Talk:Black Panther Party

BPP not all-black membership

BPP actually had only a few non-black members. Two of them were Japanese. I don't know of the other but I remember reading about Richard Aoki being the Field Marshall. And I also read somewhere he was the co-founder, but there's not much evidence of it, except that he was friends with Huey P. Newton before founding of BPP. http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Our_Stories/Chapter3/Richard_Aoki.html

I don't know if anyone wants to take account that BPP was not all-black. Just putting some interesting info out there.

Paracite (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Look here: http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com There's plenty of documentation about him. I guess he was the guy who armed and helped train the first BPP and was involved from the start. There were also Puerto Ricans and other Asians. This whole thing about the BPP being racist I suspect has never been true, and it's just negative propaganda that was spread. I think this needs serious revision, because the text makes it appear that the BPP started as racial separatists then, through politics, became less racist. In fact, they started out not racist, and during their formative years were communicating with all people. Later antagonism to black nationalism may have been due to FBI-COINTELPRO efforts to increase discord and violence between the various groups. Additionally, I have read copies of the Panther paper, and they did a lot of really tame, basically civic minded things in addition to their armed posturing and revolutionary rhetoric. --Purino (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In the first year or so Newton and Seale were inspired by Stokley and the Black Power movement, but they rejected Black separatism completely by 1968 at the latest. At that point they became more focused on Marxist-Leninist analysis. I don't think it's fair to simply state that they were a Marxist-Maoist movement from the start. The primary and original influences came from Stokely Carmichael, Frantz Fanon, William L. Patterson and of course Malcolm. The BPP was not simply Maoist because it considered the Lumpenproletariat to be the true revolutionary class, against Marx, Engels and Mao. This idea they took from Fanon's book The Wretched of the Earth. The Party shifted considerably throughout its existence. If you read the newspapers, you'll notice how the ideology changes. When Cleaver traveled to North Korea the paper started publishing a lot of Kim Il Sung's work. And after the split in 71 with Huey's insistence on intercommunalism, the paper dropped its most violent rhetoric, and moved in favor of electoral politics and community building.

The Black Panthers were never racist, but you could argue that their essentializing of the police force as all "pigs" and the celebration of the death of any police officer was a disappointing and problematic position. You couldn't call it racism, but you could call it extreme prejudice. This treatment was given to black (nigger pigs, uncle toms) and whites (pigs) alike.

This topic about The Black Panthers and it's true nature and beginnings are even more relevant based on current events. We can learn from J Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO program and perhaps use that example of what the Bush Administration may have looked into, as one of many ways, to sell the current war in Iraq to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vargavision (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion

• Posts from 2005 to Jan. 30th 2007 are now at: Talk:Black Panther Party/Archive 1.

Horowitz

i know others have said this before but the Horowitz rant is way too long and way too irreverent. there were and are plenty of criticisms of the BPP from prominent intellectuals and political and social figures and i don’t see why some obscure authoritarian leftist turned authoritarian rightist should get an entire paragraph in an encyclopedia article. Horowitz is a poor scholar and demagogue and no one outside his ideological niche takes him seriously. At least move it into a criticism section; a "political support" section should include just that not remarks about BP running drug and prostitute rackets with a article link in which Horowitz compares the activities of the BP with among other things Stalins "Katyn massacre."

Bloop bloop bloop. Your wish is my command. - N1h1l 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument for giving horowitz space here is that he did closely work with members of the BPP in the mid 70s and appears to have some firsthand knowledge of the events in question. this is what makes his criticism different from a lot of the hysterical and fantastic denunciations of the party. since the article he wrote is cited, people have the capability to decide for themselves whether or not his allegations have any merit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.248.38 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I see the references to Horowitz are back, although I'm unaware that there is any evidence of truth to his claim of ever having had any involvement with left wing politics, let alone the black panthers. Unless a independent citation can be found it seems obvious he should be struck from the article.71.107.68.17 (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Horowitz was involved with the BPP, largely through his links with the radical magazine Ramparts. You can check the citations in Pearson's Shadow of the Panther, Peter Richardson's A Bomb in Every Issue and various other books about the New Left/BPP, not to mention Horowitz's memoirs. Jswba (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

He does not belong in a replacement of the discussion of a specific murder. The subtopic Betty van Patty's murder is completely about him, and not her or the case itself. He only involved in his fevered dreams. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you write "He does not belong in a replacement of the discussion of a specific murder." In any case, Horowitz recommended Betty to work with Panther leader Elaine Brown, and then she turned up dead; he felt responsible. These experiences were not "fevered dreams." Apostle12 (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

police openly involved in KKK statement

The statement about police in the south openly involved in the KKK has been tagged as needing a citation for a while. I've poked around, and I can't find anything that really fits. Most of the reports about police being openly Klan are from the 1920s or before. Someone recently added a few more book references, and I'm hoping that we can get this cited sooner than later. I think that if we can't, a statement like this might be better taken out until a citation does turn up. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It might not ultimately be possible to find a cite for that. It's one of those things that is presumed because of the nature of society before WWII. American society was strongly segregated in some regions, and less in others. The Klan was essentially a social organization akin to the Elks Lodge, and being a member was not considered extreme. People would not even have been asked if they were members, and people applying to the police academy may well have been members, without even thinking about it. It wasn't until the 60's and 70's that it was driven underground in some states. The Klan took a hit in WWII when it aligned itself with the Nazi Bund movement, and that was the beginning of the end. I say there would not have been a mention of it because it was just assumed, and would not have been worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Panther Party was Maoist NOT Democratic Socialist

Democratic Socialists advocated socialism through reform. The Black Panthers advocated Revolution. Democratic Socialists are usually peaceful, however the Black Panthers are famous for having marched around with loaded weapons. Also, the BPP sold Quotations from Mao Tse-tung in order to raise money to buy shotguns. They then made the Quotations mandatory party reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.121.248 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

The main leadership of the BPP was Socialist, but it turned Maoist due to COINTELPRO interference - leaders being thrown in jail. To be revolutionary does not mean that you are Maoist. Also, people have a right to bear arms in the USA, and they were merely rtaining their right to do so. (NathanD 016 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

The BPP was Maoist from the start. It remained a mix between Maoism and Democratic Socialism through out its existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripe66506 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The BPP was indeed Maoist from the start and not just the little red book. Many of us own the complete works of Mao and taught classes from themOldpanther (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I quite agree that this article seems to be in promotion of the Black Panthers. I had read the opening line of the article on the Nazi Party, which was as follows: "The Nazi Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP), English: National Socialist German Workers' Party), was a far-right, racist political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945." Now, to me, looking up the Black Panthers seemed like a good comparison, if the Nazi Party was racist then surely this would be under the Black Panthers. Instead, I read this article to some avail that the Black Panthers were just like Martin Luther King Jr, peaceful and using "self defense". Now keep in mind that "black nationalism" (one of the points of the black panthers) should be equated to "white power", but it is not. Even then, "white power" is a neonazi term, having nothing to do with the original party itself. Therefore I propose that if the word "racist" is to remain in the article Nazi Party, then the word "racist" should be inserted into Black Panther Party. Zchris87v 03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There are already a couple mentions of critics of the group, and descriptions of the groups activities that were illegal or (possibly?) immoral in the article. If you have some good information cited by a reliable source (no blogs, please), feel free to add them or bring them up here on talk. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Black Panther Party was not a racist group, and is not similar to the Nazis or white power organizations. The Black Panthers were an anti-racist, progressive left-wing group. The Nazis, while borrowing some leftist ideas, were a far-right, reactionary, anti-Semitic and racist party that carried out genocidal policies against innocent people. I suggest you learn more about both groups so you can avoid making more factually-incorrect and slanderous statements.Spylab 10:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaver indicates that, at one point in his life, he viewed the rape of white women as "an insurrectionary act." Well that's not racist. Look, the point is that you cannot say that an entire party is completely not racist. Maybe the ideals weren't, but they had to have had their fair share of racist members. The same goes for the Nazi party, except its leader embraced the ideas. Automatically making all entities racist. As for the Nazi party being "white supremacist"? Keep in mind what "white" you're talking about - not the same "white" that the Black Panthers fought against. If anything, the Nazis were "Aryan supremacists". Look, go ahead and dismiss what I say if you want to, but there comes a certain 'crossing point' in every race battle where the question is if people are fighting against a racist group, or if the group just portrayed that way. There's a thing called "reverse racism", you know, and in striving for "equality" it seems like they may have overshot and led to the racial favoritism that now exists. Zchris87v 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who compares the Black Panther Party to the Nazi party, given whatever reasoning is just confused in my honest opinion..Mahmud II 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, the BPP advocated "all power to the people", which is elaborated upon by Fred Hampton quite famously in the documentary, "The Murder of Fred Hampton": "Black Power to Black people, white power to white people, brown power to brown people, yellow power to yellow people." The Chicago Panthers started the Rainbow Brigade and famously worked with the Young Lords, members of the Appalachian movement, the SDS (and to their regret, the Weathermen). Racists believe in theirs as the superior race; the Panthers advocated self-reliance and were seeking revolution as a means for exercising self determination. To compare them to the Nazi Party is not only insidious and indicates a questionable agenda. None of the BPP's leaders, no matter how megalomaniacal they may have become, advocated the extermination of white people. Further, their agenda wasn't aimed at hating anyone, but rather at empowering people who where at the bottom of the socio-economic rung in their communities, and preyed upon by the police.

To say that the BPP were the equivalence to the Nazi’s really is not a fair comparison. They never (thankfully) gained any real political power and spent most of their time infighting. Like most elements of the New Left the BPP was/is a synthesis of Mao’s lil Red Book, Castro Worship, and revolutionary politics blending Black Nationalism and elements of the NOI. Was the BPP racist, I am not sure … the black nationalism and NOI segments of them most certainly were and many of their members were little more than brown versions of Tom Metzger, but as with anything, find a good source, and for something like this, find many good sources and include it in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'll be the first to say that many Panthers were misguided in some of their actions, I find comparing them to the Nazi party atrocious and bordering on racist. First and foremost, nether black nationalism nor black power are racist philosophies. Certainly there were people with racial prejudice who espoused these philosophies as apart of a black supremacist ideology, but that does not make these philosophies racist. In much the same way that Socialism is not racist despite the Nazi Party being a Socialist party. Black power and black nationalism were born out of desires for a better social standing and self-defense against an unimaginable degree of racially motivated violence. Emmit Till wasn't the only African American to end up in a river for a triviality. The idea behind black power was to encourage people to stand and defend themselves against racism. It was not a call for racial terrorism nor the extermination of whites. Black nationalism was based on the same idea except the idea was why stay where you're not wanted. Black nationalist and black separatist leaders encouraged people to form their own communities and social services for safety, self-respect, and dignity. I notice how no one ever complains about Garvyism or the Back to Africa movement when they complain about Black nationalism. Secondly, I would prefer it if the Black panthers had become a serious, stable political party. It would have been far better than the outcome. There would have never been enough political support locally let alone nationwide to implement any Communist policies. But, I feel that the likeliest outcome would have been that they would have brought a great deal of attention to several social issues, most importantly poverty, and forced more mainstream political parties to address them seriously.

Now that I'm done soapboxing, I sincerely apologize. I also sincerely apologize to anyone who may find my words offensive and I hope that no one will take them personally but instead will see them as an attempt to approach truth and reconciliation over a most troubling time in our history. I will endeavor to recruit someone from WP:AFRO or another relevant wikiproject to make this article and other associated articles accurate and neutral. I ask for your patience and support in the process of repairing this article. CJ 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all in the Black Panther Party racists of all types were considered the enemy. Particularly so-called Black Nationalist. An out dated position faulted with the rise of corrupt Neo-colonialist policies in Africa.As a matter of fact many Black Nationist groups (with FBI help)set out to destroy the Party. Zchis87v you are very mistaken.Oldpanther (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you say black panthers and the nazi party are both simular that saying the nazi wanted to live in this world with equal treatment and not take over the world and make it only blonde hair and blue eyes and what they did and thier vaules are not the same as the Black panthers. The B.P.P just wanted to be treated as a normal U.S american but when the law and goverment wouldn't give any justice to the black communities what did you expect them to do have a peaceful protest are armed them selves and prepare to protect them selves when nobody would. allstarp http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/panther/ch2.html —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

I can see, both from your edits and your comments, that you sincerely want to understand what the Black Panthers were all about. If you read the section of the article titled "Evolving Ideology, Widening Support," you will see that black-on-white racism was definitely a component of Panther thinking, especially during the early days. There is some controversy as to how many Panthers retained racist tendencies as the Party's thinking matured. Some Panthers flat-out hated white people and were quite vocal about it, whereas others were committed to establishing alliances with people of all races--provided they shared the Panthers' leftist ideology. The Panthers' efforts at self-defense were certainly laudable, and they have few critics on this score. They went quite a bit further than this, however; Newton, Cleaver, and many other Panthers attacked and/or murdered policemen (whom they called "pigs) in an "enhanced" definition of self-defense. Their propensity to commit violent acts lost the Black Panthers support, especially among middle class blacks. Most white people, and law enforcement in general, saw them as an aggressive threat to national peace and considered their tactics deplorable. Unfortunately the tactics used by law enforcement to contain the Panther threat were often just as deplorable. Apostle12 (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed, and about NPOV

There are still two {{fact}}/citation needed tags left in the article, both in the "Conflict with law enforcement" section. I think if noone has a citation for those sentences (I couldn't find any), it is time we pull them out. In the meantime, please feel free to add {{fact}} anywhere you see something that isn't cited and should be. Also, the NPOV tag may never be removed, but it is worth a try. In my mind, what we need is some sources that criticize or talk about the criticism of the BPP that don't refer to ideologues like Horowitz, but stick to respected analysts. This would allow us to write a better criticism section and to add some balance to the lead. The thing is, so many young scholars have a romantic view of what the BPP was that doing a Google scholar search gives almost entirely positive articles [1]. I suppose that some of the articles talk about some criticisms, but I'm fairly frustrated with looking. If you know of a good article of book that will fit, and don't have time to add the material to the article, let me know. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone that's interested. Try looking for Black people who didn't like the Panthers or the Black power movement. Most people associated with the non-violent movement didn't like their philosophies because they believed very strongly in retaining the moral high ground by not engaging in violence. Basically, A kid getting the crap kicked out of him on national television is far more sympathetic if he's not fighting back. CJ 10:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Hugh Pearson has a book, The Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America, that fits the bill. It seems like it was a bit controversial, concentrated on the BPP's thuggary, but that Pearson was respected and the work wasn't widely discredited. I'm going through it, and will make some (major?) additions to the article from it soon. Let me know if you've any reason to think that the book isn't reliable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pearson's book is excellent. I think it's credible, because he bases a lot of it on his own interviews with former BPP members. I would also suggest looking at some of the old journalism by Kate Coleman. I think Pearson gives the relevant cites. She was a leftist journalist, and the first to break the story of the BPP's extortion racket against black businesses and its other financial shenanigans.

Verklempt 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've got some notes from the first half of the Peason book, I'll put them in now. The last part of the book, about the BPP's decline, talks about Coleman. But it also focuses quite a bit on the role Horowitz played. I think on this article in past discussions, there has been some trepidation about emphasizing Horowitz's role and his ideas, so I think it should be discussed here first. I don't really know one way or another how to play it. Coleman seems to rely heavily on Horowitz, while I think Pearson has distanced himself from Horowitz somewhat (see quote in this article from the Nation 2003) which makes me feel more comfortable with him as a reference in general. Anyway, I think I'll add some of this stuff, and see where it goes from here. Its a new section called violence, and a bit on Seale and Newton and the founding. I'm not planning on changing the lead just yet, but it could be cleaned up as well. Let me know what you think -and fix my mistakes ; ) Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some linkage between Horowitz and Coleman. She has published about the BPP in Horowitz's online magazine. They have in common that they were both leftist supporters of the BPP, who later changed their opinion of the group. However, if you look at Coleman's early journalism, I think it would be mistaken to attribute Horowitz as her major source. Her article on the BPP's finances is well worth obtaining. Horowitz is not her source for that.Verklempt 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point, the financing of a lot of these 60s leftist groups was strange and interesting (and encyclopedic, I suppose). Coleman isn't the only source for that, but I'm sure it would work fine. I think I'll hold off making any more major changes until what I just added is digested a bit. If you have it, I think it would be ok to add some about it, though. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that some individuals and indeed some chapters of the BPP used extortion and other criminal activities. As policy and in most what we called the Points of Attention and rules of Disipline as layed down by Mao were striktly adhered to.People were purged for striking women,robbing stores and many things that would surprise those of you who were not there.Among the worse crimes was COMBAT LIBERALISM, But those of you who want to remember us as a gang of thugs are wrong.Oldpanther (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

References/Footnotes

I decided to change the style of the footnotes to a double colume layout to make it more manageable, also, I changed the title to References for obvious reasons
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 14:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Revolutionary Suicide"

As Bobby Seale wrote 'Seize the time' Huey P Newton wrote 'Revolutionary Suicide'. It's an obscure book and out of print but it should be mentioned somwhere in the article.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Revolutionary Suicide was largely written by J. Herman Blake and that Newton's input was minimal. See Roz Payne, 'WACing off' in Lazerow and Williams (eds.), In Search of the Black Panther Party pp. 174, 180n22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswba (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But how did J. Herman Blake end up with so many details about Huey's life and ideas? Did he just make them up, or, perhaps, Huey did have quite a bit of input in chronicling his own life... So let's be clear that J. Herman Blake might have been mainly responsible for writing the work, but he was recording ideas and a life story provided by Huey. So Huey's input was more than "minimal" concerning his own life record.67.197.147.44 (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Racism

I once edited black the black panthers page to also to mention the they were rasicts and compared then to the kkk. Then i was acussed of vandalism by wiki. ITs commoms knowledge that they were basicaly the black klan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.210.249 (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is common knowledge, then you won't have any trouble finding a reliable source. - N1h1l 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true at all. There were some black vigilante groups in rural areas, but the BPP was not one. It was primarily a communist political organization that operated in public, and the names of the leaders were well known. The klan was a vigilante group, espousing white supremacy and a conservative ideology sympathetic to fascism, who operated under hoods to preserve secrecy, and who attacked families.

That they even get mentioned in the same breath, or compared to each other is clear proof of the power of the mainstream propaganda machine and its power to rewrite history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.121.132 (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Black Panther party is registered as a 'black hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This whole black panther article looks to be written by Black Panther fanboys. They are the black kkk.......The Black Panther Party was never called a Black hate group by the southern poverty law center. The socalled NPP for New Black Panther Party is mentioned . The NPP has NO connection what so ever with the Black Panther Party. They are a splinter group of Louis Farrakhan.Oldpanther (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=3

How can they be the black KKK when they where communists and the KKK was anti-communist? How can they be ethnic nationalists like the KKK and still be Internationalists and Maoists? The Black Panther Party gave free breakfasts to children and the KKK committed acts of violence against children. The Black Panther Party created survival programs the KKK lynched people. There where MANY differences to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You've confused the Black Panther Party with the New Black Panther Party, which is a completely separate and unrelated organization. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ten Point Program

I think it would be great to make a page about the Ten Point Program. It seems like a really vital part of this topic. Does anyone have any suggestions before I go ahead and do that?--DerRichter 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Number 6 in the program varies quite a bit in the October 1966 version of What We Want What We Believe. It is "We want all black men to be exempt from military service." Cbloem (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns that the ten points listed in the article may have been modified from the original to be more in accord with current concepts and terminology and perhaps make the Panther platform seem more inclusive. The term "people of color" for example was not widely used at the time. In all the videos of Panthers reciting the points available online there is no reference to "people of color". I also don't see or hear the phrase "blacks and all oppressed people's" anywhere else; I'm wondering whether this may've been added to suggest it wasn't initially envisioned as a strictly black organization. I'd like to see some reliable off-line references with the points worded as they are in the article. Every version I find online seems to be worded differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your concerns are legitimate. Early on (at least by 1969) there was an attempt to "sanitize" anti-white racism within the BPP. Many sources (Austin, Pearson, Brown) say that the Party went through an early black nationalist period, where the emphasis was on "creating a black nation to benefit black people." And I think it is clear that some aspects of black nationalist (or anti-white racist) attitudes persisted during the remainder of the Party's history. Yet black nationalism was incompatible with the alliance with the PFP, which was mostly white. And the Panthers became somewhat dependent on the support of white leftists within the Hollywood community. The question becomes "To what extent the Party's rejection of black nationalism sincere rather than a strategic pose?" Contemporary BPP apologists seem especially prone to sanitizing history.

As a sidenote, I would suggest more reflection on just what the term "people of color" means. I would submit that it means "everyone except white people," which makes it a highly-charged, racist term. BTW, Asians are often excluded from the "people of color" designation on the grounds that they are "a model minority," or "too white," whatever that means! Apostle12 (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

October 1966 Black Panther Party Platform and Program "What We Want, What We Believe"

(Please See Up Against the Wall, Curtis Austin, University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, 2006, p. 353-55, also http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/Panther_platform.html)

1. We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our Black Community.

We believe that Black people will not be free until we are able to determine our destiny.

2. We want full employment for our people.

We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the white American businessmen will not give full employment, then the means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.

3. We want an end to the robbery by the white man of our Black Community.

We believe that this racist government has robbed us and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules was promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of black people. We will accept the payment as currency which will be distributed to our many communities. The Germans are now aiding the Jews in Israel for the genocide of the Jewish people. The Germans murdered six million Jews. The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of over twenty million black people; therefore, we feel that this is a modest demand that we make.

4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings.

We believe that if the white landlords will not give decent housing to our Black community, then the housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that our community, with government aid, can build and make decent housing for its people.

5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society.

We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of self. If a man does not have knowledge of himself and his position in society and the world, then he has little chance to relate to anything else.

6. We want all Black men to be exempt from military service.

We believe that Black people should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like black people, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by whatever means necessary.

7. We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of Black people.

We believe we can end police brutality in our Black community by organizing Black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our Black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black people should arm themselves for self defense.

8. We want freedom for all Black men held in federal, state, county and city prisons and jails.

We believe that all Black people should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.

9. We want all Black people when brought to trial to be tried in court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black communities, as defined by the Constitution of the United States.

We believe that the courts should follow the United States Constitution so that Black people will receive fair trials. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives a man a right to be tried by his peer group. A peer is a person from a similar economic, social, religious, geographical, environmental, historical and racial background. To do this the court will be forced to select a jury from the Black community from which the Black defendant came. We have been, and are being tried by all-white juries that have no understanding of the "average reasoning man" of the Black community.

10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And as our major political objective, a United Nations-supervised plebiscite to be held throughout the Black colony in which only Black colonial subjects will be allowed to participate for the purpose of determining the will of Black people as to their national destiny.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to supper, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

This original version has now replaced the doctored version that appeared in the article for some time. Curtis Austin's book, Up Against the Wall is an irrefutable source for this October, 1966 version, also corroborated by the University of Virginia online archives. Apostle12 (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ten Point Program is a crucial part of understanding the Black Panthers, and the accurate summary above has been created into a lesson plan by Wayne Au for high school students to use the plan as a guide to determining the needs and goals of their own communities. The link to the lesson plan has been placed at the end of the "external links section" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepresto (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Section 4.1 Criticism - Violence

"They often took advantage of a little known California law which made it permissible to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun"

The aforementioned little-known California law is merely a restatement of a better-known supreme law of the land; namely, that people have the right to bear arms, with no infringement whatsoever. DayKart (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Widening Support

Quotes by Jane Fonda can't stay in without sources and citations.--Parkwells (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RAM

References are needed for the note that Seale and Newton were members of RAM. The standard sources (Pearson, Joseph etc.) maintain that they were members of the Afro-American Association prior to forming the BPP. User:jswba —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Filing candidates

Have the Black Panther Party ever nominated candidate to political offices? Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. "Minister of Information" Eldridge Cleaver ran for president in 1968 on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket, but I don't know whether the BPP ever ran a candidate of their own in any election. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Brown ran for a position on Oakland's City Council in (April) 1973 and Bobby Seale ran for Mayor in the same election. Brown lost by 4,000 votes and Seale came second to the incumbent mayor John Reading, but lost the runoff election a month later. The information can be found in numerous books dealing with the BPP and in Robert Self's American Babylon (an excellent history of race and suburbanization in Oakland). Jswba (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X a Black Panther?

I deleted "MALCOM X WAS IN FACT A BLACK PANTHER==". While I haven't done any research on either the man or the organization, *was* Malcolm X a Black Panther? If he is, it should have been better phrased or whatever... Red dwarf (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm was never a member of the BPP. In fact he was dead before the party was created.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is that one of the first actions by the Panthers was providing protection for Malcolm's widow, Betty Shabazz, when she visited San Francisco or Oakland. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

LEGACY? LINKS?

the New Black Panther Party is not the legacy of the original BPP. They don't even have the same ideology or beliefs. Such a shame that a 3rd rate, non sustainable program, racist, ignorant organization is liked to the BPP.

Secondly an effort was made to link the NBPP with the BPP but no mention of the lawsuit the members of the BPP waged against the NBPP for use of their name. If anything the NBPP should be removed from this article

If you want to talk about legacy talk about the social programs that were started and are now standard in our society.

Lastly, why are the outgoing links so critical? Yes the BPP had it's problems. But you mean to tell me we should spend more time reducing its legacy than actually trying to find neutral links that provide educational information?

Everyone has an "opinion" let's gets some links that are FACTUAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithevansfanatic (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Social agitation"?

I'd watch the NPOV on that. It definitely has negative connotations. Wikifried (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoover quote

Note that the quote by J. Edgar Hoover is given twice in the introduction. Perhaps this should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clumsy writing

Much of this article is clumsily written and requires copyediting. This includes the first line of the main body, "In 1966, Huey P. Newton was released from jail." Besides the sudden statement of this tantalizing fact, there is no indication why Huey Newton was in jail and on what basis he was released, giving the impression, correctly or not, that the article begins in the middle of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • I agree, this article is written badly. most of the content is repetitive, and phrased badly.. it should be rewritten more coherently.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.33.23 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Go for it. Jswba (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seale/Newton name swapping

Someone keeps insisting on putting Newton's name first, because he was the brain of the project.

First, such a claim needs to be backed up.

Second, even if it is backed up, there should be a Wikipedia policy that discusses this and it should be invoked. Otherwise, if the editor wants to insist on it, he/she needs to rewrite that section indicating clearly that Newton was the brains of the project, and indicating clearly Seale's lesser role. Trying to indicate this by merely rearranging the order is not, AFAIK, a standardized way. Beetle B. (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was common knowledge that Huey ran the party, designed the party, and all major changes to the party were by his command. He even kicked Bobby Seale out of the party. How did he have the authority to do that if he wasn't the primary one in charge? Whatever, leave it the way it is. Wikipedia is an "at-a-glance" resource anyway. People who are serious about knowning the nuances and important details will do the necessary research and find what I have said all along: Huey Newton was the brain behind the Black Panther Party 208.104.101.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

"Common knowledge" doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. And as I said, even if what you say is correct, it doesn't really warrant a name swap. You can easily edit the article and fill in the details of each's involvement.Beetle B. (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User 208ff. is surely right? Eldridge Cleaver might have been a serious pretender to the throne for a time and for a number of Panthers, as far as I know. There also seems to have been a certain tension between the Oakland chapter and the rest of the country.--Radh (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely you guys could get together to construct a section of the page on this very issue? Seale's autobiography gives most of the credit to Newton but we have to remember that _Seize the Time_ was constructed by Cleaver and Seale through a series of (occasionally drunken) taped conversations during Newton's incarceration and was clearly an attempt to reinforce the Newton Mythology during the 'Free Huey' campaign. Cleaver also had great influence over the direction of the Party during Newton's incarceration -- hence Newton's attempt to wrest control back upon his release. Isn't asserting that Newton was the brains behind the operation a little too simplistic?

In any case, Newton and Seale simply reflects common parlance, like bacon and eggs, salt and pepper, Tom and Jerry etc. etc. Jswba (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what there is to discuss. Everywhere I've checked, both are credited as being the founders. I wouldn't mind a deeper investigation on who played a bigger role, but to the best of my knowledge Wikipedia has no policy for such cases. I think arguing about whose name should come first in the absence of an agreed upon Wikipedia policy is simply a wasted effort. The assumption that the ordering matters is a bad one.

As I said earlier, people are free to highlight the differences in contribution between the two in the article, so that it becomes explicit rather than implied by a name ordering. Beetle B. (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is too simplistic to say that it was Huey's party, being that he kicked both Eldridge Cleaver and Bobby Seale out of the party. The party was essentially his brain child. Eldridge joined the party because he was impressed with Huey's fearlessness and violence. Newton was the face of the party and the most powerful person in the party. Even when he appointed Elaine Brown the first chairwoman of the party, after dismissing Bobby Seale and fleeing to Cuba to avoid charges for another crime, he was giving Brown orders on how to run the party from Cuba. He trained her, as he did other members, in the philosophy HE created for the party. And when he decided that the party would no longer be known for their violence, but instead move to educate and uplift the community, it was Cleaver who found himself out of the loop (although he did start his own faction). So Huey's ideas were the ones that predominantly permeated the Panther classrooms and meeting rooms. 208.104.106.6 (talk)

I fail to see any relevance in your comment is (beyond refuting another comment). The subject at hand is whether Seale was a cofounder, and whether there exists a formal reason to swap the two names when listing the founders.

Bobby Seale's name can remain where it is, but the history of the party speaks for itself. And the Black Panther Party was Huey's party. 208.104.103.235 (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, it was very poor etiquette to overwrite someone's comments on the discussion page. Beetle B. (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Must have been an error, because I had no intention to erase anyone's comment. But when I looked at the history of this page, apparently I accidently erased someone else's comments while posting my own. 208.104.103.235 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Newtons' orders to beat a woman panther

"In 1977, after Newton returned from Cuba and ordered the beating of a woman Panther who organized many of the Party's social programs, Brown decided she needed a break and left the Party."

i think dropping such a "bomb" without elaborating even slightly is absurd.. it raises so many question as to the way the party worked, its morals, Newtons character, etc... it can't be just there to explain Browns depatring of the party, it has too much impact.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.33.23 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm...Then feel free to elaborate and write it in a better manner.Beetle B. (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Angela Davis

• Ebony says, that Angela Davis was a Black Panther Party member for a short time in 1969, but then was made to choose between the CPUSA and the BPP by the Panthers. (Feb 2007, P. 196).
• The Angela Y. Davis Reader, ed. by Angela Davis with Joy James (google books) flatly assertes Davis' BPP membership, but goes on to portrait her as always switching between a membership, which did not want to know too many details of the inner workings of the machine and an outsider position as a fellow-traveller. The Reader does not mention BPP pressure to choose.
• In her later book Imprisoned Intellectuals Joy James writes of Angela Davis' membership not only in the Panthers (P. 62), but also in the Black Panther Political Party, Los Angeles, using (on page 182) the very same language as used in the earlier Angela Davis chapter of Imprisoned Intellectuals and also in the Davis Reader for Davis' attitudes towards the BPP to now describe her stance towards this BPPP. She thinks the LA BPP were affiliated with the Oakland office (and has a footnoted source for this fact). But other sources of the Davis BPPP membership do imply a firm commitment to this LA group. And all sources I can find on google books say the BPPP was a SNCC grouping not even friendly with the BPP and one goes so far to say the BPPP was armed and ready to challenge the Oakland Panthers.

This would leave us with an undisputed 1967 BPPP membership and a 1969 BPP membership, which had for some time not been not mentioned or explicitly denied (e. g.: Bettina Aptheker) in the literature on the period, but which is now boldly and cautiously asserted by Angela Y. Davis herself.

Ĩ also find it a bit strange that The Black Panther Party for Self-Denfense gets mixed up in a book written by Davis' co-editor of her Selected Works with a small Los Angeles band of Black revolutionary nationalists (I assume) called Black Panther Political Party.--Radh (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but does this have anything to do with the article as it currently exists? Are you suggesting that certain information be added or changed? Whatever her exact relation to the BPP, I think it's clear that Davis was not really a leader of the group, so I don't know that her involvement is worth mentioning. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Angela Davis is worth mentioning. Geeze! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• In Angela Davis' autobiography I believe the following information can be found: The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and the Black Panther Political Party were separate groups with different political lines. The two independent organizations simply happened to be founded in close succession to one another & with similar names. The BPP-SD requested the BPPP change the name of their organization but the two groups were unable to come to a compromise. I do not have a copy of Ms. Davis' autobiography so I can not confirm this fact however I do believe it to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.94.184 (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction is too long

I`m not a great editor, but I think someone could & should shrink the intro down to the basics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonlighter (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Scholars such as Angela Davis and Ward Churchill have alleged" in the intro

You've got to be kidding me. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a verifiable statement of fact.. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Scholar. These two are fellow (extremist) activists, supporters (one even was a member and the other one is fake Indian and used to pose to the pictures like that), they are NOT scholars. They're propagandists for their cause. Citing them, and especially citing them in this form ("scholars such as"), and using it as a "a verifiable statement of fact", is totally against Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. It's almost like saying in the intro to Jews: "Scholars such as Dr Goebbels and Dr Dirlewanger have alleged that the Jews are evil." Or, in this case, citing some extremist from the opposite 'white power' camp to write: "Scholars have alleged the Black Panthers wanted to kill all the the blue-eyed devils and take our white wimmenz". It's simply unacceptable. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Their politics and your personal opinions about them are irrelevant. They are both scholars who have studied FBI repression of the BPP extensively. Please stop removing reliably sourced content. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not "my personal opinions", it's THEIR personal opinions. And now go and read the articles on these "scholars" here on Wikipedia (and as of "blah blah Hitler" as you called it, one of these so-called "scholars" called the people murdered in the 9/11 attacks "little Eichmanns"). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not "my personal opinions", it's THEIR personal opinions. -- I'd rather you didn't lie. It won't help your case here. For instance, could you please tell me where you've seen Ward Churchill and Angela Davis refer to themselves as propagandists or comparing themselves to Goebbels? If you can't verify that these are their personal opinions, would you please admit that these were, in fact, your personal opinions?

And now go and read the articles on these "scholars" here on Wikipedia (and as of "blah blah Hitler" as you called it, one of these so-called "scholars" called the people murdered in the 9/11 attacks "little Eichmanns"). -- I'm aware that Churchill called them Little Eichmanns, and I don't see what relevance that has to FBI repression of the Black Panther Party. What other Wikipedia articles say have no bearing on whether or not these sources satisfy WP:RS (they clearly do). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just leave it as supporters and not "scholars", as many people never ever heard about these two and would think these were neutral studies, and not by a communist radical active during the Cold War (on both sides of the Iron Courtain) and a fake Indian who liked to pose with an AK-47 as part of his "scholarly method" (and I hope no one is going to cite him in the intro of United States as how "scholars alleged the U.S. has to go out of North America, and off the planet, and take Canada with it too", about the 9/11 how "scholars such as Ward Churchill have alleged it was worth a try"). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you just won't stop pushing POV. Right? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ten-Point Program

Looking at the short length of the Ten-Point Program article, it may be beneficial simply to merge it into the Black Panther Party article in the section of the same name. Both the article and the section contain mostly the same information and I think it would be better to centralize what we do have on this topic. Thoughts? Lrkleine (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just turned Ten-Point Program into a redirect to the relevant section of this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Two editors and thirteen minutes. That's a merge discussion? I have reverted the merge, especially since this article no longer has a section titled "Ten-Point Program". There is a new article titled Black Panther Party Ten Point Program. I have opened a discussion (here) to discuss merging the two TPP articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Cointelpro

Since Cointelpro began in 1956 and focused on the early leaders of the Civil Rights movement, as well as their later offspring (including the Panthers), I believe this paragraph may be due for a rewrite. Malcolm X was certainly under surveillance during his lifetime, so I believe we need to distinguish between surveillance of early Civil Rights leaders (both non-violent and militant) and the increased attention their militant projeny garnered after 1967. J. Edgar Hoover certainly focused his attention on the Black Panther Party (and SNCC), no doubt about that, so this change in emphasis needs to be emphasized. Apostle12 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The section starts by discussing a specific FBI memo from August 1967 that was aimed at the Panthers and similar groups. Then it goes off on a tangent about "initial targets" who predate the 1967 memo.

There is no question that Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam were targets of FBI surveillance (although I didn't know it was part of COINTELPRO until tonight). But the paragraph is confusing as it is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to create some appropriate changes during the next week or so. Apostle12 (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article does talk about one specific memo, then considers initial targets that predate that memo. In addition the image shows a 1970 memo regarding Jean Seberg. This individual is not discussed in the section, and ought to be. Seberg id one of the most notable targets of COINTELPRO. Her victimization was noted as a well-documented (in order to be exploited) retaliation for her support of civil rights groups (chiefly the Black Panthers) in the 1960s. The section, from what I have read also lacks information regarding the deaths of Fred Hampton and Elmer Pratt. These are two very important Panther members and their connection to the FBI/COINTELPRO is controversial. Jekuhn1 (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jekuhn and the entire tone of this short discussion. Not only should Seberg be included, but a broader discussion on the Cointelpro involvement with the party and the Black Panthers individually should be included. And instead of simply deleting new contributions, editors involved with this article should engage contributors with questions, if they have any. I am referring here to Malik's deletion of the two previous contributions with the simple comment "this isn't the place to start a primer about COINTELPRO." Prior to making his contribution, Jekuhn posted in this "Talk" page to open discussion. So, instead of simply deleting his contributions, address his concerns and points here. Historian 02:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennishidalgo (talk • contribs)

The paragraphs I deleted were about "trumped up charges by the COINTELPRO" and other loosey-goosey allegations of wrong-doing. The basic principles of WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:No original research apply here as they do to every Wikipedia article. I apologize if my edit summary was gruff.

To Jekuhn1's specific point, statements about COINTELPRO and Hampton or Pratt need reliable sources, and websites maintained by Black Panther veterans or committees to free Mumia Abu Jamal won't do. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Malik, points well taken. Thanks for addressing our concerns. Historian 03:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennishidalgo (talk • contribs)

After more research, any content regarding Jean Seberg should not be added to this section, nor should the memo showing her victimization be up in the images. The memo exploits Seberg herself, not the Black Panther Party. The section IS labeled "Conflict with COINTELPRO" in the Black Panther article. The Party had no conflict with Seberg, but Seberg was exploited to ensue issues within the Party. I do believe, however, that the deaths of certain Black Panther Party members should have more individual details added about them. [Sorry about that, didn't log in the first time.] Jekuhn1 (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Black Nationalism" an important part of early Black Panther identity

Sorry, didn't mean to write over you; your comment appeared before I had an opportunity to read it and respond.

Perhaps we might agree that black nationalism was an important early identifier, even though it was ultimatley rejected as official BP policy. Whether the later condemnation of black nationalism was a "pose" might be more open to interpretation--this is my opinion, however I would not attempt insert it into the article.

When H. Rap Brown was appointed BP Minister of Justice in early 1968, he spoke on Huey's birthday at the Oakland Auditorium before a crown of 6,000 saying "Huey Newton is our only living revolutionary in this country today. He has paid his dues. He has paid his dues. How many white folks did you kill today?" James Forman, newly appointed BP minister of foreign affairs, followed with an incendiary speech that could only be interpreted as black nationalist and anti-white. The mostly black crowd exploded in approval, and BP enrollment skyrocketed.

I do believe, given this historical evidence (not the mention the personal experiences of many) that the "Black Nationalist" label is appropriate, since it was an important Party identifier during the early, critical period of Party growth. That it was ultimately rejected is clearly stated in the article; we can leave the motive alone. Apostle12 (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add a discussion of the BPP's attitude toward nationalism to the article and summarize it in the infobox, that's one thing. But just adding it to the infobox with no qualifiers, when the article only says that the Party came to denounce it? That doesn't make any sense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. I was defending the other unnamed editor's addition of "black nationalist" to the info box; have now added the qualifier "early."

I believe this issue deserves some expansion within the body of the article. Many sources (Austin, Pearson, Brown) say that the Party went through an early black nationalist period. And I think it is clear that some aspects of black nationalist (or anti-white racist) attitudes persisted during the remainder of the Party's history. Yet black nationalism was incompatible with the alliance with the PFP, which was mostly white. And the Panthers became somewhat dependent on the support of white leftists within the Hollywood community. The question (not to be resolved in this article) is to what extent the Party's rejection of black nationalism was sincere rather than a strategic pose. I probably shouldn't have tried to touch on this quandery in my note.Apostle12 (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

Does the lede seem excessively long? ZHurlihee (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is basically an article unto itself.--Chimino (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Women in the Black Panthers

I recently wrote a recent history on women in the Black Panthers (primarily San Francisco and a little Baltimore), but it gives general insight into the struggles and fight women had within the movement. This was part of my research for a museum I work at, so it's well cited. At this time I do not have the time to contribute it or write an article related to it, however, if anyone is interested, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll send you the paper. SarahStierch (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The creation of Crips and Bloods

If the goverment let the Black panther Party continue to go on then thier wouldn't be Crips and Bloods for the simple fact that thier wouls be leadership and that would keep people within that group in line. The Middle close to the end of the Black Panthers era the youth has watch thier family friends and role modles beinng killed through out the 1960's all because of what they stood for and what they believed in which later on became the youth without leadership. The kids that most people walked past watching their parents, famliy, friends and role modles dieing without any justice was in rage not just a few people but most of the community which started which became Crips and Bloods. The Crips and Bloods had the same vaules as The Black Panthers, but due to the law my having informents on boths sides that caused these to groups to become rival gangs to this day

http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/panther/ch1.html Allstarp (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)allstarpAllstarp (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting theory, but given what little I've read about the L.A. Panthers, they had their own internal problems and, given what was to come with the introduction of crack cocaine to the ghettos of L.A. in the 1980s, gang violence was inevitable no matter how long the Panthers were able to exist in the city.--Chimino (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you read Hugh Pearson's book, SHADOW OF THE PANTHER. If you follow up that with Panther leader Elaine Brown's book, A TASTE OF POWER, you should have a fairly accurate view of Panther "values." Apostle12 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could read Curtis Austin's Up Against the Wall for a different view. Jswba (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Different, yes. Austin goes to great lengths to put a positive spin on the Panther legacy, yet if one is familiar with the whole body of Panther literature (especially pieces, like TASTE OF POWER, written by former Panthers), Austin's spin becomes difficult to support. Apostle12 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be worth noting at this point that Pearson goes to great lengths to put a negative spin on the Panther legacy! I don't see how familiarity with Elaine Brown's autobiography means that a reader cannot support Austin's interpretation of the Party. It is notable that Austin conducted oral histories with a large number of former members and did far more archival research than Pearson. I'd be worried that an uninitiated reader would be urged to accept Pearson's and Brown's interpretations as accurate but be encouraged to dismiss other interpretations as spin. 212.219.153.50 (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that Pearson reluctantly, not eagerly, arrives at his more negative assessment of the Panther legacy. His willingness to embrace realism is refreshing. Austin's strength is indeed in his archival work, especially research that documents FBI malfeasance and brings it into plain view. Austin's conclusion that the Panthers were valiant, though somewhat flawed, revolutionaries wilts as Elaine Brown outlines nearly the full extent of Panther criminality--their studied lawlessness, their willingness to engage in violence of all kinds (both within the Party and on the broader stage) and their routine use of extortion in black communities--all in the name of the cause. Brown tells the story from the inside and reveals Panther mentality as largely sociopathic, which supports Pearson's view more than it does Austin's. Apostle12 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying that, but the crucial factor here is that Pearson focuses almost exclusively on the BPP in Oakland and Brown on Oakland and (to a lesser extent) Los Angeles. Both also concentrate on Newton's clique. Austin has a wider geographical focus, examining rank-and-file experiences both on the west coast and elsewhere, although ending his study in 1971 has an undeniable impact on his argument. I agree with your reading of Brown and Pearson as outlined above, but we must acknowledge that theirs are highly focused stories and (certainly in my opinion) their stories are not necessarily reflective of the entirety of BPP history. As a number of former members assert, BPP membership was transformative and in many respects positive. Not all former members were criminals! Jswba (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your assessment. I would never want to imply that all former BPP members were criminals; in fact I am certain that very many highly-principled people joined the Party out of the desire to make the world a better place. I particularly appreciated Austin's description of organizational efforts in the South (his "Southern Discomfort" chapter, in UP AGAINST THE WALL). I am also sure that many individuals contributed in a positive way and took important lessons with them when they left the Party. A shame really that the core leadership in Oakland, with which I was personally familiar, corrupted more positive efforts. Unfortunately, what has become the Panther legacy was largely governed by Oakland personalities and events, which is why so many principled people found it necessary to leave the Party. Apostle12 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for this. I found our discussion really interesting. Jswba (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I also enjoyed our exchange. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Death of Betty van Patter

The "Death of Betty van Patter" section seems out of place. Does it require an entire section, and is that section appropriate on The Black Panther Party page? I would understand it's importance on Elaine Brown's page, since she is mentioned as possibly being a key player, but why does it require an entire section on the Black Panther's page? ExistentialBliss (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this section is important and should remain, though I think it should be retitled as "The Murder of Betty van Patter." There is no doubt that van Patter's death was a murder; the only controversy is who committed this crime

Betty van Patter's murder marked an important turning point in Panther history. White radicals, like Horowitz, had enthusiastically supported the Black Panthers, however they recoiled in horror when van Patter disappeared and her body washed up on the shore of San Francisco Bay. She had obviously been the victim of violent assault, and Panther involvement was universally suspected. Van Patter's murder became the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" as Panther criminality moved further into public view. Diminished support for the Panthers among white radicals was echoed by blacks, and the party contracted severely as the brutality of its leaders became increasingly obvious. Apostle12 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few people have lost their lives during the course of Panther history. I guess I was confused about why one particular victim receives an entire section on a page dedicated to explaining the Party in general rather than specific murders that people determine are more significant than others. ExistentialBliss (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sum up lead

Much of the content in the lead should be in the body. The lead is reserved for summing up and over viewing the most pertinent content of the article for fast reading. This lead is too long and contains detailed info which is not critical.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Origin

Is there any particular relationship between the Black Panther Party, which was apparently conceived in october 1966, and Marvel's superhero "Black Panther" who made his first appearance in july 1966? Did the superhero inspire the name? Or is the timing just a really, really, really big coincidence? 217.122.162.66 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Newton and Seale have been very clear that the name was inspired by the unofficial name of the Lowndes County Freedom Organization. There is no evidence that either man was interested in -- or even aware of -- The Fantastic Four in 1966! The timing is just a coincidence. Jswba (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The New Black Panther Party

I'm sure by now everyone has heard of King Samir Shabazz's infamous racist tirade where he talks about wanting to kill the white man. This article reads that the party dissolved in 1982, Are we going to fix this or what?--174.49.24.190 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix. This article makes clear that there is no connection between the (original) Black Panther Party and the New Black Panther Party. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe there should be a link at the top to the New Black Panther Party. Like one of those "not to be confused with" things. It's not even on the first page when you google the black panther party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I just added it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Black Panthers vs. Red Army Faction

so the Black Panthers gets called a left-wing revolutionary orgabization while the Red Army Faction gets labelled a terrorost oprganization, despite the fact they were both doing the same thing? Norum 17:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"both doing the same thing"? Maybe you need to read the two articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• • both were using violence as a way to achieving their goals. Norum 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoover assassinations?

I didn't see a citation for the statement that Hoover planned assassinations, unless it was contained in a firewalled article. Citations are advisable when making such strong claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker57 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a citation. See footnote no. 12. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The contours of American identity

Can anyone tell me what are the contours of American identity? If you can't, do not restore the quote I just deleted from the opening paragraph of this encyclopedia entry.

Putting jibber in quotes doesn't make it fit as wikipedic fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.54.191 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--Chimino (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Also agreed. I never thought Curtis Austin's quote deserved a place in the article. I respect him as a Panther scholar (despite his apologist bent), however this claim is wholley unsupported. Apostle12 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Chronology error

The COINTELPRO letters came after the UCLA shoot-out, not before. I propose moving the shootout passage out of the COINTELPRO section and into the Violence section. The letters material would stay in the COINtELPRO section.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead.--Chimino (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Lumsden, "some party leaders"

Just wanted to invite a quote in case anyone has the article this refers to, and can confirm that Lumsden specifically name-checks Cleaver and Newton for resistance to "womanism" etc. I will see if i can get my hands on the paper as well. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 05:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole section referencing the Lumsden article needs editing. The references to Lumsden's article get the page numbers wrong (there's nothing that I can see in the article which fingers Newton and Cleaver as resistant to 'womanism'; in fact p. 907 suggests the opposite) and the section presents Lumsden's argument as fact. POUMista (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the new article section needs some work, the citations if nothing else. It's interesting that you mention the article seems to suggests this. Apostle12, do you mind elaborating on your reading of the article? I would also like to see a copy for myself, if such a thing can be arranged. My institution does not give me access to it. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Will try to find it. Was working from memory, and can't quite recall the language. Cleaver's and Newton's chauvinism, which influenced others in the Oakland headquarters, are also described in some detail by Elaine Brown in A Taste of Power, though material from this source would need a separate cite. I suppose we need to decide whether this new section, whose language I tried to refine (still needs work), will be the place to discuss overall Panther attitudes towards women, which were both empowering and abusive. I think it's a good addition to the article.

On a personal note (material that, of course, I would never incorporate in the article), my girlfriend during the mid-1960s was a very beautiful black woman who moved to the corner of Woolsey and Shattuck in Berkeley, directly across the street from a Panther office. Both she and the Panthers frequented a nightspot, Til Two, and its associated after-hours club, located on the same block. Given their geographical proximity, my girlfriend saw the Panthers on almost a daily basis, and they were relentless in harassing her, especially when she entertained white friends. She saw them as thugs and wanted nothing to do with them, which did not go over well--they told her that she had better "get with her people," and they threatened to rape her if she did not comply. When I read the Lumsden piece, it sounded familiar. Apostle12 (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is clear WP:SOAP and I think it suggests you may have, if not an outright WP:COI (in the way it is defined by WP), then at least potential difficulty adhering to WP:NPOV, whether you are aware of it or not. I would further argue that because of this personal history you should be much more cautious in your edits, especially given the recent, related history of edits at Huey P. Newton. If you "can't quite recall the language" this should, in my opinion, prompt you to look up the language before adding it, just to be sure, again, especially with your personal history. I would very much like to avoid future disputes like at Huey P. Newton, which was time consuming and difficult for everyone involved. I would really appreciate it if you could be more conscientious about your editing on this (and related) topics, as by talking them out here (as you have done below). I imagine other editors would appreciate the same courtesy. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 12:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your cautions, if not your accusatory tone. I did take the time to source other added material (e.g. Austin's discussion of the need to fend off Oakland Panthers at gunpoint when they came to New York), however you are correct that I erred by adding Cleaver's and Newton's names without simultaneously providing additional sourcing for that particular edit. As you may have noticed, I was working diligently to refine the language in the newly added section so that it would come close to the quality of the rest of the article, and I intended to return to make more additions and do more work with sourcing.

Regarding WP:SOAP, I occasionally make brief mention of personal experiences on talk by way of affirming the work of various researchers and authors - I do not regard this as a WP:SOAP violation, and never reference personal experiences in my edits. As with all of us, my personal experiences provide a reality check, that's all. My only desire, both here at at other articles (including the Huey P. Newton, still more work to do there) is that the entire story be told in keeping with WP:RS requirements.

The recently added section should include some discussion of Cleaver's and Newton's influence on the internal culture at the Oakland Black Panther chapter, especially since the Oakland chapter projected its influence nationwide. Some discussion of Cleaver's and Newton's influence as it affected womanism can be sourced from the Lumsden article (e.g. Elaine Brown's quitting because Newton had a female Panther beaten), while other discussion will require different sourcing.

We each have our reasons for spending countless hours editing certain WP articles; I have been transparent about mine. I am committed to avoiding WP:SOAP and maintaining WP:NPOV. I trust you are as well. Apostle12 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For reference, I have reproduced the entire section from WP:SOAP here:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
3. Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.

It seems to me that your autobiographical material, which I have seen you post more extensively at White privilege in addition to the above material, certainly falls under Self-promotion and/or Opinion pieces. Your edits over at Huey P. Newton regarding Schneider, if one were inclined to regard them less than completely charitably, could also be construed as Scandal mongering. I would appreciate less of these things. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 19:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to check the archives at White privilege before I responded to your statement that I posted autobiographical material on that article's talk page. You are mistaken. The fact is, I did not; it was your assumption that what I wrote during our discussions was autobiographical. I corrected you at the time, and I correct you once again. Apostle12 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have never posted autobiographical material in any article - not here, not at White privilege and not at Huey P. Newton. Very occasional, brief mention of personal experiences on talk do not constitute "post(ing) autobiographical material."

My edits referencing the ongoing affair between Huey P. Newton and Bert Schneider can only be regarded as scandal mongering by those who consider affairs between men scandalous. I do not; on the contrary, the apparently warm relationship Newton enjoyed with Schneider serves only to humanize both men.

Kindly stop making this personal. And stop dogging me wherever I go. Apostle12 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

it is scandal mongering because it is poorly sourced. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 20:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The full article is available at www.questia.com.

At the risk of overloading this talk page, here are a few excerpts from the Lumsden article. It is important to note that Lumsden focuses her analysis on the Black Panther newspaper; as such her article does not allude to Cleaver and Newton resisting womanism through their writings, although it could certainly be said, based on the Lumsden article and other sources, that both Cleaver and Newton did so through their actions. Cleaver's habit of beating wife Kathleen, which he bragged about during at least one interview and which others regularly witnessed, was in sharp contrast to his July 5, 1969 letter published in the Black Panther newspaper. And, in addition to the beatings Newton both ordered and administered, it is hard to imagine chauvinism more brutal that Newton's rapes, some of which took place publicly at the Lamp Post in front of Panther subordinates. As she defines the larger context of Panther life, Lumsden does a good job highlighting such contradictions, though mostly she does so without specifically naming Cleaver and Newton. Some excerpts:

The Black Panther outlasted the party, which fell apart when the influential Brown quit in 1977 after learning Newton had ordered the beating of a female Panther, a flagrant example of the chasm between BPP words and deeds.47

Behind the scenes, some Panther men were even beating up women, a topic that was publicly taboo.67 A key turning point in public policy occurred on July 5, 1969, when the Panther published a letter from Cleaver instructing Panther men to treat Panther women as equals. Readers took note as the newspaper was the main vehicle by which leaders disseminated party policies and instructions. The letter was prompted by murder charges filed against member Ericka Huggins. "The incarceration and the suffering of sister Erica [sic] should be a stinging rebuke to all manifestations of male chauvinism within our ranks," Cleaver wrote. He recommended mandatory disciplinary action against those who "manifest male chauvinism behavior." He concluded, "[T]he liberation of women is one of the most important issues facing the world today"68

The usually outspoken Panther remained curiously circumspect on other aspects of sexuality. The newspaper's chasteness contrasts with accounts of the party's communal sexual experimentation."5 The Panther's public silence hid members' private struggles that, like the birth-control debate, risked shattering group identity by polarizing BPP men and women. Sexual freedom often translated into sexual exploitation, as when Panther men pressured women to have sex as part of their revolutionary duty. Pregnant women often were left to raise their children alone.116 Perhaps in reaction to those sexual consequences, infrequent stories about sex adopted a sober tone, such as a 1973 article about a YWCA program aimed at reducing teen pregnancy.117

The contradictions between its public representation of women warriors and private battles with sexism likewise reflect how social movements do not occur in a vacuum and are influenced by the larger culture. Idealized frames of motherhood, even if armed, demonstrate how difficult it is for the most dedicated social rebels to cast off internalized cultural beliefs. Similarly, the discrimination and physical abuse some female Panthers endured attests to the limits of rhetoric to change behavior and the limits of a periodical to cohere a social movement. Gender issues on which the Panther remained mostly silent - sexuality, homosexuality, and sexual violence - reveal areas that were most uncomfortable for its publishers because of glaring gaps between theory and practice. They threatened its group identity as an egalitarian social movement seeking social justice. Addressing these issues would have forced Panther editors to point fingers at themselves or their male readership instead of entrenched public institutions or abstractions such as "male chauvinism" that they relished attacking.

There are good sources for Cleaver's and Newton's chauvinist acts, though treating these matters properly in the article will require considerable skill. This is an exceedingly complex subject that defies easy descriptive analysis. Apostle12 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

While the subject of sexism within the party is interesting, I feel at the very least there is undue weight being given to it here. Giving such prominence to 2-3 journal articles is a can of worms which is best not to be unleashed onto WP, and I can see UTCL's point regarding WP:SOAP.--Chimino (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've at least taken a stab at fixing the refs, i tend to agree. we can see if we can pare it down, and i also don't know that it needs to go right where it is, either, though i can't really think of a better place to put it. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the section seems to be based inappropriately on a small number of sources, your last edits have removed the page numbers from the footnotes, making it harder for readers to verify the information. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Crap. sorry about that. I'll see what i can do to take care of that. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 05:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-added, using a new-found trick from here to deal with page numbering. hope the notation format is ok with everyone. this way the page numbers are there, and we only need to adjust the citation in the first place it appears. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 05:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Coleman is not a reliable source for statements of fact, etc.

There are multiple discussions about multiple works by Coleman that have been established (through discussions at WP:RSN) as non-RS. (including the ones I removed specifically)

Likewise, the claim by Pearson about Newton's admission about the murder of John Frey has extensive discussion at Talk:Huey P. Newton as well as an archived discussion at WP:RSN that has established that this may only be cited as a claim by Pearson and not as an established fact. It has not been corroborated by any other reliable sources to date.

Because these edits were made by an editor eminently familiar with the discussions that took place establishing the reliability of these sources, I take them as clear evidence of WP:POVPUSH. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 08:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your wholesale rejection of Kate Coleman's 35-year history of writing about the Black Panthers is inappropriate. Pearson refers to her work specifically (Shadow p. 327), especially her co-authoring with Paul Avery of the seminal July 1978 New Times article, "The Party's Over." She is also credited for her groundbreaking interview with Eldridge Cleaver (Kate Coleman, 1980, "Souled Out: Eldridge Cleaver Admits He Ambushed Those Cops." New West Magazine) where Cleaver admitted he ambushed Oakland police officers, severely wounding two, on April 6-7, 1968. Austin does not mention Coleman by name, however he refers to the facts that came to light during Coleman's 1980 interview with Cleaver when he discusses Cleaver's 1968 attack on the Oakland police. Coleman has kept her hand in, regularly contributing observations and commentary for the San Francisco Chronicle, the Bay Area's newspaper of record, as well as other publications.

The discussion you refer to at Talk:Huey P. Newton refers specifically to a 2012 Salon article where Coleman discusses letters discovered after Burt Schneider's death that indicate he and Newton were lovers. I thought this information should be included in the Newton article because it helps humanize both men, whose other relationships seem to have been less meaningful than the well-acknowledged relationship of (at least) affection between Schneider and Newton. Your BLP objection based on Schneider's recent death (about 18 months now), as well as lack of corroboration for Coleman's piece, led me to believe it is correct to delay mention of the Schneider/Newton affair until after sourcing matures and Schneider's death is at least two years in the past (as per BLP/recently deceased guidelines). That says nothing about Coleman's reliability, especially when it comes to her own opinion.

In the present instance, the paragraph begins with a general statement about there being a debate regarding the impact of the Black Panthers on "the greater society, or even their local environment" - local environment referring to Oakland, CA. This is followed by a glowing testimony to the Panthers:

What became standard Black Panther discourse emerged from a long history of urban activism, social criticism and political struggle by African Americans. There is considerable debate about the impact that the Black Panther Party had on the greater society, or even their local environment. Author Jama Lazerow writes "As inheritors of the discipline, pride, and calm self-assurance preached by Malcolm X, the Panthers became national heroes in African American communities by infusing abstract nationalism with street toughness—by joining the rhythms of black working-class youth culture to the interracial élan and effervescence of Bay Area New Left politics ... In 1966, the Panthers defined Oakland's ghetto as a territory, the police as interlopers, and the Panther mission as the defense of community. The Panthers' famous "policing the police" drew attention to the spatial remove that White Americans enjoyed from the state violence that had come to characterize life in black urban communities."[

Only a short passage balances this effusive praise, and it says nothing about "their local environment:"

In his book Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America journalist Hugh Pearson takes a more jaundiced view, linking Panther criminality and violence to worsening conditions in America's black ghettos as their influence spread nationwide.

Kate Coleman's two pieces, published in the Bay Area's newspaper of record, The San Francisco Chronicle, and in The Los Angeles Times, specifically address the Panthers' "local environment," referring to the well-known spike in drive-by shootings in Oakland, CA. Her opinion goes a long way towards balancing the paragraph and providing reader perspective:

Similarly, journalist Kate Coleman writes regarding a 2003 Panther conference at Boston's Wheelock College, "If the Wheelock conference wanted to examine the real legacy of the Panthers, its participants should have pored over the cold statistics showing a spike in drive-by shooting deaths and gang warfare that took place in Oakland in the decade following the Panthers' demise. The Black Panther Party had so fetishized the gun as part of its mystique that young men in the ghetto felt incomplete without one....The Panther fetish of the gun, worshiped by impressionable young black males, maimed hundreds of black citizens in Oakland more surely than any bully cops."

There is no question these pieces are reliable sources for Kate Coleman's opinion, just as there is no question that the opinion expressed by Jama Lazerow is reliably sourced. BOTH Lazerow's and Coleman's opinions should be included if this article is to convey to readers a balanced point of view regarding the Panther legacy. Regarding notability, as a longtime contributor to discourse on the Panthers, Coleman is at least as notable as Lazerow; her opinion matters. The Coleman quote should be reinstated. Apostle12 (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I said "including the ones I removed specifically" and I meant it. you may remeber this lengthy conversation about the SFGate piece. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 08:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if I might encourage just a tad more civility? Apostle12 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be of immense help toward that end if you could identify what, specifically, in that statement strikes you as uncivil. Thanking in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 10:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This might be getting a little off-topic, but Andrew Wakefield has been writing about the connection of the MMR vaccine to autism for 15 years. Does that mean he is credible on the subject of vaccinations or autism? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 11:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me a rather invidious comparison, since Kate Coleman's work on the Panthers has been fully substantiated and is widely referenced by Panther scholars. Apostle12 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't edit these Panther-related articles any more because of the presence of so many POV-mongerers. It's clear that Coleman is a reliable source. She is published in mainstream newspapers, is widely cited by other Panther scholars, and no one has documented any serious errors in her core Panther writings. While she has been criticized for her anti-Panther POV, this in itself does not make her unreliable. Certainly we don't see the same complaints from WP editors about the clearly pro-Panther authors. It's unfortunate that the WP community tends to fail so badly when it comes to these articles.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

instances previously "African-American" have been changed to "black"

Since I will not be editing the article for some time, I thought I would notify whoever is actually doing so. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

sidebar removed

This sidebar was removed, due to being 'low value': {{American socialism |Former parties}} do people agree? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Larry Pinkney redirects here

Larry Pinkney redirects here, however his name isn't mentioned once. Maybe redirect to List of members of the Black Panther Party instead? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

John Frey's murder

John Frey's murder is mentioned twice in the page, with almost identical text, but with two different dates. Somebody competent should revise the page and fix this. Astrozot (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome UCLA Students

Why not tell us which class and professor you're working with, and what sources you're working from? So far, I have seen Bloom & Martin cited by the student editors. That book is okay, but unwisely dismissive of some of the criticism of the Panthers. They cite Flores Forbes' autobiography, but conceal most of the violence and criminality he describes. Bloom & Martin's footnote 49 on page 481 gives away the authors' bias.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Unusual edits

‎Looking at the edit history today @Illuminatiedit1234: make some unusual edits. Adding in many characters then removing them. Apologies if I have misunderstood and they are regular improving edits. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a student editing for a class. It just has that feeling about it. I haven't said anything, because I'm tired of discussing anything with them and their professors, but you might also ask at the education noticeboard if you're interested in figuring out what's happening.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I just wanted to note it, in case it developed into some form of vandalism. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is probably correct that this is a student. That said, I looked through the various edits, and it seems Illuminatiedit1234 has made a quality contribution, adding a range of well cited, and important factual information about the Party that was missing from previous versions.Policing.the.police (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

And where did *you* come from, to join this discussion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In the belly of the beast, looking to cut my way out! And you? Policing.the.police (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What a coincidence, me too! What high school did you go to, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Juvie. Was that you I danced with in the hallway when we were supposed to be scrubbing floors? Policing.the.police (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mom! After all these years I've finally found you again!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, finally! But it's alright, Alfy dear. Don' worry 'bout these people. You can still call me "Big Daddy!" Policing.the.police (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Making period differences clearer

Despite the current limitations, there are a lot of strong passages in the page. One of the things that is really missing is a clear sense of what period of Panther history is being addressed. One of the major breakthroughs in recent historiography, especially Up Against the Wall, Survival Pending Revolution, Living for the City, Robyn Spencer's dissertation, and Black against Empire, is how much things changed in the Party -- and in its political environment -- over the course of a few years. Some of this comes through in snippets, but in other places, the organization of the article is quite jumbled. As others have pointed out, some events such as the confrontation between Newton and Frey, and the killing of Bobby Hutton are treated in similar language multiple times in various sections, and discussion of the May 1967 Mulford Act comes towards the end of the article. Some things are just factually wrong, e.g. the ten-point program listed is from July 1968, but is labelled as October 1966 following earlier and incorrect historiography. It is hard to get a sense, reading the article, of the key shifts from legal patrols of the police in early 1967, to the Free Huey campaign starting in October, to the rapid national expansion post King's assassination and the killing of Bobby Hutton, the intensifying state repression, shift to emphasize community service in 1969, continued massive expansion in the face of intense repression, building influence and organizational tension in 1970, split in early 1971, and rapid and disastrous decline following. Many of the sections treating aspects of the decline are posed in an a-historic way, and taken out of context. And important themes, like the internationalism of the Party, or discussion of gender dynamics, are poorly integrated into the chronological narrative.

I imagine none of this will be easy to fix. Perhaps one approach would be to start small and try to get the origins section right, and then work on from there. The early legal patrols that distinguished the Oakland Black Panther Party from other Black Power efforts at the end of 1966 and early 1970, leading to the Dowell Rallies, the Mulford Act, and the Sacramento protest are completely disconnected in the current draft from the discussion of the formation of the party. These actions should be situated more precisely in the context of early actions by others leading up to Newton and Seale's organization of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, such as the Lowndes County Black Panther Party, its national promotion by Stokely, the Community Alert Patrol, RAM's activities, the Watts Rebellion, the role of Malcolm X, Robert Williams, etc. These are mentioned in various places, but need to be brought together to properly describe the Party's emergence.

What do others think?

BlackHistoryScholar (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it would definitely improve the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, those are all excellent observations. One problem with WP articles like this one is the never-ending war between detractors and true believers. Finding a NPOV path between those extremes takes so much effort that often the overall context gets lost. I welcome your contributions. I suggest starting big instead of small. Make a temporal outline first. Then we can start moving paragraphs around and filling in as needed.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

-- I am glad to hear there is some enthusiasm for the idea. In terms of an overarching temporal outline, I would suggest the following simple temporal categories:

1) preceding October 1966 (Origins)

2) through early May 1967 (Legal armed patrols -- getting organized, Richmond, Sacramento, first newspaper, original gender politics, etc.)

3) through late October 1967 (Reinvention -- political theory, public dissemination of Ten-point program, early gender politics, etc.)

4) through early April 1968 (Free Huey campaign -- Frye killed, Soul on Ice published, Panther alliance with SNCC and P&FP, LA Chapter opened, executive mandate #3, gender politics debates in the Black Panther Newspaper, etc)

5) through 1968 (National expansion -- deaths of Dr. King and Bobby Hutton, chapters open in dozens of cities, armed conflicts with police abound, COINTELPRO gears up, 1968 democratic primaries and key alliances with anti-war organizations, etc.)

6) to early 1971 (Continued expansion -- community service programs, increased confrontation with police, increased COINTELPRO, chapters open in about 70 cities, expanded alliances with broader new left including many anti-war, copycat groups and many black campus groups, UFAF, international alliances, some organizational tensions, some changes in political reception e.g. with Nixon's policies of law and order, Vietnamization, affirmative action, some evidence of Panther underground, gender panel at UFAF, formal positions on gender and sexuality, alliances with feminist organizations, continuing sexism in aspects of party practice)

7) early to mid 1971 (Split -- violent rupture of the Party, internecine warfare, ideological differentiation)

8) through 1972 (Decline -- rapid, violent, and disastrous decline; basically a small local Oakland organization again by late 1972)

9) through 1982 (Demise -- small scale democratic socialist reorientation in public in Oakland; simultaneous criminality in private, both proven and alleged; simultaneous underground guerilla activity of non-aligned BLA)

If we were to follow Pokey5945's suggestion, we could begin by just making sure the TIME FRAMES are consensual. No need to agree on the content. Then, I would, in one fell swoop, create headers for these time frames in the articles, and copy and paste ALL content from the article under one of these categories. I would not add any new content, nor delete any existing content. I would mark, but not delete, duplicate content. Content with no clear time-frame would be placed in a residual category at the end. In most instances, such as the current treatment of the gender politics of the party, the eventual goal would be to treat these questions more historically and within the temporal time frames, although it is possible that some residual content could defy such historicization.

Then, collectively, editors could work on refining the article, better integrating materials within each temporal category, and adding important missing elements to round out each section.

What do you think?

BlackHistoryScholar (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your periodization, but more detail is needed for the last decade. For example, 72-74 under Newton, then 74-77 under Brown, then 77-82 with Newton back.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Periodization begun

I've begun implementing the periodization suggested by BlackHistoryScholar above. The process revealed a good deal of redundancy and dubious ahistorical assertions. More significantly, it also reveals just how much important stuff is not in the article. Much more is needed about the split, the Survival Programs, the political activism under Brown, and the gangsterism under Newton that led to the decline.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the periodization started. It shows how much work is needed. BlackHistoryScholar (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A separate article for Ten Points

Would free up space and improve the flow in this article, and allow for a more comprehensive analysis of the Ten Points and their evolution.Pokey5945 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is important to include at least the 10 initial points of "What We Want" if not "What We Believe." The current version includes the July 1968 version and claims it is October 1966, when the first publicized version was actually May 1967. There is actually a separate page where all this should be discussed. I will link it.BlackHistoryScholar (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some of it has to be in this article.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Section summaries

In my view, section summaries should reflect the content and tenor of the expanded discussions which follow. In any case, they must rely on cited sources.BlackHistoryScholar (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to tag uncited passages instead of deleting them. We can usually come up with the appropriate cite given enough time.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification tag on Newton's indictments

The passage addresses several different indictments. Preston Callins was eventually convinced to drop charges after the BPP paid him off. Newton was tried for murdering Smith, but acquitted because Garry was able to impeach one prostitute witness's testimony by pointing to her marijuana use, and they intimidated the other prostitute witness into recanting her police interview.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that the prosecution's star witness was decidedly unreliable as well (the male witness; I can't remember his name). All in all, Jensen presented quite a shaky case. POUMista 14:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswba (talk • contribs)

I have a feeling you may be confusing the Smith trial with the Frey trial. If anyone can rewrite the passage in question to be more clear, please have at it. I'm happy to provide the cites as needed.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

POV edits

The reason I reverted these edits was that the first instances of rewording are massive POV violations with no reference to support them and the last section was inaccurate. The book cited doesn't claim this at all. It notes that one person claimed that Newton admitted this and then for the next few pages it quotes a litany of other people who refute this. To state this as categorical fact is a dishonest use of the reference. Helpsome (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete well-sourced material and accuse other editors of dishonesty--it's impolite and a violation of WP policy. Discuss your evidence on the talk page first. WRT to the text on Newton murdering Smith, the first instance is supported by the same two cites as the second instance. Who are the people who refute Newton's involvement, in what sources, and what pages?Pokey5945 (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "well sourced" and it is dishonest. The reference notes page 328. Here is what is actually said on that page.

Kelly claimed that Newton confessed to him that he had indeed pistol-whipped Preston Callins and murdered Kathleen Smith; on another occasion, he confessed to ordering the murder of Betty Van Patter while he was in Cuba ("As I got to know him better, I found that Huey was a real live Jekyll and Hyde case...)

The people who refute Newton's involvement are on the exact same page. In fact, the very next paragraph begins with "Kelly's article was greeted with extreme outrage and scattered praise." The same page goes on to note "Plenty of other Express readers defended Newton against Kelly, but none more eloquently than Carl Miller, or an old instructor of Newton's at Merritt College, Ted Vincent." Did you read the book or just cherry pick sentences from a google book search?

So saying that "Newton confessed" and using that source as evidence is very disingenuous because the source explicitly states "Kelly claimed Newton confessed" and makes no empirical statement of fact that he did. Helpsome (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

First, there are two sources cited: three pages in Pearson, and the Kelley article. Pearson describes Newton murdering Smith on p. 265 in some detail. There are no weasel words at all. I just reread the section in Pearson that you referenced, pp. 328ff, and you have misrepresented its contents--nobody "refutes" Kelley's report that Newton confessed to him. The complaints were, generally, that Kelley's article had only presented the sociopathic, criminal aspects of Newton's life. In the BP literature, I have never seen anyone attempt to argue that Newton did not kill Smith. The fact that the BP goon squad attempted to murder the prime witness has pretty much convinced everyone that Newton was indeed guilty. I suggest that you obtain and read the Kelley article, which is the second source for this passage. You should also read Flores Forbes's book. He led the goon squad.

Second, the Smith murder is written up twice in this article due to the chronological refactoring--once when it happens in the 72-74 section, and again in the 77-82 section when the goon squad tries to kill the witness. To reduce redundancy, I suggest that the first mention be shortened, and that it reference the second mention.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Anderson murder section deleted

All the circumstantial evidence suggests that this was a COINTELPRO action. But there is no smoking gun evidence presented here. And given that all of the Black Panther Party members charged were acquitted (and the convicted ally pardoned because the Governor believed him innocent), and that many of the people involved -- both Panthers and agents -- are still alive, it is a violation of Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons to bandy about allegations. So I deleted the section. I am familiar with several other published sources on the Baltimore chapter none of which resolve these issues. Please share sources and discuss here before restoringPolicing.the.police (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

I respectfully disagree with this deletion. I fully support BLP policy, and would support any rewrites to bring this section into compliance with BLP as necessary. But I don't see a need to delete the entire section, given that this episode was reported in mainstream news media at the time it happened, and well-summarized in the City Paper articles cited. We can write up the controversy without violating BLP.Pokey5945 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)