Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Details under debate for the " Criticism of 'Black Lives Matter' " section

Hi all, thought it'd be worth opening up a discussion about the text that's going back and forth with reversions. I'll reproduce it here so we know what we're talking about. Three points (for the first, I included the whole sentence for context, but the non-deleted parts are in brackets):

1. [Critics of the movement include] former Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, minister Johnathan Gentry of the West Angeles Church of God in Christ, author and [minister Barbara Ann Reynolds, and Professor Carol M. Swain of Vanderbilt University.]
2. Some black civil rights leaders, such as Rev. Cecil "Chip" Murray, Najee Ali, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, have criticized the tactics of BLM.
3. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani considers "Black lives matter" racist and anti-American.

I'm going to go read the references for each now, to see whether I think any of it should be in the article. Welcome comments from anyone else in the meantime. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Recent deletes in the Criticism section

An editor recently deleted a few names from this section with the comment "...irrelevant details...". This information has been included in the article since at least October 1 (I did not look back any further than that). I'm surprised that I need to defend this inclusion considering the fact that most of the names mentioned have WP articles (I would agree with deleting any who do not). Let's just start with two of them: Carson and Guliani. Why would we want to consider them "irrelevant details"? Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who originally included it but did not delete it. The onus would be one the person who deleted as to why they deleted it. Irrelevant details would not suffice. I think adding names of critics is important. Guiliani and carson may belong in the campaign section though as I think about. The civil rights cite is very important. Some editors here need to check their bias. why was that deleted? As to what section that would go in? I dont know. May even belong in the influence section above --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

First, you're mistaken. Please read WP:ONUS. The burden is on the editor(s) who wish to add material to build consensus to include it, not the other way around.

Giuliani's reflexive criticism of anything and anyone black as "racist" is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Is it news-worthy, let alone encyclopedic? Hell no.

Carson acknowledges that there are serious racial problems in the United States, including policing, but he thinks Black Lives Matters is going after the wrong targets. That's a reasonable criticism to make and I think it belongs in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, not exactly... While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This sounds to me like consensus may be needed to remove information. At any rate, your Guliani reason for removing that info is far from convincing. Gandydancer (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read what you quoted. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

While everyone here is technically correct on quoting ONUS, invoking it in this case is either frivolous or blatantly incorrect. It's not a gatekeeper to exclude any additions that have not been discussed. The content related to Ben Carson and Gentry has been a part of the article's heavily-edited criticism section for almost a year (it was added October 2015). There was never any dispute over its addition and a de facto consensus that it belonged. The editor who removed it is responsible for explaining their edits and if there is a dispute, we should let the WP:STATUSQUO reign until it is resolved. Personally, I don't think "irrelevent details" is an adequate explanation for removing the content. While I can't speak for Gentry's notability, Ben Carson is certainly a notable critic. If there is a question of BLP, plenty of additional sources can be included of him criticizing the movement. What we as editors may think about Carson or other critics isn't really up for question. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and agree. IMO Guliani is certainly notable and should remain. As for the others I only glanced at them...they seem to be people of color which suggests that they should be included as well... Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You'd be right, Scoundr3l, if you weren't so wrong. WP:STATUSQUO is part of an essay, which is advice and has no official status. WP:ONUS is part of a policy, which is a standard users should normally follow. See WP:Policies and guidelines for more information.

And Gandydancer, the issue isn't whether Giuliani is notable. He is. The question is whether including his opinion on a subject he has obviously chosen to know nothing about improves the article. Please read WP:ONUS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

An essay is written as advice for people who have trouble understanding and interpreting the policies, which is why I think this essay will help in this case. The content was added without dispute in October of last year and has been undisputed until this most recent edit. Restoring the status quo is not an issue of ONUS as the person who originally added the content did so nearly a year ago and it was never disputed. Consensus has thus been established (policy). If you'd like to discuss changing the currently standing consensus, the onus is then on you to make a case against the status quo. If you'd like to read some more policies on the matter, please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.Scoundr3l (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned here. You seem to be saying that any material that has been in an article for a long period of time must have its removal justified, rather than its inclusion justified. I do not believe that not having been removed for a while is a sufficient argument for it deserving inclusion in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that content being undisputed for a long period of time establishes consensus, per the linked policy. The editor who restored the content has no obligation to now re-establish consensus, so ONUS is being invoked erroneously. No such onus exists. The disputed change is the removal, not the addition, per WP:BRD, STATUSQUO, etc. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about the contents of the deletion. the deletor concedes carson is relevant. He does not address the civil rights activists and the church leader who he also deleted. (goes against BLM). As for Guliani, "reflexive criticism of anything and anyone black as "racist" is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Is it news-worthy, let alone encyclopedic? Hell no" That is his justification. That is original research and POV editing. --JumpLike23 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please learn how to read a page's edit history. I wasn't "the deletor" (sic). And per policy, please provide a rationale for including Giuliani's claptrap, since you feel it belongs. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you are right, you are the one who sustained an uncited deletion of sourced material. Rudy Guliani is a notable political figure in this country and he openly criticized BLM. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter.html http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-225353 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/10/rudy-giuliani-black-fathers-need-to-teach-kids-the-real-danger-to-them-is-not-the-police/ Ya, this is definitely claptrap. (that is sarcasm) you (we) may disagree with it. But he is a respected politician by many and his criticisms should be included. --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I cited policy POV editing and OR on your part. Please respond. --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody make a case for why this content belongs in the article? The conversation around ONUS is about the sequence of whether it goes in now or after consensus. To my mind the policy is clear (it goes in after consensus is achieved). But I suggest that those who believe this content belongs set that aside for a moment and make the case. Arguing about onus and status quo is a moot point if no case for inclusion is made. [[PPX]] (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss the merits for inclusion, however the point around ONUS and STATUSQUO are vital to this conversation because they establish burden of proof. When the content was added, the onus was indeed on the editor who added it to establish consensus. This can be done in many ways, but making a case for inclusion is only necessary if there is a dispute over its inclusion. In this case, there was no dispute and consensus was achieved through a reasonable period of inaction from other editors. Myself and others saw the content and did not remove it, thus establishing de facto that it belonged in the article without any need to make a case for it. After some time of reasonable consensus, an editor saw the content and decided to remove it. This removal was disputed in favor of status quo. To suggest that the editor seeking inclusion must now make a case for inclusion is an undue shift of burden and simply untrue. Per the previous consensus and disputed change, the burden is indeed on the removal to establish why removing it would improve the article. So far, the only case made for exclusion is largely personal point of view and proof positive has been provided for inclusion, despite no burden to do so. Notable critics merit inclusion in a criticism section. If you've got a case for the removal, I'd be happy to discuss it further. I don't think anyone is entrenched in their mindset, but you have to give a rationale for why you want the content removed. Asking for a positive case for inclusion at this point is fallacy. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Will you please make the case on the merits for inclusion? I believe that would lead to a more fruitful discussion. (And if I'm wrong and no fruitful discussion follows, we can go back to talking about where the burden lies). [[PPX]] (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested in a fruitful discussion, perhaps you could actually contribute proof rather than asking it of others. I've provided a very simple rationale for inclusion and you've neither acknowledged it nor upheld burden of proof (once again, it is on those seeking to change consensus, not maintain it). If you can't make a case for why the article should change, the article should remain the same. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Perplexed, I've been around this place for almost ten years now and I've grown weary of this sort of thing. But if Scoundr31 is willing to spend the time to give you reasons, perhaps all the better and we can all learn something. If not, it's about time we get this back into the article, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we posted that almost simultaneously. As of a few days ago, the status quo has already been restored. Still willing to discuss this if someone is going to make a case, but so far I haven't seen much. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Scoundr31, perhaps we crossed wires? (my first inclination was to say pretty much what you just did...I think I'll soon be adding the info back unless someone else does it first...which will hopefully happen as my time is short...) Gandydancer (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha, once again we're posting simultaneously, but see above. I'm signing off for the night, though, so post away. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Scoundr31 Will you kindly draw my attention to your simple rationale for inclusion? My eyes must have glazed over when I looked for it. (Also I would advise against re-including the content and that anybody who did include it should self-revert. I'm not into threats or jumping up and down for Administrator involvement, but I believe that the reading of ONUS described above ignores the plain English meaning of the word "include" which the policy does not in any way bind by how recently it was included).[[PPX]] (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I can only discuss this with you. I can't read it for you. ONUS states that a consensus must be achieved and (per the policy I've linked several times) silence is consensus. If you've got rationale for excluding, I suggest you provide it. Through discussion, a new consensus can be reached. Otherwise, if you're just here to discuss policy and try to shift burden, I think we're done talking. I've said all I need to say and you're welcome to read through it again or seek an admin if you're still not convinced. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The only reasonable interpretation of WP:ONUS that I can think of is that verifiability can't be the only reason to include content. Taking WP:ONUS literally would legitimize disruptive blanking and lead to filibustering all over EN wiki. Particularly in this case literal meaning would be contradictory to WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

Oy with the poodlespolicies already. Obviously mentioning at least the civil rights and religious leaders is relevant, and their critique is the main story in cited high-quality source. But instead of just namedropping we should be more precise of what they have criticized. Politrukki (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Since no rationale has been presented for including Giuliani's opinion beside "he's notable", I'm going to remove it (again). If somebody wants to replace it with meaningful criticism, feel free. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Per current consensus, the content belongs. Please provide a rationale for removing it before editing the content further. See WP:BRD. Quite simply: why are you removing this content? Everyone has been perfectly willing to discuss this, but you're not discussing it, you're just defaulting to removal per a misinterpretation of ONUS. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's your interpretation of ONUS that's faulty. And I have explained my deletion. There is no criticism there, just a knee-jerk condemnation that "Black Lives Matter" is inherently racist and anti-American. If you think Giuliani is making an argument, please summarize it. Repeating that he's notable so every pearl that falls from his lips is important enough to include in the encyclopedia is, quite simply, bullshit. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Well you don't need me to summarize Guliani's statements for you, there is a source provided wherein Guliani explains himself. Here's another. He feels BLM exacerbates racial tensions, ignores black-on-black crimes, unduly targets police officers, and divides people. What leads you to believe this is a knee-jerk reaction and not a legitimate criticism? He's repeated this sentiment and his rationale on many occasions. Also, what fault did you find in my interpretation of ONUS? Scoundr3l (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You're full of shit. When I removed it, the source said precisely this: "Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani says the Black Lives Matter movement puts a target on the back of police officers. Guiliani adds, 'When you say black lives matter, that's inherently racist.'" As I wrote, that's name-calling, it's not criticism.

I'm not going to play your game of arguing about process. I've asked you repeatedly to explain why Giuliani's opinion, as expressed in that source, qualifies to be in the encyclopedia article. You must think it does, because you keep fighting to keep it in. You have yet to explain why. Please start. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that Malik's reason for not including Rudy was found to be a serious BLP violation by an admin, Diannaa. In this article, Guiliani gives a thoughtful criticism of BLM http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-225353. Look, Malik is very frustrating to work with on this page and tires me out. Multiple people have put forth reasons why Rudy's statements are notable but never to his satisfaction. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

My edit summary was a BLP violation. I shouldn't have written what I wrote. I'm not questioning Giuliani's notability (i.e., his qualifications for having an encyclopedia article written about him), so why are you arguing about that? Nobody has put forward a defense of Giuliani's name-calling, and that is what I have been asking for. If he makes a valid criticism of Black Lives Matters, then cite that in the article, but don't quote a stupid and meaningless sound byte that reflects worse on the Donald Trump campaign spokesman than it does on the movement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

On the substance of the (lack of) consensus: my view is that the Giuliani opinion as added here amounts to simply name-calling and adds no value to the article. It should be excluded. WP:FART and WP:NOTADIARY come to mind. I don't rule out including actually substantive or significant comment by Giuliani, but this adds nothing of encyclopedic value. [[PPX]] (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have returned the Giuliani information to the article. It is plain and simple OR to exclude it based on it "amounts to simply name-calling and adds no value to the article" and similar arguments. Perhaps MS or Perplexed could start a RfC. Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

When we include things, we often consider how informative the included content would be, and how notable it is. We don't include every opinion of every person- only opinions which are notable, for reasons such as receiving a lot of coverage or accurately representing a widespread opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's been established per this conversation and WP:CONACHIEVE that other editors find this content to be notable and worthy of inclusion. Since this conversation thus far has been focused less on the content and more on whose job it is to establish consensus, I would suggest it continue via WP:RFC. Since this diff is the change in dispute, the content should restored until there's a consensus to change it. This does not mean the content shouldn't be changed just because it's status quo, but waiting until after the discussion is just how we do things. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's been established that (a) you don't know what "notable" means on Wikipedia, (b) you don't read what I write, and (c) you don't give a damn what other editors think, you just do what you want. Stop edit-warring, stop arguing about process, and please explain why you think this name-calling is significant enough to include in the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, it just didn't seem like it required additional response. You gave a personal attack and a quote of only the source text (the source was a video). Another editor already responded to you. In short: you not liking Guliani doesn't warrant his exclusion from the article, so nobody owes you a defense of his statements. You're not a notable critic and your thoughts on his comments are POV and OR. If you think we need to strawpoll consensus, please open an RFC and we'll establish a more firm consensus.Scoundr3l (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I hate RFCs and think they waste a lot of time. I've attempted a compromise in the latest addition as it expands on his comments so they should appear less like name-calling. It also once again include Garza's counter points. I know these discussions can be exhausting and I think everyone here is trying to improve the article, so the less time we spend squabbling over little details the better. If you're still not happy with it, let's try once again to establish exactly what's wrong with the content and how we can improve it. If we still can't agree, maybe we try the RFC. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Scoundr and I agree about RfCs. You get a lot of people who do not take the time to do research about how the disagreement came about, etc.....though in this case I believe that there would be agreement that it belongs in the article. @ Shabazz, since you seem to have no problem with sharing your insights about other editors, I will share a little with you. It is people like you that make this place, from time to time, fucking miserable. OK, enough of that. I walked away from this dispute because of people that I consider assholes that waste my time which is better spent on other things here. I also consider Guiliani a perfect asshole that perfectly demonstrates the position of thousands/millions of Americans about the disadvantages that people of color and "poor people" in general face. He is fucking notable and his thoughts are as well. So there I did it with one of my very seldom rants that I may or may not regret...  :) Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Movement for Black Lives and Israel/tagging off-topic section

Can we add some context clarifying the differences, and relationship, between BLM and the Movement for Black Lives? Scaleshombre (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

And add even more text to an already-too-long section about another organization? Why? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, does not deserve an entire section in this article. The extensive discussion belongs in the main article for the movement. I think we should expand discussion of the the movement for black lives. As I often do, I do not believe it is as simple and compartmentalized as Malik does --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as all of the sources refer to this group as BLM. Per previous discussions on this matter, since BLM is a decentralized group, we must go by reliable sources to determine what is and is not a BLM issue. While this platform may not represent BLM as a whole, saying that it does not represent BLM at all is OR and a No true Scotsman fallacy. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Scaleshombre that the article conflates BLM and MBL; our problem is that the sources do it too with respect to the Israel section, as Scoundr3l points out. I'm not sure what the right fix is...

but I tend to think that a deeper description of the tension between the decentralized movement and the formalization of institutions is wise. (I don't think that the place to do it is the Israel section because it's not really about Israel; it's about the growing pains of the movement). [[PPX]] (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading Malik's point below I'm convinced that it's a mistake on our part to leave the section without clarity on the distinction between the MBL platform and BLM. There are other sources that explain the distinction. And the Atlantic, for instance, has more of an expertise on MBL/BLM than the Israeli and Jewish press that did most of the reporting on the topic covered in this section.[[PPX]] (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there any additional sources offering a distinction in regards to this specific Israel platform? I.e. a statement from BLM condemning or denying the platform? I'm sure we could include that, but the sources in that section all connect the two in regards to the Israel statement. Providing unrelated information about the difference between MBL and BLM into that section sounds like WP:SYNTH. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Why would there be such sources? There is no "Israel platform" or "Israel statement". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I just did a close look at the sources that we have in the article to see whether and how they distinguish between MBL and BLM.

Here are all the sources side-by-side (or rather, one-on-top of each other):

Sources that distinguish:

°NYT news article describes a platform released "by a coalition of groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement."

°This JTA news article does describe it as a "platform of the Black Lives Matter movement," but later reporting by the same source presented it as [1] "an affiliated group."

°Haaretz news story describes the platform as "associated with BLM."

°Tablet opinion article describes "an alliance of groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement"

°RAC This is also a SPS, but it is clear that the platform is from MBL and doesn'y een mention BLM as a proper name.

Sources that do not distinguish:

°Shalem Center - a SPS - describes MBL as the newly organized form of BLM.

°Playbill doesn't talk about the platform directly. Rather the article is about "conflicting viewpoints on the social issue." There are quotes from others who do confuse BLM and MBL.

°This St. Louis Post-Dispatch opinion article by Bishop Lawrence M. Wooten uses the phrase "Black Lives Matter issued a platform of demands."

Clearly, the higher-quality secondary sources (and most of the other sources) do distinguish in some way, and the most common form is to talk about the platform as coming from a group "affiliated with" BLM. I am going to tweak the article in line with this editorial practice we see used by the sources.[[PPX]] (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not an all or nothing game. Black Lives Matter is a movement, not (just) an organization. If the University of Texas organizes a Black Lives Matter rally, that's a BLM rally whether or not the owners of the website approve of it. If the rally then turns into a riot, it's still a BLM rally, we can't then absolve blame by distinguishing it as a University of Texas rally. That's not how it works and it's not objective writing. Here are quotes from all the above sources you consider higher quality and that distinguish:

• NYTIMES: "However, since announcing the benefit they’ve become aware of a recent addition to the B.L.M. platform that accuses Israel of genocide and endorses a range of boycott and sanction actions.”
• Haaretz: "the recent platform of the Black Lives Matter movement labeling Israel an “apartheid state” and accusing it of genocide"
• Tablet Opinion Article: "While we agree with many of the policy recommendations [of Black Lives Matter], we are extremely dismayed at the decision to refer to the Israeli occupation as genocide."

You're correct that the RAC source does not mention BLM, so I see no issue removing that as off-topic. But otherwise, "B.L.M platform", "platform for the Black Lives Matter movement", "Black Lives Matter". Just because they mention the source of the platform does not mean it is not a BLM platform. The talk page archives are full of numerous discussions regarding when and how we decide what represents the BLM movement and it was decided that we go on the word of reliable sources. Hand-selecting quotes and trying to use them to contradict the overall source is a violation of the no original research policy. The sources all say it was BLM, so it was BLM. MBL and BLM. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The picture is murky indeed... Let's look at the three sources you just referenced:

1) The NYT -- that is a quote not from the news article but from a primary source they are quoting. The text from the newspaper contextualizes that error in the quote by framing it as "the owners cited a platform released this summer by a coalition of groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement."

2) I tried to look up your quote from Haaretz. It took me a moment, because I think you meant to say JTA (because that's where I found the quote). You're right about that particular article. At the same time, as demonstrated above, JTA was more careful in later reporting to distinguish between MBL and BLM.

3) In the Tablet opinion article, similar to the NYT news article, there is a reference to it as BLM from a quote. But that reference follows framing that explains that it's from MBL, "an alliance of groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement"

I'm intrigued by your notion that it's not all-or-nothing. That seems like it might be a workable approach, as long as we don't leave the mis-impression that MBL speaks for BLM, or that BLM has adopted these policies, or that BLM issued the statement.[[PPX]] (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. Going back and forth between the sources and this page I must have mixed them up. Hareetz does mention however "The platform of the “Movement for Black Lives,” a coalition under the Black Lives Matter umbrella". The NYT quote is from the primary source, but the article also says "...concert benefiting Black Lives Matter, citing the movement’s criticism of Israel". The NYT also says that representatives from BLM declined to comment, so there isn't really any ground to suggest NYT doesn't think BLM was involved in these statements. The point I'm trying to make, anyway, is that just because a source distinguishes specifically where the platform comes from does not mean they're denying it's a BLM platform. For better or worse, "BLM" doesn't speak for itself. It can't. In this case, MBL speaks for BLM and it's a BLM platform based on the sources. Per the original off-topic concerns of this section, distinguishing where the platform came from should not confuse that this is about BLM. It absolutely is, for our intents and purpsoes. That doesn't mean everyone involved with BLM agrees, of course, but that's part and parcel to a decentralized group. If this platform is significantly disputed by other representatives of BLM, though, we should include that. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Stance on Israel"

First, the Black Lives Matter movement has no stance on Israel. Second, despite what several editors have written, it has never made "statements" regarding Israel.

What many Jewish organizations in the US are upset about is that in its platform, in a section about US foreign policy, the Movement for Black Lives—a coalition of many organizations, including Black Lives Matter—wrote that the US should stop arming Israel, which the platform describes as an "apartheid state", and it drew an analogy between the way the police in the US treat black and brown people and the way Israel treats Palestinians, which it labelled "genocide".

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the sources cited in our article:

• "On Monday, an alliance of groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement unveiled their first official platform. The 40,000-word manifesto contained many recommendations, including concrete policy proposals, for rectifying the wrongs perpetrated against America's African-American citizens in the past and present. Unfortunately, the platform also contained a vicious bigoted slur against the Jewish state, which the document's foreign policy section accused of perpetrating 'genocide' against Palestinians. (The platform also labeled Israel an 'apartheid state' and joined with the BDS movement in calling for the total academic, cultural, and economic boycott of the country—a demand made for no other state.)"[2]
• "A new platform associated with the Black Lives Matter movement that describes Israel as an 'apartheid state' committing 'genocide' against the Palestinian people has triggered critical responses from Jewish organizations — even its allies. '[We] are extremely dismayed at the decision to refer to the Israeli occupation as genocide,' a statement from T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, read."[3]
• "[G]roups associated with the Black Lives Matter movement released a platform Monday that labels Israel an 'apartheid state' and excoriates the United States for its alliance with a country it alleges systemically perpetrates a 'genocide' against the Palestinians. The platform, which demands 'an end to the war against Black people,' marks the campaign's first official entry into America's debate over specific federal policies. In the past, Black Lives Matter has been noted for its protests against disparities within the nation’s criminal justice system that disadvantage African-Americans and other minorities."[4]

Note that all three sources make clear that the criticism is the platform of the sometimes-unnamed group associated with Black Lives Matter. No mention of "statements regarding Israel" by Black Lives Matter, because there have been none. And note that the quibbling isn't that African-American protesters are wrong to criticize Israel's human rights violations against the Palestinians. The complaint is very specific: the words "genocide" and "apartheid" should not have been used.

It's clear that I'm outnumbered by editors who believe that this is a Black Lives Matter platform because sloppy reporters don't distinguish well enough between Black Lives Matter and the Movement for Black Lives. But please do not engage in original research by making up your own account of what the dispute is, when we have Israeli and Jewish American sources telling us their complaints. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Being outnumbered by editors should never be an issue when you're upholding the pillars of WP:V. In this case, however, you may be outnumbered by verifiable sources.

• In platform, Black Lives Matter accuses Israel of ‘genocide,’  : "The platform, which demands “an end to the war against Black people,” marks the campaign’s first official entry into America’s debate over specific federal policies."
• FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, JEWISH GROUPS CONDEMN ‘REPELLENT’ BLACK LIVES MATTER CLAIM OF ISRAELI ‘GENOCIDE’ : "While we agree with many of the policy recommendations [of Black Lives Matter], we are extremely dismayed at the decision to refer to the Israeli occupation as genocide"
• Jewish Groups Condemn Black Lives Matter Platform for Accusing 'Apartheid' Israel of 'Genocide'  : "But it is sadly just as clear that those select activists who shoehorned such a slur into the Black Lives Matter platform, whether out of ignorance or malice, have needlessly driven a wedge into the very necessary alliance to ensure equal treatment of America’s African-American brothers and sisters." "they would be disassociating themselves with any group aligned with Black Lives Matter from now on. “We cannot and will not align ourselves with organizations that falsely and maliciously assert that Israel is committing ‘genocide,’”
• Churches reject Black Lives Matter's platform on Israel : "Recently, Black Lives Matter issued a platform of demands. One of the demands called for the elimination of U.S. aid to Israel. "
• Black church group in Missouri condemns Black Lives Matter statement on Israel : "the recent platform of the Black Lives Matter movement labeling Israel an “apartheid state” and accusing it of genocide."

I understand the distinction you are trying to make and the body text already specifies who released the statement. But you seem to be trying to absolve BLM of any connection with these statements when the sources do not. This would be OR on your part and not WP:V. Let the facts speak for themselves. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the wording vs statement, that's an unnecessary expression of doubt. The platform stated that Israel was an apartheid state and engaged in a genocide. Unless they published some sort of correction or redaction, we can make the necessary assumption that they meant what they said. If we had to specify the wording, not the content, of every controversial statement, I imagine the Donald Trump page would be twice as long and a lot more confusing. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Being outnumbered by other editors is always an issue, and your head is up your ass if you believe otherwise. You're quoting headlines, not reliable sources. But there's no point in discussing something with somebody who doesn't listen. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually quoting the sources as found in the section. The headlines are provided so that you can verify where the information is coming from. Incidentally, the headlines also clearly state the position of those articles (as is their purpose) and the headlines blatantly disagree with your position. Just because I'm not agreeing with you doesn't mean I'm not listening. Maybe use your big boy words and not personal attacks next time. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

More quotes for you:

• "the Black Lives Matter movement released a platform Monday that labels Israel an “apartheid state” and excoriates the United States for its alliance with a country it alleges systemically perpetrates a “genocide”"
• "Highly critical of the Jewish state — which it said “practices systematic discrimination and has maintained a military occupation of Palestine for decades” — the platform devoted a section to the US-Israel relationship. “The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people,” the text said. The platform goes on to suggest America’s close relationship with Israel and commitment to its security makes “US citizens complicit in the abuses committed by the Israeli government.”
• "The platform also labeled Israel an “apartheid state” and joined with the BDS movement in calling for the total academic, cultural, and economic boycott of the country—a demand made for no other state.)"
• "The Black Lives Matter platform also does not address the use of violence by some Palestinians, including the rocket attacks against civilians that Human Rights Watch has classified as a war crime."
• "cannot ignore the Platform’s false and blatantly one-sided position on US-Israel relations and Israeli-Palestinian issues. We categorically reject the document’s criticism of the United States and Israel as being “complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people."
• "And the Platform completely ignores incitement and violence perpetrated against Israelis by some Palestinians, including terror inside the country and rocket attacks lobbed from Gaza"
• the section on foreign policy (called “Invest-Divest”) criticizes American military aid to Israel. Israel is “a state that practices systematic discrimination and has maintained a military occupation of Palestine for decades,” the platform reads. The section dealing with Israel also calls on activists to “build invest/divestment campaigns” to end “US Aid to Israel’s military industrial complex”

There's more where that came from, but I think the point is made. Yes, much of the criticism focuses on only a few words, but in no way was the wording the sole point of contention. There's also nothing to suggest that the words alone, and not their meaning, were being criticized. To suggest it was only the wording and not the content of the statements is cherry-picking and a gross misrepresentation of the sources. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been looking all over for the "platform," starting at the BLM website, but have been unable to find it. I don't care what the Guardian or the Post or the News has to say, where can I find a copy of the text of the BLM Platform so that I can read it for myself? Carptrash (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, there are links available in most of that section's sources. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can recommend one that is better than "groups associated with the Black Lives Matter movement released a platform " I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance, Carptrash (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Recommend what? Scoundr3l (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommend a link that is BLM presenting their platform, because I am not finding one. Carptrash (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I think perhaps there is confusion over who "they" are. BLM is a grassroots movement, not a centralized organization. Because of this, we use reliable sources (not just the website) to determine what does and does not represent BLM. If you're looking for the platform, I'm certain you'll find it in the provided links. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Or, out another way, this is a huge discussion about something that you can't show me that BLM said? When I look at the "reliable sources " they don't seem to be much clearer. So really this discussion is about what the Post or the Times or the Gazette said, not what BLM said. Carptrash (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One way to look at it, I suppose. It's not really my job nor in the best interests of the article for me to interpret or tell you what BLM said. We rely on what secondary sources say because that's policy. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. " Emphasis their's. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, I am not looking for your opinion of what was said. But are you not interested, curious, as to what BLM said? Don't you find yourself sometimes thinking. ,"Gee the press makes such-and-such a claim, but when I look at it it just ain't so?" I understand that wikipedia is not about "truth" or "reality" but about what reliable sources say, but we really don't want to push stuff that is not true just because some source claims it. Why is the "platform" so difficult to locate if everyone is talking about it? Carptrash (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sheesh. Some people just can't help but obfuscate. Carptrash, the platform is here. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't sincerely believe anyone had difficulty finding the platform. Someone already posted a link, but redacted it. If someone wants to make a point, they should make a point. Otherwise, I'll assume a reasonable level of competence and ignore what appears to be WP:ICANTHEARYOU in the interest of keeping the talk page productive. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Make what ever assumptions you like, and I am sorry to mess with your sincere beliefs (as opposed to insincere ones?), I seeked and did not find. Carptrash (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I also note that in the very beginning of this section it is pointed out that the platform is from Movement for Black Lives and this article is about Black Lives Matter. Turns out I was looking for the wrong manifesto because I assumed (see, we all do it) that it had something to do with this article. But, hey, all these black groups look the same. Carptrash (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I can see why that might confuse you. Lucky for us, the reliable secondary sources aren't confused. It's a BLM platform. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There is no BLM platform, and you can keep repeating yourself til the cows come home and you'll still be wrong. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So I guess I am back to asking Scoundr3 "Where is the platform?" The BLM platform. Saying the the Papers claim it exists and they, and seemingly only they, know what it says isn't really enough. Think about how many Pulitzer Prizes these folks have had to give backs because "Oh we got a few things mixed up" and "Gee we made the whole story up." Carptrash (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think you know something the sources don't, get it published. Start a blog. Whatever helps. You could be the one who breaks this story wide open. Or not, that's for the zeitgeist to decide. There are avenues to have your unique perspective heard, but Wikipedia isn't it. See WP:FRINGE, WP:VNT, etc etc. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So you can't really point to the platform? Is that right? Carptrash (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're a competent adult. If you're not able to read the sources and find the platform, that's an issue I'm not willing or able to help you with further. All sources and relevant quotes have been provided to allow a reasonable person to verify the information. If you need additional assistance, it may help you to seek it offline. Be advised that using or feigning ignorance to stonewall a discussion or make a point is considered disruptive editing. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And I am asking you to simply point out something that you claim is obvious and easy to find and which I am unable to locate. Which is what another editor did, but their link was not to a BLM platform, and this is the BLM article we are discussing. If you feel that this is disruptive, by all means seek out an administrator and bring them into the discussion. I too would welcome some competence. Carptrash (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As you're in no immediate danger of making a point, it's all the easier to just ignore the pleas for further explanation. I just wanted to make sure you knew why. All of the provided sources refer to it as a BLM platform. You're not in a position to contradict those sources. I can only provide the information, I can't help you understand it. Unless you've got something constructive to add, I'm not going to repeat what's already laid out above. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Just more lies. There is no BLM platform and as I showed, the sources are all pretty clear that it's the platform of a group associated with BLM, not BLM's platform. But there are none so blind as those who choose not to see. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the sources. Here is what I find there.

• "A new platform associated with the Black Lives Matter"
• " Activists aligned with Black Lives Matter"
• "an alliance of groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement"
• "groups associated with the Black Lives Matter movement"

Nowhere does anyone claim that BLM said it. Well, except what is implied in the headlines, which is how a lot of people get their news. Carptrash (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aside from all the parts you chose not to quote, sure. I got your back though and provided plenty of quotes in this section and the previous section on MBL (hint: if the headline is contradicting you, you're probably not accurately summarizing the source). You seem to be under the impression that it's a zero sum game. A quote saying it was released by MBL doesn't make it not a BLM platform. It can be both (and is) per the sources. Ignoring verifiable information is not grounds to claim it's not verifiable. If you've got something other than cherry-picked info and OR, I suggest you provide it. Otherwise, escalate the issue. If you're not actually reading the provided material, we're not having a discussion, you're just wasting time. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Man, you have got to give it give it up. Go to another article that is on you list and try it there because here you have struck out here. Three strikes ands you are our, and . . . .you are out Bye . Carptrash (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The confusion is understandable. Black Lives Matter and the Movement for Black Lives are essentially the same thing. A distinction without a difference. Even BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullor seems to be confused. Her own website refers to "the Movement for Black Lives, also known as #BlackLivesMatter." Scaleshombre (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your link says, "The Movement for Black Lives Platform is an important milestone ." it does not say that MBL and BLM are the same thing. This is the BLM article. Start a MBL article and put the manifesto over there. They are overlapping sets but not the same thing. 15:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Carptrash (talk)

Carptrash, are you denying that the provided sources refer to this platform as a BLM platform? Per your own admission, you seem to have trouble finding things within the sources. If it's just an issue of verifiability, I'm sure we can get the insight of other editors. Even Malik Shabazz seems to admit it's verifiable, although he disputes the lack of distinction.Scoundr3l (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Carptrash, the link says "Black Lives Matter, or the Movement for Black Lives." In this context, or is being used as a synonym for AKA. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What I find is this, "co-founding and leading the Movement for Black Lives, also known as #BlackLivesMatter," in some what, blog or something? so why do we have two articles for the same organization? Maybe we should start the procedure for combining the two into one article since they are they same? Also as far as "you seem to have trouble finding things within the sources" goes, I have trouble finding where it says that the platform is BLM's That's my problem and you have not pointed me to such a spot in the references. Carptrash (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Not really interested in what other research you've conducted or how you personally put the pieces together. Just wanted to confirm that within the entirety of all the provided sources, you found absolutely no reference to this being a BLM platform? Scoundr3l (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter Page Explains Movement Without Bias

The Black Lives Matter page is a remarkable Wikipedia page in that it explains the the movement, its ideals and beliefs while including criticisms of the movement. While the movement is a movement pursuing social justice and equal rights, there are criticisms of the movement from "the other side", which attempt to put the movement "up for debate." This Wikipedia page acknowledges both the facts of the movement as well as the criticisms from the other side.

The manner in which the page is constructed allows the reader see the facts of the movement, while hearing the criticisms, and to decide on their own what they think of the movement.

The page includes all relevant information about the movement, included how it was founded, its philosophy, individuals killed as a result of police brutality, strategies and tactics, a timeline of of the events and organization of the movement, its relation to the election, protests and the opposition of the movement from various viewpoints.

This Wikipedia page is renowned because it takes a movement that is deemed "controversial", but includes all factual, cited information in order to describe all aspects of the movement. Bm2004 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

you are very kind. This is much appreciated. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Based on reviews of sources conducted by myself and other editors active on this page, I formally propose that Movement for Black Lives be merged into Black Lives Matter. MBL, at least at this stage, seems largely to be an outgrowth of Black Lives Matter, with little notability independent of the latter. If at some point RS start covering it as a separate phenomenon, we can then do the same. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Conditional Support - Granted, there is an obvious distinction between the two. Based on all available sources on that article, the two are similar enough that the distinction does't necessarily warrant a separate article. Support merger based on current information and pending no additional major points of distinction. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - MBL and BLM are completely different organizations. Even if MBL is an outgrowth of BLM it is now a separate group. Whether MBL is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia is something that can be looked at through an AfD, if necessary -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There is an obvious distinction between the two, based on all available sources on that article. Carptrash (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose because they are different, also oppose an entire section on Israel --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The Movement for Black Lives is a coalition that includes Black Lives Matter.[5] The fact that two editors refuse to get the point is not a good reason to merge the two articles. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per MShabazz. [For the record, this is probably the first time I've agreed with MShabazz on anything.] KamelTebaast 21:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for all of the reasons stated above by Kamel, Malik, JumplikeJordan, Carptrash, and Millions. [[PPX]] (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Brown (direct action section)

"(a later discredited reference attributed to Michael Brown[43]" This seems like original research because they are citing a DOJ study. How was that slogan discredited as it relates to Michael Brown? Either way, why is that point relevant criticism in that section? That phrase is commonly used. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a strange one. In this case, it appears they are citing the DOJ not for information on "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" but in reference to the "discredited" bit. According to the DOJ report, physiological evidence is inconsistent with witness reports that his hands were up at the time of the shooting. It's grey whether or not the criticism belongs, but citing the primary source definitely rings of OR interpretation. At the very least, it should be replaced with a secondary source, such was WaPo. Scoundr3l (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations to Add

I plan to add the following citations:

• Cooper, Brittney (13 October 2014). "In Defense of Black Rage: Michael Brown, Police and the American Dream".
• An Activism of Affirmation — Magazine — Walker Art Center". www.walkerart.org. Retrieved 2016-10-26.
• Wortham, Jenna. "Black Tweets Matter." Smithsonian 47.5 (2016): 21.MasterFILE Premier. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
• White, Khadijah. "Black Lives on Campuses Matter: The Rise of the New Black Student Movement." Soundings (13626620) 63 (2016): 86-97.Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.M.nie (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, these look like valuable additions. The article is under going some recent trimmings for brevity's sake, so I would only caution that we don't rehash anything that's already been stated and mine these sources for their most unique contributions. Look forward to seeing it. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I just removed this image

Police Lives Matter sign in Pasco County, Florida during the United States presidential election, 2016

from the article and am moving it here to talk about. I for one am opposed to using it, at least until after the US Presidential election, if at all. I would not mind it being used at the Police Lives Matter articleCarptrash (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

what is the basis for removing this? --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI: it is Blue Lives Matter, are you familiar with how this movement started? --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, The picture says Police Lives Matter. Am I familiar with how what movement started? And I removed it because (1) it is not about Black Lives Matter, but mostly (2) because a week or two before the US election we don't, or should not, allow campaign signs to be posted. Carptrash (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting point about the election, definitely in good faith, but that will not support removing it. What rule are you citing to? How is this influencing the election? It actually is very much related to Black Lives Matter because it was a response to BLM as per sources. --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well of course I assume good faith, no way you are a Trump supporter, right? And please explain "as per sources." because I am to finding any source in the article that would support the inclusion of this picture. Carptrash (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is definitely connected to the subject of this article since its wording is obviously referencing it. However, if it is just a stand-alone image then it should not be there - illustrations and photographs are meant to expand on article content that is already there. If it is part of content dealing with criticism of an alleged specificity and exclusionism inherent in the movement or its slogan, then it has a valid place in this article - as would material that seeks to prick the movement's pomposity and self-righteousness, such as the "Deplorable Lives Matter" meme. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

New York Post

There is a disagreement over the phrasing of the New York Post piece from Deroy Murdock. The original text reads:

Deroy Murdock questioned the number of black people killed by police that, he says, BLM reported. He wrote...

The disputed change reads:

Deroy Murdock questioned statistics stated by some BLM activists over the rate at which black people are killed by police. Murdock wrote...

The main point of contention, of course, is whether to say that BLM activists stated the figures or to say that Murdock stated that BLM stated the figures. According to WP:INTEXT, in-text attribution can not be used to mislead the reader into thinking that factual information only belongs to the attributed author. So to get a few things out of the way.

• This is an opinion piece, and Murdock's opinions should be attributed. But...
• The quotes he's commenting on are not his opinion. They either happened or they didn't

I'll be the first to admit that the New York Post is a low quality rag, but accusing them of making up direct quotes is a new one to me. The author provides the following direct quotes of the statistics he's commenting on:

“Every 28 hours, a black person is murdered by police,” Black Lives Matter activist Cherno Biko told Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly. “It feels like we’re in a war.”

and

Rise Up October asserts that there are “over 1,000 people a year killed by police.”

So either these quotes happened or they didn't. There's no middle ground to say that Murdock is of the opinion that these things were said. If they didn't happen, we should remove this content because it's fabricated nonsense. Merely attributing it is a disservice to the reader. If it did happen, attributing it to the commentator is misleading and a violation of the WP:CS content guidelines.

Ultimately that makes this an issue of contextual reliability. Is there reason to believe that the NYP doesn't fact check their quotes? It's a tabloid, but it's still a major news outlet with basic credibility at stake. If you want to fact-check for yourself, the first quote should provide enough information to verify it. For copyright reasons, I can't provide a clip, but it's from the September 4, 2015 Megyn Kelly panel on Black Lives Matter (rough transcript here). The second quote is from Rise Up October's official website at the time (archive). Otherwise, there's nothing on RS/N dismissing NYP for basic quote checking, so why are we attributing the quotes to Murdock? They're either true or false, not opinions. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

First off, I didn't accuse the New York Post of making up quotes. I said that, despite your assertions, they don't fact-check their op-ed content, and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

Second, Wikipedia has a guideline that requires that we assume good faith of our fellow editors. The encyclopedia doesn't require us to assume good faith of editorialists.

Thank you for demonstrating that Murdock didn't make up the quotes.

Finally, you keep repeating yourself that the New York Post checks the assertions of its op-ed contributors. I don't believe that for an instant. What makes you think they do so? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps accusation was too strong a word, but the article language was at least expressing doubt about the quote. Unless there's a serious dispute over the facts, the NPOV policy prohibits stating facts as opinions (WP:WikiVoice, or more specifically WP:ASSERT). I was simply raising the question of why we should doubt NYP in this context. "Good faith" is an interesting way to put it, but it's not far from the truth either. Publishing erroneous quotes, even in an opinion piece, is potentially libelous. As such, most major news outlets are generally considered reliable sources for quote-checking unless we have reason to think otherwise. I was merely asking if such a reason exists. I think we agree on the quality of NYP, but I hope we've at least demonstrated it factual in this case. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Lives Matter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.colorado.edu/news/features/ferguson-effect-explored-new-sweeping-study with https://web.archive.org/web/20160730140907/http://www.colorado.edu/news/features/ferguson-effect-explored-new-sweeping-study on http://www.colorado.edu/news/features/ferguson-effect-explored-new-sweeping-study

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Attempts to have the Black Lives Matter group labeled terrorist group

Recently there was a Whitehouse dot gov petition demanding that BLM be labeled a terrorist group. (And the petition site seems to be blacklisted here. oO) And some people have taken this at face value and began labeling BLM as such. A couple of articles on it here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walaa-chahine/labeling-blm-as-a-terrori_b_10931812.html and here https://mic.com/articles/149143/is-black-lives-matter-a-terror-group-if-you-have-to-ask-read-this#.peh7flBhe What surprised me is at least some commentators, bloggers and v-podcasters have taken this claim at face value, apparently without bothering to research it first. oO --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of silly petitions submitted to the Whitehouse, including I believe a proposal that we build a Deathstar. We don't take these accusations seriously until there's a reliable source backing them up and even then only with due weight. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to specify. The petition asked for BLM to be recognized as a "Domestic" Terror organization, due to events such as the Baltimore Riots, Charlotte, and so on. The white house responded by claiming that they don't identify Domestic Terrorist Groups, I believe that was the same response to when people tried to get the KKK classified as a domestic terror group. So yeah, that's some info. Only info I thought to myself, is that the KKK haven't held mass lynchings since the early 70s, which is well before my time, and yes, they are still bad, but they are a historical lesson I think even BLM can learn from. That's why we have history, so we can learn from the mistakes of our predecessors, so we don't make them again.

Nate Rybner 17:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Racism against whites

The section "Allegations of racism" needs to be expanded to include events of BLM beating up and harassing whites, using anti-white racist language and associating themselves with black power, black supremacists and the New Black Panther Party.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrNiPf4Kyxs
• http://www.dailywire.com/news/9544/kill-all-white-people-black-lives-matter-graffiti-amanda-prestigiacomo#
• http://www.dailywire.com/news/8577/men-chanting-black-lives-matter-beat-seven-white-james-barrett#
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJpWiV-zLoM
• http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-milwaukee-agitators-shout-black-power-attack-white-drivers/
• www.infowars.com/milwaukee-rioters-chant-black-power-as-gas-station-burns/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}
• https://christophercantwell.com/2015/11/28/adam-kokesh-assaulted-by-black-lives-matter/
• http://libertyviral.com/blm-protests-milwaukee-black-power-white-get-ass/#ixzz4HQIuS6jD
• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/27/caught-on-video-black-lives-matter-literally-orders-white-people-to-the-back-of-protest/
• https://twitter.com/sharminultraa/status/551793904090357760
• www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/10/12/new-black-panthers-protest-baton-rouge-not-hate-group/ ^{breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}
• www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/18/7-facts-baton-rouge-cop-killer-gavin-long/ ^{breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}

Instead half the section focuses on an arbitrary opinion of someone claiming BLM isn't racist. There are definitely some racists within the group, the article shouldn't ignore this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.58.17 (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at some of these and adding comments. Carptrash (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

[1] comment from the link, "Someone with mental illness showed up at a protest? Where was this?"

[2] Nothing here to suggest BLM's involvement

[3] Just more "poor white people as victims" - nothing to suggest BLM involvement

[5] I saw nothing about BLM here Carptrash (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not one of those qualifies as a reliable source, and even if they did, I have yet to see any source make a connection between isolated incidents of black people assaulting white people and the "Black Lives Matter" movement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

you need reliable sources, I would recommend combing search engines. And, please better articulate what you propose adding. thanks for your ideas. I had never heard of black supremacy. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

shootings pre-BLM

Check out this source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/black-lives-matter-11-racist-police-killings-with-no-justice-served-20141204 - It connects shootings that were pre-BLM. We should include in the founding section, a sub-section on the history of police shootings and how they were handled, e.g. protests etc... what do you think? --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be an unreasonable expansion of the scope of this article. The Rolling Stone article lists 11 police killings, but the oldest they cite is 1999. What about Eleanor Bumpurs or Jimmie Lee Jackson? This didn't start recently. The poisoned relationship between African Americans and law enforcement goes back to the slave patrols. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree fully with MShabazz (a second time, for those keeping score). KamelTebaast 15:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Lives Matter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an important and topical article - if there are no objections, I shall provide a review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

First things first, a lot of good work has gone on here, so whether it passes the GAN as a GA or not the editors responsible still warrant commendation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Referencing

• The article is fully referenced; I can see no "citation needed" tags or sections of clearly unreferenced text. The sources used are overwhelmingly from established mainstream press agencies, and thus are considered WP:Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are a few unreferenced bits here and there that I have spotted. The final sentence of "2015", and the first paragraph of "2016", for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Final sentence of 2015 was fixed, and the first paragraph of 2016 is a topical paragraph, all of the those names are included in the section. I did the same thing in 2015 and 2014.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• There appears to be no use of academic sources, published in peer-reviewed journals. This is unfortunate, as these are generally recognised as the best form of Reliable Source according to Wikipedia's policy on the subject. I'm not personally familiar with the academic literature on BLM, but I can imagine that it expands greatly upon the motivations, context, and ideology of the movement in a way that mainstream press sources simply don't. (I can imagine, for instance, that some academics would place BLM in the context of Obama's presidency, the Tea Party movement etc, which just aren't mentioned here). On this count I am a little concerned as to whether the article meets criteria 3a) that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Citation 106 is a dead link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Citation 128 lacks information on the author/publisher of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed this --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Citation 39 needs to be corrected; at present I'm not sure what it is actually referring to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Some citations give the retrieval date; others don't. I would recommending standardising this so that they all have this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• None of the citations are archived. This is not an essential for passing at GAN but it would be strongly recommended so that the citations do not succumb to link rot. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• Citations are not required in the lede as it should replicate properly referenced text in the wider article, but you certainly don't have to remove them just for GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• The third paragraph consists largely of a list of fourteen names. I'm not really sure that this is either necessary or complies fully with the MOS guidelines for how to produce a lede (long lists of this nature tend to be avoided). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • removed the list of names --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• "racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system" - maybe "perceived racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system"? Of course I personally think that the evidence for such inequality is flagrantly obvious, but we might want to stay on the 'safe side' of criteria 4: that the article remains "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • added perceived--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that the lede aptly summarises the article contents as is mentioned per MOS. For instance, it mentions that there are criticisms of BLM, but does not state what those criticisms are. It mentions that "The U.S. population's perception of Black Lives Matter varies considerably by race" but that does not tell us much on its own. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Any response on this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I added criticism paragraph to lede. any further points are welcome --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Prose

• Forenames are repeated, such as that of Al Sharpton. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Various duplinks, such as DeRay McKesson. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Timeline of notable U.S. events and demonstrations" drags on a bit and is rather repetitive. It's a difficult situation; obviously we want to provide a good overview of the different protests, but this just feels like a long list of incidents with very little unifying thrust. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Throughout the article, there are far too many paragraphs that consist of only a sentence or two. Even some sections and sub-sections contain only a sentence or two. This is not ideal as per the Manual of Style. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Images

• "2014" has a few too many images, I think. It looks clustered and untidy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My general concern about this article is that at present it feels a bit scrappy. A fact here, a fact there. To a great extent, this is because of the source material used. News articles from the web tend to give a snapshot of a 'current event' like a demonstration without offering wider critical analysis of it. This is where academic studies of the movement would be beneficial. Ideally of course we would have a wider published history of the movement that we could draw upon, but as this is an ongoing event we probably won't have any of those for several years at least. My gut instinct would be to not pass this article at this time. However, right now I'm going to put this article out for a second opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If possible, could it be made clear which of these points has been responded to by the nominator? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Second Opinion My caveat here is that I only read through the article for prose since that seemed to be Midnightblueowl's main concern. I agree that the prose can use some work, a while to go before FA quality, but it is surely "clear and concise" per 1a so I think it is within the criteria. Secondly, while I also agree that the lack of academic sources is unfortunate (perhaps I'll compile some for people to use, remind me if anyone is interested) I'm actually very pleased with the breadth of coverage the authors have achieved. Looking towards FA, I think those sources will be necessary, but for GA I think it addresses all the facets of the topic sufficiently. As long as everything else is to your liking, Midnightblueowl, I would recommend promotion. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Further concerns

• Citation 98 is a dead link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Replaced with a source that has a working URL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• There remains a lot of inconsistency in the formatting of sources. Some for example don't provide dates, some don't provide retrieval dates, some italicise the name of the publisher and others do not. This could really do with being standardised, although that probably isn't a requirement for GA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you know if there is a script or an automated tool that can help standardize citations? I've looked, but most of the citation tools appear to be aimed toward helping editors add new citations, not formatting the existing citations in an article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I'm not aware of any. It's the sort of job that I've always done manually. Time consuming and dull, but at least the references look nicer at the end of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

At this juncture I feel that the most appropriate move is to pass this article as a GA. I'm still fairly concerned about its over-reliance on press sources at the expense of academic publications, but I appreciate that BLM is a current event and thus the historical studies and such like probably have not been produced yet. I am also fairly happy that it meets the GA criteria, and clearly Wugapodes agreed on that point when I requested a second opinion. Congratulations on all the good work that you have put into this article, JumpLike23. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

See also link was removed

The whole Black Lives Matter movement revolves around police killing people. So, I added the following link to the See also section so people can see the people killed by police.

• List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States

It seems that EvergreenFir has it totally backwards by reverting my edit and stating, "Bordering on inflammatory. despite news rhetoric, blm has not killed officers." The linked wiki article is about police officers killing people a "nd not about BLM people killing police. I am arguing that the reference be included in the See also section because it is totally relevant to BLM. -- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 08:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ubh: Yep, my mistake. I'll revert. Sorry about that. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an activist movement. The external link, to a listing of killings by police officers: Some are completely justified, some are likely not, some are in the middle. Some of those killed were black, some were white. This link is "only indirectly related to the article's subject".Wikipedia:External_links#EL13 - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

Statistics on black shootings: Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police. Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015; More whites and Hispanics die from police shootings than blacks. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler Polisci2017 (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also cherry picked statistics are not helpful and this does not appear to be an RS EvergreenFir (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Black Lives Matter is a decentralized movement, and linking any one website as *the* external website for the movement suggests a level of authority and centrality that simply does not exist. This "external website" link should be removed immediately to prevent confusion. Winningafacebookargument (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter Praises Fidel Castro and His Vision

We must complete this overview by including Black Lives Matter's support for Cuban leader Fidel Castro. A Google News search with the terms "Black Lives Matter" and "Castro" generates a results list of neutral POV articles on this subject from many trusted news sources.40.133.226.82 (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"We?" Carptrash (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming that is we the BLM counter-resistance coalition. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you feel there is significant coverage of this in independent reliable sources, please link to the sources, rather than recommending that someone search for them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Why the assumptions and hostility? This would appear to be an inexperienced or unvetted editor requesting changes they can't or don't know how to make. "We" here meaning the Wikipedia project, by all fair estimates. Here's what I found outside the more unreliable sources:

• http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/11/28/black-lives-matter-defends-fidel-castro-opinion-piece/94572464/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3977364/Fidel-Vive-Black-Lives-Matter-calls-supporters-come-defense-El-Comandante.html

I'll work on something simple from those.To recap the usual: yes, BLM is decentralized and not all of their statements speak for all of their representatives. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose those would be at the top of the list of most neutral reliable sources. But just to gain clarity on the the concept of neutrality in this article, I'm looking at the sentence under Founding... Online Campaign: "The movement was co-founded by three black community organizers: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi." This sounds like a statement of fact, and I guess it's correct. But then the article says: "They began to question how they were going to respond to the devaluation of black lives after Zimmerman's acquittal." The phrase "devaluation of black lives" is thought-provoking but not unchallenged. To be meticulously neutral, I'm wondering if that sentence shouldn't instead read: "They explained that they began to question how they were going to respond to what they (or many) called 'the devaluation of black lives' after Zimmerman's acquittal." Am I kinda on track here? Or am I making a distinction without a difference? Thank you for your attention.40.133.226.82 (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to hedge. It is clearly implied that it is their opinion that black lives are devalued. That dailymail article is not exactly a very good RS. Moreover, BLM gets tons of news everyday and we need to make editorial decisions. Maybe this belongs on Fidel's page or a related one. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you find something specifically unreliable in the Daily Mail article? Granted, DM isn't the most objective paper in the world, it's still a major news outlet and generally considered an RS. In this case, it's even just trivially repeating quotes from the primary source so there isn't much for it to be unreliable about. As for exclusion, I really don't see how support for a controversial political figure would be a matter of editorial discretion in an article about a political movement. Due weight, naturally, as I doubt all of BLM is in agreement, but certainly relevant. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of...

Why no mention of the BLM chant of "What do we want?" "Dead cops" "When do we want it?" "NOW"

Why no mention of the beatings of innocent white persons at the hands of BLM "protesters"?

Why no mention of the murder of police officers by BLM activists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3AEE:5EE0:6DE7:E1F:995E:462D (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And why doesn't the article about the moon say it's made of green cheese? Because, like most myths, fairy tales, and conspiracy theories -- including the ones you mention -- it's not true. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse MShabazz, he may have mistaken this article discussion for an attempt to try out some amateur comedy. While a quick Google finger can confirm that the mentioned events did take place, there is either little information or in some cases blatant misinformation linking them to BLM as a movement.

The chant is oft-misattributed to a Baton Rouge BLM rally but happened at a much earlier event in Brooklyn and is not actually associated with BLM. (see http://www.snopes.com/black-lives-matter-protesters-chant-for-dead-cops-now-in-baton-rouge/ ). To my knowledge, there is no connection to the murder of police officers and BLM, though coverage by reliable sources (avoiding shock sources such as Breitbart) could warrant inclusion in the article. Please also review our policy on due weight. Finally, while there's no doubt been violence at BLM protests, the notability and weight of that information would be considered based on its coverage in reliable sources. If you can provide specific information and sources you would like to see included, we can hopefully discuss it with some impartiality and civility. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse Scoundr3l. He's too unworldly to know that a Google search will produce hundreds, if not thousands of sites that prove the moon is made of green cheese. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're keeping that joke. I wouldn't close with it, though. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Scoundr3l, sorry, but if the chant is misattributed, then it's not a BLM chant. It may have been a chant, but that's beside the point. The rest of the IP's comments are, of course, not worth commenting on. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I said as much. I even provided a link which confirms it's not a BLM chant. The real question, then, is why we bother participating in this talk page if the questions aren't worth commenting on. It's optional. But if we're not actually answering the questions in good faith, we're probably WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Silliness

"a protest leader was heard" "One protester objected ... but was not answered"

Please, this isn't Faux News. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Is your issue with the language? This is paraphrased directly from the source. Please explain your issues using details if you'd like them addressed. There are no stones present to hear your complaints and I don't know what is meant by "silliness". Scoundr3l (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have again removed this copy. We don't report every detail of every comment made by protesters. The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source for almost anything. If a movement leader made this statement that would make it notable, as it is, it's not. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

We also don't filter information based solely on whether or not we like it or whether or not we like the source. At present, DM and Fox News are both major news outlets and are generally considered reliable. I realize that they are right-wing and often sensational sources, but that doesn't dismiss them. If you have specific concerns about reliability in context, please outline what's being unreliably reported and we can discuss it. Otherwise, we need impartial reasons for exclusion that don't amount to personal feelings. For what reason are you trying to exclude this information? It's interesting to note that positive information is added to this article almost indiscriminately, often from partial and even self-published sources, but the majority of the energy on this talk page is ensuring that every addition to the criticism section is thoroughly vetted, even when covered in major outlets. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Have there been other instances where this has happened at BLM rallies? --JumpLike23 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Other instances of what exactly? These sources are covering a very specific video from the Philadelphia demonstrations. The only specific concerns raised so far have been with the source, but neither source is considered unreliable and no context has been given making them unreliable in this case. Scoundr3l (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Instances of segregation at BLM rallies? That is the claim you would like to include. There are many incidents that happen everyday associated with BLM. Mere inclusion in a RS does not support inclusion in this article? If this had happened at many different rallies, then I would support inclusion or if notable BLM leaders were using such tactics. In a similar case, we did not support inclusion Milo Yiannopoulos's rally --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The information added is that there was attempted segregation taking place at the Philadelphia demonstrations. To my knowledge, nobody has made any blanket claims about segregation, so it's still not clear why you need additional examples to cover this incident. This incident is reported in at least two major news outlets and while I grant that alone doesn't necessarily merit inclusion, you've not actually discussed why it shouldn't be included. You've provided baselines which can be used for the exclusion of any and all information, yet are not used for those purposes. The provided information is topical, distinct, necessary to conveying additional information about the subject, provided in due weight (though I'm willing to discuss this if anyone would provide specifics on what they found wrong with it), and it doesn't turn the article into anything it shouldn't be. Aside from the source I've not actually heard any details on what's wrong with it, which is the purpose of this discussion. In the case of the Milo Yiannopoulos's rally, there was actually a discussion regarding whether or not it was factual to call it a BLM issue. Defaulting exclusion, though, is not a discussion and holds no more weight than "I don't like it". Scoundr3l (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The fact that you saw, and evidently continue to see, nothing wrong with the mindless drivel I quoted at the opening of this section that you added to this article is very worrisome. "Somebody somewhere did something, and somebody else did something else, but the first somebody didn't hear the second somebody and didn't reply." Does that accurately summarize the content you're fighting so hard to add? And your sources? Each is their country's least reliable daily newspaper, as a visit to the archives of WP:RS/N (or a dollop of common sense) would show you. But carry on, by all means. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: the content was added without explanation and the user was subsequently blocked. --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As also previously noted, neither the removal of the previous content nor the user's block were related to the content added. The reverter admitted neutrality to the inclusion of the information, so it's not pertinent to this discussion. Policy does not entitle anyone to an explanation and only protects status quo in the interest of consensus building, not as an alternative. In fact, such actions can be considered disruptive so let's please focus on the content and discuss the problems with the addition, not the user who added it. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Cut the bullshit. The material was added by an editor whose sole contributions to Wikipedia since the summer have been white supremacist tripe. He was perma-blocked when it became obvious that he was only interested in POV pushing. And if you think that's not relevant to this discussion, there's a bridge to Brooklyn I can sell you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's just too bad about the whole logical fallacy of it. That must be why we made it policy. But do let me know if you come up with any answers to the above basic questions regarding the content. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you've cited WP:Dispute resolution, I'll keep that in mind the next time I participate in dispute resolution with a white supremacist. In the meantime, you might want to get serious and reply to the substance of my complaint. Or keep playing the game of "Who can cite more policies". It's your choice. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Kindly add some substance to your complaint and I'll be happy to reply. As noted above, it's not clear what your complaint is and you've yet to answer questions regarding the nature of your complaint. These discussions often move much faster when we don't waste time talking about user behavior and bridges for sale (see the above linked policy on "Resolving Content Disputes" which is what we're attempting to do). Scoundr3l (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)