Talk:Blue Lives Matter

Untitled

Used Decisively= will never support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.151.192 (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Move to draft space

Hello Todorovichdan and David todorovich,

I have noticed that you started this page and in its current state it is not exactly right for publication at this time. I was wondering if it would be alright if I moved it to our draft space where you can work on it with less risk of it being deleted. Would that be alright? --Stabila711 (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Other significant viewpoints

Hey, I saw the banner saying the article may be missing other significant viewpoints. I included a criticism section to try to fix that. It's not particularly good, but I can imagine others can build on it. Pauliexcluded (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

The law may have been "heavily criticized because hate crime typically refer to crimes committed against people for their membership in a certain social group such as race, sexual orientation, or gender identity", but such a claim should be qualified (and in any case is very subjective). Only some people may have criticized the law on such grounds. This reason for "heavy" criticism is odd, since to be a policeman is to be a member of a social cohort, just as being of a particular gender identity or religion is. I suggest that the wording should be removed, or changed to "criticized by some people who claim that hate crime should be limited to crimes committed against people for their race, sexual orientation, or gender identity".Royalcourtier (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC) It is true though, all cops are bastards and if you say they are not. You are justifying a corrupt and racist justice system. Blue lives don't exist unless you are talking about endangered Blue Whales. Anyways BLM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D005:2500:497A:D984:CF16:A1F0 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Flat Earth theory is only "criticized by some people who claim that the earth is round". Should we add a silly disclaimer to that article as well? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

: Yes but this isn’t criticized like flat earth, this is only criticized by those on the far left. We shouldn’t be giving so much homage to people like that or it threatens the neutrality of Wikipedia Haxonek (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The photo in this section showing a masked protester holding a sign reading "F*** Blue Lives Matter" contributes very little to the article and potentially could be viewed as hateful and suggesting violent action. In my opinion, it should simply be removed. Cjs4112020 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

McClatchy

The McClatchy source is fine, IP edit warring to keep it out is being silly. All agreed? BullRangifer, Volunteer Marek. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the source for the data is FBI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the sentences regarding police killed by extremist groups have no connection to Blue Lives Matter. Blue Lives Matter is not mentioned in the piece[1]. Blue Lives Matter opposes all deaths and injuries to law enforcement including white nationalists, black nationalists, terrorists, wife beaters, car accidents, rapists, child molesters and drug dealers. It's WP:SYNTH vio to create a connection of Blue Lives Matter to DoJ designations of cop killers using a source that makes no such connection by an organization that doesn't claim racism is a core component of police deaths. --DHeyward (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That must be why the second sentence of the lede says, quote, "Blue Lives Matter was formed in reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And also, DHeyward (nice of you to show up here all of sudden), the relevant text doesn't say anything about whom Blue Lives Matter opposes or whom it doesn't oppose. You're drawing some inferences from your own head that are not in the actual text. That's your business, but please keep it out of Wikipedia articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You are making the connection that McClatchy's piece is relevant to Blue Lives Matter organization when McClatchy has made no such claims. You think it's relevant with no sources making the connection. That's SYNTHESIS you created for whatever internal bias you are carrying. Without a connecting source, this tidbit is irrelevant to this article. Do you also think Black Lives Matter should be held responsible for the deaths that started Blue Lives Matter? (Hint: the answer is no) --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Do you also think Black Lives Matter should be held responsible for the deaths that started Blue Lives Matter?" - that's a nice "have you stopped beating your wife" sentence you made up there DHeyward. Come on, pulling tricks like that is low. Did I say that BlLM was responsible for BLM deaths or something? No. Does the text say anything of the kind? No. So please drop the "also" or better yet the whole damn dishonest question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What's dishonest is trying to insert it into the article. Blue Lives Matter is not connected to any of the stats or statements by McClatchey. It's lower than pointing out your off-topic answers. How is Blue Lives Matter related to the statement you are trying to insert. --DHeyward (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Eh, seems kind of trivial. Especially since the rest of the article does not mention anything about extremest, and that is not the way most officers are killed. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed text:

Since 1990 the majority of police officers killed by extremist groups, 51 deaths, have been killed by white supremacists and far-right organizations.

What the source says:

White supremacist and other far-right extremist groups have killed 51 police officers since 1990, according to a report published by the Anti-Defamation League

The source for the data is ADL not the "FBI". Absolutely no way can we include it unattributed and as others have pointed out there's reason not to include it at all. 64.34.216.104 (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Great Point: :: Removed text:

Since 1990 the majority of police officers killed by extremist groups, 51 deaths, have been killed by white supremacists and far-right organizations.

What the source says:

White supremacist and other far-right extremist groups have killed 51 police officers since 1990, according to a report published by the Anti-Defamation League

The source for the data is ADL not the "FBI". Absolutely no way can we include it unattributed and as others have pointed out there's reason not to include it at all.

--DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're right. The FBI data is for the number of police officers killed. And that's all the conversation I'm gonna have with someone hiding between multiple proxy servers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, an anon IP quoting obscure Wikipedia essays. Right. That's like the second time in the last two days someone has thrown CIR at me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, using proxies to edit Wikipedia is against policy, nevermind using proxies to edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It also makes no connection that Blue Lives Matter consider deaths by any extremists as significant. Nor does it call out the race of cop killers or the race of cops killed. Race is not a component of this organization or its aims. It's "police" vs. "people who kill police." The source doesn't connect this group to the point it is making. The article is very relevant to Black Lives Matter which are concerned that mainstream members will be labeled extremists. But it's not Blue Lives Matter that is making the argument for or against those labels. They don't care. --DHeyward (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's great but it doesn't have anything to do with this. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll type slow "McClatchey's article makes no mention of and no connection to Blue Lives Matter." Why should it be in the Blue Lives Matter article if there is no connection to Blue Lives Matter? It's unrelated except in your mind--DHeyward (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that the speed with which you type is completely unrelated to the speed at which I read the words, right? I can't actually hear you talking when you type, just FYI. Is there like an app or something I can download that will let me hear your voice - the slow, orotund, elephantine voice of DHeyward - as you type? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

So basically there is no reason to add this. Glad that we agree. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) and strike the aspersions as this is on my watchlist as I've edited before. How about you? --DHeyward (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

On even a cursory inspection inclusion of this content seems wildly undue. The referenced source does not mention this article's subject. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The closest related statement in the report is [an] increase in violence against law enforcement “likely” began after the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and subsequent grand jury decision not to indict the police officers involved. It at least correlates to formation of Blue Lives Matter. But nothing is directly tied to it. Certainly nothing related to white supremacists or black identity groups in 1990. --DHeyward (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be very much appreciated if editors supporting inclusion, would make a case for it here, rather than edit warring to keep the content. Could we specifically address that the referenced source does not mention this article's subject? How then is inclusion not undue, original research or synthesis? And even if related by reliable sources, how does this factoid make the lead section? Asserting that "the source is fine" or that multiple edits have put this in do not address the NPOV & OR issues. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC - Inclusion of McClatchy, etc

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.

---

Should this article include the following text or similar?:

Since 1990 the majority of police officers killed by extremist groups, 51 deaths, have been killed by white supremacists and far-right organizations. During the same period left wing and black nationalist extremist groups were responsible for 11 killings.

sourced to McClatchy.

If "yes", should the article include this in the lead section or in the body?

08:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• No The source doesn't mention Blue Lives Matter. In addition, the only thing close to Blue Lives Matter temporally is the FBI report the source mentions noting an uptick in attacks on police after Ferguson. Still no mention of Blue Lives Matter, though. --DHeyward (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. I think this should be added only if we can find a source which discusses it in the context of Blue Lives Matter. Right now it seems like just throwing in a random factoid. See: WP:SYNTH and WP:TOPIC. ^Falling_Gravity 08:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• No Doesn't mention Blue Lives Matter - and is also rather creative use of statistics - I could get to a totally different conclusion by choosing a different time period (e.g. - from 2014 or 2010 - throwing out Waco siege (and a number of similar incidents from the 90s) - and retaining Baton Rouge & Dallas 2016) and/or by weighting the results by the proportion of whites and blacks in the population.Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. If we're going to start playing around with cherrypicked statistics, consider that a police officer's "chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• No If the source does not mention BLM then it's inclusion is OR Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• No Source does not make that connection and even if it did, seems undue. PackMecEng (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• No This is the kind of transparent POV-inspired factoids intended to insinuate something about a topic without saying it. No chance. Cjhard (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• No Blatant POV-pushing synthesis. DoubleCross (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• SNow. This is obvious synth and OR to include when the source makes no mention of the subject. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Would any of the editors who appeared to support inclusion be willing to offer their opinions? It seems odd that there was this big edit war over this paragraph and there hasn't been any dissenting opinions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• No but. I don't see this as OR as some other editors do, but it does seem undue and rather coatrack-y, at least as the article is currently written. Nothing in the article explicitly says that the Blue Lives Matter movement is about killings of police officers by black people. For that matter, the article doesn't say what the Blue Lives Matter movement is about. Is it about killings by black people? If so, then the article should say so, and then the disputed McClatchy content seems fairly reasonable. In any case, I'm surprised we have List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States but no article called Killings of law enforcement officers in the United States. Ideally such an article should exist, contain the McClatchy content, and be linked to from this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No the article does not mention Blue Lives Matter movement .Agree with Falling that find it surprising no dissenting opinions have been offered so far bu think it should be resolved after this RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No This one has multiple strong issues. First, it's making WP:OFFTOPIC commentary by doing a constructed contrast rather than being about BLM. Second, the source ADL.org is an advocacy group, not a secondary source and the report is not a prominent one WP:DUE coverage here. Third, the count is tainted by lumping together dissimilar groups on each side as if they are the same, and is solely their pick whether a shooting should be attributed to their being a 'supremacist' rather than by a motivating cause such as domestic dispute. Fourth, but by no means last, this lacks note of contrary reports about FBI giving attention that are prominent enough for me to remember in tracking of white militia groups, such as United Patriots of Minnesota or the Malheur Naitonal Wildlife Reserve standoff, or the FBI.gov postings like What are Known Violent Extremist Groups. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Heavens no serious POV and relevance issues.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remove This is a poorly written and bastardized attempt at apologetic for the BLM movement. It smells of synth and is quite coatrack.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

What the movement is about

I propose that we change the first sentence to read: "Blue Lives Matter is a countermovement in the United States, started in response to Black Lives Matter, that advocates for killings of law enforcement officers to be sentenced as hate crimes." Or something similar to that. The supporting source is: this one from Business Insider.

I hope this proposal is self-explanatory. As currently written, the article is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't say what Blue Lives Matter stands for. How are we serving our readers by having an article about a movement that doesn't explain what the movement stands for? Ironically I discovered that there aren't many reliable sources in this regard. The BI source was the only one I could find. If there are more, by all means use them and adjust the language accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

“We see anti-black sentiment in the immediate rejoinder to Black Lives Matter that all lives matter, that blue lives matter.” [Robin DiAngelo, in the 2018 book "White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism" in Chapter 6, Anti-Blackness, page 147, Kindle eBook.] I cite this author as an expert in diversity, among other subjects, such as racism. My own study concludes that almost no police department in the USA will allow an official display of the flag of Blue Lives Matter, but I found four exceptions in the Houston area; Fulshear, Katy ISD, Rosenberg, and Alvin. Their websites and/or vehicles feature that flag. On June 10, 2021, it is reported (ABC 13 and several other sources in the Houston area) that Calvin Elmore, age 53, ran a stop sign and was shot to death within a few minutes by a lone police officer. At 44 seconds into the ABC 13 video (now online), we see a Ford F-250 Blue Lives Matter Fulshear Police Department pickup truck among the vehicles at the scene. That department has only 26 police officers. They work with a few nearby law enforcement agencies, including the Katy Police Department and the Rosenberg Police Department. In a 2019 online article, Fulshear Monthly Living, a Fulshear police officer describes the Blue Lives Matter wrap on the pickup truck as "contemporary" and "cool." TravelerEditorRealChanger (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that it's an ex post facto rationale for the movement's existence that isn't true. "Blue Lives Matter" was created in 2014 as a local support group for the families of two murdered police officers and morphed into a national anti-"Black Lives Matter"/anti-black movement to support the police. Period. Any legislation the movement may support is a mere afterthought.

This article could do with a lot more context, like why a force that's armed with military weapons and gear felt the need to create a "movement" to protect itself against the people its members had sworn to protect and serve. Why the end of unconstitutional practices, such as "stop and frisk" in New York, were perceived by the police as anti-police moves. Why the police officers who work in U.S. cities nearly all live in the suburbs. This would help provide some much-needed context for this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Blue Lives Matter" was created in 2014 as a local support group for the families of two murdered police officers and morphed into a national anti-"Black Lives Matter"/anti-black movement to support the police. Do you have any reliable independent secondary sources that back that up? If so we need to add them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, are you suggesting that the BI source isn't reliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Blue Lives Matter" only took it's name from "Black Lives Matter" for recognition. It is not anti-Black Lives Matter and never has been. It's not even a countermovement to Black Lives Matter and that should be removed without a very good source as it doesn't counter anything Black Lives Matter represents. Black Lives Matter started after the killing of Trayvon Martin. It replaced Occupy Wall Street as the movement du jour during the 2012 elections when it became clear OWS wasn't connecting wit voters.. That turned its focus to police killings of Black men instead of the death of Black men in general. Blue Lives Matter does not have a racial component and because police departments have intensely worked to reflect the communities they serve, Blue Lives Matter advocate for awareness of violence against police which generally has no racial component of the victim. --DHeyward (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid. I hear it makes the Faux News easier to swallow. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that helpful and insightful comment. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to be blunt, but while I respect your personal views (both of you) what I'm really interested in are reliable sources. You can say Blue Lives Matter is about this, you can say it's not about that, but without sources it's not getting into the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Here's one history though, like Black Lives Matter its history isn't tied to one website or organization. It's a concept. --DHeyward (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm looking for reliable independent secondary sources. Currently all we have is the BI source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• If this thread is going to devolve into "this is the truth period" comments and ad hominem attacks without any discussion of reliable sources then when the page protection expires I'm simply going to be bold and implement my proposal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Is the following source reliable:

• Lennard, Natasha (July 8, 2016). "After Dallas, We Don't Need to Say 'Blue Lives Matter'". Rolling Stone.

For the cited content:

• Blue Lives Matter was formed in reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to end police brutality against the African American community

I do not think this source is reliable, per WP:RSOPINION. The source is blatant advocacy. Reasonable advocacy, but advocacy nonetheless. And it doesn't even say that Blue Lives Matter was formed in reaction to Black Lives Matter. We need a better source for this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we need a better source, or to remove the claim entirely.DoctorKarpiak (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ramos and Liu

I'm looking for reliable sources that tie the birth of the Blue Lives Matter movement to the deaths of Ramos and Liu. So far the only source I've found that fits the bill is this Daily Dot article. However I don't know if it's reliable, and I'd appreciate help finding more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Relation to and backlash against Black Lives Matter

Though the lead says the movement is a countermovement to BLM, and thus in opposition to it, the body lacks substantive info on that. Here are some relevant sources that we could use to address this:

• https://contexts.org/articles/black-lives-and-police-tactics-matter/
• http://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-protests-police-646050
• http://www.newsweek.com/philadelphia-chaos-reveals-racial-double-standard-over-riots-critics-say-799421
• https://amp.dailydot.com/layer8/blue-lives-matter-twitter-hashtag/
• http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3679595
• https://www.npr.org/2016/08/01/487931022/black-lives-blue-lives-political-conventions-reveal-a-country-deeply-divided
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/amp/trump-other-conservatives-embrace-blue-lives-matter-movement-n615156
• http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/national/blue-lives-matter-boycotts-ben-jerry-article-1.2829075

EvergreenFir (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing critism

Critics article could be summarized being 1.identity-politic based (racial survival of black culture), 2.prejudice-based, 3.postmodernism-based (other colors can never truly understand how black feel, let alone see their reality), 4.perpetuating the situation of racial discrimination,

Could anybody please rephrase to make it clear from what ideologies these claims come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:8A60:C000:1:A535:4460:E442:C59D (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

We can certainly look to improve the section, but not without a reliable source that summarizes the subject thusly. GMG^talk 13:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware that this is the discussion page for "Blue Lives Matter", not "Black Lives Matter"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

significant awkwardnesses

Per the article, I'm unclear: what exactly is the relationship between the origination of Blue Lives Matter, and BLM-NY? The implication seems to be that the latter evolved from the former, but as the page reads it gives the impression that the larger group swiped the founding group's name/meme and ran away with it.

And as others have said, the use of the Thin Blue Line connection seems, at best, utterly specious. It's there to imply support by an older movement, but such a movement doesn't apparently exist: the TBL symbol has variously been used as a banner of defiance by police and also when raising funds for the family of a fallen officer, so there's no endorsement to give and no central group or even single individual to give it. Really, for the purposes of an encyclopedic article, it's irrelevant here.

(Interestingly, "the representations of the public and the criminals as black bars on either side of the blue line are identical, and suggest that the symbology represents a police vs. everyone else mindset.")

I went to the BLM-NY Facebook page @bluematters seeking to verify that Sutton is still the national spokesman. There seems to be no listing of human beings, like who the actual leaders are (much less how the positions are attained). Unless this is cleared up, I'd have to conclude that BLM-NY is nothing more than clickbait, not unlike the various "movements" dreamt up by the Red trollfarms.

The Facebook account is operated by DefenseMaven.io, which is the first domain I've ever seen registered in the British Indian Ocean Territory. DM seems to be a sort of ersatz Jane's Weapons aimed at semiliterate armchair generals and similar wankers, and really not likely to be some sort of nonprofit group.

That Facebook space is largely not about dead (or even injured) law-enforcement officers, but about the various ways in which ravening criminals are freely roaming the streets of America, so presenting cops as a sort of Maginot Line (look it up) that has apparently SUCKED up to this point and allowed the country to go to Hell while they were out doing whatever it is they actually do. Maybe that's not the impression that most law-enforcement officers would intend to make upon the public, eh?

In Thin Blue Line, I find a comment relevant to the present topic:

The Punisher skull emblem has become popular within the Blue Lives Matter movement, with many companies producing decals, stickers, and T-shirts featuring the Punisher emblem colored with or alongside the thin blue line.

Does anyone know why this call-to-mayhem image has been overlooked here?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

The "Thin Blue Line" flag image and symbology is erroneously placed on this page. It is misleading and should be removed. There is no referenced or formal association with Blue Lives Matter and the "Thin Blue Line" flag of any kind. The accurate "logo" of this movement or its symbol is on the Blue Lives Matter page cited in reference 12. https://bluelivesmatternyc.org/ The IPA (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

On that link, I see they're selling T-shirts with the "Thin Blue Line" flag. Seems like a direct connection to me. --Roxolan (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

he's right,the thin blue line predates BluLM by about 100 years. They sell blue line merch, but that's because they sell/support anything pro cop. I dont know what their symbol is, but it's not the thin blue line flag. Looks like wiki has me covered for source lol. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line

I'd say it should be vote though, since symbols are more about outsider perception n what they'd connect to BluLM. 

If we vote, I say yes change it. Kysier (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The flag symbol should not have been removed and should be restored. It has been associated with Blue Lives Matter since its early days, and is still used by Blue Lives Matter today as can be seen in the t-shirt sales as pointed out by Roxolan. The assertion that the blue line symbol predates Blue Lives Matter by 100 years falsely equates the phrase "thin blue line" with the symbol of a blue stripe on an otherwise monochrome US flag. This page is about a "countermovement" not a specific legal entity. The assertion by The IPA that the use of the symbol should be judged only by its placement on https://bluelivesmatternyc.org/ ignores the many other sites affiliated with the movement which use the symbol prominantly such as https://twitter.com/bluelivesmtr and https://www.facebook.com/bluematters/. Kenbrey (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Can you pls make Wikipedia not able to be edited by others and can u write black instead of blue because this is very crucial and serious, so it should not be made fun of . 2001:8003:C8A7:6001:B9A8:2797:971B:31FE (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done, not what this article is about. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes Diehdowbdosbwosbdekd (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Change name to ‘Fuck the Police’ Diehdowbdosbwosbdekd (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No NPOV issues

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Change the opening paragraph to the official mission of the organization “ Our Mission We are Blue Lives Matter NYC, a registered 501(c)3 nonprofit organization created to help Law Enforcement Officers and their families during their time of need. Members of the organization are both police officers and members from other state and federal agencies that are dedicated to making a difference and demonstrating that "BLUE LIVES MATTER"

Our mission :

To raise awareness and enlist the public's aid for the needs of Police Officers. To help Police Officers and assist each other. To provide a Police Officers family with comfort and support as they go through hard times.” 68.195.79.168 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Description of Blue Lives Matter as far-right

I see that Blue Lives Matter has been described as far-right. However, while it has been used by some right-wing extremists, not one of the four bare links provided to support the claim specifically states that the countermovement is far-right. I need some opinions on what to do about it. FreeMediaKid! 04:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid!: Quite simply, we remove material not supported by sources: [2]. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

the website

bluelivesmatter.blue redirects to https://policetribune.com/. I think editors should use that website when they want to add citation / reference. Social movement is a general trend, rather than a specific person / organization. There might be more websites in the world promoting for the protection of police lives. Malairen (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Flag

Blue Lives Matter has a blue U.S. Flag with a blue line. Doremon764 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

Nowhere in [4 of U.S. Code] does it entitle police officers, firefighters, veterans or anyone else to bastardize the United States of America flag. Instead it indicates that doing so is at best disrespectful and at worst disregardful of U.S. laws. Squeeky Longhair (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Issue with last paragraph in Criticism section

The last paragraph in Criticism section currently read "Nowhere in Title 4 of U.S. Code does it entitle police officers, firefighters, veterans or anyone else to bastardize the United States of America flag. Instead it indicates that doing so is at best disrespectful and at worst disregardful of U.S. laws"

What exactly is the purpose of this paragraph? It reeks of blatant partisan political agenda and doesn't even fit in with the overall flow of section. I propose to remove this paragraph. I will try to do that myself if I don't see it removed. Spheromakquanta (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

Blue lives matter means: Officers of our nation lives matter 2600:1700:6BF8:2850:5579:AE8F:D7B2:6841 (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

Well there is a logo for Blue Lives matter/ Back the Blue in my area that looks like this. I was wondering if it should be added to this page.

File:BackTheBlueHeart.png

BtB

ChiserYT (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Needs reliable sources explaining its importance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Criticism should either be removed or better and more thoroughly explained

The criticism is poorly worded, biased, and should be explained more thoroughly as it is very misleading and contradictory to the actual history and original intentions of the movement, feeding polarization and possible misinformation 73.223.156.153 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is a hit piece, with the majority of the content dedicated to absurd criticism instead of also explaining and arguing in favour of the movement. Similar level of bias as when reading the article on BLM describing it as a "movement/organization", but merely denigrating All Lives Matter as a "slogan" when in fact it is also a movement/organization. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

blue lives matter

My community does not agree with Wikipedia beginning the definition of "blue lives matter," with the following hard words: "countermovement [to those prosecuted]," is absolutely disregarding the integration and overall best nature of diligent local and federal law enforcement officers who uphold the constitution. 2601:240:CE03:6CC0:254D:35F0:47AC:E208 (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

blue lives matter

The following needs to be removed immediately from the WIKI page, due to lack of foundation, clarity and purpose: "This law has been heavily criticized for weakening the impact of the Hate Crimes Act by adding categories of people who are already better protected under other laws and characterized by their career choice instead of people who actually need the Act's protection, i.e. people persecuted due to lifelong personal characteristics they cannot choose such as race, sexual orientation, and gender identity." 2601:240:CE03:6CC0:8574:4E84:FBF7:49EA (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"instead of people who actually need the Act's protection" removed since it read as an endorsement of the position.Outdatedpizza (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

POV Issues

I find the current wording to have POV issues. For one its frontloads a massive paragraph of criticism for the movement in the heading, which could be summed up in one sentence. Second the wording at time applies that this is an official group as opposed to a loose movement of people who rally around certain symbols and slogans. I believe the wording I used has less bias. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This was a while ago, but you've recently removed a bunch of sourced text again, for no stated reason. Even worse, as you left no edit summaries when you made the removals, you were reverted by Shadybabs, and then demanded of them: "Please provide a detailed reasoning for claim of POV on talk page. Only saying POV makes it difficult to understand objection." I believe you understand the objection perfectly, and in any case, edit warring to remove text that is well-sourced is probably not going to fly. Wes sideman (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

In October I wrote this edit summary: "The first article claims that they killed a cop on January 6. This claim does not appear to be accurate. Furthermore, this criticism I find vague" In November I left this as an edit summary. "I am confused by the claim of POV. Also, I would say that there are more POV issues with the current wording. For example regarding 1/6 it says "many have called Blue Lives Matter hypocritical " Blue Lives Matter is not an organization , but a phrase/ social movement as the article says. Aswell there is a lot of frontloading in the heading." After they were reverted with claim of "BRB" I created this section to discuss. The user who reverted did not write back. After waiting four months I decided to make re-edits. Previous user reverted again saying only POV. I did not find intend for my post to be "demanding" I simply don't get the objection and would like for said user to explain for a better understanding. When you say for no stated reason, left no edit summaries when you made the removals, I believe you understand the objection perfectly, and no possible good justification for removing this beyond a pro-police POV. I am concerned that you are believing that I am no acting in good faith. [3] Which I find to be unfair. I hope this clears thing up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What as in the lead was not a "massive paragraph of criticism", and removing that content sourced to the Daily Beast, because the writer uses the word "thug", was not warranted: it's a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to this lead [4] when I made that criticism, not the current one. Sorry for the confusion. For the current lead it did not include sources and it seemed to just be a repasting of criticism from the bottom. However, I do think that having criticism in the lead is warranted. My objection to the DB article is no the use of "thugs", but "Kill a cop". I assume the article (which is paywalled for me) is talking about the death of Sicknick. His death was ruled as "natural causes" (although it says that events of Jan 6 likely contributed to it). As well in the aftermath of the attack it was claimed he was hit with a blunt object, of which is there is no evidence. Thus, I find using such an article to be an issue and could lead to future edit-warring when discussing criticism of BLM. Hope that clears things up!3Kingdoms (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see you, and I agree that that lead was over the top. I did not read the entire article and I'm not going to right now, but if we're going to discuss that we'll have to know for sure what's being said. However, I don't think many editors would agree that that source should be scrapped because of that. I could be wrong about that, but again, I don't want to speak out on the content until I am better prepared to discuss. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem! My main concern with keeping the article is that the title will cause a lot of unneeded arguing given what it currently known about the events on Jan 6th, but I am all for hearing other's views. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

awee, poor little "weasel" wesely is still upset he can't vandalize the lead on klete anymore , it's eating him up inside. "I think that lede is in pretty good shape at the moment" - please re-read my "rant" https://www.flickr.com/photos/198252759@N04/52870394041/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ and try to absorb it into your thick skull. And after all your recent warnings, you will never, ever be an admin. thank you for that. It's a good feeling. Sincerely, Your Pet.. Now blank me, ignore me, revert & report me like the good little rat snitch you are. 24.185.226.157 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Typo

I'd fix this myself but apparently I'm not among the trusted few ... there's a typo in the last sentence of the opening section; THAT should be THAN ...

"They add that attacking or killing a police officer already carries a higher penalty THAT attacking a non-police officer, and argue that the movement is really more about suppressing minorities than supporting law enforcement." Ki4ggx (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch, thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove criticism paragraph from lede

We should remove the paragraph about criticism at the beginning. Don't we already have a section for Criticism of the Blue Lives Matter movement? It is detrimental to the page to have this and it should be removed as soon as possible. 2601:600:c87f:2310:c071:637c:33fc:56da 2023 October 8, 22:29 (UTC)

I don't think the whole paragraph should be removed. The lede should summarize the article as a whole, and criticism is a major part of the article. That said, I do think it could be pared down; it shouldn't be the majority of the lede. I just made an edit to that effect; what do you think? Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Just because an IP editor does a drive-by and doesn't like the fact those most sources point out the inconsistencies in pro-Blue-Lives-Matter positions doesn't mean we have to give that IP editor what they want. Wes sideman (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

True, but we shouldn't discount them just because they're an IP either. I really don't see that it's necessary to list every argument against Blue Lives Matter in the lede when it's all laid out in the criticism section. Especially since the first criticism listed doesn't make sense until you know about the blue lives matter legislation. What would you think of something more like this for paragraph two?:

Critics argue that a movement is not necessary as police officers are already typically respected in communities. They also argue that attacking or killing a police officer already carries a higher penalty than attacking a non-police officer, and that the movement is really more about suppressing minorities than supporting law enforcement.

Justin Kunimune (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with anything besides the word "argue"; it's essentially a weasel word that implies "that a given point is inaccurate". It's 100% accurate to say that critics have "pointed out" facts, as that's what sources say. Wes sideman (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

To break it down phrase-by-phrase:

• "being Black is an identity-based characteristic" - fact
• "being a police officer is a choice" - fact
• "police officers are already typically respected and honored in communities" - given the word "typically", this stands as fact.
• "attacking or killing a police officer already carries a higher penalty than attacking a non-police officer" - fact
• "that the movement is really more about suppressing minorities than supporting law enforcement" - this is the one bit that could qualify as opinion, but it's well-sourced in the body.

In short, most of this falls under WP:BLUESKY, and adding the "argue" was only put there to give the impression that these facts are in doubt. They are not. Wes sideman (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

None of my edits were intended to give the impression of doubt or challenge the truth of any of these statements. In particular, I struck "being Black is an identity-based characteristic while being a police officer is a choice" because it doesn't make sense unless the Blue Lives Matter legislation is mentioned first. Right now, to a reader who doesn't already know about Blue Lives Matter, it makes it look like the fact that being a police officer is a choice is a counterargument to police lives mattering. Either the first paragraph should have something to the effect of

Supporters of Blue Lives Matter call for crimes committed against police officers to be classified as hate crimes.

or the sentence about Black being an identity characteristic should be removed. Justin Kunimune (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent sentence to add to the lead regardless of what follows it. I added it. Wes sideman (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Article contains large sections of uncited claims.

Often entire paragraphs have no citations, like the second one.

I'd give more specifics but that would be a bit generous for such a lazy bunch of "editors." 2603:7081:1603:A300:F12B:7FA3:29AF:8D5E (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEADCITE EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of 'black'

is this the norm now on wikipedia? 202.89.148.53 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

did you look at all for documentation? see MOS:RACECAPS and the footnote at the end of the first sentence there. also I think it's not too hard to find documentation for other publications to compare to. e.g. https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-9105661462 Jeremyb (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)