Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

There is no direct link to BLM website where it is referred to, despite it being talked about in several places. To that end, I suggest...

Under Guiding Principles, change: "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles..." to "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles" or "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles"

or equivalent Digihoe (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We do not put external links like this into prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd link

Hi! The page is locked so please add link to George Floyd in the introduction... There is just a link to the George Floyd protests but not to the article about him. Really shame on you if you try to write an article about BLM and don't bother to link him! --Ozzy (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

ArionEstar added a link to the Killing of George Floyd article. Interested users can navigate from there to the page about George Floyd. Lester Mobley (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Guiding principles

Is the information in this section still valid, the source is a page on their website that no longer exists.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:F059:79D5:F20E:1DF6 (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

New page for criticism

As the flag says at the top of the BLM page, it is very long and difficult to navigate comfortably. To counteract this, I propose moving much of the information under Criticism to a new page called Criticism of Black Lives Matter. This is not to lend more space to criticizing the movement, but simply to clear space. If All Lives Matter can have a page, general criticism should too, and it would help make this page more easy to navigate. What are everyone's thoughts? PickleG13 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The timeline section is by far the longest. That should be the first one to be spun-off.--Boardg (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Criticism section is long, but not nearly long enough for its own page. What's missing are a few (3 to 5) examples of BLM criminal activity, such as the protest organized by Tianna Arata, that quickly lead to her arrest following the blocking of traffic along HWY 101 and vandalism of two vehicles. A link to a page listing all notable BLM criminal activity would be nice, too. No, we do not describe all criminal activity on Facebook. Then again, the vast majority of criminal activity isn't the result of a global and very well-known organization purporting to be "non-violent." Wikipedia lists all "mass shootings" from about 3 victims on up, so it's ripe for lists of "BLM violence." Clepsydrae (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

a global and very well-known organization

Considering BLM is not a formal organization, that's a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Lack of focus on intraracial violence" section needed

The writing in the section is confusing and mixing two separate ideas; one is the crime rate by race, the other is the rate of intraracial crime. It needs to be rewritten as it currently is arguing that since the intraracial crime rate is similar across race that the differences in crime rate by race is somehow not true. Of 19 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The section as-written is accurate. What exactly are you disputing? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo with offensive and inappropriate message

A sign at one of the George Floyd protests

Photo under section "Blue Lives Matter" shows an offensive and inappropriate slogan ("Fuck blue lives matter"). Please remove photo as there are children reading this article for educational purposes. (This posted by some annon editor)

I removed the picture. Where it was placed made it seem a lot like editorializing. Carptrash (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone put this picture back with the edit summary that I was committing "censorship." No, but this is the place to talk about it. Carptrash (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the re-removal of this image here. Please establish consensus for removal of this image during the discussion period here before removing it again. For background, please read WP:BRD and WP:CENSOR. I note that this image is currently used on the English wikipedia by this article and by the Blue Lives Matter article and in the Blue Lives Matter article on some other wikipedias. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I see it's been removed again, with a copyright-violation rationale. The account that uploaded it on flickr has large galleries establishing presence at the events depicted. It is also a paid ("Pro") flickr account, which would be unusual for flickr washing. William Avery (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, could you explain your rationale a bit more? The EXIF data on Flickr looks to match the user account which uploaded it, at the very least. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that I was the first editor to remove the picture, and then I did it again, but not for copyright issues. I did it because to have a picture such as this one in the section about Blue Lives Matter is some form of editorializing. It gives the impression that wikipedia is saying "Fuck Blue Lives Matter." This is not a neutral stance. Carptrash (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't agree with that argument. With a proper subtitle (which is given), it's clear that this is the protestor's opinion, not that of Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Well then you would not mind if we substituted this pic, with the proper subtitle, of course. Carptrash (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Was that photo taken at a BLM protest? If not, then it's inappropriate to that section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The impression that the illustrations carry an editorial subtext isn't helped by having a photo of a demonstrator holding a placard with the text "WHITE LIVES MATTER TOO MUCH", next to the section on "White Lives Matter". William Avery (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

These are examples of protestor's signs at these specific protests. It shows their views on the topics at hand. Trying to claim that this is somehow editorial just baffles me. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this falls solidly into the "If you don't get it then you will not understand the explanation" category. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

In a section titled "Counter-slogans and movements", one might expect to see some pictures of counter-protesters. Compare current version of All Lives Matter. William Avery (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't see where any of the arguments made for not including the photo are reasonable. I believe that the photo adds a great deal to the understanding of the movement and the various sorts of objections that it has rendered. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely the UK section should be making note of far left involvement

The BLMUK gofundme page talks a lot about dismantling capitalism and imperialism, zero on police brutality. Unfortunately it's on the blacklist so no link.

The Socialist Worker's Party are out on the protests, plenty of Socialist Worker logos mixed in with BLM, eg https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43116/Black+Lives+Matter+activists+meet+to+organise++and+discuss+strategy. You can even see a mingling of the logos on their banners.

There are various articles on how the movement has been 'hijacked' by the far left - eg https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hard-left-hijacks-black-lives-matter-movement-lpmfn3f2j — Preceding unsigned comment added by EUBanana (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Section moved to the chronologically appropriate location in the talk page by ItsPugle

Hey! While I think that for this specific organisation, it does seem to support more left-leaning policies, but as a broad generalisation, that's not uncommon amongst civil rights movements - in fact, that's pretty much the default. The UK BLM GoFundMe with £1.15 million in donations does say that it is committed to "dismantl[ing] imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people", however that organisation itself is just one in a larger pool of organisations supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. In addition, UK BLM doesn't seem to have actually made any corporate actions yet (as per their Twitter account). That Social Worker's Party page also doesn't actually mention UK BLM, but rather that they are taking action on racial equality. If you wanted to draft out a more expansive coverage of political positions on the movement, a case could be made for a short sentence about this. It would have to be crafted very very very very (...) carefully to ensure neutrality and balance. Like many political parties, the far-left political party Socialist Worker's Party has taken part in some BLM demonstrations and has committed support for the movement could be a starting point for this sentence, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it gets reverted or significantly copyedited. I think it's also worth mentioning the discussion about any correlation between BLM and Marxism; it has found no consensus for declaring such. ItsPugle (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• This establishes that the far left sympathises with BLMUK, but not that BLMUK is a far-left enterprise. This is unsurprising. Absence of Socialist Worker at a BLMUK rally would be as surprising as the presence of Britain First would be. Guy (help!) 11:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Socialist Worker's party are at most civil rights based protests in the UK and hand out placards and banners containing a relivant slogan to unaffiliated (to the SWP) protestors. This may be why people think they are affiliated with certain movements but it is likely not the case. Evertent (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If millions of pounds are raised under the BLM umbrella, and this article is about BLM overall as a decentralised movement, all elements of BLM should be outlined. The radical left wing aims should be outlined. Jschanna7 (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Founders not mentioned

Why are Susan Rosenberg, Charles Wade and Yusra Khogali not even mentioned? 2607:FEA8:10E0:1600:EC9C:CA68:DE02:54B9 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

SHAUN KING?!? --Calton | Talk 10:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Shaun king isn’t a founder?

———- Kizemet Kizemet (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

/as in I’m stating that he is not

——Kizemet Kizemet (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The founders should be mentioned. The organisation is at the bedrock of the movement. The founders are self-described Marxists. This information should be made available. Jschanna7 (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This wiki's content appears to be inaccurate but I am not allowed to edit it.

This wiki on BLM states it is a "non-violent" movement. Yet the official BLM website does not contain the words "peaceful" or "non-violent" anywhere I could find. The BLM website DOES NOT promote peaceful means to achieve their goals. I did find the word "combating" on their website. I believe that this wiki needs to exclude the current statement that BLM is a "non-violent" movement, considering that is not stated or even implied anywhere on their official website. Until a reference can be supplied to the official website - don't you think that "non-violent" should be removed? The videos I see on the internet suggests that the movement may be incredibly violent. Please correct me if I am wrong. GunAuthor (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be the official BLM website I mentioned above: https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/ GunAuthor (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Let's focus on what they say rather than single out the primary source in your link. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet the official BLM website does not contain the words "peaceful" or "non-violent" anywhere I could find.

That is some real backwards reasoning there. Also, there is no "official" BLM site, as BLM is a movement and not an organization. There are some groups who are using the term for their own organizations, but there is not a formal "Black Lives Matter" site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If that assertion re there being no official website is correct, the website field in the article's infobox needs correction and all assertions which rely on this site for support need review. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is for a specific organization, "Black Lives Matter Global Network." The logo & website are official for that organization, but BLM in general is a movement & much larger than this organization. I don't think we should have this specific organizations' infobox at the top of the page, as if they spoke for all BLM supporters.

I would propose moving the infobox to the BLM international movement section, or removing it entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to split off an article for the BLM Global Network specifically? It would help solve some of the confusion, since that specific organization is an organization with leadership, centralized planning, etc. That would be a better solution IMHO. --Jayron32 19:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If there are enough RS about the organization, I'd support that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

However it is organized, the info in the infobox(es) needs to match the topic of the article(s). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a reasonable point. There is no official website. I've removed it. —valereee (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Still remaining in the article are a number of assertions supported by the website you've just removed from the infobox. I haven't removed these because I didn't want to take a meat-axe to the article, but this need attention by some3one who knows this topic better than I. 23:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

There will be overlap between the social movement and the nonprofit org articles. Don't try to eviscerate one article by removing all mention of the other. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not out to cut the guts out of any article. I'm mostly reacting to appearances on my watchlist here, not following any of this very closely and not trying to push a POV. Here, I noticed what appeared to be disconnects re BLM organizational looseness and citation of a website which arguably is or is not or might be somehow associated with whatever BLMish topic this article (or articles falling out of a split) might be about. Also, I remember that in June I created the Hawk Newsome article to replace what looked to me like a bad redirect and I don't know how, or if, that person and his Greater New York chapter of Black Lives Matter organization fit into this. NPOV editors who know more about this than I ought to work this out; my comments are intended to be helpful in that, not to push a POV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Where? Aside from a brief WP:ABOUTSELF mention of that organization, the only one that I could see was the guiding principles section, which was just updated to be attributed to them. They're used in one other place for a statement about how BLM was sparked, but only alongside several secondary sources saying the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought to contribute here, there is significant evidence that both the BLM movement and the BLM organization have caused and been apart of violent riots, while I understand that this is a very political topic, users of wikipedia should first look at facts before considering popular or unpopular opinion. ShockTNC (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ShockTNC, please provide this "evidence". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I did but it appears to have gotten removed? ShockTNC (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someone is removing my post for "trolling" don't know if he honestly thought I was or just didn't like what I said but would appreciate if someone could reverse the edit. ShockTNC (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You were trolling by urging Wikipedia editors to look at primary source data rather than WP:SECONDARY source analysis. This is entirely against Wikipedia's hard policy of WP:No original research. You were also aiming for a specific political slant rather than aiming to represent all of the published sources with proper balance and WP:WEIGHT. You wanted the article to say that BLM is violent and has been rioting. Anything else wasn't going to satisfy you. And you said don't trust the mainstream news.

All of that is not allowed here. We don't do it that way. We have a criteria for participants on Wikipedia, asking that people come here willing to look at all the sources and summarize them fairly. If somebody comes here without that willingness then we say they are not here for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Instead, they are here to pursue a political agenda or some other agenda. I removed your post because it was not for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I guess if truth isn't a good enough source then I might as well leave. ShockTNC (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@ShockTNC: If you are unwilling or unable to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, that may be a good idea. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling to follow rules and guidelines, but it seems to me he is just using that as an ecuse. Proving that something or someone is or isn't violent requires proof, The most accurate and non biased proof would be the police reports I linked to. If you won't accept that as vaild evidence then there isn't much point in having a discussion about it. ShockTNC (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@ShockTNC: Actually, we should not be using police reports as sources. We can use news stories written about those reports, though. And the report must link the organization to the activities, not just a few individuals connected to it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That legitimately makes no sense to me, are you saying the original (and thus most accurate source) is not allowed, but a secondary source referring to the original is? Can you explain why that is the case? ShockTNC (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

As a follow up, I get what your saying about needing proof directly from the source that there is a link, but that goes back to needing a biased source willing to make the connection. If I used articles talking about the link between the riots and BLM would those be accepted? ShockTNC (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Truth, or one editor's opinion of what constitutes truth, isn't enough. A citation of a piomary source asserts that that the cited surce is what it is represented to be (a police report, in this case) and that it does clearly say whatever it is represented to say; no interpretation of what that means in the larger scheme of things by WP editors is allowed. Secondary sources which are considered reliable on the topic at hand provide interpretations which may be cited, and which may differ from one another. Diffrences between secondary sources sre supposed to be handled IAW WP:DUE.

I have not looked at the police reports to which you refer, but my understanding is that a police report by officerr A might document an assertion by that officer that he observed action X by individual B and placed that individual under arrest on suspicion that commission of that action violated statute Y. A citation of that primary source asserts that the source is, in fact, what it is represented to be (a police report) and that it does say what the citation represents it to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There were no links to police reports in the deleted posts. There were vague mentions of other sites that aggregate police reports—but those aggregation sites would have to be reviewed for reliability. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your right there where no links, I forgot to mention that I was unable to post a link. When I tried to my comment simply didnt publish. ShockTNC (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@ShockTNC: That is a red flag. If the links couldn't be posted in a comment, that indicates they're on a restricted list of spam sites whose links may not be added anywhere on Wikipedia. The best that I could say about a site on said list is that it isn't reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The link was to the FBI website, shouldn't be on a blocked list. ShockTNC (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Are they non-violent?

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've looked around and I can't find an official stance saying that they are non-violent. Obviously, many of the BLM organized protests are non-violent and of course some seem to turn violent or are initially violent. It seems like the movement has remained quiet on some of the violence seen in the protest. I'm not saying that they promote violence (no evidence that they do that), I'm merely saying that the statement in the first sentence of "advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest..." is not factually based. It should be changed to "advocating for civil disobedience in protest..." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

...its leaders and the vast majority of its members openly favor nonviolent means. From the cited source. I'll add a few more sources to be sure, though. --Aquillion (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That the great majority of BLM protests and participants are non-violent I think does belong in the intro, but perhaps not in the first "defining" sentence.--Pharos (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

As with any decentralized movement, it's quite possible that different members have different points of view on the subject. I don't have enough information to definitively characterize it as non-violent or violent universally, but I would consider including claims of violence in the "Criticism" section, while also including counterclaims that the vast majority of protests are non-violent. Claims of violence, since they're common enough, warrant mention. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2020 (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.

US President Donald Trump called BLM protesters who disagreed with him "terrorists".

This is an obviously biased statement. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's factual. It could be appropriate in the context of justifying use of (excessive) force on protesters. Nevertheless, the last paragraph of that section has little to do with the rest of the section. Maybe it would fit better somewhere else in the article more related to BLM protests, or with more context about use of police force against protesters specifically. Lester Mobley (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What I mean is that it implies that Trump calls BLM protesters/rioters, terrorists, solely because he disagrees with them. It would be like someone writing Obama has labelled ISIS members who disagree with him terrorists. A better statement would be something along the lines of US President Donald Trump has been critical of the BLM movement, even calling some of its activists terrorists, instead of what we have here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiod Palaiologos (talk • contribs) 10:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

What I mean is that it implies that Trump calls BLM protesters/rioters, terrorists, solely because he disagrees with them

I mean, that's accurate. He's done the same thing with antifa. Trump applies the term "terrorist" to entire movements he opposes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Aside from speculation about what Trump's reasons for calling BLM protesters who disagreed with him "terrorists", the asserion in the Police use of excessive force section that he did that ought to cite a source supporting that assertion. I'm not implying that there are no such sources, I'm just saying that one ought to be cited -- preferably a solidly reliable source quoting his spoken or tweeted words. I haven't tagged this {{cn}} because I don't want to provoke a storm of outrage over that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That paragraph was supported by a CNN article, which only quoted the word "terrorists". In fact whoever wrote the paragraph took the wording directly from the CNN headline. In any case, I see that TrynaMakeADollar has added another source and improved the wording in line with what Alexiod Palaiologos was suggesting. Lester Mobley (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Headline writers do tend to sensationalize. I've added a quote from the article cited (" These people are vandals, but they’re agitators, but they're really — they’re terrorists, in a sense") to the citation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What does I've added a quote from the article cited ... to the citation mean? I don't see any recent additions by you to this WP article. Lester Mobley (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this -- my attempt at adding the quote failed and I didn't notice that. I've redone it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(added) I've just taken an Nth look at this add added a WP:OR tag. I'm not sure whether or not the activists tearing down the statues, about whom Trump was speaking, were associated with a peaceful BLM protest, but the Political Politifact article cited in support of the assertion which makes that connection does not mention BLM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(added) I've had another look at the articles cited. I don't know if the timing actually figures into this, but it looks to me as if this Politifact article appeared at 0110 EDT June 26, 2020, quoting Trump as saying: "These people are vandals, but they’re agitators, but they're really — they’re terrorists, in a sense.”, saying he was referring to "Wisconsin demonstrators" in connection with "protesters nationwide who tore down statues" (that article does not mention BLM). and this CNN article probably appeared later. I say "probably" because rhe version now on the web is an updated version and I'm not sure that it is the version which was on the web at the time of the citation; several versions are archived here, and the earliest archived version says that it is an updated version. The CNN article includes this image, captioned: "Federal agents use crowd control munitions to disperse Black Lives Matter protesters in the US city of Portland, Oregon, on July 20, 2020." (the only mention of BLM in that article). Since BLM protests are (as of the last time I looked) portrayed on WP as peaceful and not deserving of a tear gas response, it looks like perhaps CNN mis-identified whomever provoked the reaction as BLM protestors or, perhaps, CNN is saying that the federal agents are attacking peaceful BLM protesters without provocation. Another possibility is that the writer of the image caption introduced the BLM reference to a CNN article where it had no place. In any case, iIt looks to me as if this entire section is WP:OR without better cites supporting the assertions in the section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(added) I overstated that, probably conflating some of what I read here in this talk page section with the one short para in the section citing the Politico source and the following para citing the CNN source. I've removed the OR tag since the assertion in the para to which it is attached does not assert that BLM is a terrorist organization but only that he has been critical of BLM. That is not supported by the cited Politico source, but it ought to be easily supportable. The CNN source is attached to the following para, which likewise does not make that specific assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Princeton Study finds 570 violent incidents in 220 riot locations associated with BLM protests

Their words, encyclopedic facts and surely if the police wearing riot gear is to be included these encyclopedic fancs should be included.

https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:D423:54E0:6C22:3DD2 (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Their words are also that 90% of the protests are peaceful and that biased media framing causes the public to believe most protesters are violent or destructive. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

More specifically, a table in the Black Lives Matter: Racism & Police Violence section there says that this involves 10,600 demonstration events, 80% of which were connected to BLM and 570 of which involved demonstrations engaging in violence. This data apparently comes from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

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.

---

This new data directly contradicts the “non-violent” claim of this group.

“Princeton Study: Black Lives Matter Responsible For 91% of Riots Over Last 3 Months

America experienced 637 riots between May 26 and September 12.“

(URL Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:80c4:9f00:b517:7e3c:ddb9:6bf7 (talk • contribs) 01:00, September 19, 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the above, reverting its removal here, IAW my understanding of WP:TPG. After restoring it, I noticed some superfluous and apparently unintended content, which I removed here while adding the missing sig.

I haven't spent much time looking at this, but a bit of googling turned up articles [link elided due to blacklist] on Infowars, which is disapproved in WP:RSP and here on Daily Signal, which is not mentioned there. This also turned up, which looks interesting but which I have not done more than glance at. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Nothing actionable occurred here except that a link to a conspiracy theory website (and now a link to a blacklisted site) are included in this page. Well done all around, top work User:Wtmitchell, figuring out how to sneak infowars into here. I don't know what this is for but there was nothing of substance. --Jorm (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2020 (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.

@Jorm: Agreement re the edit, but I figured the suggestion deserved to be considered and probably refused here rather than being suppressed. Sort-of the same thinking applied re the infowars article. Even though blacklisted from being linked, I figured the fact that it came up when I looked for info outside of WP deserved a mention and, having mentioned it, I didn't see a crying need to avoid mentioning its URL in a hidden comment in case an editor looking at this talk page discussion thought that it might be useful to take a look. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Organisation Ignored

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.

---

The BLM organisation in America is at the heart of the movement. That’s why it received millions of dollars in donations after George Floyd’s death. This article should at least state facts about the organisation, otherwise it misleads the reader. Jschanna7 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is some discussion of the organization. What (properly sourced) facts do you have in mind? Lester Mobley (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

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.

---

In the part of the article referencing Roland G Fryer's study, it claims that black people are 50% more likely to experience force at the hands of police. However, when additional control variables are included, most of the disparity disappears. Fryer says that the findings for non-lethal uses of force are "most consistent with a model of taste-based discrimination", but admits that the results are "also consistent with mismeasured contextual factors", and that "we have no definitive proof of discrimination". Jschanna7 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what you want added to the article. The 50% thing comes directly from the abstract, and However, when additional control variables are included, most of the disparity disappears. does not seem to be an accurate representation of the study, which states "On non-lethal uses of force, there are racial differences – sometimes quite large – in police use of force, even after accounting for a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioral factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction." If I understand the study, after accounting for the factors he estimates it at between 18% and 28%. Lester Mobley (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2020 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

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.

---

The BLM page needs serious revisions. Your page says they are a protest group and nonviolent. Black Lives Matter is an admitted Marxist group. And, also, by admission, one of its leaders said if the members don't get what they want, they will burn everything down. People come to Wikipedia for answers. The answers need to be true. PLEASE MAKE THE CHANGES NOW!!! DrM6289 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Blah blah blah, here are some sourceless claims and no action items, blah blah blah.--Jorm (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2020 (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.

Pretending to be something wiki isn’t & the addition of Marxist doctrine as a founding core principle

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.

---

For a supposedly “open” information platform there’s an awful lot of “closed” pages. I understand that people will write some non sense but for supposed place where people are free to edit. You have a lot of things that people can’t edit. So what if some slanderous nonsense is on the page for a tick. It will be removed. It almost appears as tho Wikipedia is afraid of some lies being up for a minute rather than the integrity of a core principal that this website was supposedly founded on. How easy we abandon our roots. It says more than any words ever could about the type of people who make such decisions. Secondly, Black Lives Matters is not for black lives. How many black people are killed on a single weekend in Chicago? More than are killed in an entire year by white cops. So let’s be honest and give people all the information. Also they make no qualms about hold Marxist core values as their core values. These facts are just that facts and need to be included. Since integrity means so much apparently. Mkeller12 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mkeller12: The idea behind page protection is to save the majority of policy-minded and reliable-source-informed members of the community a lot of trouble undoing the same problematic edits over and over by people who don't care about this community's social contracts. Wikipedia is not an anarchy to give you your own way, it is a collaborative effort where many people can decide that you're wrong and you just have to deal with it.

Last year, the number of black people and white people killed by cops was roughly similar -- even though African-Americans only make up less than 13% of the population and white Americans make up 72%. While a lot of black people are killed in Chicago, last year was an average of about one a day (so two or three on a weekend) -- your argument that more black people are killed in Chicago is demonstrably false. Also, the idea of "black-on-black crime" being its own thing while white men who shoot people are just "troubled" is ultimately racist. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2020 (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.

Giving false information

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.

---

Going to have to expose Wikipedia being fake go talk to all them store owners have been attacked by black lives matter help expose Wikipedia OOGrock (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

OOGrock, sure - write it up on Conservapedia, they love that kind of thing and don't demand reliable sources like we do. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:19, 22 September 2020 (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.

Criticism-Marxism & Religion addition

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 think that the section regarding criticism should have a section regarding the alleged Marxist leanings of the movement specifically Alicia Garza using the term "trained Marxist", comments in support of Assata Shakur, and alleged anti-Semitic elements. While of course there is debate on this the fact that it has been brought up so much seems to indicate that it should have a section perhaps called Radicalism accusation.

Also some religious figure have criticized the movement for its stance on the nuclear family, LGBT rights, and abortion. For example Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of South Africa, who is Black and was active in the Anti-Apartheid movement has mentioned this. https://twitter.com/cardinalnapier/status/1279467608782315523?lang=en https://twitter.com/CardinalNapier/status/1299553465782464513

Elizabeth Bruenig has written abut this in the context of the Catholic church, but I am sure there are other examples in different churches. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/opinion/sunday/gloria-purvis-george-floyd-blm.html108.45.91.166 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You must provide an actionable suggestion. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources (except for the opinion of the author), and twitter certainly isn't a reliable source. Nothing to do here.--Jorm (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2020 (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.

violent riots and incidents

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.

---

why is here no mention of all violence caused by blm supporters ? and damage done at us ? 2A00:1028:96D0:36CA:9AB:D033:2D8E:EC3A (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Because there are no reliable sources that report that! Please feel free to return when you have found some!--Jorm (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: Would news sources be considered biased? For instance, ABC? ^{Talk ↔️ Contribs} 17:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have one? Why didn't you post it?--Jorm (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing when I read this page. Vamlos (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2020 (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.

Good article reassessment

Anything else needed at Talk:Black Lives Matter/GA2? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, the assessor hasn't edited since I pinged them. —valereee (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we allowed to remove the tag? The editor has been editing but hasn't visited the reassessment page in over two months, despite being pinged there. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tinton5: Helllooooo? Can you please acknowledge this discussion? Can the tag at the top of this page be removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

hi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7344:6400:4994:4049:720B:2A25 (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Another Believer, it seems Tinton5 has abandoned this reassessment. They haven't responded to multiple pings here and at the reassessment page. It's been nearly three months, and the stated concerns have been addressed. I suggest we close this reassessment. —valereee (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee, Agreed. Do you mind doing so? Please don't do this again in the future, Tinton5. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, I've followed the instructions as best I could, you might want to check my work. :) —valereee (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Disagreement over racial bias" section tag

Is the POV banner on the "Disagreement over racial bias" still warranted? Can folks point out to me the issues with the section and/or suggest ways to fix it? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

btw, this isn't on my watchlist, so plz ping me :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

TrynaMakeADollar, you added this tag back after it was removed -- what do you find about the section that is non-neutral? —valereee (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you'd originally added the tag. I see you were in a disagreement with another editor over misinterpreting sources? Can you tell me what you believe misinterprets the sources? I'd like to fix this tag if I can, but from a very quick glance our reporting seems to be pretty straightforward. —valereee (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"Sourceless" Marxist claim

See also: Talk:Patrisse Cullors § RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?

Since the previous section was closed I will post here. I did not include sources in the first post cause I wanted to start a discussion on this topic. Instead now I will post some sources. Here is a politifact article discussing the claim: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

Articles in support of calling it that https://fee.org/articles/black-lives-matter-s-goal-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-fits-a-marxist-aim-that-goes-back-a-century-and-a-half/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/

Counter claim article https://theberkshireedge.com/the-actors-came-back

One that splits the difference https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/

I feel the need to stress that this not me questioning if BLM is Marxist, but showing that one of the objections from the Right on BLM is this alleged Marxist connection.

Regarding the anti-Semitism claim here are some articles. https://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/black-lives-matter-american-jews-and-antisemitism-distinguishing-between-the-organizations-the-movement-and-the-ubiquitous-phrase/ https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/from-left-to-right-jewish-groups-condemn-repellent-black-lives-matter-claim-of-israeli-genocide https://jewishjournal.org/2020/07/16/editorial-anti-semitism-and-black-lives-matter/ https://combatantisemitism.org/latest-news/jcpa-article-details-the-undermining-of-blm-by-bds-supporters/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did-black-american-activists-start-caring-about-palestine/496088/108.45.91.166 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to find stronger sources than FEE and the Washington Times. Not top tier journalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. I see editorials and non-RS sources. You are right that the claim is out there, but why should we include it here? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what about Politifacts article? Here are some articles from Newsweek, the Guardian, and Politico which are rated highly. They all mention that the Marxist claim is being used by Republicans. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/10/elections-republicans-black-lives-matterbacklash-389906 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/black-lives-matter-rightwing-media https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-marxist-group-gop-senator-says-citing-2015-video-1519827

Also what about the anti-Semitism claim? The Atlantic is highly rated. Jerusalem Post and Tablet are respected sources. 108.45.91.166 (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

IP, the Atlantic article about a group's statement on Israel/Palestine is about Movement for Black Lives, which is a different group from BLM, which I can't even find mentioned in that article. None of the articles is saying BLM is Marxist; they're saying at least one of the founders in 2015 described herself (and maybe one of the other founders?) as Marxist. I think that could certainly be added to the article about her, but BLM is so loosely organized that I don't even think the politics of the founders matter, really. Maybe a sentence in the criticism section about some conservatives conflating the movement with the politics of one or more of the founders? —valereee (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand but slightly disagree. The point of my suggestion was not to say that BLM is Marxist, but that there is an association with the group to far-left politics, which has been a source of the criticism. Also regarding the statement about BLM being loosely organized, while true this ultimately leads to the question of why have any criticism section. For example one section says mentions a lack of focus on "Black on Black" crime, but I am sure you could find some one from BLM who does mention it. If a movement is so decentralized to the point that any criticism can only be leveled at on aspect of it, then I am not sure how to decide fair criticism. Also I previously mentioned actions in support of Assata Shakur that could be included. such as these articles. https://abc7news.com/palo-alto-mural-black-lives-matter-assata-shakur/6310523/

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/artist-explains-why-she-painted-assata-shakur-into-mural-outside-palo-alto-city-hall/ https://spectator.us/black-lives-matter-praising-terrorist-assata-shakur/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/09/national-police-group-asks-palo-alto-to-remove-fugitive-assata-shakur-from-black-lives-matter-street-mural/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/fugitive-the-source-of-debate-over-black-lives-matter-mural-in-palo-alto/2327624/108.45.91.166 (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if this is true (dubious; these are bottom-of-the-barrel sources you're bringing us) I can't see a universe where this is WP:DUE.--Jorm (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to get rid of the criticism section, IP. As you say, it's kind of irrelevant. "Black Lives Matter" didn't paint that Assata Shakur section of the Palo Alto mural; a single artist made that decision. BLM isn't Marxist; some of their members, including at least one founder, are. The financial thing -- that's Black Lives Matter Global Network, which isn't the same thing as the BLM movement. And really who cares what Rudy Giuliani says lol...—valereee (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jorm these are not "bottom of the barrel" sources, nothing posted is in dispute, it is simply a question of if they should be included. As Valereee said the question is how to square this with the criticism section. I agree that the Giuliani section should either be changed to reflect wider criticism by Republican party figures or removed. I personally have no issue with a criticism section, but as Valereee said it seems uneven108.45.91.166 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree. And I don't see why the FEE article or its writer is considered unreliable when WP:RSPSOURCES lists something as contentious as Fox News to be generally fine. Amidst all the other accepted sources, there are also similar accusations in a Daily Telegraph piece, so the claims of undue weight seem highly unfounded. There are also accusations from mostly conservative outlets such as the Heritage Foundation and Fox News that BLM is linked to a pro-China organisation, and this has been covered in fact checks by the New York Times and The Dispatch, the latter of which involved a celebrity like Herschel Walker. I'm not seeing very strong reasons here to block all this coverage, although it's hardly the first or most egregious case I've seen of this type of censorship on the site (this coming from someone who identifies as left-wing btw). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've just added a link to a related discussion regarding BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors: Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist? Indeed, opposition to the inclusion of a much-discussed quote regarding Marxism was rejected on the basis of "no consensus", when many contributors expressed opposition to calling Patrisse Cullors a "Marxist" (which actually wasn't the point of contention) or explicitly opposed it on the basis that "it's used as a right-wing smear". Somehow, WP is playing the political games that prevail outside of it, and that's a shame. Fa suisse (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

archiving

Would anyone object to shortening the archiving to maybe 15 days (currently at 30)? The page has gotten very long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 07:56, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

It's mostly so long due to people responding to months-old threads, which keeps the archiver from moving them. I'll manually archive a few of those sections to cut down the page a bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. I went ahead and archived a few edit requests that were not actionable, as well. That should make the page more manageable, and the archive bot can pick up from there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Hey I don't know why we are still using the "organization" infobox when this page is clearly about the broader social movement. The organization often known as "Black Lives Matter" is the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and has its own page. I think its time the infobox reflect what the article is talking about, and that is a broad protest movement. We should use a civil conflict infobox as is used on every other social movement's page. This seems like sort of a no-brainer unless I'm missing something.Mangokeylime (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I disagree but I hate the name "civil conflict" for an infobox as it seems pre-disposing. I there a more appropriate one with less inflammatory assumptions built-in?--Jorm (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. And the "civil conflict" name does not imply civil war or anything that intense, but more of a dispute. The infobox is mostly used for protests, strikes, and other civil disputes/movements. For instance it is used in the Civil rights movement page, and most other social movement's pages.Mangokeylime (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The logo

I'm not following this, but this edit on Wikipedia caught my eye and caused me to look at this logo. It says there, "Source: Own work". Is this entirely your own artistic creation, or is it based on a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? I would appreciate a response on my WP user talk page, but I'll try to check back here for one. Please excuse my linking clumsiness here -- I rarely venture outside of WP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, given it's an original work with no real RS behind it, I'd Support removing it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've pursued this here. I'm not on a crusade here, and I'm hoping that this has a quick solution. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(added) I never got a response there, so I've tagged the logo caption describing this as "Common social media logo/profile/avatar for the formal Black Lives Matter" as {{cn}}, saying that the asserted common-ness of this particular logo needs support. This logo appears to me, based on this to be one of many BLM logo designs. Offhand, I don't see why WP chooses to highlight this one over the others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Research from a Black Harvard University Professor

My edit in the "Disagreement over racial bias" subsection of the article was removed because it apparently needs consensus. It is striking how censorship-ridden Wikipedia has become. Gotta fall in line I guess, lest I get sent to the gulag. Getting to the point: "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force" (2016) by Roland G. Fryer J. concludes that there is no racial bias in police shootings. Why does there need to be consensus to add the conclusion of a factual Harvard study to the article? https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force --Chupster811 (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Because all sorts and kinds of folks with, shall we say, less-than-pure motives are desperate to promote the racist "black on black" crime myth and like to throw around "research" to prove that, even when said research has been discredited or pulled, and so therefore we have to talk about what we want to include so as to not spread white supremacist propaganda. Further, a study itself is not a valid source; it's a primary source, and we'd need secondary sources to include it anyway.--Jorm (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The edit gave WP:UNDUE weight to one study, I think. The section mentions a National Review article and a PNAS article that got picked up in the press. Are there any WP:SECONDARY sources about this study? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Fryer study is already mentioned in the section "Police use of excessive force", only citing the study. There are several other academic papers cited there. Lester Mobley (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Fryer did indicate that a subset of police are more physically aggressive with blacks, but also concluded that in terms of shootings, there is no racial bias. Therefore, I think the latter conclusion should be included in the "Disagreement over racial bias" subsection so as to present a balanced view of the study's conclusions. Here are secondary sources citing the research: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Reason.--Chupster811 (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Chupster811, that would go into an article on racial disparity in policing, not here. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Even though it relates directly to the core premise underlying the entire BLM movement? Nonsense. 204.145.225.74 (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Updated polls on support of Black Lives Matter should be included

As of September 2020, new polls from Pew Research Center has shown a decrease in support for BLM since June https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/16/support-for-black-lives-matter-has-decreased-since-june-but-remains-strong-among-black-americans/ 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:ED40:86D:FEED:83DC (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

past decisions made in the name of transportation improvements have failed Black, Indigenous and People of Color

It looks like this article miss some point:

"Research shows that People of Color suffer higher rates of traffic fatalities and severe injuries, that drivers are less likely to yield to Black people walking and biking, and that frequently programs and policies to support safety – such as those around jaywalking – disproportionately burden communities of color."

Or should this been addressed in a different article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.216.31 (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is this a quote from? Without a specific source to discuss, it's not possible to discuss whether it should be included/used in the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, it appears to be from this source. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"black-on-black violence"

the current end of the subsection "black-on-black crime" in the criticism section is a blatant example of being dishonest with statistics. it points out that black-on-black violence occurs proportionally similarly to white-on-white violence within violence against those groups. this is true, but misleading, if it is to argue that black-on-black violence is the same as white-on-white violence. these things happen at a similar proportion of all black or white homicide victimizations, but they happen at a much higher rate among blacks than whites

see these cdc causes of death statistics for white and black people, respectively:

https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/nonhispanic-white/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/nonhispanic-black/index.htm

homicide was the fourth leading cause of death among blacks in 2017. for whites, it did not rank in the top ten. likewise, 35.3% of deaths among blacks ages 0–19 and 27.6% of those among blacks ages 20–44 were caused by homicide. this compares to 5.2% and 2.8% for whites in those respective age ranges.

black-on-black violence is a grave problem, and it is beneath wikipedia's standards to trivialize it so transparently TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatConsultingDetective: So, you're going to cite figures describing how often black men (excluding women) are murdered (with no reference as to the race of the murderer), versus how often white men are murdered (with no reference as to the race of the murderer) to assert that black people kill each other more often than white people?

In any other topic, I'd recommend reading WP:No original research. For this one, I instead recommend that you ask yourself why you feel the need to portray black people as more violent. I'm not saying you're racist or anything, but the only way to argue for that and not be racist would be to say that society makes it harder for black people to not be violent, which would mean that systematic racism is a thing (you do know that it is, right?). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a very unfair and unproductive response. Please assume good faith (WP:AGF), rather than immediately jumping to question the OP's motives and insinuate malicious intentions. We are WP:Here to build an encyclopedia, and highlighting and improving misleading statistics is very much in line with that mission.

To the OP's point, here are some sources that may provide better information to improve this section of the article:

• "Research has long documented that most violence occurs within racial groups and that black Americans, often victimized by black offenders, experience disproportionately high levels of violent crime." [1]
• "Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)" [2]

Stonkaments (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

While I asked OP to question their own motives, I explicitly said that I wasn't calling them racist. If I believed they were racist, I would not have bothered asked them to consider why they want certain views presented.

The Harvard source you cite are ultimately interpretations of the WP:PRIMARY 1980-2008 DOJ statistics which are also discussed by the sources in the article ([[3] [4]). 93% of black Americans were victims of crime committed by black people, and 84% of white Americans were victims of crime committed by white people -- that's what the article means by "with less than ten percentage points of difference in one-on-one attacks where the races were reported." This is further confirmed by page 6 of the Harvard source you cited and 13 of the Bureau of Justice Statistics source.

Beyond that, the Harvard source only demonstrates that more black Americans live in conditions where they're likely to be victims of crime or arrested, and even concludes Police executives, politicians and political commentators need to refrain from using overly simplistic descriptions — such as “black-on-black” violence — when describing outbreaks of serious criminal violence in black neighborhoods. (p.16) That's explained pretty well on page 12:

Seldom are crimes involving whites described as white-on-white violence. Use of this vernacular to describe blacks’ victimization of other blacks has several important consequences. First, a singular focus on a rudimentary race-based dyad characterizing black offending and victimization has the potential to devalue black life while overshadowing the importance of harmful social conditions, such as concentrated neighborhood disadvantage and low collective efficacy (Sampson, 2012) that collectively produce crime. Second, casual use of the black-on-black violence classification may lead segments of the public to implicitly assume that blacks are more tolerant of crime and disorder and do not share the moral standards of mainstream society.

As the Christian Science Monitor source notes, Those statistics may be reflective of other factors, such as poverty rates, disparities in opportunity, and segregation of neighborhoods, rather than any indication that black communities inherently struggle with internal strife more white communities, advocates say. In other words, the "statistical support" for "black-on-black crime" is a victim-blaming misrepresentation of the poor conditions that black Americans are subjected to, a way to hide systematic racism behind numbers. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

i actually 100% agree that "black-on-black violence", by whatever name or understanding we have, is a product of systemic racism, so i didn't "feel the need to portray black people as more violent" at all. i just read the subsection as written, and saw that it did not address some key facts, and wanted to bring it up. i agree that my specific facts and figures did not by themselves, and only in conjunction with the point in the article about consistent rates of intraracial violence across races, demonstrate my point. my comment and links were less intended to close the matter or satisfy the need for sources, but to start a discussion to improve the article. i'm not a skilled wikipedia editor, so i did not think i could do this on my own. to reiterate, i believe john mcwhorter made a sound criticism that the current edit of this article attempts to debunk, but poorly, and it can stand to be more well rounded. how this can be done is beyond my capacity as a novice editor, and i only wanted to start the discussion. now that i have, i'll step back as an editor TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

it looks like nobody else is discussing this further, so i have to.

ian's response fails entirely to address the point of my concern and what the provided statistics show. what they show is the phenomenon of a tragic number of black lives being lost in black communities. the current edit of the article disguises that fact, now established, by hiding it in statistics. the point that this fact is better explained by systemic racism than black people being naturally violent is **completely irrelevant** to the fact that the phenomenon that has been established. ian didn't deny the phenomenon, but challenged an explanation no one offered. the phenomenon is real and of concern to anyone who actually cares about black lives and not just progressive politics. if the response is to give a better explanation for the phenomenon, i **strongly encourage** that explanation be included in the article in place of the dishonest statistics. hiding the phenomenon with dishonest statistics is, frankly, disgusting. just fix the article please TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

TGCD, you say, just fix the article please. That's not how WP really works. You have two options: "fix" the article yourself, and then defend your changes. Or make a clear, well-written edit request. Good edit requests generally follow this template:

Please change "(wording you want changed)" to "(what you want it to say instead)" per (link to reliable source supporting the change) which says, "(language in source which supports the change)".

If someone agrees with you, they'll make the edit. —valereee (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

i appreciate the tip and will keep it in mind for future edit requests, but it's abundantly clear to all by now that i have no idea how to edit wikipedia on a technical level, and wouldn't know how to begin editing or recommend editing something as high profile as a "black lives matter" article appropriately. so as far as i'm concerned, the current article, my arguments, the counterarguments, the assaults on my character, and the evidence thereof have all been addressed, and if someone clearheaded and capable ventures into the talk page, maybe they can make something of our contributions, or not. whatever happens, the discussion has been completed and my conscience has been cleared. thanks! TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

Dead Links #Best Replacement https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37283869 https://www.educatemeans.in/2020/11/black-lives-matter-complete-case-study.html Educatemeans (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Tibetian lives matter, too

Why not state that the movement is very US centric and that there are much more severe forms of oppression, like in Tibet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8680:3241:D63:B29C:6D8:5029 (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not recognize that there is a Tibetan independence movement and that the goals of that movement and BLM aren't contradictory?

Why not understand that this article isn't about the Tibetan independence movement, just as the TMI article isn't about BLM?

Why not realize that the two movements actually have globally compatible goals and would be useful allies instead of using one to denigrate the other? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, the dubious assertion that the oppression of people in Tibet, which is not even based on race, is "much more severe" than that of Black people in the US sounds (which to me would imply that a mass-killing type genocide like the Holocaust is being perpetrated against Tibetans, while Black people in the US are "only" repeatedly murdered by state actors individually, in addition to the forced cultural assimilation that Black Americans have been enduring for centuries to an extent that they have even been deprived of their original African languages and cultures, which adds to the difficulty involved in making a direct comparison with the case of the Tibetans) like an attempt to delegitimise the BLM movement and its concerns by trivialising the oppression Black Americans face. To me, the IP comment sounds like a classic case of whataboutism – while, to add a wry observation, oddly almost inverting the original example: "Americans are murdering Black people!" – "And you communists are oppressing Tibetans!". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BLM the movement vs. Black Lives Matter Global Network

Should we talk about pulling the network out of this article? BLM the movement, for example, doesn't have any financials and isn't a non-profit. I think the non-profit needs to be a separate article. —valereee (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This source, cited in the article, seams to speak to that; I'm not really clear on what it says, though. I'm not following the development of this article and I'm also not clear on how/whether it relates to the movement, and/or the network, and/or the individual chapters as portrayed in this article. The picture I have is that BLM, as an organization, is "loose". There's also the article's Financial transparency issues section, which appears to relate to this and also, possibly, other bits elsewhere in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that this is not going to lead anywhere useful, but I thought to raise it. --

I've been struck by the resemblance of the "looseness" of the BLM organization to a similar apparent organizational "looseness" in Al-Qaeda. I don't infer any connection between the two from this, but I'm struck by the similarity. "From the outset, al-Qaeda adopted a unique organizational design, whereby its senior leadership outlined a strategic course for the organization a whole, but empowered mid-level commanders to execute this strategy as they saw fit. 'Centralization of decision and decentralization of execution,' as this organizational principle has been described, remains operative today. Indeed, in adhering to this principle, al-Qaeda has been able to maintain both organizational and strategic coherence even in the face of considerable internal and external challenges." One big difference I see is that Al Qaeda sought credit for operations conducted by operational groups without formal affiliation to them, and BLM denies any connection (at least insofar as BLM is identifiable as an organization andinsofar as a BLM spokesman is identifiable as such). I'm put in mind of the remark here saying, ""Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working"

References

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

They're not really similar at all. aQ had a founding organization and cell-structure inspired by Osama bin Laden's CIA training. BLM is a movement formed organically that happens to have a few small communities who've organized into specific groups, but still overall is just loosely affiliated individuals. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you brought up Al-Qaeda but anyway... This article is about the movement, not specifically about the network. I think info about the loose organizational model should remain if it is about how organizations within the general movement (which seems to be the case) are loosely organized. For the record there is already a wiki page about the network... Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.Mangokeylime (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mangokeylime, should we revise this article to clarify what it's about? —valereee (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Sure, this article already somewhat says that but there is always more citable info out there. I can add it.Mangokeylime (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Confused about BLM movement vs. BLM Global Network Foundation, Inc.

Confused... This article says that BLM is "a movement", while BlackLivesMatter.com says "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes." There would seem to be a big difference between the two.

Given that the website says they started in in 2013; I would change this article from saying (at the top, in the summary) that BLM is a movement to as a minimum give both points of view.. BLM is an organization, and it is a movement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.68.34 (talk • contribs) 16:06, November 19, 2020 (UTC)

You're conflating one specific organization with the general movement. Just as there was no official Civil Rights Movement organization, there is not an official Black Lives Matter movement organization. Specific chapters might pop up in locations, using that name, but that does not invalidate that the overarching phenomenon is a loose movement without an organizing heirarchy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 22 November 2020 (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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

"What we believe"

Until very recently the official BLM website had a list of beliefs that BLM follows

https://web.archive.org/web/20200917013317/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

There has been considerable controversy about these believes. Such much so that this page has been recently removed.

I would like to create a section on the current wiki to bring to light this controversy.

Examples of News articles discussing this controversy are below

https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-disrupt-nuclear-family-website https://disrn.com/news/black-lives-matter-removes-controversial-belief-statements-from-website https://www.lawofficer.com/after-being-unmasked-blm-removes-what-we-believe-from-website/ https://notthebee.com/article/black-lives-matter-website-removes-controversial-what-we-believe-page https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8759959/BLM-removes-page-mentions-disrupting-Western-nuclear-family-website.html https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/black-lives-matter-what-we-believe-page-that-includes-disrupting-nuclear-family-structure-removed-from-website https://www.the-sun.com/news/1511555/black-lives-matter-deleting-end-nuclear-family/

How to process with this edit? The page seems to be protected?

The specific suggestion is to include a section that reads "Until 17th Sep 2020 the BLM had a what-we-believe webpage that had the following list of beliefs (list them). The beliefs caused considerable controversy and were removed on the 15th of Sep 2020. Several news outlets (include links above and others) criticized BLM for wanting to hide their true beliefs".

Sorry for the bad English. Not my first language.

Below is the actual beliefs from 17th Sep 2020 that BLM website states about itself. Directly copied from the webarchive.

• We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.
• We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.
• We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.
• We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.*
• We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.
• We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.
• We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.
• We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
• We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, *and environments in which men are centered.
• We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
• We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
• We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
• We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).
• We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.
• We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.31.81 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done. The links you provide are from unreliable sources, many of them totally deprecated per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, others to be treated with some degree of suspicion, especially on this hot button political topic. If it's not being discussed by CBS, NBC, USA Today, The New York Times or similar, then it's not very important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I am very confused. Is there a list of unreliable sources? What do you mean by unreliable in this context? What do you mean "or similar,"? Isn't Fox news a legit news agency? The page "what we believe" was taken down, it is a fact. And it is a fact that many people had an issue with that page, which is why it was taken down. We are not talking about an issue where one malicious journal might distort reality on a nuanced issue. Why is the fact that this page caused controversy a "hot button" ? I do not think you're being objective/fair (whomever you are). Are you the gate keeper? Who should go I go to discuss about with? In the meanwhile, let me try to find more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.52.210 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are three links from the WSJ discussing the some of the controversy on the "what we believe" webpage https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-lives-matter-and-the-family-11595530123 https://www.wsj.com/articles/young-radicals-wont-redeem-racial-liberalism-11597187990 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-black-lives-matter-republican-11603298890 Is the WSJ good in your view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.52.210 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is another link on the same topic from the new york post https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-blasting-nuclear-family-structure/ is this a good source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.52.210 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The WSJ sources are all opinion pieces, not news articles. Per WP:RSOPINION, these are only reliable as sources for statements as to the authors' opinions, not for statements of fact. As to the NYPost, on Wikipedia it is considered generally unreliable for factual information, especially where politics are involved. The list of sources you asked about is the same one that Binksternet linked previously, that being Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe more appropriate than a new section called "controversy" is to just include this discussion on the "Criticism" section in a new subsection called "What we believe". What do you mean by "generally unreliable"? Also, it is obviously an opinion that the "what we believe" page is controversial. It is a fact that it was remove. You don't need a reference for that, just use the waybackmachine. All the topics currently under "criticism" are an opinion of some people that others do not agree with. For example, under "Tatics" one reads "Some black civil rights leaders such as Cecil "Chip" Murray, Najee Ali and Earl Ofari Hutchinson have criticized", so this is the opinion of some people. Maybe not even a majority. And it still made it to the BLM wiki. So I think that the WSJ opinion pieces are more than enough. I must say that it just feels like you're making excuses not to expand the page. Not sure why really. It is an interesting topic and useful topic what I want to add. I will go over the list of reliable sources and try to find more links that are "approved". I just hope that, after I've expanded the list of references, you don't find other excuses not to include my contribution. In any case, I'm glad to learn about how wiki really works. Thanks for your time ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.84.178 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I've starting going over the list you send in alphabetical order. I am still in the A's. I already have to articles talking about this from a "green/Ok" source. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/diversity-and-inclusion-the-wests-booming-new-religion/news-story/700b9126217c89e78daa81560ebf8600 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/senator-matt-canavans-black-coal-matters-post-draws-ire/news-story/15f0f84f8005c1c6ee2c5f06babf9287 Both articles mention that the "what we believe" page was removed and mention some of its controversies, regarding the "disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family". By the way, Fox news is also on your list. And I already gave you an article from Fox news. So I already have multiple links from "green/Ok" sources. Will keep working through the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.84.178 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Another two links discussing the controversy around the "what we believe" page from a "green/Ok" sources https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/294451-black-lives-matter-agenda-is-about-more-than-race https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2020-07-07/terry-crews-don-lemon-black-lives-matter the second link about how famous people have a qualm with the "what we believe" page (in the same vein as the text currently in "Criticism->Tatics") Here is another article, from a green/ok source, saying that they *agree* with the "what we believe page" and that others are wrong to disagree with it (again supporting the view that this page is controversial) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oped-dear-roland-c-warren-you-re-wrong-black-lives-n620976 Here is another one from a "green/Ok" source mentioning the deletion of the page and its controversy https://www.newsweek.com/woke-christians-are-eroding-donald-trumps-base-dividing-evangelical-church-1534720 Here is another one also from a "green/ok" source https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/10/elections-republicans-black-lives-matterbacklash-389906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.84.178 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, browsing through these:

• I cannot view The Australian site, it's paywalled.
• The Hill article is an opinion piece (note the author is labeled Contributor), and thus not a reliable source for factual statements.
• The LA Times page is about an interview with Terry Crews & his opinions on BLM, not about the website itself.
• The NBC News page is clearly labelled as an OpEd (an opinion piece).
• The Newsweek page is about a Christian anti-Trump movement, not about the website.
• Finally, the Politico article is about the Republican attempt to push an anti-BLM message before the election. Again, not something specific to the website.

So we have a paywall, several opinion pieces, and some articles about the BLM movement but not directly about that particular website. At best, they have a passing mention of the site, but the articles are not about the site, they're just using the site as a brief mention related to their overall article about BLM. These sources are not supporting your argument of a major controversy around the site itself.

I think what you're actually looking to add to the article is basically that the BLM movement has some goals that are controversial, but you're so focused on the website that you're missing the forest for the trees. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. The goal is to discuss the controversial goals. However, note that BLM itself has removed the goals from its webspage. That is why I was mentioning it. This shows how controversial they were, but I agree is not the main point. So we agree that we have multiple reliable sources discussing how BLM goals are controversial. We should add a section discussing the controversial goals, how to proceed? Btw, you keep dismissing some of the pieces "just the opinion of a few". This is not enough because all discussion the "criticism" section is about opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.21.33 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sidenote: You don't have to change the answered=yes to =no of this edit request to continue the discussion, so please don't. Also, see how to sign your posts. --Fyrisdal (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Btw, you keep dismissing some of the pieces "just the opinion of a few". This is not enough because all discussion the "criticism" section is about opinions.

You need to read up on our policy about reliable sources. An opinion piece can only be used to document a person's opinion, it cannot be used to make a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice.

It really sounds like you just want a "Controversies" section, which is something Wikipedia got away from years ago. Any actual controversies can be discussed naturally at the appropriate point in the article, but only with reliably sourced statements. And trying to draw a line between that BLM website changing its goals page & claiming those goals are controversial is unique synthesis: you're drawing a conclusion connecting the two events, but we cannot do that on Wikipedia. You have to find a reliable source making that assertion for us to add it to the page.

As a side note, this particular BLM webpage is not "official" for BLM as a whole, just for that particular chapter. BLM is a broad movement with no top-down organization, so any local group cannot speak for the movement as a whole. Even if the goals of this particular chapter were controversial, you could only say that about that particular chapter, not BLM as a whole. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you keeping moving around the topic of discussion. I do not want a controversy section. This was already clarified, so let's not bring it up again. I want a a subsection of the "Criticism" section that mentions that BLM has been criticized because of its "believes". The argument that "BLM is a broad movement with no top-down organization, so any local group cannot speak for the movement as a whole." can be used both ways. It is a bad argument. If this is the case, then anything stated in the page about BLM would have to be linked to a specific local group, or dismissed for the same reason. E.g. any criticism about BLM can be immediately dismissed by saying, "well, this criticism does not apply to all of its local groups, so let's remove this from the criticism section". Your argument is further invalidated by the fact that the official wiki BLM page, as of this moment, has as the BLM website the website that I am talking about. If the website I am talking about is that irrelevant, then I propose that we remove it from the "webpage" link in the current BLM page. And we should also further move any content in the current webpage that mentions this webpage. So, lets get serious, I propose a subsection of the current "Criticism" section that reads something of the kind "BLM has been criticized for the views expressed in its official webpage" (with more detail of course) and then we can link to the several "green/ok" source I've provided that mention this criticism. Btw, I will mark my section as answered, when I actually get a proper answer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.85.26 (talk • contribs) 15:30, December 5, 2020 (UTC)

Procedural closure of the edit request per WP:EDITXY - this request is neither an uncontroversial improvement, nor already supported by a consensus of editors. As such, this cannot be completed by editors who would respond to an edit request. Edit requests are not a form of dispute resolution. Please continue the discussion here on the talk page, or seek dispute resolution if needed. Please do not reactivate the edit request template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)