RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion/Black Lives Matter

Not on mission
I created the Gamergate article and defended it against calls for deletion on the basis that it was edit war bait. The difference is that the Gamergate article is on-mission ("documenting the full range of crank ideas" and "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism," specifically regarding gender). It adds value to this wiki and is thus worth defending. This article is off-mission. The connection to any mission statement is just too tenuous to justify the article's existence. Any on-mission content currently contained in the article is better farmed out to other articles. In other words, an article on a proponent of racism is on-mission. An anti-racist hashtag movement is not. I see no purpose in expending resources in the defense of an off-mission article that is going to attract constant conflict. Right now, there's an edit war going on over a largely tangential Israel-Palestine section. I can only imagine that trying to actually round out and improve the article would be a Sisyphean endeavour. This article is a losing battle, simply put. -Shtrominer (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove the Israel-Palestine section as irrelevant and off-mission and - some squirming by Mona aside - the edit war is over Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Black Lives Matter is a racist/black supremacist organization. The "edit war" is over this (some deluded folk think BLM is a legitimate anti-racist organization), not the Israel-Palestine stuff.Krom (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (reply to Avengerofthe BoN) Will adding as-of-the-moment conspicuously absent coverage of the Bernie Sanders incident to the article be a clean and uncontroversial process? No, I predict it will incite more edit wars. This article is off-mission, and, because of that, I don't think it's worth all the trouble and grief that will doubtlessly be involved in its improvement. -Shtrominer (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You will avoid nothing by deleting this single article. Certainly NOT edit wars on any article touching on Israel or people who criticize it. It's like amputating a finger when the whole arm is gangrenous.---Mona- (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding what I wrote on the BDS talk page : "Avenger told me on the Zionism page, point blank, that both he and Arisboch will never, under any circumstances, permit to stand any edit that they don't like about Israel. He has sworn to revert endlessly. What can be done with such an editor, who cares not a whit about documentation -- either about supplying his own or having respect for the supported fact claims of others? He's simply doing precisely what he avowed to do. So, what?" Notwithstanding that their version has very little sourcing, and the edits I and others do are copiously sourced, they won't allow edits they don't like on anything having to do with Israel. Period. BLM is not the only page currently protected because they (and on occasions a few of their reactionary supporters) won't allow even well-sourced edits they don't like.---Mona- (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming they said this. Any proof? &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So race is not important? Of course we know that because Obama was elected president racism is over in America. The people-murdering cops, the rise of online white supremacist hysterical right-wingers and all that did not happen. I also mention that there's an idiot claiming in this very page that BLM is black supremacist. Of course we all know that opposition to racism is thinly veiled racism against white people. I will oppose deletion because, contrary what you think, racism is a form of authoritarianism. Tuxer (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're another bigot I suppose who thinks only "white" people can be racist. How is BLM not racist when they invite Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, and other black supremacist individuals to their meetings? BLM members are also caught on video telling people that are not "black" to leave their protest crowds while also shouting racial slurs. To oppose racism you have to be consistent. That's unfortunately not what is going on here.Krom (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, never, ever put words in my mouth. And second, I admit that BML activists called a bunch of white people racists when they interrupted the speech of a notable progressive, but that makes them assholes, not racists. As for your statements about BML inviting black supremacists, I want proof - empirical evidence backed by credible sources. Tuxer (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Proof

I wrote this (truncated) on the Zionism page. --- Avenger of the BoN has addressed the proposal of User:Kosterortiizbrock that we apply the same model to the Zionism entry that RW does to the Morality of Abortion article, to wit: setting forth both sides of an intractable controversy. Invoking himself and, I infer, User: Arisboch, he rejects the proposal for this reason: "Crucially, it lacks support from the only two voices on here that would willingly and publicly self-identify as Zionist. If the aim of said project is to provide a balance, yet the main weights on one side of the scale are unwilling or unable to provide their input, said project is bound to fail." So, we cannot present any fact or position on Zionism other than ones that satisfies two members, because those two members won't participate in any compromise or solution to the impasse that includes one word they don't like.They will simply continue to revert every syllable that displeases them.

[...]

People secure in the soundness of their arguments have no need to preclude the presentation of disagreement. Clearly, they fear having to compete if facts and arguments they dislike are allowed to be explicated in articles on Rational Wiki that touch on one one very specific issue.

The question is, are you -- each of you -- going to let this arrogant and illiberal behavior continue?---Mona- (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ADDING: Corrupt User or Castaigne Hipocrite also informed me that it is not possible to make edits here that displease those who "think Israel is great." That has proven to be true. They will always revert and are immune to sources.---Mona- (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That'd be Castaigne then. CorruptUser (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that might've been Hipocrite. Though he might not have have meant it in such absolute terms. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * "Actually, I think that might've been Hipocrite." It was. My sincere apologies to CorruptUser and Castaigne. Haven't seen Hipocrite since and his name fell out of my brain.---Mona- (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting
Five out of seven of the people voting "keep" only started editing in the last few months. It's hard for me not to read this as anything but a collective misunderstanding of RW's fundamental mission. -Shtrominer (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the BLM article is off mission, so are Gamergate, Anonymous, Rape Culture and many other articles.---Mona- (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And BW, who has been here, what, 2 years longer than you? Is she just as corrupted despite being part of the group who helped -make- this mission you claim is being subverted?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I was visiting this wiki daily for two years before I started to edit in it. You seem to think that they're all ignorant newcomers which is not true. Tuxer (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. It's been about two, maybe three years for me as well before I began to edit. And I actually didn't join intending to get into political wars. I joined because I was quite surprised when a woo phenomenon I kept running into had no article here; I intended -- and still do -- to write that article. But I am a political person and feel passionately about the matters that are so controversial here. More relevantly, I am exceedingly well informed about them and can and do copiously document what I write.---Mona- (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)