Talk:Black Lives Matter

stop landlord discrimination against the poor by asking for a guarantor for housing benefits. we are not all Second generation rich

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)

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)

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)

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 - [1] and [2] - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are they non-violent?

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)

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

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 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)

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)

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)