Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

Change "advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality" to "advocating for violence in protest against incidents of police brutality". Specifically, remove "non-violent civil disobedience" from phrase, and add "violence" in its place in the phrase. Mathew8980 (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Not done. See previous discussions on the "violent vs non-violent" topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like all organizations in the movement aren't specifically wedded to non-violence or to violence. Perhaps we should simply remove the adjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Marxism

I saw some online articles about Black Lives Matter being Marxist/communist. I'm not too interested in the subject to do further research, but I was wondering if it appeared in this article or if it wasn't notable enough.

Also, sorry to stray from my original question, but isn't "torch-wielding alt-right protesters" a little too antagonistic even with knowledge of who they are? "alt-right protesters" or something along those lines would be better in my opinion (I partially agree with the editor who wrote "Wiki's job to promote BLM?"). FredModulars (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that delve into the "marxism" bit and even if there were it's probably undue. The "marxism" thing is typical right-wing boogie-man propaganda, and there is no overlap in the Venn Diagram of people who claim that BLM is "marxist" and people who understand what "marxism" is. Done and done.--Jorm (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple of sources that claim the co-founder(s) are trained marxists. Here is one, and it includes a quote from a co-founder:

We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.

I'm not trying to antagonize the movement, but I believe this should be added somewhere if it is, in fact, true. It displays one of the movement's ideological focuses and shouldn't be excluded from the article. FredModulars (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't have anything there worth putting into this article. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the clarification. FredModulars (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Woah! A simple search on that quote reveals some significant reliable secondary sources verifying it, and demonstrating it's notability. It appears to be obviously not just a conspiracy-theory or right-wing propaganda thing. How tightly and how high up the sayer is connected to BLM should be looked into, which I haven't yet done, as should other factors of veracity. But, if she and her other "Marxist" co-founder are significant players then the matter would be very notable and includable. It would be important to introduce in a careful, dry, well-supported, and encyclopedic manner of course, but so far the matter appears to be very supported and very WP:DUE. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Without showing your work, demonstrating that you are supported by reliable sources, you have no leverage here. The only reason to label the movement Marxist is to dismiss their vaildity, which means it's all about political opposition to BLM. Nobody who understands Marxism describes the movement as Marxist. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's all keep on the correct point here. What Marxism is, and what anybody knows about it -- is immaterial when some leaders themselves declare outright that they're "Marxist" and are in fact "trained" so. That's a big friggin' hairy deal in and of itself -- having nothing to do with what anybody does or doesn't actually know about Marxism.

Nobody here is, nor ought to be, trying to label the whole movement "marxist" based only on this quote. Including just the specific supported facts (statements by one leader who was probably talking only about herself and one other) doesn't damn the whole movement.

If it were to damn the whole movement by implication, well that would really suck for the movement then wouldn't it? That's why it's important to introduce the matter carefully while avoiding any kind of tone that would unduly imply anything broader than the straightforward facts. But, very important and notable facts they do appear to be. And, include them it does appear we must. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We won't be including it. It does not meet WP:DUE requirements and appears only to be important to right-wing conspiracy theorists.--Jorm (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Won't be including what?

Nobody has yet to add even the slightest proposed text and references for anybody to consider. Yet, you know right away that anything about the matter will not be included? And, that automatically it must be nut-job stuff? It looks more like you (and your partner(s)) have instead declared a-priori that any mention of Marxism shall automatically be deemed not-includable by any means. That's some serious knee-jerking prejudice.

I made my initial comment only because I was surprised by the apparently very real quote and all the mainstream coverage of it. Now, I'm shocked instead by your and Binksternet's absolutist and preemptive obstinance. That's just not how it works. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see the Archives. That's why they're dismissing it. Unless you have new, reliable sources tying this to BLM (not just one of the founders), there's nothing to include. It's not a-priori, we've already had this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I'll take a look. You fellas sure give a different kind of impression though. Jorm and Binksternet gave no indication of any actual debate, just, you know, that sinister preemptive obstinance. I'll look in the archives for it. If I can't find it, I might ask for help. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind though that no debate is ever closed (as you know). When all those reliable mainstream sources about the matter begin with something like
"Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said '...trained Marxist...'"
, then the inclusion of the matter on the BLM page becomes essential.

The materiality and notability of the connection between the three things (Cullors, BLM, and the quote) is driven home by the sheer force of volume of all those reams of solid secondary sources making that connection as their primary first thought, if not making it right there in the headline. It's not driven one way or the other by our personal points of view. It becomes, in large part, simply required to prevent the appearance of POV on the page -- to diminish the current appearance that editors are actively trying to protect the image of the subject. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

By "solid" sources you must mean Breitbart, New York Post, and other unreliable diatribes. Because that's all there is out there. You can peruse a list of unacceptable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Every source labeling BLM as Marxist is listed there. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You referred to "the sheer force of volume" of all the sources making the connection. This argument is akin to "where there's smoke there must be fire." In this case, the fire is racism. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

then the inclusion of the matter on the BLM page becomes essential.

No, it really doesn't. The fact that one founding member made an offhand remark about being Marxist is not relevant to this page. It would be relevant on her own page, but it really has no bearing here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Those are fair-enough arguments (if flawed). In the end though, the includability of any particular text would depend of course on the actual text and the actual sources cited. Since no one has yet included any text to test, we're all talking about a bunch of vague what-if's at this point. It's probably best to wait until I or someone else (or one of you :-) ) has the time and opportunity to make some straw man text, then everyone can all BRD on it!  :-) 142.105.159.178 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Where in Archive? (Where's the beef?)

User:HandThatFeeds, Above you pointed to some kind of debate you've-all had that's in the Archives. There's a lot of stuff in the Archives. I'm not quite clear what you were referring to. Could you point it out specifically? It'd be easier if important stuff like that wasn't archived so quickly, which seems to be a thing here for some reason. Really, if nobody can see such big important decisions to verify them and their context, they can't be considered to have any weight. Make sense? If it's in the Archives, then it must have been decided that it's no longer material, or at least it gives that strong impression. A better way might to roll them up with a Template:Collapse, or something. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a search feature for the archives near the top of this page. Try searching "Marxism", "Marxist", or similar to find those discussions. Lester Mobley (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The main point though was that citing exactly where the case is made is necessary if someone wants to bellow out "It won't be done, case closed" and other absurdities. Otherwise, one is just blowing hard smoke. But, J, B, and H won't say where their particular "closed debate" actually is in that vast Archive ocean -- because there's really nothing there. Where's the beef? There's no beef, just smoke.

Also, my apologies on re-promoting the indentation. I had originally made it all the way left because my comment wasn't really in response to the latest thing said. I made it a subsection just now so there's less confusion on that. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Since apparently this is so difficult (it took me less than two minutes), try this first off. The best compelling argument anyone could make for including Marxist was blogs & opinion pieces, no reliable sources tying it to BLM.

Next edit request tried to cite the New York Post, which is essentially a tabloid. Not reliable. Two sections below that, another edit request that just says it's "dangerous" not to call them Marxist, no source provided at all.

This repeats in the next archive, just complaining we haven't called them Marxist without providing a single source.

So we have a ton of assertions, opinions and blog post, but no reliable sources saying BLM is "Marxist." No one has been able to provide any reliable sources for this claim in two years. So needless to say, we're a bit tired of it being dragged up as a political "gotcha!" every few months, when the people pushing for it have no way to back it up.

The closest anyone has come to making a valid argument is an off-hand remark by Patrisse Cullors, one of the founding members of the movement, citing Marx as "provid[ing] a new understanding around what our economies could look like". Trying to take that statement to say "BLM is marxist" is original synthesis. Until someone can come up with reliable sources claiming BLM is "Marxist," there's no point dragging this out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific links. It helps an argument a lot to show exactly what one is relying on for a foundation. I'm taking a look at them. It will take a bit of time (other commitments, etc.), but I wanted to get back to you and thank you at least. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is trying to ascribe specific beliefs to a movement without a clear definition of what is does and does not believe. BLM is not an organization. It has made some very conservative statements about what is does believe, but it has placed no limits on what is doesn't believe. This means things like the "Western family" were part of the philosophy, but aren't now. Parts of the movement have themselves as Marxist. If we limit ourselves to characterizing the movement only on what every organization in the movement agrees on, there will be very little in this article.

That's not how I read the archives. I read that there were reliable sources demonstrating some members to Marxism, but it falls down because it's very hard to say whether that's inherent to the movement. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki's job to promote BLM?

Wow, this page reads 100% like a advocacy piece for BLM. In fact, I doubt that the BLM organization would have written it much differently. Even every single paragraph in the criticism section ends with a note that somehow rebuts that criticism. Heck, the wiki page on Mother Theresa has more hard criticism than this page. Look at the lead paragraph as of right now:

"Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people."

Compare this, for just one example, to the lead paragraph on the page for the Proud Boys:

"The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist and male-only political organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. While the group claims to reject racism, several members have been affiliated with white supremacy"

If that is the standard, then the opening here would read like this (of course I would include citations):

"Black Lives Matter is a far-left, Marxist political organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. While the group claims to reject violence, several members have been affiliated with violent acts"

Personally, I wouldn't go quite that far, but it's clear this page isn't NPOV. Any ideas for improving the page in that direction, before I do it myself? 96.241.129.33 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Even though it's not technically required according to WP:BRD, it would probably be a good idea to get some consensus here before making major changes along those lines. If you can make say one small fix that truly does improve NPOV, then you could probably get away with that. It would also help build a reputation at the same time, which you could leverage to make more improvements -- slowly over time. It would also help to turn down the vigor in your expression to help send a message that you won't be a reactionary problem going forward. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know how it works. I shouldn't matter that I don't have an edit history. But people think they own these articles, and I'm pretty confident that passionate followers of BLM have been editing this page. It doesn't help matters that the Wikimedia foundation (which owns Wikipedia) openly supports BLM. Maybe there should be a disclaimer in the page, like news corporations usually use? I will propose some specific changes soon, with citations. I was asking for suggestions here first. 96.241.129.33 (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Except that the leads for both articles currently reflect what reliable sources say about the subject, whereas you have provided no sources to verify the claims you made in your edit proposal. Also, I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding here, in that “Black Lives Matter” is not an organization, whereas the Proud Boys are. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Not my discussion, but happened to noticed. I agree with the previous person that there are some criticisms missing in this page. Not to trash the BLM wiki, but the article does seem to sin by omission. I have been trying to add something myself, but the powerful editors keep creating barriers. Anyway....this is how the sausage is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.21.33 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, your comparison between BLM and the Proud Boys is... apples and oranges. The Proud Boys are a specific hierarchical organization with rules, leadership and membership. They're also well documented as being far-right & affiliated with neo-fascist and white supremacist groups.

In constrast, BLM is a movement without organization, hierarchy or membership. At best, you might find local chapters with those things, but BLM as a whole is comprised loosely affiliated people. You also won't find hard citations for the movement being "far-left" or Marxist, though you might find that for specific chapters or individuals. As for "promotes political violence," we've already hashed this out multiple times, see the Archives.

In short, propose specific changes you'd like to see to the article, but be aware that we've already had a lot of discussion on these topics previously. And don't compare this article to one like the Proud Boys, that won't work as they're very different subjects. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I would think for the purpose of full transparency, if there is evidence of the Wiki foundation supporting BLM, it should be addressed in the article. I don't think anybody would disagree if the sources were legit.PrecociousPeach (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The WMF is not Wikipedia though, so I don't see much "transparency" reason to call it out in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I can’t imagine that the WMF doesn’t support the general idea of “Black Lives Matter”. It’s a civil rights issue. I’m sure several of the higher-ups have voiced support. Maybe even organizationally. But that’s also really not WP:DUE. I’d imagine the majority of the world probably supports the movement to some degree, or at least some of the general sentiments expressed. Opposition to it, or dislike of it, is generally confined to a minority of people in America and Canada. Most organizations’ or peoples’ opinions on it aren’t due in terms of being a part of their encyclopedia entry, unless it’s a part of their public persona. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's ridiculous how right-wing Americans keep promoting an extreme version of horseshoe theory where even the most politically moderate, explicitly non-violent civil rights movement is somehow just as extremist as a neo-fascist terror organisation (just like Joe Biden is somehow the left-wing counterpart of Hitler ... though if you keep pushing the Overton window this hard to the right, though, eventually even the Proud Boys will seem left-wing – and the new right wing will have to be even more off the deep end than QAnon conspiracy Nazis who promote Pizzagate, Flat Earth, and Time Cube beliefs?), and even more ridiculous (and concerning) that they aren't immediately laughed out of the house. Here we've got an obvious (if inept) attempt to inject far right propaganda into Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you see this person's claims are right-wing propaganda or not, their edits should still be considered. If we truly want a NPOV we should be considering all possible perspectives. Now that doesn't mean we should just let anyone add whatever edits they want, but if the sources are credible and it's a valid observation many have had then it should be considered. I personally don't think the comparison to the proud boys is justified, but I also think that this wiki page seems a bit biased. --User:AlphaGamBeta 23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Propaganda claims should not be considered or given shrift, and continually demanding that they be given weight is wasting everyone's time. This is not a suicide pact. Idiotic edits are idiotic and we don't have to give them weight.--Jorm (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with you here. Propaganda has no place on Wikipedia. At the same time though, without careful consideration of other viewpoints and claims, we run the risk of writing a biased article that could become propaganda in itself. Objectivity means considering all viewpoints, even if they seem baseless on the surface they should be proven to be baseless before we decide to throw them to the wind. AlphaGamBeta (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. We considered those bad viewpoints and then we rejected them because they were bad viewpoints, and that's how this works. Case closed, job done.--Jorm (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The way this is supposed to work re published viewpoints is covered in WP:DUE. "We" (whomever that might be) are involved as far as WP:IRS goes and in determining "proportion to the prominence".Editorial determination of vewpoint badness isn't supposed to enter into it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's about "propaganda". Not all critics of BLM have been right wing extremists. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with anonymous IP address. The main sections read like they were written by mostly by supporters. The is unavoidable, as most editors probably are (and I've probably contributed to this probblem). In light of this point, I'm in favor of adding a NPOV disclaimer until we've had a chance to revise.

As for "right wing extremism propaganda", there plenty of non-extremists who have criticized the movement, and plenty of sources to quote.

There's already a well-sourced sentence buried in the middle of the article that BLM has advocated "a diversity of tactics", a euphemism for occasional violence. Some think it's justified, but it's not uncontroversial. Let's try not to let our beliefs color the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Motte-and-bailey problem

What is our standard for determining what can be part of statements like "Black Lives Matter calls for...", "Black Lives Matter supports...", "Black Lives Matter advocates..."

I believe the answer is, "things that people who say 'Black Lives Matter' believe". In light of that, it might be better to get rid of sentences that don't follow this rule or properly attribute them to their source. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Riots & looting

How can BLM be labeled peaceful when most have resulted in riots & looting? Plus in several cases murder or assault? PissedOffMeMa (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Our article doesn't label BLM as peaceful without qualification. Please read more closely. Also read the cited sources and our verifiability policy. R2 (bleep) 17:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The lede reads "advocates non-violent civil disobedience" without qualification. I don't believe non-violence is agreed by all BLM organizations. Perhaps this should be qualified? DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Decentralized

The first paragraph of the article claims to be decentralized. However, there is a recent Economist article which contradicts this.

Another change, the restructuring of BLM, could turn out to be just as significant: power is to be centralised. Ms Cullors has stood up to the boss of BLM's Global Network Foundation, which she calls the "umbrella organisation" for the whole movement. In taking responsibility, as she says, for the "onus of our successes and failures", she appears to be claiming leadership of the once leaderless movement.

That is because the foundation will control funds, dishing them out to officially recognised BLM city chapters through another new body called BLM Grassroots. The foundation is also moving away from doing mostly on-the-ground work. ... In October a BLM political-action committee was launched, to "bring the power of our movement from the streets to the ballot box".

This article suggests that the main meaning of Black Lives Matter refers to the organization, with defined leadership, and which is being centralized. Given that the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation is described as the "umbrella organisation", its significance should be directly noted. Furthermore, the article for Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation also calls it decentralised, which does not match with the Economist article, so that should be changed too. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This misunderstands the entire structure of BLM. There are specific organizations calling themselves BLM, and it appears Patrisse Cullors is trying to assert authority over those groups. But the movement as a whole is completely decentralized, much as the Civil Rights Movement was a collection of disparate individuals & groups. Even if Cullors manages to take over that foundation, it still wouldn't be a consolidated organization. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

I agree that the organization is decentralized. Given that elements inside it are trying to centralize it, that should be mentioned in a discussion of the structure. DenverCoder9 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Separate articles

"Black Lives Matter" is a commonly used phrase in protests and other events not organized by any Black Lives Matter organizations. It has an interesting and long history, varied usage, and is associated with a number of different beliefs. Many of the 15 million protestors who use the phrase are unaware of and unaffiliated with the organizations.

A good comparison is Hands up, don't shoot, All Cops Are Bastards, or Defund the police.

I propose separate articles for the organizations and the slogan.

Another comparison is Teetotalism, Temperance movement, and American Temperance Society. I'm open to many different ways to split things up, but it's odd that a single article covers the "Financial transparency issues" of these organizations and policing in the United States in general. This would resolve questions like, "Black Lives Matter being Marxist/communist" (above) or "does Black Lives Matter advocate/condemn violence?"

This would resolve a lot of issues around what the movement "stands for". The phrase is a symbol, which can stand for many things.

If we don't do this, we should definitely get rid of sentences like "Black Lives Matter called to defund the police..." and "Black Lives Matter organized..." A slogan associated with varied beliefs can't "call to" do something. As an example, most organizations that have said "Black Lives Matter" probably wouldn't say "Defund the Police". DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The entire point is that the BLM movement is decentralized. The organizations that exist are only a part of the broader movement, so this article encompasses both the wide movement and the individual organizations using the BLM name. If specific organizations are notable enough, they can have their own articles, but this one encompasses the movement as a whole. You cannot fully divorce the slogan from the movement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this page for the cluster of decentralized organizations? If so, how can "Black Lives Matter" act as a noun? Not all of them have called to defund the police. This seems very much like any other social movement, where there are many different groups and beliefs. We should get rid of language that suggests it acts as one unless "Defund the police" and "Black Lives Matter" are indeed inseparable, and I don't believe they are.

It seems like the "No taxation without representation" and the American Revolution or "Workers of the World Unite" and Socialism, where there are many different groups advocating many different philosophies/approaches. No one would write "No taxation without representation called for war with Britian", when some colonists were trying to secure a seat in parliament, others approaching negotiation. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If so, how can "Black Lives Matter" act as a noun?

This is like asking "How can the Civil Rights Movement act as a noun?" There was not an overarching organization to that movement either. You're fixated on the fact that the slogan is also used as an identifier for the movement, but that's just missing the forest for the trees. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not the point. "The Civil Rights Movement" is not a slogan. Further, we have no semantic method to evaluate the sentence "Black Lives Matter called to defund the police". Most Americans support Black Lives Matter and oppose defunding the police. In no sense did Black Lives Matter call to defund the police. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Civil disobedience

"Civil disobedience" means breaking laws or regulations of a government. Not all 15 million supporters of BLM support breaking laws. What BLM does oppose is racially motivated violence, etc.

Most major companies, including Bank of America, have come out in support of BLM. Bank of America does not advocate breaking laws.

The only mention of "civil disobedience" in the body is when an organization in Denmark that uses the phrase "BLM" broke financial transparency laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be possible that that BLM organisation in Denmark might be unrelated to this articles BOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Financial Transparency

Editor added section about a false accusation of financial impropriety. Per WP:DUE, disagree that this is notable enough to merit mention. Open to different opinions. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you here. Generalrelative (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Using only that one source, I'd agree. Seems like there was quite a bit on that matter, however, so a brief subsection seems warranted. Jlevi (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"We Believe (yard sign)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect We Believe (yard sign). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#We Believe (yard sign) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY polling in the lead.

I noticed some back-and-forth over polling in the lead with regards to what polls to include and why. But... the real takeaway here is that we should avoid using primary sources for polling, since doing so inevitably carries assumptions and ends up leading the reader to a specific conclusion that the polls themselves might not support. Can we find some secondary sources discussing public opinion to replace the cites to Pew? Those tend to provide more interpretation and analysis and let us avoid problems of eg. "are we comparing apples and oranges" or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's too in-the-weeds to be reciting numbers in the lead. RS have remarked on the rise in favorability over 2019 and 2020. I don't see the value in reciting specific numbers for subgroups and whether the favorability numbers have declined from their highest level or not. I'd keep "The popularity of Black Lives Matter has rapidly shifted over time. Whereas public opinion on Black Lives Matter was net negative in 2018, it grew increasingly popular through 2019 and 2020." but remove the rest Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If we're looking for a WP:SECONDARY source on the popularity of BLM (and its change over time), I'd suggest "Support For Black Lives Matter Surged During Protests, But Is Waning Among White Americans" by Michael Tesler at 538: [1] It's from back in August 2020, but could still be used to source a meaningful statement I think. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Effects on Crime

There was a claim that "Effects on Crime" is a synthesis. In the spirit of BRD, opening a talk page.

Note that WaPo and the star tribune draw direct lines to the timing of the violence (I'm not going to use the word "riot", and I don't think we should either). I'm a supporter of BLM as well, but it wouldn't be charitable to critics of BLM not to include the claim that the protests allegedly enabled violence.

More important than what happened in June, we should certainly include discussion of the long-term policy effects of the movement. I've been trying to write up positive effects for the rest of the article, but I wrote the criticism-specific ones first. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

See me recent edits. Your support for the movement isn't really germane here. The issue is persistent hyperbole and WP:SYNTH in the content you've sought to add. I cut down on it, and will leave it to the community to decide if the rest belongs here. Suffice it to say that statements like "a 5-mile stretch of the city was set on fire" when the sources only claimed that a 5-mile stretch had been damaged, or titling the section "Effects on crime" when all that has been shown is a concomitant rise in crime, are not in accord with core policies like WP:V and WP:OR. Generalrelative (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point about effect vs concomitant, thanks for that.

I can't stress enough that the criticism section should reflect what critics say about it. Most of the criticism about the protests themselves (as opposed to the policy points) centers on the crime it allegedly enabled. Whether we agree, our job is to report the sourced opinions of what a preponderance of critics say. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging, and I hear you. But here's the thing: the articles referenced here aren't criticism. They're reporting on the concomitant rise in crime. No one is saying –– at least no one has been cited from these articles as saying –– that BLM caused this rise in crime. One could just as well blame police for being snowflakes who can't handle reasonable criticism. I'm sure one can find opinion journalists making the claim that the BLM movement is to blame, but those would be different sources which would need to be assessed for notability on their own merits. We don't typically include the opinions of e.g. Fox News personalities who routinely make baseless claims of that nature. Generalrelative (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right that it's important for the sources to source criticsm. None of the authors of the articles is critical, but e.g. WaPo quotes people who are critical. I think it's ok to include an article about someone with criticism? DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. The thing to do though would be to quote and/or summarize the criticism. Here we just have reporting about facts without actually stating the criticism. Much, if not all, of the material currently in this subsection really belongs (in my view) in another article, e.g. 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest. Generalrelative (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think much of the material in the section could equally well appear in that article; the other article is very long, and these are the relevant bits taken out. There should definitely be a link to it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There is! It's the first "See also" subsection hatnote. But again, the issue is that presenting this information as criticism is really just implicit WP:SYNTH. Note that this is not the only place where this problem is apparent in the article. The next subsection ("Lack of focus on criminal violence") suffers from it just as much and should probably be cut entirely. Generalrelative (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut the two subsections. If anyone wants to re-add either or both of these subsections with new content –– i.e. explicit criticism published in reliable sources –– I would welcome that. And of course we can continue the discussion here if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my point, that's part of what the subsection serves: in order to link to the other article. Please don't remove before reaching consensus: especially the second paragraph, which existed well before the Minneapolis and had reached consensus. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Nobel Peace Prize nomination in lead

I can't see any reason or precedent for the movement getting a Nobel Peace Prize nomination being in any way notable for a standalone sentence in the lead, or to be noted in the lead at all. It isn't discussed extensively in the body which the lead is supposed to be a summary for, and thousands of people, things and movements get nominated for the peace prize every year. There's literally no limit, anyone can nominate anyone else or anything for the prize! And I don't see any consistency with nominations being lead worthy amongst other 2021 peace prize nominees such as Alexei Navalny, the Hong Kong Free Press, the WHO and Donald Trump, who's recieved 3! If the movement wins it or comes runner up or something otherwise notable and distinguishing amongst the thousands of nominees, I'm all for including it, but unless we are gonna start freely noting every single person, thing or movement to ever recieve nobel peace prize nominations in their leads, it should and has to be removed here. Davefelmer (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to move it to the timeline section instead? DrGvago (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this suggestion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose mention of the nomination in the lead and even the body. NPP nominations are not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't notability depend on whether they're discussed in a reliable, independent secondary source? In this case the Guardian reference appears to satisfy that. Or am I missing something? Generalrelative (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it definitely shouldn't be anywhere in the lead but I wouldn't be opposed to it being included in the timeline section of the body. It's not really a natural fit anywhere to be honest which lends itself to the point of not being included altogether but referencing it in a line at the end of the 'George Floyd protests' part could just about sort of work. Davefelmer (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I went ahead and implemented this (creating a 2021 subheading). Obviously if a consensus emerges that this sentence doesn't belong in the article then we can cut it. But at least in this position it's not presented as though it were especially significant. Generalrelative (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Davefelmer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don’t think simple nominations are due weight for an article unless they are extraordinary in their own right. There are, quite literally, thousands of people who can nominate as many people/things as they want for a prize - just as a comparison, Donald Trump got at least three nominations for the Peace Prize (that I recall, may have been more). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

among/st

'Amongst' is decidedly rare in US usage. 'Among' should replace it in this article.37.99.33.37 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

True, though becoming less so. In any case I've made the edits you suggest. Best to use standardized language, per WP:ENGVAR, as much as possible. Generalrelative (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Black Lives Matter-themed signs into Black Lives Matter

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

---

Black Lives Matter-themed signs was a POVFORK and does not seem notable enough. SpacetimeIsCool (talk ∙ contribs) 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I'm not sure it's really a POVFORK since there doesn't seem much of a difference in POV between the two articles, but that chunk of content will be much easier for the reader to find if it's here. And it is not overly detailed for an article of this level of generality. Generalrelative (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree. I do notice that the signs in question are not solely related to Black Lives Matter, but I can't find another article they'd fit in better. This seems as good a place as any, and I imagine if I were looking for information on them, I'd look here first. Aerin17 (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, this subject isn't notable enough on its own and I see no reason why it can't be merged into the parent article. — Czello 08:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Not much to really add to this article, but there's no reason that we need a separate one for this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - No enough info to support a stand-alone article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Given the above response, I've BOLDly gone and merged the other article into this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Good with me. — Czello 19:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

BLM study

A recent study found that police killings decrease in places where there are BLM protests. Where should this be added the the article? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/killings-by-police-declined-after-black-lives-matter-protests1/ X-Editor (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a compelling study, and Aldon Morris –– who is quoted as endorsing its findings in the Scientific American piece you linked –– is a well respected sociologist. However at this point it is simply posted on the Social Science Research Network, which does not conduct peer review. Once the study has undergone a peer-review process and been approved for publication in a reputable journal, I would very much support discussing its findings in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. Let me know when it has and then we could discuss adding it to the article. X-Editor (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

"According to The Washington Post, police officers shot and killed 1,001 people in the United States in 2019. About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black, making the rate of deaths for black Americans (31 fatal shootings per million) more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans (13 fatal shootings per million)."

Is this math not incorrect? If 1000 people were killed and half(500) were white and one quarter (250) were black that means twice as many white people were killed. Not the other way around. 12.152.125.40 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2021 (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. —Belwine (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's correct anyway, since it's relating to the proportion of black and white people. FDW777 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It (referring to the IP's statement here) is not correct. The concept of "rate" is super basic, so it is kind of intense that anyone could be this confidently incorrect about it. If one quarter of victims were Black, and Black people make up around 12% of the US population, then they are over-represented among victims by a figure of around 2:1. Generalrelative (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant the article is correct, perhaps the IP's use of "not incorrect" confused what I meant when I said "correct". FDW777 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: My apologies, I did indeed misinterpret what you were saying. Generalrelative (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2021 (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:

• George Floyd Memorial in Portland, Oregon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League corporate advocacy edits

@Generalrelative:, I see you reverted back. Just so you're, I would like to make sure you're aware that ADL has been overseeing edits, by at least 8 different accounts that have been systematically adding their own publications into numerous heavily viewed articles in an apparent attempt to promote their sources and get their organizations opinions into popular article. So it's like published authors going around sticking their own books to make themselves more relevant. Obviously, such POV pushing by publisher to make themselves more relevant unnaturally shifts neutrality and create due weigh tissues. please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy Graywalls (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is probably due and verifiable, but would be good to find seondary sources to confirm. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @Graywalls: Thanks for looping me into the discussion. I hadn't seen it. Taken on its own, I stand by my stated view that this content is well cited and WP:DUE. But if the community decides 1) that a context of systematic citation spamming exists, and 2) that this requires all related content to be removed, I won't try to stand in the way. Note however that editors agreeing with 1) in the linked discussion are not all stating that they agree with 2). These appear, to me at least, to be two separate questions which should be assessed separately when determining consensus on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Taking the knee" redirection

Comments are invited at Talk:U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present)#"Taking the knee" redirection at whether "taking the knee" (and similar) should redirect to a more general article. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

Change the "right-wing" media/commentators to something less biased such as "conservative" Viktory02 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Slightly on/off topic... but if people seriously consider an ideological classification of "right" or "left" wing to be more biased than the quasi-synonyms of "conservative" and "liberal", that's not Wikipedia's problem in my opinion. On that note, the discussion over whether to prefer "winging" versus "actual descriptions" is a MOS issue which would require more than just an edit request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Trans people and BLM

I think some content from this source speaking about how BLM affects black trans people could be incorporated into the article, but i’m not sure where. X-Editor (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I also found this source. X-Editor (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Photos needed in West St. Paul, Minnesota

Somebody should take a photo (preferably a series of photos in a panorama) of the fence depicted in this New York Times article. There's some time urgency, as the fence is apparently slated to be painted over in 4 days. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of section "Disagreement over racial bias"?

Both of the examples provided in this section were retracted by their authors shortly afterward, as noted, and the concept as a whole goes against the vast majority of the body of scholarly evidence. This really doesn't seem like due weight for inclusion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Effect of protests on police homicides and murder rates 2014-2019

For every 4,000 people who participated in a Black Lives Matter protest between 2014 and 2019, police killed one less person. Unfortunately, criminals killed between 3-10 times more victims, likely due to the pullback in enforcement.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22360290/black-lives-matter-protest-crime-ferguson-effects-murder?__twitter_impression=true TuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This study was brought up recently in relation to a piece discussing it in Scientific American. Here's what I said then: This looks like a compelling study, and Aldon Morris –– who is quoted as endorsing its findings in the Scientific American piece you linked –– is a well respected sociologist. However at this point it is simply posted on the Social Science Research Network, which does not conduct peer review. Once the study has undergone a peer-review process and been approved for publication in a reputable journal, I would very much support discussing its findings in the article. The Vox article you linked to here likewise notes that this study has not yet received peer review, so we're still waiting on that before we present it to our readers. Even then, we would need to do so carefully, since it's still just one primary source. Generalrelative (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm I the only one who thinks that BLM is free for legitimate criticism?

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

---

It seems like the movement is without flaws. Should I agree with everything they do or (with reliable sources and all) can we point out some aspects of it that is less savory without resorting to alt-right conspiracy or white defensiveness? Espngeek (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have anything concrete you'd like to add to the article, for example to the subsection Black_Lives_Matter#Criticism? If so, please suggest it and editors can discuss it. If not, what's the point of your post on this talk page?---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"Less passive-aggressiveness, more constructive argument please?" What do you mean by this? Should they always be portrayed in a postive light? Please don't get mad as I do agree with their good points. Espngeek (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Espngeek, respectfully, I would also characterize your comment above as being passive-aggressive. I hope you take that as constructive criticism; I am not trying to attack your character. As Sluzzelin said, this is not a forum for discussion about BLM. If you have a specific suggestion about how to improve the article, please suggest it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @Espngeek: This type of moral discussion is not what article talk pages are for. WP:NPOV is not about balancing the "good" and the "bad" as though we were authorities on such matters. It's about balancing what reliable sources say in due proportion. Generalrelative (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Espngeek (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Espngeek, I do admit it was neither smart nor corteuous of me to put that passive-aggressiveness comment in an edit summary, and I apologize for that. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That's OK. Espngeek (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

184.103.241.209 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

BLACK LIVES MATTER. THIS MOVEMENT ISN'T SAYING THAT ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER, ITS SAYING BLACK LIVES SHOULD BE REPRESENTED EQUALLY AS WHITE LIVES

Where does the article say that BLM thinks "only black lives matter"? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2021 (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. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 20:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight re TikTok section

Is this information really worth dedicating an entire section to – especially if the information can't actually be proven? BLM is behind the largest protests in U.S. history. With a topic this broad, I don't see how "TikTok shadowbanning" needs more than a sentence or two. Would like more input. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman, I agree with you. My preferred solution is to delete the whole section; seems to just be a blip. If we are going to include any discussion, I think two sentences should be plenty. Something like:

In 2020, users of the popular app TikTok noticed that the app seemed to be shadow banning posts about BLM or recent police killings of black people. TikTok apologized and attributed the situation to a technical glitch.

Thank you for bringing this up. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I think this was added by a university student as a class assignment. Lester Mobley (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Go figure. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done OK, I've removed the section and added the truncated form recommended by Firefangledfeathers to the section "Internet and social media." Thanks all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Is Black Lives Matter really decentralized

I doubt since they have a logo and the protests are similar in different areas of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.177.29 (talk • contribs)

• Well, "they" is kind of the problem here, for starters. The rest is not surprising--and if the protests are similar, it's probably cause all those people are protesting the same thing. But your comment is really based on original research and thus not actionable. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Those people?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? And you call out "they" as a "problem?" Keep your personal, racist BS to yourself, or we'll give it right back to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.183.247 (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think the comment was simply meant to reflect that BLM is a loosely organized group of related protesters rather than a well-defined organization with employees (like the ACLU, for example). I ask that you refrain from personal attacks and threats against other editors. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Brext..?

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

---

I don't recall any referendum in 2016 to do with Brext. Brex-i-t, on the other hand. That's real. Edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5A:657F:E631:740A:7BF7:46B6:F763 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Done! Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Why aren't they described as "left wing?"

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

---

If the article for "Boogaloo movement" describes the movement as not only "right", but "FAR right", then why isn't Black Lives Matter described at least as 'left?'Chris155au (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say. When they disagree, we apply due wight. If you think that the label "left wing" should be applied here, the burden is on you to supply such sources. If you're unsure which sources we regard as reliable, here is a handy (if incomplete) guide. Generalrelative (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say they won't ever be "alt-right", but I will say they should be compared to the (original) Black Panthers Party. Espngeek (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Black Lives Matter should be described as how references describe Black Lives Matter. How references describe the Black Panther Party are of no relevance to the description of Black Lives Matter. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

In other words, they should always be portrayed in a loving and positive light while not be legitimately criticized completely. Also I too don't think BLM is a hate and/or terrorist group, but what would happen if there's a BLM 2.0 that is more militant like Black Panthers 2.0 (even if each aren't officially associated with the originals)? Just trying to be reasonable.Espngeek (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that ("they should always be portrayed in a loving and positive light while not be legitimately criticized completely") is not a fair paraphrase of what FDW777 wrote. This article includes criticism, referencing reliable sources. As for "what would happen if there's a BLM 2.0 that is more militant ...", in that case, again, we'd follow what reliable sources write, ideally. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Espngeek (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Espngeek, if that happens, we will cover it as such. Or maybe the cops will stop murdering Black dudes in broad daylight, and BLM will no longer be necessary. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting your words, I just thought I was trying to be neutral. I always hated when toxic white cops kill black people, too.Espngeek (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for ending this topic. :') Espngeek (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Lie about BLM according to Wikipedia

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

---

"Strategies and tactics Black Lives Matter originally used various social media platforms—including hashtag activism—to reach thousands of people rapidly.[55] Since then, Black Lives Matter has embraced a diversity of tactics.[56] Black Lives Matter protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful; when violence does occur, it is often committed by police or by counter-protestors.[57][58][59] Despite this, opponents have falsely portrayed the movement as violent."

Please, complete BS, police are burning, looting and murdering in the cities these ppl "protest" in?

All of the content you are referring to is cited to high-quality sources. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 10 June 2021

207.253.241.125 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

black matter matter https://earthsky.org/upl/2020/02/dark-matter-artist.jpeg --207.253.241.125 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done it is unclear what you are requesting here. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter neo-Marxist construct

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

---

Although supportive, as are millions of Americans, of recent important strides toward racial harmony, I was surprised to note the absence in this descriptor of any mention of the purposes-delineating, originating document of Black Lives Matter: the 2014 "Black Lives Matter Manifesto," penned by co-founders Garza, Cullors, and Tometi. Although since "massaged," original copies remain accessible on the internet. Openly self-proclaimed as "trained neo-Marxists" (see Eric Mann; SDS, Weather Underground) the co-founders therein state the precepts, purposes, and methods of BLM. Any reasoned discussion of the movement fails at outset without descriptors and access to the original document. Patricmcm (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Patricmcm please read the many, many, many archives where folk have come asking this (or a similar) question and are educated that the right-wing media "Marxist" claim is, in fact, not true, and is nearly always questioned and espoused by individuals who do not fully understand what Black Lives Matter is, what Marxism is, or both! Ke Akua Pū.--Jorm (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Colston statue

The UK section has the following. "During a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol, the city center statue of Edward Colston, a late 17th early 18th-century philanthropist, politician and slave trader, was pulled down by protesters, rolled along the road and pushed into Bristol Harbour."

Is the fact Colston was a philanthropist and politician actually relevant here? Surely the relevant point with regard to the BLM demonstrations is simply the fact that the BLM protesters pulled down the statue of a slave trader.Firestar47 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

He does have a reputation of all those things, but I agree the phrasing itself is not necessary. A link to the statue page is sufficient for those who want to read up on the topic. We don't need the personal descriptors. Also, that's a fuck-ton of commas for a sentence.

I would suggest cutting , a late 17th early 18th-century philanthropist, politician and slave trader, in its entirety. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent dispute about the "officer in Oregon" content

Content is being removed by Willbb234, who says that the content is "irrelevant to BLM views on law enforcement." Since the content is being removed and added without discussion, I wanted to try to start a discussion about the content. If it doesn't belong in that section, is there another section that it does belong to? There is a quote in the article about a response to the content: “I am highly offended, and I think other people should be,” said Teressa Raiford, a community activist involved in Black Lives Matter and Don’t Shoot Portland told the Oregonian. “I think it’s very unprofessional, especially someone in his position.” Perhaps the content can be reworded to include this, to more appropriately fit into the section? I don't feel that a blanket removal of the content is appropriate, but perhaps moving or rewording it would be a step towards resolving the dispute? - Aoidh (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not anticipate that Willbb234 is going to engage in any discussion at all. They seem only interested in plowing through. Jorm (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. I am in favor of including the content, and think the response is helpful. However, I don't believe it belongs in the "Views on law enforcement subsection", as it's not primarily about how BLM views LE. Further, that subsection is part of "Criticism", and the content isn't primarily about criticism of BLM for the LE views. Could it belong in "Disproportionate policing of Black Lives Matter events"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to engage in discussion with someone who blanket reverts and blatantly violates 3RR. Good day. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be a good place to put it. - Aoidh (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel that's a good place, too. I doubt we need to worry about Will; I'm certain they're headed for a topic ban soon enough. Jorm (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Either engage in constructive discussion or stop editing the article. Edit warring by you and Jorm aside, your edits are disruptive and neither adhering to consensus nor policy. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Blue plaque

@FDW777 and Qetuadgjzcbm: just to forestall some possible editing conflict, I wanted to clarify that the plaque itself says Black Lives Matter at the top, so it's definitely related. However, I support the results of FDW777's revert, as the sources do not support it being the first connected to the BLM movement and it's not clear from the sourcing that this one plaque merits mention in a very broad-scope article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I will confess not actually looking at the image of the plaque, just searching the articles for BLM/Black Lives Matter and finding no matches in any of them. FDW777 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should we capitalize "B" for Black? But in all newspaper articles, press releases, journals, and other encyclopedic purpose that capitalized Black. --Frontman830 (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support that change. Per MOS:PEOPLELANG capitalizing all ethno-racial color labels (Black and White) is endorsed by consensus, as is all lowercase (black and white). Mixed use (Black and white) has no consensus for or against usage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Same as the New York Times and the Associated Press, always they used Black for capitalization (according to the AP Stylebook). --Frontman830 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And more! Those were factored into the discussion over the MOS. Again, I support the change but would recommend waiting to hear from at least one other editor. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Frontman830, the policy FFF mentions is newish. Previously we capitalized neither, and when RS started to capitalize Black, we discussed. The consensus seems to be that we aren't ready to enforce B/W, b/w, or B/w yet. We'll have to see how it shakes out in the mainstream press, and especially among those RS that lean conservative, in order to gain consensus for one style. There's an interesting chart from September 2020 here —valereee (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Including these ethnic words also been capitalized as Hispanic and Latino and Indigenous? --Frontman830 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 32#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms for the recent RFC, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Discussion about capitalisation of Black (people) for ongoing discussion. Per WP:CONLOCAL, discussion here is pointless under the circumstances. FDW777 (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the wider consensus which determined MOS:PEOPLELANG explicitly endorses the use of local consensus, since it give multiple options. Do you have a different reading? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many words been capitalized Black for Black nationalism. --Frontman830 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't actually looked at the guideline itself, I just knew about the RFC and assumed the existing consensus was for non-capitalisation (since the point of the RFC was to capitalise). It strikes me as strange the manual of sttle would defer to local consensus, since the whole point of the manual of style is to maintain consistency across articles. FDW777 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's an extremely unsatisfying result. While we're in this limbo together, want to chime in on what you think this article should do? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Sentence looks wrong

This line under Policing use of excessive force, looks wrong: "About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black, making the rate of deaths for black Americans (31 fatal shootings per million) more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans (13 fatal shootings per million)." Shouldn't it be "About half of those killed where black and one quarter were while [...]"? Celsiuss (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's right. There are far more White people than Black people in the United States. Despite more White people being killed by police in absolute terms, Black people are killed at a much higher rate (according to this source). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Brack Lives Matter" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brack Lives Matter. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Brack Lives Matter until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Cuba

Fox and other right-wing sources say that BLM [I don't exactly know what this means, since the Wikipedia article calls it de-centralized, though "it" does have an executive committee etc.] issued a statement supporting the Cuban government in the wake of the summer 2021 protests in Cuba and that the statement drew strong negative responses: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/black-lives-matter-blames-us-praises-cuban-regime-social-media-erupts; Also https://www.nationalreview.com/news/black-lives-matter-blames-cuba-crisis-on-cruel-u-s-embargo/amp/, https://www.newsweek.com/why-black-lives-matter-defending-authoritarian-cuban-regime-opinion-1610283 (this last opinion piece has an image of what purports to be a text from BLM.) 79.134.37.73 (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't BLM, which is de-centralized, but the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation that put out that statement. And they did not claim support for the Cuban government, they called for the end of the Cuban embargo. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The origin of the hashtag, along with most of the leaders of the movement are associated or members of the BLMGNF. While not complete there is enough overlap between the two to treat criticism of the BLMGNF with BLM. In general more specifically a criticism of BLM supporters voicing support for far-left dictators, terror groups, etc. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Including a section about this as opposed to just one on Cuba seems fair. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If it were true that BLM is affiliated with Cuba's government, it would probably be because Cuba is also facing colonial/racial oppression. When Cuba was a protectorate of the US, black and brown cubans were enslaved on plantations and now that they're free, the US has decided to implement a criminal embargo that's killing the Cuban people and turning them against their own government. Not because it's a "far-left dictator". ButterSlipper (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a section based on those sources, most of which are unreliable for claims about BLM. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Huffpost, Fox are both considered generally reliable. JP has not been debated. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"No consensus" on Fox News when it's about politics. HuffPo's fine but that article doesn't discuss the views of BLM at all and just briefly mentions Opal Tometi. The remaining opinion pieces would not be appropriate as the foundations of a new section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. The main point for me was not really making a new section, but more that I believe treating criticism of the BLMGNF as being completely separate from BLM simply because BLM is decentralized does not make much sense given how important the GNF was and is to the movement. However I do believe that if a section were added because of the Cuba remark it should be wider as I suggested, so it will talk about more than just the GNF. Hope that clears it up, have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Change the embedded link for police brutality

The article specifically talks about victims of police brutality in the United States. Which is why I think it would be best that the article linked was "Police Brutality in the United States" instead of of the broader article "Police Brutality." Zen916 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

The date of the New Zealand protest was 14 June 2020. The Wiki article has a typo and says 1 June 2020. Please correct this.

It was widely publicised as being organised 14 June, after New Zealand reached COVID-19 Alert Level 1 on 9 June. Protesters respected the lockdown protection order and delayed their mass gathering event until after Alert Level restrictions permitted it.

Here is a reference to some media articles that covered the events on 14 June 2020:

1. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/418971/thousands-of-nzers-march-for-black-lives-matter

2. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/06/livestream-auckland-black-lives-matter-march-sunday-june-14.amp.html 2406:E003:831:4201:7D8C:404D:D70F:967E (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources in the article for the 1 June protests clearly state that the protests happened on 1 June. If the 14 June protests should be mentioned, they should be added to what is already present. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter, Co-Founder, connection to Communism and Communist China

If one puts in the Internet Search, "Black Lives Matter Communism," one will find a Huge amount of articles and discussion about the connection of Black lives Matter with Communism, and Communist China. The huge amount of articles, and the fact that Wikipedia does not have this in the "Criticism" section of this Black Lives Matter article would really leave one with the conclusion that Wikipedia represents a Left-Wing Bias.Easeltine (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Easeltine, it seems that you are confusing Black Lives Matter with the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems that there is a matter of opinion on the Internet if both groups are linked together politically. Marxism/Left-Wing media separates groups for their purposes of misinformation. It is a common practice.Easeltine (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

And you're confusing the mainstream media as having Marxist leanings. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Easeltine the BLM movement has no political affiliations except for a stance against the brutalisation of black people instituted by the police. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That I do agree Espngeek (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)