Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Quote from David Clarke (sheriff) in Lead

Is it WP:DUE to place a quote from David Clarke, a very conservative sheriff and Trump supporter, in the Lead section? Or at least state that David Clarke has a political agenda as well as a bias? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of quoting people in the lead section the way this article does -- I would just summarize the criticism instead of attributing each allegation -- but I don't think it's undue weight to cite Clarke among other critics of Black Lives Matter. It would be different if he were the only critic cited, but he's not. Finally, I'm not a fan of his, but does Clarke have any more of an agenda or bias than the other critics cited in that paragraph? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing all those names and just summarizing the criticism. None of the people mentioned in that paragraph are definitional to the topic in the way that other people mentioned in the rest of the lead are. Certainly some movements have a or several leading critics who rise to the level of defining the subject (e.g. feminism has famous anti-feminists), but I don't see that as the case with any of the people in this paragraph. These names are just examples of people who voiced criticism, rather than central figures. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Innisfree987, removing all the names and summarizing the views with sources left, sounds like a great way to deal with things. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggested change:

"Black Lives Matter has been accused of being anti-police,[13] while some have questioned their statistics.[14][15] Still others complain that BLM should focus more on intra-racial violence,[16][17] and said that it did not initially focus enough on the fate of black women;[18] former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, has accused it of racism.[19]"

This way it leaves in the criticisms but removes the less notable people. Just a thought - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Good job. My main suggestion, because I prefer to use the active voice instead of the passive voice, would be to change the first sentence of your proposal from "Black Lives Matter has been accused" to "Critics have accused Black Lives Matter". I would also make some minor tweaks to some of the other sentences. What do you think of this:

Critics have accused Black Lives Matter of being anti-police,[13] and some have questioned its statistics.[14][15] Some critics say that BLM should focus more on intra-racial violence,[16][17] and some say that it did not initially focus enough on the fate of black women;[18] former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, has accused it of racism.[19]

It's largely the same, I just avoid the word "complain" and differentiate a little more between critics. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That's great as long as there are no objections to the changes, we should do it as you suggest. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both; I too think this is a terrific improvement. For my part I wouldn't mind not naming Guiliani either (while he's more notable than others, I'm not sure he's particularly known for his anti-BLM stance, nor is--as I read the sources--BLM particularly associated with his criticism), but this is already much better, I think, so I'll go ahead and put this version in, as it certainly doesn't preclude further tweaks. Thank you both for your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel we can use vaguely-worded "some people" attribution with citations that are purely specific criticisms by specific people; it implies, WP:WEASEL-style, a vague, broad-based criticism that the sources don't really support. If the people aren't important enough to be cited inline, then their opinions definitely are not important enough to mention in the lead; if we're citing it because these are meant to be broadly-representative opinions rather than something these particular people said (and relevant purely because they said it), we need to find secondary sources summarizing such broad criticisms. In other words, these sources support "Rudy Guiliani said this" (and only "Rudy Guiliani said this"), not "this is a general, broad-based criticism made by a wide range of critics", which the more general framing implies. The sources for the latter description might exist, but they're not in the article at the moment. I'm particularly bothered that the premise of this section was "should we put David Clarke's opinion the lead", and the conclusion was "leave it there, but put it behind WP:WEASEL words so it's not clear that it's his opinion." That's the exact opposite of what we need to do - we can, in fact, describe the opinion of biased people (even people like Clarke), but only with inline attribution so it's clear whose opinion we're covering. We can cite Clarke by name (although I'd be fine with leaving him out of the lead), or we can excise him from the article entirely, but we cannot transmute opinions sourced to him specifically into a nebulous "some people" or vaguely-defined "critics". Currently, we are citing all those opinions on the basis that these are people whose opinions carry weight; their names are as important as what they're saying. If they're not important enough to be named via inline citations (and we have no secondary sources lending any weight to these opinions), they should be excised from the article entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this gets at an important problem with the lede and coverage of criticism in general; what's tricky to me is how to fix it. As I've said above, I don't think any of the people originally included when this conversation began is important enough to understanding BLM to mention in the lede (they're all notable in other ways, just not as BLM critics). Moreover in most cases they didn't pioneer the points of criticism attributed them to; they're really just examples. It's misleading to put them in the lede as if they were, in fact, leading critics. At the same time, I also think it'd paint a misleading picture to exclude any mention of criticism from the lede (the US would, uh, look quite different if BLM had met with unanimous acceptance). The solution does seem to be secondary sources that summarize criticism. But that's firstly a matter for the body of the entry, as the lede is really supposed to summarize the body, not add new info. I'd be very happy to see the issue addressed in the body (I can help, I just probably won't get to it, like, in the next hour), as I think the issue of whether there are any secondary sources lending any weight to these opinions to justify which are included is spot-on. But for the lede for now, I think I'd recommend taking all individual names and primary sources out of the lede and leaving as a bare-bones summary, to be tweaked to reflect any eventual revision of the criticism section.

What say you all? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

My feeling is that we absolutely cannot cite specific, individual opinions in the lead while attributing them to vague "people"; it's a clear-cut WP:WEASEL issue, and in some cases actively misrepresents the sources by taking what we have sources for as a narrow specific complaint made by one or two people and using it to source the idea that this is a broad-based complaint made by large numbers of critics. We can remove them, cite them by name, or find sources for broader-based criticism, but I feel the version you wrote is flatly unworkable. If you intend to find appropriate sources, that's fine, but let's leave the disputed section off the article until those sources are found to avoid WP:WEASEL issues and misleading descriptions. If an individual is WP:UNDUE to be cited in the lead, then attributing their opinion to a vague "some people" only serves to obscure the fact and makes the problem worse rather than better. Specifically indicating whose opinions we're covering (so readers can come to their own conclusions) is fine; leaving them out until we have better sources is also fine. But editing their names into "some people" is silly and makes the core problem even worse. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Could it not read that BLM has been criticises in the lede and leave the specifics to the body of the article? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose if it were an extremely vague "BLM has been criticized" sentence. My problem is that the proposed version takes extremely specific criticisms made by extremely specific people (many of whom people are objecting are not noteworthy enough to cite in the lead), then presents them, directly, as criticisms made by vague nondescript people. That seems like a WP:WEASEL problem for me - it's always better to be as specific as possible about who is making a statement and why. If we want to say that a broad swath of the population criticizes BLM for something, we should find a source that says that, rather than citing two people and then using that to vaguely imply that a nondescript crowd of people is making this critique. Or, in other words, if that version was placed in the article, why wouldn't we place tags on it? "Some people have said XYZ" is not how we're supposed to be writing articles. If we had a proper source for broad-based criticisms, it could probably provide is with a middle ground along the lines of "people of this political persuasion / other group have said XYZ." But we don't have that now, and "some people" isn't an improvement when the current criticisms are sourced directly to specific individuals. --Aquillion (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That was the direction I was suggesting as it is undo wt to name most of these critics individually in the lede as they are not national figures with the exception of Rudy Guiliani. To be balanced criticism should be mentioned, but very generally. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure where there’s any disagreement here. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The question is how to get there. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're picking out critics to highlight, it seems like Trump or members of his administration would be of more current relevance than Giuliani.--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump administration

I mentioned this a bit in the section above, but shouldn't this article cover something on the views/policies of Trump and Sessions?--Pharos (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Except for some typically moronic things the president said while campaigning in 2016, have he or Sessions said anything specifically about Black Lives Matter? I know Sessions' Justice Department is focusing its domestic terrorism efforts on "black identity extremists" (a phrase they invented, and which they refuse to define or explain) instead of real, flesh-and-blood terrorists, but I'm not aware that either of them (or any other administration representative) has said anything specifically about Black Lives Matter? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There is this [1] Gandydancer (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In July 2016, presidential candidate Trump made his comments as the Republican National Convention started. Anything since his inauguration? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know though I think not. Is there some reason that it must be something from since he was elected? Gandydancer (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, what a politician says and does once in office carries much more weight than what she or he said while on the campaign trail. Of course, most of the rules that apply in general don't apply to Trump. But by the same token, if neither he nor his administration have said anything on the subject for 15 months, maybe their view isn't important. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work on political articles and I can't see where it makes much difference. However, since there has been no other response I take it that there is not support for adding anything. Gandydancer (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A timeline or list of killings protested

I propose creating a timeline of all the killings and protests, as a WP:SIZESPLIT from Black Lives Matter#Timeline of notable U.S. events and demonstrations. The timeline of BLM is extremely notable and comprehensive, just look at the RS. Let's not restrict ourselves to the BLM article. We have a plethora of photographs that we can use. wumbolo ^^^ 18:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

Hello, I would like to link the Blockorama page from the Pride Toronto Wikipedia to the section where this is described under Black Lives Matter Canada. Golde84 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Golde84: I'll happily do this, but could you be bit more clear in your proposed change? L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguity / Distortion of the BLM Movement

The BLM Wikipedia page explains the BLM from a fairly idealistic perspective. It looks at the movement and what it is intended to be, but I believe the article misses out on some of the realities of the movement. The article brings up some criticisms of the movement, but I think additional discussion is needed. Since the movement is without any true leadership and is adopted by many varying groups, the message of the movement can often times be distorted. The last paragraph from Movement for Black Lives statement about Israel has some discussion on this as it brings up how BLM is not monolithic. Many leaders and supporters are rationally and with well meaning advocating for justice for black lives, but many others are not. There are who join the protests just to vent frustration (not work towards a solution) and commit actions that are inappropriate. Additionally, some members of the movement miss out on the ideas of equality and justice the movement is founded on, and truly work from a mode of hate. Essentially the Wikipedia article should include information about the Ambiguity / Distortion of the BLM Movment because of people in the BLM movement who are not following the principles of the movement (which has caused the movement to be monolithic).

I believe this information is extremely important to add to the article because I think it may be what has lead to many people criticizing and opposing the movement. I think because the movement was not clearly defined it led to the creation of things like "All lives matter." If the movement was more clearly explained people may have not gotten misconceptions about it. For example from the Huffington post, "Don’t get me wrong, I believe there are many well-intended people within the Black Lives Matter movement. I also believe police brutality is a real problem. However, this isn’t something that only affects black people." may not have come about had it been clearly explained how the movement was highlighting the biases against black people. Adding this information not only helps to realistically explain the movement, but it may help to explain the production of criticisms. I think that discussion on this should probably be in the very beginning of the article and if needed continued explanation later.

Even though this is so important, I do not think I am qualified to edit the page about this. If anyone sees this and understands the importance feel free to take on this task yourself. — JohnNoDoeWik (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This opinion piece from HP is interesting but has issues, like: "White people are also victims of police brutality, as are Hispanics, Asians, and every other race. I will avoid statistics and comparisons as to which group experiences it more. I don’t believe that will help anyone. The fact that it is even happening is enough." Those statistics and comparisons show that minorities and especially young black males are more likely to be killed in interactions with police, so why avoid them, unless it suits an agenda. Articles like this are just opinions and avoid hard data analysis. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Using statistics in support of BLM

The BLM page should construct a new section based off of statistical data pertaining to the mistreatment of people of color. Data from credible sources containing information on discriminatory laws as well as police brutality statistics should be listed to reinforce the severity of this issue by using fact and logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel.ac.duggan (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So, the encyclopedia neither supports nor opposes...any topic. We just describe what reliable secondary sources say about the topic. At the same time, given recent press attention to a study relating police violence to BLM protests, as well as other research and data projects, I could see starting a section called something like Research, giving a neutral description of research spawned by, dealing with or otherwise related to the movement. You could just go ahead start that if you like. Or, if you feel there are reliably sourced perspectives missing from existing sections of the entry, you can just go ahead and add them where you see fit. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Pathetic political correctness

Users Drmies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drmies and Malik_Shabazz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Shabazz have deleted citations and links about Toronto co-founder Yusra Khogali who argued, accordingly to the toronto Sun, =that white people are “recessive genetic defects” and purportedly mused about how this race could be “wiped out,” according to a post on what appears to be her Facebook page in 2017 and also claimed during a protest in front of the US consulate that Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a “white supremacist terrorist” and faced controversy for a tweet posted in 2016 stating: “Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today.”= [2]

These claims are corroborated on many medias, and even by CBC which reports the citation : = On Feb. 9, Yusra Khogali tweeted, "Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz." with a photo of the tweet... Is it possible to have a more reliable source ??!! = [3]

User Malik Shabazz only argue there is “no consensus“ to justify the deletions... without invoking any argument about the veracity of the sources!! Since when users can decide by themselves if a source is good or not ? This is against all principles of neutrality! User Drmies claims there is no censorship, but it is clear that the reasons why any mentions about Yusra Khogali are deleted on this article are only motivated by political correctness as the racist comments of this black activist can be found everywhere on reliable sources on the net...--Flying Tiger (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• You need to settle down and stop trying to insult people. Accusing me of "political correctness" is just dumb, since this charge of "political correctness" is dumb to begin with. BTW I don't know who Khogali is, nor is he mentioned in the article. And if this is one little thing said by one person from one local chapter, it has no place in a main article. Imagine if we were to insert every dumb comment by some Republican county chairman in the article Republican Party. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's info re the tweet [4] which as the article states gained more coverage than the event at which she made it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Drmis, Khogali is the co-founder of the Canadian chapter of BLM !! This is not an article about BLM USA. This is absolutely not some minor local chapter instead you are a USAcentrist... Try to inform yourself instead of deleting what you do not understand --Flying Tiger (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed previously. My view remains the same: Khogali doesn't appear to be a particularly important figure for BLM - she's a chapter co-founder and most of the coverage of her deals with this event. We have little else beyond that. This edit also doesn't cite any criticism, despite being in the "criticism" section. Nblund ^talk 17:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Explanation for an uncalled for revert

I recently made an uncalled for revert here, by Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs). When I originally saw this change I messed up and clicked on [rollback (VANDAL)] instead of [rollback (AGF)], which did not prompt for a reason to revert.

If Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs) believes that my revert should be undone then we should have a discussion about the change here first, as it is a controversial change for some people.

To be clear, if I were to have a do over I would still revert this edit. This is because this is both disputed content, and we also don't typically add information to infoboxes before the main article. This way infoboxes are less cluttered with footnotes. Perryprog (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

In section 1.1, Earlier movements, the Civil Rights Movement should be capitalized.

Dragonballzeke (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

Please copy the changes from this diff: [5] 77.117.158.53 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the help! --Jayron32 19:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ways to help during this difficult time

User blocked, WP:NOTHERE. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a White Nationalist, I am curious as how I can help contribute to help this community, while supporting White Nationalism. The White Nationalist Guy (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC) The promotion of any point of view is absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Given your stated support for white nationalism, I don't recommend your editing on any page that concerns BLM, black activism, or white nationalism, as you openly stated your bias. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

I would like to add that BLM falls under the FBI definition of a terrorist organization. There have been many instances where BLM has committed violent acts of terrorism. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/309140-everything-wrong-with-the-black-lives-matter-movement https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/08/15/black_lives_matter039s_senseless_destruction_of_milwaukee_389271.html Rational Outlaw (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Rational Outlaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done: – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

https://blacklivesmatter.com/

1. DefundThePolice Lugara87 (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

You do not mention at all the LGBTQ goals that are a big part of the BLM core beliefs. 98.113.133.16 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Also a terrorist organization that promotes violence and continues hatred against all other non black cultures. 104.32.158.210 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

black lives matter

People is people no race change who we are I am a coloured girl speaking for every one I'm only 13 turn 14 no white or coloured race is perfect so why are you just killing black people we are supposed to be under the cops protection not endangered by them the are supposed to be protecting us not harming us I mean the presedent of the United states Donald Trump has nothing to do than stand infront of a church with a Bible Donald Trump you are supposed to know from right and wrong people is counting on you but you not doing your job you are just making yourself a joke something tells me you love being one if not change and show people you can be a better person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.140.64 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of the topic. You can help by finding and providing links to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources] about the movement. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

WP:NOTFORUM ——Serial # 09:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So who gets all the money to disperse that is raised by black lives Matter Incorporated? What state did Black lives matter incorporate in? Without more information about black lives matter included within Wikipedia data this site has become nothing but a publication for black lives matter. And since when were blacks better than any other nationality!? Fact: all lives matter!!! 2600:1000:B10F:985F:4979:7BCC:DA7C:3EE3 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Footnote/source #54 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed. 173.61.193.159 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:KDL. If somebody wishes to fix it they are free to do so, but simply because it's a dead link is no reason to remove it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Civil rights activists disagree among each other about tactics – why is this in the lead?

Every single movement will have actors that disagree with the tactics used, in particular in rather decentralized movements such as this one. Why is this mentioned in the lead? By giving such prominent placement, it seems to serve the purpose of suggesting to readers that BLM is highly divisive among civil rights activists. As far as I can tell, the text is covered in two sentences in the body of the article, and only mentions four individuals who have expressed disagreement over some tactics used. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's a whole section on this... Please don't be an annoyance. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

? There are two sentences about black civil rights leaders disagreeing with some of the tactics of BLM. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Black Lives Matter

I've created WikiProject Black Lives Matter for interested editors. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead saying that Black Lives Matter has disappeared

Why is this in the lead? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no such text in the lead AFAICS... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead ends with this garbage: "By the summer of 2017, the movement was getting significantly less attention, which some people attribute to Donald Trump's presidency dominating national headlines." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this content (cited to a single 2017 source) as dated and, in any case, not lead-worthy. If anyone believes that it should be in the lead, then they can come to this talk page and make their case. Thanks, Neutrality^talk 19:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Does not have any references to the cops shot because of the black lives matter protests this last week. Source: https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/las-vegas-police-identify-officer-shot-during-protest-2041743/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/01/george-floyd-protests-trump-black-lives-matter-minneapolis-usa/ Pyrojkl (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm sure it's listed at the proper page, which is not this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To hyphenate or not?

African-Americans or African Americans? What is the consensus? I must confess that I hadn't noticed the hyphenated version being so prevalent here... The African American article inconsistently uses both (why is the title not African-American)? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

As of June 2020, all 50 states and 18 countries have protested for Black Lives Matter making it the largest civil rights movement in history. 107.77.206.220 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheImaCow (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

I would like add a section on the corporation that currently donate to black lives matters including the W K Kellog Foundation and Ford Foundation. Ansu Mastu (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: ​Please show a "draft" of what you would want in that section. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft This will go under controversies:

The Black Lives Matter movement has come under fire for the funding that it receives from massive corporations many consider to be using the movement as a PR move. Foundations such as the W K. Kellogs Foundation and the Ford Foundation have donated large sums to the movement. Although the founder of the W K. Kellogs foundation Will Keith Kellogs was a known proponent of eugenics and Henry Fordmedium published anti-Semitic writings.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

The use of BLM is inappropiate as that acronym is and has always been used by the Bureau of Land Management. I am offend by Black lives matter using the acronym. Please stop the reference. 2600:100E:B132:F00B:2E8D:18AE:2460:A8EB (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't change things based on editors' feelings of offense when there's no reasonable cause EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of BLM has caused conflict in searching, was conducting research on the police shooting of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum as part of the Occupy action in Oregon in 2016. BLM is the official abbreviation used by the Bureau of Land Management in the United States of America and is referenced consistently on the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management . Failure to allow this to be addressed would be a rather large failure of moderator responsibility. 96.18.201.232 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC) EDIT: Perhaps change it to (#BLM) ?

What? BLM is a disambiguation page. Anyone searching the term will be taken there and they can choose the meaning they're looking for. It creates no conflicts it include the abbreviation here. There is nothing to change unless you mean we should remove the abbreviation from the article entirely which would be ridiculous.  EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Nowhere on the page is a reference to the connection of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and #defundthepolice. Per the organization itself, the two movements are not separable as #BLM created #defundthepolice and applied the pressure for responses from political leaders in 2020. (https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/ or https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/06/03/black-lives-matter-co-founder). There should be attribution to this and perhaps even merging wiki.Defund the Police with wiki.Black Lives Matter page. 96.18.201.232 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Politicians and corporations coming around to BLM

Please include a section or paragraph in the article giving for instance the example of Nancy Pelosi espousing All Lives Matter as recently as last year ( https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/2019/01/07/nancy-pelosi-black-lives-matter-federal-prisons-sexual-assault-police-killings/2500021002/ ), as one example of politicians who have "evolved" or changed their stance on this (flip-flopped when it was politically popular, but obviously keep that analysis out for the sake of NPOV). Pelosi and other Democrats, and even Mitt Romney are now doing nice little theatrics pretending to believe that Black Lives Matter -- espousing the slogan. However, these examples, along with all the other politicians and major multinational corporations going from treating the issue as political poison to cashing in on it to earn some Twitter points, should be discussed in the article. 66.169.133.247 (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "alleged" referring to St. Louis police brutality

The word "alleged" usually implies some sort of dubiousness to the claim. I believe there should be a citation here, and the word "alleged" removed. What thoughts does everyone else have? I'd be bold but I feel it would be better if someone who, a) lived in St. Louis, or b) wasn't white, or both, chimed in, as I'm out of my bailiwick. DancingGrumpyCat^talk | ze/zir or she/her) 02:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wasn't white" how about less racism from you?

.it says alleged because it's unproven, and also that every single statistic for cop killings show that there is no bias against blacks. Official sources such as FBI, WAPO and dept of justice show that unarmed whites have a higher likelihood to be killed by cops than unarmed blacks. Yashamaga (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Seperate page for the social movement?

This page mainly discusses the activist organization known as "Black Lives Matter", but there exists a broader social movement that exists around the slogan "black lives matter". I recently wrote a separate article with sources detailing the separate broader movement, but it was deleted because the editor believed the information was already here. Organizations and social movements typically have separate pages on Wikipedia, for example the page Black Panther Party is separate from the page Black Power movement even though they are related. Should we make a Black Lives Matter movement page for the larger social movement and all its intricacies?Mangokeylime (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there should be separate pages about Black Lives Matter as a social movement and Black Lives Matter as the network of activist organizations. The lead to this article states that Black Lives Matter is a social movement, but the infobox and the bulk of the article are about the (network of) activist organizations. There are continuing confusions throughout; for example, there is a section on the Movement for Black Lives' statement on Israel, which would be better placed in the page of the Movement for Black Lives organization. The page as it stands now muddles rather than clarifies the multiple uses of the term "Black Lives Matter". Kumar (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There have been many recent edits to this page, many of which removed the history of the organization pre #Blacklivesmatter to include its original founders and the organizations startup in the late 1990s (https://psmag.com/news/the-past-present-and-future-of-the-black-lives-matter-network). Additionally, there is an absence of links to the other # movements that #Blacklivesmater and #BlacklivesmatterDC have stated are a part of the #Blacklivesmatter movement such as #Defundthepolice. According to not just the leaders but the organizations press releases #defundthepolice IS #Blacklivesmatter and cannot be addressed separately (https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/06/03/black-lives-matter-co-founder and #blacklivesmatterDC twitter). Why were these relevant attributes of the organization allowed to be deleted? 96.18.201.232 (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that the Black Lives Matter social movement page should be split from the Black Lives Matter Global Network. It's a huge point of confusion... and something that ought be fixed in a timely fashion. I suspect this page is receiving a lot of traffic of late. Wikipedia should help clarify the distinction between the social movement and the organization, not add to the confusion. The way the article is written gives undue weight to a specific organization within the social movement by conflating that organization with the movement itself. GottaShowMe (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

George Soros Key Person 2600:6C50:7280:4616:E0FE:9C25:23F5:7D2A (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Dishonoured statues

I have created Category:Dishonoured statues (0) (talk) (first member was Statue of Edward Colston; it now includes a Stalin ;-) ). See also its talkpage for consistent & useful usage. -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

this is a welcomed category but 'dishonoured' seems like a catch-all term that could encompass many things, from a vandalistic graffiti to a statue being torn down. (PS: see Decommunization in Ukraine, List of communist monuments in Ukraine, Demolition of monuments to Vladimir Lenin in Ukraine, Category:Destroyed landmarks in Ukraine, Category:Destroyed sculptures, Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, etc. for other examples to add to your category).Alcaios (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) (I just lost my reply, will reply to first version) -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Alcaios: Yes, 'inclusion creep' is tricky (see also the cat:talk). That is why the category page has in its intro "... explicitly and more permanently dishonoured". This excludes e.g. paint throwing. and we'll see how this develops. Existing categories Dishonoured and Destroyed do not have this dimension. This is wikipedia, so development is open :-)

Sorry for the edit conflict, I was including other articles to help you. Alcaios (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

OK (I usually don't lose my edit in an ec; probably now bc the earlier post was edited). BTW, I have checked Category:Destroyed sculptures and lots of Ukrainian statues qualified for inclusion. You can take a look & check. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the new category is open for WP:DIFFUSE: subcategories for Ukraine, US-confederates, UK-colonialism, Stalin, ... may be created. I do not know the Ukraine history well enough to be specific about Ukraine. -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe notability is best secured when the statue itself has its own article. -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Organization structure

This article is missing information about how the organization is legally structured and should include incorporation or non-profit information. FinalNemesis (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

40.142.143.153 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ford did not donate to BLM. But they did donate to black lives movement. They are totally different.

 Done Removed, thanks. Existing source said the same, but also noting this article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ford-motors-funds-black-lives-matter/ ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• March against the Yanez not guilty verdict in the shooting of Philando Castile (35229974362).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Only in the Western world?

BLM appear to only exist in the Western world & have no interest in what happens elsewhere. The article should state why they ignore what's happening in the rest of the world. The vast majority of black people don't live in the West, so it's strange to exclude them. Is there an explanation for their narrow focus? Jim Michael (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

We can only state that with reliable sources. Otherwise it would be original research. No focus on Latin America or the Caribbean either, for that matter, it's all about rich Western countries. But if that is what the sources say, our hands are tied. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

BLM not a tax exempt charity?

The Internal Revenue Service continuously publishes and regularly updates its "list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions".

Publication 78 Data: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search-bulk-data-downloads

The Delaware corporation "Black Lives Matter Global Network, Inc." (no. 6194815; incorporated 11/18/2016) is not on that list of "eligible" organizations.

And the Delaware corporation "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc." (no. 6518139; incorporated 10/16/2017) is not on that list of "eligible" organizations.

It therefore appears that neither of these corporations is eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions.

So where is the money going?

"Black Lives Matter Managing Director Roasted for Dodging Questions on Finances, Antisemitism". Breitbart, June 10, 2020.

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Scott Gregory Beach: I am unclear what edit you are suggesting here, but it is worth calling out that Breitbart is a blacklisted source except for opinion. Further detail here: WP:BREITBART. If you have a desired change, either be bold, or make sure to provide sufficient detail here including reliable sources so somebody can review it and add. Best, Darren-M talk 21:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I took you advice. I boldly added a couple of sentences to "Loose structure". Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Darren-M: It appears that Scott Gregory Beach is correct. The blacklivesmatter.com website is not affiliated with the Black Lives Matter global movement. See https://www.complex.com/life/2020/06/black-lives-matter-foundation-not-affiliated-with-movement or any of the other articles that have come out in the past few days regarding this. MikeToddATL

Pogroms and Cultural Marxism

Why are the Pogroms and Cultural Marxism of BLM not mentioned in the article? --105.12.2.182 (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably because it's a figment of fevered right-wing imagination. Or did you have actual reliable sources attesting to this? --Calton | Talk 09:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Passing comment: Progrom seems a bit strong but, at a quick look, cultural marxism might have due weight (see WP:DUE and [6]). I'm not motivated to dig further, but some digging might be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

uhm

What is a big ol' picture of Osama bin Laden doing on this page? Possible vandalism? 71.34.119.126 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Commit/Convict/Arrested for

Not a forum. Try Free Republic or Reddit
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article cites statistics for the number of homicides committed by black people and the number of robberies committed by black people. No such statistics exist. There exists statistics on number of black persons arrested for crimes. And for number of black persons convicted of crimes. But there cannot be statistics on the number of black people who commit a certain number of crimes since, for instance in many states 50% of murders go unsolved and up to 70% of robberies go unsolved, making any claims about number of crimes actually committed a meaningless statement. This statement is thus false and misleading: African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population "known homicide offenders" yet more than 50% of homicide offenders in some states never even find a suspect (are unsolved) and less than half of those lead to conviction. This means that the statistic is misleading and meaningless. The statement that black people "commit about 60% of robberies" is also false. Black people may be "arrested" or "convicted" of 60% of robberies, but that may be simply because Black people are easier to arrest and convict, or that tracking crime in an urban center is easier in terms of finding a suspect. More than half of all property crimes go unsolved, and an even greater number than that go unreported. This whole "black on black" crime thing is a talking point of the right, but doesn't withstand statistical scrutiny or any sort of thoughtful analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:4200:74d0:a47e:18a2:cdb1:798a (talk • contribs) 08:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC) (Please sign your comment with 4 tildes.)

Misleading edit on Mayor of Olympia

Misleading is being kind. She later said "I know that what happened to me was not domestic terrorism.” She apologised and said “Once I stepped back and calmed down, I realized that those words were an overreaction to what I’d seen in the video,” Selby says seeing FOX News “twist her words” gave her “insight into the divisions” happening across the country. She did condemn property damaged. And the vandalism was graffiti.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the content about Olympia and Selby was deleted in this version.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Davis Polk and Holland & Knight

These prominent law firs are named after defenders of racial segregation, yet nothing is mentioned on their Wikipedia pages. Every time I try and add references information on this, another editor removes the information. Clearly, the removal of such information is against Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.207.74.159 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not understanding how this relates to this specific article about the Black Lives Movement. Are you talking about edits made to other articles (in which case, the posting should be made there).

Removing content is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines if: it is irrelevant; discusses a fringe theory, minor point, or is otherwise WP:UNDUE; uncited by a reliable source; or any other guidelines that define appropriate content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

BLM can no longer be defined as a "non-violent" civil disobedience protest. Please change/remove "non-violent" from the definition. The leaders themselves do not align with this definition. 2603:9004:800:577C:2C9D:9050:8F2:B4F6 (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Black Lives Matter movement in popular culture

Article tags have been added to Black Lives Matter movement in popular culture. If you have some time and can weigh in on the comments on Talk:Black Lives Matter movement in popular culture, that would be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Black Lives Matter have frequently and publicly called for violence recently. To suggest they are nonviolent is a flat lie and clear bias 71.215.128.35 (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 14:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

BLM founder Patrisse Cullors said they (the other co-founders) are Marxist trained and supportive of the communist movement in the United States in interview, there by causing the alt right to seize upon and try to discredit and delegitimize the BLM’s goals.

Source

Patrisse Cullors on video interview 2015 stated the following: “ Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.” 108.45.159.112 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I did a query on this and I am not finding reliable sources for this. It is not mentioned on her personal website or the Black Lives Matter website.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"dedicated to non-violence"

Cite the source Dudemanyeah (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dudemanyeah, Based upon the cited source, I changed "dedicated" to "favoring". There may be a better word, but it's at least more in synch with the source now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

White Lives Matter

I propose that section be split into a separate page called "White Lives Matter", to be focused separately on hate group. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Does it need to be split, or could a new, fuller article called White Lives Matter be created, such as the way All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter are handled in the Black Lives Matter#Counter-slogans and movements section (i.e., keep the section, add a {{main}} template?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

ZmeytheDragon16, White Lives Matter isn't really a significant topic. It was/is a small counter-response to Black Lives Matter. There aren't really enough significant events on it that would make a separate article appropriate. The current section of it here is 3 lines long. You can prove me wrong by expanding it here and then you'll have a better case for a split imo. Right now, I suspect it would just be a pointless stub. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Another option is to expand the Nationalist Front (United States) that discusses the White Lives Matter rally and send the redirect to that page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I think putting the content and redirect to Nationalist Front seems like the best option right now. I'm not convinced there's enough for a stand-alone article. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, Okay. I will remove the split template on the article page, copy the content for the White Lives Matter section to a new section in the Nationalist Front (United States) page, and change the redirect to the new section in the Nationalist Front article.

ZmeytheDragon16, I will look for a bit more info about the White Lives Matter movement to add to the National Front article, but would appreciate any additions you would like to make when you foresaw having a separate article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Steps  Done, including starting the Nationalist Front (United States)#White Lives Matter section and adding some content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Definition is blatantly false. BLM is not a peaceful or non violent protest group by any definition. Looting and rioting is not peaceful! Please correct the definition. 198.45.162.49 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a legitimate request per WP:ER. Lester Mobley (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cops are called peace officers even though kneeling on someone's neck for over eight minutes, shooting someone with a malfunctioning brakelight in the back, lynching someone over a traffic stop, shooting a jogger in the back, shooting a man in his home because the cop couldn't remember where she lived, and shooting a sleeping woman because the police had the wrong house by ten miles are all pretty much the opposite of peaceful. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Help needed over at List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests

There are some 700+ reported cases of police violence, we need lots of help to find reliable sources for them, if such sources exist. Feoffer (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, Is there some way to filter which reported cases are notable? Or, is there a way to group some of them by place and date?

I was thinking that it might be nice to add a column for outcome, particularly for the instances of significant injuries due to excessive force.

If the list could be grouped or filtered, I would be happy to help.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

For ones not already included in the article, there's an online spreadsheet[8] , you could sort it by city.

For the ones already in our wikipedia article, you can sort by Location. Feoffer (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, Your intention is to add all 700 or so instances?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

My hope is to include all the incidents that merited coverage in reliable sources. But many of the "numbered" incidents don't merit inclusion. Feoffer (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll work on it tonight.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Position on Israel still current?

First, as another user mentioned, the statement on Israel was apparently made by the Movement for Black Lives (perhaps not even that organization directly), not Black LIves Matter, so does this section belong here? Here's the article on the subject: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did-black-american-activists-start-caring-about-palestine/496088/

Second, that article is from 2016. I've been crawling all over the BLM and the M4BL websites, and I can't find a position on Israel anywhere currently on either of those sites. I've been doing a keyword search for "Israel" on all pages - nothing. Perhaps it's been removed? And if so, shouldn't that be mentioned? M4BL got an awful lot of flack for the wording of that statement back in 2016, wouldn't be surprised if the position has simply quietly "disappeared" from any public statements since then. If someone else can find it, please clear up the mystery!142.202.44.13 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Hat Wever

This is highly important to the Jewish community and may be important to inter-sectional researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice fly editor (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow the money

A California nonprofit public benefit corporation named International Development Exchange was formed on May 16, 1985. https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=01275657-3638077

International Development Exchange changed it name to Thousand Currents on May 3, 2017. https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=01275657-22294922

A Delaware corporation named "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc." was formed on October 16, 2017.

Thousand Currents is the fiscal sponsor of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc.

In 2017, Thousand Currents gave a "cash grant" of $62,000 to a California corporation named Black Lives Matter Foundation. https://thousandcurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/THOUSAND-CURRENTS-2017-990-PDC.pdf And in the previous year, Thousand Currents gave $28,130 to Black Lives Matter Foundation. https://thousandcurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/FY17-990-Thousand-Currents.pdf

Black Lives Matter Foundation receives cash grants from Thousand Currents, and Thousand Currents is the fiscal sponsor of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. This makes me wonder whether Thousand Currents is receiving charitable donations on behalf of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. and whether Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is instructing Thousand Currents to give some of the donated moneys to Black Lives Matter Foundation.

"The Black Lives Matter Foundation" Raised Millions. It's Not Affiliated With The Black Lives Matter Movement. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/black-lives-matter-foundation-unrelated-blm-donations

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cease and Desist Order"

Issued to Black Lives Matter Foundation

Issued by Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General

Dated "December 2, 2019"

http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Download.aspx?saveas=1520997+.pdf&document_id=09027b8f803ac14f

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hard-Left Organisation that supports the removal of police across the world

I have included some links for the people who don't have the general knowledge on this organisation. The BLM website also shows they are a communist organisation. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/12/make-no-mistake-blm-radical-neo-marxist-political-movement/ https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/how-the-black-lives-matter-movement-went-mainstream/2020/06/09/201bd6e6-a9c6-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html (Airline7375 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC))

Per WaPo: "As consensus grows about the existence of systemic racism in American policing and other facets of American life, longtime organizers of the Black Lives Matter movement are trying to extend its momentum beyond the popularization of a phrase. Activists sense a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demand policy changes that once seemed far-fetched, including sharp cuts to police budgets in favor of social programs, and greater accountability for officers who kill residents." The Telegraph piece is an op-ed. I don't see any mention of marxism on the BLM website that you linked to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Airline7375, please keep your point of view and original research off of this talk page and stick with what reliable sources actually say, none of which call BLM "communist".. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one who needs to keep the point of view out of this discussion, which you do by dismissing the facts as mere "point of view" and even in your claim as to which sources constitute reliable sources and do not. The affiliation of the Black Lives Matter movement with the Communist umbrella organization FRSO (Freedom Road Socialist Organization) is now well-known and well-established; under which its founders have been trained as Marxist organizers (as stated here by one of its founders https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=342) - and as cited here https://backtojerusalem.com/we-are-trained-marxists-says-blm-co-founder-patrisse-cullors/, here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/12/make-no-mistake-blm-radical-neo-marxist-political-movement/ and a growing number of other places now. The founder Alicia Garza is currently the leader of the FRSO/Liberty Road affiliate "Left Roots" and received training at the 2014 Mapping Socialist Strategies retreat, which was organized by the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation. Opal Tometi took over, as executive director, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration from Gerald Lenoir who was the leader of the Maoist-leaning Line of March group and she also attended the Mapping Socialist Strategies seminar on June 4, 2015. Patrisse Cullors (the one who speaks in the video, describing herself as peers as trained Marxist organizers) studied in LA under Eric Mann, a life-long Maoist and former member of SDS, the Weathermen, and the League of Revolutionary Struggle. There is no "original research" or "point of view" involved in any of these facts. And it all needs to be included on the page.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

change African-American to Black, many Black-Americans do not have origins in Africa. 206.176.144.9 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

All humans have origins in Africa. There are African Americans descended from the slave trade, and others who are recent migrants from Africa. Who are these non-Africa-related black Americans you speak of? Aboriginals are called "black" in Australia, but I doubt their small presence alone is enough to remove "African-American" from this page. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Secrecy and confusion

The domain name "blacklivesmatter.com" is registered by "GoDaddy.com, LLC". The registrant's e-mail address is "blacklivesmatter.com@domainsbyproxy.com". The name of the registrant is not provided. Why is the registrant's name being kept secret? There is a Delaware corporation named "Black Lives Matter Global Network, Inc." (no. 6194815; incorporated 11/18/2016). And there is a California corporation named "Black Lives Matter Foundation" (no. C3790568; incorporated 5/22/2015). Which of these two corporations is the article titled "Black Lives Matter" about? Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Scott Gregory Beach: This article is not about a particular corporation, it concerns the overarching Black Lives Matter movement. If you have queries about domain registration, you would be better off directing them to the domain registering company (which you seem to have identified as being GoDaddy). You may find the help page for talk pages useful to confirm what the scope is of topics here. Hope this helps. Best, Darren-M talk 20:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that the article is about a social movement, not about a particular organization. Since that is the case, the "Infobox organization" should be removed from the article because it gives the false impression that the article is about a particular organization. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Scott Gregory Beach: I think the infobox itself is useful, but I've amended the organisation type from "Activist organisation", to "Activist movement". I think this better reflects the content we already have elsewhere (especially the lead), which explicitly details that while formal 'chapters' exist, Black Lives Matters itself is an informal movement. Best, Darren-M talk 21:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Many people say that they donate(d) money to BLM. If it's a movement rather than an org, who receives the money? Jim Michael (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020 ( Marxism )

Remove reference to 'Marxism' as an aim of BLM in the sidebar. This is completely unfounded and the supporting references for this claim are from established right-wing agitating sources. The references quoted do not support the inclusion of Marxism as an aim of BLM in any way. 212.69.53.171 (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Aren't some of the founders self-described Marxists?- "She describes herself as a Marxist and a queer social justice activist" from- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Garza

 Done That was vandalism that has been removed. Garza may identify as Marxist, but that doesn't mean BLM is too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

They are "trained Marxists" according to one of the founders, Patrisse Cullors: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/video-resurfaces-which-black-lives-matter-founder-says-groups-creators-are-trained https://therealnews.com/stories/pcullors0722blacklives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyden (talk • contribs) 03:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Marxists https://modernsurvivalblog.com/current-events/blm-co-founder-reveals-they-are-trained-marxists/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/12/make-no-mistake-blm-radical-neo-marxist-political-movement/ TudorTulok (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• TudorTulok, please cite reliable sources, not blogs and opinion pieces. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If white lives matter can be tagged with alt-right with a weak connection, surely Marxism can be tied to BLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice fly editor (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ice fly editor, yes, if that were the case, then... but it's not. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose A founder of BLM stating that the organization is made up of "trained marxists" should be enough to tie BLM to Marxism. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Except that they didn't say that. One of them said that two of them are: "Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories." You are making the mistake of thinking two of them is all of them. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think that that should be enough to tie them clearly to Marxism. Besides, there are pictures of the 1 founder not being mentioned doing a clenched fist next to Nicholas Maduro [9]. It's therefore highly unlikely that she would disagree with the statement that "we are trained marxists." She didn't say she wasn't publically and didn't comment on the statement either. I think that 2/3 founders publically proclaiming to be Marxists and the other one being heavily associated with marxism means that marxism can be fairly described as an ideology of the organization. I think it is frankly outrageous that sources are being rejected from an encyclopedia because they are right-leaning. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"We actually do have an ideological frame, myself and Alicia [co-founder Alicia Garza],in particular are trained organizers, we are trained Marxists. We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories." BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors. Watch the video. Marxism is their ideological frame. Would anyone seriously be making the same arguments for any group in which the co-founders were self described "trained fascists?"

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Request to remove the two paragraphs in the "United Kingdom" section, specifically these two :

"In London, after it was defaced a few days earlier,[233] protestors defaced the Statue of Winston Churchill, Parliament Square, Westminster with graffiti for a second time. Black spray paint was sprayed over his name and the words "was a racist" were sprayed underneath.[234] A protestor also attempted to burn the Union Jack Flag flying at the Cenotaph, a memorial to Britain’s war dead.[235] Later in the evening violence broke out between protestors and Police. A total of 49 Police Officers were injured after demonstrators threw bottles and fireworks at them.[236]

Over the weekend, a total of 135 arrests were made by Police.[237] British Prime Minister Boris Johnson commented on the events saying "those who attack public property or the police – who injure the police officers who are trying to keep us all safe – those people will face the full force of the law; not just because of the hurt and damage they are causing, but because of the damage they are doing to the cause they claim to represent.[238] "

REASON:

The impression is strongly given that these have been included merely for reasons of political bias and/or to provide skewed negative associations, as they are completely irrelevant and have absolutely nothing to do with the subject ("Black Lives Matter") which the article is about. Vandalism and the other petty crimes mentioned were not sanctioned by the protest movement and are in any case not particularly unusual events, and unlike the Colston statue issue in Bristol, in this case did not have greater symbolic or public significance or effect. It would be more useful, interesting and informative if the article had included, for instance, information on the number of protesters and some of their demands.

The comments of the Prime Minister given here are also completely irrelevant to the subject. If he should be included at all, the relevant part of his speech, ommitted for unknown/questionable reasons, is where he says "“You are right, we are all right, to say Black Lives Matter; and to all those who have chosen to protest peacefully and who have insisted on social distancing – I say, yes of course I hear you, and I understand.'".

SpurredByLove (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the second request, regarding the Cenotaph, the source says: Even some supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement worried that the vandalism of the statue would only alienate Britons from the cause of social justice. But others thought the graffiti was spot-on, seeing such acts as manifestations of justifiable rage.

So I believe it has relevance there. The first event, re the statue, would need some researching to ensure it's not connected in any way (in which case, removal may appear correct). Regarding the speech, the former comment from the PM should probably be added. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There appears to be a discussion in this section about the merits of this change. Please note that edit requests should only be made once a consensus has been reached. Please continue this discussion in another section on this talk page and gain a consensus before reopening this request. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cultural impacts of the Black Lives Matter movement

I would like to create a new article for cultural outcomes of the Black Lives Matter movement. Perhaps Cultural impacts of the Black Lives Matter movement or another name that is meant to cover art, street art, music, literature, etc.

I am not finding an existing article like this... and this article has an Influences section where I suggest having a paragraph with a {{main}} link to this new article.

Just checking in here regarding this approach and article title... while I will start compiling information. Any thoughts or suggestions about the new article and its title?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I just found Civil rights movement in popular culture. Perhaps the title could be Black Lives Matter movement in popular culture.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Social network analysis and BLM

The primary BLM "hub" describes itself as a "Global Network". I believe that BLM is a social network and that social network analysis can be used to analyze and describe BLM.

The first paragraph of the article about BLM might be revised to read:

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a global social network. The network is composed of individuals and organizations. Some components of the network are affiliated with a Delaware corporation named Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. That corporation refers to its affiliates as "chapters".

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:No original research. Also, we're not here to promote a foundation that's exploiting the movement (not a "social network"). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ian, are you confusing the California corporation named "Black Lives Matter Foundation" with the Delaware corporation named "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc."? According to BLMGNF,Inc., Black Lives Matter Foundation is not affiliated with BLMGNF,Inc. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)