Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–present)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lack of accuracy and neutrality in the article

The article as written implies that institutional racism exists in policing though this is disputed by many credible studies. I merely changed it to be neutral and not assume facts not known to be true. It also includes information which is not supported by the articles cited, specifically 1) that police have instigated violence at the protests and 2) that there are examples of white supremacist organizations being involved. The articles cited on the police instigation only imply this without providing any specifics or examples. The article cited with respect to “examples” of white supremacist activity deals with only one very limited incident in Stone Mountain, Georgia which as far as I can tell was not even a significant site of protests. I believe my edits significantly improved the accuracy and neutrality of the article. User:Gregausman (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

For others reviewing, these are the edits in question.

Please provide these sources. The idea that there is no institutional racism whatsoever in policing is a fringe view, and we have many articles that go into great detail about the phenomenon (race and crime in the United States, race in the United States criminal justice system, etc.)

Regarding your point 1, can you clarify specifically which statement you're referring to so I can check the citations?

Regarding point 2, this is a summary of the article and was verified by other citations in the article, but I've reused another citation directly after the sentence to be clear that it is referring to multiple incidents. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are two credible studies which dispute the existence of systemic police racism and are based on primary research, unlike several of those cited in the article currently which appear to mostly reference other papers (i.e. are secondary sources).

(1) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 2021 Statistical Brief NCJ 255969 Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018 <ref>https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf

(Specific text: "Among the most serious incidents of violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault), there were no statistically significant differences by race between offenders identified in the NCVS and persons arrested per the UCR (table 3). White and black people were arrested proportionate to their involvement in serious nonfatal violent crime overall and proportionate to their involvement in serious nonfatal violent crime reported to police. ")

(2) "Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings", David J. Johnson, Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, Joseph Cesario, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2019, 116 (32) 15877-15882; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1903856116 <ref>https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

(Specific text: "We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race."

Despite there being credible studies (including the two above) disputing the idea of systemic racism in policing I don't believe we need to address it in this article, I suggest we should instead make the article neutral by rewording to "widespread belief of". This approach is supported by the following study which indicates that a majority (51%) of Americans believe blacks are treated less fairly than whites in policing.

"Poll: Americans' views of systemic racism divided by race", University of Massachusetts Lowell <ref>https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-09/uoml-pav092320.php

Given the relatively slight majority who believe this (51%) and the significant minority who do not (41% believe whites and blacks are treated the same and a further 7% believe whites are treated less fairly), opinion to the contrary of the majority should not be categorized as fringe. My suggestion is to modify the article to be neutral on the topic.

Text in article: "According to several studies and analysis, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, with police and counter-protesters sometimes starting violence."

I could not read the Washington Post reference as the article is behind the paywall but it appears to be an opinion piece. In the other two articles (also both opinion pieces) there is no evidence provided of "police starting violence".

Text in article: "A wave of monument removals and name changes has taken place throughout the world, especially in the United States. This itself has sparked conflict, between left-wing and right-wing groups, often violent. Several far-right groups, including civilian militias and white supremacists, have fought with members of "a broad coalition of leftist anti-racist groups" in street clashes."

These sentences do not appear to be summarizing the article but rather introduce new information suggesting that widespread violent conflicts arose between left wing and right wing groups as a result of monument removals and name changes. While it may be true, this assertion is not supported by the articles cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Note: I am not suggesting we should state that there "is no such thing as systemic racism in policing" but rather that we should not imply that the issue of "systemic racism in policing" is a matter of fact. It is clear from the above articles that there is objective evidence to the contrary and therefore we should maintain neutrality on the subject. Furthermore it is not fringe opinion since it is shared by 48% of Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We go with what rs say, not "most people" if the bulk of RS say X we must say X.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, I am not suggesting we should state that there "is no such thing as system racism in policing" but if we are going to imply there is rather than neutrally presenting the subject then we should cite RS including any RS to the contrary to provide balance. Currently the article links to another article which deals with systemic racism broadly rather than the specific assertion being implied that there is systemic racism in American policing. I do not see any RS cited which provide support for the implication that systemic racism exists in policing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

First off, you may wish to review our reliable sources policy, because your statement about secondary sources leads me to believe you are not very familiar. We prefer secondary sources, and primary sources must be used with caution to avoid doing exactly the kind of synthesis you are attempting. I agree with Slatersteven—you are drawing quite broad conclusions on these two sources, which make no statements to contradict the idea that institutional racism exists in policing. You are also ignoring the extensive sourcing which does explicitly state that there is institutional racism in policing, with no synthesis on our part needed. We do not write Wikipedia articles based on what the majority of people think, we write them according to what reliable sources say. Lots of people, even still, believe that Trump won the 2020 presidential election, but our article on that topic certainly doesn't say that he did, nor do we say that Biden was "widely believed" to have won the election.

Regarding your later statement, "I do not see any RS cited which provide support for the implication that systemic racism exists in policing", [1] is currently the third source in the article.

Thank you for specifying the sentence you were concerned about. I can access the Washington Post article, which is not an opinion piece. The article states, "When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters" and later, "In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence".

On the sentence about clashes between right-wing and left-wing groups, that is summarizing the article, which mentions such clashes in multiple sections including #Stone Mountain incident, August 15, 2020 (clash specifically over a monument removal) and #Portland "Back the Blue" Rally, August 22, 2020 (clash more generally). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

To illustrate one of your sources says "Among the most serious incidents of violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault)", there are two problems with using this to say three is no institutional racism in the US police. The first is (as I have said) it does not in fact say there is none (you interoperate it to say it). The second is (as a number of recent cases (including George Floyds murder, the event that sparked all this off) that it is the police reaction to minor offenses (and even people who have committed no crime) that the sources used to demonstrate institutional racism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to the RS article, I am still learning so I truly appreciate it and would appreciate any guidance you can give me as I become more familiar with the Wikipedia policies. I now understand the secondary versus primary source preference.

With respect to the article you cite, it does not explicitly conclude, "there is systematic police racism", rather it starts with that as a given and attempts to dispute a study which provides data to the contrary (even the title of the article illustrates this "Why Statistics Don’t Capture The Full Extent Of The Systemic Bias In Policing"). If an article that begins with the conclusion as a given can be considered a RS for that conclusion, I am surprised. At minimum it should be treated as opinion since clearly the author is going in with a particular point of view, not attempting to do a scholarly analysis.

The comparison to Biden winning the election is not apples to apples. There is little dispute on whether he won the election (after all he is President). There is significant difference of opinion on whether there is SYSTEMIC racism in policing, both in academia and in the public. At minimum the article cited should be treated as being in the realm of opinion, rather than scholarly analysis. As I understand Wikipedia's RS (and again I will stipulate that I am new so my apologies if I am wrong), opinion articles should be used in the following manner: "So and so says...", rather than taken as fact or prevailing opinion.

With respect to police instigating violence, "In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence" and "When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters" are not functionally equivalent to "with police and counter-protesters sometimes starting violence" as it ignores "reportedly" and "or escalated" in the first quote and "reportedly" and "or counterprotesters" in the second. Also the second quote does not address who started the violence even if you ignore the qualifiers. In order to cite the article accurately these qualifiers should be included. In addition, when taken in context with the rest of the sentence, "According to several studies and analyses, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful" the statement suggests that the protesters were peaceful and the police violence was not generally a reaction to violence on the part of protesters. This is a bias not supported by the evidence cited which clearly indicates that in many cases the protesters were not peaceful and there is only one very weak statement which suggests that police started violence.

Overall, and I'm not sure why my proposed change is being misinterpreted, I am NOT suggesting we should state that "there is no systemic racism in American policing", just that we should not be implying that this is a settled fact without citing one or more strong RS. I would not put the article above in that category for reasons stated: at best it is biased and should be treated as opinion. Do we have an unbiased source, ideally scholarly in nature, which as a Secondary Source, reviews either a breadth of data or draws on multiple primary sources and forms a conclusion that "there is systemic police racism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The claim is now sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gregausman: The source I linked (which I will note is just one source used in this article that describes systemic racism in policing, not the sole source) treats systemic racism in policing in the United States as a given because that is the mainstream view. That is also why this article treats it as a statement of fact, rather than a contested view. That is precisely what I am trying to communicate to you. There is significant difference of opinion on whether there is SYSTEMIC racism in policing, both in academia and in the public. Refer to my above reply as to why the public's difference of opinion does not affect how this article states facts. But you have yet to demonstrate that this significant difference of opinion exists in academia. Our articles that actually focus on this topic, such as Race in the United States criminal justice system and Race and crime in the United States, both support my evaluation that this is the mainstream view, and state, "Research also indicates that there is extensive racial and ethnic discrimination by police and the judicial system." I see Slatersteven has already pulled in some sourcing to cite this article's mention of systemic racism inline; I suspect any of the five sources that follow this quoted statement in these two articles would also be useful if you are not satisfied with their choices of sources, though if you are, there is no need to citebomb.

I have adjusted the statement about police instigation of violence in the lead a bit, both to better represent the existing (WaPo) source and also incorporate two new ones. I also think you are correct that we should incorporate "escalation" into the lead, as the original source and many others have reported on that in depth. The new lead currently reads: According to several studies and analyses, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. In protests that involved violence, violence was variously instigated by protesters, counter-protesters, or police, and police sometimes escalated confrontations. Does this new wording address your concerns? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I will take at look at these sources and comment later.

The new wording you are suggesting implies that the violence was instigated in similar measures by protesters, counter-protesters and police. I'm sure you didn't mean that because that would be far outside the mainstream and not supported by the articles you cite. I have adjusted the wording as follows. "According to several studies and analyses, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. At some protests there were reports that counter-protesters or police instigated or escalated the violence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregausman (talk • contribs) 01:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed "there were reports"—WaPo uses "reportedly" wording, but the other two sources state this as clear fact. I have no issue with the rest of your edit; I did not mean to imply anything about the frequency.

Some talk page etiquette notes: please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. I left a message on your talk page earlier explaining in more detail. Also please avoid inserting replies into the middle of other peoples' comments—it makes it difficult to figure out who said what. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with your latest change and thank you for the note on talk page etiquetteGregausman (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Brown shooting?

can someone please post the andrew brown shooting