Talk:Movement for Black Lives

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Newton3254. Peer reviewers: Meaghanfrost, Mfisch29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

$100 million

@Malik Shabazz:, I'm reading the article as it is written:

For all its talk of being a street uprising, Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations and others eager to contribute to what has become the grant-making cause du jour.

The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition.

I'm not sure what you're not seeing that is wrong with your edit, but what I have is 1) you wrote that MFBL "received $100 million in pledges from liberal foundations". It did not, BLM did (according to the source); 2) the BLMF is a "donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives"; 3) there is a big difference between announcing a campaign to raise and receiving a pledge, and 4) regardless that you've inaccurately taken from the source, I believe this is called WP:SYNTH. I have no problem if you write that according to The Washington Times, "The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition." At least that is accurate. KamelTebaast 05:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is, but use a little common sense. Fluency in English and familiarity with newspapers and funding wouldn't hurt either. The Washington Times article says that the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy set up the Black-Led Movement Fund to raise money to help fulfill the $100 million in pledges made to the Movement for Black Lives. The fact that the writer mistakenly thinks something called "Black Lives Matter" got the pledges is called a case of "they all look the same to me". If you disagree, WP:NOR/N is available to you. Or you can keep edit-warring. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this correct. I have a problem with English and I'm edit warring because you state that the writer of The Washington Times got it wrong? Classic. Bring in another source. KamelTebaast 14:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you're edit-warring because you're a dick. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that English wasn't your first language and maybe that's why you think there's something unclear in the source, like two sets of $100 million donations. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

From all I've seen on Wikipedia, if your edit is deleted for various reasons, you need to work it out in Talk. Even your rephrasing (above) of the article is wrong. You wrote:

"The Washington Times article says that the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy set up the Black-Led Movement Fund to raise money to help fulfill the $100 million in pledges made to the Movement for Black Lives."

That is incorrect. What is actually written is:

"The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition."

Since you call into question my English, let's review: The Times article was clear: they "announce", it will be a "campaign", and most importantly, it is "AIMED" at raising $100 million dollars. From board rooms of Fortune 500 companies to small nonprofits, everyone agrees that a "campaign aimed at raising" is different from received a pledge. There is no connection or confirmation that any of those foundations committed to a $100 million pledge to TMFBL. Maybe you'll have a better argument than I'm a "dick". Your solution is rewriting, getting consensus on this page, or taking me to Wikicourt. KamelTebaast 17:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at these sources:

• "Black Lives Matter Aims to Raise $100 Million to Back Agenda". The Chronicle of Philanthropy. August 10, 2016.
• Randall, Amber (August 10, 2016). "Ford Foundation Funds BLM-Endorsed Group". The Daily Caller.
• McGirt, Ellen (August 8, 2016). "Who Is Funding Black Lives Matter". Fortune.

They all say the same thing I wrote: The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy have set up the Black-Led Movement Fund to collect $100 million that they have pledged to the Movement for Black Lives (referred to as "a group affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement" in The Daily Caller). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Really, they "all say the same thing"? To paraphrase you: "ramping up", "seeks to bring $100 million", "dedicated to", added their voice", "investing in" is NOT the same as they they received a $100 million pledge. For more than 20 years people said they were dedicated to, seeing to, and investing in plans to bring the Rams back to Los Angeles. Either fix the wording or get different sources that say what you want them to say. KamelTebaast 05:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

bias?

I clicked "watch this page" because the "Reception" section in particular seems biased against the organization.

The Talk criticism of the claim that MBL got $100 million seems well founded. At least the suggested attribution of the claim in text to the Washington Times seems justified, given the ideological reputation of the Times. In addition, it seems only the critics of MBL are cited.

The "demands" section is confusing: the top six do not appear to be demands, but categories or themes of demands. And why is "demands" in quotation marks? Further, it's truncated, as only two themes of demands are elaborated on.

A 'demand' about Israel is stated negatively, but the demand itself is not otherwise quoted, and no articulation of it is given. Particularly, if the word "genocide" is controversial, the demand that includes it should be quoted and explained.

EricClarion (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The word "demands" is the wording of the organization. KamelTebaast 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Article title

Kamel Tebaast has been having a hissy fit since I had this article moved from The Movement for Black Lives to Movement for Black Lives on August 13, and I see today he moved it back, writing that it is the official name of the organization. So what?

Please read WP:OFFICIAL and WP:THE, two relevant essays that complement WP:TITLE, our policy on article titles. Unless sources regularly refer to "The Movement for Black Lives" (and they don't), our article should be titled simply "Movement for Black Lives".

So let's look at the article's secondary sources:

1. "Marbre Stahly-Butts, who is part of the leadership team of the Movement for Black Lives Policy Table, which worked on the demands, said"
2. "a coalition of over 50 black-led organizations known as the Movement for Black Lives"
3. "drafted by more than 50 organizations known as the Movement for Black Lives"
4. "The platform of the 'Movement for Black Lives,' a coalition under the Black Lives Matter umbrella (note the placement of the quotation marks)

Need I go on? Kamel Tebaast, please move the article back where it belongs. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Malik Shabazz, I had no idea that you were behind the move. (You couldn't redirect it yourself?) In any case, you obviously followed my line of questioning on DGG's Talk page in order to speculate that I had a "hissy". It went like this:

Please explain why you moved The Movement for Black Lives to Movement for Black Lives? The official name of the organization is The Movement for Black Lives Is this a Wiki policy? Thank you. KamelTebaast 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

seemed obvious to me. If I was wrong, move it back. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It didn't "seem obvious", I'm dumb as a post. I'm really trying to learn if it is a Wikipedia style or policy to remove "The" from official names or if that was simply your decision? (I notice the was deleted from The Ohio State University but not from The Hartford.) Thank you for the clarity. KamelTebaast 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

References

The guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). The relevant section is 1.2. The general rule for titles is that we use the common name rather than the official name. For articles, the default is to omit the article if in doubt. The main rule for including the article is where the organization itself always include the "The", and the common name generally does in formal sources such as newspapers. "When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well." In discussions of which name to use, the question is also what name is most likely to be used by the public in searching WP.

Myself, I think it doesn't much matter; other people think it very much matters, and we have had very long and even very bitter disputes over some titles, especially when there is no clear basis for deciding. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the primary source trumps your secondary sources that use the word "the" in the title, just not capitalized, because they were lazy or careless or both. KamelTebaast 02:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus that reliable sources generally don't include "The" as part of the name.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The Movement for Black Lives → Movement for Black Lives – As explained in the preceding section, secondary sources do not use the name "The Movement for Black Lives". They use the name "Movement for Black Lives", so in accordance with WP:THE, this article should be moved back to "Movement for Black Lives". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Strongly Oppose As the article's creator and as stated above, the primary source, The Movement for Black Lives prominently uses "The" as their name throughout their website. Just because some secondary sources have been lazy or careless by incorrectly writing the organization's name does not mean that we should be. Just as important, this is a new organization and there has not been enough precedent to properly establish a "common name". Also, all of the above secondary sources actually use the word "the" in the name, implying that it is THE movement. It seems more than a bit presumptuous that a few people on Wikipedia should dictate how the name of an organization should be when the organization itself makes it very clear. KamelTebaast 03:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Absolutely no need for the definite article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. If secondary sources do not use the definite article then neither should this project. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grammar

The grammar in the "platform" list is a bit wonky. It starts as "End the war on black people has 10 demands—to end:" and is fine up until point eight which is written as "the demilitarization of law enforcement." This phrasing suggests that the organization wants to "end the demilitarization of law enforcement" - which is clearly wrong. I suggest rephrasing the list so that it better expresses what the platform actually says.

Guiding Principles of #BLM & Other Organizations

In order for the reader to be able to truly understand what the "Movement for Black Lives" I feel as though it is important to understand the principles that it's partners, such as #BLM, follow that way the reader is able to fully comprehend how the organizations work together. Obtaining a good apprehension of what all of the movements are about is key to being able to raise awareness to interested individuals which would then allow for the membership to grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AArciva (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)