Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Politifact is a notable and reliable source

I added the following to the article:

According to Politifact, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors said, "We do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists. We are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many Black folks."

Someone removed it, and cited this previous discussion.

In that discussion, someone cited the unreliability of the New York Post and other sources.

But Politifact is not the New York Post.

Many wikipedia articles on right wing organizations cite their relation to Nazis, racists, white supremeacists, etc. And those citations should be there.

For the same reason, the Cullors quote that I cited should be here. Two of the three co-founders of BLM are Marxist. This is not irrelevant to the organization.

The Cullors quote should be included. Then readers can make up their own mind about how they want to interpret it.

The same Politifact aritcle includes this link to the BLM website. That link is now dead, but its archive is here. (And for the record, that website is the very first thing listed in the "external links" section of this wikipedia article. So we know it's their official website.)

After citing that link, Politifact quoted the following from the link. The top of the page at the link is titled "What we believe."

"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."

Politifact said of this quote:

"Included on its list of beliefs is one that has drawn criticism as being consistent with Marxism"

We should include this quote from the official BLM website. Then the readers can make up their own mind about how to interpret it.

So, we should include both the Cullors quote, as well as the quote from the "What we believe" page.

Then let the readers make up their own mind about these quotes.

And finally, I'd like to quite this wikipedia policy:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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."

I think this policy justifies including both the Cullors quote, as well as the quote from the "What we believe page."

I do not understand the purpose of not including these quotes. Readers should be allowed to see these quotes in the article, and then the readers can make up their own minds about how to interpret these quotes.

Baxter329 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed multiple times, please see the archives. The short version is that these statements are for Cullors beliefs, that's it. Attempting to extrapolate her personal beliefs into "this is what BLM is about" is just WP:SYNTH.

Cullors was referring to two of three co-founders of BLM.

And even if the Cullors quote is not included, we should still include the quote from the "What we believe" section of the BLM website, which was quoted by Politifact. That's not just Cullors, and it's not even just two of the three co-founders. It's the entire organization, on their official website, on a page titled "What we believe." That is extremely relevent.

Baxter329 (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Then let the readers make up their own mind about these quotes.

This is not Fox News, we don't just throw out-of-context quotes onto articles to lead readers into assumptions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I support presenting quotes in their proper context. Baxter329 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The very first link in the "external links" section of this wikipedia article is the same website that Politifact links so. And Politifact quoted from the page called "What we believe." That quote is extremely relevant, and should be included in the article. Baxter329 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

For benefit of people who missed/ignored the earlier section about this, see Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist? and Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 8#"Sourceless" Marxist claim as well as the previously mentioned Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 7#Why is Marxist not even mentioned in the article?. You would need a new Rfc to include that claim about Cullors, given the BLP objections from the first Rfc. FDW777 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Politifact is reliable. And YouTube has videos of her saying it, but the channels that have that would not be considered reliable sources. However, Cullors made this response on her own channel, which I think would constitute a reliable source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEp1kxg58kE Baxter329 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Earlier section at #Trained Marxists redux, since it's been claimed that only the discussion from archive 7 needs refuting. FDW777 (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Baxter329 if you're just going to stubbornly refuse to listen & repeat yourself, then there's nothing to be done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being stubborn. And while I still think both quotes should be included in this article, I will not bring up that subject in any new talk page discussions for this article. I acknowledge that the consensus is against including them in this article. I don't agree with that consensus, but I must respect it.

I am considering adding the Politifact quote of her saying she's a "trained Marxist" to the Patrisse Cullors article.

How about this idea? I propose that Black Lives Matter: What we believe be added to the external links section of this article. The external links section already includes a link to the homepage of that same website. But I think we should include the archive of that specific link, as they removed the original page after it received heavy criticism from conservatives and libertarians.

Baxter329 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for your assertion that they removed the original page after it received heavy criticism from conservatives and libertarians? Or is that your own assumption? I would strongly recommend against adding the quote at Patrisse Cullors. FDW777 (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a reference.

This is the Politifact article from July 21, 2020: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

The Politifact article from July 21, 2020 includes this link: https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ That link does not currently work. But it did work when Politifact wrote the article on July 21, 2020.

This is an archive of that same link, from that same date, July 21, 2020. The page works, and has the content that is quoted by Politifact: https://web.archive.org/web/20200721005412/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

This article, from July 21, 2020, is called, "Black Lives Matter removes 'What We Believe' website page calling to 'disrupt ... nuclear family structure'" https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-disrupt-nuclear-family-website

This other article, also from July 21, 2020, is called, "Black Lives Matter Removes Language about Disrupting the Nuclear Family from Website" https://www.yahoo.com/video/black-lives-matter-removes-language-185621063.html

You said, "I would strongly recommend against adding the quote at Patrisse Cullors." Why? I think citing the quote from Politifact of her being a "trained Marxist," along with her later explanation at her own YouTube page, would help readers of the article to know what she believes, in her own words.

Baxter329 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine, ignore me. Go ahead and add it to her article now if you think it's a good idea. FDW777 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not ignore you. And I am not going to add it to this article without consensus being OK with it. Consensus is currently against adding it, so I will not add it.

As for the Cullors article, I am curious to hear your reason for being against me adding it. Please explain.

You asked if I had a source to verify that they removed the page after it received criticsm from conservatives and libertarians. So I posted two sources for that. Do you acknowledge the existence of those sources?

Baxter329 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not acknowledge their existence, since they do not support the claim you made. You said they removed the original page after it received heavy criticism from conservatives and libertarians. We've been over Fox News before, that you even trot out that garbage reference after being told they aren't reliable for politics suggests there is a competence problem. Despite that, I read it anyway and the Yahoo article. Neither supports your claim as to why it was removed. FDW777 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously undue here given that coverage is too sparse to support it even on her own article; Cullors herself only gets a few brief mentions here. I'd also take issue with the argument that it should be added to help "readers make up their own minds"; that isn't how Wikipedia works. Our goal is to present the conclusions of the sources, based on the balance of what they say; when there's disagreement between equally-strong sources we do present the different opinions with appropriate weight, but the goal shouldn't be to lead the reader to a conclusion. If a conclusion is in the sources, we should cite it directly to the sources and state it as such. If a conclusion isn't in the sources we shouldn't do anything to try and point the reader to it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Aquillion, We Report, You Decide. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Illinois chapter of BLM gets Elimination of Cash Bail 2023 passed

So I need to know, where would this go in the article, thanks! Twillisjr (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The new year section for 2022 looks like a reasonable location now it's below 2020 and not inside it. Thanks for the addition. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ban on Amazon?

THe group got banned from Amazon as well so where should it be included? https://nypost.com/2022/02/17/amazon-suspends-black-lives-matter-from-its-charity-platform/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelspeedracer (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere unless you have reliable sources for that addition. The NYP isn't a reliable source. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

More to the point: a specific BLM chapter got delisted from Amazon's charities. This has no impact on the BLM movement, as it's not a specific organization. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

BLM and jussie and money

Should the controversy surrounding them supporting jussie smollett

Persesus (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and some of your links are not reliable sources (eg. The Daily Mail). Take a look in the archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

What edit do you want to make and do the credible sources in your posts (not all your sources are credible) support that edit? ldvhl (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

The Black Lives Matter movement started off with a mission to end police brutality, violence, and injustice against black people. It is also dedicated to affirming black people’s “contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.”

If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression.” Kamariwright (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2022 (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. Cannolis (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

Missing content TheTVshow (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2022 (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. @TheTVshow: You'll need to say specifically what content needs added and what reliable sources support it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Change Defense to Defence - you spelt it wrong 14sirs (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Think this is a difference in American and British English, defense is more common in America and using American English makes sense in this article. Cannolis (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

change the "anti racism part" to "anti white supremacy" CrocoDIilios (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done You have not provided any sources to support such a change. Plus, the one is a subset of the other, and anti-racism is discussed in several well-sourced parts of the article, but not specifically "anti-white supremacy". There's no reason to enact such a change. --Jayron32 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

They own a mansion and use it for parties

They own a 6 million dollar mansion and uses it for parties https://nypost.com/2022/05/09/blms-patrisse-cullors-admits-using-6m-mansion-for-parties/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.203.100 (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NYPOST. The New York post is inherently unreliable, and we can't use anything written there. Find a better source. --Jayron32 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The Associated Press. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As the AP notes, this is about the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, not decentralized BLM. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And the topic is already covered in depth at that article. --Jayron32 18:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me, I'm not the OP, just seeing what you were up to, trail ended here, interesting heading. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Misappropriated Funds

I couldnt find anything on the Millions of donation money that have been spent on Mansions ect, would love for this to get updated 95.90.248.247 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources where we can read about this information? --Jayron32 14:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/04/04/home-purchase-by-black-lives-matter-foundation-scrutinized/ ~~ Auctoris (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

[1]https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/black-lives-matter-6-million-dollar-house.html

[2]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-lives-matter-leaders-condemn-allegations-mismanaged-funds-rcna23882

[3]https://news.yahoo.com/california-doj-targets-leaderless-blm-160200500.html

[4]https://www.eenews.net/articles/ig-investigating-complaint-against-top-blm-official/

Do with it what you will, it does appear however there is some substance to these accusations and they should be noted. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. :-) ). 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 (https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-peace-prize/nomination/): "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 blacklivesmatter.com which has the following (https://blacklivesmatter.com/privacy-policy/): "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. operates the https://blacklivesmatter.com 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)

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)

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)

Economic impact

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. (https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage)

While many protests stayed peaceful, some were elevated to deadly riots resulting in violence and death. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/06/08/14-days-of-protests-19-dead/)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who else did the violence? Boogaloo. [7][8] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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 FiveThirtyEight.com, 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)

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)

Be my guest. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

FAQ needed?

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)

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)

I've added a clarifying hatnote, hopefully that will head off some of the more egregious stuff. --Jayron32 13:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Logo

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:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Lives_Matter_logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.185.50 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism due to what deaths are being protested?

Should a part of the criticism section include mention of the situations where the BLM movement protested the death of a black person who was behaving violently at the time? A few examples are Dontre Hamilton (took officer's baton and attacked him with it), Michael Brown (attempted to take officer's gun), Antonio Martin (pulled a gun before officers did), Charley Leundeu Keunang (fought with police), Meagan Hockaday (charged at officer with knife), and William Chapman (fought while being arrested). 172.58.157.224 (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You would need sources to support such an addition. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Change Black Lives Matter (abbreviated BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and inequality experienced by black people. When its supporters come together, they do so primarily to protest incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people.

Black Lives Matter (abbreviated BLM) is a decentralized political and socialist movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and inequality experienced by black people. When its supporters come together, they do so primarily to protest incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people. 108.237.186.65 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Socialist rather than social? Really? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2022

Hi, there has been a typo in the REACTION chapter. Reality is that Black lives Matter was nominated by Petter Eide for the "2021 Nobel Peace Prize". The current edit wrongfully says it was nominated for 2022 Nobel prize, (which is the wrong year) and then claims it was awarded to two other people. Except the 2022 Nobel peace prize has not yet been awarded to anyone yet so the whole section is wrong. It should instead write, "Black lives Matter was nominated by Petter Eide for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize". NOT 2022 which is the incorrect year. Please fix the typo. 49.179.71.19 (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 09:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Influences of Black Power on BLM

It may benefit this article to include information about the Black Power movement and its influence on Black Lives Matter. Useful sources can include external commentary on the two movements and M4BL's own statements. ScissorMeRamses (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2022

A date is wrong and I'd like to change it xx Sirlion2039021391 (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2022 (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. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Reactions: Dalit Lives Matter

Under the section 'Reactions', can we also expand to add 'Dalit Lives Matter'? These are protest movements by the downtrodden classes/castes in India, the slogan has taken inspiration from the BLM. If this is acceptable, I can expand upon it. The Ajan (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If you've got some reliable sources covering the topic & its relation to BLM, we can work on some wording here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A few reliable sources covering 'Dalit Lives Matter'.

1. An article from The Hindu where Dalits show their solidarity towards BLM and take inspiration to challenge the narrative in India - U.S. Black Lives Matter protests spur calls for India to wake up to Dalit discrimination;
2. An article from Vice, which talks about how Dalit Lives Matter coincided with USA's BLM What Coming Out of the ‘Caste Closet’ Was Like For These People;
3. An article from Washington Post, which talks about how Dalits with popular handles have taken inspiration from "Black Twitter" and act as community watch dogs to highlight issues of discrimination and bigotry; The new 140 character war on India's caste system
4. An article/series from The News Minute, which has started running "The Dalit History Month series" which is inspired from "Black History Month". Probably, not directly related, but worthy to mention.

The Ajan (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Keenan Anderson, Cousin to Black Lives Matter Co-Founder killed by LAPD

Keenan Anderson, 31, a teacher and relative of Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, went into cardiac arrest four hours after a struggle with officers on Jan. 3, Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore said in a news conference. Anderson tried to run away after a car crash, and officers used force to restrain him, Moore said. He said officers were investigating whether Anderson was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. "We must reduce the use of force overall, and I have absolutely no tolerance for excessive force," Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement. Upstart Crow9 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Date of Brexit referendum correction

The 2016 referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union took place on June 23, not June 26 as incorrectly stated in this article Hapax488 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The laundering of all the money donated to BLM

Why is it that there is no mention in the WIKI article of the millions of dollars that was donated to BLM that didn’t go to a single good cause or charity? Instead went to the founders mansions in white neighborhoods? 2600:4040:93D2:FE00:7130:7CA8:5857:C54D (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources reporting that as a fact? (Allegations aren't enough.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

How about this story? [[11]]

[[12]]? --Malerooster (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC) ps, why was this thread deleted with a bogus edit summary, that was a bad move. --Malerooster (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

[[13]], [[14]], [[15]] more articles, --Malerooster (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

IP, feel free to add to the article regardless of offending other editors. --Malerooster (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Alot of smoke but not really seeing a fire here. Do other editors feel the article is NPOV as far as alleged misuse of funds? --Malerooster (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This is already covered at Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which is not the same entity as the decentralized Black Lives Matter movement described by this page.

Further, "woke biased editors" is something I'd expect to see from an IP, not an established editor. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

IP Lives Matter. I removed woke biased and just said other. --Malerooster (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why questionable spending of donations can't be mentioned here as well? --Malerooster (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

As Muboshgu stated, this article is about the Black Lives Matter movement, not the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which is an organization that receives donations. See the existing section on financial criticism of that organization. Also: this matter has been discussed extensively on the present talk page, and the content you see in the article appears to be the results of a pretty solid consensus. Efforts to overturn this consensus by fiat will be reverted. Generalrelative (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

I would like a controversy tab written on this article. About the miss management of untaxed non profit donations and trade mark stealing disputes… 136.34.229.179 (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023 (2)

To label the tab criticism vs controversy is miss leading the public. 136.34.229.179 (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

The page have several references as [10] that make the claim that the BLM protests have been widely peaceful. While there are multiple articles that seem to support the protests as “peaceful”, this completely misleads and inaccurately portrays the damages and costs that were associated with those protests that were not peaceful. By citing that the protests were mostly peaceful, it fails to acknowledge the facts that these protests were the most expensive in us history. The opposite of peaceful is agitated, violent or turbulent.

You have appropriately addressed this in the George Floyd protests wiki page but have not addressed it here correctly too.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8740609/amp/Rioting-140-cities-George-Floyds-death-cost-insurance-industry-2-BILLION.html https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/amp

My suggestion would be to, at a minimum, add this directly after the [10]. However, arson, vandalism, and looting that occurred between May 26 and June 8 caused approximately $1–2 billion in damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history, and surpassing the record set during the 1992 Los Angeles riots Anflexboi (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done You are conflating the protests that occurred immediately after George Floyd's death (which are the subject of the axios source data) with BLM protests as a whole - which is why the detail is referenced in the Floyd article but not this one. The other two sources are not reliable for this; the Daily Mail is deprecated from Wikipedia as a whole (see WP:RSP), and FEE is a libertarian thinktank and as such does not appear to be neutral (I ccan't read the article because it returns a 503 error). Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Reactions: Dalit Lives Matter

(Copy pasting the previous discussion with The Hand That Feeds You from Archive 11, to continue it here.)

Under the section 'Reactions', can we also expand to add 'Dalit Lives Matter'? These are protest movements by the downtrodden classes/castes in India, the slogan has taken inspiration from the BLM. If this is acceptable, I can expand upon it.

A few reliable sources covering 'Dalit Lives Matter'.

1. An article from The Hindu where Dalits show their solidarity towards BLM and take inspiration to challenge the narrative in India - U.S. Black Lives Matter protests spur calls for India to wake up to Dalit discrimination;
2. An article from Vice, which talks about how Dalit Lives Matter coincided with USA's BLM What Coming Out of the ‘Caste Closet’ Was Like For These People;
3. An article from Washington Post, which talks about how Dalits with popular handles have taken inspiration from "Black Twitter" and act as community watch dogs to highlight issues of discrimination and bigotry; The new 140 character war on India's caste system
4. An article/series from The News Minute, which has started running "The Dalit History Month series" which is inspired from "Black History Month". Probably, not directly related, but worthy to mention.

Maybe we can further link it to Caste discrimination in the United States, but I guess that'd just take the focus away from the main topic?! The Ajan (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds more like a topic for its own article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No mention of missing funds.

No mention of the funds that disappeared and reappeared in the former owner's bank account or the multi million mansion she now owns. 143.170.159.98 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That would be covered under Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation EvergreenFir (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

i have the same question. It seems like the scandals of misappropriation of funds, buying mansions in white neighborhoods, paying relatives two million dollars to provide security, and declaring bankruptcy should be discussed.

Ignoring these things completely makes you look partisan and biased. 2806:310:106:8B08:6CAA:FF0C:B71E:23A4 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's covered under Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. It's not relevant to this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Edit the line that states: "The movement began in July 2013, with the use of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin 17 months earlier in February 2012."

Link "Trayvon Martin" to his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin Johnodon (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: His name is linked in the preceeding paragraph. RudolfRed (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on August 14, 2023

In the subsection Reactions and legacy, after the line:

In the weeks following the murder of George Floyd, many corporations came out in support of the movement, donating and enacting policy changes in accordance with the group's ethos.

Please add the following text:

In addition, some American business organizations responded: the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce started its Equality of Opportunity Initiative, which stresses the business case for racial equity and the economic benefits that can be attained by overcoming race-related inequalities. In addition, some state- and regional-level chambers of commerce have adopted racially progressive positions and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It has been argued that some of these initiatives represent genuine and, in some cases, bold and meaningful attempts to advance the cause of racial equity.[16]https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.17] Danielk24 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

Change the old logo of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. to the logo used by the decentralized movement, i.e., the one in black and white.

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Black_Lives_Matter_flags 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure! I've added a cropped version of the file you suggested. I see a couple older discussions regarding the logo (here and here) but no real consensus to favor the yellow version over this one. And this one does seem to be the one that became ubiquitous over time. Anyone who objects to this change should of course feel free to revert and discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; I remind you to add {{PD-textlogo}} to the cropped version on wikicommons. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Aha, thanks back atcha! Generalrelative (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Asking to remove the deadname of a transgender woman who was killed

Writing to request the removal of a transgender woman's deadname under the Criticism, Insufficient focus on women section. It is considered inappropriate to use transgender people's former name (known as deadnaming). As such, Kayla Moore's former name should not be listed in parentheses after her name. I am unable to edit the article due to the semi-protected edit restriction. Tbikedc (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Tbikedc (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments regarding the recent attack in Israel

I think this is notable and should be added to the article.

What do others here think?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/black-lives-matters-chicago-chapter-backtracks-on-hamas-post

https://www.tmz.com/2023/10/11/black-lives-matter-blm-hamas-israel-support-palestine/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/10/black-lives-matter-palestine-twitter-hamas-chicago-israel/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Not noteworthy. This is just one single local chapter, and the step of ephemeral interest. Its inclusion would be recentist. Also, for second source is surely not reliable BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's too recent to be added as well, as Wiki prefers a long-term view of things. 23impartial (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

The 'B' in Black people should be capitilized because it is then defining it as a ethnicity, not a color. from an article in the Columbia Journal Review "in the absence of the identifiable ethnicities slavery stole from those it subjugated, Black can be a preferred ethnic designation for some descendants." To capitilize Black is to strip the word from past being used as slavery. Many people used 'African American' to describe Black people in the past however, that is no longer relevent considering not all Black people consider themselves from Africa and perfer the term 'Black people'. Capitilizing the 'B' in the 'Black People' gives respect to that ethnicity group and stips the term of any negative meaning. Also, the Black Lives Matter webiste also capitilizes the 'B' in black people. I am asking that all the 'Bs' in 'Black people' to be changed to capitlized.

2601:282:800:6190:D87C:5EB8:C214:4E4D (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2023 (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. also probably wrong article Cannolis (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

Perhaps use: "Allegations of mismanagement of funds arose after the funds were used to purchase a home that cost $6 million in southern California. The property includes six bedrooms, a recording studio, and a swimming pool."

• • corrected the placement of "of funds," changed "have been after" to "arose after," and made the list of property features parallel by using "six bedrooms" instead of "6 bedrooms." 2600:1000:A120:4140:99B2:949C:227B:DD8A (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I cannot parse what change you're wanting made. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 10:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Me neither, since Black Lives Matter is not an organization and has no funds. A house priced at 6 millon dollars was purchased by the unaffiliated organization Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and is covered in a section about its real estate investments. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)