Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–2023)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Burn it down

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of wikipedia pages on US politics have this really low-quality left-wing partisanry to them, and we use the excuse that traditional media reports the news like this. We are not a for profit organisation, we want to inform people, not sell outrage. We should strive to hold ourselves to a high standard, and avoid emulating the editorial positions of our sources. It is possible to report the events without the commentary, or to directly attribute the commentary to its author, as we should. Francis1867 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So what do you think should be taken out of the lede?Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific details about specific riots, and all of the spin. If we stay to the fact, it can be easily shorten in half. The spin can be put in their respective section, or even better, gotten rid of.

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

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

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

(This is propaganda, it needs to be cited as someone's opinion, not objetive fact) The racial unrest precipitated a national American cultural reckoning on topics of racial injustice. Public opinion of racism and discrimination quickly shifted in the wake of the protests, with significantly increased support of the Black Lives Matter movement and acknowledgement of institutional racism.[41][42][43] Demonstrators revived a public campaign for the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials as well as other historic symbols such as statues of venerated American slaveholders and modern display of the Confederate battle flag.[44][45] Public backlash widened to other institutional symbols, including place names, namesakes, brands and cultural practices. Anti-racist self-education became a trend throughout June 2020 in the United States. Black anti-racist writers found new audiences and places on bestseller lists. American consumers also sought out black-owned businesses to support. The effects of American activism extended internationally, as global protests destroyed their own local symbols of racial injustice. Multiple media began to refer to it as a national reckoning on racial issues in early June.[41][42][43][46]" Francis1867 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The idea that all the protests were riots is clearly absurd. FDW777 (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As indeed the lead states, It was also estimated that between May 26 and August 22, around 93% of protests were "peaceful and nondestructive" referenced by the Washington Post. If the protests are "peaceful and nondestructive", how are they "riots"? FDW777 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post article only counted "protests" where people were injured or their lives/well being were in danger, meaning that "protests" where property damage and assaults on police equipment occurred but no one was at risk of being hurt would have been counted as "peaceful". History Man1812 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

If they are peacefull and non-destructive, how can they kill over 30 people, injure over 400 police officer, and cause over 2 bilion USD of damages? I mean, its fine to have an opinion, but opinion from propaganda outlet is just that. I am sure you can find plenty of arabic language newspaper which are credible source that explain why the holocaust never happened. We still have to show some critical thinking when quoting sources, because even generally reliable sources sometime are untruthfull or overly biased. Francis1867 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If you intend to keep talking, please let me know and I'll file an enforcement request. FDW777 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Look, maybe you shouldn't bully other users who don't share your perspective? Francis1867 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:consensus wp:or and wp:tenditious, wp:bludgeoning a thread never works. You have been answered,Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three" . You are accusing me of precisely what you are doing. Francis1867 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the issue here the use of the word "protest" versus "riot"? If so I believe there should be a simple solution: introduce a third term, "peaceful protest". It is clear that not every protest turned into a riot. In fact it appears from available evidence and RS that most protests were peaceful. It is equally clear from many of the same RS that some protests did in fact turn into riots (e.g. 93% peaceful means 7% not peaceful). So in the article we should use "protests" when we are referring to broadly to "protests" which includes both peaceful and not peaceful, "peaceful protests" when only referring to those that did not involve violence or destruction and "riots" when referring to those that involved violence and destruction. Just my suggestion.

As a commentary I must state that I am distressed by tenor of the discussion, including personal attacks and threats. It would be far more productive if we all made an effort to not be disagreeable just because we disagree. Let's assume everyone is acting to produce a quality product and no one has bad intentions. 184.148.49.8 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating Deaths

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

History Man1812 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

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

Better title

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

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

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

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

• first racial unrest: 2020-2022
• second racial unrest: 2026-2028

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

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

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

Requested move 31 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 05:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

In short, the current title is narrow, misleading, and overall inferior to the alternatives. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 01:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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.

Lack of Neutrality

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

Consumer Behavior: Confusing Facebook boycott with self-education

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

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

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

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

Lack of accuracy and neutrality in the article

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

For others reviewing, these are the edits in question.

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

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

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

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

(1) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 2021 Statistical Brief NCJ 255969 Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018

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

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

And Your point is?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Violent Terrorists and If I see you come past my house, I’ll shoot you. seems to indicate that this "homeowner" has political motives

And? please read wp:forum, this is not the place to air your beliefs about a subject. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, what edit do you wish to make?Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I will add I find this odd, as you seem to be trying to remove mention of the fact they were a home owner, why?Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the shooter was a homeowner. It's curious how dispite the attention that this incident has garnered, the only information released by public officials regarding the shooter is from a small PPB briefing wherein they detail one fact: they are a homeowner. We don't even know the sex of the perpetrator. I sincerely question the intent behind selectively providing information regarding the perpetrator's homeowner status to the press regarding this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:6902:64B5:D5C9:F9C6 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RS have said he was, thus they may well have seen evidence you have not. We have witnesses saying (quoted by an RS) he was a man. We go with what RS say, not what we think is proven.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

Should right-wing militias be in a third column

As far as I know most of them are hostile to the federal government and frequently illegal. Dronebogus (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"American Spring (2020-2022)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Ongoing?

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

Requested move 3 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

---

• 2020–2023 United States racial unrest → 2020–2022 United States racial unrest

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

I agree; the most recent event in the "Major protests" section of this article happened in July 2022. If there's been major incidents of racial unrest in the US in 2023, they should be added to that section; if not, let's rename this to 2020-2022 United States racial unrest. TheAnnalyst (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Black Lives Matter has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject African diaspora has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Discrimination has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Law Enforcement has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is any discussion needed at all? The individual who moved the page on 3rd January (diff) did so without discussion. It's just a case of reversing a controversial undiscussed moved? JFDI. Move to close the discussion and have an admin / page mover do the revert. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Unrest?

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

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

I would agree, it was unrest. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It was unrest. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Assuming that you're referring to the Tyre Nichols incident, considering that all 6 parties involved were black... Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Since one of the topics of the racial unrest was Police brutality in the United States, it still would be necessary to at least give a mention of the recent events that occurred. Additionally Stop Cop City, there just is more nuance in the situation 98.59.80.64 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281: Here you go ― The police who killed Tyre Nichols were Black. But they might still have been driven by racism. CNN, Jan. 27, 2023

Race issues are possibly still relevant, unfortunately. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Recent protests against the killing of Tyre Nichols and the 'Stop Cop City' movement show this is an ongoing event in 2023. Shamaflama (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Are they, is this racial unrest or anti-cop unrest? 16:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

• Support ― Yes, more events are continuing to unfold. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy support per ongoing events { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This certainly doesn't warrant a speedy move, circumventing a full discussion. Graham (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

This might be a bit of a jump, but how about changing the title to "early 2020s United States racial unrest"? Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That would buy another year by roping in 2024 in advance, but other issues remain. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is racial unrest in 2024 that is deemed not to fall within the scope of this article (i.e. because it is deemed to be best understood as a distinct event), that could create more problems than it solves. Graham (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Support given that more events have unfolded this year with regards to the racial unrest. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose While protests are still occurring, they are not as widespread as they were at their peak in 2020. --Travisthecrab (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

Does the name of the article warrant changing?

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

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

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

This article is about the wave of unrest that followed several high-profile killings of Black Americans by law enforcement officers. These protests broadened to issues of historic racial injustice. The article has a clear focus based on how the events were covered in reliable sources.

The article is not about the much broader topic of "2020s United States unrest", nor is the article about left-wing protests of right-wide policies. The article is not about protest in support of transgender rights. That is not to minimize them, but the article has a clearly defined scope. Minnemeeples (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we include the 2023 Monterey Park shooting?

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

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

End of the George Floyd protests?

According to Minnemeeples and other articles, the George Floyd protests ended on May 2, 2023. Is that true or false? 2600:1002:B166:7608:0:44:EE53:F101 (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea, care to provide the actual quote where they say it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

He updated the George Floyd protests article saying it ended. I just wanted to make sure if it's the case or not. 2600:1002:B166:7608:0:44:EE53:F101 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hence why I am asking for quotes that it has. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I know what he's talking about, because I found this statement. "According the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, Tou Thao's guilty verdict on May 2, 2023, fulfilled a key demand of protesters that all four officers be held accountable for Floyd's murder." It was made by Minnemeples. SpringField23402 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

A key early demand of protesters was that all four police officers be held legally accountable for murdering Floyd. It was also one of the 24 demands at George Floyd Square occupied protest, which had other demands to address broader issues of historic racial injustice unrelated to Floyd.

Pan, H. Jiahong (May 2, 2023). "Final officer in George Floyd murder case convicted of state charges". Minnesota Spokesman-Reformer.

"Thao’s conviction along with Chauvin’s conviction and Kueng and Lane’s decision to strike plea deals means that George Floyd Square’s Justice Resolution 001 demand has been met. The demand calls for the four officers involved in murdering George Floyd to be tried in Minneapolis and is among a list of 24 demands crafted by community activists who reclaimed 38th and Chicago days following his murder."

Minnemeeples (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but per wp:v, that does not say they are over, just that they might be. Also that is not all of their demands, so they might not be over. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The other demands at George Floyd Square do not have to do with protesting George Floyd's murder. You can read the list of demands here: George Floyd Square occupied protest#List of 24 demands. Many items involve other local events that predate Floyd's murder.

Community events reflecting on Floyd's murder have shifted in tone and focus. For example, the George Floyd Memorial Foundation is hosting its "3rd Annual Rise & Remember Celebration" in Minneapolis from May 25 to 27, 2023. It is a festival, candlelight ceremony, racial justice workshops, etc. It is also a retrospective on the protests and celebration of those that protested, according to the details for the Rise and Remember event.

There is and will be continued memorialization of Floyd and there will continue to be protests of racial injustice, at some point these are no longer protests of George Floyd's murder, especially as the cases against the officers have concluded (with the exception of Thao's possible appeal of the state criminal conviction). Minnemeeples (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Itr still does not say they are over, that is wp:or. If they were saying they, they would say it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It was H. Jiahong Pan of the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder that said the key aim of justice resolution was fulfilled with the conclusion of the criminal cases against Kueng and Thao.

While the George Floyd Square occupied protest is arguably still ongoing, the disputes there are largely related to broader issues that predate or aren't related to Floyd and about how best to create a permanent memorial to Floyd in a way respects the community's perspective, according to this article. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate casualty count

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

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

Should the January 6th insurrection and the Montgomery Riverfront brawl be included?

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

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