Talk:All Lives Matter

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Searui.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal?
isn't the place to talk about a proposal to merge this article with another article precisely this article's talk page?

i disagree with the proposal.

Happy  monsoon  day  19:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For — Pariah24  ┃ ☏ 23:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
In the criticism section you state that USA Today said that writing #alllivesmatter can be considered racist, I think that you should explain why they made this statement. You should not make the assumption that everyone would know why it can be considered racist.--Tts92 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Tts92, and welcome to Wikipedia. You really should read the rest of the paragraph, which I've copied and pasted below. It explains exactly why they made this statement. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So articles can read people's minds now as long as it is sourced? There are people outside of the culture wars who still use the words to really mean all lives, which includes black lives. 75.118.168.159 (talk) 75.118.168.159 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In July 2016, USA Today wrote that using the phrase "All Lives Matter" can be interpreted as racist. It cited three professors, including Joe Feagin, who said that white people use the phrase "All Lives Matter" to ignore the Black Lives Matter movement, which he described as "already about liberty and justice for all." USA Today reported that some celebrities who had tweeted using the hashtag #AllLivesMatter, including Jennifer Lopez and Fetty Wap, had deleted the tweets and apologized. It also mentioned cartoonist Kris Straub, who tweeted a cartoon titled "All Houses Matter", showing a house fire, to illustrate what he saw as the problem with the term.

Overrepresentation of criticisms
The article seemed to heavily focus on the criticisms of "All Lives Matter," and while all the information was accurate, unbiased, and from reliable sources, the sheer amount of space given to the "criticism" portion makes the article appear to favor one side of the argument.Jeffmortensen (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUE, we balance the coverage based on how sources cover it. The majority of reliable sources focus on criticism.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The information is accurate to a certain degree but the citations and sources are from bias media outlets and opinion pieces. I suggest instead of removing statements finding better sources that back them up as a compromise. Contributor Custodian (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * see Neutral point of view. Also why reply to a post over 3 years old? Doug Weller  talk 14:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Accusing sources of bias is a convenience way of trying to replace them with your own sources. The sources cited are reputable, so we'd be sacrificing credibility in exchange for ... Forced balance of viewpoints, where it doesn't actually exist? Equal levels of support and opposition for this phrase do not exist in the real world, so forcing an equal representation of criticism vs support in this article would actually introduce bias rather than reduce it. For the same reason, the Climate Change article doesn't dedicate equal attention to detractors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B00B:85D0:E431:623:2CBE:52A9 (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of details
It is understandable that not a whole lot has been written about "All Lives Matter," but it would be interesting for someone to add a "history" section to the phrase rather than just limiting the article to talking about supporters and criticisms. Someone should explore where the phrase first came about, how it has been used, and what the implications and outcomes of this phrase's usage have been.Jeffmortensen (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a miss representation of the all lives matter movement. All lives matter was the saying used before Black lives matter was even started. This was used under the anonymous day of protest 5th of November. Then three people came together and and made BLM saying that black lives matter brought more urgency to the matter. Then a group of people under the anonymous day of protest split and then the phrase was adopted by people that disagreed with it being a BLM movement. ￼ 71.62.133.200 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Anonymous day of protest brought all people together. There was doctors, lawyers, cops, military, and more as members of anonymous. What BLM did was kill the ideology of Anonymous. It took A group and split it up into. black lives, blue lives, red lives, and all lives matter movements. This is the segregation that Martin Luther King didn't dream of. 71.62.133.200 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * this is the true true 110.44.18.224 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Images
In this article, I believe that it would be advantageous to have screenshots of things that have been said about the "All Lives Matter" Movement. It would also be helpful to have the "All Houses Matter" image viewable without needing to click on the link.

I am a first time user and am trying to contribute with a neutral point of view. Meredith coleman (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)meredith_coleman


 * Hello Meredith coleman, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to when you mention "screenshots", but Wikipedia's copyright policy may not allow them or may severely limit their use. You should try to read WP:Non-free content, especially the examples of acceptable and unacceptable uses of images in the middle of that page, to get an idea of the rules that apply.


 * The copyright policy is also the reason we cannot include the "All Houses Matter" cartoon in our article, but are required to provide an external link to it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Verifying Sources
There's some sloppiness to the cited sources in this Wiki. Help correcting or cleaning-up sources would strengthen the info here.
 * the hyperlinked footnoted source #6 actually takes readers to the article sources under footnote #14. Info relevant to footnote #6 needs proper sourcing.
 * source #9 does not provide the correct title to the article, and other publishing info is omitted, like date.
 * source number two needs an update: https://archive.thinkprogress.org/obama-explains-the-problem-with-all-lives-matter-780912d54888/ TespSam (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Should "It's OK to be White" be a sub-section of this article?
This is a question about this page, not an invitation to a general debate on the issues. In any case, I just noticed that it exists as its own page — thus there's no point! But it could be a related article. Happy  monsoon  day  20:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that users who disagree that these are related pages should engage in discussion if they disagree. It is obvious that the slogan 'All Lives Matter' and 'It's OK to be White' are both intended to disparage and undermine the BLM movement and are closely linked; both are also connected with ideologues and have been criticized and exposed in the same manner. What am I missing regarding the relationship between the two slogans, which I believe warrants they be linked at least by 'related article' status. Happy  monsoon  day  18:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020
All Lives Matter was established in the early 1970's and the idealism behind the movement is to this day still " living in harmony within the Earth". The idealism of trees, plants have a living cell and should be protected. The life of animals is respected. Take only what is needed to survive and leave no imprint. That is the whole movement. At no time has it ever been referenced to BLM. It was started by hippies and still embraced by them. Related to this movement is All Life is Precious. But like all really cool things from back in the day; new age groups want to place their own spin on it and unfortunately it is in a negative light. Bright Blessings 74.140.91.155 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This needs to include black crime rates, which is used by supporters of All Lives Matter to explain why blacks have so many encounters with the police.66.141.235.58 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Information on popular support for All Lives Matter being removed with questionable justification
This article originally included content regarding the support rate for All Lives Matter and later on was further categorized in the supporters section of the article.

Since 2016, the fact a Rasmussen Reports survey report with full citation to a reliable source was never questioned or removed. Due to the fact much has changed since 2016, so I decided to provide a follow up content to give an updated number from the same polling company, and then it was removed by Cpotisch for reason of 'Undue weight to have two different polls from The Rasmussen Reports The title itself of the article containing the newer poll was clearly inflammatory.' I do not believe the vibe given by title of article has ever been a legitimate reason for removing a reliable and published source before and the fact there really are no other polling companies that conduct and publish similar surveys, so I felt the 'undue weight' accusation was a moot. If that is indeed the case, then we should also remove all US census numbers in various articles on American cities, for they also give 'undue weight' to the demographics sections. But I decided to let it rest and gave the editor the benefit of doubt until I can research further.

However, Cpotisch decided to remove rest of the content yesterday for the following reason: 'Removed Rasmussen Reports poll; originally I only removed a second one, but looking at it further, their figures are very far from how Americans actually feel)'. I know clearly an editor should not make that kind of assessment when it comes to determining the quality of reliable sources and verifiability of the added content. Not to mention, the cited sources are not black listed or deemed deprecated. I went ahead and reverted and given my reason for the reversion and implore the user to adhere to NPOV prior to make any drastic edits.

What became mind-boggling was when an admin Doug Weller decided to revert my reversion with the following comment 'NPOV included WP:UNDUE = a source on GNews shows only the dubious Moony Washington Times mentions this, so no evidence it's significant enough by our criteria to be includes'. The comment seemed to have absolute no relevance to the content in question as it mentioned nothing about GNews or 'Moony Washington Times', so I respectfully reverted back with proper explanation 'Sources both from a known polling company and its results are often cited by other mainstream medias. Strongly suggest editors revisit what are reliable sources and questionable sources prior to making a chunky content removal.'. What I have stated is both true and in compliance with wikipedia contribution guidelines.

After that, the involved admin Doug quickly reverted what I did again and stating that he's not saying my sources aren't reliable, but he is 'saying that it fails part of NPOV policy until we can find other reliable sources reporting it'. This kind of concept is entirely new to me, should we hold back on reliable sources because there are no other sources that gives due weight on the same thing? I am under the impression that any editor should be able to contribute published and reliable sources as long as it gives due weight to the article. I failed to see how the contents in question failed NPOV if they were all the available reliable sources and placed in the most appropriate section of the article?

I welcome any feedbacks on the matter. I have no interest in starting an edit war, I just want to know if it is a consensus that we going to ban all polls relating All Lives Matter support rate? Thank you. Mafia godfather (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not making any blanket statements about the Rasmussen Reports as a whole, but these polls simply don't represent how most Americans see the issue. Look at this 6/12 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center; an organization that is considered by Wikipedia to be nonpartisan. They found that 2/3 of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement. Similar figures and analysis can be found here, here, and here. Public opinion has significantly changed since the first poll was added, so that one is simply out of date, and I removed it. The more recent one is still very far off from all other reputable polls I've found.


 * So, in short, the figures they're getting are radically different than those of all other recent nonpartisan-conducted polls, and I think that raises concerns about their accuracy.Cpotisch (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you failed to realize that this is an All Lives Matter article, NOT Black Lives Matter page. And the original content was placed in supporters section of All Lives Matter article. The Pew Research Center poll and other articles you mentioned is an excellent material to be placed in the Black Lives Matter article, not here. Wikipedia actually makes no clear stance on what are non-partisan and if we should only use information from neutral sources. In fact, if you read more on the NPOV policy, they actually made it clear that sources can be opinionated and biased since the whole idea of wikipedia is to present a NPOV content by including reliable sources of all sides. Lastly, your can have your opinion on the reliable sources cited for this article, but you cannot make any overreaching actions such as removing published and reliable sources that you disagree with, that is beyond the scope of what an editor or even an admin can do.Mafia godfather (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Mafia godfather knock off the Admin bit and the lack of good faith towards other editors (not just me), I'm acting as a very experienced editor here, not an Admin. You clearly have not bothered to read WP:UNDUE (which I spelled correctly in my second revert). "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Being reliable and verifiable is a necessary criteria but not a sufficient one. My reverts were, I believe policy based. If something is hardly mentioned or not mentioned at all in reliable sources, it isn't significant enough for this encyclopedia. If you disagree, go to WP:NPOVN. It's an NPOV issue, not an RS issue. Maybe by then it will have been reported more often.  Doug Weller  talk 10:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "I'm acting as a very experienced editor here" Then you should remember to sign your messages. Otherwise it is unclear who wrote what. Dimadick (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also acting as a tired editor here having walked over 4 miles with my dog. Sorry. I've also clarified the point I was making, I'm not acting as an Admin. Doug Weller  talk 10:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another example where an editor, User:Sjö, removed a statement with the edit summary "Per WP:OR and WP:DUE we wait and see if this is mentioned prominently in secondary reliable sources". To be encyclopedic you need to show coverage. Doug Weller  talk 12:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Mr."I'm acting as a very experienced editor here", please kindly refer to arguments to avoid, specifically this section about Experience/standing on Wikipedia and try to give people their due respects.
 * Secondly, I am well aware of the WP:UNDUE guidelines and have given my contribution in full compliance of that, please kindly read the second paragraph of my original statement, thank you.
 * Lastly, when one's legitimate and fully cited contribution(not just me, also the very first contributed content back when the article started that has survived all the way until now) was wrongfully reverted multiple times without justification, it is a bit hard to inspire the perception of good faith to the others like me. Mafia godfather (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is the All Lives Matter article, but that in no way means that we have to ignore the context of polls that merely talk about BLM. As Doug said, no reliable secondary sources talk about these Rasmussen Polls. Instead, they reference polls that directly contradict Rasmussen's findings, as they show that a large majority of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement. That's radically different than what Rasmussen is claiming. So yeah, I think it's undue to include the Rasmussen poll at this point.Cpotisch (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, can you show me one source that contradicts the Rasmussen Polls? Hint, just because I like coffee does not mean I don't appreciate tea. The fact of the matter is many Americans do not think All Lives Matter and Black Lives Matter are mutually exclusive, and the polls done by Rasmussen Polls proved just that. I would like to reiterate my point, this is an All Lives Matter article, NOT  Black Lives Matter article. And the original content was a fully cited information that was appropriately placed in Supporters section of All Lives Matter article, not black lives matter. If you feel there are other polls that can better illustrate the Supporters view for All Lives Matter, please contribute freely with proper sources, but do not arbitrarily remove the content without discussing on talk page like what we do here, especially if you have not read the sources yourself. If you have read the sources, you would not miss the fact in Rasmussen's findings they also show that there is a large majority of Americans support the All Lives Matter movement, without indicating if they only support all lives matter and oppose black lives matter.
 * Cpotisch, you are also more than welcome to use another Rasmussen Reports poll done around the same period to strengthen your majority supports black lives matter argument, but please keep that in the black lives matter article, thanks.Mafia godfather (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * this is getting nowhere. I still say WP:UNDUE applies, go ask at WP:NPOVN.  Doug Weller  talk 13:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my personal opinions are not why I removed the polls, so how 'bout we don't accuse each other of problematic motivations. Secondly, the Rasmussen polls explicitly gave respondents a choice of one or the other (or neither). So their All Lives Matter figures are inherently linked to the Black Lives Matter figures, and those don't jive with all other reliably referenced polls I can find. If you don't believe me that the choice was one or the other, note that the main question in the original Rasmussen poll was "Which statement is closest to your own—Black lives matter or all lives matter? Or does neither statement reflect your point of view?" Respondents clearly weren't supposed to pick both. Then there's the June poll, which states that "30% believe that Black lives matter more than all lives." Putting aside the clear partisan wording, note that if 30% prefer black lives matter (per the title) and 30% of respondents said they support black lives matter (per the data), then it's really strongly implied that the question was one or the other. So everyone who said they supported BLM preferred it to ALM, as otherwise, the numbers would be different. So to conclude, they are clear zero-sum polls, and thus other BLM-specific polls call into question how well they represent the U.S. Cpotisch (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The state of this article
Why is "All Lives Matter" framed as a movement with "Supporters" and "Criticism" with no other context. It's a slogan responding to "Black Lives Matter" for which nearly all of the reliable sources are at least somewhat critical. Following the sources, it then caught up a bunch of people who misunderstood that context and embraced it at face value (some of whom caught some backlash for that misunderstanding). But that's the secondary meaning here. There is no notable subject that is just the "All Lives Matter" on its own -- only its context as a response to "Black Lives Matter". The article should be framed accordingly. The page also seems to assume some understanding by just jumping from an oversimplified lead into "supporters" (which, again, is strange). It could use a section on usage and/or background before just starting to list people who say they're ok with it. Acknowledging I'm leaving a critical message rather than sofixingit. May come back to it later. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that i added this into the article, i mentioned that it isn’t associated with any social justice movement and instead is a reaction to black lives matter. I hope that helps :) Ross.matthew91 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What is All Lives Matter.
This page does not mention that All Lives Matter only exists in the context of Black Lives Matter. It only exists as a critique to Black Lives Matter, not a standalone social justice movement. Ross.matthew91 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021
Hello I ask can you add a wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice) to the word Social justice in the opening sentence. Teguknowsbest (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Edit: actually, I just reworded it instead. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021
This article is written with a clear bias. It needs to take into account a more positive side of All Lives Matter. Goldberg1972 (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Opposing viewpoint
The “Opinions” section only offers examples of criticisms to All Lives Matter. 200.119.184.167 (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, rephrasing the section as “Criticisms” would be more accurate. 200.119.184.167 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, so I've made this change. If someone wants to add contrasting views and rename the section, go ahead. Golem08 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)