Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 2

DePaul University protests
Regarding this paragraph: can anyone find a reliable mainstream news source that says these protesters were affiliated with BLM? The Washington Times is the only cited source in that paragraph that says the student protesters were affiliated with Black Lives Matter. None of the mainstream press coverage make this linkage, although one editorial says that "Black Lives Matter" was one of a number of slogans the students chanted, along with "Feel the Bern" and "Dump the Trump".

Chicago Sun-Times

Inside Higher Education

Depaulia (the student newspaper)

Since I can't verify this connection, and since it's composed almost entirely of citations to opinion content, it seems like it should just be removed. If there is some RS that links BLM to this protest, then the paragraph should probably be re-written so that it doesn't rely so heavily on right-leaning websites, primary sources, or editorials. Nblund (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that seems to be the problem with defining a hashtag movement, doesnt it? Who can say if they were BLM, just as who can say they are Anonymous (group)? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 17:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's too different from anything else on Wikipedia: we just go with what reliable sources say. Most of the other incidents described in those sections cite mainstream newspaper articles that call them "Black Lives Matter" protests or associate them with the movement in some way, but in this case, I don't see any reliable source doing that. I actually don't even see it in several of the UN-reliable sources that are cited in the paragraph. It's just the Washington Times. That seems like a massive red-flag to me. Nblund (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's not entirely notable anyways, but it makes sense that only right-leaning outlets would cover it. Incidently, Fox and Breitbart did both do a small piece on it calling it BLM protesters, but only briefly and in passing. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 20:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the minimal coverage is a good indication that it isn't notable, and I think the best approach is to just cut it until we have better evidence. Non-right wing sources do cover the events (see the articles above), but they just refer to them as "student protesters". From what I can gather from the student paper, and SunTimes sources, the students were mostly affiliated with various campus organizations. Nblund (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no "bipartisan" requirement in WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT - please don't suggest that. Here are five RS explicitly connecting the Depaul/Milo protest to Black Lives Matter:
 * Reason: "DePaul University Black Lives Matter protesters shut down a Milo Yiannopoulos event on Tuesday night. "
 * Washington Times: A Black Lives Matter supporter and student activist hits Milo Yiannopoulos in the face with a microphone at DePaul University''"
 * The Daily Beast: "They were led by Edward Ward, a student-activist aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement. "
 * WGN "A few Black Lives Matter protestors came in and threatened him with physical violence"
 * CBS "Videos posted online show a protester affiliated with Black Lives Matter entering the conference room blowing a whistle and yelling at Yiannopoulous"
 * James J. Lambden (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was really citing more of a verifiability issue rather than a weight issue wrt the BLM claim. I'm puzzled by your assertion: are you saying that citing exclusively right-wing sources for statements of fact about a left wing group is consistent with WP:WEIGHT and NPOV? That seems implausible.
 * Regarding the sources: most of those seem to contradict the characterization of this as a BLM protest: they specify that "a student affiliated with the BLM movement", was leading several of the protesters, but they don't call this a BLM protest or say that the protesters in general were from BLM. The only mainstream source you cite with the claim is WGNTV but in the video that statement just comes from a random "man-on-the-street" interview from an unnamed attendee, not from the news outlet itself. That leaves only an editorial from Robby Soave. Opinion pieces usually aren't reliable sources for claims of fact, I'm not sure why this case would be an exception.  Nblund (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article covers the Black Live Matters movement which has no official membership test. If a protest is led by someone recognized as Black Live Matters, the protestors chant "Black Live Matters" and sources report it as BLM that's good enough for wiki. The Soave article is a high-quality source, it's citable for the facts it presents. Neither policy nor consensus supports your interpretation. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Source(s)? I think you cited one source that actually says this, and it's an editorial. It seems a tiny bit hasty for you to by citing a consensus given that there are currently 3 people participating in this discussion, and you seem to be the only one strongly defending this material. Maybe an RfC or a noticeboard post would be a better gauge.  Nblund (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any reason to state that the protesters were 'associated with' BLM. It doesn't seem verifiable with the sources we currently have. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At best, we could say that "A student who was affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement was involved in a protest that shut down a planned speech by "alt-right" commentator Milo Yiannopoulos.", we could also say he "blew a whistle and yelled at Yiannopoulos", but that almost sounds like it's making light of the situation. IMHO, using this wording makes it pretty clear that this just isn't notable enough to be in the article, but it's reasonably well supported by mainstream sources, and it even parallels the wording used in some of the right-leaning sources cited by James J. Lambden.
 * This same paragraph appears in other entries, and over at the Milo Yiannopoulos entry we're discussing adding a bit more about the accusations leveled at protesters. In this entry, though, I think those accusations are beyond the scope because they don't deal with BLM specifically. James J. Lambden,, thoughts? Nblund (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think this is pushing the limits of notability, but if I assume that it is particularily notable, then I feel the wording as it stands is fine, per WP:WEIGHT. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 23:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I don't see how this could possibly be consistent with due weight as currently worded: only one source calls this a "BLM protest". Most of them only mention one specific BLM affiliate or don't mention BLM at all.
 * Moreover: every statement in the current paragraph comes from an opinion source, and every single one is critical of the protesters. Other outlets covered these events in a more neutral tone or sympathized with the protesters. Some of the sources cited were also critical of Yiannopoulos, but none of those criticisms are mentioned. That seems like an open and shut neutrality problem. Nblund (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Haphazard qualification of sources as "opinion" followed by wholesale disqualification for claims of fact is not in line with my understanding of WP:RS. I'm reasonably satisfied with the current wording but I suspect this won't be settled outside of RSN. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear: Do you seriously want me to post on RS noticeboard to ask whether an article titled "Milo Yiannopoulos assaulted by crazy student protesters at DePaul, cops do nothing", written by Robby Soave, the editor of the libertarian Reason.com, qualifies as an editorial or opinion article? I can do this, but I want to make sure this is what you're suggesting, because it seems a little absurd. Nblund (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked. No. If you don't object to the current wording there's nothing to be done. If you do, I'd like you to post all the relevant articles you've labelled opinion pieces and the statements of fact therein you wish to exclude or attribute. I believe that's the sensible course. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm no. That's a time-wasting argument. I will ask for clarification regarding whether the Washington Times is a reliable source for an un-attributed statement of fact about BLM. Nblund (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't be more specific because I'm not clear on what you're trying to exclude or alter. If it's the connection of BLM to the DePaul protests the clarification request should mention The Washington Times along with Reason, Daily Beast and CBS and the currently cited Huffington Post article. If it's something else, please propose a specific edit and I'll provide a specific response. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI -- This matter is under discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. See WP:RS/N. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the [multiple issues tag]. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I didn't see this discussed anywhere here or in the RSN discussion. I've reread these discussions, and there was certainly no consensus on RSN that the Washington Times is not a reliable source, which was the original purpose of opening that thread. Klortho (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. When you cut through the noise from the people who commented above and brought their arguments to RS/N, I think you'd find that most of the "new" voices in the discussion thought the Washington Times was unreliable or borderline. In any event, I restored the "unreliable source" tag for the Chicago Tribune editorial -- I don't think anybody has said it is a reliable source for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Klortho, cleanup tags don't necessarily mean that a problem, in fact, exists, but they do indicate that editors have an ongoing dispute about them. If there were a consensus, I would have simply removed the disputed material. You should not remove tags if the issue is still being discussed or disputed.
 * I count 11 editors rejecting the use of WT in this case either on reliable source or neutrality grounds. I count 6 editors supporting the description.
 * 7 of those editors explicitly brought up the issue of undue weight or relevance to this article, and one other user (BRX at the top of this thread), also brought up the issue independently. I don't actually see anyone explicitly supporting the relevance or notability of this issue for this entry. Perhaps you think a different tag or set of tags describe the problem better, and I'm open to that discussion, but there's really no plausible case that a tag shouldn't be here. Nblund (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016
Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "2013" to {start date and age|2013|7|13} to correspond to Black Lives Matter's official founding date of July 13, 2013?

96.255.209.103 (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you for your suggestion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Point of view problems
Looking through the article, and reviewing the comments here and on RSN, it is obvious that a double-standard is being used for determining: A, which sources are reliable, and B, when to refer to participants/protestors with the "BLM" attributive. To take just one example, "BLM protested after a video was released showing an officer pinning a girl—at a pool party in McKinney, Texas—to the ground with his knees.[74]" -- the [reference] is to a BBC news mini-press release that doesn't even mention BLM. Also, many, if not most, of these protests/actions are of similar scope to the [Depaul University description], which has been the topic of such fierce debate. One can only conclude that the main editors of this page have a strong bias in favor of articles and new stories that cast BLM in a favorable light. Klortho (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Another case-in-point, these edits about the Dartmouth library disruptions. Why are those people not described as "BLM activists", whereas just about every group prior to that were? I can only think of one explanation. Klortho (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are several instances in this entry where people are described as "BLM activists" or "BLM protesters" without really high-quality sourcing to support that claim. Calling something a "BLM protest" is vague to the point of being meaningless anyway. So my preferred criteria is that we should cover things when multiple mainstream reliable sources draw a prominent link to Black Lives Matter, and that we should avoid calling things "Black Live Matter" protests unless the protesters or organizers explicitly describe themselves that way.
 * Thus far, I haven't been able to get a consensus to support fixing the most egregious case, where a claim is only barely supported by a source that appears to have called them BLM activists without any actual basis for doing so, so this one seems pretty minor. That said: the McKinney controversy is clearly relevant: it was widely covered and regularly linked to Black Lives Matter. Two of the founders, Deray McKesson and Alicia Garza, even linked those events to BLM. Here's another article from the BBC that discusses that connection.
 * Regarding Dartmouth: I didn't find good sourcing for the statement that anyone involved with the protest was a BLM activist, and I thought it was important to emphasize the fact that they were students. The linkage to BLM seems implied by the fact that the protest is discussed in the BLM entry. For whatever it's worth: I don't see this or the DePaul protests as reflecting negatively on anyone. Nblund (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I removed the tag because there was not "ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue". The discussion started two weeks before you added the tag, the indeed (correct me if I'm wrong) the discussion both here and on RSN had died down for several days, and then you added the tag.
 * there's really no plausible case that a tag shouldn't be here
 * If you tag this one paragraph in this "Notable protests and demonstrations" section for UNDUE, then (this gets to my POV point) why not most, if not all, of the paragraphs in the sections above it? Can you make the case that this particular "protest/demonstration" is less weighty than, say (just for example) "Members protested Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti during a town hall meeting at a church in South L.A."?
 * Perhaps you think a different tag or set of tags describe the problem better
 * That's why I tagged the whole article with POV. Isn't this discussion really about which items to include in the list, and which not? And, which to describe as BLM actions, and which not?
 * So my preferred criteria is that we should cover things when multiple mainstream reliable sources draw a prominent link to Black Lives Matter
 * "Prominent" is open to interpretation, but, in general, I agree with this.
 * and that we should avoid calling things "Black Live Matter" protests unless the protesters or organizers explicitly describe themselves that way.
 * I'm not sure about this -- is there precedent from articles about other, similarly loosely organized protest movements? What if the participants are chanting "Black lives matter", but no individual is quoted as describing themselves as associated with the movement? Since there is no official membership organization, it's pretty rare when someone will explicitly describe themselves that way, isn't it? That means most of the content would have to get ripped out.
 * Regarding Dartmouth: I didn't find good sourcing for the statement that anyone involved with the protest was a BLM activist,
 * How about the video itself? The students in the video were chanting, "Black lives matter". So this gets right to the question: what, specifically, are the criteria? This is clearly contentious, so I think we need to define the criteria first, and then rigidly adhere to them. Klortho (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just followed some links and read these, which are pretty good, so reposting them here for reference. They provide context (as you know) but don't answer the fundamental editorial question: when do we refer to an action as a "BLM protest", and when to refer to an individual as a "BLM activist".
 * Columbia Journalism Review, Black Lives Matter: the movement, the organization, and how journalists get it wrong
 * LA Times, Why the term 'Black Lives Matter' can be so confusing
 * Clarify: are you actually challenging the inclusion of other protests, or are you just bringing those up to argue that I am personally biased in my challenging the DePaul protests? You tagged the article as POV, but you're justifying the tag by pointing to a template that you already removed. Those tags apply to article content, not editor conduct. If you want to keep that tag in place, you should point to a specific issue with the entry itself.
 * I challenged the inclusion of the DePaul protests because they were not described as "black lives matter protests" in multiple reliable mainstream sources. Although one protester was affiliated with BLM, he doesn't appear to have been involved in organizing the protests. When I received pushback, I took it to a noticeboard, and when there was no consensus, I added a tag. I placed it on the 25th, so yes, you are wrong about the timing, and regardless of time timing: the first item says not to remove the template "if the issue is unresolved". This issue is obviously unresolved, and we're currently discussing it. I don't think you have a leg to stand on here, and I think a self-revert would be in order.
 * There might be some cases that should also be removed, but Garcetti protests received significant national coverage and they're described as "Black Lives Matter protests" in multiple mainstream sources. (LA Times, ABC affiliate, the Atlantic) They were also organized by Patrisse Cullors (one of the founders of BLM) and are discussed on Blacklivesmatter.com. Simply saying "Black Lives Matter" doesn't make someone a black lives matter activist, and most of the protests included in that section have a lot more than just that.
 * The CJR source is great. I actually posted previously in the noticeboard discussion. It seems like you're actually agreeing with me, which makes your failure to assume WP:AGF here especially egregious. Nblund (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dartmouth: I didn't find good sourcing for the statement that anyone involved with the protest was a BLM activist,
 * How about the video itself? The students in the video were chanting, "Black lives matter". So this gets right to the question: what, specifically, are the criteria? This is clearly contentious, so I think we need to define the criteria first, and then rigidly adhere to them. Klortho (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just followed some links and read these, which are pretty good, so reposting them here for reference. They provide context (as you know) but don't answer the fundamental editorial question: when do we refer to an action as a "BLM protest", and when to refer to an individual as a "BLM activist".
 * Columbia Journalism Review, Black Lives Matter: the movement, the organization, and how journalists get it wrong
 * LA Times, Why the term 'Black Lives Matter' can be so confusing
 * Clarify: are you actually challenging the inclusion of other protests, or are you just bringing those up to argue that I am personally biased in my challenging the DePaul protests? You tagged the article as POV, but you're justifying the tag by pointing to a template that you already removed. Those tags apply to article content, not editor conduct. If you want to keep that tag in place, you should point to a specific issue with the entry itself.
 * I challenged the inclusion of the DePaul protests because they were not described as "black lives matter protests" in multiple reliable mainstream sources. Although one protester was affiliated with BLM, he doesn't appear to have been involved in organizing the protests. When I received pushback, I took it to a noticeboard, and when there was no consensus, I added a tag. I placed it on the 25th, so yes, you are wrong about the timing, and regardless of time timing: the first item says not to remove the template "if the issue is unresolved". This issue is obviously unresolved, and we're currently discussing it. I don't think you have a leg to stand on here, and I think a self-revert would be in order.
 * There might be some cases that should also be removed, but Garcetti protests received significant national coverage and they're described as "Black Lives Matter protests" in multiple mainstream sources. (LA Times, ABC affiliate, the Atlantic) They were also organized by Patrisse Cullors (one of the founders of BLM) and are discussed on Blacklivesmatter.com. Simply saying "Black Lives Matter" doesn't make someone a black lives matter activist, and most of the protests included in that section have a lot more than just that.
 * The CJR source is great. I actually posted previously in the noticeboard discussion. It seems like you're actually agreeing with me, which makes your failure to assume WP:AGF here especially egregious. Nblund (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There might be some cases that should also be removed, but Garcetti protests received significant national coverage and they're described as "Black Lives Matter protests" in multiple mainstream sources. (LA Times, ABC affiliate, the Atlantic) They were also organized by Patrisse Cullors (one of the founders of BLM) and are discussed on Blacklivesmatter.com. Simply saying "Black Lives Matter" doesn't make someone a black lives matter activist, and most of the protests included in that section have a lot more than just that.
 * The CJR source is great. I actually posted previously in the noticeboard discussion. It seems like you're actually agreeing with me, which makes your failure to assume WP:AGF here especially egregious. Nblund (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "Clarify: ..." Isn't this clear?
 * > I challenged the inclusion of the DePaul protests because they were not described as "black lives matter protests" in multiple reliable mainstream sources.
 * Have you applied this same test to all the other entries?
 * > I placed it on the 25th ...
 * Okay, I put it back, but I moved it to the top of "Notable protests and demonstrations" section, to avoid the need for overtagging, until we can nail down the criteria for assigning the BLM label and inclusion.
 * > The CJR source is great. I actually posted previously in the noticeboard discussion.
 * Yes, that's where I found it.
 * > ...which makes your failure to assume WP:AGF here especially egregious.
 * I assume good faith -- I believe you are trying to improve the encyclopedia. But good faith doesn't mean you're immune from biased editing; that's just human nature.
 * Also, this line: "... likened the disrupters to D-Day troops during WWII". C'mon, that's a complete misrepresentation of the source, don't you think? Klortho (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I put it back, but I moved it to the top of "Notable protests and demonstrations" section, to avoid the need for overtagging, until we can nail down the criteria for assigning the BLM label and inclusion.
 * > The CJR source is great. I actually posted previously in the noticeboard discussion.
 * Yes, that's where I found it.
 * > ...which makes your failure to assume WP:AGF here especially egregious.
 * I assume good faith -- I believe you are trying to improve the encyclopedia. But good faith doesn't mean you're immune from biased editing; that's just human nature.
 * Also, this line: "... likened the disrupters to D-Day troops during WWII". C'mon, that's a complete misrepresentation of the source, don't you think? Klortho (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * > ...which makes your failure to assume WP:AGF here especially egregious.
 * I assume good faith -- I believe you are trying to improve the encyclopedia. But good faith doesn't mean you're immune from biased editing; that's just human nature.
 * Also, this line: "... likened the disrupters to D-Day troops during WWII". C'mon, that's a complete misrepresentation of the source, don't you think? Klortho (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, this line: "... likened the disrupters to D-Day troops during WWII". C'mon, that's a complete misrepresentation of the source, don't you think? Klortho (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, this line: "... likened the disrupters to D-Day troops during WWII". C'mon, that's a complete misrepresentation of the source, don't you think? Klortho (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I started trying to do a little survey. This item:
 * Has only one source, and not an RS, by your criteria. It also does not seem to attribute her as identifying with BLM. Klortho (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Has only one source, and not an RS, by your criteria. It also does not seem to attribute her as identifying with BLM. Klortho (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes! I do think the statement about the president likening the protesters to D-Day troops should be removed. The paragraph stuck out to me because it is poorly written and poorly sourced as a whole, and I pointed to the most clear-cut problem. It seems like you agree with me, but you defended the content and are accusing me of being biased for suggesting that it should be removed or re-written.

I appreciate the self-revert. You also aren't immune from bias, and we could lob accusations at each other endlessly. Your argument remains unclear: you tagged the entry with a POV tag, but the DePaul protests haven't been removed, so the "double standard" doesn't appear to exist in the article content. It's clear that you think I have a POV, but I didn't write this entry and I haven't actually implemented my desired changes to the entry. So that's not a justification for the tag. Do you have an actual problem with the existing contents of the entry?

BART train stoppage was organized by Alicia Garza to protest the decision not to indict Darren Wilson. Alicia Garza actually coined the phrase "Black Lives Matter", so she would count. It has one in-text citation, but it is mentioned in multiple mainstream press sources as a black lives matter protest (SFexaminer, ABC affiliate, LA Times).

This is starting to seem like a time-wasting argument. We've done this with three stories now, and they actually seem very well supported. I absolutely think the same standard applies across the board, and there are definitely lots of problems I want to fix with this entry, but I haven't been able to do that because I can't even get a consensus for removing one of the most obviously problematic claims.Nblund (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to your question on my user page, my primary concern and contention is that there is a POV problem. To specifically answer your question, if it were up for a vote, I would vote for keeping the DePaul incident, and probably all the others -- but I haven't had time yet to read them all. I tend to be an inclusionist, other things being equal. If we can rewrite the DePaul entry, that would be great. But it seemed to me (and still does) that your insistence to change "BLM activists" to "A student who was affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement" was gratuitous and unprecedented. I just scanned through the section again (didn't read every word, so I might have missed one) and don't see any other descriptions that don't use wording like "Black Lives Matter was ...", or "BLM activists ...".
 * You've been working on the article longer than I have. Maybe you're right that in every other case, except this one, that attributive is warranted. I said "prima facie" evidence, which doesn't mean it's a hard conclusion. You also said I have a POV, and I would never deny it. Of course I do, I'm a human being. My feeling/belief is that the POV that I happen to share is at least a significant minority viewpoint, and it's not represented in this article at all.
 * But I'm willing to do some work, and make compromises, and assume good faith, and I hope you are, too. So, are you still insisting on your original change to the DePaul paragraph? Changing to "student who was affiliated with" is just not warranted -- the RSN discussion did not reach a consensus. Klortho (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you haven't identified any specific issues with any other article content, we need to remove the "POV" tag from the top of the page, and we need to place the RS and DUE weight tags back in the 2016 sections. Those tags are supposed to cue readers that there is a dispute over content, and cue editors to look for ways to make improvements to that content. You're misusing them here.
 * The DePaul protest isn't covered as a BLM protest in multiple mainstream reliable sources. At best, it's mentioned in a single source that has questionable reliability. "A student affiliated with BLM" is the wording that is most consistent with the best sources available, and so it was a compromise. I understand there wasn't a consensus favoring that view (although there was substantial support), and so I haven't implemented these changes. I also understand that you personally think that was a biased proposal, but there's no cleanup template for "an editor proposed something on the talk page that I personally dislike". Nblund (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're just repeating the same assertion over and over does not make it true. In fact, you're proving my point about POV every time you do. cited five sources above; more were cited on the RSN. You cherry pick individual sources, arguing about this one or that one being reliable, but ignore what many many people have said, that context matters -- and here we have multiple independent sources reporting the same thing. Any quick Google search can give you more. The video of the event is available, for crying out loud, which can be used as a source to verify specific assertions. In response to the post above, you wrote, "most of those seem to contradict the characterization of this as a BLM protest", but this is manifestly false. A source saying "student affiliated with BLM" is not contradicting the characterization as a BLM protest. Klortho (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we clearly disagree on this topic. I'm going to go ahead and remove the POV tag from the page and move the section cleanup tag to its original position. If you want to start an RfC to get additional input or to try to build consensus for including this material, we should do that. But I don't think either one of us are going to persuade the other here, and so this is not productive.Nblund (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict -- here's what I originally wrote.] This back-and-forth is really an enormous waste of time. I put the multiple issues tag back where you had it, but feel strongly that the POV tag should stay at the top. My descriptions of the problems are specific enough, calling out the section and the topic of my concern. Can you agree to that? Regarding criteria, I'll quote what you wrote above, so it'll stand out a little:
 * I think this is problematic, but I need some time to come up with suggestions. I'd like to look at a few other article pages on similar topics, for some precedent. Others can jump in too, of course:, . Klortho (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I put the POV tag back -- see my comment above. Klortho (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't identified any specific POV issues with the contents of the article. You said:
 * You haven't identified any specific problems with the article, and you just said that you would probably vote against making any changes. The tag is supposed to apply to article content, not discussions at the talk page or the noticeboard, and not to beliefs about editors. Nblund (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I put the POV tag back -- see my comment above. Klortho (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't identified any specific POV issues with the contents of the article. You said:
 * You haven't identified any specific problems with the article, and you just said that you would probably vote against making any changes. The tag is supposed to apply to article content, not discussions at the talk page or the noticeboard, and not to beliefs about editors. Nblund (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't identified any specific problems with the article, and you just said that you would probably vote against making any changes. The tag is supposed to apply to article content, not discussions at the talk page or the noticeboard, and not to beliefs about editors. Nblund (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this article for very long, but my experience with other controversial subjects is that sticking to what the sources say is usually the best way to go. If reliable sources don't refer to an event as a "BLM protest", Wikipedia shouldn't either. If reliable sources say an event was called by a "BLM activist" or "BLM leader" but don't describe it as a "BLM protest", we should decide whether events of that type belong in the article (perhaps by RfC). If consensus is that events of that type qualify for inclusion in the article, we should describe them as they are described in the sources, not as we wish the sources had described them. In other words, an event never magically becomes a "BLM protest" if the sources don't support that description. I'm a strong believer in complying with WP:No original research, and recommend that everybody periodically re-read the section titled "Using sources", which says (in part):
 * Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short,.

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are such a large proportion of the photos in this article from the St. Paul-Minneapolis area?`
Does that seem strange to anyone else? BLM is a presence in the cities, but it seems odd to concentrate source so geographically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.154.167 (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016
All Lives Matter is a organization that is not owned by Black Lives Matter and needs a different article

198.52.13.15 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make one. --Majora (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Original research in Dallas
The source cited (The Washington Post) doesn't say it was a Black Lives Matter march. So why does Wikipedia? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * [Edited: our additions to the talk page were more-or-less simultaneous, so I'm combining the topics and putting my comment here]
 * I reverted this revert, and put the material back in about the Dallas shooting. Several of the sources confirm that the occurred at a BLM rally. I'm not sure what the "OR" implication here is. Klortho (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it cited one source that allegedly said that:
 * On July 7th, a sniper attack occurred during Black Lives Matter rally in Dallas, Texas that was organized to protest the death of Alton Sterling.


 * Except it doesn't. Because it wasn't. So stop already. It's original research to make up your own shit and put it in front of "sources" that don't say what you wish they said.
 * Please read WP:No original research, especially "Using sources", which says (in part):
 * Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short,.
 * Like it or not, it was a protest organized by the Next Generation Action Network, not Black Lives Matter. (I know we all look the same, but please try.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Before you bother replying, let me cut you off at the knees. A caption to a photo in a long news story is not a reliable source. Period. Take it to RS/N if you don't believe me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Three reliable sources refer to it unambiguously as a BLM activity:
 * WaPo article: "Dallas Police respond after shots were fired at a Black Lives Matter rally in downtown Dallas on Thursday, July 7, 2016."
 * NYTimes article: "Black Lives Matter demonstrators marched through the streets of Dallas on Thursday"
 * LA Times article: "Clinton praised the heroism of the police officers in Dallas who worked to protect the civilians at the Black Lives Matter protest where an assailant opened fire"
 * And, please be civil. Your swearing is uncalled for. Klortho (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * [Update] I never heard that about caption being explicitly excluded -- can you point me to that policy? Klortho (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The first source does not call it a Black Lives Matter rally. A photo caption refers to it as a Black Lives Matter rally, and as I wrote, a caption (like a headline) is not a reliable source.
 * The second and third sources were not cited in support of the assertion that it was a Black Lives Matter rally.
 * It was a Next Generation Action Network protest. Get over it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Captions and headlines are written by copy-editors, are not considered part of the newspaper, and are not held to the same editorial and journalistic standards as the rest of the newspaper. That's basic knowledge. Read Photo caption, for example ("Captions ... are a type of display copy. Display copy also includes headlines and contrasts with "body copy", such as newspaper articles and magazines.") or search the archives at WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the caption: I took your suggestion and search the RSN archives. There are a lot of interference in the search results to discussions about Wikipedia photo captions, so it's very time consuming. (Interestingly, Wikipedia's policies aren't any less strict for photo captions.) I did find two different instance of people making the assertions, without backing them up, that headlines and captions were less reliable. But, in those instances, no one concurred, and I didn't find anything that got close to a consensus about it.

I also reviewed WP:RS again, and didn't see any hint that captions were excludable.


 * > Read Photo caption, for example ...

That article doesn't say anything even remotely close to the argument you are using it to support. Where does it say "display copy" is subject to less scrutiny or fact-checking than "body-copy"?

And anyway, only one of the three reliable sources is from a photo caption ...


 * > The second and third sources were not cited in support of the assertion that it was a Black Lives Matter rally

If your objection is that the citations weren't close enough to the assertion, I have no problem with moving them up, and/or citing them twice.


 * > It was a Next Generation Action Network protest. Get over it.

Here, I really want to suggest that you're using a double standard: the verifiability policy is about what the reliable sources say. You're making a claim, now, based on your original research.

Regarding BRD, that's not policy. It's an essay. And also, it says there are some times when it is appropriate, and some times not. I'd love it if we could come to a consensus about this, though.

This material, in some form or another, clearly belongs in this article. Several editors, now, have tried to put something in about these events. If you don't like it in the "Notable protests and demonstrations" section, maybe we could move it to the "Influence" section. I'm also open to clarifying parts, or changing the wording, if you have specific suggestions. Klortho (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is it that Wikipedia's article about the shooting can get this right, but you have to trawl the Internet looking for sources to find an imaginary tie to Black Lives Matter? This is starting to look like a case of WP:FRINGE. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we need to return to what was raised in May under : There is an organization named Black Lives Matter (organization), and there is a wider movement that doesn't explicitly go by the name "Black Lives Matter", but has been increasingly labeled Black Lives Matter (movement), and all in all this wider group of protesters embraces that label rather than repudiating it. We clearly need to distinguish the two, the more interesting one being Black Lives Matter (movement), which might already constitute WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. --PanchoS (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , was that supposed to be a response? How is my not pushing for the same fixes in a different article related to this? I'm going to restore the section, for the reasons stated, and because highly topical about a current event. I'll repeat what I said before, if you have suggestions on how to improve it, or where it might fit better in the article, I'd like to hear them. Klortho (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll skip the user talk warnings, but I'll ask both parties to dial back the adrenaline drip and end the edit war. This from WP:EW: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." A resolution may not be possible between just you two editors, but there will be more along and there is no urgency to resolve this today. I may find the time to take a closer look at the question myself. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with user PanchoS: there's a movement and an organization here, and we need to avoid conflating them. This even definitely was not organized by the Black Lives Matter organization, it was organized by the "Next Generation Action Network", which is a general civil rights/community organization group.
 * That said, this was a protest that was broadly associated with the BLM movement, so I can see a case for giving it some coverage here. We should avoid calling it a "BLM protest" (to avoid unnecessary ambiguity) and we should focus on covering the events themselves, with a sentence or two at the most. If we want to discuss more issues (the implications of the shooting, the responses from BLM, the reactions) then those should probably go in a separate section.
 * Long term, I think rewriting and renaming the "notable protest" sections would help resolve a lot of these issues, because the structure is too list-like, and it invites a lot of coat-rack material.  talk 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of organization, I'm creating level 3 subsections for sources one way and the other. I'd suggest one link for each high-quality source, showing that they specifically refer to that march as a BLM march/protest or a NGAN march/protest. I've found that you actually have to read it, since they refer to BLM in other ways in the same article. If a source says only that some marchers were chanting "black lives matter", that is not a source that it was a BLM march; that's little more than a quotation, not a statement in the source's own voice. For this purpose we can limit ourselves to high-quality sources. New York Times qualifies, BuzzFeed does not, and we can hash out any disagreements between those extremes. Per Malik Shabazz, we should ignore headlines and captions; there will be sufficient data without them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was inclined to support the comments from that we need to first nail down whether this article is about the movement or the organization. But doing that would not prevent the need for original research because sources generally don't make that nice and clear for us. If they say it was a Black Lives Matter march, are they referring to the movement or the organization? We can't know, so we should include it.


 * Calling this a "BLM rally" seems it introduces completely needless confusion. Before we go down this path, is there really any issue with simply saying "a rally organized by the Next Generation Action Network to protest the shootings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling" to avoid ambiguity? I think readers can probably see the connection, and it's consistent with most of the sources I am seeing.
 * New outlets, particularly when they're breaking news, tend to do a poor job of capturing this distinction. Case in point: The Dallas Morning News reports that the NGAN organizer specifically denied that this was a BLM event: "Thursdays protest was not a Black Lives Matter event, according to the Reverend Dominique Alexander, president of the Next Generation Action Network". Nevertheless, the same article calls this a "Black Lives Matter crowd" later on.
 * I don't know that any use the phrase "NGAN rally", they just mention that NGAN organized it. Most of the articles I have found just call it a "rally", and I think that's probably the best compromise. So maybe we should add a neither section? (example).  talk 15:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting including Dallas in this BLM article with that NGAN explanation, is that correct? Then in effect you're saying that this article can and should include any organized protest of cops killing blacks, even if there is not a predominance of sources who call it a BLM protest? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: to answer more directly: yes, if a large number of sources connect it to the broader BLM movement.
 * It already does include cases like that: the McKinney, Texas protest weren't organized by a BLM group, but they are connected to BLM by multiple mainstream press outlets and well-known BLM activists participated and commented on them. If there is significant media coverage linking a protest to the BLM movement, then its probably worth mentioning in the section, and if there's good evidence that the event was organized by an actual BLM chapter, then we can call it a "BLM protest".  talk 16:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, I guess. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , you wrote, "we should ignore headlines and captions". What is the precedent for this? I have never heard of this policy, and it when it was introduced by MShabazz, it seemed capricious. I am very willing to cooperate, and have tried, but I've been getting stonewalled in return. If you review the recent edits on this page, and the discussions above, you will see that I have been contenting that there appears to be a POV problem on this page. There is a lot of criticism of the BLM movement / organization from prominent people in our society, and a great deal that is reliably sourced. There is at least enough criticism to qualify as a significant minority opinion -- but no one reading this article would learn about any of it. This recent edit skirmish seems, on the surface, to be additional confirmation. To wite, there seems to be a double standard being applied for deciding what material to include, and how to describe it. I'm being careful to say "seems to be", because I haven't had time to do an exhaustive survey. I am all for reorganizing the sections, but I'd oppose making that a priority over adding obviously relevant material. I'm also open to rewording it, and even removing the characterization of it as a "BLM rally", but multiple independent reliable sources drew the connection between these events and BLM, and that needs to be reflected in the article. Klortho (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you're probably talking to the wrong guy about those broader issues. I've been only peripherally involved in this article (not a lot of interest frankly) and I was only here because I have it watchlisted, noticed the edit war, and had some extra time on my hands. I agree that there probably is some POV at play here, but I feel I have irons in too many other fires to try to help improve things there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to say that the headings and captions were not RS, only that we didn't need them for this purpose. Given that I'm going along with Nblund's reasoning above, I think that's now a moot question for me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm going to propose:

As an aside, it seems like we should probably change the heading to "notable events" as opposed to "notable protests" -- the shooting, of course, wasn't part of the protest, and the protest itself wasn't all that notable. 17:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to fight this issue any more. The sources are wrong, but I think we have to go with what they say. I think 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers has a decent write-up about the demonstration (probably the result of discussion on that article's talk page:


 * — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, perhaps I have been too bold but I did omit the BLM wording. I hope it will be agreeable...  Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter (organization) vs. Black Lives Matter (movement)
There is a difference between the organization and the movement. The organization is a formal group with leaders and planned actions. The movement is the general protests, and they are not all done by BLM the organization, some involve the NAACP, the NBPP, and others. Should we have two pages or make some distinction between the two? Mangokeylime (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be great if the two could be disentangled. It needs a significant amount of work and sourcing.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Should we split them up?Mangokeylime (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources draw such a distinction? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, heres one for an example... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/19/blacklivesmatter-birth-civil-rights-movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangokeylime (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it. I've seen plenty of material like this paragraph (from the Guardian article):
 * Although #blacklivesmatter was the original call to action, it is only one tributary in a larger, fast-flowing river. Other organisations have sprung from a shared sense of unease, such as the Coalition Against Police Violence, which is run by two female activists, or the Black Youth Project 100, which has chapters across the country and campaigns against the use of racially motivated force, or the Florida-based Dream Defenders, which has mobilised communities against racial profiling and state oppression, and which started before Black Lives Matter. These activists communicate and link up online, minting a solidarity through social media that gives their separate voices mass focus and power.
 * which indicate that Black Lives Matter is part of a larger movement, but I haven't seen any source that calls that movement "Black Lives Matter". Without that, you're engaging in original research. You might want to start a new article titled African-American Civil Rights Movement (21st century) or expand Post–Civil Rights era in African-American history. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:06, 17 May 2016 (UT
 * Both of these articles mention the organization but also discuss the movement in general http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/history-black-lives-matter_us_56d0a3b0e4b0871f60eb4af5 http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2015-runner-up-black-lives-matter/
 * In 2015, Black Lives Matter blossomed from a protest cry into a genuine political force. Groups that embraced the slogan hounded police chiefs from their jobs, won landmark prosecutions and turned college campuses into cauldrons of social ferment. At the University of Missouri, a hunger strike incited a boycott by the football team that drove the president out of office.
 * Would you consider this good enough evidence to have a Black Lives Matter movement article?Mangokeylime (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There does seem to be a lot of confusion in this area, when I see people arguing in social media. For many "black lives matter" is just a slogan. I suspect that many people wear this slogan or repeat it who have nothing at all to do with blacklivesmatter.com (a website, which apparently doesn't work) When someone alleges that "BLM is Marxist," http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/politics/carol-swain-black-lives-matter-smerconish/ they are clearly referring to an organization, rather than just a slogan. But other people spend a lot of time talking about the meaning of the slogan "black lives matter" http://imgur.com/a/YkDVQ as opposed to the slogan "all lives matter." I think a lot of the arguments we are seeing right now may be due to this confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, unless reliable sources are making a distinction between the hashtag, the slogan, the organization, the website, and the movement that are all called "Black Lives Matter", you're wading into original research by trying to differentiate between them on your own. In my view, as somebody who reads quite a few media sources every day, the reliable sources themselves contribute to the confusion by their inability or unwillingness to make any distinction. Or maybe all black people look alike to them. Whatever the reason, the most I think this article can do would be (a) fix the lead to clarify that Black Lives Matter is not merely a movement but a hashtag, a slogan, an organization, a website, and a movement, (b) state (perhaps in the lead or in a new section near the top of the article) that all of them are called Black Lived Matter indiscriminately by the media and provide sources to support the statements (and perhaps provide examples), and (c) try to be clearer when the article uses the phrase "Black Lives Matter" about what it's referring to. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

INTEGRATE: BLM Response to Calls of Organised Focus from All Aisles & Perspectives due to Negative albeit Large Minority Within Movement; Criticism Section Lacking in WP:DUE
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34023751 Also, I find the criticism section bizarrely lacking in WP:DUE, which indicates to me that there is a WP:NPOV issue ongoing within this page & this part of Wikipedia. The linked ten-point manifesto was created in response to amassed criticism due to BLM as a movement not subscribing to any specific ideology or set of beliefs, not being a formal organisation. Subsequently, that lack of formal structure allowed for pervasive negative elements to arise and so pervert the more benevolent voice of the majority. Where the majority may cry "that doesn't represent us", it might not to them as individuals or as a faction by association, but the negative element regardless remains unaddressed. In linguistics, an analogy if I may, even in English, if there is a group of more than one female, with even one male, then the group itself is automatically male however the entire group is not male individual-to-individual. With regard to BLM, there maybe a large negative minority of fringe opinion within the movement itself, but being as that they do not hold majority opinion, they so do not hold sway over the public image of BLM itself. I'm certain that no person can speak for 100% of BLM, and to dismiss them outright is absurdly biased from my perspective, my perspective here being a very frustrated attempt at objectivity. I admit that I have not felt well-received on Wikipedia's more politicised articles, and that editors feel stronger about what they want to be read than what is real. There is a cabal on Wikipedia, and it's not a funny Wiki-essay. How one can have an agenda which does not leave room for reality except their reality as they make it is beyond my comprehension, as from my perspective, any good opinion must be based entirely upon objective facts or else not exist at all. So, I propose more focus to both the criticism and response to criticism section, as BLM is certainly well-criticised, though the weight of the section does not reflect that. The ten-point manifesto is a perfect example of response to criticism, and fortunately for everyone one which should not be controversial at all, being hereafter removed from sociology, Marxist socialism, & Afrocentrism which has given BLM a negative image from all angles of the grand X-Y-Z political spectrum. Considering aforementioned cabal is harassing me with possible upper-level support, I simply move for inclusion of this link and for expansion of the Criticism section. Nothing more, nothing less. The facts are in your hands. W124l29 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What are the 'facts' here? Something less word salady and more formatted might help. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TLDR, http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision is being used more by BLM granted fair critique of the lack of structure within the movement, BLM being a movement and not an organisation, lack of structure which allows for large yet minority fringe & negative ideologies & actions to pervert the greater benevolent voice of the movement. These talking points I do not see within the BLM article itself, nor do I see such great multipartisan criticism given appropriate weight per WP:DUE. W124l29 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles generally don't include "talking points". Is there a specific criticism or set of criticisms you think should be added? Are there specific sources that are missing?  talk 15:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CNN anchors criticise BLM. Democrats criticise BLM.  International criticism of BLM.  Official government criticism of BLM.  All of which are missing from this section.  BLM criticism of BLM.  Community criticism of BLM.  Other civil rights activists' criticism of BLM. Indeed, how does an article pertaining to a movement which until recently revolved about nothing but a single concern, but now has talking points, stand ignoring those very talking points? W124l29 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the criticism you're talking about? Be specific. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some stuff on Campaign Zero. We don't want to overemphasize any particular organization, or present the movement as monolithic, so it would be good to think about adding some coverage of other BLM organizations to accompany that paragraph. Good find on that front, W124l29. Regarding the criticisms: i'm with PeterTheFourth here: I still don't really understand what you want to add. The source you provided discussing Campaign Zero is helpful, but it doesn't really support many of the criticisms you seem to want to add to the article. Do you have sources for those criticisms, and is there something specific you want to add?  talk 23:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity gossip
I removed the following from the article:
 * Some black celebrities, such as Columbus Short, Fetty Wap, Stacey Dash, Keke Palmer and Janet Jackson, and white celebrities, like Jamie Lee Curtis, have responded to the Black Lives Matter movement by countering that the phrase "All Lives Matter" would be a more proper title.

First, the source says Fetty Wap recanted his support of "All Lives Matter". Second, who cares? These are celebrities and, with the exception of Stacey Dash, none is known for their opinion. This is nothing more than gossip. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think celebrity's opinions matter any more than any other person's. It's trivial and doesn't help readers better understand the subject of the article.- MrX 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (sighs) Alright, I'm gonna have to make a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here, but if information on celebrities supporting movements, what Malik described as "Celebrity gossip", is "not encyclopedic" and "nothing more than gossip", than by that same logic, including information on celebrities supporting Kesha in a lawsuit is also "not encyclopedic" and "nothing more than gossip". Every viewpoint and notable person on one viewpoint or another are necessary for inclusion in an article, and weak arguments against inclusion of this verifiable, relevant info like "nothing more than gossip", "it's trivial" and "who cares" are absolutely ridiculous and in bad faith if you can't support those arguments with a policy other than just WP:ONUS. Both of your arguments are just WP:WHOCARES nonsense and based on personal bias (and yes, I know the WP:WHOCARES page is part of an article about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but a similar issue applies here). editorEهեইдအ😎 17:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What celebrities think about other entertainers may or may not be important enough to include in that article. (I have to confess a complete ignorance concerning the case, and I've never seen that article before.) As an editor of some experience, you should know better than to give equal weight to WP:ONUS, which is part of a policy, with WP:WHOCARES, part of an essay. Policies trump essays every day of the week. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @EditorE: I read your comments twice and I still don't understand what is important about what a few celebrities think. Wouldn't it be better to catalog the opinions of knowledgeable legislators, police unions, civil rights leaders, and scholars?- MrX 19:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know why we would care about Jamie Lee Curtis' opinion. If that discussion warrants a subsection, I think we need something more than just a list of people who used the phrase. It might make more sense to include more of the meta-commentaries on the meaning of "All Lives Matter" and the debate about its implications (Example). I could work on this tonight if there's some support for that.
 * I notice that "All Lives Matter" already comes up in two other sections: in the "Criticism" sub-section (Facebook controversy) and (from O'Malley) in the section on the Netroots Nation protest in 2015. Should these be moved?  talk 20:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Original Research in "Tactics" section
I'm new to this and may not understand the policy, but the following sentence looks like original research (and seems out of place):

It is important to note that music is an important repertoire of contention for the black lives matter movement. Rappers such as Kendrick Lamar have used music to promote structural conduciveness necessary for a social movement to maintain momentum according to value added theory.[28]

The citation is to an article from 2002 about value-added theory, so doesn't reference Kendrick Lamar or BLM. If there's no existing scholarly work making this connection, it doesn't seem appropriate for wikipedia to do so. And in any case this feels like shoehorning a fairly obscure argument into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.150.110 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence. I am, however, willing to revert if given an appropriate reason why my removal was incorrect. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  00:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

White house petition
Regarding this, this has received coverage in the Daily Caller and one story in the International Business Times, but no where else. It seems like covering a fringe viewpoint. It's worth noting that the petition to build a Death Star received well over 100,000 signatures. The existence of a petition doesn't necessarily indicate a view worth taking seriously 00:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs)
 * I was just about to remove it before you did. Just seems like advertising for the petition to me. If anything it is WP:UNDUE. --Majora (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the petition was because I previously edited the article saying that because of BLM's supposed harmful actions, many conservatives would like the government to formally recognize BLM as a terrorist group. I felt that edit was unbiased and I never stated whether or not I support BLM. After I made the edit, Malik Shabazz accused me of disruptive editing and threatened to block me from editing because he thought my source was unrelated to my edit. So that's why I mentioned the petition. I still think that it is noteworthy that conservatives want BLM recognized as a terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by • contribs) 15:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem,, is that your sources don't support what you added to the article. "Many conservatives"? Which source says that? You were right, in my opinion, when you summarized the Daily Caller article about the petition. A summary of the Huffington Post article would mention Rush Limbaugh -- and only Rush Limbaugh -- because the source doesn't mention anybody else calling Black Lives Matter a terrorist group. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is also that after posting your comment, you reverted the edit reinserting that info, which is against the policy of WP:BRD and WP:3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, : I think some leniency is warranted here because it looks like you're a relatively new user, but you've definitely crossed the line in to edit warring at this point and you should stop.
 * I think that it was probably a little hasty to call that edit "disruptive" at the time (although the edit warring was), but it raises neutrality issues because it covers a perspective that is WP:FRINGE. This doesn't mean that you personally are biased. There are lots of interesting stories that don't necessarily belong in an encylopedia.  talk 18:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that currently the petition is being reported on from many major news outlets, such as the Daily Caller, Breitbart News, RT, the New York Post, and Fox News, I believe that it may be helpful to note that this petition exists under the controversies section of the BLM page, maybe I can just note that the petition (which now has over 141,000 signatures as I am writing this) exists? It does fit the controversies category — Preceding unsigned comment added by  23:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the view that this doesn't belong: there isn't significant coverage of this perspective in major news sources, and I would be hard pressed to name "prominent adherents" of this particular viewpoint. Other than Rush Limbaugh, this seems to be a fringe viewpoint even among critics of Black Lives Matter.
 * As an aside, I found the sources for the New York Post and Breitbart, but where is the coverage from Fox News?  talk 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My view on including it is above (FRINGE and UNDUE) but I thought I would also mention that the petition is moot at this point anyways. It already has a response from the White House. They do not label groups as "domestic terrorist groups." Therefore, the entire petition was pointless. --Majora (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A size split is not yet justified
When an article reaches 40 to 50 kilobytes a size split is justified to create an easier to read article.WP:SIZE. This article is over 100 KB, and I expect for it to grow. I recommend moving the "Criticism" and the "All lives matter" section to a new article and just keep the basic history and activities on this article. Wikipedia naming convention allows for articles to be titled Criticism of Black Lives Matter, but I recommend against this because these articles become POV magnets, attract biased editors, and divide the Wiki editing community.Criticism. I would rather title a split article Opinions of Black Lives Matter to include both the arguments and the counterarguments for BLM. If a consensus supports a split then we can add the Split Template to give more notice to editors and then after more deliberation move the split content to the new article. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're using the wrong numbers. The article is over 100 KB in "page length", but where WP:SIZE suggests that a page may be split at 40 to 50 KB, it refers to "readable prose size", which for this article is currently 34 KB. Under 40 KB, it says "Length alone does not justify division", and I agree with that. If you install this script, you'll be able to see "readable prose size" for articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu. Roughly 40% of the page looks like it's made up of "See also", "References", "Further reading", and "External links", which are not considered "readable prose". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We're generally unbundling related aspects before splitting an actual topic by sub-aspects. Therefore, the first thing we would split apart clearly is All Lives Matter, which evolved as a reaction to BLM and drew criticism itself. --PanchoS (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see little need for a split at this time. I seriously question whether two articles are inherently "easier to read" than one (if well-organized), and we wouldn't even have this thread had the OP understood the guidance at WP:SIZERULE. I suggest we wait at least until (1) the article reaches the 60 kB readable prose size "probably should be divided" threshold, and (2) there is no significant trimming to be done. It's quite possible that we will never get there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin in Lesbian Community?
The article states: "Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an activist movement, originating in the African-American community, . . . ."  Should that be changed to:  "Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an activist movement, originating in the Lesbian community, . . . ."  Or should it read:  "Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an activist movement, originating in the Lesbian African-American community, . . . ."  Is there a distinctive (segregated to blacks only, analogous to Black Policeman's Organization) "Lesbian African-American community"? (PeacePeace (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC))


 * I don't see any mention of lesbians in the article, and the only reference I found to LGBTQ was in the second paragraph of the "Founding" section. Are you referring to something you read in this article or another article elsewhere? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ""The queer community is the black community, and the black community is the queer community, because we exist in both communities," she explains. "There's no way they could be separate communities, because I'm black and queer. I don't live in two different places — I live in both places. I live in the queer community, I live in the black community, and I believe they are one in the same. " quote of Patrisse Cullors, one of the 3 founders of Black LIves Matter, who call themselves queers. http://www.advocate.com/40-under-40/2015/12/08/patrisse-cullors-knows-we-are-not-separate  The article here uses the word queer more than once (use Control or Command F to search for it).  Apparently BLM was founded by 3 women who call themselves queer.  http://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/ (PeacePeace (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC))
 * The idea that the organization has roots in the LGBTQ community seems to be gleaned from direct quotes from a couple of its founders, but I'm not seeing that most sources have said anything about this aspect. To include this in the lead would require sources that show it to be a significant point.- MrX 11:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was about to write something similar. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously the founders of "Black LIves Matter" consider it to be significant and a core issue for the founders. I began this section using the word "lesbian," instead of "queer," because some might deem queer a slur word, though proudly displayed by the founders of "Black LIves Matter."  If most discussions of Black Lives Matter do not mention it, it is probably because they are unaware of it.  But it is an important aspect of the beginning of this movement, which is the topic of the sentence which needs improving.  And since it is a core raison d'être for the founders,  I favor including it up front in the article, as well as putting the quotation by Patrisse Cullors in the article.  The significance is self-evident.  If many sources are unaware of the beginnings of this movement, that would not be an argument against including it in a sentence about the beginning of the movement, provided that it is in fact in the true beginning of the movment.  And what would be the purpose of hiding the facts?

(PeacePeace (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC))


 * Now on improving the "beginning" sentence, should it use "lesbian" or "queer"? The latter may be deemed a slur word, but it is the word that the founders seem to prefer.   Should it read 1) "Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an activist movement, originating in the lesbian community" or 2) "Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an activist movement, originating in the queer community"?  (PeacePeace (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Cullors' point in that statement is that black and queer activism are not mutually exclusive, so it doesn't support replacing the discussion of origins in the black community with origins in the queer community. It's true that the movement as a whole also has ties to feminist and queer activism as well as the migrant rights movement, and that discussion should be in the main body, but I don't think it should supplant the discussion of the movement's ties to civil rights activism.  talk 14:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Does the article discuss this? No. Do the majority of reliable sources discuss it? No. So why should the first sentence of this article say it? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Should the tactics section include or not include information about protestors blocking ambulances?
In the "tactics" section, I added a subsection called "blocking ambulances," with the following content, which has since been deleted.

I would like to hear what other editors think about including or not including this content:

In December 2014, in Berkeley, Missouri, Alvin Henry Jones Jr., 62, died two days after Black Lives Matter protestors blocked an ambulance that was carrying him.

In January 2015, in Milton, Massachusettes, Black Lives Matter protestors blocked an ambulance that was carrying Richard McGrath, 82. The protestors chained themselves to barrels full of concrete to make especially sure that no vehicles could get by. In February 2016, after 10 of the protestors pled guilty to “willfully impending an emergency vehicle,” and were sentenced to six months of probation and 60 hours of community service, their spokesperson said that they were not sorry for what they had done.

In July 2016, in Memphis, Tennessee, Black Lives Matter protestors blocked an ambulance that was trying to get to a child, after the same Black Lives Matter protestors had blocked the same child’s parents’ car from taking him to the hospital.

In March 2016, in Chicago, Illinois, Black Lives Matter protestors blocked an ambulance that had its emergency sirens blaring. The protestors deliberately repositioned themselves so they were standing specifically, directly in front of the ambulance, even though its emergency sirens had already been blaring for quite some time.

Unbreakable 427 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you also add "Looting 7-11 Store" as a tactic, or is Dallas the only example of looting which has accompanied the BLM upheavals?(PeacePeace (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Please provide reliable sources that indicate that blocking ambulances is a "tactic" of the Black Lives Matter movement. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Berkeley protest and the Chicago protests aren't described as BLM protests at all.
 * A tactic is "an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end", it is not just "something that happens". Blocking ambulances is a side of effect of a street protest, but there's no indication that it was actually a part of the plan of any organization involved here. I agree with Malik Shabazz above: we need secondary or tertiary sources that describe this as a tactic in order to describe it that way in WP. I don't think those exist.  talk 15:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

All Lives Matter
are the quotes around "All Lives Matter" in the subtitle necessary? --86.121.128.12 (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good talk. 116.240.236.234 (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Affirmative action
Should the article make reference to Affirmative action in the United States? The issues raised here seem to me to have enough overlap to warrant at least a mention. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What, if anything, do reliable sources say about this purported "overlap" between affirmative action and Black Lives Matter? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)