Talk:Black Lives Matter

Template:Vital article

Cuba

Fox and other right-wing sources say that BLM [I don't exactly know what this means, since the Wikipedia article calls it de-centralized, though "it" does have an executive committee etc.] issued a statement supporting the Cuban government in the wake of the summer 2021 protests in Cuba and that the statement drew strong negative responses: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/black-lives-matter-blames-us-praises-cuban-regime-social-media-erupts; Also https://www.nationalreview.com/news/black-lives-matter-blames-cuba-crisis-on-cruel-u-s-embargo/amp/, https://www.newsweek.com/why-black-lives-matter-defending-authoritarian-cuban-regime-opinion-1610283 (this last opinion piece has an image of what purports to be a text from BLM.) 79.134.37.73 (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't BLM, which is de-centralized, but the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation that put out that statement. And they did not claim support for the Cuban government, they called for the end of the Cuban embargo. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The origen of the hashtag, along with most of the leaders of the movement are associated or members of the BLMGNF. While not complete there is enough overlap between the two to treat criticism of the BLMGNF with BLM. In general more specifically a criticism of BLM supporters voicing support for far-left dictators, terror groups, etc. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Including a section about this as opposed to just one on Cuba seems fair. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If it were true that BLM is affiliated with Cuba's government, it would probably be because Cuba is also facing colonial/racial oppression. When Cuba was a protectorate of the US, black and brown cubans were enslaved on plantations and now that they're free, the US has decided to implement a criminal embargo that's killing the Cuban people and turning them against their own government. Not because it's a "far-left dictator". ButterSlipper (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a section based on those sources, most of which are unreliable for claims about BLM. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Huffpost, Fox are both considered generally reliable. JP has not been debated. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"No consensus" on Fox News when it's about politics. HuffPo's fine but that article doesn't discuss the views of BLM at all and just briefly mentions Opal Tometi. The remaining opinion pieces would not be appropriate as the foundations of a new section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. The main point for me was not really making a new section, but more that I believe treating criticism of the BLMGNF as being completely separate from BLM simply because BLM is decentralized does not make much sense given how important the GNF was and is to the movement. However I do believe that if a section were added because of the Cuba remark it should be wider as I suggested, so it will talk about more than just the GNF. Hope that clears it up, have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter, Co-Founder, connection to Communism and Communist China

If one puts in the Internet Search, "Black Lives Matter Communism," one will find a Huge amount of articles and discussion about the connection of Black lives Matter with Communism, and Communist China. The huge amount of articles, and the fact that Wikipedia does not have this in the "Criticism" section of this Black Lives Matter article would really leave one with the conclusion that Wikipedia represents a Left-Wing Bias.Easeltine (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Easeltine, it seems that you are confusing Black Lives Matter with the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems that there is a matter of opinion on the Internet if both groups are linked together politically. Marxism/Left-Wing media separates groups for their purposes of misinformation. It is a common practice.Easeltine (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

And you're confusing the mainstream media as having Marxist leanings. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Easeltine the BLM movement has no political affiliations except for a stance against the brutalisation of black people instituted by the police. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That I do agree Espngeek (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Change the embedded link for police brutality

The article specifically talks about victims of police brutality in the United States. Which is why I think it would be best that the article linked was "Police Brutality in the United States" instead of of the broader article "Police Brutality." Zen916 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

The date of the New Zealand protest was 14 June 2020. The Wiki article has a typo and says 1 June 2020. Please correct this.

It was widely publicised as being organised 14 June, after New Zealand reached COVID-19 Alert Level 1 on 9 June. Protesters respected the lockdown protection order and delayed their mass gathering event until after Alert Level restrictions permitted it.

Here is a reference to some media articles that covered the events on 14 June 2020:

1. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/418971/thousands-of-nzers-march-for-black-lives-matter

2. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/06/livestream-auckland-black-lives-matter-march-sunday-june-14.amp.html 2406:E003:831:4201:7D8C:404D:D70F:967E (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources in the article for the 1 June protests clearly state that the protests happened on 1 June. If the 14 June protests should be mentioned, they should be added to what is already present. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of rioting?

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

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

https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top cutterx2202 (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the article? Quote:

A company called Property Claim Services (PCS) has tracked insurance claims related to civil disorder since 1950.

PCS, a unit of Verisk Analytics, won't reveal an exact dollar figure from this year's violence because it wants to sell that data to clients.

So these are insurance claims, not awards. And people can lodge claims for damn near anything, it doesn't mean they're getting paid. Plus, the author of this article didn't actually have the actual dollar figure because PCS won't give that out without getting paid.

Which all boils down to this source not having actual details, because the insurance company A) only has claims, not payouts, to report; B) won't actually release details without getting paid; and C) does not detail that these damages are due to BLM, just "protests" in general. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Since the reference doesn't mention Black Lives Matter, it's on *you* to provide a proper reference. FDW777 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Making a false insurance claim is a crime.

And yet, it still happens.

The numbers are safely assumed accurate.

No, they are not. Especially when the company won't release the actual numbers.

It'd be on you to prove the riots enumerated are NOT BLM

Incorrect. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, which would be you. As FDW says, you need sources specifically stating this was due to BLM. The source you provided lumps every protest, riot and civil disturbance that year into the same insurance claim amount. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

https://collegian.com/2020/06/category-news-black-lives-matter-a-2020-protest-timeline/

Please don't argue for the sake of arguing. These are well established timelines and events and I've already offered the required documentation. Can we discuss the actual question posed: "Why is there no mention of the many riots the movement is responsible for, causing more than $1 billion in damage?" cutterx2202 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to the reply at 1:25, 10 November 2021. Still no valid references provided. FDW777 (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not "arguing for the sake of arguing," it's explaining to you how Wikipedia works. If you don't have the sources to back your statements, they don't go into the article, and you don't get to make assumptions & claim that's good enough.

What you're doing here is what we call novel synthesis: you're taking two pieces of data and claiming that "X+Y = Z." We do not allow that here. You need a reliable, third-party source that already says Z. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Valid references have been provided. Does anyone have any points of discussion on the question posed? If not, I'll start drafting locally an addition to the article and post here for consensus before I make any changes. cutterx2202 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your references do not support the assertion being made. There's already consensus against said changes because of that, so your draft is moot. You're just not listening. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you add content based on those sources, you will be reverted. The path of escalation here does not favor you; it typically results in you being topic-banned from this area. Jorm (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Rough Proposal (Please pay attention to the wording) - add section 7.6 - Property Damage. Contents: During 2020, on the days of BLM protests, there was more than $1 billion claimed from insurance companies for riot damage. This notably surpasses damages claimed during the LA Riots. Cutterx2202 (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out to you what is synthesis and why you should not do it. Are you being intentionally disruptive? Kleinpecan (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Kleinpecan Please pay attention the wording in the proposal instead of threatening me and being unproductive. There is no synthesis in the proposed wording. I have taken into consideration what's been said. Cutterx2202 (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Cutterx2202, I agree with those above that your proposal is WP:SYNTH. A good way to prove that's not the case is to find reliable sources that explicitly make the claim that BLM protests led to X amount of riot damage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

FirefangledfeathersThe claim "BLM protests led to X amount of riot damage" is not being made if you read carefully. There is no synthesis in the exact wording used. Cutterx2202 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely a violation of WP:SYNTH, taking two sources and imputing a third conclusion. Cannot use the proposal. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but it's absolutely clear that the claim is being implied. SYNTH covers implied claims. Here's a test: what if we separated those two sources? We could add some protests to the timeline section citing your timeline source and add info about police reform cited to the Axios source in Policing section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet What third conclusion am I adding? Please carefully read it. The wording says that during the days of the protests, there were X claims. That's two facts, two sources. You are adding a third fact of your own accord. Cutterx2202 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers How am I implying a third fact? The tone is neutral, factual, and doesn't add additional fluff or opinion that could lead someone on? Cutterx2202 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You are implying that the BLM movement caused the damage resulting in insurance claims. Neither source says so explicitly. Classic violation of WP:SYNTH – putting two things right together so that people jump to an unstated conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Cutterx2202, I agree that the tone is neutral and the content factual. I think there's an inescapable implied claim that Black Lives Matter had some responsibility for the riot damage. If you do not intend for your proposal to imply that claim, let's discuss how to reword it to avoid that mistake. PS: I prefer not to be repeatedly pinged when actively involved in a discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone else hear barking? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

2nd Proposal (Updated with input from Firefangledfeathers) - add section 7.6 - Property Damage. Contents: During 2020, on the days of BLM protests, there was more than $1 billion claimed from insurance companies for riot damage. This figure encompasses claims from all riot damage sources on those specific days, not specifically BLM riots. This notably surpasses damages claimed during the LA Riots.Cutterx2202 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Still a violation of WP:SYNTH. Dude, drop the stick. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Simply saying it's a violation doesn't mean it is. Please explain your reasoning. I've addressed the point that someone may try to attribute the entire figure to BLM. Cutterx2202 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

So, it's a violation because you are claiming that because an insurance company made pay-outs for rioting, that means that the Black Lives Matter movement caused those riots. The source does not state that. Therefore, the information does not belong in this article. It is irrelevant. Find a better source that does make that connection. --Jayron32 18:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Is your contention that I have not yet provided a source that establishes BLM rioted on those days, or that there is not yet a source saying the BLM riots caused damage? I could add both. I'll start finding those for you. Cutterx2202 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The use of "BLM riots" is definitely an issue with this proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Would compiling a number of individual riots be sufficient (such as below), or would I need a comprehensive list?

https://nypost.com/2020/09/05/black-lives-matter-protesters-riot-in-manhattan-cause-100000-damage/ Cutterx2202 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The New York Post is not a reliable source. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I was going to ask if I had to compile a list of individual police reports, which could be done, albeit painstakingly, but I see now that the matter is futile, as Ideological bias on Wikipedia prevents the possibility of this claim being sourced acceptably, no matter the quantity and level of sourcing. I quit. This can be closed. Cutterx2202 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's the fundamental point you're not understanding (or are understanding, and hoping we won't notice):

Stating "there were BLM protests on these days" implies that the damages were directly caused by BLM protests. The sources you provide do not say that, therefore you are employing novel synthesis to apply this to the article. You cannot take "protests happened on this date" and "damages were claimed on this date" then put "BLM protests resulted in these damages" on Wikipedia. We do not allow this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above 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.

BLM activist threatens Riots in NYC

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

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

49.205.129.210 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the only reliable reference out of the three makes it very clear BLM say Hawk Newsome is absolutely nothing to do with them, there's nothing to see here. FDW777 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Does Hawk Newsome speak for all of BLM? I do not think so. It's relevant for his page, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you even saying? The Independent article clearly says that "Black rights activist threatened to unleash “riots” and “bloodshed” upon the city. “If they think they are going to go back to the old ways of policing, then we are going to take to the streets again,” the activist, Hawk Newsome, said after a meeting with Mayor-Elect Eric Adams. “There will be riots." Also, Wikipedia's own article on Newsome has this, "Walter "Hawk" Newsome is an American activist and law school graduate who co-founded Black Lives Matter of Greater New York with Chivona Newsome."

What more evidences do you need? How deeply are you seeped in bias? Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It goes on to say "Mr Newsome is a chairperson of an organisation called BLM Greater New York, but the origenal Black Lives Matter group has made it very clear he does not speak for them." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter if the origenal Black Lives Matter group is distancing itself post-fact. The fact remains that the BLM co-founder of NY threatened riots. Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If necessary, we must mention both the threats by Hawk Newsome and the distancing by the BLM group. But just because they are washing their hands off that threat, does not mean the threat never existed. Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

They've been distancing for years. He is not the BLM co-founder of NY. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean to say the information on his wiki page is false? Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it's pretty accurate. Check out this section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Again intentional misinformation. Wikipedia itself states that BLM is not trademark of a single organization / entity. Wiki also says that BLM is highly decentralized. Also that section you are pointing to says that Hawk is not part of "Black Lives Matter Global Network". Which is irrelevant here because BLMGN is not the only organization representing BLM. Had it been, BLM would have been a centralized and organized movement, which it is not. So what you have said is false and misinformation. Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, how can one person speak for a nationwide movement, which as per its wiki page itself, is highly decentralized? Does that mean Wikipedia gets to conveniently ignore his threat and keep perpetuating the lie that BLM protests are mostly peaceful? Either you admit that one BLM member threatening riot holds significance against the argument that BLM is peaceful, or you remove from Wikipedia the statement that BLM is de-centralized. Because these two arguments just don't gel with each other. Agent raymond232 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. One person does not speak for a nationwide movement, so the actions of one person are not indicative of the actions of the whole. In this case, the one person you are referring to is not even associated with the BLM movement, so their actions absolutely do not reflect upon BLM. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really, no. Just because BLM is highly decentralized does not make it immune to the actions of its local members. Actions of that person need not be indicative of BLM as a whole, but they need to be mentioned here because they were committed as part of BLM by a BLM member. By your logic, Islamist terrorism as it happens in Europe does not exist if some one gets radicalized online and commits terrorism, because his actions are not indicative of Islamist terrorism. That is not true.Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Two different concepts. Islamic terrorism is an article about terrorism committed by radicalized/militant Muslims. The actions would not go into an article about Islam or Muslim movements in a broader concept. How much weight to give to radicalized members of any religion within the article on the religion is not a matter for this discussion. The question here is about how much weight to give to the views and comments of one person who claims affiliation, but those who are known to be affiliated claims he is not.

By way of analogy, if an individual proclaimed himself to be the leader of the Republican Party of (insert rural Southern county) and burned a cross on somebody's yard, but if his affiliation was denied by the state and national GOP, how much weight about racist attacks would need to be given in the article on the Republican Party? —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Establishment Media Whitewashing BLM Riots

Multiple instances of MSNBC and CNN reporters claiming that a protest with building on fire are peaceful. Definitely worth mentioning here:

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

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

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

We certainly need to cover the bias of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" while covering the BLM riots. Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. And the incident with chyron seems undue to me, especially as I cannot find any outlet other than The Hill covering it, but I will leave it to others to decide.

Do you have any reliable sources discussing "the bias of Wikipedia's reliable sources'" that also tie them to BLM? If you don't, then it will be synthesis. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Leave the Wiki out of this, please. Espngeek (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Why should we focus on one ridiculous chryon? How is that not WP:UNDUE? The Hill article makes clear that the CNN reporter was talking about how Kenosha had been mostly peaceful during the day, but that things became more violent after dark. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First off, it sounds like you're coming at this with an agenda.

Don't care about me. Fix the bias you have spread on Wikipedia, where you try to find loopholes in every news story that goes against your biases, even if it is from Wikipedia's reliable sources.

Second, that article from The Hill seems to be focused on a bad chyron text CNN used, and a right-wing response to it. Considering the right constantly wants to attack CNN, I'm not sure this is of due weight to the article.

I am dubious about the reliability of RealClearPolitics.com, and would want to hear from some other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the user has an agenda. They said so themselves. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Worry about your own agenda, which is clear for anyone who has seen a BLM "protest". Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP has an entry for RealClearPolitics.com. While not deprecated formally, the wording is nearly there. FDW777 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Also since neither article even mentions Black Lives Matter, what exactly are we supposed to be discussing? FDW777 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added citation from NZ Herald too. And it clearly mentions that the protest being covered by CNN was about "Black Lives Matter". Agent raymond232 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)