Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 3

Militant Racist Movement
To be fair and accurate, I suggest we also include info that this movement is both militant and racist toward white people, and that's unacceptable, read here http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-in-blms-view-to-be-white-is-to-be-racist-and-to-be-black-is-to-be-a-victim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.77.121 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Not a reliable source and WP:FRINGE. --Majora (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As proposed, this would be WP:OR and, aparently, would not be WP:NPOV. The Tactics section of the article contains some supported content re the "Pigs in a blanket, ..." chant. The article currently has no content re the "What do we want? ..." chant. Perhaps some content or a subsection there re tactics inciteful of violence, with well supported content meeting WP:DUE, would be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article already states Several conservative pundits have labeled the movement a "hate group". Anything beyond that is FRINGE and completely undue if you ask me. We aren't a mouthpiece for conservative pundits and it is 100% clear that this group is not a "militant" group by any definition of the word regardless of what the National Post and Breitbart says. --Majora (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * National Post IS a raliable source since it is one of Canada's major newspapers. And I have to agree with BLM being racist, the recent shootings of white police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge have proven so.  BLM is as racist towards white people as KKK was agaisnt blacks.  Norum 10:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The National Post may be a reliable source, but the opinion column linked above is only a reliable source for its author's opinion. See WP:RSOPINION. Whatever we use the column for, it has to be attributed to Barbara Kay. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there an "African-American Community"?
If you search the internet for "black community" "no such thing" it results in denials that there is such a thing. Yet this article starts out by referring to African-American community. Would the article be improved by deleting the term "African-American community"? Or the question may be asked, "To what extent, on a scale of 0-10 does an African-American community exist?" I think that most white persons do not think in terms of any "White Community," the concept of integration being well-accepted. So the question remains, is there an "African-American community," or how segregated have African-Americans become in their mentality? At any rate, I doubt that such a phrase should be in this article, as not establishable from reliable sources, but a controversial concept which might have persons who put themselves forth as experts or scholars, on opposite sides of an opinion. See for example, an article in The Times -- referring to one Dr. Tony Sewell. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article3843244.ece  (PeacePeace (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC))


 * Rhoda Buchanan, The Times, August 15 2013:


 * A high profile educator has claimed there is “no such thing as a black community”.

[Q]Dr Tony Sewell, who founded the educational charity Generating Genius, said that it was outdated and harmful to lump people together in groups based on their ethnicity, race or sexual orientation. [/Q] (PeacePeace (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC))


 * 1. Paywall prevents me from reading that article. 2. Regardless, it's one report of one man's opinion. See this Google News search and WP:DUE. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , you said "I think that most white persons do not think in terms of any "White Community," the concept of integration being well-accepted. So the question remains, is there an "African-American community," or how segregated have African-Americans become in their mentality?" These comments, and this victim-blaming question, are so loaded with racist/racialist assumptions that answering them gives them credence they don't deserve. And I hope you're not seriously suggesting that whites in the US really dig integration. To put it in terms of article content: "African-American community" is a useful though generalizing blanket term which is widely used in the media and by more educated commentators. There is nothing wrong with the term. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you google literally any concept + "no such thing" you will find search results. This is not how scholarship works.  Suffice to say, there is an African American community, there is a Buddhist community, there is a Minneapolis community, there is an American community, etc.  Each if these have been very deeply covered by the scholars in their fields.--Pharos (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merriam-Webster community, definition 2: "a group of people who have the same interests, religion, race, etc." Emphasis added. I feel that Merriam and Webster trump Sewell. See also WP:GREATWRONGS. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * BLM is described in multiple sources as originating in from black communities, and as having roots in civil rights activism. I don't think the article would be helped by obscuring that fact. Regarding your other question: it isn't really necessary to do a deep dive here, but majority ethnic groups generally think of themselves as the "default category". "Latinos" don't strongly identify as "Latinos" in Latin America, nor do "Asians" in Asia.  talk 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , what was at stake here in the somewhat convoluted question full of assumptions is the presupposition that it's African-Americans who devise the term "African-American community", thereby self-segregating themselves from the "real" American community, the old big tent; white Americans are perfectly happy to stop seeing color, but African-Americans insist on seeing themselves as African-American. The next step is accusing BLM of racism/racialism because BLM think in terms of color. Such people think, I think, that Colbert was being serious when he said that he doesn't see color. I'm keeping a straight face as I'm typing this, or at least I'm trying very hard. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead section
Does the long list of names of black people killed by police in the third paragraph of the lead section serve any real purpose? The sentence says "deaths of numerous other[s]" and the "Notable events" section of the article will mention demonstrations that are, well, notable. What purpose does the incomplete list in the third paragraph after "including those of" serve? If the people are meant to be examples, what are the criteria for inclusion and why does it seem like an indiscriminate list? (And for god's sake, can we cut it back?) If it's an indiscriminate and incomplete list, let's delete it. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Lead summarizes the rest of the article, and you could treat that list as a names-only summary of the killings covered in the body. Obviously the BLM connection would have to be sourced and cited in the body content. Ford, Gurley, Rice, and Harris aren't even mentioned below the lead, so they should be removed from that list until they are. If tweaking a heading or a few words in the lead makes this work better for you, you have my blessing. But I think the list serves a legitimate purpose and I would oppose its removal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand what the purpose of a lead section is, I just question whether it needs 13 "examples" in it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand, and I'm saying those could be "summary", not "examples", consistent with "lead summarizes ". And that a few words might have to be changed to make that work. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Polls section: Why are only the numbers for blacks and whites included?
I suppose the first thing I should say is that I based this section off of the assumption that by "Black", one of African descent is what is meant, and not just someone whose skin is not white. Now, assuming the above, why is it that only the numbers for blacks and whites are included? This seems to suggest that the Blacks Lives Matter movement is some sort of black vs. white conflict. Why are the numbers for other racial groups that fall under the blanket of "People of Color" are not included? What about the opinions of Native Americans, and Indians, and Asians, and Arabs, etc? It just seems to mae that those numbers are equally valid to include. TheSageOfNE (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's because that's what has been polled. We don't do the polling, we only report it. If you can find a poll you like better, and it comes from a reliable source, by all means include it. Or, if we have omitted parts of the polls we cite, we can consider including that, although it might be contestable on some editorial grounds or other (cross that bridge if we come to it). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I looked at the polls and you are correct. They only polls whites and blacks, for whatever reason. So I will attempt to find some sort of poll on the opinions of other racial groups about BLM. However, I did find that while four sources are cited in the 'Polls' section, two (238 and 239) of them are merely articles that restate parts of source 237 and add somewhat biased commentary. The site these articles are on, Colorlines, is quite biased and I don't think these citations contribute to the article whatsoever. Unless perchance I'm missing something, they should be removed. Sage 01:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred to WP:PRIMARY ones. By using both to support the statement about the polls, we add an extra level of verification. We're not restating the content from Colorlines, right? I don't see a problem with having both primary and secondary sources like this.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If by "quite biased", you mean that ColorLines addresses issues of race in America in a manner other than the "head-in-the-sand" approach preferred by many non-black people, you are quite correct. If you mean that the percentage of African Americans who work at ColorLines exceeds the single-digit percentages they make up in most newsrooms at the "mainstream media", you are again quite correct.
 * Did you have a specific complaint, or was it just that their editorial POV and staff complexion don't match yours?— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's kind of my point, though. We're NOT restating anything from Colorlines except for what we already have. I get that secondary sources are preferred, but we're not taking anything from Colorlines that we couldn't get from the primary source. We have two primary sources that make the point just fine (again, unless I'm missing something) and since we aren't taking anything from the other source we didn't already have, and it's not a very reliable source, I don't really think it adds anything to the article. And Malik, Black race issues are not the only race issues in America, but they are really the only ones that Colorlines addresses. That is a bias. They also tend to view white people negatively, often very negatively. That is also a bias. Sage (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh really? How long have you been reading ColorLines? Since 15 minutes ago? Can you cite a specific instance of anti-white bias? And who—beside you—said that black race issues were the only race issues in America? I think you're awfully stuck in your own head. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sage, I would respond using a more respectful tone, but I don't feel competent in this area. Never read silence as approval at Wikipedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I will try to be more respectful. Malik, addressing your second point first, you should focus not on the first part of the sentence, "Black race issues...issues in America," But the second part of it, the point being that Colorlines only addresses black issues. Similarly, I would say that if hypothetically an organization that billed itself as a "Sports News" publication and then only talked about tennis, it would be biased.  Sage  Talk 14:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I will try to be more respectful. - Let me try again. I would respond to you using a more respectful tone. I have tried more privately to persuade Malik Shabazz to work on his tone, but he is one of many who believe, quite mistakenly, that that tone benefits Wikipedia. I feel that more of those who disagree should speak up, and not always "more privately". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You are demonstrably wrong. ColorLines doesn't just focus on issues related to black people, as a glance at their home page shows. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was confused. I'm still getting used to this.


 * Malik, I don't think you can call that any sort of a focus. Do they mention other issues? In passing, on occasion, yes. Do they focus on them? Absolutely not.  Sage  Talk 15:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Potential sources for expanding the article
If they meet his majesty's "fair and balanced" criteria:

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Black Lives Matter Movement Recruits Other People of Color: Report
 * READ: The Movement for Black Lives' Policy Platform
 * #BlackLivesMatter policy platform to call for reparations, end of mass incarceration
 * Black Lives Matter is a global cause
 * How the Black Lives Matter movement is sweeping the globe

I'm not sure who "his majesty" is, but I think these are legit topics for expansion.--Scaleshombre (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

BLM's Association with Hate Groups
This article does not mention BLM's association with designated anti-White hate groups like Black Panthers. Can someone tell me why? Is it because only White people can be racist? Is it because of political correctness? This information is notable and necessary to be included in the article. Otherwise, this wikipedia article does not meet quality guideliness of fairness, objectivity, and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.77.121 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are your sources? - MrX 22:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether there is or isn't a connection, but I am sure you're confusing the New Black Panther Party (which has been called a hate group by many sources, and is so described in its Wikipedia article) and the Black Panther Party (which has been defunct since the early 1980s, and to which the New Black Panthers have no connection). As MrX wrote, reliable sources would go a long way. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * hm, I doubt that reliable sources would "go very far" in a case of blatant WP:COI. Cleary, there is no way a topic that is so recent and so contentious can be covered in a neutral or encyclopedic way, but I find the absense of content warning tags quite disturbing. To the best of my (non-USian) understanding, this is about hooliganism and incitment of racial violence, only thinly veiled by "grievances" (most of them perfectly justified police shootings). If this is even remotely close to what is going on, this article cannot be described as anything else as a propaganda piece. The demand for "references" is disingenious, this is about selecting from the plethora of references, e.g.
 * (etc. etc.).
 * Not a topic I am particularly interested in, but as it is "ongoing", the page needs NPOV-warnings or a substantial rewrite for bias. --dab (𒁳) 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that you are the only editor (or two editors?) seeing this serious NPOV problem (I'm abstaining on that), I would oppose and advise against any tags or other related edits without a consensus for same. There are noticeboards for this purpose. Assertions of COI should be taken to WP:COIN. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (etc. etc.).
 * Not a topic I am particularly interested in, but as it is "ongoing", the page needs NPOV-warnings or a substantial rewrite for bias. --dab (𒁳) 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that you are the only editor (or two editors?) seeing this serious NPOV problem (I'm abstaining on that), I would oppose and advise against any tags or other related edits without a consensus for same. There are noticeboards for this purpose. Assertions of COI should be taken to WP:COIN. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Actions in England today
Today people who used the slogan Black Lives Matter blocked the way to numerous major airports in the summer vacation season. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36983852 This likely qualifies for a place in the major events in 2016 section. But I am aware that the organisation have been firm in separating themselves from some groups who only share the slogan. Given the distance difference, I have no idea if this is an official chapter. Can users discuss whether this is notable action, and an official act. I have certainly not seen an event of this magnitude by a group under the BLM flag, outside the USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.189 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

probably not suitable because of WP:NOTNEWS, which avoids lists of just 'stuff that happened' in favor of thematic exploration of meaning. of course, what happened is important but if it's really recent and the importance of some particular happening is still unclear then it's not always included, or else the page would become a neverending list of every positive or negative interpretation of blm protests around the world. Happy  monsoon  day  13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Separate article for All Lives Matter
Do you think All Lives Matter has generated enough substantive coverage on its own to merit a separate article? Would love feedback. Thanks. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, it certainly has, but it is a matter of someone compiling content. At this point we don't need two articles though. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * typically in situations like this the section of this article for ALM would organically grow long enough that it would warrant forking, in which case a new article would be created, and the section in this article cut down. (and yes i agree that a fork would be a great idea). Happy   monsoon  day  02:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * though i wonder whether the fact that it is merely a part of this article has limited the additions to it. I would actually like to see it in its own article and for the fascinating meta-issues around its usage discussed. the phrase itself is a response to BLM, and that has created all kinds of interesting subtexts. this should be explored according to reliable sources. Happy   monsoon  day  02:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I created a separate article at All lives matter. If necessary an AFD can be formed to see if it is necessary to remerge.
 * excellent - thanks. i remember a while ago there was an incident of a university provost or similar who finished a note with "all lives matter," and was later embarrassed to find the negative associations of the slogan. that would be a useful datapoint to mention. Happy   monsoon  day  10:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Jewish groups"
Following this source, I noted in the "Jewish groups" section that a black group also criticized the platform. Malik removed it because "nobody heard of it". Obviously the JTA heard of it. Should it be included? I'm fairly sure I can find more sources that include non-Jewish groups criticizing the movement/platform along the same lines. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's just not true, No More Mr Nice Guy. You wrote "Black groups" (plural) when the JTA article is clearly about a single organization. The JTA cites as its source a letter to the editor to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Still think it's an important black group? Why isn't there secondary coverage of its statement? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is secondary coverage:,,, ,,, . This can obviously be mentioned in the article. Epson Salts (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are all reprints of the same JTA report and a related Associated Press report about the letter to the editor. Add it to the article if you'd like, but the article will reflect what the sources say -- that a fringe group wrote a letter to the editor. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. Read more carefully. None of the sources call it a fringe group.Epson Salts (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote "black groups" because this organization represents many groups, according to the article. While your policy based objection(?) was that "nobody has heard of them"? Obviously someone heard of them if the JTA wrote an article about them.
 * For some reason you also kept deleting my expansion of the reasons the platform was criticized, which is supported by the sources already in the article.
 * While we're on the subject, I think the paragraph only quoting Rabbi Arthur Waskow (who?) is a pretty obvious NPOV violation. I think it should be generalized to "groups who otherwise support BLM like the ADL and T'ruah", etc, "and others such as"... criticized the platform and in some cases withdrew support. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unlike your letter-writer, whose fringe organization has no Wikipedia article (and which wrote its letter at the request of the local Jewish community council), Arthur Waskow is notable. NPOV violation? How? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an NPOV violation because it privileges one POV over the multiple POVs we all know exist regarding this issue, obviously. Are you saying the JTA is incorrect in saying this group represents hundreds of churches? Source please? I'd also like a source that the letter was written at the request of the local Jewish community, but that's just for my personal curiosity since we both know it doesn't matter even if it's true, as if there's something nefarious about Jews asking someone to write a letter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter if we've heard of them or if they have a Wikipedia page, the third-party reliable sources make it at least notable enough to expand the phrase "Black Lives Matter has been criticized by some Jewish groups" to include more than just Jewish groups. In fact, dividing the criticism section up by groups of critics is bad practice in itself and needlessly divisive. It should really be focused on the topics of criticism. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * i rather agree. the focus should be on the substance of the criticism, not who is leveling it.... Happy   monsoon  day  21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"International"
This article points out it is an international organization, referencing an article on solidarity protests in Europe. But does it officially hold rallies in Europe? Are any of the key members European? There are support rallies for events happening accross the globe that don't necessarily give a permanent foothold somewhere. BLM is overwhelmingly US-based, which should be reflected in the text. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's primarily US-based, although I think some international actions could be pretty objectively called BLM actions. It's a tough one given the decentralized nature of the group, we can't even always agree which US-based protests and statements represent BLM and which don't. At the very least, I'd like to see more reliable sources directly labeling international actions as being those of BLM. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

White student unions?
Hey, thanks for following up on this. Would love some more input because this whole subsection probably needs revision. So the thing is, according the ref presently cited, it's unclear whether white student unions even exist--well, it's fairly clear they don't exist as recognized university groups, but it's not clear in how many if any cases it was actually students who launched these Facebook pages, versus people totally unrelated to the universities setting up them up as provocation. That's why I put "White Student Unions" in quotes although I appreciate and agree with your point that scare quotes are not a good solution. Any other ideas? Here's another source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/us/white-student-union-groups-set-off-concerns-at-campuses.html?_r=1 and then apparently there is one student who really did declare a white student union (unrecognized by his university) but it was in 2012, pre-BLM (although he was back in the news later for getting in a fight with black protestors at a Trump rally): http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-heimbach-trump-rally-20160303-story.html Anyway, input on how to reflect all this accurately would be very welcome. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Another ref http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/23/racist-trolls-are-behind-nyu-s-white-student-union-hoax.html and a relevant WP page. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there. That's a good question. The section was created before I got involved with the article and though I recently made some updates to it (sorry to say I didn't catch the 'White Lives Matter' claim) I'm not all that familiar with the subject outside of what I read in the ABC source. It does seem like most of the sources put it in quotes so, in hindsight, maybe quotes aren't a bad idea. Obviously "White Lives Matter" being a slogan, the quotes make sense, I thought it was just an oversight when that title was changed. In this case, I'd normally suggest we attribute the claim of the groups being in response to BLM, but it seems that claim is from another student. I think the NYT article will definitely be more valuable here and additional information can be added regarding the dubious nature of the groups. ABC should probably be a secondary source or even scrapped. I'm probably open to whatever you've got in mind. Thanks for the additions. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extremely biased "Stance on Israel" section
Why are the absurd views of a far-left radical anti-Israel "rabbi" being presented in this article? This "rabbi" even goes so far as to wrongfully claim "Palestinians" are being "oppressed" by Israel. This is something the vast majority of Jews and rabbis would vehemently dispute. He is also a member of the anti-Israel "human rights" organization T'ruah. Surely a more legitimate and reputable rabbi who actually tells the truth about Israel should be quoted than some leader of a fringe radical "Jewish Renewal" group so far to the left of even Reform Judaism that it barely even qualifies as Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.112.162 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to agree -- why is Waskow getting undue weight in this article? He clearly doesn't represent mainstream Jewish thought. Not to mention the fact he seems to be David Duke's favorite rabbi. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone with no prior knowledge of Waskow, I have to disagree that the section comes off as 'extremely biased' to me. It is not clear from your previous statement what you think the section is biased in favor of. Certainly the one quote doesn't paint a picture that Palestinian oppression is a mainstream Jewish thought. The section as a whole just paints a picture that many Jewish groups have spoken out against BLM's comments (which is exactly what the section is meant to convey). I agree, however, that the section can be improved and most of Waskow's paragraph is unnecessary. I would propose one of two possible improvements: 1) We cut down the Waskow paragraph to simply "Rabbi Arthur Waskow wrote that the specific allegations concerning "the Israeli government's behavior and its effects in the US are largely accurate BUT—factually, it is not true that the State of Israel has committed, is committing, genocide upon the Palestinian people." He added, "Oppression, yes. Genocide, no." This offers only the pertinent information on Waskow's opinion while providing a perspective that may not be shared with the above sentence. My other suggestion, 2) we remove the Waskow paragraph and simply add his citation to the above sentence. Ultimately, the point being that many groups disagree with the BLM statement and his source supports that. He does seem to have a unique perspective and it's not necessarily undue weight to present that opinion, especially as it's presented in the source. However, I think it's just an issue of whether or not his perspective is necessary to conveying the point of this section. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think we should perhaps move the Rabbi Presner quote up and/or provide additional quotes outlining the specifics of other groups' criticism. Let me know what you think. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read NPOV/Edit you do not like. Citing some outlier in an effort to whitewash the encyclopedic content is not what the Wikipedia project intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Change activist group to terrorist group based on BLM's actions
As already stated on the talk page they fall under the definition of a terrorist group, therefor calling them activists is misleading. When they started targeting political rallys and forcefully blocking them, they literally followed the definition of terrorism

noun: terrorism

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So yeah you need to change activist group to terrorist group in the article, or unlock the page so I can do it myself. Unless you plan on changing the definition of the word terrorism. The people above this comment who said they should be labeled a terrorist group are correct. Krigeris (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The definition is "violence and intimidation" not "violence or intimidation". Intimidation is to frighten, like those terrorist ghosts do, and those scary terrorist movies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And this is why this page was protected. Verifiability. Not personal opinion. And when I say verifiability I mean with reliable sources. Not some Breitbart nonsense that of course calls BLM a terrorist group. --Majora (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well that's crap reasoning. "Not some Breitbart nonsense that of course calls BLM a terrorist group." What's so great about the source that says they are "activists". Just because multiple sources say that doesn't mean it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8BBD:3430:7957:B901:F6A4:965F (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes it does. And if you have a problem with Wikipedia not accepting Breitbart take it to WP:RS/N. Just a word of warning. It has already been discussed, [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Breitbart&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search numerous times]. I singled out Breitbart since it is not considered a reliable source for most matters. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe, since this article states that the movement is largely decentralized, and shootings of police officers have occurred at Black Lives Matter rallies and been committed by people who associate themselves with Black Lives Matter, that it should be classified as a activist/terrorist group (I intentionally used both, I think that's how it should be listed) and the shooting of police should be included in the 'tactics' section. TheSageOfNE (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FRINGE. That viewpoint is 100% fringe and we do not give credence to fringe viewpoints. It also doesn't matter one bit what you believe. That is completely and totally irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources say. --Majora (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, we can do as you suggest if you can show that the predominance of reliable sources call BLM an activist/terrorist group (don't bother, you can't). Absent that, it would be original research to say that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

More dog chases tail. They didn't call ISIS a terrorist group until it became impossible to no longer deny the obvious. The left wing denialist wiki spinbot edittors didn't call the Beirut attack, the Chattanooga shootings, the San Bernardino attack and plenty of other terrorist attacks for years either.

The Wikipedia project was not designed as a left wing confirmation safe space. In other words, revising and reframing the facts to fit some agenda is not what Jimmy had in mind when the site was launched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Blue Lives Matter
I'm not too sure if it should be mentioned that Blue Lives Matter, a police activist group has formed in response of brutality from Black Lives Matter or not. If so, then I think it should be mentioned in the article. 108.45.29.72 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

black lives matter
The movement is largely defined today as a terrorist organization by the majority of the world; based on its propensity to use violence, shout threatening and cold statements, and jeapordize innocent lives as tho they have no value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.205.158 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll need to see and evaluate reliable sources for the inclusion of that information, though. Please look over WP:IRS when choosing your information though and understand that it must meet our standards of neutrality. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge from All Lives Matter

 * For Pariah24  ┃ ☏ 20:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

personal attacks in edit summary
Please refrain from personal attacks and the advocacy in the edit summaries. That is clearly inappropriate per wiki standards. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to this?, to whom is this directed and which Wikipedia editor do you assume is responsible for these shootings? Scoundr3l (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Just drop it. There's nothing productive here. If you really don't understand why dehumanizing language like that might cause some people to get angry and frustrated, then you're not really assuming good faith. Hyper-literalism and 'gotcha' games aren't going to accomplish anything. It's certainly not improving the article, which is what the talk page is for. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it's been dropped before. Given the political nature of this article, preventing overly aggressive editing and personal attacks is vital to keeping this a constructive environment where everybody feels welcome to contribute. It's also entirely reasonable to assume that calling people morons is not done in good faith and editors are still responsible for their conduct, even when angry and frustrated. I would suggest the next time an editor feels angry enough to resort to personal attacks (especially over something as trivial as passive voice) they take a break, process their emotions before editing, and possibly re-evaluate why we're here. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you truly think this is "just" about the passive voice, then you do not understand why this is upsetting or inappropriate. Platitudes don't work, and they especially don't work to try and tell someone they are wrong for getting upset. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to have your feelings justified. If an editor is having trouble upholding the pillars of neutrality and civility, that isn't the burden of the other editors to bear. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

WOW nothing about Soros funding Black Lives Matter
More recently, an October 2015 document came to light showing that Soros' Open Society U.S. Programs had donated $650,000 to "invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement."

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-bizarre-media-blackout-of-hacked-george-soros-documents/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry obviously biased edited because you do not like edittor. This citation and entry are not a violation of any wiki rules and/or practices.


 * Of course whitewashing this page in an effort to portray BLM in the most favorable light possible is not only a violation but it is 100% diametrically opposed to the entire Wikipedia NPOV/encyclopedic mission.


 * What is it that these likeminded obviously biased editors believe they are accomplishing? Turning Wikipedia from an encyclopedic resource into a chronicle of epic fail socio economic policy? While that may be useful and the ultimate result of the Wikipedia project that is not the intent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Easy, IP. Take a breath and let's see what we can agree on. While I don't agree with the previous removal of your content, please understand that Wikipedia is subject to the law and must take caution in the claims it puts forward about living people as there can be legal consequences. Removing such content is often a knee-jerk reaction, so please don't take it personally. Beyond that, when we do include such claims we must take extra care to ensure the sources are reliable and the information is neutral. The source you've linked does offer the following disclaimer


 * "Notice: Information contained herein is not and should not be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell securities. The information has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however no guarantee is made or implied with respect to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness. Authors may own the stocks they discuss. The information and content are subject to change without notice. "


 * Which does raise a few flags as to its accuracy. However, since this source seems to be citing other sources, let's see what we can dig up from those sources instead and we can discuss the inclusion of that content. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the disclaimers the website may or may not have, it is a newspaper editorial, not a reliable source for facts, and it does not support the libelous assertion made by the IP troll (that I have once again removed, and will continue to remove). If reliable sources say Soros has provided funding for Black Lives Matter -- which I don't believe to be the case, but I don't know for sure -- we should report that the right wing's favorite bogeyman has provided funding. Assuming it's not just another case of WP:UNDUE. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk

Boogeyman implies imaginary. .

Investors.com is Investor's Business Daily's website. It is akin to the Wall St Journal and as such will have disclaimers as they dole out stock advice. George Soros is an investor of renowned interest.

I would consider a section on funding improving the article and this talk page is for explicitly talking about improving the article.

George Soros sent $650,000 via his Open Society to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.” The link I posted here in the TALK SECTION-was merely one link of 204,000 search results referencing this hacked email and accounting including the entire 69 page Open Society report.

Ford Foundation happens to be another funder of BLM, any search will reveal as such.

Finding such funders given the controversial nature of BLM and the boogeyman like preferred narrative that it is a grassroots effort is going to be difficult to come by.

A neutrally based article would include the material and it is not even a close call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk • contribs)
 * In regard to recent edits on this point, please note that citing the Washington Times is to be done with caution. The reliability of this source was recently discussed here and while it is not found to be either wholly unreliable or wholly reliable, the content of what is being cited must be considered carefully, ideally and especially when weighed against other sources. For more context on Soros funding issue, you may also refer to Snopes which has tried to weed out the truth from the untruth. This may help in finding more accurate information regarding this issues. Thanks. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Grammar for accuracy--re: passive voice
Hi all, if I could ask that everyone please be extra-attentive to when we use the passive voice in this entry ("Marni was tripped" is passive voice; "Dana tripped Marni" is active voice). The trouble is that if we don't name who did an action, we risk obscuring information that the encyclopedia is here to provide readers--or even getting the information wrong.

For example, I just edited a sentence that said:


 * #BlackLivesMatter was voted as one of the twelve hashtags that changed the world in 2014. (under "Internet and social media" in this diff)

It's in the passive voice, so I got to wondering, wait who voted it? Well, turns out, the ref provided doesn't mention a vote at all. Seems a magazine, maybe even just one writer at the magazine, picked the list. If instead we write in the active voice, it forces us to identify who did what (assuming there's secondary source confirmation of that info).

So it now reads:


 * Yes! Magazine picked #BlackLivesMatter as one of the twelve hashtags that changed the world in 2014.

Obviously this has much bigger ramifications when the action is, say, who shot whom, not just who picked a list. Thanks in advance for being attentive to this, I hope I've explained why it can be a matter of accurately representing content, not just arbitrary grammar/usage rules. Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While I also generally prefer active voice, it should be clarified that this is simply a stylistic choice and not an issue of grammar. Both are equally correct. Active voice is often encouraged in prose, but technical and scientific writing actually prefers the passive tone as it is found to be more objective. This is something to consider in writing an encyclopedia article, especially about an issue where the focus should be objectivity. In cases of who shot whom, that feels like a narrative we shouldn't really even be crafting in this article. Most of these cases are full of details we can't and should not be outlining on an article about BLM. In the interest of impartiality and brevity, I think those instances should be narrowed down to what BLM did, with all pertinent details found on their respective articles. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I stand by my suggestion that active voice can help us be more precise and accurate ("is found to be more objective" by whom?), but to get to the substance of whether who shot whom is relevant: we have years' worth of reliable secondary sources documenting BLM's explicit concern with who shot or perpetrated other violence against black people. For sure, we are not going to duplicate the entries on that violence. But it's simply inaccurate--as a description of the movement--to characterize protests with something along the lines of 'BLM protested the death of a black person' as if the grievance is with mortality. When reliable sources indicate BLM was objecting specifically to a police officer shooting a black person, we'd be seriously out of bounds to take it upon ourselves to write that out of the encyclopedia's account of the BLM movement.
 * I know you're concerned with accuracy and neutrality--me too. I suggest we get into the entry and work on specific sentences and see if we can't get to a place that satisfies everyone. Understandable emotion on such a difficult topic notwithstanding, I'm actually pretty optimistic we all might have a similar idea in the end of what it means to represent the reliable sources we have fair-handedly. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not universally preferred, but passive voice is found more objective by APA style:, "helps to create the appearance of an objective, fact-based discourse because writers can present research and conclusions without attributing them to particular agents. Instead, the writing appears to convey information that is not limited or biased by individual perspectives or personal interests.", University of California Press "Most scientists use passive voice either out of habit or to make themselves seem scholarly, objective or sophisticated.", Gallaudet University English Department: "Why use passive voice? 1. Let the facts stand on their own! 2. Removes some accusations of bias (who did it, how many did it.)" As I said, I prefer active for several reasons, but objectivity is just not one of them. I'm also not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out why some editors may prefer it (and they aren't wrong to do so). I am personally in favor of changing "The shooting of Korryn Gaines occured" to "Police shot and killed Korryn Gaines", but it raises the question of why not "Police shot and killed Korryn Gaines after she aimed a shotgun at them"? Or "after a seven hour standoff", etc etc? Or how about changing "shooting and injuring her son" to "shooting and injuring her son after she exchanged fire with police with her son in her lap"? It's not really a question of which narrative is more correct, it's a question of why this article is creating a narrative in the first place to allow such questions of impartiality to arise. Doesn't seem necessary or fruitful. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks so much for raising the question about the Ferguson effect description, this is just the sort of thing I was hoping the passive/active voice question would prompt us to take a closer look at: I am not sure the drafts from either of us (I was the one who added that previously) quite capture what exactly the "Ferguson effect" is! Of course also there's a separate question of, whether there's empirical evidence that such an effect exists, but even just to say accurately what the alleged effect is, according to those who say it exists. Is it the shooting, the police shooting, the protests of the police shooting, the grand jury convened to consider charges, other? that they're arguing raises crime? We should def try to get it right without necessarily needing to elaborate it extensively! I will look and see if I can't find a secondary source that gives a succinct summary (maybe even one to quote directly, or at least paraphrase clearly). Innisfree987 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I should've known going looking for sources on that would open up a can of worms. I am gonna work on correcting inaccuracies and reffing up the Ferguson effect entry first and then circle back to discuss what of it should be in the BLM entry. (Now that I'm getting acquainted with the sources, the BLM entry seems at once to include too much, but also leave out key facts. E.g. what Dotson originally said is really not how the term's used now.) More TK. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's definitely a question of how much the Ferguson Effect even relates to BLM. Certainly both topics relate to the unrest in Ferguson, but how much they directly relate to eachother in another question. It may be a bit lengthy at present, but to some extent that may be necessary in both explaining what it is and the question of how significant, if at all, it may be. Unfortunately, the question of its existence is probably self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. Once a phrases enters the lexicon of sociology, the idea if not the effect can be difficult to shake. Still, let's do our best to keep the section as objective as possible. Whether or not the effect is real, the criticism certainly is. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Coverage of Sept. 2016 Presidential Debate - Discussing Race & Police-Involved Shootings
During the Sept. 26, 2016 USA Presidential Debate, Clinton and Trump discuss race and police-involved shootings. Should this debate be mentioned under the "2016 presidential election" section of the article?

Here is a transcript of the debate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurelibrarian2017 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks, this does seem relevant. The big question would be, is there secondary source commentary on this aspect of the debate? A transcript is considered a primary source, so to include in the encyclopedia, we'd need a reliable secondary source interpreting the primary source for us. The general idea is that as an encyclopedia, WP is not equipped to conduct and fact-check original research. Instead it's a tertiary source that just seeks to accurately represent what's been published in reliable--hopefully already fact-checked!--secondary sources. Here's my favorite explanation of how that policy came about, and it will give you lots more links if you want to read more on how this works on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies#History. Hope that's helpful! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it belongs in this article unless a news analyst specifically ties their discussion to "Black Lives Matter". Neither Clinton nor Trump used the phrase, so adding information about the debate to this article based solely on the transcript would be original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, good distinction. I just saw a few pundits in informal contexts arguing the debate reflected BLM success in moving the conversation so I wouldn't be surprised if there are reliable print sources that made this analysis. I'll have a look. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Malik, I don't believe BLM was a specific topic of mention, but if there are sources tying them together, perhaps something could be drawn from those sources. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I found this New York Times article which ties the debate and the BLM movement together (see para. 5, 30) Not sure if it qualifies. Futurelibrarian2017 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I've added a sentence about this with this cite and two more--tried to signal what the various perspectives are but welcome additional input/revision! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good find, Futurelibrarian2017, and nice addition, Innisfree987. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Revising lead (second sentence)
In hopes that anyone will actually read the rest of the article we're all working hard to improve, I feel like we should really try to improve that second sentence of the lead. The sensitive issues being balanced here are not lost on me, but with "BLM regularly organizes protests around the deaths of black people in killings by law enforcement officers," we've wound up with a clunker. I think it's really important for an entry as lengthy and significant as this one to open with something as concise and readable as possible. "BLM regularly protests police killings of black people" seems simple and accurate to me but other ideas very welcome, I didn't think it was appropriate to handle this BOLDLY. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong if your suggestion. That sentence was originally written by User:Jumplike23 and I don't think he would mind if you made it more concise. Kiwifist (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks and, that was easy! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Influence
In the influence section for the media part, i think that you should add the death of poussey in the show Orange is The New Black. Her death was based off the black lives movement. For more information you can take a look on this page--Tts92 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter - Update Reference
Hello, it has come to my attention that you have brought up the fact that Black Lives Matter activist began to publicly challenge candidates of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, unfortunately that statement is not properly cited nor am I able to find a reference for your claim.

I have found an article that discusses your statement and I think it would be helpful to take a look at it, it is a reliable source and you will also be able to use it as a reference. This article

--Meme valentine (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Currently there is a tag in the article for this issue and I've looked into improving it, but it's not clear to me where the problem lies. Currently the article text reads "In the summer of 2015, Black Lives Matter activists began publicly challenging politicians, including candidates in the 2016 United States presidential election, to state their positions on BLM issues". According to the given citation, "Local affiliates of the Black Lives Matter organization have disrupted numerous Democratic presidential campaign events, pushing the candidates to support policies to end mass incarceration and police brutality." and "It has also met with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders to pressure them to embrace its racial justice platforms." which would seem to support the statement in the article. Could you please elaborate on the disparity between the text and the citation? Scoundr3l (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

add pictures
Hi, wikimedia has plenty of good BLM pictures. I have added a bunch already to this article. Might be good to get another perspective. --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for these additions, it really helps to have these visuals, not to mention break up the wall of text! I might go add some dates so it's clear which part of the text the image corresponds to. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"See also" list
Hi all, wanted to solicit input on the "See also" list. Right now it feels a little arbitrary to me--I did a bit of a double-take that it mentions the Black Power movement but not the Civil Rights movement, and then on the other hand, "The personal is political" seems pretty far afield to me. Of course not irrelevant but if I started a list from scratch of "See also" topics even restricted specifically to the role of women and gender advocacy in BLM, I think I'd have Black feminism, Womanism, Intersectionality, Angela Davis, Kimberle Crenshaw, Combahee River Collective, Audre Lorde, Assata Shakur, Alice Walker, and probably quite a few others before I got to "The personal is political." Not to say I've necessarily got the order right, just that there are really quite a lot of entries that are in the same ballpark and I'm not sure how we picked this one.

All that said, I do note from the WP Manual of Style:


 * 1) "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" (WP:ALSO) so maybe being more like adjacent rather than directly connected isn't a bad thing.
 * 2) "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes," (WP:NAVLIST) which would rule out several of the most directly relevant entries that come to mind for me.

So yeah, I'd be really interested to hear thoughts on how best to make use of this section. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up. I think perhaps the reason the civil rights movement was omitted was because the link already appears in the body text. As the same could be said for the black power movement, I see no issue with either removing the black power movement link or adding the civil rights movement. As for the "personal is political", I'm not sure the rationale for its inclusion but I would agree that it seems pretty distantly removed from BLM. The article itself seems to relate quite specifically to feminism and I see no real connection to this movement outside of the vague connection to activism. Personally, I'd be opposed to using this article's "see also" as a portal to issues with feminism (or even general activism) when there are plenty of African-American issues which could take precedent. I support your previous trimming. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these thoughts --between your comments and the recent addition, now I'm pretty curious to hear what everyone would add first! Not that I'm saying we should definitely make the end goal having it be a big section, but I def would not have thought of gypsy cop for instance, and it makes me think we might get a good variety of perspectives if we started by expanding than trimming. Maybe I'll just add a few and anyone else who feels moved to should too? Innisfree987 (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Content Relevance and Possible Additions
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes, everything is related to the black lives matter's timeline, mission, and effects.

Is there anything missing that could be added? Add 2016 US national anthem protest criticism content about anti-patriotism and disrespect for veterans perspective. Add episode of Black-ish, "Hope"(season 2, episode 16), to Media subtopic of Influence. The sitcom episode centers around black lives matter and police brutality, and is an example of the actual experience of black families. (Dmlee26 (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC))
 * I remember that episode, it was a tear-jerker. Do you happen to know if "Black Lives Matter" was specifically mentioned? Scoundr3l (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Depaul protest
In late May, BLM activists disrupted a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at DePaul University. Security did not intervene to stop the protests, despite the university requiring organizers to cover the cost of additional security.

This is what is in the timeline section. Is it worthy of inclusion? Was BLM involved? --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 2, where it was discussed 3-4 months ago. There was no consensus. There was also discussion at WP:RS/N, which—while inconclusive—wasn't favorable toward using The Washington Times as a source.
 * My view is that an event that was interrupted by black people, later identified by the right-wing press as "individuals associated with Black Lives Matter", doesn't make it a Black Lives Matter event. "They all look the same to me" is not a good principle by which to write an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you on this. 1) this is not a notable black lives matter demonstration or event. 2) the connection with BLM is rather tenuous. I think the discussion going forward should focus on the notability of the event in a historical context. It just does not rise to notable in BLM context. It's on par with Dunkin Donuts protest that I recently deleted. --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Scrawling the slogan "Black Lives Matter" on a coffee cup is not and has never been a "Black Lives Matter protest", no matter how much noise the police union wants to make about the incident. It was an action taken by a person (formerly) employed at a coffee shop, not a protest by a movement.
 * But I think we do agree about taking a broader view of this subject. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper, and we don't need to catalog every mention in the press of Black Lives Matters. We're supposed to be editors, not copyists or stenographers. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

good article status
Hi, where do you think we can improve this article--to improve it to good status?

There are many good aspects to the article, the pictures, the lead, extensive criticism section, detailed timeline, significant section on events leading to its founding.

--JumpLike23 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in helping get this to GA status.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's in pretty good shape. If I had to pick areas for improvement I think perhaps the timeline may be a bit too bloated and "listy" and the lede could do with some cleanup. Nothing I think would disqualify it, though. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the timeline! We need to trim some of those events, get to the main notable events. Then, we can improve the prose and flow. how can we improve the lead? --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The issues with the lede are largely a reflection of the issues with the timeline. The third paragraph seems to be mostly a list and, with respect to all those listed, I don't think any of the readers are going to draw much information out of it. The lede also pulls every punch to avoid mentioning criticism of BLM. Interestingly enough, the only criticism mentioned is criticism of All Lives Matter, which is listed as a "response" to BLM. And the phrasing of the intraracial violence sentence appears to have been changed from "criticized" to "encouraged". Unless we plan to also upgrade the criticism section to a "polite encouragements" sections, this is just editorialization for the sake of advocacy. That may be a problem that runs much deeper than simply cleaning up the phrasing. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're serious about trying to bring this article to Good article status, you should start fixing some of the obvious problems, like the tags that categorize the article as a problem article. For instance, in the 2015 portion of the "Timeline" section, there's a clarify tag that's been there since June. The 2016 portion of the "Timeline" section has had a disputed inline tag since July. And the "All Lives Matter" section has had a when tag for about a month. The article can be "quick failed" for having tags like those. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of removing the DePaul protest pending no additional sources linking it to BLM. The Washington Times discussion didn't seem to go one way or the other, but at the very least we can say that we tried to verify it and were unable to. I'm going to bold remove it. The discussion is still available for posterity if someone else wants to try to establish the connection with (hopefully better) reliable sources. I was the one who added the when tag to ALM and unfortunately I'm not closer to figuring out when it began or finding a source. Will work in the clarify tag. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)