Jump to content

Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–present)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bruhmoney77 (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 13 December 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. [1]). 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
For context, the Social Impact section was added to the article after merging from a related article, 2020 United States racial reckoning.[2] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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”?
  1. ^
    † Not that the former is even a deletion rationale; if it were true, that would be a reason to write more encyclopedic content, what this entire project is about. Except that I explicitly asked above, what cause do you think is missing from “...the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias...” almost a week ago and no one has come up with an answer. Something can always be rephrased better but there are not unplumbed inchoate depths to this that call for forking an entire article's worth of content (again, an unspecified article).
--‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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..."[3] Stonkaments (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let's do your suggested version, in green. Agreed that it is better. Crossroads -talk- 16:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those would both be good improvements IMO. Stonkaments (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would suggest a separate page, as this is about a specific issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy that Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_racial_unrest_(2020–present)&oldid=993903299"