davide King, who stated "they are well-sourced paragraphs that privides [sic] a short overview for the Social impact section".

I disagree. I think these two paragraphs as written are very un-encyclopedic, as they are essentially a long string of quotes saying slight variations of the exact same theme: that the killing of George Floyd and the protests that followed sparked a reckoning of racial inequities and structural racism in the United States. Per WP:LONGQUOTE: Using too many quotations is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style, and Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Why should we have two paragraphs of repetitive quotes where one or two sentences would suffice?

In fact, the first paragraph of the "Public opinion" subsection also repeats and expands on that same idea, so that could also serve as a fine introduction to the section. I think that may be the best option, actually, to break that out as the intro paragraph. I will make that change now and see how others feel about it. Stonkaments (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Press coverage of edit war on this page

Heads up that there was some press coverage over an edit war on this page: Lytvynenko, Jane (October 27, 2020). "The White Extremist Group Patriot Front Is Preparing For A World After Donald Trump". BuzzFeed News.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link):

The obsession with secrecy also led to a Wikipedia editing war in September.

On Sept. 11, an editor added Patriot Front to the list of groups opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Three days later, Anthony CA noticed, saying, “We got name dropped here.” Later that day, the edit was removed. “NO KNOWN ACTIVITY BY GROUP KNOWN AS PATRIOT FRONT (they're pussies)” the person wrote in Wikipedia's change log.

That removal was reverted, after which the same person took the name of the group out again, saying, “Patriot Front is not an active participant show proof otherwise or stop reverting it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

By the end of the day, the Wikipedia editors lost, and Patriot Front no longer appeared on the page.

In their chats, members of Patriot Front revealed the real reason they wanted their name removed. Not because they weren't opposed to BLM, but because they were mad at being listed together with the so-called boogaloo boys, the loosely knit extremist group tied to the alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

I actually had to reach out to the author to figure out which page she was even describing, because it sounded like the war was over whether or not the Patriot Front should be listed as generally in opposition to the BLM movement, whereas it appears the war was really over whether they should be listed in the infobox as parties to the civil conflict. I've suggested she may want to correct that.

As for whether the Patriot Front ought to be included in the infobox, I'm not sure they've been involved in any major protests worth listing on the page (they seem to mostly hold their own, fairly small rallies and put up stickers everywhere), but they have certainly been active this year: Patriot Front#Activities and as described by BuzzFeed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The reality of the situation is explained at #Infobox 2 above. They were added to the infobox, and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says they don't get mentioned in the infobox unless they are mentioned in the article. At least, that was *my* reason for removing them... FDW777 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

By my count, they were added and removed from the infobox approximately 30 times between the initial addition on 00:03, 11 September 2020 (User:Bruhmoney77), and the final removal on 13:32, 14 September 2020 (User:Alexiod Palaiologos). Many of these were as part of either the introduction or reversion of other vandalism, such as by Special:Contribs/82.81.85.239, but there were some additions and removals that were primarily to do with the inclusion or exclusion of the Patriot Front as well (e.g. [2]). I agree that they should not be listed in the infobox if they are not mentioned in my article; I should have been clearer in posing my question that I intended to ask whether they ought to be added to the article body in some way as well as to the IBX. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, since mention of them has fallen off of this talk page thru archiving, User:Alexiod Palaiologos was blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE and the blocking administrator confirmed a sockpuppet account and noted, Any appeal needs to address the socking, disruptive behavior, and how you would like to build the encyclopedia away from Black Lives Matter. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe the more important question to consider is whether we should mention them in the relevant article? What coverage is there? --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Minneapolis-related content in section "Defund the police"

Crossroads: You reverted my changes to your previous wording with the edit comment

Those other flowery and vague descriptions are not in the source. And the reforms they call weak are described right there as the same reforms the city later went with. There is no reason to shoehorn this group's POV into that sentence when it's in the following one. Follow WP:BRD.

But it's your wording which is vague and not in the source. The sentence quoting “weak reforms” in the source says

“We’re tired of weak reforms like body cameras, tweaks to civilian oversight and new signs in police cars,” a Black Visions organizer, Hani Ali, said at the time.

...citing a Black Visions press release from 2018; but moving it to the subsequent sentence and rewriting as “called these reforms "weak"” makes it vague in that it sounds like it refers to the post-pledge reforms of 2020. If anything, my “at the time” included from the source probably should have been deleted, because the comments the NYT refers to preceded 2020 events entirely, or qualifying wording indicating that both the politicians' denunciation and the Black Visions quote occurred much earlier should have been added.

Your characterization of Black Visions as “an activist group seeking police abolition” is also not from the source; the only specific group “police abolition” is mentioned in the context of is Communities United Against Police Brutality, who oppose “full-scale police abolition”. The wording I guess you're calling “flowery and vague descriptions” because it doesn't use the term you want to use is from our own article on the Black Visions Collective. (edit: so if it's further citations on that stuff you feel a need for, copy them over from that article, or provide a source for your “an activist group seeking police abolition” characterization.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

And since you patronizingly ordered me to “Follow WP:BRD” and saw fit to give me advice on citing sources on my UTP, I'll point out that your inattention to detail extends to BRD, which says,

What BRD is not

• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
• BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
• BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

--‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 10:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

My wording about the reforms had the same meaning as your wording, since you shoehorned it into the middle of a sentence about the reforms that would be pursued. It made no sense to put it there when it fits perfectly fine in the following sentence about the group. Anyway, I changed it to say "past reforms". As for your description of the Black Visions Collective, that had all sorts of problems. First off, it's not "the city's"; it is not an official or elected body of any sort. Then, this edit, which you described as "missing words", violates WP:V. The source describes the group as a leading activist group in the city seeking to defund and abolish the police department. That's it. Not only did you inexplicably remove the word "abolition" and thus water down what the group wants; you added vague (and hence meaningless) WP:JARGON and WP:PEACOCK language in the form of "black liberation", an apparent neologism. That the Wikipedia article uses it doesn't matter, as WP:RS is clear that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Nor does the source at the article describe it that way; and even if it did, it's unencyclopedic language. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads. I think that section as written now is clear, correct, and concise. Stonkaments (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: No matter how many times you use the word “shoehorn” that's not going to make it nonsensical to pair the two statements talking about 2018 comments together. But “past reforms” at least seems more accurate and following the source.

You by now must have seen my ping to Talk:Black Visions Collective § “black liberation” tagged as “vague” where I laid out a variety of resources you could use if you wished to inform yourself as to the meaning of the term “black liberation”, including a link to an online-accessible 1977 book with that term in the title. Even besides that, though, it's what Wiktionary policy would call a “sum of parts”, simply a combination of “black” and “liberation” so that it's not even eligible for its own entry in the dictionary. You do yourself no favors in regards to WP:AGF, or displaying any intention to write neutrally, to now pretend that “black liberation” is a “meaningless” neologism which is supposedly “unencyclopedic language” simultaneously violating both overly-specific technical WP:JARGON and WP:PEACOCK extraneous puffery guidelines. Since I didn't attempt to cite a Wikipedia article, WP:RS has no bearing: the point is that your dismissal of the group's more thorough description as “flowery and vague descriptions” is specious and misleading.

But I didn't catch the NYT source's description of the group which uses “abolish” rather than “abolition”. Since that does come from the source, after all, and is the aspect of their identity most pertinent to this article, I agree with Stonkaments that the wording as it now stands, after a talk page discussion and further edits, is good. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not bothering with that other article now. But we're not supposed to use unusual terms and just expect readers to 'educate yourself!' on what they mean. We are supposed to be doing the educating. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not an unusual term. If you had bothered to even look at the single sentence I wrote there—you have a really low bar for what constitutes an education, by the way—you would see that it's been a theme in American pop music for more than half a century. (A century and a half, really, as our articles count music going back to the era of slavery; but I think that isn't as conventionally referred to as black liberation.)

But even if it was an unusual term, to repeat what I guess you somehow missed: it's what Wiktionary policy would call a “sum of parts”, simply a combination of “black” and “liberation” so that it's not even eligible for its own entry in the dictionary. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I read it, I just have better things to do than argue about it. Also, your statement that you have a really low bar for what constitutes an education, by the way is a major WP:PA. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope. All criticism is not WP:PA. The policy is explicitly about Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. (My emphasis.) You are throwing around every contradictory claim you can think of here, that “black liberation” is too-specific technical language and “vague” at the same time, that it's an unusual term we mustn't require readers to educated themselves about and that you aren't even arguing about it at the same time, etc. So you are leaving a great deal of contradictory evidence that could be employed to formulate a wide variety of valid criticisms of your conduct and exemplified values. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have missed the section just below that, which says: These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Regardless, there is no need to comment on another editor here; it's always better to focus on the content, not other contributors - WP:FOC. Stonkaments (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Rhetorical sophistry and misleading claims after being presented with copious quantities of reliably-sourced material about a topic are definitely the sort of thing that needs to be commented on, rather than ignored as if they aren't happening. Don't be dense. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Movement consistency

In the combatants qanon was listed as "qanon movement". blm and antifa should be listed as movements too. Or none of them should be listed as movements.--Annemaricole (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That feels like WP:FALSEBALANCE, albeit not as terrible of a falsebalance as we sometimes grapple with. Each should be named the way they're described in sources; there's no particular reason why they all have to be described in the same terms. That said I'm unsure whether "QAnon movement" is appropriate, either, so perhaps we should look over the relevant sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion:, in it's current state, the article looks like blm and antifa are organized groups, but qanon is not. From wiki's blm page; "Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people". From antifa wiki page; "A highly decentralized movement, antifa political activists ar". Qanon page; "QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/) is a far-right conspiracy theory". --Annemaricole (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion:, i'm thinking add movement back in due to the wiki articles saying movement--Annemaricole (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If anyone can shine a light on whether Boogaloo boys are a movement, plz do --Annemaricole (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's stated as such on its wiki page. I assume that's what the original editor was going off of when they included it in the info box. Anon0098 (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Alleged opinionated language in Social Impact section

Currently the section of "Social Impact" reads, "This sentiment aimed at confronting a legacy[38][39] of systemic inequality and racial injustice in the societal treatment of Black Americans, who have experienced disproportionately negative outcomes in the form of racial inequality such as in education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights and wages[36] as the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population". ALL of those issues chalked up to overt discrimination and bias? That's a very big claim that is highly controversial and cannot be presented as fact. I feel that this violates a neutral tone and is not sufficiently objective for Wikipedia standards. Lmomjian (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lmomjian: To repeat some of the language from my edit comment: yes, for a country with a prominent place in the History of slavery § United States, recently carved from the territories of the indigenous peoples of the Americas § United States, where the Alabama Democratic Party § Civil Rights Movement had the phrase white supremacy § United States in its logo well within living memory, there is an overwhelmingly reliable-source-established legacy of all of those things.

Claiming that the historical phenomena I cite, or just in general the history of racial inequality in the United States, left no legacy or aftereffects, or that it all happened by accident or something with no involvement of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population, is what would be a very big claim. If you think there's controversy over any of this in reliable sources, go ahead and link to some examples please. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Struthious Bandersnatch: Is there a legacy? Yes, certainly. I'm not claiming that it happened by accident or that in NO part are these inequalities presently due to overt discrimination. But the language in the article quote claims that these inequalities are "the result of overt discrimination...", in other words, discrimination is entirely responsible. I'm fine with saying those factors had an effect but the current language suggests discrimination is entirely why there is unequal outcomes; this is totally unscientific. Lmomjian (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that these blanket claims of 100% causality need better sourcing and attribution per WP:NPOV. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

For context, the Social Impact section was added to the article after merging from a related article, 2020 United States racial reckoning.[3] That article was merged and deleted in part because it was argued to be a WP:POVFORK. So I think it's likely there are various POV issues throughout the section that should be corrected.

As for the specific sentence highlighted by OP, I agree—that is a very big claim (in wikivoice) that seems unsupported by the current sources. @Struthious Bandersnatch: from WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I have removed the challenged claim, and would want to see better sources if you wish to restore it.

I'm also curious about the use of the word "legacy" in that sentence, since it seems to be a more loaded and potentially biased term. Is there a good reason to prefer that over the more neutral "history"? Stonkaments (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lmomjian: That is an awfully strange change to how you're quoting the article from your OP above to this most recent comment. You've gone from quoting ...the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias... to leaving out the “unconscious bias” part.

HaeB, what cause do you think is missing from ...the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias..., and what percentage would you assign to it? We can start cutting and pasting references from the linked articles but for this obvious and general a statement there would be an absolutely huge number of them and I can't help but think that this is all just WP:POINTy.

Stonkaments, to go last q first, wikt:legacy implies consequence, causality, and a remainder from the past, as Lmomjian and HaeB are picking up (though, again, Lmomjian has somehow lost track of ...unconscious bias... as one of the causes.) I don't think that you are understanding WP:V properly if you are suggesting that any of this is unverifiable. WP:BURDEN talks about material that is challenged or likely to be challenged; noting that the OP appears to have shifted the nature of their objection, can you please say without allusion to deleted articles whether you are objecting to this? Because cutting and pasting in citations from all the linked articles would appear to be Wikipedia:Citation overkill to me, of what is topical and straightforward material, and this resistance to it frankly seems to me to be part of the well-documented racial bias on Wikipedia.

I mean, again, dominant political party of a one-party state with the phrase “white supremacy” in its logo only 57–58 ago. Or if you can stomach it, as a further example of unabashed ethnic prejudice reaching to the highest levels of American society and government in recent history, look at what the recent VPOTUS was saying about U.S. Jewish conspiracies to a theocratic potentate in 1980, congratulating him on his “clear and courageous call to Jihad” in declaring war on Israel. (In response to Status of Jerusalem § 1980 Jerusalem Law; assessed by the Jewish Virtual Library here; with Agnew possibly receiving a sinecure from the Saudi Royal Family in return, though that's not material here.) I'll cut and paste away if people really insist (and hey, maybe I'll get lucky and find one or two sources that say it all at once, and might have bearing on adding content to the rest of this article), even with no response to my request for linked demonstration that this is at all controversial in reliable sources, but none of this is even a small stretch. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object — that's why I made the recent edit to the article. The arguments you're making here are examples of WP:OR. If you wish to restore the contested claim, I would encourage you to find reliable sources that directly support the claim that these racial inequalities are solely the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias. I don't think that "cutting and pasting" from a large number of sources that make tangential or partial arguments would work, as it would violate the guidelines given in WP:SYNTH. Stonkaments (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Looking at your edit, the phrase you deleted was cited, to an article in the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review; but you deleted the citation too. We seem to be skipping some steps here. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Is a fork of the reasons for the disparities really needed in this article? It's much better explained in the articles that are wikilinked. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

One sentence linking to a bunch of articles is not a fork of those articles. But you knew that. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't get snippy with "you knew that". The series of links is the part to keep. The one sentence after that, sourced to one thing, a sentence which fails to do justice to a complex topic, is completely unneeded. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's even less believable that you are unaware that a sentence fragment cited to a source article entitled “The Ostrich Rears its Head: America's 2020 Racial Reckoning is a Victory and Opportunity” in a Wikipedia article entitled “2020 United States racial unrest” is also not a fork of another unspecified article. Words mean things; and Wikipedia policies and guidelines mean things.

This is, what, the fourth and fifth and sixth entirely different rationales that have now been presented for deleting the same sentence fragment? Or is it supposed to simultaneously “fail to do justice to a complex topic” by not providing enough detail while also being “completely unneeded”, another of your deletion rationale koans? Next you'll say that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

If you want to be taken seriously, make serious arguments. The editor who drops knowledge about how to cite sources and finger-waggingly says “Follow WP:BRD” as a comment on a revert telling other editors “don't get snippy”?

--‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Stonkaments, what consensus? I see no consensus yet and I agree with Struthious Bandersnatch's comment that "the phrase you deleted was cited, to an article in the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review; but you deleted the citation too. We seem to be skipping some steps here." I believe that should be reinstated and that we should be using or mention racial reckoning because that is term used in academic and reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have restored that content, and other content, and I agree that since the entire point of merging the racial reckoning article into this one was the premise that this article is now going to document the racial reckoning, it needs to discuss the racial reckoning extensively. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added some additional sources. I'm not sure I understand the objection to the bolded part here: ...legacy of systemic inequality and racial injustice in the societal treatment of Black Americans, who have experienced disproportionately negative outcomes in the form of racial inequality such as in education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights and wages as the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population - I added two sources, but the bolded bit is anodyne to the point where I could effortlessly produce thousands. Contrary to what a few people imply above, it doesn't make any statements about the relevant proportion of overt vs. unconscious discrimination, it doesn't state or imply that the disproportionate negative outcomes stemming from those things are the only negative outcomes they encountered, and it doesn't say anything about what periods this "legacy" originates from, so I see nothing controversial about it whatsoever. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As the OP stated: "ALL of those issues chalked up to overt discrimination and bias? That's a very big claim that is highly controversial and cannot be presented as fact." That is what your bolded text implies, and that is what's being challenged. Neither the original source nor the additional sources you added support that claim.

As a reminder, per WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Nobody is disputing the fact that discrimination and unconscious bias are real, important issues. But the phrase being challenged goes much further than that, by claiming overt discrimination and unconscious bias are the sole causes of all of the inequalities listed. That's what is being challenged, and I have yet to see any sources that support that claim. In fact, your first source even contradicts that claim: "...unlike in the pre–civil rights era, when racial prejudice and discrimination were overt and widespread, today discrimination is less readily identifiable..."[4] Stonkaments (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I simply don't think that that's a reasonable or defensible reading of the current text; and the bolded text in particular flatly implies nothing of the sort. What it says is cautiously-worded, well-cited, completely verified by those citations, and entirely uncontroversial; the things you say you are are objecting to (statements about sole causes, or statements that specify they are talking exclusively about active discrimination today as opposed to the long-term effects of a legacy) are simply not there. You cannot reasonably demand citations for something that the text does not say. --Aquillion (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the only one reading it that way though—three different editors here have interpreted that phrase as a "blanket claim of 100% causality", as another editor put it. So it seems rather problematic, and thus I don't think it is in fact cautiously worded or uncontroversial at all. Do you have any thoughts on how we could improve the wording? Stonkaments (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

While I would oppose any weakening of the wording on account of the straightforward simplicity of the statement and the extensive high-quality sourcing, if you're utterly fixated on that potential misreading, it could be cleared up by saying that it is "largely the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population" or "often" or whatever single-word addition you feel would erase the potential to misread it as stating that absolutely all discrepancies ever to occur in human society are attributable to those things. I'd still object to an extent to even that because it weakens it in a way that isn't overtly stated in the sources; but it would at least be more defensible than total omission. The fact that overt discrimination and unconscious bias are the causes of the the particular form of discrepancy being protested is both germane to the topic and extensively-sourced to the point where it can't reasonably be omitted, regardless of discussions about other forms of discrepancy with other sources. (Indeed, the omission leaves the text with the weird implication that such discrepancies simply happened for inexplicable reasons, which isn't reasonable when we have so many sources discussing them in depth.) Either way, per WP:PRESERVE, since your objections can plainly be resolved by adding one word, I'd like to ask that you stop removing the entire well-cited part of the sentence.

EDIT: I think part of my objection to weakening it in that way is that it carries the unspoken implication that there is definitively a degree of racial discrepancy that is not attributable to bias or discrimination (conscious or unconscious); I can support the current disputed wording (which I see as already almost unduly cautious and reading like a compromise) in avoiding overtly stating that all racial discrepancies are attributable to those things, but adding a disclaimer that outright implies the opposite rather than merely leaving it unstated is a bridge too far. Truthfully the awkwardly-worded passive-voice "who have experienced..." wording is also partially at fault here, in that it breaks the results in the second half of the paragraph from the causes in the first part. So I could support eg. This racial reckoning aimed at confronting a legacy of systemic inequality and racial injustice stemming from overt discrimination and unconscious bias in the societal treatment of Black Americans, which has led to racial inequality in fields such as education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights and wages. This more clearly talks about a specific legacy, attaches the discrimination / unconscious bias to that legacy, and talks only about the racial inequalities stemming from that particular legacy without any incidental uncited implications, while restructuring the sentence to clearly separate out causes and effects without unnecessary verbage. It would probably require some tweaks, though. --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's do your suggested version, in green. Agreed that it is better. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those would both be good improvements IMO. Stonkaments (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is being pointed to as justification for these changes. I don't think it's productive to pick-apart all of the issues here, but I do not accept that this change is a natural extension of this consensus. Grammatical adjustments aside, the main change is to downplay or remove a direct links to Racial inequality in the United States and Racial achievement gap in the United States. Many sources clearly support a link to these topics, so removal of these links should be based on clear consensus, not a misrepresentation of precedent. Further, the change from "negative outcomes" to "unequal outcomes" smacks of editorializing. Without getting lost in the weeds, "equality of outcome" is often misrepresented or used as a partisan talking point. Therefore, these changes are more substantial than they look at first glance. For this and other reasons, specific consensus should be established for substantial changes. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, I'm totally fine with including links to Racial inequality in the United States and Racial achievement gap in the United States and I think the other editors (Crossroads and Stonkaments) would agree. Ultimately what I care most about is editing the current language which suggests all differences in outcome by race are the result of discrimination, bias, or racism... this is a sweeping heavy-handed claim that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's very simplistic, there must be other factors at work. Again I and the other editors involved are fine with mentioning bias or racism but the current language makes it seem that racism is the whole cause for these inequalities. If you look through the other articles linked there concerning healthcare, education, and wage inequality, from my understanding they mention racism as a contributing factor for inequality but not the entire cause. So let's craft wordage around the links that properly represents them. Lmomjian (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

How about this? ...who have experienced disproportionately negative outcomes in education,... As far as I can tell this has all the same links, yet eliminates the redundancy of "disproportionately negative outcomes" and "racial inequality". Crossroads ^-talk- 02:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well Lmomjian I'm glad to see you seem to be back to acknowledging that “unconscious bias” is actually in the text. But as I asked up above more than a week ago, what cause do you think is missing from “...the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias...” that cannot be included in either of those? If this is a “simplistic” analysis it seems like you should be able to expound at length on other reasons. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Struthious Bandersnatch: Why are you continuing to oppose a change that nobody else here objects to? We have made progress and reached a consensus agreement on an alternate wording that avoids the highly contested and overly broad original phrasing. Plus, with your most recent edit, the sentence now contains the phrase "overt discrimination and unconscious bias" twice, and restored the confusing and vague "relative to the general population". How is this an improvement? Please self-revert. Stonkaments (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Your and Lmomjian's incessant deletion of this content during the past week-plus has now been reverted eight times by four different editors, false claims of being “unsourced” (while deleting the citation!) and of talk page WP:SHAMCONSENSUS supporting deletion nowithstanding.

How about you link to a diff of an occasion where you yourself have “self-reverted” and I'll take a look and see if a similarly humble attitude would be merited in this case? I would note that, in addition to being very confident about repeatedly reverting multiple editors, despite repeatedly pleading “shucks I'm pretty new here” you have a definite penchant for telling the rest of us how to carry out Wikipedia policies and practices.

And for merging articles, come to think of it, looking at your edit history. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Struthious Bandersnatch: So you don't object to the proposed change, but you refuse to self-revert to make a WP:POINT? I'm sure we all could have handled this disagreement better, myself included, but I feel like we've made good progress that you're intentionally impeding at this point. My understanding of WP:BRD is that it's a cycle, so it's not uncommon to have multiple rounds of edits and reverts until we can find a version that gets consensus approval - is that not the case? Stonkaments (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, I object to the “proposed change”, as in your eighth deletion of the cited content from the end of the list of disparities which you did not actually propose before doing, of which you literally just described my opinion as Why are you continuing to oppose a change...

BRD is already quoted immediately below this discussion we are having as saying, BRD is never a reason for reverting and BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. Deleting cited content eight times in the face of opposition from four different editors is not BRD, and you very well know that. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 10:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

What is your specific objection to my most recent edit? It feels a lot like Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it at this point. Also, per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. Why did you make this change without discussing it first? Stonkaments (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

To quote WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided; I would note that, while demanding specific objections from me about the article changes, you have made no actual objection to my change to the title of this talk page section, but merely attempted to imply that my change was “controversial”. By all means, take your best shot at making it even less one-sided and more accurately describing of the content of the discussion.

As far as the eighth deletion of the sentence fragment, the Wikipedia:I just don't like it essay is about as relevant as anything else in the Wikipedia: article namespace you've linked to—i.e., not relevant at all. My objection(s), besides

• it being the eighth deletion of content restored by four different editors
• and the fact that you constantly ask questions, but simply ignore any put to you which you don't feel like answering
• and the fact that you constantly make untrue claims like the content was uncited or that BRD supports your edits and refuse to ever subsequently acknowledge that they're untrue

...is pretty well summed up by Aquillion above: What it says is cautiously-worded, well-cited, completely verified by those citations, and entirely uncontroversial. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have already admitted that I could have handled this discussion better—I was overzealous with reverting edits, rather than discussing more thoroughly on the talk page first. I apologize. Now, when will you let that go, so we can get back to WP:BUILDWP?

Multiple editors here have challenged the wording, so why do you continue to call it entirely uncontroversial? The most recent edit I proposed (yes, proposed, with an edit summary of "let's start with this change?") does not remove any citations or claims, and as Aquillion said, has the advantage in that it more clearly talks about a specific legacy, attaches the discrimination / unconscious bias to that legacy, and talks only about the racial inequalities stemming from that particular legacy without any incidental uncited implications, while restructuring the sentence to clearly separate out causes and effects without unnecessary verbage. Stonkaments (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

So in the interest of getting specific consensus, should we take a survey of people's thoughts on the different options that have been proposed? Here are five options from the different variations that have been proposed:

A) This racial reckoning aimed at confronting a legacy of systemic inequality and racial injustice stemming from overt discrimination and unconscious bias in the societal treatment of black Americans, who have experienced disproportionately negative outcomes in the form of racial inequality such as in education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights and wages as the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population. [current]

B) This racial reckoning aimed at confronting a legacy of systemic inequality and racial injustice in the societal treatment of Black Americans, who have experienced disproportionately negative outcomes in the form of racial inequality such as in education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights and wages as the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population. [original]

And then we have three variations on the sentence originally proposed by Aquillion:

C) This racial reckoning aimed at confronting a legacy of systemic inequality and racial injustice stemming from overt discrimination and unconscious bias in the societal treatment of Black Americans, who have experienced disproportionately negative outcomes in areas such as education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights and wages.

D) This racial reckoning aimed at confronting a legacy of systemic inequality and racial injustice stemming from overt discrimination and unconscious bias in the societal treatment of Black Americans, which has led to racial inequality in fields such as education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights and wages.

E) This movement aimed at confronting a legacy of systemic inequality and racial injustice stemming from overt discrimination and unconscious bias in the societal treatment of Black Americans, which has contributed to unequal outcomes in fields such as education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights and wages.

I oppose A and B (for the reasons I've already mentioned), and would support either C or D. Could others weigh in on their preferred options?

​So, for the ninth or tenth time or whatever, on December 5th, Stonkaments again deleted the exact same cited passage with a misleading edit summary, remove duplicated and confusing wording.

No one ever proposed A above; since you can't seem to follow WP:P&G, I am just going revert to the original wording which four or however many editors have restored so far, which represents the actual consensus whether you want to admit it or not. You don't get to force your desired edits in over consensus via incremental changes while hoping no one will notice, either. As WP:CONSENSUS says,

The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

So the continually-shifting preferred wordings and objection rationales here don't count for much under that policy. Many editors have devoted quite a bit of time to explaining their reasoning for supporting this wording here and on other talk pages around Wikipedia. But you simply ignore those explanations, ignore the consensus those explanations and accompanying edits represent, dissemble about your own actions and misrepresent what you are doing in edit summaries, and ignore questions put to you that you don't feel like answering.

That said, I don't see how it comports with the things you wrote above in this discussion, but if you are intent on simply shuffling the words around at this point, and were serious in saying that you could support what you list as option D above, which is the only one that Ctrl+f is showing me as matching in its entirety a suggestion from Aquillion above, I too could agree to that if it's supported by consensus; but I would propose that one of the editors who has reverted the previous nine or ten deletions—myself, Aquillion, Grayfell, or Davide King—should make the change. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I support option D. If you (or another editor) would like to make that change, it would be much appreciated. Stonkaments (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly responding to the ping: All of these options seem verbose to me. For D, "a legacy of systemic inequality and racial injustice ... has led to racial inequality " is tautological, or at least redundant. Breaking it up into two sentences would help. Here's one attempt at a rewrite:

This racial reckoning aims to confront a legacy of systemic injustice which stems from overt discrimination and unconscious bias in the societal treatment of Black Americans. This systemic racism has led to inequality in education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights, wages, and other areas.

Hopefully something like this would be clearer and easier to read. Grayfell (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

12k edits

@Struthious Bandersnatch: I agree with Slatersteven's decision to revert, as I have a number of concerns about the recent edits, including:

• Undue weight on details of the Breonna Taylor shooting, and including the same details in two separate sections
• Biased/unencyclopedic language: "insurrectionist Confederacy", using "revelatory" instead of "resonated with", "unspoken inequities", etc.
• Destruction of monuments in post-Soviet states and in Africa half a century ago, is not related to the 2020 U.S. racial unrest
• Unnecessary link to article on Iconoclasm
• Paragraph on the wine industry is poorly written

Stonkaments (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would add too much historical detail that can be found in other articles.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who tried to clean it up originally. It sounds highly opinionated, which is why I attempted to change the wording. I have serious problems with how it was written, so I also agree with the reversions Anon0098 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"debated and controversial premise"

Which credible references dispute the fact there is systematic racism towards black people? FDW777 (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Jan 2021

OK we have a couple of weeks to go before we can say 100% that the 2020 racial unrest is over, as it's no longer 2020. Let's leave it until then?Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

wouldn’t that cause this article to be renamed to 2020-2021 United States Racial Unrest? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No, as 2020 ends at midnight on the 31st December 2020. Att that point they are over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

but the unrest is still going to be happening even after new year’s eve Bruhmoney77 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is then we can have a new article called 2021 United States racial unrest.10:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as protests continue in a similar vein as the ones in 2020, they should be mentioned in this article and the title should be changed to accommodate them.Lmomjian (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Titles are descriptive, not prescriptive, and should change to reflect the evolving nature of the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We do not need a new article per year, simply change the article name from "2020 United States racial unrest" to "2020-2021 United States racial unrest"–or "2020-21 United States racial unrest", whatever the convention is–as the situation evolves. RopeTricks (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've moved this article to 2020–2021 United States racial unrest, as the movement is ongoing. I won't be surprised if length requires a WP:SIZESPLIT shortly into this new year, but for now at least it seems like the best solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be moved to 2020s United States racial unrest, and then it would not need to be moved again if it continues into 2022 and beyond. 188.148.229.11 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This whole article smacks of WP:OR original research, which is banned in Wikipedia. Why 2020-2021? It is a made up, figment of the authors' imagination. Even look at the text of this article and there's a section on the 2016 election. This article is really a content fork of BLM. Vowvo (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Well it was just 2020, but it was decided to make it about 2021, just in case. But we now have one in 2021.; What do you think is OR?Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Innacurate deaths count.

At least 30 (35) have died in the George Floyd riots alone, and this page list just 25 counting every riot and shooting. I have counted at least 50. Apparently the consensus is anti fact. Warlightyahoo (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Got any WP:RS for this? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I have used reliable sources in my edits. Warlightyahoo (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Care to provide them here, as I can find no record of your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Move-locking the article

I think the article should be locked in terms of moving until a consensus can be reached on what exactly the title should look like. I think I've seen the title being moved around a few times by this point. Love of Corey (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Rename to 2020-2021 United States Civil Unrest?

Seeing as the article discusses the Red House eviction defense protest, the Storming of the United States Capitol, CHAZ, and more topics indirectly related/unrelated to race in the United States, would a rename to "2020-2021 United States Civil Unrest" be a better fit? Some topics written in this article would fall more into the category of general unrest; not necessarily racial unrest.

An article rename along with dividing the renamed article into sections about racial protests and unrest, unrest due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, political unrest, and other forms of current unrest would be better suiting to include broader topics that are already being written about in the current form of this article.

Thoughts? QuaintCable (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll just note that the Red House and CHAZ are definitely race-related. CHAZ came about because of race-related protests/unrest shortly after the death of George Floyd. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Noted. I will agree there and say they do belong in this article. I’ve gone ahead and created a new article titled “2020-2021 United States civil unrest” after reading other discussions about a new page including broader issues like economic problems related to the pandemic and recent political violence. That article can be added to or deleted completely if decided upon. Thanks for the input. QuaintCable (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a new article under that title. Any such shift in coverage needs more discussion than that. However, most of the civil unrest was racial unrest. Stuff that isn't race related doesn't need to be covered in its own articles and in an umbrella article. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Separate page

With protests blowing up now regarding evictions and the current economic situation, should we create a separate page titled “2020 United States Civil Unrest”, or should we merge aforementioned possible page with this one to create a general overview of the unrest? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest a separate page, as this is about a specific issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

copy that Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bruhmoney77: It has already been suggested that protests related to evictions and the current economic situation are better suited elsewhere. Can you explain why you think the Olympia reoopening protests warrant inclusion here? I don't think that BLM and Antifa counterprotestors being involved is necessarily sufficient to consider these protests part of the racial unrest. Stonkaments (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

the protest was a mixture of pro re-opening and pro-trump/pro-police. It wasn’t primarily about re-opening. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think pro-Trump protests would belong in this article either - for that there's 2020_United_States_election_protests (the Portland Trump Caravan, August 29 section should probably be moved, for example). I don't see any mention of any pro-police element to the protests in the sources you cited, though even pro-police protests would probably belong in another article I would think. Stonkaments (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the edit and I think a separate unrest page should be created but the reopening protests don't belong in this article. Also just a reminder moving forward, WP:ONUS is for inclusion, not exclusion. It's your responsibility to gather consensus for inclusion of information if something is disputed. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest splitting off the list of events into a separate page with proposed title List of incidents and protests of the 2020-2021 United States racial unrest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.115.151 (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Seems quite reasonable. Love of Corey (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is a good idea, and given that there has been so little participation I'm going to go ahead and do it. If anyone objects we can of course revisit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment on article lead re anti-Asian discrimination

I'm wondering - is there any reason why the anti-Asian discrimination/violence and the protests in response to that are not mentioned in the lead? That also receiving significant coverage, "racial unrest" is a general description so that applies, and "2020-2021" also applies. While the number of protests is small in comparison, it should be given a mention. I don't want to change this myself right now as I'm hoping someone who is more familiar with the article could give their view. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Feel free to add it to lead, WP:BOLD. This is about racial issues after all. Albertaont (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Brown shooting?

can someone please post the andrew brown shooting

Have there been any demos?Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC at George Floyd protests

I have started a discussion at Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 2#RfC on Status of George Floyd protests regarding the current status of the George Floyd protests. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)