This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no direct link to BLM website where it is referred to, despite it being talked about in several places. To that end, I suggest...
Under Guiding Principles, change: "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles..." to "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles" or "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles"
or equivalent Digihoe ( talk) 23:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! The page is locked so please add link to George Floyd in the introduction... There is just a link to the George Floyd protests but not to the article about him. Really shame on you if you try to write an article about BLM and don't bother to link him! -- Ozzy ( talk) 18:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Is the information in this section still valid, the source is a page on their website that no longer exists. 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:F059:79D5:F20E:1DF6 ( talk) 09:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
As the flag says at the top of the BLM page, it is very long and difficult to navigate comfortably. To counteract this, I propose moving much of the information under Criticism to a new page called Criticism of Black Lives Matter. This is not to lend more space to criticizing the movement, but simply to clear space. If All Lives Matter can have a page, general criticism should too, and it would help make this page more easy to navigate. What are everyone's thoughts? PickleG13 ( talk) 20:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
a global and very well-known organization
The writing in the section is confusing and mixing two separate ideas; one is the crime rate by race, the other is the rate of intraracial crime. It needs to be rewritten as it currently is arguing that since the intraracial crime rate is similar across race that the differences in crime rate by race is somehow not true. Of 19 ( talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Photo under section "Blue Lives Matter" shows an offensive and inappropriate slogan ("Fuck blue lives matter"). Please remove photo as there are children reading this article for educational purposes. (This posted by some annon editor)
The BLMUK gofundme page talks a lot about dismantling capitalism and imperialism, zero on police brutality. Unfortunately it's on the blacklist so no link.
The Socialist Worker's Party are out on the protests, plenty of Socialist Worker logos mixed in with BLM, eg https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43116/Black+Lives+Matter+activists+meet+to+organise++and+discuss+strategy. You can even see a mingling of the logos on their banners.
There are various articles on how the movement has been 'hijacked' by the far left - eg https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hard-left-hijacks-black-lives-matter-movement-lpmfn3f2j — Preceding unsigned comment added by EUBanana ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Section moved to the chronologically appropriate location in the talk page by ItsPugle
If millions of pounds are raised under the BLM umbrella, and this article is about BLM overall as a decentralised movement, all elements of BLM should be outlined. The radical left wing aims should be outlined. Jschanna7 ( talk) 23:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Why are Susan Rosenberg, Charles Wade and Yusra Khogali not even mentioned? 2607:FEA8:10E0:1600:EC9C:CA68:DE02:54B9 ( talk) 13:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Shaun king isn’t a founder?
———- Kizemet Kizemet ( talk) 08:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
/as in I’m stating that he is not
——Kizemet Kizemet ( talk) 08:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The founders should be mentioned. The organisation is at the bedrock of the movement. The founders are self-described Marxists. This information should be made available. Jschanna7 ( talk) 23:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This wiki on BLM states it is a "non-violent" movement. Yet the official BLM website does not contain the words "peaceful" or "non-violent" anywhere I could find. The BLM website DOES NOT promote peaceful means to achieve their goals. I did find the word "combating" on their website. I believe that this wiki needs to exclude the current statement that BLM is a "non-violent" movement, considering that is not stated or even implied anywhere on their official website. Until a reference can be supplied to the official website - don't you think that "non-violent" should be removed? The videos I see on the internet suggests that the movement may be incredibly violent. Please correct me if I am wrong. GunAuthor ( talk) 04:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This appears to be the official BLM website I mentioned above: https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/ GunAuthor ( talk) 04:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yet the official BLM website does not contain the words "peaceful" or "non-violent" anywhere I could find.
Just a thought to contribute here, there is significant evidence that both the BLM movement and the BLM organization have caused and been apart of violent riots, while I understand that this is a very political topic, users of wikipedia should first look at facts before considering popular or unpopular opinion. ShockTNC ( talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I did but it appears to have gotten removed? ShockTNC ( talk) 21:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like someone is removing my post for "trolling" don't know if he honestly thought I was or just didn't like what I said but would appreciate if someone could reverse the edit. ShockTNC ( talk) 22:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Well I guess if truth isn't a good enough source then I might as well leave. ShockTNC ( talk) 19:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not unwilling to follow rules and guidelines, but it seems to me he is just using that as an ecuse. Proving that something or someone is or isn't violent requires proof, The most accurate and non biased proof would be the police reports I linked to. If you won't accept that as vaild evidence then there isn't much point in having a discussion about it. ShockTNC ( talk) 19:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
That legitimately makes no sense to me, are you saying the original (and thus most accurate source) is not allowed, but a secondary source referring to the original is? Can you explain why that is the case? ShockTNC ( talk) 19:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
As a follow up, I get what your saying about needing proof directly from the source that there is a link, but that goes back to needing a biased source willing to make the connection. If I used articles talking about the link between the riots and BLM would those be accepted? ShockTNC ( talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Your right there where no links, I forgot to mention that I was unable to post a link. When I tried to my comment simply didnt publish. ShockTNC ( talk) 14:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The link was to the FBI website, shouldn't be on a blocked list. ShockTNC ( talk) 16:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've looked around and I can't find an official stance saying that they are non-violent. Obviously, many of the BLM organized protests are non-violent and of course some seem to turn violent or are initially violent. It seems like the movement has remained quiet on some of the violence seen in the protest. I'm not saying that they promote violence (no evidence that they do that), I'm merely saying that the statement in the first sentence of "advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest..." is not factually based. It should be changed to "advocating for civil disobedience in protest..." Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
...its leaders and the vast majority of its members openly favor nonviolent means. From the cited source. I'll add a few more sources to be sure, though. -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
As with any decentralized movement, it's quite possible that different members have different points of view on the subject. I don't have enough information to definitively characterize it as non-violent or violent universally, but I would consider including claims of violence in the "Criticism" section, while also including counterclaims that the vast majority of protests are non-violent. Claims of violence, since they're common enough, warrant mention. CessnaMan1989 ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
This is an obviously biased statement. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is that it implies that Trump calls BLM protesters/rioters, terrorists, solely because he disagrees with them
I've added a quote from the article cited ... to the citationmean? I don't see any recent additions by you to this WP article. Lester Mobley ( talk) 15:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Their words, encyclopedic facts and surely if the police wearing riot gear is to be included these encyclopedic fancs should be included.
https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:D423:54E0:6C22:3DD2 ( talk) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This new data directly contradicts the “non-violent” claim of this group.
“Princeton Study: Black Lives Matter Responsible For 91% of Riots Over Last 3 Months
America experienced 637 riots between May 26 and September 12.“
(URL Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:80c4:9f00:b517:7e3c:ddb9:6bf7 ( talk • contribs) 01:00, September 19, 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The BLM organisation in America is at the heart of the movement. That’s why it received millions of dollars in donations after George Floyd’s death. This article should at least state facts about the organisation, otherwise it misleads the reader. Jschanna7 ( talk) 23:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the part of the article referencing Roland G Fryer's study, it claims that black people are 50% more likely to experience force at the hands of police. However, when additional control variables are included, most of the disparity disappears. Fryer says that the findings for non-lethal uses of force are "most consistent with a model of taste-based discrimination", but admits that the results are "also consistent with mismeasured contextual factors", and that "we have no definitive proof of discrimination". Jschanna7 ( talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
However, when additional control variables are included, most of the disparity disappears.does not seem to be an accurate representation of the study, which states "On non-lethal uses of force, there are racial differences – sometimes quite large – in police use of force, even after accounting for a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioral factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction." If I understand the study, after accounting for the factors he estimates it at between 18% and 28%. Lester Mobley ( talk) 15:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The BLM page needs serious revisions. Your page says they are a protest group and nonviolent. Black Lives Matter is an admitted Marxist group. And, also, by admission, one of its leaders said if the members don't get what they want, they will burn everything down. People come to Wikipedia for answers. The answers need to be true. PLEASE MAKE THE CHANGES NOW!!! DrM6289 ( talk) 17:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For a supposedly “open” information platform there’s an awful lot of “closed” pages. I understand that people will write some non sense but for supposed place where people are free to edit. You have a lot of things that people can’t edit. So what if some slanderous nonsense is on the page for a tick. It will be removed. It almost appears as tho Wikipedia is afraid of some lies being up for a minute rather than the integrity of a core principal that this website was supposedly founded on. How easy we abandon our roots. It says more than any words ever could about the type of people who make such decisions. Secondly, Black Lives Matters is not for black lives. How many black people are killed on a single weekend in Chicago? More than are killed in an entire year by white cops. So let’s be honest and give people all the information. Also they make no qualms about hold Marxist core values as their core values. These facts are just that facts and need to be included. Since integrity means so much apparently. Mkeller12 ( talk) 12:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Going to have to expose Wikipedia being fake go talk to all them store owners have been attacked by black lives matter help expose Wikipedia OOGrock ( talk) 21:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that the section regarding criticism should have a section regarding the alleged Marxist leanings of the movement specifically Alicia Garza using the term "trained Marxist", comments in support of Assata Shakur, and alleged anti-Semitic elements. While of course there is debate on this the fact that it has been brought up so much seems to indicate that it should have a section perhaps called Radicalism accusation.
Also some religious figure have criticized the movement for its stance on the nuclear family, LGBT rights, and abortion. For example Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of South Africa, who is Black and was active in the Anti-Apartheid movement has mentioned this. https://twitter.com/cardinalnapier/status/1279467608782315523?lang=en https://twitter.com/CardinalNapier/status/1299553465782464513
Elizabeth Bruenig has written abut this in the context of the Catholic church, but I am sure there are other examples in different churches. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/opinion/sunday/gloria-purvis-george-floyd-blm.html 108.45.91.166 ( talk) 22:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
why is here no mention of all violence caused by blm supporters ? and damage done at us ? 2A00:1028:96D0:36CA:9AB:D033:2D8E:EC3A ( talk) 17:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Anything else needed at Talk:Black Lives Matter/GA2? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
hi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7344:6400:4994:4049:720B:2A25 ( talk) 05:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the POV banner on the "Disagreement over racial bias" still warranted? Can folks point out to me the issues with the section and/or suggest ways to fix it? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Since the previous section was closed I will post here. I did not include sources in the first post cause I wanted to start a discussion on this topic. Instead now I will post some sources. Here is a politifact article discussing the claim: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/
Articles in support of calling it that https://fee.org/articles/black-lives-matter-s-goal-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-fits-a-marxist-aim-that-goes-back-a-century-and-a-half/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/
Counter claim article https://theberkshireedge.com/the-actors-came-back
One that splits the difference https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
I feel the need to stress that this not me questioning if BLM is Marxist, but showing that one of the objections from the Right on BLM is this alleged Marxist connection.
Regarding the anti-Semitism claim here are some articles. https://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/black-lives-matter-american-jews-and-antisemitism-distinguishing-between-the-organizations-the-movement-and-the-ubiquitous-phrase/ https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/from-left-to-right-jewish-groups-condemn-repellent-black-lives-matter-claim-of-israeli-genocide https://jewishjournal.org/2020/07/16/editorial-anti-semitism-and-black-lives-matter/ https://combatantisemitism.org/latest-news/jcpa-article-details-the-undermining-of-blm-by-bds-supporters/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did-black-american-activists-start-caring-about-palestine/496088/ 108.45.91.166 ( talk) 04:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, but what about Politifacts article? Here are some articles from Newsweek, the Guardian, and Politico which are rated highly. They all mention that the Marxist claim is being used by Republicans. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/10/elections-republicans-black-lives-matterbacklash-389906 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/black-lives-matter-rightwing-media https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-marxist-group-gop-senator-says-citing-2015-video-1519827
Also what about the anti-Semitism claim? The Atlantic is highly rated. Jerusalem Post and Tablet are respected sources. 108.45.91.166 ( talk) 05:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/artist-explains-why-she-painted-assata-shakur-into-mural-outside-palo-alto-city-hall/ https://spectator.us/black-lives-matter-praising-terrorist-assata-shakur/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/09/national-police-group-asks-palo-alto-to-remove-fugitive-assata-shakur-from-black-lives-matter-street-mural/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/fugitive-the-source-of-debate-over-black-lives-matter-mural-in-palo-alto/2327624/ 108.45.91.166 ( talk) 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone object to shortening the archiving to maybe 15 days (currently at 30)? The page has gotten very long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee ( talk • contribs) 07:56, October 7, 2020 (UTC)
Hey I don't know why we are still using the "organization" infobox when this page is clearly about the broader social movement. The organization often known as "Black Lives Matter" is the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and has its own page. I think its time the infobox reflect what the article is talking about, and that is a broad protest movement. We should use a civil conflict infobox as is used on every other social movement's page. This seems like sort of a no-brainer unless I'm missing something. Mangokeylime ( talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not following this, but this edit on Wikipedia caught my eye and caused me to look at this logo. It says there, "Source: Own work". Is this entirely your own artistic creation, or is it based on a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? I would appreciate a response on my WP user talk page, but I'll try to check back here for one. Please excuse my linking clumsiness here -- I rarely venture outside of WP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
My edit in the "Disagreement over racial bias" subsection of the article was removed because it apparently needs consensus. It is striking how censorship-ridden Wikipedia has become. Gotta fall in line I guess, lest I get sent to the gulag. Getting to the point: "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force" (2016) by Roland G. Fryer J. concludes that there is no racial bias in police shootings. Why does there need to be consensus to add the conclusion of a factual Harvard study to the article? https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force -- Chupster811 ( talk) 00:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
As of September 2020, new polls from Pew Research Center has shown a decrease in support for BLM since June https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/16/support-for-black-lives-matter-has-decreased-since-june-but-remains-strong-among-black-americans/ 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:ED40:86D:FEED:83DC ( talk) 00:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like this article miss some point:
"Research shows that People of Color suffer higher rates of traffic fatalities and severe injuries, that drivers are less likely to yield to Black people walking and biking, and that frequently programs and policies to support safety – such as those around jaywalking – disproportionately burden communities of color."
Or should this been addressed in a different article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.216.31 ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
the current end of the subsection "black-on-black crime" in the criticism section is a blatant example of being dishonest with statistics. it points out that black-on-black violence occurs proportionally similarly to white-on-white violence within violence against those groups. this is true, but misleading, if it is to argue that black-on-black violence is the same as white-on-white violence. these things happen at a similar proportion of all black or white homicide victimizations, but they happen at a much higher rate among blacks than whites
see these cdc causes of death statistics for white and black people, respectively:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/nonhispanic-white/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/nonhispanic-black/index.htm
homicide was the fourth leading cause of death among blacks in 2017. for whites, it did not rank in the top ten. likewise, 35.3% of deaths among blacks ages 0–19 and 27.6% of those among blacks ages 20–44 were caused by homicide. this compares to 5.2% and 2.8% for whites in those respective age ranges.
black-on-black violence is a grave problem, and it is beneath wikipedia's standards to trivialize it so transparently TheGreatConsultingDetective ( talk) 12:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Police executives, politicians and political commentators need to refrain from using overly simplistic descriptions — such as “black-on-black” violence — when describing outbreaks of serious criminal violence in black neighborhoods.(p.16) That's explained pretty well on page 12:
Seldom are crimes involving whites described as white-on-white violence. Use of this vernacular to describe blacks’ victimization of other blacks has several important consequences. First, a singular focus on a rudimentary race-based dyad characterizing black offending and victimization has the potential to devalue black life while overshadowing the importance of harmful social conditions, such as concentrated neighborhood disadvantage and low collective efficacy (Sampson, 2012) that collectively produce crime. Second, casual use of the black-on-black violence classification may lead segments of the public to implicitly assume that blacks are more tolerant of crime and disorder and do not share the moral standards of mainstream society.
Those statistics may be reflective of other factors, such as poverty rates, disparities in opportunity, and segregation of neighborhoods, rather than any indication that black communities inherently struggle with internal strife more white communities, advocates say.In other words, the "statistical support" for "black-on-black crime" is a victim-blaming misrepresentation of the poor conditions that black Americans are subjected to, a way to hide systematic racism behind numbers. Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
i actually 100% agree that "black-on-black violence", by whatever name or understanding we have, is a product of systemic racism, so i didn't "feel the need to portray black people as more violent" at all. i just read the subsection as written, and saw that it did not address some key facts, and wanted to bring it up. i agree that my specific facts and figures did not by themselves, and only in conjunction with the point in the article about consistent rates of intraracial violence across races, demonstrate my point. my comment and links were less intended to close the matter or satisfy the need for sources, but to start a discussion to improve the article. i'm not a skilled wikipedia editor, so i did not think i could do this on my own. to reiterate, i believe john mcwhorter made a sound criticism that the current edit of this article attempts to debunk, but poorly, and it can stand to be more well rounded. how this can be done is beyond my capacity as a novice editor, and i only wanted to start the discussion. now that i have, i'll step back as an editor TheGreatConsultingDetective ( talk) 22:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
it looks like nobody else is discussing this further, so i have to.
ian's response fails entirely to address the point of my concern and what the provided statistics show. what they show is the phenomenon of a tragic number of black lives being lost in black communities. the current edit of the article disguises that fact, now established, by hiding it in statistics. the point that this fact is better explained by systemic racism than black people being naturally violent is **completely irrelevant** to the fact that the phenomenon that has been established. ian didn't deny the phenomenon, but challenged an explanation no one offered. the phenomenon is real and of concern to anyone who actually cares about black lives and not just progressive politics. if the response is to give a better explanation for the phenomenon, i **strongly encourage** that explanation be included in the article in place of the dishonest statistics. hiding the phenomenon with dishonest statistics is, frankly, disgusting. just fix the article please TheGreatConsultingDetective ( talk) 09:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dead Links #Best Replacement https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37283869 https://www.educatemeans.in/2020/11/black-lives-matter-complete-case-study.html Educatemeans ( talk) 09:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Why not state that the movement is very US centric and that there are much more severe forms of oppression, like in Tibet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8680:3241:D63:B29C:6D8:5029 ( talk) 07:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we talk about pulling the network out of this article? BLM the movement, for example, doesn't have any financials and isn't a non-profit. I think the non-profit needs to be a separate article. —valereee ( talk) 16:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that this is not going to lead anywhere useful, but I thought to raise it. --
I've been struck by the resemblance of the "looseness" of the BLM organization to a similar apparent organizational "looseness" in Al-Qaeda. I don't infer any connection between the two from this, but I'm struck by the similarity. "From the outset, al-Qaeda adopted a unique organizational design, whereby its senior leadership outlined a strategic course for the organization a whole, but empowered mid-level commanders to execute this strategy as they saw fit. 'Centralization of decision and decentralization of execution,' as this organizational principle has been described, remains operative today. Indeed, in adhering to this principle, al-Qaeda has been able to maintain both organizational and strategic coherence even in the face of considerable internal and external challenges." [1] One big difference I see is that Al Qaeda sought credit for operations conducted by operational groups without formal affiliation to them, and BLM denies any connection (at least insofar as BLM is identifiable as an organization andinsofar as a BLM spokesman is identifiable as such). I'm put in mind of the remark here saying, ""Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working"
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Confused... This article says that BLM is "a movement", while BlackLivesMatter.com says "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes." There would seem to be a big difference between the two.
Given that the website says they started in in 2013; I would change this article from saying (at the top, in the summary) that BLM is a movement to as a minimum give both points of view.. BLM is an organization, and it is a movement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.68.34 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, November 19, 2020 (UTC)
How can BLM be labeled peaceful when most have resulted in riots & looting? Plus in several cases murder or assault? PissedOffMeMa ( talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"What we believe"
Until very recently the official BLM website had a list of beliefs that BLM follows
https://web.archive.org/web/20200917013317/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
There has been considerable controversy about these believes. Such much so that this page has been recently removed.
I would like to create a section on the current wiki to bring to light this controversy.
Examples of News articles discussing this controversy are below
https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-disrupt-nuclear-family-website https://disrn.com/news/black-lives-matter-removes-controversial-belief-statements-from-website https://www.lawofficer.com/after-being-unmasked-blm-removes-what-we-believe-from-website/ https://notthebee.com/article/black-lives-matter-website-removes-controversial-what-we-believe-page https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8759959/BLM-removes-page-mentions-disrupting-Western-nuclear-family-website.html https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/black-lives-matter-what-we-believe-page-that-includes-disrupting-nuclear-family-structure-removed-from-website https://www.the-sun.com/news/1511555/black-lives-matter-deleting-end-nuclear-family/
How to process with this edit? The page seems to be protected?
The specific suggestion is to include a section that reads "Until 17th Sep 2020 the BLM had a what-we-believe webpage that had the following list of beliefs (list them). The beliefs caused considerable controversy and were removed on the 15th of Sep 2020. Several news outlets (include links above and others) criticized BLM for wanting to hide their true beliefs".
Sorry for the bad English. Not my first language.
Below is the actual beliefs from 17th Sep 2020 that BLM website states about itself. Directly copied from the webarchive.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.31.81 ( talk) 03:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
answered=yes
to =no
of this edit request to continue the discussion, so please don't. Also, see
how to sign your posts. --
Fyrisdal (
talk) 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Btw, you keep dismissing some of the pieces "just the opinion of a few". This is not enough because all discussion the "criticism" section is about opinions.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no direct link to BLM website where it is referred to, despite it being talked about in several places. To that end, I suggest...
Under Guiding Principles, change: "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles..." to "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles" or "According to the Black Lives Matter Network website, there are thirteen guiding principles"
or equivalent Digihoe ( talk) 23:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! The page is locked so please add link to George Floyd in the introduction... There is just a link to the George Floyd protests but not to the article about him. Really shame on you if you try to write an article about BLM and don't bother to link him! -- Ozzy ( talk) 18:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Is the information in this section still valid, the source is a page on their website that no longer exists. 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:F059:79D5:F20E:1DF6 ( talk) 09:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
As the flag says at the top of the BLM page, it is very long and difficult to navigate comfortably. To counteract this, I propose moving much of the information under Criticism to a new page called Criticism of Black Lives Matter. This is not to lend more space to criticizing the movement, but simply to clear space. If All Lives Matter can have a page, general criticism should too, and it would help make this page more easy to navigate. What are everyone's thoughts? PickleG13 ( talk) 20:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
a global and very well-known organization
The writing in the section is confusing and mixing two separate ideas; one is the crime rate by race, the other is the rate of intraracial crime. It needs to be rewritten as it currently is arguing that since the intraracial crime rate is similar across race that the differences in crime rate by race is somehow not true. Of 19 ( talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Photo under section "Blue Lives Matter" shows an offensive and inappropriate slogan ("Fuck blue lives matter"). Please remove photo as there are children reading this article for educational purposes. (This posted by some annon editor)
The BLMUK gofundme page talks a lot about dismantling capitalism and imperialism, zero on police brutality. Unfortunately it's on the blacklist so no link.
The Socialist Worker's Party are out on the protests, plenty of Socialist Worker logos mixed in with BLM, eg https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43116/Black+Lives+Matter+activists+meet+to+organise++and+discuss+strategy. You can even see a mingling of the logos on their banners.
There are various articles on how the movement has been 'hijacked' by the far left - eg https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hard-left-hijacks-black-lives-matter-movement-lpmfn3f2j — Preceding unsigned comment added by EUBanana ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Section moved to the chronologically appropriate location in the talk page by ItsPugle
If millions of pounds are raised under the BLM umbrella, and this article is about BLM overall as a decentralised movement, all elements of BLM should be outlined. The radical left wing aims should be outlined. Jschanna7 ( talk) 23:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Why are Susan Rosenberg, Charles Wade and Yusra Khogali not even mentioned? 2607:FEA8:10E0:1600:EC9C:CA68:DE02:54B9 ( talk) 13:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Shaun king isn’t a founder?
———- Kizemet Kizemet ( talk) 08:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
/as in I’m stating that he is not
——Kizemet Kizemet ( talk) 08:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The founders should be mentioned. The organisation is at the bedrock of the movement. The founders are self-described Marxists. This information should be made available. Jschanna7 ( talk) 23:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This wiki on BLM states it is a "non-violent" movement. Yet the official BLM website does not contain the words "peaceful" or "non-violent" anywhere I could find. The BLM website DOES NOT promote peaceful means to achieve their goals. I did find the word "combating" on their website. I believe that this wiki needs to exclude the current statement that BLM is a "non-violent" movement, considering that is not stated or even implied anywhere on their official website. Until a reference can be supplied to the official website - don't you think that "non-violent" should be removed? The videos I see on the internet suggests that the movement may be incredibly violent. Please correct me if I am wrong. GunAuthor ( talk) 04:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This appears to be the official BLM website I mentioned above: https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/ GunAuthor ( talk) 04:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yet the official BLM website does not contain the words "peaceful" or "non-violent" anywhere I could find.
Just a thought to contribute here, there is significant evidence that both the BLM movement and the BLM organization have caused and been apart of violent riots, while I understand that this is a very political topic, users of wikipedia should first look at facts before considering popular or unpopular opinion. ShockTNC ( talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I did but it appears to have gotten removed? ShockTNC ( talk) 21:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like someone is removing my post for "trolling" don't know if he honestly thought I was or just didn't like what I said but would appreciate if someone could reverse the edit. ShockTNC ( talk) 22:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Well I guess if truth isn't a good enough source then I might as well leave. ShockTNC ( talk) 19:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not unwilling to follow rules and guidelines, but it seems to me he is just using that as an ecuse. Proving that something or someone is or isn't violent requires proof, The most accurate and non biased proof would be the police reports I linked to. If you won't accept that as vaild evidence then there isn't much point in having a discussion about it. ShockTNC ( talk) 19:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
That legitimately makes no sense to me, are you saying the original (and thus most accurate source) is not allowed, but a secondary source referring to the original is? Can you explain why that is the case? ShockTNC ( talk) 19:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
As a follow up, I get what your saying about needing proof directly from the source that there is a link, but that goes back to needing a biased source willing to make the connection. If I used articles talking about the link between the riots and BLM would those be accepted? ShockTNC ( talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Your right there where no links, I forgot to mention that I was unable to post a link. When I tried to my comment simply didnt publish. ShockTNC ( talk) 14:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The link was to the FBI website, shouldn't be on a blocked list. ShockTNC ( talk) 16:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've looked around and I can't find an official stance saying that they are non-violent. Obviously, many of the BLM organized protests are non-violent and of course some seem to turn violent or are initially violent. It seems like the movement has remained quiet on some of the violence seen in the protest. I'm not saying that they promote violence (no evidence that they do that), I'm merely saying that the statement in the first sentence of "advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest..." is not factually based. It should be changed to "advocating for civil disobedience in protest..." Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
...its leaders and the vast majority of its members openly favor nonviolent means. From the cited source. I'll add a few more sources to be sure, though. -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
As with any decentralized movement, it's quite possible that different members have different points of view on the subject. I don't have enough information to definitively characterize it as non-violent or violent universally, but I would consider including claims of violence in the "Criticism" section, while also including counterclaims that the vast majority of protests are non-violent. Claims of violence, since they're common enough, warrant mention. CessnaMan1989 ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
This is an obviously biased statement. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is that it implies that Trump calls BLM protesters/rioters, terrorists, solely because he disagrees with them
I've added a quote from the article cited ... to the citationmean? I don't see any recent additions by you to this WP article. Lester Mobley ( talk) 15:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Their words, encyclopedic facts and surely if the police wearing riot gear is to be included these encyclopedic fancs should be included.
https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:D423:54E0:6C22:3DD2 ( talk) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This new data directly contradicts the “non-violent” claim of this group.
“Princeton Study: Black Lives Matter Responsible For 91% of Riots Over Last 3 Months
America experienced 637 riots between May 26 and September 12.“
(URL Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:80c4:9f00:b517:7e3c:ddb9:6bf7 ( talk • contribs) 01:00, September 19, 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The BLM organisation in America is at the heart of the movement. That’s why it received millions of dollars in donations after George Floyd’s death. This article should at least state facts about the organisation, otherwise it misleads the reader. Jschanna7 ( talk) 23:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the part of the article referencing Roland G Fryer's study, it claims that black people are 50% more likely to experience force at the hands of police. However, when additional control variables are included, most of the disparity disappears. Fryer says that the findings for non-lethal uses of force are "most consistent with a model of taste-based discrimination", but admits that the results are "also consistent with mismeasured contextual factors", and that "we have no definitive proof of discrimination". Jschanna7 ( talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
However, when additional control variables are included, most of the disparity disappears.does not seem to be an accurate representation of the study, which states "On non-lethal uses of force, there are racial differences – sometimes quite large – in police use of force, even after accounting for a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioral factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction." If I understand the study, after accounting for the factors he estimates it at between 18% and 28%. Lester Mobley ( talk) 15:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The BLM page needs serious revisions. Your page says they are a protest group and nonviolent. Black Lives Matter is an admitted Marxist group. And, also, by admission, one of its leaders said if the members don't get what they want, they will burn everything down. People come to Wikipedia for answers. The answers need to be true. PLEASE MAKE THE CHANGES NOW!!! DrM6289 ( talk) 17:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For a supposedly “open” information platform there’s an awful lot of “closed” pages. I understand that people will write some non sense but for supposed place where people are free to edit. You have a lot of things that people can’t edit. So what if some slanderous nonsense is on the page for a tick. It will be removed. It almost appears as tho Wikipedia is afraid of some lies being up for a minute rather than the integrity of a core principal that this website was supposedly founded on. How easy we abandon our roots. It says more than any words ever could about the type of people who make such decisions. Secondly, Black Lives Matters is not for black lives. How many black people are killed on a single weekend in Chicago? More than are killed in an entire year by white cops. So let’s be honest and give people all the information. Also they make no qualms about hold Marxist core values as their core values. These facts are just that facts and need to be included. Since integrity means so much apparently. Mkeller12 ( talk) 12:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Going to have to expose Wikipedia being fake go talk to all them store owners have been attacked by black lives matter help expose Wikipedia OOGrock ( talk) 21:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that the section regarding criticism should have a section regarding the alleged Marxist leanings of the movement specifically Alicia Garza using the term "trained Marxist", comments in support of Assata Shakur, and alleged anti-Semitic elements. While of course there is debate on this the fact that it has been brought up so much seems to indicate that it should have a section perhaps called Radicalism accusation.
Also some religious figure have criticized the movement for its stance on the nuclear family, LGBT rights, and abortion. For example Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of South Africa, who is Black and was active in the Anti-Apartheid movement has mentioned this. https://twitter.com/cardinalnapier/status/1279467608782315523?lang=en https://twitter.com/CardinalNapier/status/1299553465782464513
Elizabeth Bruenig has written abut this in the context of the Catholic church, but I am sure there are other examples in different churches. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/opinion/sunday/gloria-purvis-george-floyd-blm.html 108.45.91.166 ( talk) 22:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
why is here no mention of all violence caused by blm supporters ? and damage done at us ? 2A00:1028:96D0:36CA:9AB:D033:2D8E:EC3A ( talk) 17:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Anything else needed at Talk:Black Lives Matter/GA2? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
hi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7344:6400:4994:4049:720B:2A25 ( talk) 05:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the POV banner on the "Disagreement over racial bias" still warranted? Can folks point out to me the issues with the section and/or suggest ways to fix it? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Since the previous section was closed I will post here. I did not include sources in the first post cause I wanted to start a discussion on this topic. Instead now I will post some sources. Here is a politifact article discussing the claim: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/
Articles in support of calling it that https://fee.org/articles/black-lives-matter-s-goal-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-fits-a-marxist-aim-that-goes-back-a-century-and-a-half/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/editorial-black-lives-matter-is-rooted-in-a-soulle/
Counter claim article https://theberkshireedge.com/the-actors-came-back
One that splits the difference https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
I feel the need to stress that this not me questioning if BLM is Marxist, but showing that one of the objections from the Right on BLM is this alleged Marxist connection.
Regarding the anti-Semitism claim here are some articles. https://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/black-lives-matter-american-jews-and-antisemitism-distinguishing-between-the-organizations-the-movement-and-the-ubiquitous-phrase/ https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/from-left-to-right-jewish-groups-condemn-repellent-black-lives-matter-claim-of-israeli-genocide https://jewishjournal.org/2020/07/16/editorial-anti-semitism-and-black-lives-matter/ https://combatantisemitism.org/latest-news/jcpa-article-details-the-undermining-of-blm-by-bds-supporters/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did-black-american-activists-start-caring-about-palestine/496088/ 108.45.91.166 ( talk) 04:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, but what about Politifacts article? Here are some articles from Newsweek, the Guardian, and Politico which are rated highly. They all mention that the Marxist claim is being used by Republicans. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/10/elections-republicans-black-lives-matterbacklash-389906 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/black-lives-matter-rightwing-media https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-marxist-group-gop-senator-says-citing-2015-video-1519827
Also what about the anti-Semitism claim? The Atlantic is highly rated. Jerusalem Post and Tablet are respected sources. 108.45.91.166 ( talk) 05:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/artist-explains-why-she-painted-assata-shakur-into-mural-outside-palo-alto-city-hall/ https://spectator.us/black-lives-matter-praising-terrorist-assata-shakur/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/09/national-police-group-asks-palo-alto-to-remove-fugitive-assata-shakur-from-black-lives-matter-street-mural/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/fugitive-the-source-of-debate-over-black-lives-matter-mural-in-palo-alto/2327624/ 108.45.91.166 ( talk) 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone object to shortening the archiving to maybe 15 days (currently at 30)? The page has gotten very long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee ( talk • contribs) 07:56, October 7, 2020 (UTC)
Hey I don't know why we are still using the "organization" infobox when this page is clearly about the broader social movement. The organization often known as "Black Lives Matter" is the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and has its own page. I think its time the infobox reflect what the article is talking about, and that is a broad protest movement. We should use a civil conflict infobox as is used on every other social movement's page. This seems like sort of a no-brainer unless I'm missing something. Mangokeylime ( talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not following this, but this edit on Wikipedia caught my eye and caused me to look at this logo. It says there, "Source: Own work". Is this entirely your own artistic creation, or is it based on a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? I would appreciate a response on my WP user talk page, but I'll try to check back here for one. Please excuse my linking clumsiness here -- I rarely venture outside of WP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
My edit in the "Disagreement over racial bias" subsection of the article was removed because it apparently needs consensus. It is striking how censorship-ridden Wikipedia has become. Gotta fall in line I guess, lest I get sent to the gulag. Getting to the point: "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force" (2016) by Roland G. Fryer J. concludes that there is no racial bias in police shootings. Why does there need to be consensus to add the conclusion of a factual Harvard study to the article? https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force -- Chupster811 ( talk) 00:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
As of September 2020, new polls from Pew Research Center has shown a decrease in support for BLM since June https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/16/support-for-black-lives-matter-has-decreased-since-june-but-remains-strong-among-black-americans/ 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:ED40:86D:FEED:83DC ( talk) 00:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like this article miss some point:
"Research shows that People of Color suffer higher rates of traffic fatalities and severe injuries, that drivers are less likely to yield to Black people walking and biking, and that frequently programs and policies to support safety – such as those around jaywalking – disproportionately burden communities of color."
Or should this been addressed in a different article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.216.31 ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
the current end of the subsection "black-on-black crime" in the criticism section is a blatant example of being dishonest with statistics. it points out that black-on-black violence occurs proportionally similarly to white-on-white violence within violence against those groups. this is true, but misleading, if it is to argue that black-on-black violence is the same as white-on-white violence. these things happen at a similar proportion of all black or white homicide victimizations, but they happen at a much higher rate among blacks than whites
see these cdc causes of death statistics for white and black people, respectively:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/nonhispanic-white/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2017/nonhispanic-black/index.htm
homicide was the fourth leading cause of death among blacks in 2017. for whites, it did not rank in the top ten. likewise, 35.3% of deaths among blacks ages 0–19 and 27.6% of those among blacks ages 20–44 were caused by homicide. this compares to 5.2% and 2.8% for whites in those respective age ranges.
black-on-black violence is a grave problem, and it is beneath wikipedia's standards to trivialize it so transparently TheGreatConsultingDetective ( talk) 12:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Police executives, politicians and political commentators need to refrain from using overly simplistic descriptions — such as “black-on-black” violence — when describing outbreaks of serious criminal violence in black neighborhoods.(p.16) That's explained pretty well on page 12:
Seldom are crimes involving whites described as white-on-white violence. Use of this vernacular to describe blacks’ victimization of other blacks has several important consequences. First, a singular focus on a rudimentary race-based dyad characterizing black offending and victimization has the potential to devalue black life while overshadowing the importance of harmful social conditions, such as concentrated neighborhood disadvantage and low collective efficacy (Sampson, 2012) that collectively produce crime. Second, casual use of the black-on-black violence classification may lead segments of the public to implicitly assume that blacks are more tolerant of crime and disorder and do not share the moral standards of mainstream society.
Those statistics may be reflective of other factors, such as poverty rates, disparities in opportunity, and segregation of neighborhoods, rather than any indication that black communities inherently struggle with internal strife more white communities, advocates say.In other words, the "statistical support" for "black-on-black crime" is a victim-blaming misrepresentation of the poor conditions that black Americans are subjected to, a way to hide systematic racism behind numbers. Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
i actually 100% agree that "black-on-black violence", by whatever name or understanding we have, is a product of systemic racism, so i didn't "feel the need to portray black people as more violent" at all. i just read the subsection as written, and saw that it did not address some key facts, and wanted to bring it up. i agree that my specific facts and figures did not by themselves, and only in conjunction with the point in the article about consistent rates of intraracial violence across races, demonstrate my point. my comment and links were less intended to close the matter or satisfy the need for sources, but to start a discussion to improve the article. i'm not a skilled wikipedia editor, so i did not think i could do this on my own. to reiterate, i believe john mcwhorter made a sound criticism that the current edit of this article attempts to debunk, but poorly, and it can stand to be more well rounded. how this can be done is beyond my capacity as a novice editor, and i only wanted to start the discussion. now that i have, i'll step back as an editor TheGreatConsultingDetective ( talk) 22:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
it looks like nobody else is discussing this further, so i have to.
ian's response fails entirely to address the point of my concern and what the provided statistics show. what they show is the phenomenon of a tragic number of black lives being lost in black communities. the current edit of the article disguises that fact, now established, by hiding it in statistics. the point that this fact is better explained by systemic racism than black people being naturally violent is **completely irrelevant** to the fact that the phenomenon that has been established. ian didn't deny the phenomenon, but challenged an explanation no one offered. the phenomenon is real and of concern to anyone who actually cares about black lives and not just progressive politics. if the response is to give a better explanation for the phenomenon, i **strongly encourage** that explanation be included in the article in place of the dishonest statistics. hiding the phenomenon with dishonest statistics is, frankly, disgusting. just fix the article please TheGreatConsultingDetective ( talk) 09:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dead Links #Best Replacement https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37283869 https://www.educatemeans.in/2020/11/black-lives-matter-complete-case-study.html Educatemeans ( talk) 09:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Why not state that the movement is very US centric and that there are much more severe forms of oppression, like in Tibet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8680:3241:D63:B29C:6D8:5029 ( talk) 07:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we talk about pulling the network out of this article? BLM the movement, for example, doesn't have any financials and isn't a non-profit. I think the non-profit needs to be a separate article. —valereee ( talk) 16:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that this is not going to lead anywhere useful, but I thought to raise it. --
I've been struck by the resemblance of the "looseness" of the BLM organization to a similar apparent organizational "looseness" in Al-Qaeda. I don't infer any connection between the two from this, but I'm struck by the similarity. "From the outset, al-Qaeda adopted a unique organizational design, whereby its senior leadership outlined a strategic course for the organization a whole, but empowered mid-level commanders to execute this strategy as they saw fit. 'Centralization of decision and decentralization of execution,' as this organizational principle has been described, remains operative today. Indeed, in adhering to this principle, al-Qaeda has been able to maintain both organizational and strategic coherence even in the face of considerable internal and external challenges." [1] One big difference I see is that Al Qaeda sought credit for operations conducted by operational groups without formal affiliation to them, and BLM denies any connection (at least insofar as BLM is identifiable as an organization andinsofar as a BLM spokesman is identifiable as such). I'm put in mind of the remark here saying, ""Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working"
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Confused... This article says that BLM is "a movement", while BlackLivesMatter.com says "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes." There would seem to be a big difference between the two.
Given that the website says they started in in 2013; I would change this article from saying (at the top, in the summary) that BLM is a movement to as a minimum give both points of view.. BLM is an organization, and it is a movement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.68.34 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, November 19, 2020 (UTC)
How can BLM be labeled peaceful when most have resulted in riots & looting? Plus in several cases murder or assault? PissedOffMeMa ( talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Black Lives Matter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"What we believe"
Until very recently the official BLM website had a list of beliefs that BLM follows
https://web.archive.org/web/20200917013317/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
There has been considerable controversy about these believes. Such much so that this page has been recently removed.
I would like to create a section on the current wiki to bring to light this controversy.
Examples of News articles discussing this controversy are below
https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-disrupt-nuclear-family-website https://disrn.com/news/black-lives-matter-removes-controversial-belief-statements-from-website https://www.lawofficer.com/after-being-unmasked-blm-removes-what-we-believe-from-website/ https://notthebee.com/article/black-lives-matter-website-removes-controversial-what-we-believe-page https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8759959/BLM-removes-page-mentions-disrupting-Western-nuclear-family-website.html https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/black-lives-matter-what-we-believe-page-that-includes-disrupting-nuclear-family-structure-removed-from-website https://www.the-sun.com/news/1511555/black-lives-matter-deleting-end-nuclear-family/
How to process with this edit? The page seems to be protected?
The specific suggestion is to include a section that reads "Until 17th Sep 2020 the BLM had a what-we-believe webpage that had the following list of beliefs (list them). The beliefs caused considerable controversy and were removed on the 15th of Sep 2020. Several news outlets (include links above and others) criticized BLM for wanting to hide their true beliefs".
Sorry for the bad English. Not my first language.
Below is the actual beliefs from 17th Sep 2020 that BLM website states about itself. Directly copied from the webarchive.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.31.81 ( talk) 03:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
answered=yes
to =no
of this edit request to continue the discussion, so please don't. Also, see
how to sign your posts. --
Fyrisdal (
talk) 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Btw, you keep dismissing some of the pieces "just the opinion of a few". This is not enough because all discussion the "criticism" section is about opinions.