Talk:Patrisse Cullors

Fulbright scholar

Please see WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. One cannot do a search on the Fulbright website to determine whether one has received an award or not. One needs to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources like news reports for the matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Innisfree987 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Marxist

Cullors has described herself as a ”trained Marxist.” We should put that in the politics section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossianthegreat (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting addition of note that she is not only a queer activist but "a trained Marxists" - these are her words not mine. 2600:100F:B001:36CA:C30:33ED:D33F:975 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not the subject's words, rather indepent publications which describe her as such. Otherwise the best that could be done is "self-described Marxist". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a strong real world effort by political opponents of Cullors to plaster the Marxist label on her and the other leaders of the Black Live Matter movement. The only way that the word Marxist or Marxism should be introduced to this biography would be a in a strong contextual manner describing when, what and how Marxism has influenced Cullors, in parallel with other motivating ideologies. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

If the statement about her saying she has been a "trained Marxist" is kept in, Wikipedia should state where the information came from. Back to Jerusalem is a conservative Christian evangelical campaign that some have even called a hoax, according to its Wiki page. If you do an Internet search on what groups are spreading this information about the subject, they are all on the conservative side and it seems to be part of a campaign to discredit Black Lives Matter. The video in question is from 2015, and doesn't provide any context about what that comment means, or how it relates to BLM as an organization. It could be one of several training sessions in a variety of ideology done by the subject. And just because a leader might believe a certain way, that doesn't mean the movement as a whole is that way. I can't find any more recent source where she mentions this training. Mdus5678 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Then it’s likely not notable enough to mention. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

She mentions that she was mentored by Eric Mann, a marxist from Weather Underground, during her 11 years at the Bus Riders Union starting at 17. That's where she got her political training. Garza held a high position at the Right to the City Alliance which is focused on abolishing rent, mortgage, and guaranteeing homes for all, and collective ownership of land is a core part of Marxism. I think it's safe to say that calling herself and Garza "trained marxists" wasn't a mistake. Allama123 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There’s also a NPOV issue that we likely need to resolve. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

References

This person has clearly and openly described herself as a "trained Marxist" as follows: "We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories." This has been reported by the New York Post. The article continues: "she became a trained organizer with the Labor/Community Strategy Center, which she called her “first political home” under the mentorship of Mann." Mann of course refers to Eric Mann, of the Weather Underground terrorist group, who was sentenced to two years in prison for conspiracy to commit murder and assault with intent to commit murder. The article also notes that the Labor/Community Strategy Center "expresses its appreciation for the work of the US Communist Party, “especially Black communists.”" This information is of vital use to anyone seeking to assess the bona fides of the subject and must be included in the article. See: https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.176.94.45 (talk • contribs)

The reliable source is actually “When They Call You a Terrorist”: The Life of Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors, it’s a video interview that was covered by NY Post.

I support including but not in the lead; it should include contextualizing of why this surprising statement is somewhat true. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not in the lead section, and with a lot of context. The label is being used to pigeonhole, diminish or dismiss BLM by politically motivated observers. Cullors saying "we are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists" doesn't equate to BLM being Marxist. And what sort of Marxism would that be? There are three types of Marxism:[1] the Marxist theory of social history, the Marxism of socialist movements prior to 1914, and the Marxism of the Soviet Union as defined by Lenin and later modified by Stalin. The people trying to slap a label on Garza or Cullors are not trying to understand which of these three she is talking about. I will continue to resist the plastering of a bald label on Cullors, the attack on her legitimacy. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree, it needs a lot of context. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My main problem with any mention of the word Marxism or Marxist in this biography article is that sources will not typically sift through the three meanings of Marxism to determine which one is being used. Which fuels my second-biggest complaint about the word: folks bringing it here are not trying to represent fairly the thoughts and methods of BLM founders. Instead, they seek to plaster a single label on them in order to discredit them. Such people are assuming the worst of the three possible definitions of Marxism. They will take this definition outside of Wikipedia and shout it as an attack on the character of the BLM founders. One guy who put Marxism into this Cullors biography has very little other activity on Wikipedia, but he changed "white supremacist" to "white identitarian", he sympathetically reworded a white supremacist biography of Mike Cernovich to remove the idea of conspiracy, he removed conspiracy from the biography of hate speech fomenter Gemma O'Doherty, he added one nationalfile.com right-wing batshit crazy source to the biography of black activist Raz Simone, and he removed a mainstream CNN reference from the biography of white supremacist John Michael Posobiec III. So in this light, the addition of 'Marxism' to the biographies of BLM founders can be seen as a continuation of white supremacist activism on Wikipedia. If we are to bring the word Marxism into a BLM biography, it should be accompanied with so much context from so many sources that it becomes clear to the reader which definition of Marxism is being discussed. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. Maybe we should get more eyes at the NPOV Board? Or? To see if there is some apparent solution that still helps the reader. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that the reason for not using her own political label is because people would have to become steeped in Marxism. If someone identifies as a political conservative or progressive, or liberal, black nationalist, white separatists, there are very widely spanning definitions of those labels. It would also different to be labeled by someone else, versus calling oneself Marxist. If people are interested in learning about Marxism, they are able to do so by clicking the link. But it's not NPOV to omit this or even over-provide "context" to explain it away in an effort to protect her from critique. Tridacninae (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree partway but we are writing something that we hope will last so finding consensus takes longer but also should last longer. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say context is needed, but only in regard to it not equating BLM directly with Marxism. A quote along the lines of, 'She identifies as a Marxist in regards to social theory, though the BLM organization, and most of its members, do not identify as Marxist', should be all the context that is needed from a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:5923:6100:3835:60D1:5921:B11F (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

Please edit the "Black Lives Matter" sector under the "Career" section. Please add in that Cullors took some flak in June of 2020 as a video from a 2015 interview resurfaced of Cullors stating that she and co-founder of Black Lives Matter, Alicia Garza, are "trained marxists" and "are super-versed on, sort-of, ideological theories."

Sources: (https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/) & (https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/) Barty1137 (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, until consensus on how to contextualize per the concerns outlined above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gleeanon409. Previous discussion continuing in the post above this has not yet solved the serious problem of incomplete context, giving too much weight to the cherry-picked quote, and which one of the three meanings of Marxism is being mentioned. That and the quote is being used as a political attack to label and discredit Cullors. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You are using "context" and "consensus" as a way to obstruct an integral part of the background of a founder of a movement. The real context needs to be where and how she arrived at this point. The consensus on this page is actually that it should be included without extensive context. Only Gleeanon409 and Binksternet are opposed to this but haven't themselves supplied the "context" they want in over three weeks. And writing "a continuation of white supremacist activism on Wikipedia" smacks to be a shutdown attempt by invoking white supremacy when that has no relevance here whatsoever. The omission is a clear NPOV issue and needs to be resolved right away. Provide context for editing, or let it stand on its own. The consensus is clear here. Tridacninae (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be more concerned if this was a far more developed article that delved into all manner of her background and made no mention of the content you—and apparently a small revolving cast of editors with startlingly similar agendas—wish to include was stunningly absent. But this is a stark article that is easily overwhelmed by POV edits like weaponizing cherry-picked quotes that seem plucked from right-wing blogs.

If someone wanted to do long-term improvements I would suggest using high-quality biographical articles about her rather than interviews with her as a starting point. Until then I’m accepting Binksternet’s read that on this WP:BLP we have to be cautious about the Marxist label. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1 August 2020 edits

Hello, entering the discussion. Gleeanon409 just reverted my addition of this same quote ("trained marxists"), stating that we "need consensus to add this". I have (cursorily, I admit) read this talk page, and I still don't get the point. We're fighting over seven words here (or 14 if you include the mention of Alicia Garza as I did), so it doesn't go against WP:PROPORTION. (additionnally I believe we could drop the "trained" in "trained marxists", because it is a bit equivocal without further explanatory sources). The source I used is the primary source, though we could add a newspaper article such as the NY Post, I guess. So there is no need to fight about the source anymore. Cullors herself made this statement and I think we can trust The Real News not to falsely attribute statements to her. As I've also just added, Cullors cites famous marxists as ideological inspirations, namely Angela Davis and Frantz Fanon. It thus fits in the article perfectly, and is worth being mentioned along Cullors' self-identification as queer, which she and others consider political, and policy positions such as prison and police abolitionism. Finally, the "too much weight" argument is also moot : it is just a couple of words describing a part of the political philosophy ...of an activist. (As to the "label used as a political attack" argument, I won't even answer it as it is not an admissible on wikipedia). In short, we're really fighting over a small addition that isn't even that controversial, regarding the other things we know about the article's subject. Fa suisse (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I've read this talk page more thoroughly (sorry that I didn't earlier). There is a position defended by Binksternet and Gleeanon409, that someone calling themselves a "marxist" needs to be qualified, contextualized and explained. I am not of that opinion : it is in a way self-explanatory and we can simply link to the marxism article. Let it stand on its own : that a political activist considers herself a marxist is a relevant piece of information, whether we can link this to the rest of the article or not (in this case we can, as I've explained above). I'd be grateful if we could find qualifications and more explicit context, but the lack thereof is no excuse not to include this statement. By the way, I don't see any issue with WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, as have been raised. Also, I don't see a POV issue with not including this right now as Tridacninae seems to suggest, but I feel that Tridacninae is unto something : the opposition seems to stem from the idea that calling someone a "marxist" somehow is a controversial statement, that cannot stand on its own. That is what I dispute. Fa suisse (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking in. I think the Marxist label is so loaded POV, coupled with being weaponized against her and the Black Lives Matter movements, that an abundance of caution is needed.

@Binksternet: wrote “The only way that the word Marxist or Marxism should be introduced to this biography would be a in a strong contextual manner describing when, what and how Marxism has influenced Cullors, in parallel with other motivating ideologies.” I would add that this is still a very short bio so WP:Undue (which is a WP:NPOV issue) is a big consideration. In order to wedge that label in the rest of the article has to be expanded and then a NPOV ideology section expanded.

If you want to draft something though feel free. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Fa suisse. I can see from your editing history that you are very involved in racism topics. I'm sure you are aware that the BLM leaders have been attacked in the US media for their anti-racism efforts; that they have been attacked by right-wing media who are trying to undermine them in any way possible, to label them as bad people and therefore dismiss them without addressing the real-world issues which they are talking about.

The main problem with the label "marxism" is that it means different things. Which one was Cullors talking about? Nobody is saying which one. So you have a very loaded, heavily politicized label which you want to apply to a person, but you don't know what the label stands for. That's a violation of WP:BLP. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt replies. Gleeanon409, the weaponization of words by a person against that person and the political movement(s) they take part in, is irrelevant to what is included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of political disputes. If that person has labelled herself as a "marxist", that is not POV but fact. We don't need even to write that she is a marxist, only that she has called herself one. The loadedness of the term in the United States (it's much less the case in the United Kingdom, for instance) is also irrelevant to its inclusion in the wikipedia article. We are not talking about calling her a "marxist" based on someone else's opinion, but on her own unambiguous terms. I also dispute the claim of undue, again because we are talking about 7 words. If you and/or others want to expand, fine, but we should become political arbiters, that is not the job of wikipedia.
Binksternet, yes indeed, the BLM leaders have been attacked in the US and even non-US media. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and the way they are attacked is immaterial to our editorial policy regarding this article. Going back to the objective elements here : we have a socio-political activist (we can add qualifiers of course), who, amongst various other ideologies and policy positions, calls herself a "marxist". This is (1) important (political ideologies of activists matter), (2) stands on its own (like saying that such and such calls themselves a christian or a jew), (3) does not contradict or appear to contradict the rest of the article (as I've explained above), which could constitute an exception to (2). There is absolutely no violation of WP:BLP. Further, your claim that there are various marxisms is not an argument to not include the quote. It is like saying that we cannot mention that someone has called herself a "muslim" if she hasn't made any reference to a specific sect. And again, no one is applying what you call a "loaded, heavily politicized label" but the article subject herself. She is an adult and, I daresay, seems like a seasoned activist to say the least, so I think she knows what she says and we shouldn't play judge here. If the qualifier came from someone else, we would of course be having a different discussion. But that is not the case. We are writing an encyclopedia, not arbitrating a political debate. I will thus add the sentence again, along with a secondary source (I imagine the NY Post, cited above). Fa suisse (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon49 (and Binksternet), the actions here on your part have all the bearings of POV-pushing, the POV being that Cullors cannot be described in any way as a marxist. Your repeated rejections of this content have been grounding in ever-varying rationales, with consistency in not making any contribution towards solving the issues you raise. It boils down to this : this assertion by Cullors is seen as "loaded" (Binksternet's words), and cannot be included in the article for outside-of-wikipedia political reasons. This is not an acceptable approach to the edition of Wikipedia. Gleeanon49, you said here that you were ok with including this statement, yet not in the lead. Nevertheless, you deleted it when I added it within a pre-existing sentence, instead of working on it to solve the issue. You both want more "context", but it seems this context does not exist. Thus, one cannot include this statement because it is "loaded". It is certainly not WP:UNDUE, given that it adds 5-15 words in an article that currently has 837. You repeatedly cite "consensus" building, yet the actions I see are criticisms of other editors' contributions, not constructive input. This has been has happened multiple times over the last few weeks. Fa suisse (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s not our job to do your homework. We gave policy-based reasons for our objection and we each provided paths forward.

The onus is on you to find reliable sources, and NPOV phrasing, that gains consensus. Until then, walls of text are not persuasive. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources are reliable (the primary source and the NY Post which someone mentioned earlier and which I then added), so the point is moot. You did not give policy-based reasons, and did not provide paths forward other than "context needed". I'll also remind you that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." And repeatedly saying "you must find phrasing that gains consensus" without contributing to phrasing other than by asking for "context" amounts to WP:disruptive editing, specifically "not engag[ing] in consensus building", and "reject[ing] community input". Binksternet's introduction of political disputes from outside wikipedia precisely goes against policy. And you did not give any reason against this other your opinion as to why "marxist" or "marxism" are "loaded" terms, which does not go against policy (see WP:LABEL, with examples: "cult, racist, perverted, sexist, ..."), and which is a quote, not a label that someone decided to use to describe the subject. Furthermore, you are very clearly in a small minority, as it looks like 7 editors (myself included) have said on this talk page that they wanted to add this content, and others have, I believe, tried without engaging in a discussion here. Your comment about "walls of text" is disobliging. Remain civil. Fa suisse (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that "The only way that the word Marxist or Marxism should be introduced to this biography would be a in a strong contextual manner describing when, what and how Marxism has influenced Cullors, in parallel with other motivating ideologies.” from Binksternet, is unreasonable, and unmotivated. I have never seen such a demand made on wikipedia. Fa suisse (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon49 your latest edit demonstrates bias and POV-pushing. From "I went through a year-long organising programme at the National School for Strategic Organising (NSSO), and it was led by the Labour Community Strategy Centre. We spent the year reading, anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao, learning all types of global critical theory and about different campaigns across the world, and most importantly every day, five days a week we were out on the ground actively recruiting people into the organisation we were in, as a way to learn how to bring people in, how to keep them in an organisation. There’s an entire skillset to this." which I used to write "While volunteering for the BRU, she attended a year-long organising programme led by the Labour/Community Strategy Centre (which organised the BRU), where she learned about marxist and global critical theory as well social movements around the world, while constantly practicing recruiting and retaining members for the organisation", you have decided to remove....the few words about marxist and critical theory ! This POV-pushing has to stop. Fa suisse (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This page was in my watchlist because I'm interested in critical theory and follow a bunch of articles on it. I don't think it's appropriate to simply delete the information about the ideas and ideologies that Cullors says motivate her or that she is trained in — but some of the language in the recent revert didn't seem very neutral, i.e. "while constantly practicing recruiting and retaining members for the organisation." I will check the source and its reliability, but this language simply doesn't have the right tone.

I saw her self-description as trained in Marxist theories being repeated in right-wing sources. It seems perfectly fine to report that here; those are her words. What better source is there for an individual's ideas than that individual themselves? It does not require a third party source to make it reliable. There is a notability or a WP:DUE issue — but we are talking about a short mention. The point is not to load it up with whatever negative ideas right-wing media want to associate with it. I don't understand the arguments for simply deleting it from the page. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Because we are to edit conservatively on BLPs. And it’s critical to add NPOV context for what that polarizing term means to her. And we don’t have sourcing for that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You yourself quote “from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao” yet only mention Marxism which seems to be your POV mission. And the main point which I had kept was her learning how to recruit and retain. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that these things should be appropriately contextualized, and we are not creating fodder here for frothing right-wing activists to go whining about BLM. In any case, I think the language there now is fairly straightforward and neutral. Some more material about the organizational aspects of her training in these theories could be helpful. I thought the language being promoted in the lead previously was inappropriate, and didn't even have Marxism capitalized. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This comment cannot be interpreted other than as extremely disingenuine. There were three elements: "Marx, Lenin, Mao", learning about social movements across the world, and practicing activism. I decided to summarise "Marx, Lenin, Mao" under the notion of marxism, to make the sentence shorter, and you only removed that element, leaving the two others. You didn't even read the source, apparently. I have no issues with using "Marx, Lenin, Mao", but "marxism" is much simpler. And it is not my POV mission, as I have made other additions to the article as the article history shows. I am merely pushing back against your POV mission, which has been much more sustained. Fa suisse (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in. Regarding sources (right-wing media have indeed latched onto this), we have both the primary source (The Real News), a NY Post article (a reliable secondary source, admittedly opiniated and rightwing but factual), as well as a Politifact article which I've just found. Regarding the use of ideology on this page, I'll point out to you that the other user blocking addition of this content has blatantly cited political aims in avoiding its addition to wikipedia : "There's a strong real world effort by political opponents of Cullors to plaster the Marxist label on her and the other leaders of the Black Live Matter movement. The only way that the word Marxist or Marxism should be introduced to this biography would be a in a strong contextual manner describing when, what and how Marxism has influenced Cullors, in parallel with other motivating ideologies. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)". Tridacninae has also complained about this, to no avail. I don't think we should put this in the lead, as we have much less material on the topic than on her LGBTQ activism, for instance. Fa suisse (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe we should include the mention of critical theory ("global critical theory" in the Dazed article), but this would make the sentence a bit long. Fa suisse (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, as stated before you need strong reliable sources, not primary ones, not obviously POV ones, etc. From those develop NPOV wording as a proposal on this page and hopefully consensus will agree it should be included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

For the second time, there is a primary source (The Real News), and two strong reliable secondary sources (NY Post and Politifact). The discussion on the existence of good sources is over. Fa suisse (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not one of sourcing, it's simply one of due weight. I find it an interesting question as to how concerned we should be about the potentially damaging uses that material on Wikipedia could be put to. I actually think we ought to consider that, though don't think it's generally taken to be an overriding concern for editors; and it would be hard to formalize it in a neutral way. In general, simply mentioning that she draws on a range of ideas for her activism, and what they are, seems entirely fine. Just imagine if she said "the thought of Gandhi and MLK." Well, it should be treated in the same way. But again, playing it up like right-wing demagogue media is not appropriate either. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Also FWIW (I have to do stuff so am logging off now) it's not clear why Marxism should be removed from the lead if the lead is to talk about her ideology at all. Either have some other background stuff in the lead and nothing on ideology, or give the range of key ideological influences. Secondly... Well, I was about to say that the "global" before "critical theory" seems redundant, but now I've done some googling and it does seem there is a critical school called "global critical theory," which emphasizes Global South critical ideas. So I wouldn't object to repeating "global critical theory" unlike "critical theory" which is what I changed it to. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Politifact is only echoing the primary source but it does helpfully state

‘Marxist’ is dog-whistle for something horrible, like ‘Nazi’, and thus enables to delegitimize/dehumanize them," Miriyam Aouragh, a lecturer at the London-based Westminster School of Media and Communication, told PolitiFact. Black Lives Matter "is not an organization, but a fluid movement; it doesn’t actually matter if one of its founders was a liberal, Marxist, socialist or capitalist."

Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Three edit conflicts later)Is just like to point out that WP:RSP says that there is no consensus on the reliability of the New York Post, so calling it a "strong" source seems inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c51:447f:d8d9:509:ebda:fa7e:c0a (talk • contribs)

Fa suisse has given the most extensive, well reasoned argument I've seen on this talk page. The arguments against including it seem to be largely based on the motives of those advocating for including it rather than the substance of the matter itself. Yet those doing that accusing are obstructing its inclusion at every turn for a multitude of reasons which aren't actually related to the mission or guidelines of Wikipedia. I am concerned about Wikipedia if well sourced, relevant information is being deleted or omitted simply because it is believed that one group can use that information to criticize the subject of the article. If a person is criticized as a result of the article and later responds or clarifies, that can also be included in the article as well. No need to "protect" them when they are fully capable of doing it themselves. Tridacninae (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Learned about Marxist thinkers

We had a programme at school that taught us about Marxist thinkers. It was called "history". Guy (help!) 08:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I love how the Internet is being scraped for any non-right wing blog sources that support one word. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, certainly the current source - "the most influential independent fashion and culture title in the world" - is a terrible source for something that is apparently controversial. Guy (help!) 10:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that Dazed (magazine) would falsify the content of interviews, and for instance, invent Cullors' words on her readings of Marx, Lenin, and Mao ? Fa suisse (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No I think they are saying it might not be wp:due due to the fact it has received relatively light weight coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Also can you provide the quote form it where she says she is a Marxist?Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In her "Real News" interview she calls herself and Alicia Garza "trained organizers (...) trained marxists", and in the one we're discussing ("Dazed") she calls herself a "trained campaigner", who "spent [a] year reading, anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao". Fa suisse (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So then no the dazed source doe not all her a Marxist, read wp:synthesis.Slatersteven (talk)

No, but that was not the point. Does calling "Marx, Lenin, Mao" "marxists thinkers" fall under wp:synth? In any case we can quote that alongside her "trained marxists" comment. Fa suisse (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not, but calling someone a Marxist thinker because they have read Marx is.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No one called Cullors a "Marxist thinker" (or at least not me). The point was that she read (imbibed, immersed herself, ...) marxist thinkers. The precise words I used were "marxist and global critical theory". The change to "Marxist thinkers and revolutionaries" and the introduction in the lead of "marxism" were made by Cleopatran Apocalypse. Fa suisse (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have read Von Lettow-Vorbek, I am not a WW1 German general. What she reads does not define what she is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Fa suisse, exactly the same argument is used by the extreme right to claim that Hitler was really a Marxist, because he studied Marx. Guy (help!) 07:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Did Hitler say "I have an ideological frame (...) I am a trained Marxist" ? Please Fa suisse (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source, which as far as I know hasn't been referenced before on this talk page :

Cullors weaves her intellectual influences into this narrative, from black feminist writers like Audre Lorde and bell hooks, to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. Reading those social philosophers “provided a new understanding around what our economies could look like,” she says.

from a 2018 Time Magazine article. Fa suisse (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?

Five years ago Cullors said among other things that she was a Marxist. PolitiFact confirms this, as does the New York Post. Keeping in mind WP:Undue on WP:BLPs, and the current campaign to label the Black Lives Matter movement as Marxist, has this met the threshold for being notable enough to mention? And if we do, how do we ensure it’s NPOV? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• The Real News
• NY Post
• PolitiFact article

Update (10 August 2020):

• Politico - Includes "Yes, I’m trained in different economic philosophies," Cullors said in a statement through a spokesperson, but added, "I refuse to be reduced to a single clip from an interview that was manipulated for white supremacist and right wing fear mongering."
• US News

Opinions

• Oppose based on these sources. No heavyweight sources, and a contentious statement. Guy (help!) 11:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Until more robust/reliable (non-primary) sources cover this AND do so providing the necessary context of which definition of Marxist she refers, we have too little to verifiably report this. Then, on this short bio, we’d have to add so much background it would utterly topple into WP:Undue territory. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Dazed magazine Mentions that she read about Marx one year. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, I realize sources are provided , however:
  
  
  • The Real News - shows no editorial oversight and likely is not reliable.
    
  • The New York Post - is considered a tabloid and therefore, not reliable Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources .
    
  • Polifact - is considered reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources , but in this article, it never says Patrisses is a Marxist. Instead another founder, who's identified by name as a Marxist.
    
  • Dazed magazine - No editorial oversight and is not likely reliable either, but also never states Patrissse is Marxist either.
    

W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 12:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about labelling her a "marxist", but about her self-description as a "trained marxist". In the Dazed interview she refers to said "training". Also, you cannot reject the Real News interview while accepting the Politifact article. Fa suisse (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. A lot of words are being twisted here. We're debating the inclusion of Cullors' reference of herself and fellow Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza as "trained marxists". This means we would include a few words in the "Ideology and policy positions" section (and the bio has over 800 words, so this is not disproportionate). Using her own words, we could say "has described herself and Garza as "trained marxists"" or something like "has described marxism as a part of her "ideological frame"". This, by the way, is coherent with the rest of the article, including Cullors's mention of two black Marxist activists (Angela Davis and Frantz Fanon) as ideological inspirations, and the importance she seems to give to her training as an organizer with the Labor Community Strategy Centre and the Bus Riders Union (where she met her "mentor" and did extensive readings of "anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao"). I also don't see any reason to let rightwing media's use of this fact affect our choices here. Fa suisse (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the suggestion below we describe her as a Marxist.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Given that her "trained Marxist" comment was a big focus in the Politifact fact-check and they confirmed that she had said that. Due for one sentence here, which is not much. --Pudeo (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Given that we only have that as a reliable source it would seem to be undue. The entire article was to address if BLM was Marxist as their detractors have been trying to label them. BTW how would you contextualize this absent reliable sourcing as to what she meant, and no information as to what kind of Marxist she considered herself? Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure if it needs any more context when it's put into the early life and education chapter. Cambridge Dictionary tells that Marxist (noun) means a supporter of a social, political, and economic theory based on the writings of Karl Marx. IMO, it seems obvious what this means in the context of a social activist and there's no need to endlessly problematize it. --Pudeo (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Marxism is complex, with multiple definitions per Britannica and no reliable sourcing is saying which definition is the one used by Cullors. It would be OR to assume what she meant, and, of course, mislead our readers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until there is enough well-sourced material for us to explain what is meant by the word. The purpose of our articles is to inform the reader - using a label which can have several meanings is not informative unless we are specific about what is meant by it, even if it's a label the person has used themselves. Here's a parallel case: a friend of mine is an academic historian, and a professor at a British university. She is very familiar with Marxist history, and could tell you a lot about how it has influenced our current understanding of the past, how it has been criticised and deconstructed, how it has been built upon, etc. Is she a 'trained Marxist' - probably, in the sense that she has received formal training on Marxist theory and has read lots of stuff by Marxist historians. Should we add 'Marxist' to our article about her? Definitely not, it would not improve the reader's understanding of her, her work, or her views. The same applies here - unless we are able to explain the sense in which the word is being used, it serves no purpose. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'll add here that I've watched the 2015 interview where she did indeed describe herself as a 'trained Marxist'. The context, if I remember correctly, is that she was being asked whether BLM was just a snappy catchphrase, or if it had any grounding in political theory - the implication being that it needed such a grounding in order for it to be taken seriously. Her comment about herself being a trained Marxist was in response to that - I interpreted it as her saying 'Yes, BLM is theoretically sound, I have studied Marxist political theory'. That's just my interpretation however, which is the point - it requires interpretation, and I'm sure different people will in good faith arrive at different interpretations of what she meant by that. We can't do that work here - we need sources to do it for us. A single, rather vague, and off-the-cuff response to an interview question isn't enough for us to slap a label on her. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, "we do have an ideological frame", followed by "we are trained marxists" is pretty clear. Fa suisse (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I find it difficult to reconcile this comment with your earlier one, when you said that it wasn't entirely clear what the phrase meant. I agree with that earlier comment - it's not entirely clear what was meant - which is why I describe it as vague. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. We don't know exactly what "trained organizers... trained Marxists" means in the 2015 interview between Cullors and Real News Network host Jared Ball. Marxism is complex, with multiple definitions per Britannica.[2] Nobody is saying which definition is the one used by Cullors to describe herself and Garza. In any case, this material should never be used to label or categorize Cullors in a way that would violate WP:BLP. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I find the quote borderline, and BLP policy requires caution in borderline cases. It could plausibly be interpreted as an example of being "super-versed on... ideological theories" rather than as rather than self-identifying with a particular ideological group. If she does identify as Marxist and it is noteworthy, then it should be possible to find another, more clear, identification. Alsee (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, provided we are talking about a short, attributed statement. I genuinely don't mean to add more heat than light here by saying so, but a number of the above !votes seem to have missed the most salient points here under the applicable policies regarding sourcing, verifiability and neutrality in such situations as this. The initial interview is just that--an interview. The editorial controls of the outlet which served as forum for any statements which Ms. Cullors may have made are completely irrelevant here, since they are not in fact the source being cited--Ms. Cullors is clearly the source here, a primary source describing herself. That is 100% allowed under policy, with the caveat that obviously any such statement needs to be clearly attributed to her.

Indeed, such comments are a common part of the provided context and framing of any BLP, and I think much of the hand-wringing here misses the point under both policy and a practical analysis. I can only speculate that some of the concern here comes from a (perhaps not entirely unjustified) belief that this information could be used to try to paint the entire BLM movement with one brush, but the manner in which that concern is being expressed here is counter-intuitive and problematic:

• To begin with, this is not the BLM article--this is a BLP for Patrisse Cullors, and we should providing a all relevant and verifiable information our average reader might reasonably view as being useful to understanding her as a topic (or at least as close as we can get to that without overrunning summary style). It is not our job to play the role of a patronizing filter who decides that said readers (or some subportion of them) are likely to draw wrongheaded conclusions unless we protect them from some of that information. Our job here is to present the full picture of such relevant information and allow the reader to utilize it how they will for their own purposes and conclusions--whether that means interpreting it within their own knowledge base and experience, following up further with cited sources or particular subtopics, or even letting it confirm their own biases.

Obviously some of those options are more rational than others, but the point is that our job here is most definitely not to channel the reader towards or away from certain conclusions under any circumstances: that's the very heart of WP:NPOV and the purpose of our WP:V and WP:RS standards. Hiding fairly relevant information that easily and obviously clears our RS standard until we are, as individuals, idiosyncratically convinced there is enough information that people will draw the "right" conclusions from it (that is, the thoughts we (as editors, not sources) happen to believe coincide with reality), is nothing more than an application of WP:Original research. It's OR that is atypical in that the personal perspective of editors is being used to shape the content more through what is being omitted, rather than what is being added, but it's clearly OR nevertheless.

• There's another, related but distinct, reason such an omission for the purposes of a drive to protect either Ms. Cullors or the BLM movement from association with marxism is ill-considered: 'marxist' is not a per se insult. It's obviously a very loaded term in the context of American politics, but it is a dangerous over-reaction to try to censor any mention of the term just because it might have those implications within certain social quarters. Certainly Ms. Cullors does not think of it as an insult or else would presumably have not used the word to describe herself and the work which will probably end up defining her in the eyes of most people. Here again, there is a kind of patronizing editorialization in suggesting that we must omit this self-description unless there is enough extra information to "justify" that she is a "True" Marxist as far as we are concerned--to say nothing of the fact that adding our own personal satisfaction with the descriptor into the analysis would be obviously, patently against community consensus about how such attributable self-declarations are meant to be approached.

The source need not be (and obviously would not be) used to verify the notion that "Patrisse Cullors is absolutely such a Marxist. She's been committed to the fight of the black lumpenproletariat since she was a toddler. She's Claudia Jones and Elaine Brown rolled into one. Furthermore, she's such a Marxist that her mere involvement with BLM makes it and everyone willingly associated with it a Marxist by association. Basically there is no difference between the Black Panthers and BLM, because Patrisse Cullors is involved." No, clearly the source can be used, and attributed, in such a way that it says all that can be said from the source: "Patrisse Cullors has on at least one occasion described herself as a Marxist." That's a simple and clearly verifiable statement that has got to be of at least some interest to the average reader who comes to this article to learn a little more about her as an encyclopedic subject. And again, it's just not our place the chaperone the thoughts of our readers because we are concerned about how they might react to that simple statement, nor is it appropriate for us to demand she present some bona fides before we allow her self-description to be reported in our content, sinc the statement being supported is that she has described herself as a Marxist--not that she absolutely is one under this or that definition. And obviously the average reader is smart enough to know the difference between those two things.

In summary, I understand the place where the concerns about misinterpretation are coming from, but many of the 'oppose' votes above seem to me to be advocating for throwing the baby (and indeed, all of our most relevant policies regarding verification) out with the bathwater, over that concern. This is a simple, attributable statement of self-description that is clearly allowed under policy, which is reasonably of interest to our typical reader and which information we must trust said reader to utilize how they will. I know that's not always the easiest thing to do, but it is a principle that is hardcoded into our processes under NPOV for a reason. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

First off, WP:TLDR. Second there has already been discussion that although she said the statement it wasn’t explained by follow-up interview questions so we don’t know what she was actually talking about. Or what kind of Marxist she might be, or what definition she referred. And given the utter lack of follow up in reliable sources this seems to be unimportant to her life. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatting this divergence into meta discussion regarding rhetoric, brevity, and courtesy, so as not to unnecessarily lengthen the thread. There is some additional discussion of the content issues herein, but nothing that isn't largely redundant on opinions already expressed above. Gleeanon, feel free to throw the last word into the hat, if you like. Snow let's rap 06:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"First off, WP:TLDR" Sorry, but sometimes it takes a lot more explanation to explain why a proposed idea is bad or why an argument is a complete non-sequitor than it does to just throw that anemic, poorly-considered idea out there. If I felt I could explain why some of the !votes above run quite contrary to some of our verification and WP:NOR principles in less words, I would have. But in this instance I felt that was impossible. "although she said the statement it wasn’t explained by follow-up interview questions so we don’t know what she was actually talking about. Or what kind of Marxist she might be, or what definition she referred." Then just don't speculate as to those questions, if additional information is lacking. This isn't rocket science: if all she has done is made a general statement as to about viewing herself as a Marxist (in an otherwise undefined manner), then just present that exact quote, fully attributed, without any speculation as to what flavour of Marxist she or how reasonable her usage of the term is. Just because you or I or any other editor might find the context of her use of the term light on detail does not empower us to editorially invalidate her choice of a descriptor for herself. It's adequately sourced under WP:RS, so long as WP:attributed and its reasonably of interest to the average reader wanting to know more about her, and there must be hundreds of thousands of BLPs on this project which utilize quotes where the subject describes themselves or their work in terms that are to some degree vague, subjective, and impossible to independently identify in an empirical sense. The reason that is not a problem in any of those articles (and not a problem by any measure here), is because the we attribute such statements to the subject. It is therefore not the case that we are saying the subject factually is the thing they say they are: we are merely reporting that they said that thing. It is then in the hands of the reader themselves to decide how much to credit that statement as accurate or to otherwise analyze that statement, including any latent ambiguities that may be found within it. We don't get to decide whether the reader gets to see that information and form their own interpretations until such time as we are personally satisfied with the clarity of an opinion maid within an attributed statement: that kind of subjective gatekeeping clearly runs directly against the direction we get from WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. So if you want me to reconsider my position, you're going to have to come up with something more (something drawn from actual policy/community consensus), because right now your argument hinges upon the type of personal assessment that is not meant to be a part of our process here, rather than the objective verifiability standards that should be used. The quote is easily and clearly verifiable and perfectly neutral under our meaning of that term, provided it is attributed. Tell me what your policy basis is for objecting to an attributed quote, and maybe we can get on the same page, but bluntly, all I am seeing now is a tangle of original research and a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And don't get me wrong--I get where the objections are arising from: I'm sure there is tons of alt-right spin out there threatening to turn innocuous statements like the one here into ammunition for conspiracy theories along the lines that BLM is like the Black Panthers on steroids and the first step towards an armed socialist campaign of terror, and other such wall-eyed descriptions. I suspect the fact that far right news outlets bit into this quote first is more than a small part of the explanation for the over-reactions in the opposite direction that is taking place here, if I had to guess. And I say that meaning no offense to anyone here: I am not try to be patronizing but just calling a probable spade for a spade. But the existence of that context doesn't obviate us of our own responsibility to remain neutral here. And, in any event, the answer to jarring display of spin is not counter-spin in the other direction, or just pretending certain problematically open-ended statements were never made. The solution is careful elucidation of the actual facts, presented as neutrally as possible, in the hope that in the aggregate it will bring clarity to the reader, rather than feed into any pre-existing confirmation bias they might have. It won't always be the case, but it's the best we can do in this context. Snow let's rap 04:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Again WP:TLDR, it comes off as abusive(?) to effectively double or triple an entire conversation with walls of text. I can only guess why you choose to do so but I’m not reading them and I don’t expect anyone else to, we’re all volunteers here. If you can’t edit down whatever you’re trying to express more it’s likely no one will ever know. Personally I find it disruptive and I imagine others do as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC) I'm not going to get drawn into a meta argument with you about the appropriate length of an argument, aside from to repeat what I said before: sometimes it takes a lot more explanation to explain why a proposed idea is bad or why an argument is a complete non-sequitor than it does to just throw that anemic, poorly-considered idea out there. If I felt I could explain why some of the !votes above run quite contrary to some of our verification and WP:NOR principles in less words, I would have. In any event, if I'm to take you at your word, you have no twice responded another good-faith respondent to your RfC just to tell them that you didn't bother to read what they said but you ares somehow still certain they are wrong (apparently because they have decided to disagree with your stance on the issue, as that is the only thing you could know if you didn't read the rest of the !vote)--which if you ask me is a much more socially and rhetorically obnoxious behaviour than being a little verbose in discussing a nuanced policy distinction. That said, I can also tell you with candor, I really don't care if you read my post, if a few paragraphs completely strains your attention span for a topic which you yourself brought to RfC.... I'm not here to spar with you, or anyone else. I've provided my analysis of the most appropriate resolution of this issue given the sourcing and policy considerations and that's that. It's no skin off my nose if you don't read it: if you're someone who will open an RfC and then doesn't have enough patience and sense of perspective to hear out a few paragraphs worth of discussion from someone who disagrees, how can I have faith that you are the type of person who was likely to be budged from their position to begin with, such that I would view not having convinced you of anything as a problem I should try to solve? And I'm sorry, but your position is ill-considered an ill-fitting with every relevant policy on the matter, many of which I cited in the posts you are (supposedly) not reading, whereas you have yet to cite a single policy or argument drawn directly from community consensus for why your idiosyncratic opinion about the worthiness and depth of the subject's self-label should govern whether or not we should allow it as content. If you wish to trade advice, here is mine for you: that's not how content decisions are made on this project: "She only studied Marxist literature for a year, therefore I declare her unqualified to describe herself as a Marxist" is not a valid policy argument. Snow let's rap 06:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Snow Rise for this detailed and considered comment. I agree with most of what you say, and it would not be obviously against policy to include a short, attributed statement along the lines that you suggest, but I still feel that it would be better that we didn't. The subject has given lots of interviews, made speeches, written frequently in newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic, has her own website; as far as I'm aware however, she has only described herself as that once, in a response to a live interview question, five years ago. We obviously aren't going to scour everything she's every said about herself and compile a list, so why would we home in on this one descriptor? Surely the only reason we would include it would be because, as you acknowledge, it's a very loaded term - it's not an insult, and there are lots of people who do describe themselves and their work in that sense without any issues, but it's contentious in some contexts and that's why we're talking about it. I remain convinced that when all we have to go on is an old, vague, off the cuff reference, singling it out for inclusion in the article because it's a contentious word doesn't serve our readers (or the subject) well. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thank you in kind for your own thoughts here. I will say that if there is a good argument to be made with regard to omitting this content, it is in line with what you say above (essentially a WP:WEIGHT argument of sorts). That said, I do personally think that even under that analysis, some sort of mention of this topic is WP:DUE, and to my mind the best way to thread the needle here would be to concertedly avoid saying in Wikipedia's own voice anything about whether or not she is a genuine Marxist, but to include her own statement regarding that topic (fully attributed of course). I would be completely uncomfortable with describing her as a Marxist in Wikipedia's own voice, but I am, if anything, even more uncofmortable with censoring her own self-descriptions out of the article, and I'm deeply concerned (not just with regard to this article, but also the implications all work being done in this area) by some of the !votes I have seen here, which diverge wildly from how WP:RS and WP:NPOV are meant to be applied in cases where subjects describe themselves: policy (and common sense) are clear that we don't need a stack of high quality RS to verify "X has described herself as Y" type statements: we only need to have sourcing sufficient to establish that she did in fact say as much--which we do have here. Likewise, "we can't say that she called herself a Marxist, because we haven't been convinced that she actually is one, not only completely misses the point of the statement, but is a blatant, deeply problematic exercise in WP:Original research.

These arguments concern me so much because, try as I might, I can only think of two possible explanations for this: One, we have a large number of veteran editors who are somehow oblivious about some pretty basic (and incredibly longstanding) principles of community consensus on how WP:RS are treated in these situations and how we are meant to be neutral in their application, or (more likely) editors who would normally know better have allowed this charged context to distort their view of policies they do in fact know well and to rationalize making an exception where none is warranted under policy. And where it is the latter, believe me, I get it: I am not at all thrilled about the potential for this label to be leveraged by pundits to muddy waters and vilify a meaningful social justice movement. But the thing is, Wikipedia operates under a sort of variation of the Streisand Effect; if people come to this article (or any on Wikipedia) looking to find information on some controversial aspect of the subject, and they find the article completely sanitized of any mention of that element of the subject's notability, two things are going to happen: 1) it's likely to hurt that reader's faith in this project as a neutral, unbiased, and detailed purveyor of the relevant information they seek, and 2) That person is just going to go elsewhere to find further information on that topic, and I dare say that, given the kinds of sources out there for a topic like this, it isn't likely to be as neutral and objective in tone as what we would have presented to them. I'd much rather we faced a controversial topic like this head-on (as indeed policy, and the classical values of this project, would have us do), contextualizing it appropriately and stripping it of spin, so we can inform the reader of exactly what was said, in manner which is calculated to inform, not to influence, as other outlets will seize the opportunity to do. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Snow Rise, a lot of this is persuasive. I'm still not convinced though that choosing to omit to mention it would equate to "censoring her own self-descriptions". To repeat what I said above - she speaks and writes very widely, in a lot of media that would not be afraid of the word Marxist (e.g. the Guardian), and she has her own website. As far as I'm aware, she has never chosen to describe herself in that way in any medium since that one answer, five years ago, to a live interview question which was critiquing the BLM movement for a perceived lack of ideological framework. If anything, that looks to me like a conscious choice by the subject not to self-describe like that. A bald statement along the lines of "In an interview in 2015, she described herself as a "trained Marxist"." would be factually correct, but I don't think it would do justice to the context - but any discussion of context would have to come from secondary sources. Can you think of a way this could be appropriately contextualised based on the existing secondary sources - do you think there's enough in the Politifact piece for example, or are there any other secondary RSes that aren't mentioned here that we could build on? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There do seem to be additional sources covering the initial interview, but none to my knowledge which shed any additional light on other instances where she has used the term or which purport to further clarify what she meant on the occasion of the interview--there are a couple which speculate as to how we ought to interpret her meaning, but none which have followed up with her, which I presume is the manner of context you were inquiring about. Personally, I'm not certain that I agree that we should be much influenced by the observation that she used the term only once and only in an on-the-spot context: afterall, Wikipedia's BLP content is replete with references to incidences where someone said something only once--including many a statement which is vulnerable to distortion and which they may later have regretted using and decided not to repeat thereafter: it still might be a genuine statement and to my mind, interpreting its precise meaning and what she meant in that moment remains something that ought to be left to the purview of the reader, rather than us as editors before-the-fact.

All that said, I do understand what you are getting at: most encyclopedically notable persons will be quoted saying a great many things, and if the presumption were that any one of those things is WP:DUE for inclusion, our BLPs would never stop growing: clearly something more is required to establish that a particular comment has passed a certain threshold of relevancy. However, I would argue that insofar as there was enough public interest generated in her comment for several news and fact-checking outlets to look into it would establish that weight (which is distinct from the weight needed to verify her label since we should not (in my opinion) be trying to verify that she is Marxist but rather only that she is a Marxist, and that, as discussed above, is satisfied by the interview itself. However, you have put a more fundamental challenge before me, which I admit gives me a little bit of pause: you ask how we would contextualize such an attributed quote. I have given part of my answer to that question in the previous paragraph in that I don't think we need to discuss what others think of the label in order to justify mentioning her use of it, even on one occasion.

That said, I'm not deaf to your "factually correct, but potentially misleading" observation. And it's one thing for me to say that I think we should be able to provide the needed context just by describing what she said and detailing the context of the interview and the particular question she was engaged with, but arguably if this is the position I want to advocate for, the onus is on me (or someone on this "side" of the debate) to provide very specific wording which would address these concerns, rather than hand-waving them away with a "I don't see why it would be impossible" kind of comment. So, in that light, let me take a little time to contemplate if I can come up with specific wording (relying only on her own statements and reference to the context of the interview), which might address your concerns: that is to say, wording that notes what Ms. Cullors said while also keeping this one comment within scope and perspective relative to her larger public image. It may well be that the consensus on this matter is unlikely to shift at this juncture of discussion, but if this issue becomes live again (as I suspect it may), some more concrete wording may prove useful to the regular editors here at that date. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose AFAI can see, she did some training (as an activist?), during which she read some Marx and Marxist writings. No one here seems to know what a 'trained Marxist' means anyway. The sourcing is lousy and doesn't seem to support that she does, or ever has in any RS, described herself as 'Marxist'. No, certainly not for now. Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Currently the are No Reliable Sources that confirm that she is a Marxist. A single unclear answer in an interview is not solid enough . Studying or Training does not mean you become a thing, you can learn and adapt. You can also be inspired by thinkers and not follow their political path. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• OpposeSupport if the "refuse to be reduced to a single clip from an interview that was manipulated for white supremacist and right wing fear mongering" caveat from Cullors herself in the Politico source is included. ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 09:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose pending support from additional reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per reliably sourced and verifiable. It wasn't a gotcha question nor was she tricked into announcing that description, she's an intelligent, educated woman and knew exactly what she was saying, and it doesn't appear that she thought it was contentious to self-describe as such, or she wouldn't have said it. In 2018, after the publication of her book, in an interivew with Time, she talked about the books that inspired her - Audre Lorde (whose self-description is prominently featured in the lead), bell hooks, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. She's a strong woman who has enough confidence in her personal identity to admit her intellectual influences, so I don't know why editor's are wringing their hands and arguing that it's a contentious label, definitions, what it means, and more context is needed. If she's comfortable enough saying it out loud, we shouldn't be second-guessing her. I also agree with Snow that it should be a short, attributed statement. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• It would seem to be Undue (POV) to highlight this one mention when it doesn’t seem important enough for her to talk about in her extensive writings, interviews, or by reliable sources since that mention.
  How do you reconcile the near absence from reliable sources? And why should this one mention be included at all? Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support a simple statement of what she said, clearly documented. Calls for additional authoritative sources overlook the solid evidence of the video, no matter who filmed it. Wikipedia policies to not require that we carefully define what people say. Ms Cullors chose the words to describe herself. This statement is about herself, not to be taken as characterising the larger BLM movement. Concerns about dogwhistle overlook that she chose the words. I support a simple statement of what she said. Speaking gently. Pete unseth (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Depends on wording I think it would be useful to distinguish between using the label in Wikipedia's voice versus noting the self-description.

It is not uncommon that a person will use a label to describe themselves while the community might not completely agree. For example, a person pushing a book they wrote might type themselves as a "trained educator", "trained thought leader", trained futurist" or some other label. We ought to steer clear of stating in Wikipedia's voice that the subject is an "educator", "thought leader", or "futurist" without solid reliable sources making that claim. In contrast, if it is well documented that they have made the assertion about themselves, and it is relevant to the discussion, it may be appropriate to state that the subject is a self-described futurist.

As an example, note List of socialist states which carefully avoids labeling a state in Wikipedia's voice, but includes a state in the list if they have "declared themselves socially states". Determining that a state does or does not meet the definition of socialist state can be a challenging task, but tracking down whether they've claimed themselves as a socialist state is much more straightforward. As an additional benefit, labeling in Wikipedia's voice means a careful examination of whether the source qualifies as reliable, while identifying that the subject self-described as a label merely requires an accurate quote. While sources butcher quotes all the time, an accurate quote, especially if reported by more than one source, is a far easier journalistic feat than applying a contentious label.

All of which leads to saying that I'm not convinced that the evidence shows we can describe her as a Marxist in Wikipedia's voice, but the evidence supports a statement that she self describes as a Marxist or trained in Marxism.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I believe the RS issue is accounted for per Isaidnoway above. For Undue concerns, I want to mention another source, a FOX article detailing how a Senator Marsha Blackburn made Cullors' statement about being a trained Marxist an issue on the Senate floor. While I am no fan of Blackburn, this seems to demonstrate that the relevance of Cullors' political identity is strong enough to be included, insofar as it is evidently of concern in discussions in the Senate, to say nothing of the fact that it also appears relevant given her status as an inherently political figure. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support To omit something which is significant to the development of a notable person like Ms. Cullors, especially something she freely admits only because "it may be misinterpreted" in an effort to protect her really is an NPOV issue. Similarly is calling for massive, unnecessary context (without actually ever providing it) or only including in the article that she "learned about" Marxism and other social issues. There is no dispute over the evidence and she stated it knowingly, voluntarily and in an effort to explain her background and how the movement began. Tridacninae (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  — Tridacninae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Considering the fact that her political positions are relevant to the article (she's an activist) and the fact that she has both openly and publicly defined herself as a Marxist, then the article should say that she considers herself a Marxist. The goal of wikipedia isn't to avoid potential propaganda confrontations between Black Lives Matter and the alt-right, it is to create a neutral repository of knowledge. "Is it true" and "is it relevant" are the only two questions we should concern ourselves with. Goodposts (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support a short statement saying she's self described as a "trained Marxist". I'm really not seeing what the issue is here. It's verifiable, it's quite relevant to her background as a political activist. I don't give a rats ass if a bunch of racists want to try and use the ol KKK tactic from the 1950s of painting movements that support rights for black people as communist - at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We provide the reliably sourced and relevant facts, generally without regard for potential implications. She said it, it was confirmed by Politifact, and it makes logical sense for inclusion. Ask yourself this question, if any other academic/politican/activist referred to themselves as a "trained [X]" even without much context, would we really question it so much? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

To make it easy for those of us who are not going to read all the above back and forth, can you link to the sources where they say she is a Marxist? Also what do you mean mention, that she is a Marxist, was a Marxist?Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So what do you want to say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m convinced nothing for now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I cannot say I agree with something if even you do not even know what it is I am agreeing to.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Wha? Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As I do not know what the proposed text is for all I know it might be "is a vile evil Marxist, just like Stalin".Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"has described herself and Garza as "trained marxists"" or "has described marxism as a part of her "ideological frame"" (previous edits). Fa suisse (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Addition The interview where Cullors mentions her readings of "anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao" during the year in which she trained as an organizer at the Labour Community Strategy Centre/Bus Riders Union. Fa suisse (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Fa suisse, yet another terrible source. Any good ones, at all? Guy (help!) 11:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have read the works of H G Wells, I am however not a Victorian SF writer.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A "terrible source": you are saying that the magazine cannot be relied on to properly transcribe Cullors' words ? Fa suisse (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No I am saying it does not say what you think it says.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

What does "trained Marxist" mean?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear. I believe it refers to her "training" as an organizer, where she learned and presumably adhered to marxist doctrine (hence why I mention both the Real News and Dazed interviews in tandem). If the use of the expression is contested, we could sum up her words from the Real News interview as "has described marxism as a part of her "ideological frame"". Fa suisse (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Except (as you admit) you do not know that is the case. So without knowing what she means we cannot say what it means.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why I ended up changing the text to the latter ("has described marxism as part of her "ideological frame"). This is solely based on the words from the Real News interview, which are quoted elsewhere (Politifact is enough IMO, no need for multiple secondary sources quoting the same interview). If relevant, the focus on marxist readings during her organizer training from the Dazed interview can be mentioned nearby. Fa suisse (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Then let me put it this way. Any political academician has to be well versed in multiple political theories. That does not mean they are committed to them politically. For all we know she is saying "I was trained to understand the political theory of Marxism at college". We do not know what she meant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists." - The Real News, 2015. This is a pretty unambiguous ideological statement. It's not the same thing as saying "I know about marxism". Fa suisse (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am ready to write something a bit different, such as "her training as an organizer included a focus on marxist ideology" or something in the same vein. Fa suisse (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

being a "trained organiser" is not an ideology. Until we know what "trained Marxist" means we cannot put this in. It can mean anything.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per the previous canvassing effort, pinging the other editors to the talk page: @Binksternet:, @Mdus5678:, @RandomCanadian:, @Tbhotch:, @Missvain:, @Jerm:, @Innisfree987:, @Zigzag2Os:, @Kingsindian:, @14GTR:, @GoingBatty:, @Aboutmovies:, and @Bipandboppop: please see the about RfC. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

? How was this selection made ? Fa suisse (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Editors who made this page’s edits minus the ones who agreed with your position that you already pinged. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on an article that all I did was assess 5 years ago. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I pinged three users for like one hour, but sure it's okay when you break the rules to "get even". If you ping editors, ping them all. Don't break the rules. By the way I've just checked and no user I pinged has opined. So you're in breach of WP:canvassing. Fa suisse (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Pings don’t go away, unless I’m mistaken, just because you deleted them, you cannot unring a bell. We seem to be getting most responses to the RfC itself. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If this is the case, then ok. Fa suisse (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Fa suisse, it's not breaking the rules. You violated WP:CANVASS, and the fix is to ping everyone else who has edited the page. This is normal and acceptable in a way that your selective ping was not. Guy (help!) 07:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I made a mistake due to my being unaware of the rules. I felt that the discussion was skewed and wanted to bring other perspectives so I pinged three users who had written about the topic on this talk page. Slatersteven cordially informed me about this on my talk page, after which I immediately deleted my pings. Now Gleeanon49 is knowingly going against the rules to "fix" my (very brief) mistake, which had no effect as none of the pinged users opined. So please, give up your double standards. Fa suisse (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not against the rules to ping users, it is however a violation of wp:canvas to ping only some (especially to "wanted to bring other perspectives" to affect a perceived imbalance of viewpoints). I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion above ? Gleeanon49 has just pinged a selection of users. I retracted my pings quickly upon being informed that this was against policy. Fa suisse (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

OK who did he not ping who was not already party to this dispute?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. Fa suisse (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Then...how do you know he breached wp:canvas?Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"Editors who made this page’s edits minus the ones who agreed with your position that you already pinged." (Gleeanon409). I pinged three users who had opined about the topic on the present page, only excluding Binksternet (and Gleeanon409), who had already made a comment. The three users did argue for inclusion of disputed content, but there were not making any comments here, so I pinged them. Fa suisse (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If something goes against policy we shouldn't compound it by breaching policy in some other way to "compensate" for it. Fa suisse (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So they had been pinged, they were already aware.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think anyone breached policy take it here wp:ani, that is the correct place to complain. I would advise against it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

None reacted and the mentions were deleted so I imagine the pings too. But Gleeanon409 believed otherwise, in which case fine, but it's unclear. Regarding a complaint, I won't go forward, I'd rather try to clear things with users instead of going to admins. Fa suisse (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As she has now stated what she meant, and said the quite has been taken (in effect) out of context by racists then BLP shouts loudly here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

Since this page is fully protected and can't be edited by anyone except a sysop, I'm requesting this article be edited, specifically, I request the following line be cut because the source linked to it fails WP:RS and therefore also fails BLP:

She learned about Marxist thinkers and revolutionaries, critical theory and social movements from around the world, while practicing activism.[1]

Please cut this text out. Thank you W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 14:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wekeepwhatwekill, unfortunately, there is no way for an admin to grant your request: as explained in the edit request info page here, an admin cannot grant a request where there is a live controversy over the content in question, and this edit would go directly to the question of the as-yet unresolved RfC above (and is obviously controversial for the present time, regardless). I share your concern with that edit being live: indeed it is exactly the kind of problematic wording that I was concerned about going in if we didn't make the effort to contextualize the comment more carefully. But unfortunately at this point, the only way we can get rid of that wording before the protection expires is to generate a workable consensus solution. That's the situation we're hemmed in to here by policy and that's the solution which the acting admin has expressly directed us toward when declining to roll back the edit (due to similar restrictions on his own actions as the administrator implementing the protection). Thankfully the new source has potential to shake people on both sides here into contemplating a middle-ground solution, I feel. Let's hope I'm proven right and we need not tolerate the current version being live for an entire week or more. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Snow Rise, actually, per BLP, they have to there isn't a choice. Anything that violates BLP has to be removed. W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)