Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–2023)

Separate page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innacurate deaths count.

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

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

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

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

Move-locking the article

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

Comment on article lead re anti-Asian discrimination

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

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

Rename to 2020-2021 United States Civil Unrest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of accuracy and neutrality in the article

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

For others reviewing, these are the edits in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Do you have any RS that challenge the idea it is not in fact the case?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Andrew Brown shooting?

can someone please post the andrew brown shooting

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

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)

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)