Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

??

"So one tweet by one person is deemed racist (by a talk radio host), and that warrants mention in an article about the movement?" was the reasoning given for removing this:

In April 2016, Yusra Khogali, the co-founder of Black Live Matter Toronto, tweeted out "Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz." The tweet was seen as controversial by various users, including Jerry Agar, a conservative talk radio personality. Khogali defended her tweet, stating, ""I am not a public official. I am not a police officer. The state does not entrust me with violent weaponry. I have never contributed to the mass targeting of a community. All I have done is used a turn of phrase, a rhetorical flourish, to voice my frustration and dared to be a person calling for justice." Khogali also stated that a BLM protest, which prompted the Toronto city council to unanimously pass a motion asking the province to review the SIU and police services in Toronto through an "anti-black racism lens," did not receive as much attention as her tweet. This led to her expressing, "the media is part and parcel of how anti-black racism works. Too often black people are ignored or vilified when we speak the truth about our condition."

Yeah, I think that warrants a mention. Perhaps I included too much and dragged out the information a little too long. However, when that tweet is from someone with the title of co-founder of Toronto's BLM branch, yeah I think it deserves a mention.

Also, why is it that Agar's opinion is tossed aside, when he's the one being critical (even though the The Star source that mentions his opinion is a 3rd party), while Giuliani's opinion is kept in the article, when he's the one being criticized (via the mention of The Washington Post stating Giuliani lives in a "racial world of make-believe")? Also I include Khogali's defense of her own tweet, so I think that not only does it deserve a mention, but that I wrote it in an objective way. These were quotes presented in a "[insert person here] stated" fashion, so there was no intentional bias here.

With all that in mind, where is the consistency, then? If these comments came from the co-founder of BLM Toronto, and they are properly and well-sourced, why were they still removed? Soulbust (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

References

The simple answer is overly-interested edits. You can see from the archives that this discussion page has been a fairly consistent attempt to keep most criticism off the page. Sometimes justifiably, other times arbitrarily. I believe the lede didn't even mention the criticism until very recently despite this being brought up in the GA review. As the content in question seems topical, constructive, and notably sourced, I personally see no issue with its inclusion. Perhaps the reverter can weigh in, though. Thanks for taking it to discussion. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I see a lot of hand-waving, but I still don't see (smell?) anything more than a WP:FART here. A conservative news radio commentator got his nose out of joint because a co-founder (one of how many?) of Black Lives Matter Toronto (one of the major cites in which the organization operates, right?) tweeted something stupid two months earlier. Is water wet?

Should we also include in the article every moronic white commentator who calls Black Lives Matter racist, or black supremacist, or violent, or anti-police, just because they exist?

I still see no answer to my original edit summary (which I assume you quoted accurately): So one tweet by one person is deemed racist (by a talk radio host), and that warrants mention in an article about the movement? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply

You assume correctly. I copy & paste what I want to quote as to not misquote anybody but, did you just not read? I explicitly said "Yeah, I think that warrants a mention," and proceeded to hint for a possible compromise where we can mention the tweet, but not have to give it any undue weight ("Perhaps I included too much and dragged out the information a little too long.")

And I even gave you an explicit reasoning for my answer to your question: "However, when that tweet is from someone with the title of co-founder of Toronto's BLM branch, yeah I think it deserves a mention."

You say that this is a WP:FART, but Khogali's tweet wasn't the random (nor simply "stupid") online musings of an anonymous BLM supporter. This was a controversial and arguably racist—hence why I initially edited it into the "Allegations of racism" section—tweet from the founder of Black Live Matter Toronto. The "fart" policy is "kept because it is considered humorous," and we are advised to "not take it seriously," but even if, for sake of argument we did take it seriously—Khogali's tweet wasn't celebrity gossip, which seemed to be the central focus of the "fart" policy, so...

...Answers to your other questions, by the way:

• "one of how many?"
  • According to her co-founder, just two ("janaya khan and Yusra Ali co-founded Black Lives Matter – Toronto in October of 2014 following the killing of Jermaine Carby, who was shot in a car by police during a routine traffic stop in Brampton, Ontario.")

• "one of the major cites in which the organization operates, right?"
  • Yup. Toronto is actually, just in general and by definition, a major city in North America. Don't see how one could argue Toronto being not "major."

• "Is water wet?"
  • Technically... that's actually being researched. If I were editing the article for water or wetness, I would like to include referenced/sourced information that would answer both "Is water wet?" and "Why does water feel wet?" But since the article I made an edit to was this one, I wanted to make sure that the information I was adding was properly sourced.

• "Should we also include in the article every moronic white commentator who calls Black Lives Matter racist, or black supremacist, or violent, or anti-police, just because they exist?"
  • Would it be different if the opinions came from a non-white commentator? I'm sure there's a reputable, respected source out there with some non-white critic of BLM. Criticism is important, creates dialogue and discussion, and most importantly: it exists. And, just because it may exist in a way we find "moronic," it doesn't take away from the fact that it exists, it is properly referenced, and this is an encyclopedia, not a narrative. By the way, if you remove something because you believe it's "moronic", not because it is encyclopedic, then wouldn't that just intrinsically violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? We don't need to include every "moronic white commentator['s criticism]" but it would be helpful, and more informative to mention within this article that there are some people who criticize BLM, either as a movement, or as a slogan.

So, no, we don't need to re-add this specific tweet and the criticism it received. But, perhaps, some other properly-sourced criticism of BLM (that would be applicable to the "Allegations of racism" section) should be added.

References

Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Media coverage Section

Could there be an additional example included in this section? "The American media has received criticism for their reporting on the Ferguson protests" and one example is a bit brief. Also, make sure quotations are cited neatly without overusing parentheses. Dlajoie (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation of Critique / "All/Blue/White Lives Matter"

1) The introduction has repetition. See the 2 sentences at the start of the "critique" section. The introduction doesn't need these two sentences, and would be more concise and easier to read without them.

2) The explanation of the anti-BLM movements, critiques and hash tags are lacking, and this shows a bias towards the BLM side of the debate. The article would be more well-rounded if these portions of the article are filled with more citations of supports and their specific arguments about #AllLivesMatter, etc. Currently, there are only a few people cited as supporters, when it is clear in mainstream media that there are many more that are easy to find. These should be cited and their arguments should be clearly and specifically explained that way the reader can evaluate both sides.

Lschwend (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC) LSchwend

I agree with this evaluation of the section on BLM criticism. The two preceding sentences are unnecessary to the introduction. As far as the sections about anti-BLM groups are concerned, I also note their lack of information. However, it is important to consider the fact that this article concerns the BLM movement, and these auxiliary groups are simply additional topics of conversation for BLM. Should an article concerning BLM be expected to detail the limited history of counteractive groups?--Alethiachild (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources

A few sources on this page or inherently biased. For example, number 44. People come here to really learn what BLM is all about, not to hear some opinion writer describe how she would promote violence as acceptable way to deal with alleged "hands up don't shoot" scenarios. While I am no expert on BLM, I am in an actual college course regarding this subject. This page is going to be a lot less biased here very soon, with the help of my colleagues and instructors, we will turn this page into fact based information with credible sources, and will look less like an opinion blog. Most of the article is well written and well thought out. I'm just making suggestions to tweak the content to make it more credible. Burgesspfc (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Burgesspfc: please be sure to check out Wikipedia:Education program of your class plans to do a project on Wikipedia. As for the sources, if there are ones you have questions on, ask. Sources are allowed to be biased and we sometimes user opinion pieces if we clearly ascribe that opinion to the author (see WP:RS and WP:BIASED). This appears to be the case with reference #44 from Salon ([1]). While bold edits are welcome, it can be helpful to make sure you have a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies before editing. Asking or proposing edits on the talk page is rarely a bad idea. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reaching -Out/ Getting Involved

I noticed that there is no section that talks about or mentions how an interested individual may get involved in the #BLM movement. I feel as though it is important to include one because, often, many critiques of the #BLM attribute any sort of mobilization of black people, such as riots, to be a part of the #BLM movement. In order to ensure the proper representation of the #BLM a uniform method of involvement or a call to non-violence should be included that way any acts of violence cannot be attributed to the #BLM. AArciva (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey AArciva, I don't believe this is the place for a "how to get involved" instructional. Black Lives Matter has its own website, and we aren't trying to recreate it. If you were doing an article on the KKK, would you put a section on how to get involved? It would seem like you were helping the KKK in its recruiting goals, wouldn't it? The guiding principles explain WHAT the Black Lives Matter Movement is all about, but instructions on how to get involved seem like you're trying to turn this page into an extension of the website, which it shouldn't be. It needs to be neutral. Your idea sounds like it would be good for the BLM website itself, but we're not trying to help (or hurt) BLM. We're just trying to report on it as it exists.AngelicBeaver (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Retitle 'Other groups' & add extensions

The title "other groups" does not properly classify the groups that embody this section. Possibly "Groups created in response to BLM" or "Groups created as an outcome of BLM" would give more scope to the groups represented in this section. "Other groups" implies other chapters or groups that align themselves with the BLM movement and that is not the case for this section of information. Also, the depth of these groups is limiting and should have information that encompasses the entire scope of each group to give readers a sense of why these groups were created with criticisms and support of each (this is truly only done for "All Lives Matter"). I believe that these corrections will help strengthen the neutrality point of view pillar for Wikipedia and lessen discussion of bias that many users believe exist within the main page article.

I am a new user and providing feedback on what I think will help strengthen the content of the article through a neutral lens.

Teesahloffy (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC) teesahloffy

Including the Guiding Priniciples?

Hello everyone. I'm doing a course on the Black Lives Matter movement and we're supposed to work with Wikipedia to create relevant content. When searching for information on the movement itself, I noticed that this page has no mention of the movement's 13 guiding principles. There is a lot of confusion as to what Black Lives Matter is all about, and I believe that a section in this article listing and briefly explaining each principle would be beneficial in defining what the movement is all about.

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I know that articles are supposed to be impartial and source their information from verifiable sources, but this would simply be an accurate description of the stated values of the organization. One of the ideas our professor mentioned was to make individual pages for each guiding principle, so this page might have the guiding principles listed out and briefly summarized, and then we could link it to a fleshed out page, if one already exists. For example, Restorative Justice already seems to have a very lengthy and relevant article, but Collective Value and Black Villages do not.

I do wonder if it would be appropriate to state a principle and quote their description of it word for word. It seems like their wording is critical as a starting point for understanding what they mean by the principle, but I don't quite understand how copyright/plagiarism/impartiality concerns would govern this addition. I'd welcome any comments or ideas you have for this. I'm excited to participate! For reference, here's a link to the website http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/--AngelicBeaver (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we've decided that we want to simply list the principles in a section on this page, possibly with a brief description, and then each principle would link to its own article.AngelicBeaver (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added the 13 principles to the main page. I feel that trying to reword the BLM's own descriptions of each of the principles is a waste of time and explaining those concepts without saying more or less than what the principles themselves state is really difficult. I've decided to list them and let the explanations reside solely in the thirteen resultant articles. I'm not satisfied with this particular solution, but I think it is simply a limitation of the Wikipedia format, and has roots in my dissatisfaction with the way that the 13 principles are presented on the BLM website.AngelicBeaver (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oversight

"a quick look at its website does seem to indicate that they have editorial oversight."

"No editorial oversight evident."

User:Insertcleverphrasehere User:EvergreenFir

Benjamin (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If you look at ijr.com's list of staff, they clearly have multiple senior editors, in at least one of the bios it says that the duties include overseeing a team of reporters. This does indeed 'seem to indicate' or imply editorial oversight (thats the job of an editor who oversees reporters after all). This is what I meant with the above comment over at RSN. They do not spell this out in their about page however, and it is not explicit. I can understand Evergreen's comment, as there does not seem to be any explicit verification of editorial oversight. I had other comments, and I don't appreciate this one being taken out of context just so that you can be WP:POINTY.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That was not my intention. Anyway, how shall we evaluate the source? Benjamin (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll put in my 2 cents over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There are other sources.

Benjamin (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

References

User:Insertcleverphrasehere User:EvergreenFir Benjamin (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I presume the source itself was the problem, rather than the content. With lack of opposition to that presumption, I'll proceed. Benjamin (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The RSN comments make it clear UNDUE is an issue too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You think it's not worth mentioning at all? It certainly is at least notable, right? Benjamin (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What deserves more weight? User:EvergreenFir Benjamin (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you look at our article, the Toronto Black Lives Matter group is the subject of two short paragraphs, four sentences in total. Are the comments of one of that group's co-founders so important that they warrant another sentence or two, especially the comments she made on Twitter months before she was in the public eye? Maybe instead, we should mention the conflict the Toronto Black Lives Matter group created among Black Torontonians, Canadian Pride, and the Toronto police? You know, something actually important instead of something that has the right-wing blogosphere's panties in a knot? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the Huffington Post part of the right wing blogosphere? Are the sources I provided not enough to establish notability? If it is notable, then I would think it should be mentioned, and additional information be added to make it balanced. Benjamin (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no question that it is not notable. Maybe you should read our notability guideline so you understand what the word you're throwing around so much means here. You also might want to read our guideline concerning reliable sources, which an editorial in the Huffington Post is not (except for its author's opinion). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, are the sources not reliable for saying that the event actually happened, or that's it's significant in any way, and if not, what would be required for it? Are the sources generally unreliable, or just in this context? Benjamin (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For the most part, they're garbage sources that are not considered reliable sources at all. A few of them are editorial columns, which are considered reliable sources for their authors' opinions (which should be attributed) but not for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. I'm not sure what "event" you're referring to, but no, editorials can't be used to establish that something happened. You need to cite a fact-based source such as a news report. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Updated references about Yusra Khogali's comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waters.Justin (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References

I think a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment should be used to get more opinions. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources should not be disregarded just because they're biased, right? Benjamin (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Not because they're biased, but because they're trash. Garbage. Not reliable. No editorial oversight.

A website like PJ Media might possibly be reliable only for the opinions of its columnists. If a column there said the sun shined on Friday, we couldn't cite it as a reliable source for that because it's not trustworthy.

Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think some of them do have oversight. User:Malik Shabazz Benjamin (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, multiple sources from different sides of the aisle have covered it, so I don't think there's any doubt that the event itself actually happened. As for notability, with the numerous sources provided, would it warrant even a brief mention? Is it perhaps an issue of weight? In that case, what else should be mentioned, to make it balanced? Benjamin (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Something along the lines of:

The co-founder of the Toronto Black Lives Matter chapter has (allegedly?) called white people sub human and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “white supremacist terrorist,”

Help rewording as appropriate is welcome.

Benjamin (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to address the issue of due weight. Your input would be appreciated. Benjamin (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You might want to start by re-reading the RS/N discussion, now archived here, and the discussion above in this section. Please try to focus on the comments about the due or undue weight and relative importance or unimportance of what you are trying to add to the article, instead of focusing on whether the sources are reliable (they're not, for the most part) or whether the incident was notable (it wasn't). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be okay to include if due weight was given to other perspectives? Benjamin (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to start by reading the relevant discussions and policies and guidelines. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have. Benjamin (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Color me skeptical. It takes considerably more than the two minutes it took you to reply to my message. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean, I have in the past. Was there a specific part you wanted me to read again? Benjamin (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, every part. You were so focused on the false questions of whether the sources were reliable and whether the incident was notable that I believe you missed every objection raised about undue weight. Now please stop playing games and re-read the discussions. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What information could be added to make it balanced? Benjamin (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't Shoot Portland

I created a stub for the group Don't Shoot Portland, which has some overlap with Black Lives Matter. I invite editors and page watchers to come expand this stub and incorporate the topics into Wikipedia appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Live for Now (Pepsi)

Page watchers are invited to help expand the newly created Live for Now (Pepsi) article about the controversial Pepsi ad that was criticized by Black Lives Matters and other groups. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Another Believer--seriously? We have to have articles on every little thing? Because in the grand scheme of things this is a little thing. You can stick Pepsi's half-assed attempt at social advertising in their article, but it needs no stand-alone article. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but ok. There are plenty of sources at Talk:Live for Now (Pepsi) if you'd like to see why I created this stub. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, I know there's plenty of sources--Facebook showed me a dozen in the last two days, but we're still talking NOTNEWS, as far as I'm concerned. And the memes are hilarious, of course, and incisive. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Due weight on racist remarks

I'd like to argue that there is due weight for this inclusion. First of all saying that "whites are sub human" who "suffer from genetic defect" and "should be wiped out" is clearly a racist remark, which was picked up and criticized by The Huffington Post, IJR, among others ([2] [3] [4] [5]). This seems like an obvious inclusion for a "criticism over racism" sub-section, though due weight for inclusion somewhere else is debatable (say, opening the criticism section, or the lead, for which there's not enough coverage to stablish that much relevance). From what I can see from previous discussion there was a lack of any relevant sources to stablish weight. With the aforementioned links I believe this not to be the case (anymore). Another argument that was brought up in the archived discussions is that this is "just a comment by a member". But this is not just any member, but the co-founder and an active leader, which is pointed out in our text, and is the reason why it received the attention it did. With that in mind I believe the issue at hand is relevant when it comes to "criticism over racism", and that there has been sufficient coverage for inclusion in a sub-section. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's not "the co-founder"--it's, at best, the co-founder of the Toronto chapter. Also, one of your sources is clearly an opinion piece. Also, only one of the two articles you linked in the text mention the "sub-human" thing--and that's the opinion piece--where the "sub-human" part comes from some "musing" on Reddit. Also, calling someone a white supremacist is not an "allegation of racism". Also, and finally, this is undue for all the reasons pointed out to you before. We're just not going to list every little thing. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A criticism is an opinion, I fail to see your point. Both links cite "the sub human thing". In their title. A Toronto newspaper is cited as source, which in turn shows the post made by the BLM leader. The remarks are clearly racist, as already discussed, and the accusations are certainly not little. 03:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• • This has already been hashed out, both above and at WP:RS/N, and nobody has made a convincing case for why (a) Wikipedia's only mention of Toronto BLM is this woman and (b) Wikipedia's only mention of this woman is this attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've read that discussion. You disagreeing with the inclusion doesn't mean "it was hashed out". Also, you fail to comment on any of the points I raised. If you want to add another point of view to it go ahead, though I have a hard time believing you'll find anyone on the media supporting the racist remarks. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, your refusal to get the point doesn't mean it wasn't hashed out. Raise new points and maybe I'll have new arguments; raise stale points and I won't bother to refute them (for the third or fourth time). And what people in the media support or oppose is beside the point; this isn't a blog, it's a discussion about whether to include something in an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Malik and Drmies on this. Undue. RSN here: [6] EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If that person is only mentioned in reliable sources in that context, then how is it undue for Wikipedia to reflect that? Is Wikipedia's portrayal of that person significantly different than how she is portrayed in the sources? Perhaps it should be reworded, perhaps it shouldn't be emphasised, but I find it hard to believe that due weight for an event covered in several sources deserved no weight at all. Benjamin (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing the Intergenerational (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principal) article to be merged into the main Black Lives Matter page. I believe the information within the Intergenerational page could be easily added to either the Structure and organization section or Strategies and tactics section. Although it does look like there enough sources, I think the basis of the source page is essential to the destination page but it does not warrant its own article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am one of two individuals participating in a class assignment to put the guiding principles on Wikipedia. Our goal was to have an article for each principle that would be linked to the list on the BLM Wiki page. My partner added his articles, only to have them subsequently deleted. The articles could be placed within the article itself, but I was thinking that the separate article format would allow for greater expansion in the future, while the BLM page is already quite long. I am now terrified of posting these things, because I'm afraid they are going to all be rejected. My article has already been flagged for neutrality and style issues. I'm trying to explain the principle as it is defined by the movement, and also, where applicable, use sources to describe how it is (or isn't) practically implemented. Feedback is welcome.AngelicBeaver (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am opposed to the merger, because there is no content at Intergenerational (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principal). (It appears that AngelicBeaver, the article's creator, blanked the page and it will likely be speedily deleted shortly.)
  I also advise AngelicBeaver and Burgesspfc, who appears to be the "partner" to whom AngelicBeaver refers above, to rethink their assignment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have guidelines about what it takes for something to qualify for an article. The fact that something ("Unapologetically Black", for instance) is a bullet point or heading in a list of demands from the Movement for Black Lives doesn't mean that it qualifies for an encyclopedia article. Have reliable secondary sources, independent of Black Lives Matter and the Movement for Black Lives, written extensively about the subject? If not, the subject almost certainly does not qualify for an encyclopedia article at this time.
  I'd be happy to discuss this further with either or both of you. This page may not be the best place for that discussion. You can leave a message on my talk page if you'd like to pursue this matter. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have had all of my articles deleted. Currently, I have provided about 15 sources to the administrator that has deleted them in hopes he/she will allow me to edit them to make them suitable for publishing to the main space. Burgesspfc (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(LuK3—Malik Shabazz) The article is now at Intergenerational (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle). StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There are also three related articles on AfD currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diversity (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle).--Pharos (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

opposed I do not even support the larger section in the article. it is not an independently sourced. --JumpLike23 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

guiding principles section

the guiding principles sections cites the Black Lives Matter website only. I do not think that this a proper source. What should we do? this section was not a part of the article when it was elevated to good article status. --JumpLike23 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, jumplike23. I agree that the material should be sourced to a secondary source, but I consider that a trivial matter. I'm sure I could find such a source in a couple of minutes.

I see two bigger problems. First, I think the article is mistaken about what the guiding principles are. For some reason, our article cites a two-year-old archive of the BLM page in which the so-called "guiding principles" are the subheadings. On today's BLM website, they are the names on the tabs. For gods sake, the guiding principles are the sentences under each heading or behind each tab, not the words in the heading or on the tab! That's like mistaking the section headings in one of our articles for an encyclopedia article.

Second, I don't see any reason to list or quote 13 principles. These are not the Seven Principles of Kwanzaa (which I note is not even a redirect). There's no reason a well-written paragraph of prose couldn't summarize the group's guiding principles. As editors, that's what we're supposed to do: read what other people have written and summarize it in our own words, not quote it verbatim.

So I see problems in that section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Change in modus operandi from protest to policy

Seems as though they've changed from being a protest group to one concentrating on policy.[[7]] Doug Weller talk 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

critisms of blm

you probably should include the criticisms of prominent social media personitites such as ones on youtube like TJ kirk(the amazing atheist)[over 1 million subcribers],Carl Benjamin (sargon of akkad)[over have a million subcribers] and Blaire White[about 300K subcribers].

for example co-opting things not racial for their own ends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnaw4I_WUaE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:841:4100:8319:2804:1E3B:1BFB:8894 (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That would require professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of weasel word "perceived" from "perceived systematic bias"

I have deleted the weasel word "perceived" of the phrase "perceived systematic bias" from the WP:LEDE, which was first inserted here by Jumplike23, in response to the good article assessment's comment by Midnightblueowl. This ends up sounding (probably unintentionally WP:AGF) like a jab at the movement by suggesting those who are concerned about systematic bias are not protesting real systematic bias but just imagined and hypothetical or dubious systematic bias, as if there is no definite or certain systematic bias in the U.S. to be worth being concerned about. Imagine if we wrote protesters were "protesting the perceived Shooting of Samuel DuBose." You can see how absurd that sounds. I agree that saying, "protesting the racist murder of Samuel DuBose" would lack WP:NPOV and likely be a WP:BLP violation and unencyclopediac. But to put in the weasel word "perceived" in front of systematic bias, as if systematic bias is a thing of the past is not WP:NPOV, but in my opinion the opposite of NPOV. Of course, we can always consult the WP:RS to see what it says, if there is any doubt what independent secondary sources state the movement is about. In fact, when Midnightblueowl suggested adding the word "perceived", s/he admitted there was no question there is indeed systematic bias comment--something indeed well proven--so I see no reason to suggest the movement is not concerned with actual bias, but only imagined bias. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. See also Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Avoid_peacock_and_weasel_terms --David Tornheim (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. I agree with this assessment of "perceived" functioning as a weasel word and an NPOV violation here. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Seconded EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I, too, support the removal of the word "perceived". NPOV appropriately prevents editors from describing police violence as being motivated by racial bias; racial bias may be suspected but has not been established as a cause of the disproportionate number of deaths among black youth at the hands of police officers. I think all but the most ostrich-headed among us acknowledges that there is persistent racial inequality in the United States, and to describe it as a mere "perception" is, frankly, insulting. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to contest the removal of the word "perceived", but my only concern is that at some point we may have editors coming along insisting that the article expresses a POV in favour of Black Lives Matter, and I was trying to pre-empt any of those concerns. When dealing with controversial topics such as this one, we need to proceed carefully. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If "perceived" is a weasel word, what about "alleged"? That's neutral, it doesn't favour either side, it merely points out that people have said there is systemic racial bias. It is contested whether there is in relation to things the BLM movement has talked about, I don't like the fact that systemic bias is mentioned as though it were a fact.--Edittrack121 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP: ALLEGED EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alleged is just as bad or maybe even worse. Synonyms include: asserted, often doubtful; purported averred declared described pretended professed suspect dubious ostensible questionable suspicious. Anyway, as mentioned above systemic racial bias is a fact. Gandydancer (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Anyway, as mentioned above systemic racial bias is a fact." Cite reputable studies that prove this "fact".--Edittrack121 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Try some of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=studies+in+US+on+racial+bias&oq=studies+in+US+on+racial+bias&aqs=chrome..69i57.12828j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 and here: https://www.google.com/search?q=studies+on+systemic+racial+bias+in+the+U.S.&oq=studies+on+systemic+racial+bias+in+the+U.S.&aqs=chrome..69i57.31551j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Some people dispute the existence of "human rights", we still don't specify that Amnesty International monitors "perceived" human rights abuses — partly because it's just sort of self-evident that those abuses are perceived by the organization. If the problem is just the term "systemic racism" it might work to replace that term with a quote from an activist. e.g:

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international activist movement, originating in the African-American community, that primarily campaigns for issues related to racial justice. Black Lives Matter activist Alicia Garza describes the movement as "a response to the anti-Black racism that permeates our society and also, unfortunately, our movements."... Nblund ^talk 23:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Ibuypower1337 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversial Pepsi Commercial

The commercial that cause a lot of issues was the Pepsi Commercial with Kendall Jenner. People had opposing views and a lot to say because of the relation of this ad to black lives matter's protests and the way that it insufficiently portrays it. People know everyday that these protests are not as calm and friendly as the ad portrays. They used Kendall Jenner as a peacemaker in the commercial to show unity within the people and the police. There is ongoing police brutality that can be seen on the news and social media daily and therefore it is difficult for society to accept the message that they were trying to promote. In fact, the ad got so much controversy that the commercial was pulled from the Pepsi campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabbaGg (talk • contribs) 02:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

umm, what?Happy monsoon day 20:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

YouTube source

Seeking consensus on whether YouTube source currently cited at fn 261 in the "Lack of focus on intraracial violence" section is appropriate for inclusion. My perspective is that it fails WP:SPS, "characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content" and per that guideline, we should consider that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources" and cite those instead. (As the other two paragraphs in that section do.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It might be a reliable source for the opinion of Larry Elder (assuming that's notable) but it's not a reliable source for a claim of fact about homicides in Chicago. Nblund ^talk 21:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

As Innisfree987 wrote (citing the policy), if Elder's opinion about Black Lives Matter and gun violence in Chicago is worth writing about, a reliable secondary source probably would have written about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Why was my section deleted in the talk page?

I asked in the talk page last night why this was in the category of Anti-Black racism and I see it has been removed? Why? I posted it here so we can discuss this issue as I don't believe there is any reason to label BLM as a movement that is racist against Blacks. I don't mind people disagreeing but please use the talk page instead of trying to silence my question. Xanikk999 (talk)

If you click on "view history" at the top of this page you will notice that the editor who removed your comments left a brief but accurate summary by way of explanation. Edaham (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Lives Matter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160709230239/http://blacklivesmatter.com/the-black-lives-matter-network-advocates-for-dignity-justice-and-respect/ to http://blacklivesmatter.com/the-black-lives-matter-network-advocates-for-dignity-justice-and-respect/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205230646/http://blacklivesmatter.com/ to http://blacklivesmatter.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gracemorgan192.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yusra Khogali's remarks about Trudeau should be included in Canada section

Previous discussions about this topic have not led to any clear consensus or resolution. The way I see it is pretty straightforward: BLM's Toronto chapter has been deemed notable enough for inclusion in the article. Like other groups under the BLM flag, the chapter presents itself as a champion against anti-black racism. Yet clear evidence exists -- documented in multiple reliable sources including Canadian news magazine Maclean's, Vice.com, International Business Times, and Counterpunch -- that the chapter's outspoken co-founder called the Canadian PM a "white supremacist terrorist" in a public forum in her capacity as a BLM representative. Such hate-mongering seems in direct opposition to BLM's mission of healing racial divides. Wikipedia editor Malik Shabazz has repeatedly said that these well-documented statements from Ms. Khogali are "non-notable nonsense." We can't have it both ways. If the Toronto chapter is notable, then its co-founder's racially charged public outbursts are notable as well. Scaleshombre (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You wrote: "Previous discussions about this topic have not led to any clear consensus or resolution." Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that's true. (It isn't, but that doesn't matter right now.) WP:ONUS says you need to build consensus for inclusion, and you acknowledge that there is no such consensus. So please drop the stick. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify: There's been no consensus on either side, so the issue still appears to be wide open.Scaleshombre (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course it should be included under the Canada section. But Malik is right, don't include while there is opposition. In the latest discussion I was refereed to a RSN discussion about some sources, but the conclusion there was "some were unreliable". Not necessarily all, and other sources provided in the previous discussion are not even mentioned there. I don't see any consensus for including it or not including it. Could watching editors weight in on the sources not specifically discussed in the RSN? I have made my point in the aforelinked discussion and stand with it - more so under the Canada subsection, since one of the arguments against inclusion was that it was "just" the co-founder of the Canada charter. Well then, I guess for that subsection it's relevant... Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reliability issue, but this person doesn't seem notable: the story appears to have received scattered coverage early this year, most of it coming from opinion pieces that are critical of BLM. I don't see this person mentioned as an important figure in the movement or a leader of BLM writ-large - in fact, I don't see much coverage of her outside of this specific statement. Our goal is to help people understand BLM, so we should avoid cherry-picking statements that aren't representative of the group. Nblund ^talk 02:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It's undue to include. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I did add another source and there was no further opposition (in response to edit summary). Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing quality isn't really the issue though. Does the comments of one person in Canada really warrant mention on this entire BLM page? Unless we can show wide coverage, I'm inclined to think they're not very consequential comments and thus not worthy of mention here. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Canada section / NPOV

Why are these reports due weight and these are not? The coverage is the same. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I now join multiple others[8][9][10][11] in questioning the neutrality of the article (and certain removals[12]). I'm tagging it to bring attention to the issue. We can start by the Canada section. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, having now tagged the article, please "point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" as required by the template's instructions or I will remove the {{POV}} template. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have started with an issue of do weight in the Canada section, to which I am still waiting a response. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain what issues are you raising that haven't already been addressed in the discussion above? Otherwise the tag should be removed. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you not read this section and the discussions posted? Why are these reports due weight and these are not? The coverage is the same, yet unfavorable reports are dismissed, compromising the neutrality of the section. Other users pointed out to the same, as well as questioning the neutrality of the article as a whole. For instance, the criticism section has been considerably reduced on claims of "undue weight" concerning the sources, whilst local newspapers like "StarTribune" and sources like "Democracy Now" are used in the sections about the groups actions and protests. How come? I think both me and other editors have exhausted our options since changes are contested and there is no consensus regarding the issue. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This has entered WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. Try reading WP:BLP for starters. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said before: the entry provides a summary of the actions, ideology and structure of BLM. Cherry picking statements from individual members is potentially misleading. We only quote the founders of the movement a handful of times, and we don't mention the organizers of any of the other international chapters - focusing on this one is undue. There were also sourcing issues and problems with weasel words (who criticized her?), but the due weight and relevance problems render those issues kind of moot.

It looks like Democracy Now is cited once to say that Quentin Tarantino and Cornel West participated in a protest - I'm sure there are other sources for that if needed, but it doesn't sound like you're raising a sourcing issue there. If you want to raise a general issue about the scope of the article, I think that's a conversation worth having, but I don't think it's productive to just say you aren't happy with the article. Nblund ^talk 02:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not cherry picking, it's what received criticism covered by the same sources used on the rest of the section. I don't see how mentioning this on the Canada section is undue. If it was on the lead I would agree. How come the entire Canada section isn't undue then - aren't we "cherry picking" protests etc? The same goes for the other protests. It is a matter of sourcing because either the sources establish due weight for including protests carried out by any given chapter and the repercussion by other actions by the members of the movements such as about what they say about race, or they don't. You can't have it both ways, not without being unbalanced at least. This point hasn't been raised before as far as I can see. There are even protests in which the only source covering them is The Huffington Post or Common Dreams or Salon (see below, and the aforementioned sources in the article). Yet these are a no go? I don't see how they are any better or worse. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Democracy Now is cited once to say that Quentin Tarantino and Cornel West participated in a protest whilst the only source covering such protest is Salon... Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the whole article cherry-picking? Don't all protests matter? Why does this article only cover the ones about black lives? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there, but beware Poe's law. It will come to bite you in the ass... --Jayron32 11:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think some of the coverage of individual protest events would be better if we placed it in a list of notable BLM protests , but I think that's a formatting problem than a neutrality issue. As far as I can tell, everyone agrees that BLM engages in protests, and everyone agrees that those protests are usually inspired by police shootings. I haven't seen anyone arguing that the protests covered here aren't representative of the movement as a whole. So it's not really a "cherry picking" issue at all - it's the whole bowl of cherries.

I'm not sure I follow your logic: just because something appeared in the same source doesn't mean it's relevant to the entry. By that argument, we would seemingly be able to include anything that appeared in the Canadian press in that section. Again: we don't even cover what movement founders like DeRay McKesson say about race, so why would we cover this far less prominent individual? Nblund ^talk 17:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, it's just "something on the same source", completely unrelated, nothing to do with the subject of the article... As to why, maybe because it was a racist remark from a group that claims to fight such things, which generated a controversy, with just as much coverage as any other of the group's action listed in the article? Do you see the POV issue? Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a remark from BLM at all. Those are remarks from a co-organizer from one chapter, one of them appears to come from a personal Facebook page and predates BLM all together. It sounds like you believe we should include statements from this relatively more obscure BLM member because it casts BLM in a negative light, but that's not really a good reason to include anything. Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. Nblund ^talk 01:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Co-founder. Why include anything at all that concerns just one chapter and that received just as much coverage as this, as a matter of fact from the same sources? The whole Canada sub-section - and more - should be purged by your standards of notability. Criticism, if just as relevant as anything else under that section, should not be omitted, otherwise it makes the text unbalanced. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

fine. I have started a discussion at the noticeboard to get the opinion of uninvolved editors. I believe there is an NPOV issue as expressed above, and I have reintroduced the content but with additional sources... I don't see the points that I raised above being adequadly responded to (some do not have a response at all, specially regarding the comparison with other similar sourced content, yet I'm still being reverted without further discussion).Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with Saturnalia on this one. A very public face of the movement in Canada made some very hateful/racist public statements and it received quite a bit of coverage. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"For what it's worth" as well, it seems to me that the Canada section should have a mention of this information. I read the sources offered by Saturnalia and there seems to have been information that we would generally include offered. Certainly I stand to be corrected, but so far this is my impression. Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As to sources, the Toronto Sun (tabloid) and "The Blog" at HuffPost are not RS, and rightly not as in this case it appears that the claim about the "sub-human" comment is sourced solely to a Reddit post--I looked for independent source verification but what mentions I could find only led back to a Sun article citing a Reddit post. So to me that part's out, completely.

Then the question is whether the comment about Trudeau merits mention. On the one hand I'm generally inclined toward expanding the page's global coverage; but I also think several other editors are right in noting that as the page is supposed to be a representative overview of the movement, it must deal in major events, not collect every individual comment that draws any press attention at all, even for much more significant figures in the movement. I'm not sure including this one would be even-handed. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"unjust killings" vs "killings deemed unjust"

The lede was recently revised to say "BLM regularly holds protests against unjust police killings of black people...." BLM has protested in cases with a range of legal outcomes, including ones where the officers were exonerated. In view of that, would it be more neutral to say "police killings...it deems unjust"? Scaleshombre (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure either is needed; we could just delete "unjust" without losing accuracy. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit would make the most sense to me. PureRED | talk to me | 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)l

Would it be better to say "'What they consider to be unjust police killings of black people"? Gandydancer (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I'm just not seeing what any of these options adds, except to introduce a WP:WEASEL problem. Returning it to BLM "regularly protests police killings of black people" already contains the information that the protestors view these killings as unjust (that's conveyed in the fact that they are, you know...protesting); so adding a qualifier doesn't add info, it just introduces the question of whether that view is legitimate. And that debate is already covered in a different part of the lead. I think for concision and neutrality, removing "unjust" from the second sentence is the best solution. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed "unjust." Scaleshombre (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is too one-sided

There should be coverage of their riots and controversial methods as how some people consider this group to be a terrorist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.7.77 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that support those claims? Alt-right and white nationalist propaganda doesn't count, by the way. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian, it's those "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources" as you call them who has proven time and time again that they are propaganda sources. Constant smears and lies about everything. The fact that none of Infowars, Breitbart, etc are allowed on wikipedia, but garbage like CNN, The Guardian, NY Times, WaPo, etc are, is just an excuse to oppress the truth. Those latter sources are far left globalist, establishment garbage who would never say anything politically incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSB95 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ian, I'm not sure about it being a terrorist organization, but there is definitely negative sentiment. Not to state this would be a deliberate obfuscation. There have been calls to classify them as a hate group or terrorist organisation including debates on legislation at the state level. I'm new so I'm not 100% sure that these are considered reputable sources but I'm sure I could find several more:

http://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-protests-police-646050 "Despite BLM’s efforts to bring awareness to the plight of being black in America, as well as advocating for social justice for minorities, the group has faced strong opposition from law enforcement and race-related support groups like Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter. In fact, the overall tone toward BLM, which aims to bring an end to the oppression experienced by African-Americans, is unfavorable, according to a new poll."

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Police-Union-President-Calls-Black-Lives-Matter-Protesters-Outside-Philadelphia-Officers-House-a-Pack-of-Rabid-Animals-Report-442452063.html "McNesby went on to describe the protesters as "racist hate groups determined to instigate violence."

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/apr/17/sheriff-david-clarke-us-senate/pro-sheriff-david-clarke-group-says-clarke-called-/ "Milwaukee’s conservative black Sheriff CORRECTLY says ‘BLACK LIVES MATTER’ is a terrorist movement, a hate group, and calls it ‘Black LIES Matter.’"

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/08/27/state-gop-debates-condemning-hate-groups-and-that-might-include-black-lives-matter/fpCfgpcbEnolqob7S9qVBN/story.html "The issue, members say, is whether to specifically denounce some left-leaning groups — including Black Lives Matter — along with neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan as “reactionary and radical.” " "Citing his Jewish roots, Lamb wrote in the e-mails that Black Lives Matter and other organizations on the left “preach hatred against me and my people to the same extent as those white supremacists and need to be named." In his e-mail exchanges with other committee members, Lamb offered additional language naming specific groups: “including, but not limited to, KKK, nazi and neonazi groups, white supremacists, BLM and antifa.” "

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/08/31/gop-senate-candidates-divided-over-proposal-label-black-lives-matter-hate-group/j7ydrCjYWY1M47j5dcBFUO/story.html "“Any group that advocates for violence against others especially law enforcement and groups that actively engage in violence such as ANTIFA (the leftist anti-fascist group that condones violent confrontations) should be addressed in the resolution,’’ said Diehl’s chief campaign strategist, Holly Robichaud, in a statement. She confirmed that Diehl includes BLM among those groups."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/31/splc-the-much-cited-designator-of-hate-groups-explains-why-white-lives-matter-is-one/?utm_term=.4212d19e1806 "Thousands signed Change.org petitions, the center received direct requests and conservative commentators joined the chorus of critics demanding a hate group designation for Black Lives Matter, claiming its rhetoric was inflammatory."

This being a topic that I follow, I'm curious how we maintain neutrality on some subjects. Why are some news agencies or other organizations not allowed because they have a perceived political bias to the Right while news agencies or other organisations that have a perceived political bias to the political Left dont face the same scrutiny? A good example of this is the SPLC Hate & Extremism webpage landing. There are links to white nationalist hate groups and links to "terror from the far right" but it lists nothing about terror organisations of the Left political ideology. Is this because it is the content most sought after or the content they want a user to see and read first? -Fusion2186

• Some points
  • Firstly, the pages which will answer your question regarding neutrality
    • wp:n
    • wp:v
    • wp:rs
    • wp:npov
    • wp:due
  • secondly, you can edit wikipedia pages yourself. If you have a list of sources like that you can use them to compile information and add it to the main article. I suggest doing the above reading before you start compiling. Since most of your sources are news media, you would want to look at our policies on news sources as well as a non-exhaustive list of suggested sources which have met our guidelines for wp:RS
    • A list of sources in the americas
    • Policy on reliable sources specifically relating to news organizations

I think if you first familiarize yourself with the intentions of the project here and then put together an edit, it has a chance of being included. If you are not sure, feel free to post your specific proposal on the talk page and other involved editors will assist in verifying its suitability for inclusion. Addition: Could I be a stickler and ask that you sign your posts with four tildes to help the page formatting and to make it easier for your fellow collaborators to find your info and contributions to the project. (these four tildes ~~~~ can be added automatically at the bottom of the posting window)

Edaham (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for omitting the four tildes. My appologies. I will read over these policies. Fusion2186 (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

Guiding principles

According to the Black Lives Matter website, there are thirteen guiding principles that should apply to those who choose to become involved under the Black Lives Matter banner, among them Diversity, Globalism, Empathy, Restorative Justice and Intergenerational.

SUGGESTED EDIT: Change above link text for Intergenerational to display as Intergenerationality

Grammatically incorrect. Fusion2186 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only; protection is not meant to block these types of edits. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Lives Matter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161108043142/http://gothamist.com/2015/04/07/black_lives_matter_movement.php to http://gothamist.com/2015/04/07/black_lives_matter_movement.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160923190029/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160807/downtown/paul-oneal-killing-spurs-hundreds-march-through-downtown to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160807/downtown/paul-oneal-killing-spurs-hundreds-march-through-downtown
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151224000123/http://www.theroot.com/blogs/the_grapevine/2015/01/essence_dedicates_february_cover_to_blacklivesmatter.html to http://www.theroot.com/blogs/the_grapevine/2015/01/essence_dedicates_february_cover_to_blacklivesmatter.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160921203253/https://hclib.bibliocommons.com/list/share/642401647_hcl_social_media/669879377_read_this_blacklivesmatter_reads_for_teens to https://hclib.bibliocommons.com/list/share/642401647_hcl_social_media/669879377_read_this_blacklivesmatter_reads_for_teens

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

While reading the article, everything appears to be relevant to the topic. The information is clear and concise as well as understandable to most if not all viewers. Additionally, the article remains neutral in its position of protests as well as the associated social media content. Each frame, thus, remains unbiased and strictly informative. Clicking on the citations, I can see that the links work and transfer to credible sources.

Daisygmendez (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Daisy Mendez

Daisygmendez It's not what is in the article, it's what is left out. Check the talk page archives, there are several neutrality disputes over content being washed away from it. The "good article" seal on this just shows how much of a joke the seal is. You put it there and it sticks. Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Seattle/Sanders event

I undid this edit because looking into the woman involved, Marissa Johnson, I learned, "She is founder of a Seattle-based justice group called Outside Agitators 206,[4] which was disbanded when she became a cofounder of the Seattle chapter of Black Lives Matter c. September 2015. [5]" This means that at the time she jumped on Sander's stage in August she was not a member of BLM and there was no Seattle chapter. Just because a news outlet says something we do not have to repeat it. Carptrash (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This shows up too. "This helps explain how Johnson and fellow activist Mara Jacqueline Willaford could stage a protest at Westlake Park that others in Seattle’s Black Lives Matters movement didn’t know about or necessarily condone." Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was agreed that BLM is a movement, not an organization. It doesn't have formal membership. By the criteria you're using, BLM only consisted of a couple of hundred people across the country, and that obviously isn't true. GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Seattle-Sanders event is already mentioned in a lower section, it probably doesn't need to be mentioned twice. Nblund ^talk 20:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Black Lives Matter is not a movement

I noticed an issue in the article. The article consistently refers to Black Lives as a movement. However, it is actually a network of around 30 decentralized chapters. The founders of this network as well as those involved are very specific about this point (check this blog post from Patrisse Cullors, one of the community organizers behind black lives matter https://medium.com/@patrissemariecullorsbrignac/we-didn-t-start-a-movement-we-started-a-network-90f9b5717668). The movement that Black Lives Matter is a part of is the Movement for Black Lives which includes several other organizations such as BYP 100 and Dream Defenders. I think ti would be very prudent to change this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.25.62 (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the nomenclature is complex, and I think there are some spots where the article could be clearer about distinguishing The Black Lives Matter Network (the organization within the social movement the Cullors helped found) and Black Lives Matter (the social movement itself). This article is intended to be about the social movement, although information about the network is also relevant, I don't think anyone intends to conflate the two. I would welcome and suggestions or edits that might help clarify that distinction. The term "Movement for Black Lives" may not help clarify things: M4BL is also the name of a specific organizational network (link). Nblund ^talk 22:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Lives Matter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226205743/https://www.elephrame.com/textbook/protests to https://www.elephrame.com/textbook/protests

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What do we do with this?

"Vandal spray-paints 'Black Lives Matter' on Fraternal Order of Police lodge" [13] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)