Talk:Black Lives Matter

Effects on Crime

There was a claim that "Effects on Crime" is a synthesis. In the spirit of BRD, opening a talk page.

Note that WaPo and the star tribune draw direct lines to the timing of the violence (I'm not going to use the word "riot", and I don't think we should either). I'm a supporter of BLM as well, but it wouldn't be charitable to critics of BLM not to include the claim that the protests allegedly enabled violence.

More important than what happened in June, we should certainly include discussion of the long-term policy effects of the movement. I've been trying to write up positive effects for the rest of the article, but I wrote the criticism-specific ones first. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

See me recent edits. Your support for the movement isn't really germane here. The issue is persistent hyperbole and WP:SYNTH in the content you've sought to add. I cut down on it, and will leave it to the community to decide if the rest belongs here. Suffice it to say that statements like "a 5-mile stretch of the city was set on fire" when the sources only claimed that a 5-mile stretch had been damaged, or titling the section "Effects on crime" when all that has been shown is a concomitant rise in crime, are not in accord with core policies like WP:V and WP:OR. Generalrelative (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point about effect vs concomitant, thanks for that.

I can't stress enough that the criticism section should reflect what critics say about it. Most of the criticism about the protests themselves (as opposed to the policy points) centers on the crime it allegedly enabled. Whether we agree, our job is to report the sourced opinions of what a preponderance of critics say. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging, and I hear you. But here's the thing: the articles referenced here aren't criticism. They're reporting on the concomitant rise in crime. No one is saying –– at least no one has been cited from these articles as saying –– that BLM caused this rise in crime. One could just as well blame police for being snowflakes who can't handle reasonable criticism. I'm sure one can find opinion journalists making the claim that the BLM movement is to blame, but those would be different sources which would need to be assessed for notability on their own merits. We don't typically include the opinions of e.g. Fox News personalities who routinely make baseless claims of that nature. Generalrelative (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right that it's important for the sources to source criticsm. None of the authors of the articles is critical, but e.g. WaPo quotes people who are critical. I think it's ok to include an article about someone with criticism? DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. The thing to do though would be to quote and/or summarize the criticism. Here we just have reporting about facts without actually stating the criticism. Much, if not all, of the material currently in this subsection really belongs (in my view) in another article, e.g. 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest. Generalrelative (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think much of the material in the section could equally well appear in that article; the other article is very long, and these are the relevant bits taken out. There should definitely be a link to it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There is! It's the first "See also" subsection hatnote. But again, the issue is that presenting this information as criticism is really just implicit WP:SYNTH. Note that this is not the only place where this problem is apparent in the article. The next subsection ("Lack of focus on criminal violence") suffers from it just as much and should probably be cut entirely. Generalrelative (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut the two subsections. If anyone wants to re-add either or both of these subsections with new content –– i.e. explicit criticism published in reliable sources –– I would welcome that. And of course we can continue the discussion here if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my point, that's part of what the subsection serves: in order to link to the other article. Please don't remove before reaching consensus: especially the second paragraph, which existed well before the Minneapolis and had reached consensus. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY polling in the lead.

I noticed some back-and-forth over polling in the lead with regards to what polls to include and why. But... the real takeaway here is that we should avoid using primary sources for polling, since doing so inevitably carries assumptions and ends up leading the reader to a specific conclusion that the polls themselves might not support. Can we find some secondary sources discussing public opinion to replace the cites to Pew? Those tend to provide more interpretation and analysis and let us avoid problems of eg. "are we comparing apples and oranges" or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's too in-the-weeds to be reciting numbers in the lead. RS have remarked on the rise in favorability over 2019 and 2020. I don't see the value in reciting specific numbers for subgroups and whether the favorability numbers have declined from their highest level or not. I'd keep "The popularity of Black Lives Matter has rapidly shifted over time. Whereas public opinion on Black Lives Matter was net negative in 2018, it grew increasingly popular through 2019 and 2020." but remove the rest Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If we're looking for a WP:SECONDARY source on the popularity of BLM (and its change over time), I'd suggest "Support For Black Lives Matter Surged During Protests, But Is Waning Among White Americans" by Michael Tesler at 538: [1] It's from back in August 2020, but could still be used to source a meaningful statement I think. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Nobel Peace Prize nomination in lead

I can't see any reason or precedent for the movement getting a Nobel Peace Prize nomination being in any way notable for a standalone sentence in the lead, or to be noted in the lead at all. It isn't discussed extensively in the body which the lead is supposed to be a summary for, and thousands of people, things and movements get nominated for the peace prize every year. There's literally no limit, anyone can nominate anyone else or anything for the prize! And I don't see any consistency with nominations being lead worthy amongst other 2021 peace prize nominees such as Alexei Navalny, the Hong Kong Free Press, the WHO and Donald Trump, who's recieved 3! If the movement wins it or comes runner up or something otherwise notable and distinguishing amongst the thousands of nominees, I'm all for including it, but unless we are gonna start freely noting every single person, thing or movement to ever recieve nobel peace prize nominations in their leads, it should and has to be removed here. Davefelmer (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to move it to the timeline section instead? DrGvago (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this suggestion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose mention of the nomination in the lead and even the body. NPP nominations are not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't notability depend on whether they're discussed in a reliable, independent secondary source? In this case the Guardian reference appears to satisfy that. Or am I missing something? Generalrelative (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it definitely shouldn't be anywhere in the lead but I wouldn't be opposed to it being included in the timeline section of the body. It's not really a natural fit anywhere to be honest which lends itself to the point of not being included altogether but referencing it in a line at the end of the 'George Floyd protests' part could just about sort of work. Davefelmer (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I went ahead and implemented this (creating a 2021 subheading). Obviously if a consensus emerges that this sentence doesn't belong in the article then we can cut it. But at least in this position it's not presented as though it were especially significant. Generalrelative (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Davefelmer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don’t think simple nominations are due weight for an article unless they are extraordinary in their own right. There are, quite literally, thousands of people who can nominate as many people/things as they want for a prize - just as a comparison, Donald Trump got at least three nominations for the Peace Prize (that I recall, may have been more). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Black Lives Matter-themed signs into Black Lives Matter

WP:BOLDly redirected by Beyond My Ken: WP:SNOWCLOSE. — Czello 19:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

---

Black Lives Matter-themed signs was a POVFORK and does not seem notable enough. SpacetimeIsCool (talk ∙ contribs) 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I'm not sure it's really a POVFORK since there doesn't seem much of a difference in POV between the two articles, but that chunk of content will be much easier for the reader to find if it's here. And it is not overly detailed for an article of this level of generality. Generalrelative (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree. I do notice that the signs in question are not solely related to Black Lives Matter, but I can't find another article they'd fit in better. This seems as good a place as any, and I imagine if I were looking for information on them, I'd look here first. Aerin17 (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, this subject isn't notable enough on its own and I see no reason why it can't be merged into the parent article. — Czello 08:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Not much to really add to this article, but there's no reason that we need a separate one for this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - No enough info to support a stand-alone article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Given the above response, I've BOLDly gone and merged the other article into this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Good with me. — Czello 19:35, 21 February 2021 (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.

among/st

'Amongst' is decidedly rare in US usage. 'Among' should replace it in this article.37.99.33.37 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

True, though becoming less so. In any case I've made the edits you suggest. Best to use standardized language, per WP:ENGVAR, as much as possible. Generalrelative (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)