Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Black Lives Matter (social movement)

According to Wikipedia, "A social movement is a loosely organized effort by a large group of people to achieve a particular goal, typically a social or political one".

The title of the Wikipedia article about "Black Lives Matter" should be changed to "Black Lives Matter (social movement)". Then, within that article, the organizations participating in the movement can be identified and described. This structure will help readers to understand that "Black Lives Matter" is a social movement (not an organization) and that many different organization are participating in the movement. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The addition of a parenthetical, like "(social movement)", is used to disambiguate a name or title from other uses. I am not aware of another use of Black Lives Matter and there isn't another article titled Black Lives Matter, so why disambiguate?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Carole: There are about two dozen organizations that use the words "Black Lives Matter" in their names. For example, "Black Lives Matter Vancouver".

When people see "Black Lives Matter" they sometimes assume that "Black Lives Matter" is an abbreviated version of an organization's name. For example, they might assume that "Black Lives Matter" is an abbreviation of the legal name "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc."

The Wikipedia article about Black Lives Matter should clearly and carefully distinguish between Black Lives Matter (the social movement) and the organizations that participate in that movement.

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Scott, I am not quite understanding your point. The social media hashtag #BlackLives Matter led to the movement and legal entity / foundation. And chapters were formed, such as Black Lives Matter Vancouver.

Just out of curiosity, aside from the location based names, like Black Lives Matter Vancouver, what do you anticipate would be the topic of the article "Black Lives Matter" if this article was moved to "Black Lives Matter (social movement)"?

In other words, what is the most common use of "Black Lives Matter" that should be differentiated (disambiguated) from "Black Lives Matter (social movement)"?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Added "not quite" above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are suggesting two articles:

The article could be split into one article about the social movement that excludes the information specific to the Black Lives Matter organization / foundation and its chapters, which would have its own article.

In that case, I would think that the social movement should probably be the main article (what most people think of as BLM) and the formal organization and chapters should likely be disambiguated, such as "Black Lives Matter (organization)" or "Black Lives Matter (foundation)".

I assume that the article about the organization would be a relatively short article about the actual founding of the organizations, its leaders, and its chapters, with most of the information in the movement article + a bit of cross-reference information and links to the other article.

If you think that this should be broken into two articles, the process is to post the {{Split}} template on the article and explain what you think that the content should be in each article for discussion.

If you are saying that the information specifically about the foundation and its chapters should have its own section (which sounds like you are saying), that would be pretty easy to do, but there would be no need to rename the article "Black Lives Matter (social movement)", right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Carole: Searching the United States "Trademark Electronic Search System" for the words "Black Lives Matter" yields a list that includes 28 records. One of those records has the "Serial Number 88958933" The record shows that the owner is "Fisher, Haig INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 315 Meigs Rd. #A-281 Santa Barbara CALIFORNIA 93109". The "Goods and Services" section of the record reads "IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Political party services, namely, promoting the interests of a political organization; Providing a website featuring information about political issues; Providing information regarding political issues, knowing how to vote and knowing how to register to vote; Providing information, news, and commentary in the field of politics".

At this point, I believe that there is no person or organization that has the exclusive right to use the name "Black Lives Matter".

Yes, "The social media hashtag #BlackLivesMatter led to the movement and legal entity / foundation". But there is not just one legal entity that uses "Black Lives Matter" in its name. There are 4 Delaware corporations and 3 California corporations that have the words "Black Lives Matter" in their names and probably many more in other states and provinces and other jurisdictions.

Throughout this article, I am only seeing Black Lives Matter mentioned for the social movement and the global network foundation. (And, of course, there are chapters that contain the name Black Lives Matter + the city.) Article titles for pages that would otherwise have the same name are: given the non-disambiguated name to the most common usage (See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion of usage) and a disambiguated name for other uses. I suppose a Black Lives Matter (disambiguation) page could be created with Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter (global organization) (or other disambig name) and whatever uses that you found that might justify its own article in the future. Plus, have an {{Other uses}} template at the top of the BLM articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The article currently reads, in part: An organization known simply as "Black Lives Matter" exists as a decentralized network with over 30 chapters worldwide". That statement is not true. The corporation named "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc." has a website and numerous "chapters". That corporation may sometimes use "Black Lives Matter" as an abbreviation of its full, legal name but that usage not does legally change its name to "simply" Black Lives Matter. To legally change its name it would have to adopt and file an amendment to its articles of incorporation.

It says "known simply as" - Black Lives Matter is used throughout the BLM website. I think it would be good, though, to state the full foundation name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done with this diff. Please feel free to edit the note, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding "(social movement)" to the title of the article would not be necessary if the first paragraph of the article defined Black Lives Matter as a "social movement" and states that many organizations use the words "Black Lives Matter" in their full names.

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The article would not need to say that many organizations use the words "Black Lives Matter". Wikipedia is not a directory. It would be good to have a section about the organization and chapters with the full / legal name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Carole: States have laws that regulate the names of corporations. In general, a corporation's name cannot include the word "bank" or "trust" unless a state regulatory agency gives a proposed corporation permission use those words. And some states require that a corporation's name shall identify the corporation as a corporation by including the words "corporation" or "incorporated" or "inc" or "corp", etc. I do not know what Delaware's corporation naming laws provide but I would not presume the it is acceptable to delete "Foundation, Inc." from the name of the largest social movement organization in the Black Lives Matters social movement. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Scott Gregory Beach, Please feel free to change it to what you believe it should be, but I think that you'll need another source. I used a page on the BLM website for the citation. In addition, I think the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation is another entity that provides grants for local BLM efforts. I believe it is also sometime called Black Lives Matter Foundation, but I am not sure that they are exactly the same. It sounds like you might have a good handle on this, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

New introductory paragraph

I have drafted a new introductory paragraph for the BLM article. Please note that my draft defines BLM as a "social movement" and that it refers to BLM organizations as "social movement organizations".

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a social movement. The primary goal of the movement is to stop unjust killings by police officers. The members of the BLM movement publicly protest against alleged acts of police brutality on Afro-American people and they sometimes block public roadways as a means of drawing attention to their protests. The members of the movement have established several social movement organizations, including Black Lives Matter Sacramento, Black Lives Matter Vancouver Wa, Black Lives Matter Global Network, Inc. and many others.

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Why is this preferable over the current opening paragraph? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Snoogans... The current introductory paragraph reads, in part, An organization known simply as "Black Lives Matter"[a] exists as a decentralized network with over 30 chapters worldwide..."

The blacklivesmatter.com website includes a page that lists 16 chapters, not 30 chapters. The "Fund the Movement" page of the website states that "Your contribution will benefit Black Lives Matter Global Network". So it appears to me that the owner of the website is not named "simply" Black Lives Matter.

The "About" page of the website reads, "#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013". The coining of a hashtag does not establish a corporation named simply "Black Lives Matter" or anything else.

The "About" page also makes reference to "Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc". Maybe there is a Texas or Alaska or Oregon corporation with that name, or maybe the reference to "Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc" is a bungled effort to state the name of the Delaware corporation named "Black Lives Matter Global Network, Inc." or the Delaware corporation named "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc."

The errors and ambiguities in the BLM website should not be imported into Wikipedia. It is very important to find out what exists and what is just an error. I hope that my draft introductory paragraph does not include any errors or ambiguities.

It might be the case that Black Lives Matters Global Network, Inc. has published a fictitious business name statement to inform the public that it is conducting its business under the fictitious name "Black Lives Matter". If such a statement has been published, that statement should be referenced in the article so that the reader understands that the corporation is conducting its activities under a name that is not its legal name (as stated in the corporation's articles of incorporation).

Let's work together to remove the mistakes and confusion from the BLM article.

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I added information about the BLM organizations to the note about the organization's name here, based upon information at the BLM website. I am still a bit confused about the difference between Black Lives Matter Foundation, Black Lives Matter Global Network, and Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (all of which may more legally correctly also include "Inc.") - but I just put in the info that is on the website. If someone can help straighten this out, it might be better to have this in the body of the article - perhaps with its own section within the Black Lives Matter#Structure and organization section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC) I would be happy to write that section if someone can help me sort out the organization's names and purposes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Updated diff.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Influence Watch information about BLMGNF is a bit helpful, makes it seem as if Black Lives Matter Global Network is shorthand for BLMGNF, but also creates some confusion for me about Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Funding section

The Funding section claims "Black Lives Matter have received over $100 million in funding from the Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy among others.[70][71] In addition, the Black Lives Matter Movement has received support from organizations and foundations like the Black Youth Project 100, the Black Civic Engagement Fund, the Center for Popular Democracy, Color of Change and the Advancement Project.[72]"

This seems very poorly sourced. The 2016 Washington Times article which claims "Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million" appears to confuse Black Lives Matter with Movement for Black Lives. It also claims the Soros foundation gave $33 million to BLM, which has been fact checked by Snopes and found to be the total donated by OSF to all organisations with even the most tangential of connections to the Ferguson protests. The Politico article "major donors consider funding black lives matter" doesn't mention any figures at all.

At the very least, it needs clarification of what is meant by 'Black Lives Matter' in the context of funding - namely dozens of different organisations involved in racial equality and justice in some way.

The most recent tax filing I can find for the Black Lives Matter Foundation (the organisation rather than the broader movement) is from 2017 and is for $279,109. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephtys84 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, it looks like referencing funding goals over the next 10 years and not remotely a received funding. --Msherby (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the section and references again, I think this funding section needs a lot of re-work to make accurate, including new references. The two references are from 2016 and not good quality. Msherby (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The 279,109 amount you are talking about is for the Black Lives Matter Foundation which is different from the Black Lives Matter Global Network. The Global Network is the corporation linked at the top of this wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewkid (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Why was this even removed? Even the Black Lives Matter website has a donation button right at the top of the page. When you click on "Donate" it even shows their registration ID's in each state. The reason why as someone mentioned above there hasn't been a donation to the actual foundation since 2017 is because all donations now go through ActBlue. It also says this on the Black Lives Matter official website. Here is the direct website: https://blacklivesmatter.com/ You can clearly see the giant blue "Donate" button, and when you click it, you can see the registration ID's on the right side of the page, and what organization is handling the BLM donations for them. The Funding section needs to go back up. 2601:145:500:831:40F7:D571:8CE5:B24 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ford Foundation claims to fund "Movement for Black Lives" (aka M4BL) on its own website. This link also confirms the funding from Borealis Philanthropy:

https://www.fordfoundation.org/ideas/equals-change-blog/posts/why-black-lives-matter-to-philanthropy/

"Movement for Black Lives" is NOT in fact separate from BLM. M4BL is a coalition of groups which includes BLM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_Black_Lives https://web.archive.org/web/20190502120213/https://policy.m4bl.org/about/)

From Borealis Philanthropy, we see a quote from a senior member of Open Society Foundations which confirms their support for M4BL (and hence BLM):

“We are proud to be a BLMF donor in this important political moment because supporting the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) is what will make long-lasting, systemic change possible,” said Alvin Starks, Senior Program Officer with the equality team of the Open Society Foundations’ U.S. Programs.

https://borealisphilanthropy.org/black-led-movement-fund-2018-grantees-focus-on-cross-movement-collaboration/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.247.111.114 (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible section on Nascar

Possible section on Bubba Wallace incident. It will provide better context to the race relations tensions. It has also been one of the victories of BLM to remove the racist confederate flag from nascar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice fly editor (talk • contribs)

References

Ice fly editor, Tallying all the outcomes of the Black Lives Matter movement, like the removal of the Confederate flag from Nascar could add a lot of volume to the article. It could be interesting to have an article about Changes as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement or a similarly worded article title, and include items such as:

• Legislative and procedural changes in police policies
• Removal of monuments of racists and racist monuments, like Confederate soldiers, slave auction, etc. statues
• Removal of Confederate flags
• Change in marketing and branding of products, like Uncle Bens and Aunt Jemima
• Etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

2019 numbers on use of force by the police are not accurate

In the subsection 'Police use of excessive force', the numbers for 2019 are not accurate. Currently, it says: "In 2019, police officers shot and killed 1,001 people. About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black.[86][87]"

It cites two sources, statista.com, [87] and WP [86]. However, following the link provided, statista gives different numbers for 2019: 1004 were killed, of whom 370 (37%) were white, and 235 (23%) were black. According to WP, the numbers for 2019 are as follows: 999 killings, of whom 403 were white (40%), 250 were black (25%). So I think that it would be better to say: "In 2019, police officers shot and killed about 1,000 people. About 40% of those killed were white, and one quarter were black.[86][87]"

Also, the following WP quote is, while technically true, less informative than it could be. It currently says that "The rate at which black Americans are killed by police is more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans." The rate for white people is 13/1m and for black people 31/1m. That is nearly three times higher. To make an analogy: If I consider buying a car, and model A has a price tag of $25k, model B of 95k, then yes, model B is 'more than twice as expensive' than model A. It is also 'more than three times as expensive' than model A. However, the most informative thing to say would be to say that it is 'almost more than four times as expensive' than model A. So I think it would be better to say that: "The rate at which black Americans are killed by police is nearly three times as high as the rate for white Americans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:3128:300:39c1:36df:7a52:2b5d (talk • contribs) 21:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC) (Please sign your comment with 4 tildes.)

You're failing to account for the killings where race was unknown. Per the Washington Post database, out of 856 fatal shootings in 2019 where the victim's race was known, 403 (47%) were white and 250 (29%) were black.

And 31 / 13 = 2.38. That is not "nearly three times as high".

It seems like the Washington Post database is subject to frequent revisions, so the 1,001 figure may not remain accurate and I support changing it to "about 1,000 people." But I believe the percentages for white and black Americans should remain unchanged. Stonkaments (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

My bad on the 13vs31! As to the "About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black.": From the wiki article, it is not clear that this excludes the unknown category. Then it should at least say something like "of those cases in which ethnicity/race was known, ...". Also, it rounds up 3% for the proportion of whites, 47% to half, and down 4% for the proportion of blacks, 29% to a quarter. This increases a difference of 18% (47-29), factor 1.6 (47/29), to a perceived difference of about 25%, factor 2.0 (50/25). I'd rather give the actual percentages here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:3128:300:39c1:36df:7a52:2b5d (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC) (Please sign your comment with 4 tildes.)

Black people vs African-American in the context of this being an international / global movement

Hi fellow editors. The article refers in a number of places — including in the infobox and articles such as this one — to BLM being internaional / global. That being the case, should the term "African-American" not be replaced by a term applicable to black people in other regions, such as Western Europe, where they experience similar police brutality? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a very good idea. This movement is not just about American people. Laurier (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

I think it could be helpful to include some statistics that give more context on the issue of police violence toward black people in the U.S. Would it be best to include these in the Criticism section, or somewhere else? For example, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal: "In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population....The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. " Stonkaments (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Stonkaments, I see that no one has commented yet, so I'll jump in. I think statistics would be helpful, perhaps statistics could be taken from the perspective of police excessive force statistics, particularly where there was no crime or a very minor crime (i.e., if they were carrying a gun, a threat to police, etc. that might not be considered excessive force). There looks to be some sources from the query that I added, like one by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The section could be called something like "Police use of excessive force". What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that unless those sources mention BLM specifically, using them to implicitly justify or critique it would be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. We cannot imply a conclusion that is not stated by the sources, and obviously putting it here would be making an argument about BLM - to present such an argument, we need to have sources that mention BLM specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

Black Lives Matter is a left wing, Marxist organization with radical views on society. They believe in the dismantling of the nuclear family, a concept proven to be unsuccessful in today's black communities. In addition, they want to eliminate the police and shut down all prisons. Further, BLM believes that success and hard work are "white" goals and that society should not have to follow these "white" goals. Ironically, they also bitch and moan that white people have it better so kind of a double standard. 2601:285:8200:84A0:6C67:C0E2:533C:F682 (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

This is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of sources. For example, the first source says:

"The data is unequivocal. Police killings are a race problem: African-Americans are being killed disproportionately and by a wide margin. And police bias may be responsible."

But that is being used to insert text into the article which claims: "Sendhil Mullainathan has argued that the data does not show police racial bias is a major factor in accounting for killings of African Americans"

Mullainathan does say that there may be other factors at work, but the text that is being added is not reflective of that. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This does not qualify as RS. This is a non-peer reviewed working paper (though Fryer might have a published version of it). This again doesn't support the text that is being inserted. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That is one cherry-picked quote that doesn't reflect the overall tone of the article. Note the following two sentences: "But this data does not prove that biased police officers are more likely to shoot blacks in any given encounter. Instead, there is another possibility: It is simply that — for reasons that may well include police bias — African-Americans have a very large number of encounters with police officers."

I believe the article's main conclusion is: "In fact, the deeper you look, the more it appears that the race problem revealed by the statistics reflects a larger problem: the structure of our society, our laws and policies." So the author is arguing it's a systemic issue, and the data doesn't support claims of police racial bias in a given encounter. Stonkaments (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the published version of Fryer's paper. Stonkaments (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"when contextual factors are taken into account"...what does that mean? Drmies (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The Injury Prevention study, which you claim doesn't support the text being inserted, says: "Both estimated hospital-admitted and fatal injury ratios per 10,000 stops/arrests did not differ significantly between racial/ethnic groups." Stonkaments (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Data does not prove" is not the same as "data disproves" which is what you're pretending the source says. The author clearly says it could indeed be bias. "In a given encounter" is a way to get around the point. It being a systemic issue does not exclude the possibility that it's also an individual issue.

You're also misrepresenting Fryer. His conclusion is that "We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.". Volunteer Marek 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not pretending the source says anything; please stop with the personal attacks. My edit clearly stated "Economist Sendhil Mullainathan has argued that the data does not show police racial bias is a major factor in accounting for killings of African Americans." Stonkaments (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet you omit the "police bias may be responsible" part. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And here is another problem. This, aside from being your fourth revert today, uses a false edit summary. The text is NOT "original research/biased language". It's straight from the source which says, quote: "In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices." Hence, the text is directly based on the source and is important because it accounts for differences with other studies. Volunteer Marek 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"less likely to be biased" is not the same as claiming the data is "better" or that the police-reported data is necessarily biased. Stonkaments (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

1) The fact that police reported data is biased is right in the source 2) So restore it replacing "better" with "less biased". Volunteer Marek 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is a more basic problem here in that using academic papers that don't mention BLM to try and attack or argue against BLM is WP:SYNTH. If a source doesn't mention BLM, it needs to be removed, fullstop; and if it does mention BLM, we need to reflect that usage rather than our own arguments. "Well, this is what I think BLM says, and I think this paper disproves the things that I believe BLM is saying" are all inappropriate WP:SYNTH / WP:OR by editors. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right... Let's not violation WP:SYNTH. The only reference used by Stonkaments which did not violate SYNTH was the opinion piece by Coleman Hughes, which perhaps could be used elsewhere in the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hughes, Coleman (2020-06-14). "Reflections on race, riots, and police". City Journal. Retrieved 2020-07-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Fryer's paper mentions Black Lives Matter twice, and talks about the importance and implications of his research on the movement. The study published in PNAS mentions Black Lives Matter as well: "Recent high-profile police shootings of Black Americans have raised questions about racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings (FOIS). These shootings have captured public concern, leading in part to the Black Lives Matter movement and a presidential task force on policing (1). Central to this debate are questions of whether Black civilians are overrepresented in FOIS and whether racial disparities are due to discrimination by White officers." Stonkaments (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Pew Research (16) on Majority Support of BLM

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

---

If the basis for Black Lives Matter's complaints regarding police actions against blacks and more generally, the need to rename buildings and remove monuments across America IS abuse of a MINORITY, African Americans, in America, then why do they quote Pew Research Center (a very questionable poll anyway in this case) saying that a MAJORITY of people across America support BLM? Their original premise is based on MINORITIES; it makes no sense for them to invoke MAJORITIES as supporting their actions as this seems a hypocritical reference use. LisaRudisillLisaRudisill (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:FORUM, but "people who face police brutality due to their race" and "people who object to the fact that there is a group of people who face police brutality due to their race" are separate groups. It's possible for the second group to be bigger than the first because people can find things objectionable even if it doesn't harm them directly, so you can have a majority saying "police shouldn't beat black people" even if the country isn't majority-black. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 13 July 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.

Black vs. African-American

The page reads: Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an organized movement in the United States advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality against African-American people. The movement name is Black Live Matters. It's inclusive of all Black people, not only the African-American community. In fact, the movement official site reads: "Black Lives Matter 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"

In the ABOUT page of the movement, the word African doesn't appear at all. I understand the term African-American may refer to the person's ancestry but it seems to be -I believe- incorrect in this article.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choma6 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 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.

---

Please change first sentence “BLM is is an organized movement in the United States...”

TO: “BLM is is an organized Marxist movement in the United States...”

Source: “Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report.”

NY POST, June 25, 2020, Y. Steinbuch, Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

Also 2nd Source: Patrisse herself stating trained Marxist in video embedded in Blacks and Wealth article online

https://blacksandwealth.com/2020/06/21/black-lives-matter-is-a-marxist-organization/ 66.222.102.206 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. These are not reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 04:35, 14 July 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.

Why is Marxist not even mentioned in the article?

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 organisation is described by many as Marxist. This is a common description by many, yet not even mentioned in the article. How come this is so? Is this a possible double standard on Wikipedia? Rudy Giuliani has among others mentioned that BLM is a Marxist organisation and there are several sources on the net that also mentionens it. -Primal Benefactor (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC) — Primal Benefactor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/rudy-giuliani-blm-a-marxist-group-planning-to-destroy-police/
• https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/the-agenda-of-black-lives-matter-is-far-different-from-the-slogan/
• https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rudy-giuliani-calls-black-lives-matter-a-marxist-organization-2020-07-01
• https://www.quora.com/Is-Black-Lives-Matter-a-Marxist-influenced-group
• https://disrn.com/news/video-surfaces-of-black-lives-matter-founder-saying-were-trained-marxists
• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/
• https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/rita-panahi/blm-are-radical-neomarxists/news-story/8ed22f8b57042417bf23745dba70ad7c
• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/25/patrisse-cullors-black-lives-matter-co-founder-fea/
• https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/black-lives-matter-is-marxist-its-claimed-in-lisburn-council-row-39313482.html

Also, starting 1.00 minutes into the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8 , BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors says, "We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular, we're trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories." Just mentioning this for the discussion -- I haven't added anything on it to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that most of the sources you've listed here aren't exactly reliable. While the New York Post has, what I believe is, limited reliability, the remainder of your sources lack balance and/or are explicitly biased in portraying a pro-Trump/pro-Republical/pro-xyz (whatever you want to call it; cascading to anti-BLM) slant. Several of the sources you've listed actually all come down to one specific thing, which is Trump's Attorney calling BLM marxist, which most certainty isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia's standards (and for political topics, like BLM). Quora especially, is most definitely not a reliable source. On top of this, several of your sources are opinion posts/columns, not actual journalism. I think it's also worth mentioning that just because two founders of an organisation hold certain political views, that doesn't mean the entire organisation has the sole purpose of exercising those ideological ends. The YouTube sources as well... all I can say is that there's a lot of bias and manipulation involved there, especially around the way that questions are phrased - the description explicitly says that the host is anti-BLM (hence, questioning the core of the show; is it for finding truth, or for finding weapons against BLM): "I condemn Black Lives Matter because they are a Marxist movement. Marxism is anti-Christ. They substitute sin with power." If you can find a number of neutral academic sources that support your claim though (BLM has been the subject of a number of reliable and respected academic sources, so this shouldn't be too hard), then I'd suggest you go forth and repropose this. Otherwise, I don't find it appropriate that such a substantial and slanted claim should be included. ItsPugle (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Just read the article. It's a giant article and Marxist isn't mentioned a single time, when so much connections exists. This to me is clearly proof that this wikipedia article is used as a political "weapon" (as you call it) by the editors of the article. Does the same standard apply to right-wing articles? Look at the censoring online on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and all other larger Social media sites. Right-wing people are being persecuted and purged from all these sites. Are they being persecuted and purged on this article as well? -85.225.175.224 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, History of the United States is even bigger and "Marxist" isn't mentioned in there either. What's your point? Please look up, where a point about "reliable sources" is made. I don't know what you mean with "censoring online on YouTube" etc, or what it has to do with this article. If you are indeed feeling persecuted, I am sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

BLM also has, or had until very recently, one of its stated aims on its website at the overthrow of capitalism. Which is a Marxist view. Ben Finn (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Also BLM’s Marxism is the subject of this article in the UK’s Telegraph newspaper, certainly reliable as journalistic sources go. Might be more of an op-ed (behind paywall) but confirms that BLM is widely regarded as Marxist. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/12/make-no-mistake-blm-radical-neo-marxist-political-movement/ Ben Finn (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the Telegraph has a strong right-wing bias and inconsistent factuality of reporting... Plus, it's an op-ed, so it's no more valid than me saying that the sky is orange. ItsPugle (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Huffington Post has has an exactly opposite strong left-wing bias and is rated by that same fact check site as "...Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and the promotion of pseudoscience"; yet there are nine separate references in this article linked to the Huff Post. Wikipedia is about a neutral point of view being representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Not using references that are right wing while using references that are left wing seems biased and not neutral. Reliability of the sources can allow us to use mainstream publications where we don't yet have any independent and published academic sources. Even when these publications are biased (as you mentioned op-ed), then sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. If we exclude a right bias, but have an equally op-ed based left bias used in references, then the article no longer stays neutral. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. In fact the Huff Post was launched on May 9, 2005 as a commentary outlet, blog, and an alternative to news aggregators. The Daily Telegraph has been around since 1855 and according to our own article has been described as a newspaper of record!! I would consider it a valid reference. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 09:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says:

• Daily Telegraph: There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics.
• Huffington post: There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it biased or opinionated. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: HuffPost contributors.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lantrix: we don't use mediabiasfactcheck, it's not a reliable source. Our article says HuffPost is mostly described as liberal leaning, which is not strong left-wing. This article says "The overall Black Lives Matter movement is a decentralized network of activists with no formal hierarchy". To suggest that all those or even a large minority of those supporting this huge international movement are Marxists is, well, silly. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If the "overall Black Lives Matter movement" is what this article is about, then why does this article have an infobox pointing directly to blacklivesmatter.com? A.S. Williams (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia only has one article about two things. This is the article about the organization, and it is also about the movement. You will notice that the infobox template is for the organization. The website link is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As for the New York Post, the issue isn't the newspaper, it's the fact that it is an opinion piece by two employees of the conservative The Heritage Foundation. Basically it's the view of the foundation - which by the way is also into climate change denial. Of course they would say that about BLM. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems a bit far from WP:IRS to me. RS, as I read it, generally says to look at the reliability of newspapers, magazines and similar sources at the publisher level rather than at the authorship level.

Thanks @Doug Weller: I would agree it's unreliable. I'm only using it to compare the opposite sides of the spectrum in reference to @ItsPugle: using it to say the Daily Telegraph was too right wing and un-reliable. I can use the same argument for other references to be too left wing. Agreed as an op-ed it's the view of the foundation too. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 12:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't making any judgements about any other sources used when I called out the biases of The Daily Telegraph. I'm not a heavy contributor, just a passing editor with little knowledge about the overall article's quality. Regardless, that really shouldn't be a concern - if there are unreliable sources that you've already called out (you've gone to the effort of counting the references of Huffington Post, so....), then I'd implore you to find replacements and make those changes. ItsPugle (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says:

• New York Post: There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available.

I'm not sure that your assertion that the article authors must necessarily have been expressing the POV of their employer when writing for an outside publication is valid. As you say, though, the article is an opinion piece. RS does say, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. "

Time Magazine. Here’s a “reliable source”: [1] Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Two things: Time does not say that Patrisse Cullors is a Marxist. It said "Cullors weaves her intellectual influences into this narrative, from black feminist writers like Audre Lorde and bell hooks, to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. Reading those social philosophers “provided a new understanding around what our economies could look like,” she says. Reading Lorde and hooks “helped me understand my identity.” That doesn't make her a Marxist. Second, this should be dealt with very carefully since this article is about both the movement and the organization (i.e., we wouldn't want to give the impression that protestors or chapter members are Marxist, because that is not a valid deduction).–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

So some of her intellectual influences that provide her with an understanding around what our economies could look like are Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong? She's not a Marxist then, she's someone who wants the US economy to look like Communism. Time is generally reliable as a Wikipedia concensus, and the reporter of that article was a general assignment reporter at Time, so not an op-ed. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 12:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If the fact that someone reads about someone and finds something of value does not make them committed to that perspective. If it did, I would be Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, etc.

Is there evidence from a reliable source that Cullor actually considers herself a Marxist (which would impact her article)? Since we are talking about Black Lives Matter and not a biography of Cullor, is there any evidence from a reliable source that Marxism is used in creating positions, policy, etc. within this organization?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’ NYP.

• Communist front groups such as ACORN, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and now-Organizing for Action, are being manned and supported by trained personnel, using huge sums of money obtained through Marxist-Leftist donations internally and externally by duped sympathizers., Don't Believe the Hype!! (First Revision): The Incredible History of Communist Subversion in America's Black Community, C. Brian Madden, p. 368.

Primal_Benefactor, Wtmitchell, Lantrix Any idea how to bring this discussion into conclusion and actually add something to the article? Also keep in mind opinion pieces are perfectly usable if correctly attributed. MS 会話 16:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• We've been having this discussion at Talk:Patrisse Cullors and Talk:Alicia Garza. The first problem one runs into is that Marxism has three meanings: the Marxist theory of social history, the Marxism of socialist movements prior to 1914, and the Marxism of the Soviet Union as defined by Lenin and later modified by Stalin. There is not yet enough information about BLM and its founders to determine which definition is being discussed.
• The second problem, a huge one for biographies of living persons, is that the word Marxism is being seized by political opponents to label BLM and its founders, to pigeonhole them, to put them in a box and thereby discredit or dismiss them without engaging their proposals. Especially since early June when Tucker Carlson on his Fox platform hatefully labeled BLM as Marxist.
• If we are to solve the first problem, the question of which definition, we would need a lot of context and sources discussing what kind of Marxism. And with that context the BLP problem would also be solved. But without context, it's a political attack from people who are anti-BLM, meaning they are anti-anti-racism. We cannnot host an attack. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• • @Ms96: Don't Believe the Hype!! (First Revision): The Incredible History of Communist Subversion in America's Black Community, is self-published through Amazon's Createspace, so useless as a source and nonsense in any case. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong and ringht arguments. (1) If there are multiple RS saying that BLM is Marxist, irrespective of its type, then we use it irrespective of its type, with proper attribution, based on WP guidelines. If we don't, we are censoring and leaving an article biased.

(2) Good point, but this article is not BLP. On the other hand, Mark Collett is just an example of several other BLPs labeled "neo-nazis" based on a single weak source. By the way, I repeat that you are correct about BLP.

(3) If RSs are "a political attack from people who are anti-BLM, meaning they are anti-anti-racism." then you have to host an attack against your best wishes. Your ideas and thoughts are not RS.

Doug Weller I agree, my fault.MS 会話 19:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that Ms96 is indefinitely blocked. Doug Weller talk 04:17, 12 July 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.

Do we add in western opinion pieces that are against BLM founder's marxist learnings in the "Criticism" section?

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 read recently that BLM founders were well versed in understanding marxism. Despite it's statistically the older white gen guys, that are most likely to see this socialism as evil and Breitbart defintely had a field day attacking it. I have also seen quite a few opinion pieces in top leading newspapers that similarly criticises the founder's ideology. Generally attacking it by saying that Marxism stands in complete opposition to their Judeo-Christian foundation of America. And that it's atheist philosophy that attacks the "american way". It's obvious the writers are fundamental christians and they see the west as "supposed" to be christian and so they see marxism as a mortal enemy to its religion. Should we add this in to the "criticism of BLM" section or not? Some example sources - https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/12/make-no-mistake-blm-radical-neo-marxist-political-movement/ P.S not that familiar in creating a new chapter in talk so sincere apologies if I actually did it improperly. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Op-eds in low-quality sources, far from "top leading newspapers." We should leave this out. We already have more significant critiques in the article. Neutrality^talk 20:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

NY Post is in the top 10 newspapers in the United States by average weekday paid circulation in 2019, in fourth place right below NY Times. Therefore it seems to fit the very definition of one of the "top leading newspapers". Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 09:05, 6 July 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 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.

---

Can you check to see if Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation is the actual Non-Profit charity? I checked the IRS web site and there is no filing for this organization. I did find ActBlue Charities. 2601:80:4202:B7B4:ADDC:73A3:5A88:E488 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I think what the contributed was requesting was an edit to clarify the conditions of BLM's registration as a charity. While the "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation" is not registered in the United States as a charity (per the IRS' Charity Register), the Black Lives Matter Foundation is. The former is likely an operating name of the latter. i.e. no change needed. ItsPugle (talk) 14:09, 5 July 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.

Discussion of violence

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.

---

There have been a number of attempts to address violence conducted during the times of Black Lives Matter protests and they have been rejected, generally because the requests have been inappropriate or uncited.

I think it would be good to address it. At the top of the article, it says BLM is "an organized movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience". I think the article should also state that the movement is conducted at a series of local levels, and attended by a wide body of individuals and sometimes violence become part of the protests: sometimes by police, sometimes by protesting attendees or others / opportunists. Basically, the protests have been mostly non-violent, but there have been incidents of violence, burnings, lootings - with differentiation between protestors and opportunists. I am happy to work on this, perhaps making a section for violence at BLM protests. There are tons of sources here.

The Police use of excessive force section needs a bit of work as well. Some of the information is misleading.

Any thoughts on this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 28 June 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.

Edit request

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.

---

Patrisse Cullors has been on video record as saying that she and Alicia Garza are trained Marxists there is no way you can separate someones political views from their political activism and as such it's dishonest and dangerous not to include the mention of BLM as a Marxist Ideology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8 For Reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvancedBarbarism (talk • contribs)

•  Not done. Dangerous or disingenuous? You can see in discussions above that it's an exaggeration to say that the whole movement has a Marxist ideology when only one founder said that two founders are trained in a bunch of things including Marxist-style activism. And the term "Marxism" means three different things. And the whole Marxism thing is being used as an attack by anti-anti-racists. So, no. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 15 July 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 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.

---

Anywhere the organization is listed as a movement should be changed to an organization as it is what it is, It has income, revenue and expenses. WritePeople (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This article about the movement in total. Black Lives Matter, the organisation, is explained in the relevant section where it is properly represented. ItsPugle (talk) 02:30, 17 July 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.

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)

Additional sources

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.

---

An individual has contacted OTRS on VRTS ticket # 2020071810005152 asking for the following sources to be shared for possible inclusion in this article:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Best, Darren-M talk 18:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's see... one of those is an opinion-piece by someone with no relevant expertise, and the others only mention BLM in passing. I'm not seeing anything useful here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:54, 19 July 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.

Is anti-racist neutral?

I don't think anti-racist is neutral because there are some people that believe that Black Lives Matter is supposed to help blacks, but not whites hence we have All Lives Matter. Pinging @ItsPugle: for thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-Racist" is absolutely a neutral term and it is used by reliable sources. Just because "some people" don't understand what Black Lives Matter is does not mean we should change our language to kow-tow to their ignorance.--Jorm (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your point. On a more social level, Black Lives Matter is a targeted movement against systematic racial discrimination against Black communities. The idea that BLM is somehow anti-White is pretty much a hijacking of the movement by far-right groups pedaling racist naratives. All lives do matter, that's the basis of the movement, but its the threats against Black lives that this movement addresses. ItsPugle (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Anti-racist is a neutral term; it differentiates from those who consider themselves not racist. Anti-racist people try to counter other people's racism rather than simply trying not to behave in racist ways themselves. —valereee (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Retracted study

Per the cited source, the retracted study was the 2019 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), titled “Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings”.[7]

Is there any evidence to support the claim that the 2018 study in Social Psychological and Personality Science titled "Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police Use of Deadly Force? Analyses of Officer-Involved Fatal Shootings in 2015–2016" was also retracted?

They are different studies, with different authors and different conclusions, and as far as I can tell the 2018 study was not retracted. Joseph Cesario, one of the authors of both studies, said in response to his retraction of the PNAS study: "An earlier 2019 paper of mine, which found no evidence of anti-black disparities in the likelihood of being fatally shot when controlling for crime rates, also resulted in calls for retraction and positive endorsement by prominent conservative voices, but I continue to uphold that work."[8] Stonkaments (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see quotes below from the linked citations near that area:

The 2019 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), titled “Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,” ... have submitted a request for retraction to PNAS.

Title of the article which User:Jorm and User:Binksternet are edit warring to falsely claim was retracted: "Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police Use of Deadly Force? Analyses of Officer-Involved Fatal Shootings in 2015–2016".

Different journal completely, different title, published in a different year (2018 vs 2019), and while the PNAS article is listed as retracted on PNAS, the SPPS article (the one the retraction statement is being added to) is not listed as retracted and is not the same article. The articles, had anyone cared to look at them, cover different data sets as well, and have different authors. User:Jorm and User:Binksternet, why are you edit warring to place blatantly incorrect information and misrepresenting the source (which only covers the PNAS article titled "Officer... shootings", not the SPPS article with a different title)? The PNAS article retraction is already correctly listed when that study is covered under the section Disagreement over racial bias - this is blatant misrepresentation of sources in an article. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The authors are the same in both papers, with the addition of William Terrill in the 2018 paper published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. The researchers were working with the same data in both papers, taken from fatal police shootings in 2015–2016, and were using the same methodology which they have described as inadequate to answer the larger question of whether racism is at play in police interactions with civilians. The data in the two papers is the same data, and the conclusions have the same extremely narrow scope. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That is patently incorrect. A reading of the papers would tell you that the data in the retracted paper is from 2015 (and in fact the word year is always intentionally singular there), and the data in the non retracted one is from 2015-2016. Even still, you don’t get to use your personal research here. You have just committed heavy WP:SYNTH - and this shows exactly why synth is prohibited - you’ve synthed something that is patently untrue and are now using a source that doesn’t say it to back it up. The source presented doesn’t say it, and you’re misrepresenting the source because of your personal opinion User:Binksternet, which you know better than to do. If you can’t provide a source to back up the SPPS article itself being retracted, I will remove the line again later on. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, don’t take this as an opinion on whether that should also be retracted “, just a stickler for the rules and verifiablity. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

July 24, 2020 WAPO report

I have removed the following, inserted into the article here to this talk page section for discussion:

On July 24, 2020, the United Nations human rights department called on US security forces to limit their use of force against peaceful protesters and journalists in Portland and other US cities. The UN expressed concern about the US security forces cracking down on anti-racism protests, and stated that people have a right to protest peacefully and should not be subjected to unnecessary, disproportionate and discriminatory use of force.

The insertion accurately characterizes the WAPO report. which WAPO sources to this U.N. news conference. However, it appears to me that in lifting that information out of the context of the news conference, WAPO introduced (and Wikipedia would repeat with this insertion) an invitation for readers to draw the conclusion that the call for the U.S. to limit their use of force against peaceful protesters and journalists might have been a disapprobation. It is clear from the news conference that this is not the case. The portion of the news conference of interest is about 17m18s in, with the UN spokeswoman speaking in French in response to a question posed in French. at 17m34s she switches to English and hands off to the UNHCR spokeswoman for an answer. After an introduction in French, the UNHCR spokeswoman says, "Obviously, what has been happening with regard to [protests (?)] taking place that have been making lots of the headlines, we are very much aware of that. I think what we would say is that peaceful demonstrations that have been taking place in cities in the U.S. of such importance really must be able to continue without those participating in them, and also the people reporting on them -- the journalists, risking arbitrary arrest or detention and being subject to unnecessary, disproportionate, or disciplinary use of force or suffering other violations of their rights.There have been reports that [peaceful demonstrators ...]" -- the UNHCR spokeswoman continued as reported by WAPO beginning with an uppercase P in Peaceful, and continues after the closing period inserted by WAPO to close their quotation in what was the middle of a sentence in the quoted statement. I suggest that this report, if included, be accompanied by a long enough quote from the primary source to make it clear that this is an observation that due care needs to be observed as is usual and normal in such situations and that the UNHCR spokeswoman's observation in this news conference was not a disapprobation of the U.S. by the UNHCR.

Also, separately from my comment and suggestion, I note that the UNHCR spokeswoman highlights an upcoming UNHCR general comment on the right to peaceful assembly, which is expected on 29 July; There is more information about that in the statement linked above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Consider listing the stated beliefs of Black Lives Matter

Consider listing the stated beliefs of Black Lives Matter.

The BLM website has a section entitled, "What we Believe" https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

The list of beliefs is similar to the Wikipedia BLM entry, "Guiding Principles", but differs. The list of beliefs is more concrete than the more amorphous list of guiding principles. One is a general overview (Principles), the other is a more distilled perspective ("What we Believe")...and more recent.

"Guiding Principles" were from 2015.

"What we Believe" is from 26 July 2020.

Many thanks for this opportunity to contribute.

Edit: I'm new here. For some reason, there is a citation from the Washington Post listed below this entry. It is not related to this particular topic and I did not place it there.

Billcorr (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That stray citation has been tucked up into the right spot.

Regarding the "What We Believe" section of the BLM website, Wikipedia generally does not quote 100% of an organization's mission statement or guiding principles or whatever. A lot of times they are just statements, not backed up by action. Which is why most of what you see on Wikipedia will be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources, independent from the organization. If outside observers see that something in "What We Believe" is worth discussing, then that attention bumps it up in importance.

You might want to look for instances of the "What We Believe" material being quoted by newspaper reporters and such. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism Section Written as a Dialectic

The Criticism section is written as a dialectic. It is written in a point counter-point style which is not fitting for a section titled "Criticism" For instance, the following is not a Criticism of BLM but actually a criticism of the police "A North Carolina police chief retired after calling BLM a terrorist group.[362] A police officer in Oregon was removed from street duty following a social media post in which he said he would have to "babysit these fools", in reference to a planned BLM event.[363]" Similarly, the following is also not a criticism of BLM and is not appropriate under the criticism section "Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart wrote that Giuliani's comments reinforced his sense that the former mayor lives in a "racial world of make-believe".[381]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.8.103 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC) (Please sign your comment with 4 tildes.)

Suggest, these statements be moved or removed. Possibly consider adding another section along the lines of "Controversy Among Public Figures" where such statements can be placed if they do indeed add to the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.8.103 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC) (Please sign your comment with 4 tildes.)

• This is one of the many reasons criticism sections aren't a great way to organize information, per WP:CSECTION. We should consider rearranging / retitling it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• The examples provided are clearly not 'actually a criticism of the police' but, rather, of specific individuals who happen to be police officers. There is no evidence or reason to think that this very small number of people is representative of 'the police', and so no reason that the claimed criticism is of 'the police'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.2.35 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC at A.C.A.B.

More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. 71.178.129.13 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

BLM international movement

I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to write this myself, but I think the article could benefit a lot from an attempt to make a coherent description of how the Black Lives Matter movement has spread outside of the US, rather than just individual countries someone has had the energy to write about. The whole is bigger than the individual pieces, so to speak. Just a few paragraphs would help, since it's not separate happenings but something taking place in a larger context. /Julle (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

How is this a good article?

How can a good article include a banner on top stating this article is "too long", as well as an update banner, neutrality banner, and "clarification needed" tags..Tinton5 (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

They've been added since; this was the version reviewed (thoroughly) by Midnightblueowl nearly three years ago. You can of course reassess it, although check that those tags, etc, should be there in the first place. ——Serial 09:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Started a reassessment. Tinton5 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

African-American

"African-American" and "black" are not synonyms. The first sentence of the lede is incorrect because it relates BLM exclusively to African-Americans. Please change it to "black." 2A02:6B61:214E:0:CD46:F9CF:1213:F71E (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point. The cited source supporting that assertion in the article's lead sentence is this 2017 opinion piece in the U.S. publication The Atlantic. That piece appears to be entirely concerned with its author's view of BLM in a U.S. context. A better statement of BLM's mission would be, "to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes". That is taken from the BLM ABOUT page. That is a primary source. Secondary sources are preferred in WP fo support interpretive assertions, but this primary source is arguably the best support for a flat statement such as this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Even in a purely US context, the terms "African-American" and "black" are not synonymous; not all black Americans are of African descent (and not all Americans of African descent are black). The cited source does not even use the term "African-American." 2A02:6B61:214E:0:CD46:F9CF:1213:F71E (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Atlantic source doesn't use the term "African-American" either, so I'm just going to be bold and change it. Obviously this movement is world-wide (as the article shows), so the term does not fit. I'm also going to capitalize it according to the AP style guide (lots of news' style guides have been changing recently, so old sources won't necessarily have used these terms, anyways) - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Police use of excessive force : let's remove the section

My removal of this section has just been reverted by Jorm, who enjoined me to first discuss this, and here I am. I believe this section, which doesn't even mention BLM, is a general expose on the topic which belongs in Police brutality in the United States. Articles on social movements such as this one are not meant to present the issues they are tackling. If this were the case, we would have to present the more general issue of racism against black people, the topic of incarceration and its links to race, and many others which the movement addresses. Clearly, this is out of scope, so we should remove the section, and provide instead a link to a dedicated article or articles such as the one mentioned above. Also, I'd like to point out that the section is the only one which doesn't focus on BLM or the reaction to it. Furthermore, the current length of the article provides additional justification for the deletion of content that doesn't focus directly on the subject matter of the article, namely the Black Lives Matter movement itself. Fa suisse (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you. The content doesn't have any quoted opinions from anybody associated with the movement and has a single mention of BLM; the paragraph at the bottom that, at best, fails to convey its connection to the section, and at worst is utterly irrelevant (I didn't check the accompanying reference). In my eyes it would be comparable to Trump's article having a section titled 'Immigration', filled with stats of immigration figures, related crime statistics, along with details of how to build a really big wall with not a single mention of Trump or his cronies. Get rid I say. – ².O.^Boxing 14:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not much focused on this article, but I agree. Also the content of removed section is pretty U.S.-centric (also mentioned in the section above), and I think that this article aims to present BLM as a global organization. Perhaps the 2016 US presidential election and 'Counter-slogans and movements sectains, and possibly also the removed material being discussed here, ought to be presented in subsection titled United States under the BLM international movement section instead of alongside that last-mentioned major section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I support improving the section to focus on the direct links to BLM, but I disagree with removing it entirely. Reliable sources, including two of the papers cited in the section - [9] and [10] - highlight the importance of the question of racially biased policing to the BLM movement. For example, in his study's conclusion, Fryer says: "The importance of our results for racial inequality in America is unclear. It is plausible that racial differences in lower level uses of force are simply a distraction and movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces. Much more troubling, due to their frequency and potential impact on minority belief formation, is the possibility that racial differences in police use of non-lethal force has spillovers on myriad dimensions of racial inequality." Stonkaments (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If the content in the section can be directly attributed to BLM (as in somebody involved with the movement has given their opinion on the specific content in the section or have directly used it) then by all means work it in there to make the connection clear. But I don't think the example you've given quite qualifies; it's the author (I presume) criticising ("movements such as") BLM and some of their specific agendas. I haven't read any of the references so I don't know if the direct connection is there, I'm just assuming it isn't as it's not already stated. – ².O.^Boxing 19:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand and have actually considered your point, Stonkaments, that the section could be amended to link it with the BLM movement. This led me to the conclusion that the other issues addressed by Black Lives Matter should also get their section. Because although undeniably stoked by police brutality against Black people in the United States, BLM focuses on other issues and exists in other (non-US) contexts. For the sake of being comprehensive and not put too much emphasis on this issue, we would have to include "Context" on imprisonment, but also economic inequality, LGBT issues in the Black community, and expand these to all the countries in which BLM exists (e.g. talk about police brutality and imprisonment of Black people in the UK and Canada, where BLM is pretty active too). I do however understand that such a section was written in the first place, as it provides some context, but I think we can't do really do justice to the topic without writing some sort of essay which will be biased toward certain issues and viewpoints, and provide insufficient coverage of all that is relevant. Thus, I think the topic would be better served by not including this section. Fa suisse (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

The most recent edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Lives_Matter&oldid=972687061) appears to be vandalism. Could this please be reverted to the previous version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Lives_Matter&oldid=972586544)?

As I'm not autoconfirmed I can't make the change myself. EclipsePolenta (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's already been fixed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering that they made this edit, I think they already know. And thanks for the tip, @EclipsePolenta: --Calton | Talk 18:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Marxism/Communism

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 there no mention of the fact that BLM is a Marxist/Communist Organization and is Anti-American?

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 10 September 2020

Advocates for mainly peaceful protests? This is an inaccurate statement. 2606:A000:1011:C812:3C2C:DCDB:5619:156D (talk) 13:39, 10 September 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusing article

Hey. I think this article is confusing and lacks of citation. First paragraph says that BLM is a "decentralized movement" (without any citation confirming that) and the short description of the article says that BLM is a "social movement", but later on the article describes BLM as an international organization with own board of directors, etc. Also the article is tagged both as "too long" and as a "good article". Dinth (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead does not need separate citations so long as later citations confirm what the lead is summarizing (ideally, no new information should be in the lead, so the lead shouldn't need any separate citations from the body of the article, but some people can't be pleased). There's an entire section in the article just below the lead section that explains its decentralized nature. Also, the article itself, in the first few lines, explains that the terminology has two meanings the broader, decentralized movement, and a smaller more focused organization. I don't know what else to do to fix your concerns, since the article is already not in the state you claim it to be. --Jayron32 14:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

Please add the following statement regarding the group's stance on the nuclear family: "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." 2601:18D:4600:E7A0:38FB:3F53:9ED5:568B (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is not to repeat the "What We Believe" section of blacklivesmatter.com. Are there any reliable secondary sources suggesting that this particular point is worth singling out? In Googling it I found opinion articles and some discussing this in the context of "Republicans look to stoke BLM backlash" as a Politico article puts it. Doesn't seem to merit inclusion. Lester Mobley (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: declining edit request per Lester Mobley's comment above. Seagull123 Φ 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References