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 BappleBusiness (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 2 September 2021 (→‎Requested move 31 August 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The claim is now sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm good with your latest change and thank you for the note on talk page etiquetteGregausman (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the addition. Lots of bad references and/or opinion pieces. FDW777 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it back. If you have an issue with a reference, please specify and if it is valid, I will remove. There are several references in this article which are clearly opinion pieces so this should not disqualify. In this case it is in context of "Some people dispute" which is by definition a reflection of published opinion.Gregausman (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What part of it's a violation of WP:LEAD don't you understand? What part of WP:ONUS don't you understand? As for your "references".
  • WSJ. Irrelevant, as it's talking about arrest rates
  • Freedom Wire. You seriously think the "#1 source for patriotic truth" is a reference? I'm almost tempted to file an WP:AE report based on that alone, since I see you've been informed about discretionary sanctions.
  • WSJ. As previous WSJ article, irrelevant.
  • Sovereign Nations. Another garbage reference, not even worth discussing
  • National Review. See WP:RSP.
Arrest rates are completely irrelevant to the point at hand. The movement is called Black Lives Matter. People protest because black people are killed. So arrest rates do not under any circumstances change the fact that black people are killed at a substantially higher rate than white people, which is the systemic racism. FDW777 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregausman: Please establish consensus for what is obviously a contentious change first. Continuing to try to war it into the article following multiple people raising valid concerns over sourcing and WP:DUE is disruptive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with establishing consensus so I will leave as is until we do. I also accept that this should be outside the lead, not within it. Although I further believe that the original implication should not be allowed in the lead as an unchallenged fact. My suggestion was to add the "belief in the existence" of "systemic racism" to correct this issue.
With respect to sources, the sources were cited with respect to the idea that the existence of "systemic racism is disputed by some" so I feel that even those from sources not considered to be reliable for news should be reliable for their own opinions, in particular National Review which is considered a mainstream opinion journal. WSJ is considered reliable for news and of course would be considered reliable for its own opinion.
I do not agree with the specific objections to the WSJ articles. Both articles clearly state that "System Racism" does not exist in the opinion of the author and both authors provide their reasoning. That you do not agree with the conclusions is not relevant. You are attempting to introduce your own original research.
I do not want to engage in original research but since you have introduced it, a single factor analysis such as "black people are killed at a substantially higher rate than white people" is not consistent with proper statistical analysis and frankly does not imply anything at all. It would be like concluding that because blacks are represented in the NBA at a much higher rate than whites that the NBA is systemically racist against whites. It is a trivial analysis which is invalid on its face. Proper statistical analysis requires consideration of all relevant variables that might impact outcome, not just one.
I suggest including the statement that "some believe" systemic racism does not exist in policing outside the lead to provide balance to the implication in the lead that it is established fact. The challenge I have with the current form is it implies the existence of "systemic racism" without providing due consideration of contrary mainstream published opinion.Gregausman (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any RS that challenge the idea it is not in fact the case?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I provided two WSJ articles which challenge the idea this it is case. It seems like the goal here is to decide whether one side or the other is correct. I believe it is accurate to state one view as a predominant view and to provide balance note that there are mainstream published opinions to the contrary.Gregausman (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except you didn't, per my above comments. You provided two WSJ that deal with one very narrow aspect of "systematic racism", while ignoring that it's a far broader concept than how likely someone is to be arrested. For example the first one says The report concluded that there was no statistically significant difference by race between how likely people were to commit serious violent crimes and how likely they were to be arrested, this does nothing to refute say, for example, that the treatment George Floyd received was different than that which a white suspect would have received. FDW777 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I had also already pointed that out, either here to in an earlier thread. wp:v is clear, the source must say exactly what you say it says.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One article states "The claim of “systemic racism in law enforcement” defies the best available science and data." This is a clear statement that the author does not believe systemic racism in law enforcement exists. Whether you or I believe the author's opinion is warranted is not relevant, you are engaging in original research which we should avoid.
The other article states "This charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today." and "A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing." Again, whether we believe the conclusion is correct is not relevant.
With respect to your comment on the George Floyd case, whether he received the same treatment a white suspect would have is also not evidence of "systemic racism". If he was treated differently because of his race it could just as well be evidence of personal racism on the part of specific officers rather than systemic racism.Gregausman (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except the original research is yours, in suggesting that the "systematic racism" talked about by Joe Biden is the same as the "systematic racism" being talked about by the protesters. You can't use an article about the former to say the latter doesn't exist. FDW777 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The specific assertion of "The claim of 'systemic racism in law enforcement' defies the best available science and data." does not specify Joe Biden's claim. It is clear the author is referring to the general claim of "systemic racism", not just Joe Biden's. That is not original research at all, I am quoting exactly the article with appropriate context. The fact that the author is using Joe Biden's position to introduce the topic does not imply that the author is only disputing Joe Biden's specific claims. In the article the author attempts to disprove claims that are generally made to suggest system racism exists; no where in the article does the author reference specific claims from Joe Biden to make his point.
Both of the above articles clearly state that in the authors' opinions "systemic racism" does not exist in policing.Gregausman (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles focus on a single aspect of systematic racism which, conveniently, isn't the aspect of systematic racism being protested about. I suggest reading Institutional racism#In criminal conviction 2, or if you would like to bring up a "Wikipedia articles aren't references" strawman you can read the references in the section linked to. FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, one article focuses on arrest rates to make the point while the other focuses on fatal shootings. I believe it is incorrect to state that these are not the types of things that people generally think of when they think of "systemic racism". They are certainly things that are cited in the RS as indicating that "systemic racism" exists so arguments to the contrary, whether we agree with them or not should be included for balance. However if you believe the protests were focused on something more narrow than "system racism" in general, would you agree that we should state that the protests were against that thing rather than saying "systemic racism"?Gregausman (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we accepted that 2019 statistics are in any way relevant to deaths of black people in 2020 (which I don't), that's one opinion piece. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE. FDW777 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve read the guidance articles you cite and they support my position.
The first guidance article states “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. “
The opinion that systemic racism in policing does not exist is a “significant viewpoint” and it is in fact a “widely held view” (some 41% of Americans share that view according to one credible poll). It does not need to be the majority published view to be included. While the article goes on to say minority views should not be given as much weight as more widely held views, it does not state the minority view should not be mentioned. It states the views of “tiny minorities” should not be included at all. Since 41% of people in America hold this view, this clearly does not apply. The example given for clarity is that of “flat earth” beliefs. This is clearly not in that category.
The second guidance article states “While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Unfounded conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. “
The examples provided are not analogous to the situation of whether systemic racism exists in policing which is subject to conflicting mainstream research and studies cited in the articles.
Taking these two articles into consideration it appears clear that we should be presenting the minority view in the context of “some believe that the data do not support that systemic racism exists”.
With respect to your personal belief of whether statistics from 2019 are relevant to the argument, that really should have no place in this discussion as the author clearly believes the statistics are relevant. Gregausman (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One opinion piece is a textbook example of WP:UNDUE. In this case it's also a textbook example of WP:REDFLAG, since rather than refute the many studies that have shows systematic racism exists, they simply pretend they don't exist. FDW777 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is two articles and definitely does not fall into the category of WP:UNDUE which refers to examples such as "flat earth" theory. The two articles are mainstream and demonstrate that an alternative mainstream opinion exists. If we are going to attack whether the article is correct we should note the the primary article referenced to support "systemic racism" never mentions this cause by name (stated above as the sole way an article can be referenced in a discussion of the topic) and never actually concludes what the specific cause of the statistical discrepancies is but rather lays out a number of different opinions. Again, your opinion of the correctness of the article, just like mine, is irrelevant. Gregausman (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading this, which refers directly to the study cited by your beloved opinion piece and completely demolishes it point by point, adding that the study was fundamentally flawed, and the authors have admitted as much — which is why they took the extraordinary step of withdrawing it. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you are personalizing the discussion by calling the article my "beloved" opinion piece so I would appreciate it if you would argue the facts instead of attacking me personally. The withdrawal of the original study by its authors, whatever the reason, and no matter how valid or invalid, does not change the fact that there are mainstream opinions at odds with the assertion being made. This is clearly not a "flat earth" comparison, the area of study is complex and differing opinions clearly exist. The fact that the original authors published a study and then withdrew it (rather than merely explaining its results further) is evidence that the area of study is complex. We should note that there are those who dispute the claim. Gregausman (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So do you actually have any references which aren't opinion pieces or citing the withdrawn study? FDW777 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to have additional references to support the point that alternative viewpoints exist and that they are mainstream.Gregausman (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of references, it remains a fringe viewpoint like the earth being flat. FDW777 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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

Better title

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Requested move 31 August 2021

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_racial_unrest_(2020–present)&oldid=1041884582"