Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 10

Why is there no mention of rioting?
The word "riot" is mentioned only once in the article, in relation to riot gear. Why is there no mention of the many riots the movement is responsible for, causing more than $1 billion in damage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:38A0:8540:40A8:399A:CFF9:5CF (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please provide references to reliable sources supporting your claims for the movement's responsibility in riots and the monetary evaluation of damages, with a more specific figure than "many". The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top cutterx2202 (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the article? Quote:
 * "A company called Property Claim Services (PCS) has tracked insurance claims related to civil disorder since 1950."
 * "PCS, a unit of Verisk Analytics, won't reveal an exact dollar figure from this year's violence because it wants to sell that data to clients."


 * So these are insurance claims, not awards. And people can lodge claims for damn near anything, it doesn't mean they're getting paid. Plus, the author of this article didn't actually have the actual dollar figure because PCS won't give that out without getting paid.
 * Which all boils down to this source not having actual details, because the insurance company A) only has claims, not payouts, to report; B) won't actually release details without getting paid; and C) does not detail that these damages are due to BLM, just "protests" in general. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Making a false insurance claim is a crime. The numbers are safely assumed accurate.  It'd be on you to prove the riots enumerated are NOT BLM, as they line up precisely with known BLM riot dates. cutterx2202 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Since the reference doesn't mention Black Lives Matter, it's on *you* to provide a proper reference. FDW777 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Making a false insurance claim is a crime.
 * And yet, it still happens.
 * The numbers are safely assumed accurate.
 * No, they are not. Especially when the company won't release the actual numbers.
 * It'd be on you to prove the riots enumerated are NOT BLM
 * Incorrect. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, which would be you. As FDW says, you need sources specifically stating this was due to BLM. The source you provided lumps every protest, riot and civil disturbance that year into the same insurance claim amount. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * https://collegian.com/2020/06/category-news-black-lives-matter-a-2020-protest-timeline/
 * Please don't argue for the sake of arguing. These are well established timelines and events and I've already offered the required documentation. Can we discuss the actual question posed: "Why is there no mention of the many riots the movement is responsible for, causing more than $1 billion in damage?" cutterx2202 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the reply at 1:25, 10 November 2021. Still no valid references provided. FDW777 (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not "arguing for the sake of arguing," it's explaining to you how Wikipedia works. If you don't have the sources to back your statements, they don't go into the article, and you don't get to make assumptions & claim that's good enough.
 * What you're doing here is what we call novel synthesis: you're taking two pieces of data and claiming that "X+Y = Z." We do not allow that here. You need a reliable, third-party source that already says Z. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Valid references have been provided. Does anyone have any points of discussion on the question posed? If not, I'll start drafting locally an addition to the article and post here for consensus before I make any changes. cutterx2202 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your references do not support the assertion being made. There's already consensus against said changes because of that, so your draft is moot. You're just not listening. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you add content based on those sources, you will be reverted. The path of escalation here does not favor you; it typically results in you being topic-banned from this area. Jorm (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Rough Proposal (Please pay attention to the wording) - add section 7.6 - Property Damage. Contents: During 2020, on the days of BLM protests, there was more than $1 billion claimed from insurance companies for riot damage . This notably surpasses damages claimed during the LA Riots.  Cutterx2202 (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It has already been pointed out to you what is synthesis and why you should not do it. Are you being intentionally disruptive? Kleinpecan (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Kleinpecan Please pay attention the wording in the proposal instead of threatening me and being unproductive. There is no synthesis in the proposed wording.  I have taken into consideration what's been said.  Cutterx2202 (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cutterx2202, I agree with those above that your proposal is WP:SYNTH. A good way to prove that's not the case is to find reliable sources that explicitly make the claim that BLM protests led to X amount of riot damage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FirefangledfeathersThe claim "BLM protests led to X amount of riot damage" is not being made if you read carefully. There is no synthesis in the exact wording used. Cutterx2202 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a violation of WP:SYNTH, taking two sources and imputing a third conclusion. Cannot use the proposal. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not explicitly, but it's absolutely clear that the claim is being implied. SYNTH covers implied claims. Here's a test: what if we separated those two sources? We could add some protests to the timeline section citing your timeline source and add info about police reform cited to the Axios source in Policing section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Binksternet What third conclusion am I adding? Please carefully read it. The wording says that during the days of the protests, there were X claims.  That's two facts, two sources.  You are adding a third fact of your own accord. Cutterx2202 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Firefangledfeathers How am I implying a third fact? The tone is neutral, factual, and doesn't add additional fluff or opinion that could lead someone on? Cutterx2202 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are implying that the BLM movement caused the damage resulting in insurance claims. Neither source says so explicitly. Classic violation of WP:SYNTH – putting two things right together so that people jump to an unstated conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cutterx2202, I agree that the tone is neutral and the content factual. I think there's an inescapable implied claim that Black Lives Matter had some responsibility for the riot damage. If you do not intend for your proposal to imply that claim, let's discuss how to reword it to avoid that mistake. PS: I prefer not to be repeatedly pinged when actively involved in a discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else hear barking? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 2nd Proposal (Updated with input from Firefangledfeathers) - add section 7.6 - Property Damage. Contents: During 2020, on the days of BLM protests, there was more than $1 billion claimed from insurance companies for riot damage .  This figure encompasses claims from all riot damage sources on those specific days, not specifically BLM riots. This notably surpasses damages claimed during the LA Riots.Cutterx2202 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Still a violation of WP:SYNTH. Dude, drop the stick. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply saying it's a violation doesn't mean it is. Please explain your reasoning. I've addressed the point that someone may try to attribute the entire figure to BLM. Cutterx2202 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it's a violation because you are claiming that because an insurance company made pay-outs for rioting, that means that the Black Lives Matter movement caused those riots. The source does not state that.  Therefore, the information does not belong in this article.  It is irrelevant.  Find a better source that does make that connection.  -- Jayron 32 18:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is your contention that I have not yet provided a source that establishes BLM rioted on those days, or that there is not yet a source saying the BLM riots caused damage? I could add both. I'll start finding those for you. Cutterx2202 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of "BLM riots" is definitely an issue with this proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would compiling a number of individual riots be sufficient (such as below), or would I need a comprehensive list?
 * https://nypost.com/2020/09/05/black-lives-matter-protesters-riot-in-manhattan-cause-100000-damage/ Cutterx2202 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The New York Post is not a reliable source. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask if I had to compile a list of individual police reports, which could be done, albeit painstakingly, but I see now that the matter is futile, as Ideological bias on Wikipedia prevents the possibility of this claim being sourced acceptably, no matter the quantity and level of sourcing. I quit.  This can be closed. Cutterx2202 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the fundamental point you're not understanding (or are understanding, and hoping we won't notice):
 * Stating "there were BLM protests on these days" implies that the damages were directly caused by BLM protests. The sources you provide do not say that, therefore you are employing novel synthesis to apply this to the article. You cannot take "protests happened on this date" and "damages were claimed on this date" then put "BLM protests resulted in these damages" on Wikipedia. We do not allow this. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Establishment Media Whitewashing BLM Riots
Multiple instances of MSNBC, CNN and CBS reporters claiming that a protest with building on fire are peaceful. Definitely worth mentioning here:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/28/msnbcs_ali_velshi_downplays_riot_in_front_of_burning_building_mostly_a_protest_not_generally_speaking_unruly.html

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-anchor-says-minneapolis-carnage-is-mostly-a-protest-as-building-burns-behind-him

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-cnn-torn-apart-over-embarrassing-caption/O3B3JY7YNUIJXROLHX63MQPE2M/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-panned-for-on-air-graphic-reading-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-protest-in-front-of-kenosha-fire

https://www.foxnews.com/media/brian-stelter-cnn-mostly-peaceful-protest-mistake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest (Kenosha unrest are part of larger black lives matter protests, as per Wikipedia itself, hence any rioting or vandalism observed during this unrest should be covered under black lives matter protests).

https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-news-george-floyd-coverage (NBC ordering its reporters to not use "riots" for George Floyyd protests.)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-removes-violent-on-air-protests-kenosha-wisconsin (CNN removing "violent" term from its chyron to depict Kenosha unrest) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent raymond232 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-norah-odonnell-peaceful-protests-looting-arson (CBS news anchor reporting that "Damage from looting and arson amid mostly peaceful protests over the police killing of George Floyd will cost $1-2 billion in claims, according to the Insurance Information Institute." ) Agent raymond232 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We certainly need to cover the bias of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" while covering the BLM riots. Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. And the incident with chyron seems undue to me, especially as I cannot find any outlet other than The Hill covering it, but I will leave it to others to decide.
 * Do you have any reliable sources discussing "the bias of Wikipedia's reliable sources that also tie them to BLM? If you don't, then it will be synthesis. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have listed the misrepresentation of the damage caused by BLM protests. I have also listed how Wiki's reliable sources committed those errors. Do you really think it is not worth mentioning this whitewashing, intentional or accidental, here, given that multiple opinions from right wing and independent sources call them out for this? Agent raymond232 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave the Wiki out of this, please. Espngeek (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should we focus on one ridiculous chryon? How is that not WP:UNDUE? The Hill article makes clear that the CNN reporter was talking about how Kenosha had been mostly peaceful during the day, but that things became more violent after dark. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a one-off as I have also listed MSNBC's gross misrepresentation of the fact that public vandalism took place at a BLM protest. Agent raymond232 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, it sounds like you're coming at this with an agenda.
 * Don't care about me. Fix the bias you have spread on Wikipedia, where you try to find loopholes in every news story that goes against your biases, even if it is from Wikipedia's reliable sources. Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Second, that article from The Hill seems to be focused on a bad chyron text CNN used, and a right-wing response to it. Considering the right constantly wants to attack CNN, I'm not sure this is of due weight to the article.
 * There are multiple incidents of such things happening. And it is not only about a chryon, it is about what the reporter on ground actually said. Please dig more and don't let your bias blind you.Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Agent raymond232, please stop accusing editors of bias without diffs that prove it. You need to stop talking about editors and talk instead about edits. —valereee (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am dubious about the reliability of RealClearPolitics.com, and would want to hear from some other editors. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the user has an agenda. They said so themselves. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Worry about your own agenda, which is clear for anyone who has seen a BLM "protest". Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP has an entry for RealClearPolitics.com. While not deprecated formally, the wording is nearly there. FDW777 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also since neither article even mentions Black Lives Matter, what exactly are we supposed to be discussing? FDW777 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added citation from NZ Herald too. And it clearly mentions that the protest being covered by CNN was about "Black Lives Matter". Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The only mention of BLM in the article is A night after the protesters were shot dead, hundreds of demonstrators snubbed a curfew to march 10km through the Wisconsin city's downtown area chanting "Black Lives Matter" and "No Justice, No Peace". Marching =/= rioting. FDW777 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Kindly look at the updates to the references I have put in the top of the section. Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * First, please do not cast aspersions or assume bad faith. Second, please read WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects reliable sources. Your interpretation of the truth may not match those sources.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As per reliable sources that I listed above, CNN and MSNBC have mischaracterized the BLM riots as peaceful and downplayed the damage caused by them. Let me know if I have not provided enough citations for this. Agent raymond232 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As per the above, none of them say Black Lives Matter were involved in rioting. FDW777 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly the point of contention here. Can you not read the headline of the section? CNN and MSNBC have been pointed out by other reliable sources of calling BLM protests peaceful, whereas it was clear from the background of live reporting that buildings were on fire and public property had been vandalized. Do you mean to say such gross misrepresentations find no place in an encyclopedia that is Wikipedia? Agent raymond232 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gross misrepresentations according to whom? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the Hill, Fox News, Newzealand Herald, all of which are reliable sources covering media behaviour. Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is not reliable for politics. And you still haven't explained how this incident is undue. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fox News is reliable for covering media behaviour though, which is what it is. Also, I have explained that there have been several instances, one with CNN's chyron, one with MSNBC's downplaying of visual evidence of rioting and one with NBC directing its reporters to not use "riots" for George Floyyd protests. Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think those Fox News articles are not related to politics, then I have serious WP:CIR concerns. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think those Fox News articles are related to politics, then I have serious WP:CIR concerns for you. In those articles, Fox News is clearly talking about a real event which happened during CNN's coverage. It also talks about how CNN's Brian Stelter apologized for that chyron. Those two articles, and another one about CNN removing "violent" term to depict Kenosha unrest, all three have been tagged under the media section in Fox News. You have to put better points to convince me that they are political news articles. Or it will look that there are serious WP:CIR concerns with you. Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "All three have been tagged under the media section in Fox News."–so what? And I don't have to convince you of anything; the onus is on you to explain why this random incident is due for inclusion. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you not read the several other instances I have pointed out above? You need to read the latest updates before giving individual judgement on whether there is just one random incident or several such incidents. And there is no reliability crisis for Fox News (apart from politics or science) as mentioned in Wikipedia itself in its reliable sources list. Fox news is listing out media behaviour in these articles and tags these articles with media section. What else is required to prove that these articles are actually related to media and not politics? I am certain I will do the needful if you can help me find out the steps to prove that. Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You've provided three so-called references. Two of them don't even mention BLM, the third only mentions them in the context of a 10km protest march. Therefore none of them support any claim of any kind about so-called BLM riots. FDW777 (talk)
 * I have provided three more references, two by Fox News, which habe to be considered reliable as this news item is related to media and not politics or science. I have also referred to Wikipedia's own page on Kenosha unrest, which terms it as a part of larger Black Lives Matter protests, and during which the reported incidents of misrepresentations occured. Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, NBC clearly has a diktat for its reporters to not use "riots" for George Floyyd protests, as covered in https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-news-george-floyd-coverage . How is this not blatant enough for you? Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that you came in here spoiling for a fight. You're seriously going to use Fox News as a source to criticize CNN? I wouldn't use CNN as a source to criticize Fox News, as it's a blatant conflict of interest to try and shit on the competition like that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So it is alright if an existing Wiki user assumed bad faith assume bad faith ? It is of no value what you would use or not use, so please keep your opinions to yourself. Do you see any false information in the Fox news links I have posted? Let me know if do. You cannot say, "I don't like this media house, so I won't allow its article, even when it is true." Can you confirm if that is how Wikipedia works? If it does, I must say it deserves its reputation. Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Agent raymond232, you are welcome to continue to discuss whether the coverage of CNN's coverage of the Kenosha riots is enough to add it to the BLM article (I'd suggest you write a sentence that you think should be added, and say where it should be added), but two admins have now expressed concern that you are assuming bad faith. You need to address those concerns, either here or at your talk. Have you heard us, and do you understand? —valereee (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I heard you and I understand. Agent raymond232 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. Why are we entertaining this? This needs to be closed, the OP given the DS alerts, and we move on.--Jorm (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

BLM activist threatens Riots in NYC
You have been able to silence the previous commenter who wanted to include a section for rioting caused by BLM, citing the biased "reliable sources" who inexplicably find all BLM rioting peaceful. However, how will you ignore this?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dan-bongino-unfiltered-blm-activist-hawk-newsome-riots-violence-nyc-new-york-city https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190247/BLM-activists-threaten-riots-bloodshed-Eric-Adams-reinstates-NYPDs-anti-crime-units.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/eric-adams-nyc-riots-bloodshed-b1956856.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/dont-criticize-black-lives-matter-for-provoking-violence-the-civil-rights-movement-did-too/ (Reference for previous rioting behaviour of BLM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent raymond232 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

49.205.129.210 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the only reliable reference out of the three makes it very clear BLM say Hawk Newsome is absolutely nothing to do with them, there's nothing to see here. FDW777 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does Hawk Newsome speak for all of BLM? I do not think so. It's relevant for his page, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you even saying? The Independent article clearly says that "Black rights activist threatened to unleash “riots” and “bloodshed” upon the city. “If they think they are going to go back to the old ways of policing, then we are going to take to the streets again,” the activist, Hawk Newsome, said after a meeting with Mayor-Elect Eric Adams. “There will be riots." Also, Wikipedia's own article on Newsome has this, "Walter "Hawk" Newsome is an American activist and law school graduate who co-founded Black Lives Matter of Greater New York with Chivona Newsome." What more evidences do you need? How deeply are you seeped in bias? Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It goes on to say "Mr Newsome is a chairperson of an organisation called BLM Greater New York, but the original Black Lives Matter group has made it very clear he does not speak for them." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if the original Black Lives Matter group is distancing itself post-fact. The fact remains that the BLM co-founder of NY threatened riots. Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If necessary, we must mention both the threats by Hawk Newsome and the distancing by the BLM group. But just because they are washing their hands off that threat, does not mean the threat never existed. Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They've been distancing for years. He is not the BLM co-founder of NY. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean to say the information on his wiki page is false? Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's pretty accurate. Check out this section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again intentional misinformation. Wikipedia itself states that BLM is not trademark of a single organization / entity. Wiki also says that BLM is highly decentralized. Also that section you are pointing to says that Hawk is not part of "Black Lives Matter Global Network". Which is irrelevant here because BLMGN is not the only organization representing BLM. Had it been, BLM would have been a centralized and organized movement, which it is not. So what you have said is false and misinformation. Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Agent raymond232, please assume good faith. We can disagree with one another without accusing one another of being steeped in bias. —valereee (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, how can one person speak for a nationwide movement, which as per its wiki page itself, is highly decentralized? Does that mean Wikipedia gets to conveniently ignore his threat and keep perpetuating the lie that BLM protests are mostly peaceful? Either you admit that one BLM member threatening riot holds significance against the argument that BLM is peaceful, or you remove from Wikipedia the statement that BLM is de-centralized. Because these two arguments just don't gel with each other. Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. One person does not speak for a nationwide movement, so the actions of one person are not indicative of the actions of the whole. In this case, the one person you are referring to is not even associated with the BLM movement, so their actions absolutely do not reflect upon BLM. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. Just because BLM is highly decentralized does not make it immune to the actions of its local members. Actions of that person need not be indicative of BLM as a whole, but they need to be mentioned here because they were committed as part of BLM by a BLM member. By your logic, Islamist terrorism as it happens in Europe does not exist if some one gets radicalized online and commits terrorism, because his actions are not indicative of Islamist terrorism. That is not true.Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Two different concepts. Islamic terrorism is an article about terrorism committed by radicalized/militant Muslims. The actions would not go into an article about Islam or Muslim movements in a broader concept. How much weight to give to radicalized members of any religion within the article on the religion is not a matter for this discussion. The question here is about how much weight to give to the views and comments of one person who claims affiliation, but those who are known to be affiliated claims he is not.By way of analogy, if an individual proclaimed himself to be the leader of the Republican Party of (insert rural Southern county) and burned a cross on somebody's yard, but if his affiliation was denied by the state and national GOP, how much weight about racist attacks would need to be given in the article on the Republican Party? —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So would you agree with creating a separate page on BLM rioting and include this detail there? Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a WP:POVFORK, so no. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, based on the information currently available, it's better handled in a section in Newsome's article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the information currently available, BLM is highly decentralized, as per Wikipedia itself. So Black Lives Matter of Greater New York is as much a part of BLM as any other organisation. Also, based on the information currently available, a BLM activist (as mentioned as such in the reliable sources I have listed) threatened riots. Also, based on other information currently available but not jotted down here, there have been other instances of BLM rioters breaking curfew, clashing with police, setting public property on fire. Some police killers have also been motivated by Black Lives Matter, in their own words. Where do you suggest we put all this info? it certainly cannot go into just one person's page, as it is not a one-off. It certainly belongs in a new section here which would probably talk about criticism of BLM. Agent raymond232 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021
Engages in political violence 2601:98A:401:42B0:3DE1:7C33:7931:6BEC (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kleinpecan (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation
There is alot of incorrect information on here that needs to be fixed and untill it does please do better research if you need to know who they are, what they stand for and the history 174.247.250.219 (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Care to point out any specific text that is incorrect? A generic "this article is wrong" isn't helpful. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021
At the end of the Timeline of notable events section, change the sentence: "From May 22 to August 22, there were more than 10,600 BLM protest events in the United States." to: "Of more than 10,600 protests in the United States from May 22 to August 22, over 80% were related to BLM or Covid-19." The first sentence misreports the data in its source, which isn't more specific than the sentence I provided. If you don't like the new sentence since it's not very specific or useful, a different source could be found or the sentence could be removed entirely. Either way, the current sentence is incorrect. HolyMountain8 (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

From May 22 to August 22, there were more than 10,600 BLM protest events in the United States.

I removed this entirely, seeing no way to unpick the 80% as a pertinent statistic. ~ cygnis insignis 07:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added it back and matched the numbers and dates to exactly what is written in the source. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 09:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, noice dic, what you added was not a revert, it was "From May 26 to August 22, there were more than 7,750 BLM-linked demonstrations in over 2,240 locations throughout the the United States. ~ cygnis insignis 12:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did change it, but it also undid the bulk of your change. That's sometimes referred to as a Partial revert, which is why I felt it best to notify you by using the undo button. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 16:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Policing of excessive force topic
Under it it says that about half of the people shot and killed by police are white people and a quarter of the people shot and killed are black people. Yet, it says after this that there are twice as many black people shot than white people. It is contradictory and needs to be fact checked and fixed. 2602:304:B206:6820:7C5D:2C6A:6510:8CCA (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The rate of deaths for black Americans is more than twice as high. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 11:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a common mistake which often comes up on this talk page. Black people make up around 12% of the US population. Which means that if 25% of the people killed by police in the US are Black, they are around 2x more likely to be killed than the general population. Perhaps the wording could be clarified to make this type of misreading less likely, but there is certainly no contradiction here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording is pretty unambiguous: "About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black, making the rate of deaths for black Americans (31 fatal shootings per million) more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans (13 fatal shootings per million)."


 * Are there any sources about their likelihood of committing crimes? Gomez Santana (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like a productive line of inquiry. Someone is not more or less "likely" to commit a crime due to their race. Black people are more likely to be convicted of a crime, which is due in large part to discrimination and racial bias. That fact is well-sourced. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 11:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022
Change the link in section Reactions > "All Lives Matter" > External image to the following: https://chainsawsuit.krisstraub.com/20160707.shtml because the old link is nonfunctional. Hugo jakd (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Firefangledfeathers 17:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2015. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bmb8aq, Chesar48, Scasteel22, Eliyanii, Yoshisaur, Jes Zepol.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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): Tts92.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M.nie. Peer reviewers: Dmlee26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bustelo&mezcal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gracemorgan192.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itslovetiana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BLM website said: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement”
But BLM took it down after it was criticized by conservatives.

Primary source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200229224723/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Secondary source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/blm-deletes-page-disruption-nuclear-family

And here's some info from the New York Times:

We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160617074840/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html

I'd like this wikipedia article to address why an organization that claims to care about black lives wants to get rid of the nuclear family, when the evidence from the New York Times shows how harmful that has already been to black people.

Baxter329 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like for editors to stop treating this like a forum to make WP:POINTs. Go review WP:NOR.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are supposed to present both the good and the bad about the subject. Baxter329 (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they are supposed to present what reliable sources say. Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The website that I quoted from is the very first "external link" that is cited at the end of the article. Since it's cited as an "external link," it must be the real and true BLM website. I got the quote from the same BLM website that's listed as the first "external link." It's the same website. Therefore, it must be reliable. Baxter329 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF. Have WP:SECONDARY reliable sources covered it?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As the page says, this is the article for the decentralized Black Lives Matter movement. You appear to be talking about the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The very first "external link" listed at the end of this article is https://blacklivesmatter.com/ That is the same source that I cited as the primary source of the quote. Baxter329 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * And it would also help if you don't selectively cut off your quotes. We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable. That sounds no different from what I've seen in Mormon and Orthodox Jewish communities. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The out-of-wedlock birth rate for Mormons and Orthodox Jews is extremely low. For blacks, it's more than 70%. Baxter329 (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So? That is not germane to this article. Please only use this page to discuss improvements to the article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who initiated the comparison to Mormons and Orthodox Jews. I was responding to the person who did inititiate it. Baxter329 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With a ridiculous comparison. This interpretation of what it means to "disrupt" the nuclear family sounds far more nefarious when you leave off the second half of the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The full quote that you cited mentions "mothers" but not "fathers." I think we should include that in the article. Baxter329 (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't go by what you (or I) think should be listed. Only what RS tell us is important.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

I think this quote should be included in the article. I think the article should explain why an organization called "Black Lives Matter" supports a policy that has created nothing but death, misery, and famine in every country where it has ever been adopted. Far more black lives have been murdered by Marxist governments than by the police in democratic countries. I'd like the article to address these points.

Baxter329 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you may need a WP:TOPICBAN. Thoughts, ? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the riots, anarchy and violence conducted by BLM protestors?
For the most obvious reasons I think the majority of people can agree that BLM is a movement however no one can deny that violence, arson, property damage, and anarchy were a recurring aspect in 2020 after the death of George Floyd. I don't understand why this isn't mentioned in the article, are the editors of Wikipedia in complete denial of criminal acts committed by BLM activists? Or do the editors have a biased leftist agenda when it comes to certain controversial topics like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paok117 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They're peaceful protestors Espngeek (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have information that is supported by reliable sources, add it. That's how Wikipedia works. Or at the very least, please include links to the sources that you think are missing here. That way, other editors can review to determine whether they should be added, and add them if they have the time. As a reminder, this is a space to talk about issues with the article. It's not a space to talk about editors or launch accusations. Please stop. Dax Kirk (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * According to this study by ACLED, 93% of BLM protests were peaceful. Another study by Harvard Radcliffe Institute said "Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful". –– FormalDude  talk  19:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Your source that says 7% were violent. That should be included in the article. Baxter329 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see archive 10 for the most recent discussion of this topic, under 2 months ago. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t really call them “peaceful protesters” tbh they nearly burnt Minneapolis to the ground had it not been for the US national guard being deployed to stop the rioters the city would have been destroyed. They also caused $2 billion dollars worth of property damage in June 2020 alone. What is the definition of a “reliable source” btw it sounds pretty biased and censors media publications and tabloids that aren’t aligned with the political left. I’m not going to provide a reference for a news article about this because it will be discredited and censored. Paok117 (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "What is the definition of a “reliable source” btw" How long have you been editing Wikipedia? See Reliable sources for the content guideline. For a list of specific sources which have already been discussed, see Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * already tried explaining this. Take a look at their talk page. They aren't going to accept Wikipedia's views on sources. Doug Weller  talk 15:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

More than 500 shops and restaurants in Minneapolis and St. Paul have reported damage when protests on five nights turned violent over the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. Dozens of properties burned to the ground.

Owners and insurance experts estimate the costs of the damage could exceed $500 million.

Source: https://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-rebuilding-begins-with-donations-pressure-on-government/571075592/

Baxter329 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Birx Says George Floyd Protests Have Resulted in the Destruction of 70 Covid-19 Testing Sites

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/dr-birx-says-george-floyd-151449109.html

Baxter329 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Minneapolis vandalism targets include 198-unit affordable housing development

The apartments were expected to hit the market later this year.

June 27, 2020

The under-construction affordable housing development that burned in the widespread violence in south Minneapolis late Wednesday and early Thursday was to be a six-story rental building with 198 apartments for low-income renters, including more than three dozen for very low-income tenants.

Construction began last fall on Midtown Corner, which was expected to be completed and ready for occupancy this year. Late Wednesday the wood-framed upper floors of the building were fully engulfed in flames, with thick plumes of smoke that figured prominently in widely viewed photos of the riots. By Thursday morning, what had been an active construction site was reduced to a pile of smoldering ashes atop what was left of the concrete first-floor commercial space.

Source: https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-vandalism-targets-include-189-unit-affordable-housing-development/570836742/

Baxter329 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

At least 11 killed during U.S. protests seeking justice for George Floyd, many of them African Americans

Source: https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/at-least-11-killed-during-u-s-protests-seeking-justice-for-george-floyd-many-of-them-african-americans/

Baxter329 (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , spamming this talk page with news stories is not going to accomplish anything. It looks like you want George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul, where all of this is detailed. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you refer to my sources as "spam." These are reliable sources, and are a direct answer to the person who started this section of the talk page. Baxter329 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , because you're spamming the talk page with them. This page is for the broad Black Lives Matter movement. The George Floyd protests have their own pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * All of those articles are about BLM protestors. Therefore, they are not "spam." Baxter329 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , nothing that you copy-pasted here says the damage was caused by BLM protestors. You're neglecting the violence committed by right-wing groups. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "right wing" groups who protested against the murder of George Floyd. Those were BLM protestors. Baxter329 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And the boogaloo bois and other right-wingers used the protests to stir up violence. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

14 Days Of Protests, 19 Dead

June 8, 2020

Though curfews are lifting and protests remain predominantly peaceful, the death toll from two weeks of demonstrations over the death of George Floyd continues to creep upward, with at least 19 people—a majority of whom are black—now dead.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/06/08/14-days-of-protests-19-dead/

Baxter329 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That article makes no mention of "Black Lives Matter". -- Jayron 32 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
There needs to be a section in this article concerning the founder's statements on the Jewish-American, and Jewish populations around the world. Framing them as warriors against racism and neglecting to add a full list of their controversies may lead readers to assume they do not hold racist dogmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker200000 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , and what reliable sources do you have regarding the founder's statements on the Jewish-American, and Jewish populations around the world? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are some reliable sources that address this topic:


 * https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/24/ask-politifact-black-lives-matter-anti-semitic/


 * https://www.npr.org/2021/06/07/1003872848/the-complicated-history-behind-blms-solidarity-with-the-pro-palestinian-movement


 * https://time.com/6014631/israel-apartheid-hrw-washington/


 * Did you even bother to read that article? Or did you just google a couple of likely terms and WP:REFSPAM? The only mention of BLM in the whole article is They are more likely to favor civil rights for minorities, whether it’s the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement in the U.S. or overseas. FDW777 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/jewish-allies-condemn-black-lives-matters-apartheid-platform-1.5421194


 * https://www.vox.com/world/2021/5/26/22452967/palestine-gaza-protests-black-lives-matter-blm-solidarity-israel


 * Baxter329 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time right now to read these links, but I can say that supporting Palestinians does not equal anti-Semitism. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are some sources I believe hold water, thank you for your quick response. These come from a variety of international sources, including the US, UK and Israel.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/21/blms-aggressive-tactics-and-rhetoric-have-led-to-attacks-on-jews/ https://spectator.org/jews-black-lives-matter-letter/ https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/black-lives-matters-jewish-problem-in-their-own-words/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/blm-should-look-to-martin-luther-king-not-malcolm-x-for-inspiration https://forward.com/news/456863/did-protesters-at-northwestern-use-an-antisemitic-slur-against-the/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker200000 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:RSP. New York Post is not a reliable source, especially for politically sensitive subjects.  The Spectator is primarily an opinion-based publication, and should not be used for facts stated in Wikipedia's voice.  Blogs are not normally reliable sources.  The last one only says that someone accused them of antisemitism, not that they were anti-Semitic.  -- Jayron 32 19:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blogs and unreliable sources aside, many of these sources make no mention of antisemitism or Jewish people and only comment support for Palestine or criticisms of the actions of the government of Israel. We cannot use them to throw together a subsection about antisemitism in the BLM movement. User:FactChecker200000 might come back with another dump of articles to look at, but searching through the depths of the internet to find the perfect source to make the article say what you want it to say is kind of the definition of cherry-picking, isn't it?  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 17:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I did indeed read said articles, the three sources you provided me were three of the most liberal publications available. Yet when I provide a variety of sources, both corporate and personal, domestic and international, you claim I am cherry-picking? In regard to your apologist sources, they dismiss any and all accusations of antisemitism as fringe groups of people involved in said protests, denying the fact that they held such beliefs, instead turning to their endorsements from Jewish advocacy groups. In your own "PolitiFact" sources, even the TLDR section states the discontent many Jews feel towards the movement. This is specifically in the graffiti and defamation which occurs during riots. And, while leaders may downplay Anti-Semitic acts, it most certainly does not speak for the group as a whole. My point in making this thread was to point out the controversies surrounding BLM. I didn't come to argue with you, rather state the obvious. My feeling here is that you are more concerned with defending BLM than including the factual information, which is the controversy surrounding how many Jews feel towards BLM rhetoric. To say there is no tension between BLM and Jewish-Americans would imply there to be little or no mention of the phenomena in major news outlets. But there is. Therefore, we must only assume there is precedence for people seeking answers on the topic. Wikipedia's job is to document a full catalogue on a particular topic, controversies very much included. The fact we are even having this conversation right now and were both able to pull from mainstream news sources to defend are case is, in fact, evidence of controversy. I am sorry you may not feel the same way as me, but I respect your right to your own opinions. However, Wikipedia is not your opinion piece, as I mentioned it is to serve as a guide to a topic, and a branch to other sources. To ignore this controversy over one of the biggest movements in history in favor of your own political beliefs is a disservice to the platform, and the reader. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker200000 (talk • contribs)
 * I think the more obviously appropriate title of this section is pro-Palestine. Espngeek (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

+ https://www.npr.org/2021/06/07/1003872848/the-complicated-history-behind-blms-solidarity-with-the-pro-palestinian-movement (pro-Palestine) + Talking Points on Anti-Semitism and Black Lives Matter https://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org › (Some feel it is anti-semitic, but BLM can actually align with Jewish anti-anti-semitism) + https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/24/ask-politifact-black-lives-matter-anti-semitic/ (over 600 Jewish groups support BLM; some groups associated with BLM have been called anti-semitic by some Jewish groups.) + ==> I don't know if this is an acceptable source. https://www.afr.com/world/europe/why-black-lives-matter-protests-are-a-catalyst-for-anti-semitism-20200623-p555ch (""... the Black Lives Matter protests have gone on producing potent outbreaks of anti-Semitism.") + https://www.newsweek.com/anti-semitism-derail-black-lives-matter-movement-1519728 ("Black and Jewish activists say charges of anti-Semitism are being used to undermine the Black Lives Matter movement.")164.47.187.32 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some relevant reliable sources:

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2022
Could this article be listed in further reading: https://lawtutor.co.uk/black-lives-matter Lw00sjn (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No. It's a commercial website selling law tutoring services. See WP:EL 10mmsocket (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unaccounted donations
The California Department of Justice says the organization is in violation of state law over the failure to disclose financial records and that its leadership could be personally liable for fines for failing to account for $60 million in donations. and Amazon has suspended BLM donations over the handling and reporting of donations by the group's leadership.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/black-lives-matter-s-finances-deserve-the-scrutiny-they-re-finally-getting/ar-AAU3xmf?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531 24.177.167.113 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Other sources:


 * This is form National Review, which was founded by the late William F. Buckley Jr., who had his own show on PBS called Firing Line: https://www.yahoo.com/video/black-lives-matter-suspends-online-185305692.html


 * New York Post https://nypost.com/2022/02/17/amazon-suspends-black-lives-matter-from-its-charity-platform/


 * Toronto Sun https://torontosun.com/news/world/amazon-suspends-black-lives-matter-from-charity-platform


 * Washington Examiner https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/amazon-boots-black-lives-matter-off-amazonsmile-as-scrutiny-intensifies


 * Baxter329 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Trained Marxists redux
See also Talk:Patrisse Cullors and Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 8 as well as the previously mentioned Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 7. That's before we even get to the transparent WP:LEAD issues. FDW777 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal issues? Controversy?
Amozon and the states of California and Washington have officially banned the financial support to BLM for violating various ordnances. There is controversy. The BLM organizations controversies include: the Dallas Shooting of 6 police officers, the promotion and funding of the 2020 Floyd riots costing billions of dollars in damage & dozens of lives, the 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade massacre, and the embezzlement of tens/hundreds of millions in donations to profit a select few. BLM is an organized 501(c)3 corporation that has had a very controversial history, which should be noted in the wiki of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.254.66 (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of what you posted is correct. "BLM" is not an organization. There are specific organizations with BLM ties, and those are being investigated. The rest of your post is a rehash of a lot of talking points without substance ("billions of dollars" in damage). &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, the billion+ dollars in damage is well documented at both George Floyd protests and Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. Baxter329 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone else started a section on this issue at . Also, it's always a good idea to include some links to sources when you start a discussion on such a topic. I added some links in that section. Baxter329 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "mostly peaceful" needs to be contextualized with actual numbers so readers can make up their own mind
The intro mentioned the "mostly peaceful" protests.

I added the following numbers.

Let the readers make up their own minds if this is "mostly peaceful."

After the George Floyd protests, an estimate by the company Property Claim Services, obtained by the news website Axios, estimated that nationwide, the cost of property damage from arson, vandalism and looting would "result in at least $1 billion to $2 billion of paid insurance claims."

According to Forbes, as of June 8, 2020, at least 19 people - a majority of whom were black - died during the Floyd protests.

Baxter329 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You are insisting on a violation of WP:SYNTH, because the source doesn't say that BLM caused all the damage. In any case, a significant amount of the damage was caused by right-wing provocateurs, not by BLM protesters. The difference cannot be calculated. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should include your info and my info. Then the readers can make up their own mind about it. Baxter329 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not how Wikipedia articles work; we are not supposed to present our own arguments in the text. What matters is the conclusions the sources reach - it is WP:OR to try and use sources to lead readers to a conclusion that the sources themselves don't present. If you lack sources specifically connecting the damage to BLM, then you haven't presented anything worth adding to the article, you've just speculated idly on talk. And if you lack such sources then this section should be closed, since this is not a forum for you to bring up your own personal feelings about BLM or to try and string together arguments about them. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I direct you, again, to WP:LEAD. FDW777 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the lead already says "mostly peaceful," then the lead should also include numbers to put that into context. In fact, any section of the article that says "mostly peaceful" should include numbers to put that into context. Whether it's the lead or anywhere else, if it says "mostly peaceful," then the same section should always cite these numbers. Baxter329 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't let the readers make up their own minds if this is "mostly peaceful" when we have reliable sources that tell us this. 93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful: Report. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The 93% statistic should be cited in the article. Baxter329 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I previously added the following:


 * Specifically, the Washington Post wrote, "In short, our data suggest that 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police."


 * The source was already there.


 * Someone else reverted my addition.


 * I think that quote from the Washington Post should be included whereever the article uses the phrase "mostly peaceful." It's a lot easier to understand something when you have actual numbers.


 * Baxter329 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Once again, please read and understand WP:LEAD. Continuing to reply ignoring that isn't helpful. FDW777 (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Several important issues here: First, the sources presented here don't even mention BLM; obviously, we can't use sources that don't mention BLM to imply things about BLM.  Second, as mentioned, this is important because the sources only mention damage that happened during the protests without determining who was responsible - in fact, significant amounts of damage were caused by white supremacist counter-protestors. This ties back to the first issue, in that if you want to imply in the text that BLM itself is responsible for the damage, then you need a source overtly saying that - the sources you cited are more cautious specifically because of the context I referenced, ie. it is easy to calculate how much damage occurred during the protests, but more complex to say who specifically caused it, as you are trying to do here. And without that connection it is off-topic for an article about BLM. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

BBC article
I'm copying and pasting the beginning of this BBC article. You can read the entire thing at the link. I think this information should be added to the article. What do others here think?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60392196

US candidate 'traumatised' by bail for gun suspect

A US mayoral candidate who was shot at during a campaign meeting this week has blasted the decision to grant bail to his alleged would-be assassin.

Nobody was injured in Monday's gun attack on Louisville city hall contender Craig Greenberg.

Quintez Brown, a 21-year-old left-wing activist who has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder, was bailed out by a Black Lives Matter fund on Wednesday.

Baxter329 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, the target of the would be assassin is Jewish. Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisville-mayoral-candidate-outraged-campaign-office-shooting-suspect-rcna16786

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-696614

https://www.thedailybeast.com/quintez-brown-of-louisville-alleged-craig-greenberg-wannabe-assassin-started-as-promising-activist

https://www.wtvq.com/police-louisville-mayoral-candidate-unharmed-in-shooting/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-louisville-mayor-candidate-traumatized-by-release-of-suspect/

Baxter329 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with BLM as a movement (especially the Jewish part)?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It says that a BLM fund paid the bail for someone who is suspected of trying to murder someone who is Jewish. BLM has previously been accused of anti-semitism. Paying that bail doesn't seem to be in line with an organization whose stated goal is to end racism, police brutality, and violence. The BBC thought that it was notable enough to report on. It should be mentioned in this article. Baxter329 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What it actually says is On Wednesday, Louisville Community Bail, a group associated with Black Lives Matter Louisville, posted Mr Brown's $100,000 (£74,000) bond. I suggest reading more carefully in future. FDW777 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC article that I already quoted says, "bailed out by a Black Lives Matter fund." Baxter329 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And as demonstrated, when that point is expanded upon in the same article it says something rather different. FDW777 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you contextualize this information: Leaders of Louisville’s Black Lives Matter chapter said that’s why they bonded Brown out, believing he would not have gotten that treatment while in jail. ... Organizers with Black Lives Matter said four different mental health agencies reached out and offered services to help Brown. The group believes he would not have gotten that help behind bars. ... “All of us are asking for the mental health help happens, that was denied in court, they were waiting on court services and they don’t have those resources so we went out and got it for him,” said Chanelle Helm with BLM Louisville. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a person who used a gun to try to shoot and kill another person is dangerous. If the person has mental health needs, then I think they should be kept in a locked and secured facility that gives them the mental health care that they need. I don't think it's a good idea to bail them out and let them walk around free. This is my own opinion. I have zero training in law enforcement, or in mental health care. I think the source that you cited should be used in the article. Baxter329 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your opinions on this matter, as with everybody else's, are irrelevant here. The info in that WBKO source would have to go in wherever the shooting of the Louisville mayoral candidate would be discussed, because this is the context for why they bonded him out. Why bond was set in the first place is another matter. All of this said, the shooting in Louisville is one event and too in the weeds for the scope of this page, which is the movement as a whole. I imagine we have a page on the Louisville shooting. It would belong there. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The sources only mention BLM in passing, so I think it'd be WP:UNDUE here. Given the number of people in BLM it would be comparable to eg. mentioning every time anyone who supports a particular political party gets charged with anything on the main article for the political party - obviously undue absent sources treating the connection as more significant. --Aquillion (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Central Park birdwatching incident
Is the Central Park birdwatching incident actually relevant to this article? The only place BLM is mentioned in that article is in the BLM template and category, there's nothing in the article body. FDW777 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing much connection. We could probably find sources that mention BLM in passing when talking about it because BLM is going to come up in passing for any racial issues in America today, but the connection seems too tenuous for it to be brought up here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already removed it from here (and the category and template from that article), but good to get some post-removal (apparent) agreement. FDW777 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)