Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 1

Merge
I propose to redirect the stub "Black Lives Matter Movement" here. A Merry Christmas! Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Support and this title can be left as a redirect. Merry Christmas!- MrX 14:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: But, I've never heard of the "Black Lives Matter Movement". If we are to go with common names, shouldn't we stick with simply "Black Lives Matter"? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the primary topic should be the slogan/hashtag. The movement is a subsidiary topic, at least at the moment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Request protection?
There's been recent edit warring with IP vandalism. WP:RFP may be a solution. Thoughts? Runner1928 (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on deletion: Navigational Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans
A navigation template at the bottom of this article is being discussed for deletion because there is no parent article. One editor asked whether the Black Lives Matter article might be expanded to become the parent article. Interested editors, please comment here. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Facebook as source
Hey- I noticed for 'Deaths inspiring the movement' (this should probably be renamed to a more appropriate header) we were using facebook as a source for many of them to link them to the movement. Isn't Facebook A) a primary source, B) able to be changed at any moment and C) access limited to having an account? Surely we could use something better. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  208.167.254.20 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A) What's wrong with a primary source when it's the official Black Lives Matter account?
 * B) Take a 'screenshot' - archive.org or webcitation.org/archive.php
 * C) I added all public links as I did not log on to Facebook when citing any links. Which link can't you access?
 * D) How should we rename the section? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can access the links, but I'm aware that Facebook gates access to a large amount of content by your login status. You'd be better off with archiving the material yourself rather than requesting others do it for the sources you add. A primary source is not sufficient for explicitly tying these deaths to the Black Lives Matter movement in such a direct manner- additionally, such a section (especially in list format) is not appropriate for this article. You'd be better off taking the cases which were important to the history of the movement and integrating them in the 'Description' section. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
 * You're right- I'll remove those that don't have a proper source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm adding secondary sources. Might not be done within 24 hours though. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  08:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very good work you're doing in adding the requisite secondary sources, and I'm pleased my advice was helpful in some way. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's done now. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  11:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarified some of the blurbs in the sections about people
I clarified some of the blurbs about the folks whose deaths sparked protests and updated them with more recent/accurate information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Sanders
I have just created Death of Jonathan Sanders if someone has the time right now to add it to the article. I don't have the time at present. Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Description and aftermath
Why does this list give a description of the individual events they felt the need to protest? Selectively picking bits of information about each case is not neutral. The info can go on the page each case links to. I think the column should be deleted.--JudgeJason (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree, there is no reason a summary cannot be made neutral, we do it routinely in article leads. If you feel that specific summaries could be more neutral, feel free to improve them subject to dispute by others, but you can't claim that all of them are inherently non-neutral. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly appropriate to summarize each event. Do you have any specifics to back the claim that the information was "selectively" picked?- MrX 19:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I read it, "selectively picking bits of information" meant summarizing, not cherry-picking; i.e., summaries are necessarily selective. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Some incidents have 1 sentence summary, while others have 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. You cannot summarise events that happened under questionable circumstances. The only relevant details are 1) a black person died and 2) non-black police were involved. Either the summaries should describe each event equally, or it's not neutral.--JudgeJason (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Using the article lead comparison again, some leads are very long, some are very short - both in "questionable circumstances" - and that does not prove that leads are non-neutral. No offense but your argument just doesn't hold water, that's about as nice as I can say it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The only thing that I see that's slightly problematic is the gratuitous mention of President Obama's speech under Trayvon Martin.- MrX 19:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The information in the summaries should be as columns instead. Such as Was Officer convicted, Cause of Death, was victim convicted previously? and so on. That makes it neutral.--JudgeJason (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Still disagree, but thankfully we have WP:CONSENSUS. If you can gain a consensus for your argument, I'll happily help you make the changes. You're currently alone on this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

OK summaries are not neutral because they miss details such as
 * In favor of the deceased:
 * Shooting of Rekia Boyd should mention they were off-duty and the firearm was unregistered, and witnesses described shooter as drunk.
 * Dontre Hamilton no mention he was paranoid schizophrenic


 * In favor of police
 * Michael Brown does not mention his very large frame.
 * Ezell Ford does not mention Ford was already convicted.
 * Freddie Gray does not mention Ford was already convicted.
 * Tony Robinson does not mention Ford was already convicted.--JudgeJason (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's exactly the kind of debate that occurs around article leads; what's significant enough to include in a summary, what is not. Many would argue, for example, that prior convictions are not relevant enough to include in an article lead. You could make a case that these descriptions should be eliminated as an unwarranted WP:NPOV battleground, given that each article's lead is only a click away, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. You could also suggest that each description be maintained as a copy of the first paragraph (or two, depending on the length) of each article's lead, which presumably is neutral by virtue of a group of editors working hard on it. Thus, the description for Samuel DuBose would read: Or, the longer version, using two paragraphs from the lead: With such a system, any concerns about neutrality would be taken to the target article's talk page, not this one. This leaves the question of the "aftermath" part, but I'm not convinced that that part is more important than addressing the neutrality problem in some practical way. I would be interested in hearing other opinions about either proposition. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article should simply summarize the leads of each component articles. Any NPOV concerns should first be addressed at the individual articles.- MrX 20:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the suggestion was to copy the beginning of the lead (or, as in the above example, all of the lead, since it currently has only two paragraphs), not summarize the lead. Not sure if that's what you meant, but there's a big difference between them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What is a BLM protest?
As far as I can see, BLM is far more a loose movement than an activist organization, little more than Hands up, don't shoot. That's what the first sentence says, a movement. Is there a spokesperson for BLM? Any widely recognized national leadership? Does BLM have financing or lobbyists? Is there anything preventing me from declaring myself a member of Black Lives Matter, just because I feel like it? If I then protest the Killing of John Doe and invoke the BLM name, and some RS reports that I did so (without necessarily endorsing the connection), does that constitute a BLM protest? What is the criterion for inclusion in the protests table?

I noted that Eric Harris is mentioned in the lead but is not in the table. So I went looking for references, using "eric harris" "black lives matter". I gave up after the first three or four; they mention both in the same story, hence the Google hit, but they don't make a clear connection. Maybe I need to look deeper, but it looks to me like the association is made by the reporter/columnist, not by BLM. To my mind, that's not enough for inclusion, and I wonder how many of the existing entries are based on such a tenuous connection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mandruss@undefined Thanks for your comment. I started this article and was concerned to see it become a possible coatrack for an "official" organisation, while at the same time not wanting to deny anything that has actually been done in the way of organising.  I welcome all efforts to ensure that the article is compliant with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks, but that doesn't really address my concerns. I think there needs to be established some clear criteria (beyond general references to Wikipedia policies) so that everyone is on the same page. We can then add the criteria as hidden comments, and begin the (non-trivial) task of removing the entries that fail the criteria. I don't see the criteria as very difficult, it would just be something to the effect of: Death was publicly protested by BLM leadership and that fact was reported in reliable sources. Simply having the death and BLM mentioned in the same news article is not sufficient. Then you just have to define what constitutes BLM leadership. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Sanders and Synthesis
Hey. Recently I removed a not insignificant amount of text about Bernard Sanders in the 'description and events' section. I believe those sections are synthesis and against our policies on original research. It is stated in the link I've provided that we are not to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". I believe that mentioning unrelated biographical information about Sanders in relation to the recent incident is purely placed there in an attempt to imply the conclusion that the interruption of his speech was a poor move on the part of the activists, especially when phrased as "The protestors claimed [...] despite the fact that". I do not believe that interrupting his speech was a wise move, however, we do not include information in wikipedia articles simply because they are 'facts'. If reliable sources talk about Sanders civil rights policies and actions in relation to the activists interrupting his speech, we should include it- we should however not go out of our way to paint them as stupid if reliable sources do not discuss it in this way (remember that we aim for verifiability not truth). As such, I would ask to selfrevert his edit which reintroduced this language and unrelated information. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked very deeply into it, but your reasoning is sound and the edit summary "these are facts" doesn't demonstrate much grasp of the applicable policy and principle. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. This was exactly the reason I made this revert. While I personally may think that it is a "fact" that Sanders has been promoting civil rights, sources didn't links Sanders' history to this incident.
 * Note: I just edited the paragraph about "O'Malley incident" and Sanders was in Netroots meeting too. His speech was constantly interrupted and he threatened to leave, but finished his speech that time. Politrukki (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The material removed implied that the BLS protesters made no sense, given Sanders' exemplary civil rights record. If we want to provide analysis, it must always be sourced, i.e., we have a source that says the protesters made no sense or whatever views are significant.  TFD (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I came here because I was struck by this section. I see no reason why Bernie Sanders' record should have any place in an article on BLM. A simple link to his name would be enough and anyone looking to learn more could follow it. It seems the editorializing is back, however. Is someone with more wikipedia experience watching this? 140.147.176.233 (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Bernie's record is irrelevant to the BLM page and there is no need for such bias in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faceyourfaces (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The BLM takeover of the Saunders campaign rally is a notable event but the way the section reads now, especially since this edit, is biased to the point of ridiculousness. It is obvious that some editors feel that the protesters made an unwise decision in destaging Saunders, but such editorializing is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I would suggest removing the synthesis in the section so that it reads similar to what it does in this edit -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Millionsandbillions. Arrielmeca (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a CONCLUSION not explicitly stated by any of the sources". First of all, I did not draw any sort of conclusion. What I did was simply stating the fact (with reliable sources) that Senator Sanders had already regularly expressed his concerns about black lives and his desire to have police reform and criminal justice reform BEFORE the protest - which is significant because it clearly contradicts with the the protestors' claim that he had failed to address their concerns. Now it just sounds like he only started to pay attention to black lives AFTER the protestors shut down his event which in a way IMPLIES that the protest was a huge success despite its aggressive nature.--Miunouta (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your conclusion is that the protesters' claim was wrong. It does not matter that you do not explicitly state that in your edit, but you juxtapose information from different sources to draw readers to that conclusion which btw is worse, since it implies that no other interpretation is possible.  TFD (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's billionaire campaign donor who indirectly helped to fund BLM is missing.
I don't see Soros being mentioned in this article, who funded both the Clinton campaign and BLM (indirectly). Shouldn't that be added somewhere especially considering the notable, growing attention the BLM movement is getting for attacking Bernie Sanders while giving Hillary Clinton a pass?

http://www.hngn.com/articles/60730/20150115/george-soros-billionaire-financier-behind-ferguson-protests-movements.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913625/Billionaire-George-Soros-spent-33MILLION-bankrolling-Ferguson-demonstrators-create-echo-chamber-drive-national-protests.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/09/1410138/-Political-Awareness-Matters-How-Black-Lives-Matter-Are-Screwing-Themselves-And-the-Rest-of-Us

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html?intcmp=hpft#/v/4382576076001

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/08/1410064/-Bernie-Sanders-Interrupted-by-Black-Lives-Matter-Again

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/ferguson_protesters_demand_paychecks_for_gig_they_were_hired_to_perform.html

Seems a bit white-washed from this article. Cowicide (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are not reliable sources for a claim that Soros indirectly funded BLM. Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with this subject. WP:RS and WP:SYNTH apply.- MrX 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't they be reliable sources to state that "Some have claimed Soros indirectly funded BLM"? moeburn (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As the Open Society Foundations article correctly states that organization gave $33M in 2014 to various African American civil rights groups that had some connection with the Ferguson protests.  But there is no mention in rs of Black Lives Matter.  It probably is not possible to fund them since they have no organization.  While some people believe he did, we would need to show that that view is significant before including.  TFD (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Those are not reliable sources for a claim that Soros indirectly funded BLM. " But anything from CNN is fine guise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.212.150 (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits by 72.176.56.38
Hi not sure where to post this, but the edits made by 72.176.56.38 are at best irrelevant to the BLM page, as BLM is a response to state violence towards black lives, rather than intraracial crime, I think they're intentionally misleading. This IP has also been editing a number of other pages with very questionable input. Gracefulpuffin (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil Rights Group vs Terrorist/Hate Group
The opening paragraph's last sentence said "Numerous" media organizations have referred to BLM as "a new civil rights movement." "Numerous" gives the impression that many media outlets share this view, yet only 3 sources were cited. I've changed "Numerous" to "Some" to better reflect the number of sources. This can always be changed back if an editor finds more sources.

I've also tried to make the lead more balanced by noting that other RS have declared it a "terrorist group" and a "hate group."Scaleshombre (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The differences between "numerous", "some", or even "several" can (and should) be debated but that is second to the main point. Moving on to the crux of this section.  Lets break down the two sources that you used.  Starting with the Washington Times source.  That article was posted under the Communities section of that website which is grouped with the Opinion section.  Opinion pieces are not reliable sources and are simply not valid for inclusion in an article.  So that source can be discounted.  The second source, the one from Media Matters, is much more reliable in my opinion.  However, if this is going to be included it must mention who is declaring BLM a "terrorist" and a "hate" group.  Conservative pundits.  This is said right in the title of your source and if this is to be included I feel that this must be said to give the proper weight to the statement. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed it since it's a WP:FRINGE theory that I don't think deserves recognition. If it is included in any way, I agree with Stabila711 that we should be explicit about who is calling it that. Specifically, political opponents. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily consider it fringe since it is supported by multiple people. It just so happens that all of them are conservative pundits.  The main issue I see here is not WP:FRINGE but WP:UNDUE.  There is another side to BLM and it is the conservative pundits side.  Is that up to the standards necessary to be included in this article?  Perhaps.  But if it is, it needs to mention who exactly is on that side.  You cannot just put up "scare" words like "terrorist" or "hate group" and not mention who is saying them.  --Stabila711 (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you make an excellent point about identifying the sources as conservative pundits. Also, I looked more closely at the Washington Times article; the author is Tim Constantine, a staff writer for the paper, and the Communities section seems to come under News, not Opinion. So I think we should include it as an RS. As far as "numerous" vs "some" or "several," I don't know -- does Wiki have any guidelines on this? Merriam Webster defines numerous as "consisting of great numbers of units or individuals"; if we use that as a guideline, then we need to change it, because 3 sources doesn't meet that threshold. What do you think?Scaleshombre (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would call it several but that is my opinion. I see the problem with the Washington Times website.  The Communities section is grouped under News and Opinion without any actual distinction between the two.  That is a major problem in my mind.  Regardless, you have a source that is valid (again in my mind) with Media Matters.  I would be much more comfortable if the Washington Times article was not included since they make no distinction between Community News and Community Opinion.  Who wrote it is irrelevant if they don't make the distinction between news and opinion. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. Let's leave out the Wash Times reference. Also, "several" sounds much more accurate than "numerous" in this context. Let's go with it unless anyone disagrees.--Scaleshombre (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No rs call them a terrorist or hate group. They are not even a group.  TFD (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Deaths inspiring the movement
The section Deaths inspiring the movement needs references that state unambiguously that the listed deaths inspired BLM, otherwise they will be removed. Original research is not allowed. I tagged the section yesterday, but someone has already removed the tag without addressing the issue. In a similar vein, the NAVBOX Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter, is problematic. Many of the articles linked make no mention of BLM. Again, this is an original research issue and a WP:NPOV issue.- MrX 12:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now that there are at least mentions of the victims in various self-published sources, so I withdraw some of my concern. My remaining concern is that a list like this may be WP:UNDUE, and turns the article into somewhat of a WP:COATRACK. For example, did Oscar Grant III's death in 2009 actually inspire the movement that started four years later, or is this some revisionist history on the part of the organization? What do others think? - MrX 19:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - have you guys seen the Link column? There's both a primary source from the official Black Lives Matter team and a secondary source connecting Black Lives Matter to each death.
 * The whole point of Black Lives Matter is that black people are dying needlessly. Grant's death is being used to exemplify that. I simply wish to portray a section about all these deaths. If you have a better way of putting Deaths inspiring the movement, please feel free to rename the section. Plus, if you're concerned about a coatrack, the list could be split into another article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  00:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is moot now that you have moved the content to a new article, but this is one of the reasons why self-published sources should not be used to support self-serving claims (see WP:SELFPUB). The secondary sources in the links column mearly mention BLM, without making any claims about inspiring the movement. Quite simply, if there are not independent sources that state that each victim's killing inspired the BLM movement, then it should not be in this article, or a stand alone article.- MrX 02:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX on those points, there need to be independent sources stating that those victim's killings inspired the movement. - SantiLak  (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - let's take the first example, Oscar Grant. Independent source: at the 6th annual vigil for Grant, which was organized by the Oscar Grant Foundation. People held signs that read "We Are All Oscar Grant," and "Grant Station" and "Black Lives Matter," or, the tweet quoted in the same source: #BlackLivesMatter #OscarGrant vigil I'm seeing this as his death inspiring BLM. At the very least, people are protesting against his death using BLM. It's just how to phrase it! Deaths protested by BLM? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * People are using the phrase, no doubt inspired by the movement (my personal guess; unsourced), but unless independent sources say that Grant's death inspired or influenced the movement, then you can't place that kind of content in the article because it's based on your personal analysis. My understanding is that BLM was inspired by the acquittal of George Zimmerman after the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Did the the BLM organizers travel back in time to be inspired by Oscar Grant's death? Do you see somewhere in the WP:OR policy that allows for such an interpretation? - MrX 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the table back, unaware of this talk page discussion. I think we should look at each entry and see if an independent source relates it to the Black Lives Matter movement. I have not made a thorough review of each and every entry, but those that I checked seemed to be OK. I'll start with the first two and can take a further look when time permits. MrX makes a fair point that "inspires" is problematic, I am changing the header to "protested by". Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oscar Grant III is sourced to, but I can't see that it mentions Grant. This entry should probably be taken out unless another independent source is provided.
 * Aiyana Jones is sourced to USA Today and does mention Black Lives Matter in the context of her death. That entry on the table appears justified.
 * - Thank you for the renaming, I acknowledge that the term could have been better. Oscar Grant is sourced to NBC Bay Area. I can't remember ever using Black Voice News; turns out it's the first reference in the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  11:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The source only says that someone was holding a sign with "Black Lives Matter" written on it. It certainly does not support the idea that the Black Lives Matter movement collectively marched in the vigil. Is the standard for inclusion on this list is so low that any mention of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is noteworthy? WP:DUE would seem to apply.- MrX 12:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * San Francisco Bay View: This is not just about Yuvette Henderson, Mike Brown, Oscar Grant or Eric Garner,” Kharyshi Wiginton with Black Lives Matter said. “Their murders ...
 * Huffington Post: the rash of police killings that sparked the national Black Lives Matter campaigns ... For more than two years, much longer for those who have been paying close attention, officially sanctioned violence against black and brown bodies has weaved through a procession of names like Oscar Grant, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner and now Freddie Gray whose lives mattered starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  12:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the HuffPo source is good and does support the claim for those listed. Specifically, "the rash of police killings that sparked the national Black Lives Matter campaigns" is exactly the type of wording I was looking for. I'm not sure about the San Francisco Bay View.- MrX 12:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * HuffPo added then. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  13:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So what is the inclusion criteria now? Any black person who dies in custody or mysterious circumstances? &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - no, how about getting a reliable source linking the death to Black Lives Matter? starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  11:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors says "Actually, I think the first set of uprisings came with the murder of Oscar Grant. That was our politicization." when asked "Did this movement grow out of the death of Mike Brown?" by Vice magazine. Doesn't that make it clear where the BlackLivesMatter movement started? I'm new. I apologize if I'm adding to this talk incorrectly. MiltownkidZEE (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Assata Shakur and BLM
BLM founder Alicia Garza cites Assata Shakur, the convicted killer of a state trooper, as one of the seminal influences on the movement in her article "A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement." Shouldn't this be mentioned, at least in passing, given the growing discussion in the media about BLM's possible connection to recent cop killings? I don't think it's appropriate for us to make an explicit link between Shakur's influence in BLM and these killings. That would be OR. But we should at least mention Shakur's role as one of the inspirations for the movement. Seems pretty important within the overall context of BLM and the issues it deals with. What do you think? --Scaleshombre (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no growing discussion. There are conservative pundits that are relating these two things.  Correlation does not equate to causation.  There is now weight given to the opposition.  That is enough in my opinion. Any more causes undue weight issues in the other direction. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we need to word it somehow so that we indicate Shakur's influence on BLM without giving it undue weight. Not mentioning her would be like discussing the American Revolution without including John Locke or Thomas Paine. It would be a serious omission, I think. --Scaleshombre (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Garza does not mention Shakur in the "Herstory" and never said she was a seminal influence on the BLM. She said, "I was also incredibly inspired learning about Black women who were activists and organizers — like Harriet Tubman, Audre Lorde, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ella Baker, Assata Shakur, Angela Davis and so many more." Note she is referring to herself, not BLM.  We should also avoid synthesis - BLM opposes police killing black people but not black people who kill police.  TFD (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD, respectfully, she says in "A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement": "When I use Assata’s powerful demand in my organizing work, I always begin by sharing where it comes from, sharing about Assata’s significance to the Black Liberation Movement, what it’s political purpose and message is, and why it’s important in our context." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaleshombre (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears from your recent edit that you are trying to include in the article material that suggests that Black Lives Matter "promotes the execution of police officers" because Garza admires Shakur, who was convicted of killing a policeman during a shootout with police. I haven't seen any credible evidence that Black Lives Matter advocates the killing of police. I think that you will need to have a mainstream media source claim that Black Lives Matter advocates the killing of police before an extraordinary claim like that should go into the article. Please note that the part about Shakur and Garza is already in Wikipedia in the article on Alicia Garza, where it is more appropriate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved that material under the "Pigs in a blanket" reference, where it seems to fit better. Remember, I'm not suggesting as a Wiki editor that BLM advocates killing police; what I am saying is that BLM critics -- as indicated in the cites -- claim that BLM draws inspiration, as demonstrated in its rhetoric and symbols, from convicted cop killers.--Scaleshombre (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Shakur part still has the same problem that I mentioned previously. Here's an additional point.  If we look at the quote that you gave, but with its context, it looks like other members of Black Lives Matter disagreed with Garza regarding Shakur, so that one can't conclude that Shakur influenced the movement as a whole.
 * "In 2014, hetero-patriarchy and anti-Black racism within our movement is real and felt. It’s killing us and it’s killing our potential to build power for transformative social change. When you adopt the work of queer women of color, don’t name or recognize it, and promote it as if it has no history of its own such actions are  problematic.  When I use Assata’s powerful demand in my organizing work, I always begin by sharing where it comes from, sharing about Assata’s significance to the Black Liberation Movement, what it’s political purpose and message is, and why it’s important in our context."
 * Also, Shakur denied killing the policeman, so Garza wouldn't believe that Shakur killed him, but rather that she was unjustly convicted. So Garza's admiration for Shakur wouldn't be for the killing and wouldn't motivate Garza to promote killing of police.


 * Although the Shakur part doesn't work for evidence that some in Black Lives Matter promote killing of police, I just noticed that the "pigs in a blanket" rhetoric described in our Wikipedia article does, and it is supported by a mainstream newspaper/website, the St. Paul Pioneer Press. So the issue is already mentioned in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I rewrote the pigs in a blanket part to indicate that the main issue was the threat to police, not the use of the word pigs. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"All lives matter"
There is a short paragraph Response to All Lives Matter in this article, but it seems to be taken for granted that the reader knows what All Lives Matter is. Is it, like Black Lives Matter, an "American Movement" which has received media attention? Are there well-known people standing behind it? Is it a hashtag? The motto of a pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion) group? (It seems to me that it isn't, but we need a short explanation. Not on the discussion page, but in the article itself.)

--Austrian (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are other derivatives, including "Blue lives matter" and "little lives matter" that might need covering. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Seems that "All lives matter" and "Blue lives matter" are covered in the article now. I wonder if any of the other iterations are worthy of inclusion? Kiwifist (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems like "Muslim lives matter" is a notable iteration that could need covering. Kiwifist (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We had a "Small lives matter" charity bag though the door yesterday. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

Blm harassment
I missed the part where people were going into businesses and harrasing white people that were eating or shopping. That seems like it should be important to cover all bases of the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.154.127 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, you'll need to find some reliable sources that verify what you're saying. Then we can talk about whether or not it merits a mention in the article. -- Irn (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it was identified as a BLM event. Certainly  it would have to be characterized a little more neutrally. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

List of deaths protested by Black Lives Matter
The section List of deaths protested by Black Lives Matter is mainly about the deaths and not about Black Lives Matter. The only mention of Black Lives Matter is in the Trayvon Martin entry. I think the section should be rewritten to orient it toward Black Lives Matter. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, if readers want to know the details of the deaths, they can just click through to the pages listed.--JudgeJason (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any perfect solution here, but I think one of the problems that could arise from removing the details is that the reader's left with a long list of names devoid of any context. In other words, a reader might get the impression that all these deaths were the result of police malfeasance. Is it possible to put a note above the list, something like "Note: Different circumstances were involved in each of these cases. For more details, please see the individual articles..."Scaleshombre (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The section can be reoriented toward Black Lives Matter by writing about their protests of the deaths, according to the reliable sources in the section, instead of having the list of deaths.
 * For example, taking a source from the first item in the list, there would be,
 * On May 21, 2015 in San Francisco, a protest by Black Lives Matter was part of a nationwide protest of the police killing of black women and girls, which that included the deaths of  Aiyana Jones, Yvette Smith, Rekia Boyd and others.
 * This could be touched up since one of the three named who died was a girl rather than a woman, but I'm just showing this to give an idea of how the section could be reoriented toward Black Lives Matter. The section heading could also be changed to Protests of deaths . --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I touched it up, as indicated by the strikeout and underlining. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See also:, at least tangentially related. Or , I can't remember. Or both. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read them but I don't know what's in your mind. How about you reading them and saying what you're thinking. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't say I'm really thinking anything, but both threads are about the section being discussed here, so I thought they might add food for thought, some things that hadn't been considered here. If not, that's fine. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To me, the first one has a concern of the article being a coatrack, and you expressed a concern there about what protests can be called Black Lives Matter protests. And the second one is a discussion of the deaths but not the protests. So it looks like the first one is relevant to this discussion. For now, maybe we should just try to keep what info there is in the section about what was portrayed there as Black Lives Matter protests, while reorienting the section toward Black Lives Matter protests of the deaths, like in the example I gave above. Thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, a possible approach to the change would be to first add a section titled Protests of deaths, piece by piece, and then delete the section List of deaths protested by Black Lives Matter . Hopefully, various editors would contribute to the new section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a couple more to add to the one above. I got the info from a source in the third item of the list.
 * In September 2014, there was a Black Lives Matter freedom ride from San Francisco to Ferguson, Missouri, the city where Michael Brown was killed.


 * In November 2014 in Oakland, California, Black Lives Matter stopped a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train on Black Friday, one of the biggest shopping days of the year, in order to "stop business as usual".

And if anyone wants to jump in and continue in this way, you're very welcome to do that. I'll wait until someone does before continuing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I moved two of the above three items into the section Description and events. The third item was already there. I moved the List of names into the See also section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Description and aftermath" material in List violates Wikipedia policy
From the lead of the Wikipedia policy WP:NOR,
 * "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

There is a major problem regarding this for the material in the column headed by "Description and aftermath" because sources used for that material do not mention the Black Lives Matter movement, except possibly for those column entries for Trayvon Martin, Dontre Hamilton, Tony Robinson, and Samuel DuBose. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Garza quote
I think the long Garza quote re-added by User:Aliceba is unnecessary. What do you think? --JumpLike23 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that 'Black Lives Matter' apparently includes an unwritten asterisk, meaning there's a criteria for who counts as 'black', therefore, whose life matters, as subject to approval, resulting in a caste system where some black lives matter, and others do not, or one person's race outweighs another's civil, and Constitutional rights. I will continue saying All Lives Matter, because that also includes my life, as well as those of others who didn't meet the approval, or remain socially vulnerable due to economic, or political disadvantage. A claim to anti-racism can't be made where the use of racial status to violate, and exploit another is advocated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:0:7B00:CC4C:81F8:BB52:4806 (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Lede
The lede as written is unbalanced, giving the impression that BLM only speaks up for clear-cut victims of police misconduct. Yet the case that really launched BLM as a movement -- and one which BLM continues to draw attention to -- involves a death, that of Michael Brown, that's widely regarded as justified under the circumstances. The lede should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaleshombre (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * where does the lead suggest the shootings were unjustified? --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's implication by omission. The lead's partially true -- BLM does protest shootings of black people at the hands of police. But that doesn't adequately summarize the scope of its protests. BLM protests not just shootings, but other types of police-related deaths of African-Americans. And deaths that occur in a variety of circumstances -- everything from clearly unjustified killings, to tragic but unintended killings, to justified use of force in self-defense. Then there's the mention of Sandra Bland dying "at the hands of police officers." This is blatantly untrue. She died in custody, apparently of suicide. Scaleshombre (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been protests in other parts of the world. The first sentence is very broad--noting violence toward black people. However, many protests have been over shooting death and that is supported by body of article. --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: the lead generally needs to be expanded to better cover the article since it has been expanded.--JumpLike23 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Locations of protests - gentrification association?
Quite a few of the locations of protests, just looking at the photos on the front side of this page, seem to be at sites associated with gentrification - I wonder if this bears mentioning somewhere in the article.--Pharos (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Intersectionality: black lives matter, LGBT movement, feminism, undocumented immigrants
Black lives matters isn't just a a movement for cis gendered black males as the media would like the paint it as.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/


 * 1) BlackLivesMatter was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was post-humously placed on trial for his own murder. Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our de-humanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society.Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes.

It goes beyond the narrow nationalism that can be prevalent within Black communities, which merely call on Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black, keeping straight cis Black men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all. Black Lives Matter affirms the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements. It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement.

When we say Black Lives Matter, we are broadening the conversation around state violence to include all of the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state. We are talking about the ways in which Black lives are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity. How Black poverty and genocide is state violence. How 2.8 million Black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence. How Black women bearing the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families is state violence. How Black queer and trans folks bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us, and that is state violence. How 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows. How Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war. How Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy, and that is state violence.


 * 1) BlackLivesMatter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.  We have put our sweat equity and love for Black people into creating a political project–taking the hashtag off of social media and into the streets. The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.

BlackWomenMatter BlackGirlsMatter BlackGayLivesMatter BlackBiLivesMatter BlackBoysMatter BlackQueerLivesMatter BlackMenMatter BlackLesbiansMatter BlackTransLivesMatter BlackImmigrantsMatter BlackIncarceratedLivesMatter BlackDifferentlyAbledLivesMatter

AHC300 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:No original research. You need secondary sources to make these associations. This is not an extension of BLM's website. I feel the entire Philosophy section should go as massive overdependence on a primary source, but I'll wait for other opinions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mandruss. The content that AHC300 added runs afoul of fair use, and our WP:PROMO policy. This type of content should not be added unless it has been discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources.- MrX 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about the remaining Philosophy section? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It has similar problems. This sort of content need to follow the Golden rule. I've removed it.- MrX 19:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What about this source? http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/12/17/black-lgbt-faith-leaders-why-black-lives-matter - AHC300 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My opinion: You could write a little, in your own words, about the LGBT connection using that as your source, and cite it. Don't say anything that is not directly supported by that source. You could then add the LGBT category. Just my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems like a good source.- MrX 19:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) SayHerName is a hashtag campaigned aimed at broadening the spectrum of the #BlackLivesMatter campaign. Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Mike Brown, all these names evoke some type of feeling or reaction that is directly related to the black lives matter movement. All of these black men who died in the hands of police brutality inspired the masses to speak out about what is undeniably happening to black men and woman in this country, whether their reactions are good or bad. When you wear your hoodie pulled up over your head, it's in tribute to Trayvon, when you hold up your hands, #handsupdontshoot, it's in tribute to Mike Brown, and when you say "I can't breathe", or #ICantBreathe it's in tribute to Eric Garner, his last words as a police man, someone of power and authority in the community, choked him. Conversely when you hear the names, Tanisha Anderson, Rekia Boyd, Miriam Carey, or Michelle Cusseaux, the same type of emotion isn't evoked. There is not national movement or some reaction tied to these women's stories. #SayHerName comes with the growing drive to politicize and affect change around the issues of police brutality and violence, mass incarceration, and the social inequalities that pervade modern society in the U.S. The experience of the black woman has been largely excluded around this conversation for the call of reform for law enforcement in regards to how they treat race. The #SayHerName hashtage capaign is merely a reminder of black women's lives mattering too. It offers a more complete, but not competing, narrative about race and police brutality. If it is swept under the rug, when reform occurs a huge piece of it will be missing.  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/21/black-women-matter_n_7363064.html)--Taiesecs (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)--Taiesecs (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC) (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/26/vowing-sayhername-and-more-hundreds-gather-honor-life-and-death-sandra-bland)

Inflammatory and misleading
On top of the page completely misleading in it's version of history. It is written in a inflammatory manner meant to incite violence. And it uses derogatory terms which would have caused any other page to be removed. The use of the term queer blacks would have been red flagged and used to remove most other pages on Wiki. The omission of the real creator of the group, a leftist socialist is very telling. There is nothing grass roots about the group as it has been proven that most of the protesters in the Zimmerman incident were bused in with the cost being covered by the anti capitalist billionaire. There little wonder why this page was locked so it could not be corrected.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrdbl1 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your entire comment is one big [citation needed]. This page was semi-protected because it was targeted by socks of blocked or banned users.  Talk pages are not the place for commentary or to express your personal opinions. You have an issue with the page? Make a suggestion. Build the encyclopedia. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The term QUEER is used on the site and is a term known to be derogatory in nature to those living an alternative life style. Your own page even differentiates between blacks who live an alternative life style and all other races. Which mean this is a racist organization since it only believes that those of a certain race should be allowed certain protection. BLM was not form as a result of the Zimmerman act of self defense. It was created as a reaction to LOSING the trumped up case against Zimmerman. Even with a judge who allowed evidence in the case to be presented which normally would not be allowed the jury still did not by into the weak case. Took an activist DA to even get it through a grand jury and should have ended in summary judgement for acquittal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrdbl1 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section - Relative to homicide rates, U.S. police kill more whites than blacks
Link here, by proportion of population and by proportions of homicide offenders by race, blacks are killed by police less than whites. A pertinent source that must be cited in this article. Wajajad (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? What does that statistic have to do with the Black Lives Matter protests? ldvhl (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is does not mention BLS and is unreliable. It also misleading - few of the African Americans killed were homicide offenders.  Even if they were, under U.S. law, homicide offenders are supposed to be convicted by a court before they are killed.  TFD (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wonder why BLM was not in Mississippi when a black man was driven off the road and killed and his car mate severally inured in the crash. After his car was attacked by those who do not agree with him on issues. I guess BLM only if a white is involved and a black man being ran off the road for political reasons by a car load of blacks do not fit their agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrdbl1 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hands Up Don't Shoot
How can a slogan be debunked? they are using the slogan--that's it. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not the slogan, it's the narrative surrounding the slogan that was clearly false. If you're going to toss it into this article, give the context. Otherwise, take it out. You've already got other slogans in there as examples. What does it matter if this one gets cut?Scaleshombre (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that a slogan certainly can't be "debunked", it's a slogan. However, I think it might also make sense to have another paragraph under 'Tactics' on the tactic of protests generally focusing on individual cases (as opposed to institutional racism), and the strengths and weaknesses of that approach.--Pharos (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015
Bmb8aq (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2015 (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. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material
Since the material has now been replaced twice I thought I would start this section to try to talk about why I believe it should not be included as is without any citations. The sections put in by the student editor make references to living people. Per the BLP guidelines those claims should always be sourced and any unsourced claim should be removed immediately. I have now done this again to comply with BLP guidelines until this can be sorted out. The student editor is more than welcome to retrieve the text of the edit and continue working on it in their own user space but it is my opinion that it is not only not ready for a live article it is a BLP violation to continue having it.

Pinging those involved with this:

--Stabila711 (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with your actions. (pinging teacher involved.) For the record, the student was also making unconstructive edits, e.g. at courage. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

--@ Can you clarify what you mean by BLP? LH2015 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP (biography of a living person standard). However, I found the edits to be problematic for the reasons I stated, mainly that they were uncited and that a massive contribution was made at one time making it very hard to know exactly what was done. I think a role of media section could be good and possibly LGBT and platform content included, but it just wasn't done in the right way. My problem is with procedure which is understandable for someone new to wikipedia. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

With @ reversion I believe that the editor is getting close to an edit war without going to the talk page. Editor continues to trot forward without improving the controversial additions or moving to talk page.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism
If you were to set up a list of items that makes a group a terrorist organization then BLM meets most if not all of them. Included in this is the members opening calling for the killing of police and members actually killing police. While they can claim they never actually said go kill cops. The terminology used leave little to the imagination. It is clearly meant as code word for kill cops.

http://collectingmythoughts.blogspot.com/2015/08/black-lives-matter-marchers-call-for.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrdbl1 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Norma's blog is not a reliable source for this article. TFD (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

New content to add
There have been other protests that we need to add like Laquan Mcdonald, the school protests and many more. We need to add the donald trump rally assault, expand all lives matter section. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusation of ignoring black on black murders
I added the following to the article:

Conservatives pointed out statistics from the federal government which showed that 93% of black murder victims were murdered by other blacks, and wondered why Black Lives Matter never protested against these murders.

I&#39;m not purple today (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You (or someone) needs to explain which conservatives, and when. Something like
 * Conservatives (Giuliani, and x and Y) pointed out in late 2014 statistics from the federal government which showed that 93% of black murder victims were murdered by other blacks, and wondered why Black Lives Matter never protested against these murders.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC).


 * I have not opened all ten sources, but none of the ones I did mentioned BLM. TFD (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical Context
Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Black Panther Party were very prominent black civil rights movements mid-20th century. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was a newer radical but still non-violent spin-off of the SCLC. A particular difference is that they were more inclusive towards women. Ella Baker is a key figure who comments on the hierarchical structure of the SCLC and their lack of female representation. SNCC was fueled by the fires of young black students fighting for their rights. Quote by Ashley Yates of Millennial Activists describes her experience: “We definitely realize that we’re standing on the shoulders of the people who came before us.” The Black Live matters is a natural progression of the black liberation movement.

Vann R. Newkirk II, a member of BLM, shares his experience with a former member of the SNCC, Julian Bond, describes the inter-generational gap. Bond is a product of his time, one of the differences that Newkirk describes is clothing. Bond states that in order to be heard these new young activists need to buy a suit. A suit can be seen as a compromise of values or assimilation, if you will. Newkirk then describes that the black lives matter is the successor of SNCC with even more “radical” views and are even more inclusive. All while wearing what he likes to wear.

I like this but do you have a source? --JumpLike23 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We should add a section "Deaths caused by Black Lives Matter"
We should add a section "Deaths caused by Black Lives Matter" and list the increased number of black people murdered in cities where the police have scaled back patrols and aggressive policing in response to Black Lives Matter, as well as the 90% increase in police officers being attacked and murdered by black people inspired by this movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.96.212 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, you'll need to find some reliable sources that verify what you're saying. Then we can talk about whether or not it merits a mention in the article. -- Irn (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also if true, a more appropriate name would be "Deaths influenced by Black Lives Matter". And a list of people killed seems extensive, perhaps just a blurb about increased murders. Mangokeylime (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Heavy Bias
The movement started as a hashtag and some people have gone so far as to attempt to organize and form an entity, but this is not rational. BLM is not an organization, it's a movement. Movements are typically loosely governed by mob rule, not small groups of individuals. To state that the movements ideology consists of set parameters is highly illogical. We have all seen footage of many BLM supporters openly advocating black supremacy and racism, so I fail to see how a collective that is swayed by a mob can claim to have a leader.

The whole country criticizes the movement... and yet you have "editors" making sure that no controversy gets put on the article...

I believe that an NPOV tag needs to get put up in the article. --JT2958 (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You can add an NPOV tag yourself with . PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * However, you yourself may have your own bias which is clear when you say "the whole country criticizes the movement." Do you have a reference that says the whole country criticizes the movements?  Because, I am pretty sure there is a large quantity of people that don't.  You can add a NPOV tag if you want but don't be surprised if someone removes it when they don't agree with you.  Instead of just tagging and moving on, why don't you suggest improvements for the article. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is an organization, there are founders, chapters, meetings, just like any other organization. Heres the website... http://blacklivesmatter.com/   Mangokeylime (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section
I added a criticism section based on some of the more prevalent criticisms I've seen about the movement. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are very poor style - criticism should be included in relevant sections. Notice for example there is no criticism section in Adolph Hitler, although he received greater criticism than BLM.  I will therefore remove it.  TFD (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Four Deuces' removal of this section, and would support integration into the rest of the article. The sources for criticising their disruption of Bernard Sander's event, for example, can be used where this event is already discussed in the 'Description and events' section. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Criticism section isn't ideal but appropriate until criticisms are integrated into their respective sections. Criticism is balanced and well-sourced. 168.1.75.40 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe the criticism should be integrated into their respective sections, you're welcome to do so- I would support this. I don't believe a criticism section is appropriate as is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The section is unbalanced. It begins by saying BLM "has been criticized for focusing on police shootings of criminal suspects and ignoring the more common deaths of blacks at the hands of black criminals."  "has been criticized" is weasel wording, it turns out the source says an "Illinois woman" is saying this.  If we are going to mention "black on black crime", we need to mention that the concept is highly controversial, certainly more so than complaining about police killing proportionately more unarmed black people.  See for example "A guide to debunking ‘black-on-black crime’ and all of its rhetorical cousins" in Fusion.  TFD (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like I'm late to the conversation. To be "fair" here, the page Tea Party movement has a criticism section. To suggest that this page shouldn't have a criticism section because Adolf Hitler doesn't have one is senseless. I suggest that unless someone add a criticism section to this page- we should remove or integrate the criticism sections for all 21st century activist movements. Jake M Ingram (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a controversy section. The entire article is biased and lacks neutrality. There is controversy against Black Lives Matter and everyone knows it... it's been all over the news and in op-ed's.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/02/shock-audio-self-proclaimed-black-lives-matter-online-radio-host-declares-its-open-season-on-killing-whites-andpolice-officers/

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9247901/black-lives-matter-mlk

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/02/black-lives-matter-s-big-mistake.html

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/09/02/3697966/oreilly-asks-expert-if-black-lives-matter-is-to-blame-for-police-murders-then-things-got-awkward/

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/nikki-haley-says-black-lives-matter-movement-is-endangering-black-lives/?_r=0

JT2958 (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And I see we have reasonable arguments in support above. A distinct criticism section is often appropriate when the criticism is generalized. The alternative is to place it in the lead or the intro which might bias the reader. 216.155.131.72 (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of this can be added, but not in a clumsy "criticism" section in an effort to create balance. That causes more problems than it solves. And I absolutely object to The Blaze as a RS due to POV. The Daily Beast... case by case basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think a politician response section to BLM could also go under a controversy section. Many politicians have responded to BLM, the most well known case was with Bernie Sanders. However, controversy does exist, and it's not just civilians and news companies producing it: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/mike-huckabee-black-lives-matter-martin-luther-king/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/nikki-haley-says-black-lives-matter-movement-is-endangering-black-lives/  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/02/scott-walker-alleges-a-rise-in-anti-police-rhetoric-under-president-obama/  JT2958 (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is what campaigning politicians say about BLM relevant to BLM itself? ldvhl (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Responses from senators and governors are typically more noteworthy than the perspectives of a news agency. Some of the responses are criticisms... hence why I put it in this section. JT2958 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question though - how is commentary from politicians relevant to BLM itself? ldvhl (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Shooting of BLM protesters by 4 white men
Why is there no mention of the shooting of BLM protesters by 4 white men — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8B02:433F:B947:9F85:282D:724F (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What does the Black lives matter movement want done?
This article does not state what the BLM movement want done about anything at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.225.24 (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition is inaccurate and needs to be corrected
Definition reads "campaigns against violence toward black people". Unless there is an evidence and links that they ever stood against the black-on-black violence or maybe hispanic-on-black violence, the definition should be changed to "campaigns against the violence of while police toward black people". The section "Black on black shootings" confirms my point. 73.71.174.75 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Funding?
I'm curious - why is there no mention of how BLM movement is funded? Is it self-funded, from small donations by activists? Is it funded by Russia, in order to promote discord in the US, like they do with far-right in Europe?

Does anyone really know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.11.6 (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

poorly written
new editor. this article intro is poorly written.

original:
 * Black Lives Matter is a primarily American movement and hashtag (#BlackLivesMatter) that started after the July 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. It received fresh impetus from the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown. The movement has received worldwide media attention due to its massive scope and ongoing existence. Protesters and protest organizers have met with President Barack Obama and other prominent leaders to demand an end to what they view as police brutality, mass incarceration of African-Americans, and militarization of many U.S. police departments.

alternative:
 * Black Lives Matter is an American movement that started after the July 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Florida shooting death of Trayvon Martin. It received fresh impetus from the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown. The movement has received worldwide media attention.

Wafflesmatter (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is the discussion of the obvious but unmentioned Communist influence and agitprop at work here? It is well known that Communists exploit and inflame racial tensions with the aim of undermining the 'system' using minorities as pawns.107.77.229.230 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)