Talk:Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation

Criticism: ties to Radical figures.

Should a section be added talking about Susan Rosenberg since it has been mentioned in the news? [1] 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"501(c)(3) transparency, tax concerns, and New Impact Partners allegations" section

Having a section rely heavily on Washington Examiner references is... concerning... to say the least. Especially for what is being represented as a breaking story. D401199f6e (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And the Charity Watch link is a reblogging of the same Washington Examiner article... D401199f6e (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I added a bit to the section with other sourcing. While googling for that, I came across this Quora item with a comment there saying that (1) a 501c3 is not allowed to directly support or oppose political candidates and that (2) BLM is not a 501c3 but it is sponsored administratively by a 501c3 called Thousand Currents; also, this article titled The story behind Thousand Currents, the charity that doles out the millions of dollars Black Lives Matter generates in donations says "Black Lives Matter has a fiscal sponsorship set up with the 501(c)(3) non-profit organization Thousand Currents" and goes into more detail about that. A blog comment isn't an RS, of course, but some other editor might want to run down more info and better sourcing on that. I did see some more info seemingly related to that here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner "should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims". The Insider and Factcheck articles can be reliable sources, but they're old articles that are not about this breaking story. D401199f6e (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that there's another article section, Thousand Currents partnership, which has some more info on this. That section says, "The IRS granted BLMGNF tax-exempt status in December of 2020, enabling it to operate independently of its former fiscal sponsors Thousand Currents and Tides Foundation.". I don't know whether or not editors here consider that an exceptional claim, but I see that it is supported by a cite of this Washington Examiner article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur. The Washington Examiner is not a relieble source per WP:RSP, especially not as a sole source for such exceptional claims that seem to make up almost half of the article. Especially when the claims mirror stuff right wing propaganda outlets have been repeating since the George Floyd Protests began in order to delegitimize the movement. This is a political hitjob that will rotate out of the news cycle when the next made up moral panic comes around. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see what appears to be strong, original reporting being tarred as "unreliable" because important and obviously relevant information was first reported in a newspaper that tends to cover stories from a conservative perspective. I'm unaware of any consensus that the Washington Examiner is "unreliable", in general—and most complaints seem limited to its editorials and op-ed columns, neither of which are at issue here.

Furthermore, this story has been covered elsewhere, including but by no means limited to: FOX News, The Times UK, The NY Post and its Editorial Board, ABC News, Charity Watch, Real Clear Politics, Reason Magazine, New York Magazine, and even Black Enterprise.

These are not "extraordinary claims" per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. They haven't, to my knowledge, been challenged—and neither do they run counter to any "prevailing view" nor "significantly alter mainstream assumptions" of which I'm aware. While hardly "surprising" given the organization's history, they are "important" to the instant article—but have been "covered by multiple mainstream sources".

Most disturbingly, not one editor has suggested the reports about BLM's problems are inaccurate. Simply saying such-and-such source isn't "reliable" in the abstract is a poor argument for censoring well-supported information; we are building an encyclopedia, after all, and the issue is relevance and accuracy. The Examiner article (and others) cite a host of official documents; experts, including the highly reputable, independent Charity Watch; and statements from the BLM organization itself. If false, these would be easy to refute—yet no one has done so. To claim reporting about $60 million unaccounted for by an exceedingly high-profile organization that claims to be a charity but refuses to identify its leadership are a "made up [sic] moral panic" is both bizarre and utterly unconvincing.

This sort of fact-free attempt to censor information reflects a concerning pattern of claiming "conservative" news outlets are somehow not "mainstream". Let's recall that FOX News, for example, both dominates ratings and is viewed, even by partisans, as solidly within the definition of "mainstream media"—while oft-cited Wikipedia darlings Vox and BuzzFeed are not. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No one is trying to "censor" anything. It does not matter whether something is considered part of "mainstream media" or whether it "dominates ratings" (see argumentum ad populum) as much as whether it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Kleinpecan (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Your first example of other sources reporting on this being Fox News doesn't help your case here. Your claim that you are unaware of any consensus regarding the Washington Examiner being unreliable is straight up disingenuous, especially since I specifically linked WP:RSP where it is clearly stated that There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Furthermore WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not an exhaustive list of what claims count as exceptional. It's a list of what peopl should look out for when a source is covering a claim that is ALREADY exceptional. Right now, the allegation is that BLMGNF is engaged in embezzlement. A serious criminal accusation leveled against a major organization and against BLP subjects is by definition exceptional, and requires exceptional sources to back up. The Washington Examiner is not reliable for exceptional claims, and all the other sources you refer to are not only no better, they use the Examiner as their source. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I want to thank everyone for the constructive debate regarding my edits to the page. This page is my first real article I'm hoping to keep updated, and the fact that people are so engaged in discussion regarding it makes me happy to see my contributions having such an effect.

I first of all want to state that I am aware of the Washington Examiner being a source of no consensus, and even checked WP:REPUTABLE to ensure whether I could use it or not. It is, however, not listed as a "questionable source," which is why I considered its inclusion valid. Furthermore, I took the phrase in the summary section of the Washington Examiner that editors "believe that statements from this publication should be attributed" as a way of saying, 'if you use this source, make sure to say that this source made the claim.' Within the BLMGNF article itself, I made sure to say "the Washington Examiner stated that" in every paragraph that includes a claim that they made. I also kept such statements within the criticism and disputes section of the article itself, which by themselves should generally include criticisms that generate media attention. Again, I did not write said section of the article in a way that assumes the criticisms themselves are truthful, as that is not my job.

Furthermore, I believe that the content and claims included in the Washington Examiner article were noteworthy enough and were well-researched to include, as the article itself lists many links to documents acquired by the author themselves that lend veracity to their reporting. I do admit that I got a little lazy in terms of citations and simply cited the WE articles themselves, however, a quick google search will reveal that the California AG and others did in fact begin investigations against the group, and have made official statements. I should have included such announcements in addition to the WE reporting.

I would also like to thank Epykros for his support of my edits, and reiterate the fact that "not one editor has suggested the reports about BLM's problems are inaccurate."

Lastly, in regards to 46.97.170.40, while I understand his concerns on the neutrality of the sources included and whether or not they fall within the "exceptional claims" section, I do believe that the claims made by the Examiner article are not "exceptional," as the allegations raised cite the organization's own sources, official Twitter accounts of BLMGN leaders, and government legal documents. Furthermore, I believe that an organization that themselves claim over $60 million in finances yet do not have any named leadership and have not filed their tax returns for 2020 (A quick google search will confirm this fact), is itself significant enough to include in this article.

Likewise, I would also like to point out (other than the IP address and spelling mistakes) that 46.97.170.40 in this very talk page alone has stated that "This is a political hitjob" and that these "claims mirror stuff right wing propaganda outlets have been repeating," makes me question the neutrality and biases of the user raising these concerns. Looking at their contributions, the user has also made similar claims of racism and anti-left hysteria on the talk pages of numerous other articles, indicating to me that this individual very clearly has a political agenda. For instance, on the following pages:

Does the fact that this organizations focuses exclusively on fringe quackery coming from the right (which is almost exclusively where fringe quackery has been coming from for the past two decades) really make them "left leaning"? Is CNN "left leaning" too? Is Wikipedia "left leaning"? I find that highly unlikely
— [[User:46.97.170.40 on Talk:Media Matters for America#Left leaning? ]] 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Centrist Democrats" would be considered right wing, not left. And considering how off the rails the GOP and the right have been for the past decade, it is virtually impossible to be neutral and factual without inevitably coming off as supporting "Centrist Democrats". Is MMfA's mission statement to support them? Or are the DNC just much more closely aligned with objective facts than the other party?
— [[User:46.97.170.40 on Talk:Media Matters for America#Left leaning? ]] 10:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No film has a 100% rating on RT. Audience ratings are not only unreliable, in this case they're especially unreliable since the film is available to Daily Wire subscribers, so the wast majority of people who will ever watch it are the ones who buy into the DW's "culture war" narrative.
— [[User:46.97.170.40 on Talk:Shut In (2022_film)#What is this? ]] 11:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to state that I myself am aware of the charged political atmosphere surrounding this topic in the world. I believe I have done my best to update this page with accurate and rounded information after I saw it was virtually abandoned for a very long time. I made sure to include other controversies, such as the real estate dispute and its claims, with other reports debunking or fact-checking it from reputable sources. I also removed false information that incorrectly attributed BLMGNF with another organization called BLMF, and have taken strides to include information from the AP, The Hill, Politico, and others. I believe that even after reading these articles detailing the leadership struggles and financial woes of the organization from said reputable sources, a Washington Examiner article that raises similar concerns about financial transparency and leadership is itself not "exceptional," as the organization has a recent history of trouble well documented in more "reputable" sources. BootsED (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you focused on discussing the article on this talk page, and not my behavior on other articles. My arguments are based on site policy and nothing else. There is a consensus that the Washington Examiner should not be used as a source for exceptional claims, and criminal accusations leveled against BLP subjects is by definition exceptional. This is a black and white issue, that has nothing to do with my personal biases. If that consensus has changed, I retract wverything I said here. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

BLM leader arrested

POV pusher, WP:DENY Dronebogus (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boston-blm-leader-and-her-husband-hit-with-federal-fraud-conspiracy-charges https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boston-blm-leader-and-her-husband-hit-with-federal-fraud-conspiracy-charges Persesus (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC) https://www.nationalreview.com/news/boston-blm-activist-and-husband-indicted-on-federal-fraud-charges/ Persesus (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC) @Persesus: not reliable sources. Fox News and NR are both known to have a strong right-wing bias in regards to politics. Dronebogus (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC) @Dronebugus let me guess you are a blue anon type since A a source is still a source and thus it’s cited and number 2 are you saying Wikipedia has left wing bias gasp who would though and it’s not the only one reporting on it https://eurweb.com/2022/03/19/boston-activists-charged-with-embezzling-charity-fund/ https://nypost.com/2022/03/16/boston-blm-leader-husband-charged-with-fraud-conspiracy/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/boston-blm-leader-charged-with-pilfering-funds-from-charity-meant-to-feed-children https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/03/09/boston-subpoenaed-in-federal-investigation-of-violence-in-boston-nonprofit/ So get out your bubble and post it Persesus (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC) What? Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) The only one of those sources I’m pretty sure is useable is the Boston Herald. I’ve never heard of “eurweb” and the NYP and Examiner are unreliable per WP:perennial sources. Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC) You read that correctly. Yes these are my sources and you must cite them. Persesus (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I am not required to do anything just because you tell me to. Dronebogus (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I highly doubt that with examiner and NYP. Just use them either way. Persesus (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC) No. Read the link I provided. Dronebogus (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC) It’s covered both national and fox Persesus (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Just use them either way and fuck the rules pardon the language Persesus (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Far left"?

I reinstated this previous removal because, as far as I can tell, the "far left" footnote did not actually offer any reliable sourcing for the term "far left". The use of the label here clearly does not satisfy the requirements set out in MOS:LABEL, and in fact appears to be original research. If better sources are available to support the use of the label, I'd suggest presenting them here on Talk first and obtaining consensus for inclusion before adding text to the article (especially the lead section). Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and all Black Lives Matter by Black power movement/ Black liberation movement (Revolutionary Black Panther Party,Black Hammer Party,African People's Socialist Party....) They believe that the BLM GNF/BLM is a bourgeois, liberal wing of the Democratic Party that does not represent the interests of the black working class, but focuses on the interests of the middle class — Preceding unsigned comment added by MATRIX0077 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this a relevant quotation, or pushing against NPOV?

The quotation under the "Founder statements and statements on Marxism", we have a quote, from Miriyam Aouragh, with my own emphasis:

"a lecturer at the London-based Westminster School of Media and Communications, told Politifact: "I am fairly convinced these are mostly attempts to smear anti-racist activists. I think in some media, 'Marxist' is dog-whistle for something horrible, like 'Nazi', and thus enables to delegitimize/dehumanize them. [Black Lives Matter] is not an organization, but a fluid movement; it doesn’t actually matter if one of its founders was a liberal, Marxist, socialist or capitalist.""

Now, regardless of your personal opinion of Marxism, it does not appear that the right way to address accusations of BLMGNF being Marxists are actual defences of Marxism. Especially when considering the author quoted, is formerly a member of the Trotskyist International Socialists (a far-left, revolutionary, organisation). I am open to keeping her analysis; I am not aiming for guilt by association, but it is clear that it is not a neutral analysis, and that must be noted in the article.

On another note, I must question the relevance of this quotation is even relevant in the BLMGNF article when it is clear that the material refers to the movement, as opposed to the BLMGNF organization; "not an organization, but a fluid movement". The criticisms of the organization are brushed off by an unexplained, and dismissive, "it doesn't actually matter" (a literal quote). The article linked [2]https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/ questions if the movement is a Marxist one, with focus on the movement as diverse in ideology, not the organization. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Support for Marxism"

The subsection "Founder statements and statements on Marxism" is not neutral. It frames various positions, such as opposition to US sanctions on Cuba and support for Palestine, as explicitly Marxist but these positions are held by a wide variety of organizations and ideologies. It also frames Marxism itself as a problematic philosophy inherently worthy of framework.--User:Namiba 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)