Talk:White Lives Matter

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Black Lives Matter#"White Lives Matter".

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Organization

There is no organization called “White Lives Matter” 2600:100D:B040:6403:118E:E35:EAF:2782 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in this article are abysmal

The first citation in this article is to a page that says nothing whatever about "white lives matter." It's juts a random article about Attenborough. The sentence with that citation (the one about the Aryan Renaissance Society and the Traditionalist Worker Party) should either be deleted or bolstered by an actual source.

The next two citations are also incorrect. One is for an SPLC article that never mentions "white lives matter" at all. The other is to an ADL article that vaguely mentions it once without going into any specifics (never specifying that it was a "rallying cry"), and it says nothing about California, Texas, Tennessee, or Florida.

Footnote 8 also appears to be incorrect. The rally in Charlottesville was a "Unite the Right" rally, and it had nothing to do with "white lives matter." The article cited also doesn't mention "white lives matter" at all, from what I can tell (the article is behind a paywall, so feel free to fact-check me on this).

Footnote 9 is talking vaguely about "All Lives Matter," and it never mentions "white lives matter" at all. Footnote 10 is behind a paywall, so I can't read the whole thing, but given how awful the rest of these citations are, I rather doubt that it mentions "white lives matter."

That's just the beginning. A lot of the claims this article makes are correct, but the article is absolutely riddled with citations that have little or nothing to do with the claims it makes.

I'm going to be deleting large portions of this article unless I or someone else can find actual citations for these specific claims it makes.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.13.107 (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Lee statue removal protest

I’ve tagged this section in the article with {{POV section}} as (at least to me) it doesn’t read as being written in a neutral point of view, including where it states that counter protestors “should have been shut down”. A smart kitten (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The whole section seems as if it was written by somebody who is apart of this movement instead of an actual neutrally-provided viewpoint. B3251 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section was abysmal. I'm not sure who wrote it but content was duplicated, there were sources used that don't support what they were citing, use of WP:SYNTH, etc. I trimmed it down significantly and removed the tag. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serious citation issues

This article is (or now, was) full of serious citation issues. As I went through verifying (or attempting to verify) sources, I found multiple instances where the stated information was clearly WP:SYNTH, and worse, other instances where the cited source wasn't even related to the article - not even remotely. One was an article on architecture, and another was an article on David Attenborough's documentary on climate change. It appears that this was either an instance were content was previously properly cited and someone changed the source, or where someone was putting in WP:OR intentionally and adding a source so that it didn't appear to be OR and no one bothered to verify it. Either way, the article is a mess. I've tried to start the process of addressing much of this, but it will need much more work than that. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movement or just a phrase

It appears that the objective of the article became an attempt to make the phrase more of a movement. Maybe trying to force more out of it than there really is is what led to all of the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR? Regardless, most of the legitimate sources focus on it more as a phrase that is used by various supremacist groups as opposed to a "movement" in and of itself. Perhaps refocusing the direction of the article to take what's actually in the sources would produce a better result. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article is wrong

whole article needs to be written once again, its not impartial nor neutral as it should be Apfelsaft32 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]