Talk:Black Lives Matter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleBlack Lives Matter has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
December 17, 2016Good article nomineeListed
October 20, 2020Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Misappropriated Funds[edit]

I couldnt find anything on the Millions of donation money that have been spent on Mansions ect, would love for this to get updated (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources where we can read about this information? --Jayron32 14:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] ~~ Auctoris (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snopes is basing its reports on the New York Post and on some publication called "Dirt", described as a "real estate rumor" site. WP:NYPOST explains why we can't use that site, and I doubt that "real estate rumors" are sufficient for our sourcing requirements. --Jayron32 16:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know I was curious about that because I saw your comment. Most of the sources I saw were right wing sources that do not fall under the RS however, I did find several articles from RS that do talk about misappropriated funds
Do with it what you will, it does appear however there is some substance to these accusations and they should be noted. (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The headlines that say "BLM" are lazy journalism. The funds belong to Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, not the decentralized movement. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhhh! I did not realize there was a separate article! TY! I see the information is being posted there. All good (I’d post a thumbs up icon but don’t know how. :-) ). (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure you're not conflating the overall movement with specific organizations or individuals. See the archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reasonable distinction... or it is a distinction without a difference. Quotes such as "The protest, led by Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza" found within the article, clearly conflate BLM as a movement with BLMGN as an organization. BLMGN doesen't exist without BLM and BLM doesn't exist without BLMGN. Indeed, both started in 2013. The result is heavily biased if one describes the movement as having a goal or objectives instead of describing events where the slogan appears. For example, is it possible to find any protest in excess of 100 people that didn't have a BLMGN associated or paid protagonist organizing the thing? I think not. Trying to separate the "good" into BLM and the "bad" into BLMGN is simply not reasonable in the context of an encyclopedic effort. This article and the editorial pretzel that has been created maligns the purpose of Wikipedia. Stocatta (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting out "good" and "bad" is entirely inappropriate behavior for an article talk page. If you think that's what's going on here you are deeply mistaken. The rest of your argument appears to be based upon an impression rather than verifiable information. Or do you have a source to support your claim that any protest in excess of 100 people has a BLMGN associated or paid protagonist organizing the thing? Generalrelative (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ needed?[edit]

So, perhaps it is time to add an FAQ banner to the header of this talk page; there seems to be constant confusion about the difference between "Black Lives Matter", the diffuse social movement, and groups like Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which is an organization. Recently, there have been repeated attempts to add information to this article, which is already adequately covered at that article, because it relates only to that specific organization and its leadership, not to the general movement as a whole. There are probably other issues that come up often enough that become repetitive to have to explain to good-faith, but otherwise misguided, editors and an FAQ would at least give us some stock answers to direct people to when they have these kinds of misconceptions. What does everyone think? --Jayron32 18:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, it's necessary to add. Hopefully we don't need to protect the page from this content dispute. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a clarifying hatnote, hopefully that will head off some of the more egregious stuff. --Jayron32 13:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There cannot be a nomination for a movement according to the Nobel Institute[edit]

I tried to correct the article by removing the mention of the Nobel Peace Prize since it cannot be accurate. But my edit was reverted. According to the Nobel Institute ( "All living persons and active organizations or institutions are eligible candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize." The CNN article claimed as the source is conflating the BLM movement with the BLMGNF organization (as much of this wiki page does). At the bottom of the CNN article is a reference to the tweet from BLMGNF applauding their nomination. The tweet came from blklivesmatter which is run by which has the following ( "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. operates the website, which provides the SERVICE.".

To be intellectually honest, the NPP nomination belongs on the BLMGNF page and not on the BLM page.

Indeed, any reference to a non-event cannot be part of the BLM page as it is claimed to be only about the "movement" and not about the organization.

Does somebody want to draw new lines here on what this page is about or can we start cleaning up the inaccurate and/or irrelevant components? Stocatta (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policy on no original research. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources such as the CNN article in question. If you would like to challenge the reliability of the source, the reliable sources noticeboard is that way. Generalrelative (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the source, it is about the content and context. The mistake being made is caused by the author of Nobel peace prize section. CNN did not define the term "movement", but this community has. My problem is with the lack of clarity by letting information persist that is clearly false. The "movement" was not nominated. This is a fact supported by the Nobel Foundation and the BLMGNF, the admitted benefactor of the nomination. But this group of editors is ignoring the facts. CNN is reporting without context and does not have an obligation to seperate BLM from BLMGNF. But the editors here need to separate these because two articles exist, one for each. So this faulty information should be moved. Those are the facts. We have the sources that highlight the clarity, so we can't cherry pick CNN just because of some word choices that CNN didn't provide with context. Stocatta (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact[edit]

I tried to add a couple of sentences under the criticism / tactics section about the economic impact of the BLM associated riots. @Generalrelative removed the addition claiming it too controversial and needing a talk. I'm not sure when facts became controversial but here it is. I recommend something like the follwoing:

BLM supported riots in 2020 resulted in over $1 billion in damage from vandalism and looting. (

While many protests stayed peaceful, some were elevated to deadly riots resulting in violence and death. (

That's it. At least some mention of the economic impacts of the movement's activities are deserving in this page since it was the most expensive property loss ever from a movement.

Further, the movement was directly or indirectly related to many deaths and injuries. Other protests turned riotous have mentions of human and property losses. I believe this page should have the same.

If we aren't willing to include the facts, what is the point of the page or the system?

And should I have to bring such a point to the "group" for discussion? Removing facts from a page without disputing the facts is not reasonable. Stocatta (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the edit summary you're looking for is Rv editorializing content. Please establish talk page consensus for edits that are likely to be controversial. [5] By all means, go ahead and persuade others that we should be stating in Wikivoice that BLM supported riots. Generalrelative (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to edit war the same content into the article is not going to help your case [6]. Generalrelative (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear if you mean BLM supported riots or BLM-supported riots. Either way is a POV violation unsupported by sources. This is all covered at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests far better than I can in a talk page reply. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so here we find a pattern on this particular page... any negative reflections on the BLM movement are being squashed and moved into different pages that probably shouldn't exist on their own. A reader looking for facts about the BLM movement shouldn't be forced to search for esoteric articles titled "Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests". Clearly the protests were riots the moment they devolved into property damage. And clearly the George Floyd riots were within the scope of BLM's movement. I would copy the entire "Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests" article into the George Floyd protests page and then summarize the George Floyd protest page into the BLM movement page under the appropriate sections, IF you guys would not delete all of it. Stocatta (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern that I see is that you are making POV edits that multiple editors are opposed to, the edits are reverted with reasoning given, and you claim bias, in this case by saying negative reflections on the BLM movement are being squashed and claiming we're hiding details on other articles. We will not engage on this level.
Another problem with your edit that hasn't been raised yet is that "many" and "some" in your second sentence is vague to the point of misleading. As referenced at the "Violence and controversies..." article, approximately 95% of the protests were entirely peaceful. That is a "vast majority", not "many", and it would be preferable to use the statistic. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. BLM as a decentralized movement was obviously involved in the violence. Who else did the violence? X-Editor (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so obvious that reliable sources will assess the economic impact of BLM protests? Until that happens, we should summarize all the other stuff RS do say about BLM. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The sources provided are Axios and The Hill, which are both reliable per WP:RSP. X-Editor (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already know the issue with those sources, but for any newcomers: neither one mentions BLM at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly true that none of the sources mention BLM: "Nationwide Black Lives Matter protests sparked by George Floyd's killing have put new pressure on states and cities to scale back the force that officers can use on civilians." from Axios. Although it just mentions protests, not violence, so that wouldn't count. Thanks for the clarifications. X-Editor (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC) X-Editor (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who else did the violence? Boogaloo. [7][8] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since that's the case, the question then becomes "How much of the violence was done by BLM?". Thanks for the clarifications. X-Editor (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question and I don't think there's an answer to it. But, I still think that belongs on the other article, not this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the articles don't say how much of the violence was caused by BLM in particular, that seems fair enough to me. X-Editor (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu:, I know you reverted the edits because of edit warring, but a poll has shown a decline in support for BLM, which should be added[9]. X-Editor (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine to reevaluate the polling. I am less familiar with that aspect. I believe Generalrelative reverted an edit where a polling aggregate was replaced with one poll? Correct me if I'm wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If by polling aggregate, you mean Pew Research, then I think you're right. For the new 2022 poll, I would just put a sentence about that info right next to the 2021 poll from Pew rather than replacing it. If you think more polls need to be provided for the 2022 decline in support, then I'll see if I can find some more. X-Editor (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually no polling aggregate so I reverted to the status quo and added secondary reporting by the American Psychological Association. But the status quo was far from ideal (Pew is itself a pollster, not an aggregator). Ideally we would not be reporting on individual polls at all, but rather would look to data-informed secondary analysis (ideally utilizing polling aggregates). A good place to look for that kind of analysis is generally, but their latest reporting on opinions of BLM is from over a year ago: [10]. The four sources added by Stocatta do individually show a decline in support in recent months. I saw those too when conducting a search. However in the absence of real secondary analysis we need to be careful not to make sweeping claims about what they imply. I would honestly be most comfortable rolling all our discussion of opinion polling back to the April 2021 FiveThirtyEight article I linked to –– unless anyone can find newer reliable secondary sources that analyze multiple opinion polls. Generalrelative (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article as a whole is very outdated and should probably be nominated for a GA Reassessment. X-Editor (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your claim on aggregate polls. I provided the most recent four polls I could find. Indeed, I couldn't find any poll in the last 6 months that showed a stable support for BLM. So why is this fact being squashed? What about my polling edit is controversial? Stocatta (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The current image for the page is a logo sloppily made in MS Paint with one of the default fonts. How about changing it to this one, which is already in the Wikimedia commons: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]