Talk:Patrisse Cullors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 again described herself as a "trained Marxst" in a New York Post Article on June 25,2020 - This information should be included on her page.Cybersister27 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not an interview with her, its an article about the video we are already discussing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

References

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)

If you want to write that most of BLM members do not identify as Marxists you need a reliable source to back it up. Otherwise it's just your conjecture and not NPOV at all, on the contrary, it's textbook definition of POV. --Nomad (talk) 13:42, 9 September 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

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)

If that were the case, I would presume that Oshwah would have removed the content before protecting or when it was directly requested of them; particularly given their comments when responding to that request. Also, if that exception to the edit request requirements were a part of community consensus, it would be in the relevant edit request policies, or BLP itself. But BLP doesn't automatically trump our consensus procedures, and the question as to whether the marxist is label is a BLP violation to begin with is a part of the discussion in question. I'll be happy to be proven wrong in this instance (I'd rather we have no reference to the marxist issue until we have the appropriate wording, if any, hammered out), but I don't think there is any way for an admin to rescue the situation from where the dispute has landed things, prior to expiration or a new consensus. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that this factor was part of why Oshwah settled on a relatively short period for the protection, despite the relatively persistent edit warring and the fact that the RfC will not even necessarily be resolved in a week (it will be almost two weeks short of the typical 30 days at that point). But again, hopefully we can beat expectations. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I think you’re mistaken. First off BLP definitely overrides RfC rules. Secondly to remove this we only need consensus for the requested edit to take place, not for replacement or final language. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not the RfC guideline that needs to be overridden, it's the standard required of edit requests themselves, these being bound by this language: "Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator. Administrators can respond only to requests that are either uncontroversial improvements (correcting typos, grammar, or reference formatting; improving the reliability or efficiency of template code) or are already supported by a consensus of editors, usually on the protected page's talk page. (emphasis in original). I think that's pretty clear. You might have something with regard to your second point there, though. But I think some admins might go out on the limb of that technical argument more enthusiastically than others. But I guess we'll just have to see when either Oshwah or an admin responding to the request weigh in. Under the circumstances, I'd be happy to be wrong, but in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to try to resolve the issue as if that content isn't going away any time soon. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be useful to add your vote below. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

!Votes

• Support removal. This should have never been added without consensus. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'd support removal for now; since the RfC relates to WP:BLPSTYLE material about Marxism should not have been added until it is concluded ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 17:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• While I support some form of well-contextualized and brief discussion of the 'marxist' issue in the article in general, I also support the position that the current wording on that issue (introduced in Fa suisse's most recent edit) is too problematic in several features of its wording--that said without intended disrespect to Fs, who I think was acting in good faith in the choice of words, if quite problematically in terms of timing (and he should take criticism of his decision to act on the new source without consensus very seriously). As such, I would just as soon see this edit gone until a proper consensus can be formed regarding the inclusion/wording of our discussion of this topic. All of that said, if an admin bail-out is going to be requested thus, there is concordant responsibility to redouble efforts to try to resolve a consensus as directed: the editors in this space (regular and visiting as respondents alike) can't ask an admin to go out on a limb for a situation caused by failed previous consensus building without a simultaneous good-faith effort to try to solve that issue short of putting that burden on said admin. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal - as it violates WP:BLP which pretty much supercedes everything else W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)striking blocked sockpuppet comment — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal As it should have been set back to pre edit war text.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Done Removed. Needs a discussion if nothing else. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not include. There is no consensus that the material under consideration clears the bar for inclusion with regard to WP:BLP, and the argument that the bit of information can not as yet be put into adequate context is fairly strong. And yes, I did notice the duplicate !vote. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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: "Facing bleak November, Republicans look to stoke BLM backlash" - 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
• Press Entreprise (see WP article on the publication)

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)striking comment by blocked sockpuppet — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:26, 31 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)
• Comment I've just noticed that the RfC opens with the words "Five years ago Cullors said among other things that she was a Marxist." Actually she didn't, what she said was that she was a "trained Marxist", now I've no certain understanding of what that means. As another editor pointed out, the remark was in answer to a question about BLM's lack of ideological grounding, and very plausibly, could have meant that studying Marx had given her and the co-founder a solid ideological base - but that doesn't make either of them Marxists. I believe that Christianity has probably formed my moral and ideological base, but I'm mostly an atheist. I don't know what a "trained Marxist" is, but nor it seems does anyone else here, and many of the 'include' votes simply assume 'trained' can be ignored. I'm a trained teacher, but I'm not a teacher, my partner is a trained historian, but not a historian, not only could I happily say that I was a trained Christian, even a confirmed Christian, but actually I'm almost an atheist! Until someone can explain to me what she meant when she said she was a "trained Marxist", and why she has only said it once, I don't see any way to render this neutrally. Given the kind of org BLM is, and given the people Cullors has said she admires, it would be surprising if she had not been influenced by left wing ideas, but it is for her to say how and to what degree, not us to attach what is clearly a highly contentious label, without any context whatsoever. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Very apt comparison. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 18 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. As Pincrete simply states, you can be trained in something and not be limited by it, sometimes you learn that it is not the right path for you or you disagree with some aspects... I am trained lawyer with a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) Degree and similar business qualifications but I am not a lawyer or business person and have not wanted to be for over 30 years. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose going over this in the course of months, there's just nothing of enough substance to support even an extremely qualified mention in the article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 05:16, 12 September 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)

I concur. Actually, simply the amount of rightwing/conservative opinions on the topic of BLM using this quote makes it WP:DUE, in my opinion (e.g. National Review, Boston Herald, Washington Times, SkyNews Australia, and Federalist opinions, the Heritage Foundation, Gatestone Institute, and Mises Institute, along with Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giulani, and countless others). Even if the quote happened to be a fabrication, its widespread use warrants inclusion (just like widespread conspiracy theories generally get WP coverage, even if they are unproven). Fa suisse (talk) 22:21, 11 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)

  Trying to delegitimise a user you disagree with by setting forth a baseless accusation : not good (5 edits out of 37, with most of the other 32 on unrelated subjects such as 1996 shootdown of Brothers to the Rescue aircraft, Faithless elector, and Vecuronium bromide). Fa suisse (talk) 21:54, 11 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)
• Oppose. Clearly taken out of context to serve as a label for racists (people opposed to an anti-racist movement). As Pincrete says, a "trained Marxist" is not necessarily a Marxist. I'm a trained clarinet player but I'm not a clarinet player. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Another strawman...the discussion is about whether we include heavily discussed comments on being "trained Marxists", not writing "Cullors is a Marxist" (which could be debated as well, but that's not the debate). Also, is one supposed to vote twice ? You already voted above. Fa suisse (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As it stands now, the beginning of the article has details about different sources of her training in activism. Seems odd to omit one source that is documented. Not saying to label her a marxist, but seems odd to omit one of her sources of activism training. Maybe delete details of the ones presently listed? Maybe add a brief mention of her training under marxism? What do y'all think?Pete unseth (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How the heck would deleting the details of the other ideologies she integrates into her activism from the three-sentence beginning of this article, and replacing it with something about training under marxism, not label her a marxist? Are you serious? That seems like doing exactly what she's disavowing in quote in the Politico article above, "[reducing her] to a single clip from an interview that was manipulated for white supremacist and right wing fear mongering." The only kind of reference to this I could support, if any at all, is an extremely circumscribed mention, with lots of caveats attached, placed well into the body of the article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:37, 29 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)

WP:CANVASS lessons; nothing to be missed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
? 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)

What did she state she meant? I came to this article looking for clarification about her supposed adherence to Marxism, and found not even a mention of the word "Marxist" in the whole article, only a lot of hemming and hawing in this discussion page. That's just wrong, and unencylopedic. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the point, this was a one off of the cuff comment taken out of context. We do not know what she meant.Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

And so, shall we include what four reliable secondary sources (Politifact, Politico, US News, Press Entreprise) discuss ? The RfC has expired more than 10 days ago. Fa suisse (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 2020

So, after all of this discussion and argument, there is now nothing in the article that even hints at her input from marxist sources, somethiing which she openly stated. It should not matter whether X, Y, or Z like this. It should somehow be acknowledged as part (not the whole) of her background. Having no mention of it seems to be incomplete. Can we find a way to include some contexualized inclusion of this? Pete unseth (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Every person who has ever read anything about Marx or Marxism has had input from Marxist sources. What should Wikipedia "hint" about such a person in a BLP? And do you really actually see most articles about people who have studied something about Marxism as incomplete if they don't mention it, or just this article? It's not a matter of anyone liking or disliking it—it's a matter of how Wikipedia policy responds to this drive to get some mention, any mention of Marxism into the article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on. The RfC has been over since the end of August, yet nothing has emerged. Struthious_Bandersnatch : I'm surprised by your comment, you have supported mentioning and discussing the "trained marxists" quote, which is discussed by 4 (!) reliable sources, two of which (Politico and Politifact) make it a central element. Fa suisse (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO (as I've already said above), there's been a heavy "drive" not to mention Marxism and this quote, much to my dismay (lack of arguments beyond "it's a rightwing smear", as there have been reliable sources discussing this since June). Fa suisse (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullors herself is the one calling it "right-wing fear mongering". I changed my !vote from oppose to a very qualified support, so I was obviously on the fence at the beginning of August, and since then I've seen nothing but shenanigans around this and Pete unseth proposed inserting it into the lede above and then appeared to disregard my response to him to instead come down here and press the point again.

The fact that you're acting confused in response to my very specific question about what the article should actually say, Fa suisse, is perhaps a clue to why there's been so much back and forth about this. What is the fact about Patrisse Cullors which you want to put into the article and cite to these sources, given that her qualification when asked about the quote is "Yes, I'm trained in different economic philosophies" and the headline of the Politico article you're emphasizing is "Facing bleak November, Republicans look to stoke BLM backlash"?

My !vote wasn't a commiseration of the dismay you feel for some reason that this article doesn't contain the word "Marxist", or a blank check of support for adding such: if no one can come up with a statement that comports with the barest sliver of weight this deserves the article will have to do without it just like the many other BLPs on people who have read or studied something about Marxism. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, you seem to be looking at the issue through the lense of your specific engagement with the issue, one of the few which has actually been constructive. The main issue is first, do we include this or not, as 2-3 users have removed all the variously formulated additions since June (by around 7-8 users), until I tried to argue and made various edits taking into accounts the comments, edits which were consistently taken down and justified by the "need for consensus" (from users who didn't make any attempt to reach said consensus, since they opposed mentioning this on explicitly stated ideological grounds). This led to the RfC, which has so far led to nothing. So to reply to your comment, the proposals have been numerous, and I won't restate them here yet. First, we need to establish that a consensus regarding the inclusion of said content has been reached. Then, we can debate about the formulation. Then, we can add the proposed content. But first we need the consensus, because various users have opposed any reference to this content, without regard for formulation or what RS say. Fa suisse (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of what proposed content? If what you're pushing for is to insert, in some form, that she said a particular phrase on a particular day, that's exactly what I'm talking about when I oppose a drive to simply get the word "Marxist" into the article. You're acting as though no one has mentioned any Wikipedia policies when the discussion above is rife with references to policy. "Consensus" doesn't mean you get some version of what you want; it doesn't mean "split-the-difference compromise". --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 00:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The "trained Marxists" quote (and the controversy it entailed). Fa suisse (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm mainly referring to months of fruitless back-and-forth before the RfC. The RfC itself did feature references to policy. Also, there's such a thing as the letter of the rules, and such as the thing as the spirit. In the end, the rules at play here are general, save for the fact we must cite RS sources for BLP content, and thus can remove content if there's a doubt regarding references. On the substance, I believe the quote should be included simply because it is significant: depicting yourself as "trained" in a certain school of sociopolitical thought is relevant for the biography of sociopolitical activist. It did not need more than a short sentence. Additionally, this quote was recurrent in the media since June. In my opinion it was sufficient to cite the primary source (The Real News interview) along with the numerous rightwing source which used this as an attack. Short comments which are picked up for their social or political significance have a place, even if their intended meaning is unclear (see Milo Yiannopoulos#Violence against journalists, a whole section on a BLP of a political figure on a comment, which I agree had its place since its addition, and as a far as I can tell was never removed for discussion). Fa suisse (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but if all you have is the fact that she said those words on that day, and that in the course of endeavoring to "stoke BLM backlash" as you point out the phrasing has been brought up repeatedly in right-wing media, that just doesn't say anything of substance or weight about Cullors herself, certainly not enough weight to override BLP issues—both the letter and the substance of BLP-related policies and guidelines. If indeed the media churn over what she has called "a single clip from an interview that was manipulated for white supremacist and right wing fear mongering" has a place somewhere on Wikipedia, maybe it's in an article about right-wing media. It's fine that you support that bit of the Milo Yiannopoulos article but that's essentially WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 05:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I am struck by the constant complaint that because the references to "marxism" are repeated by right-wing sources, therefore marxism should not be referenced in the article. It should not matter who cites a fact. If a person says something, it does not matter who quotes it. If Cullors lists some of her inputs, I still find it odd that the article mentions only "critical theory". Who are we to edit her self-description? Pete unseth (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess you weren't "struck" by her actual answer to the issue of editing her self-description, that people are "reduc[ing her] to a single clip from an interview that was manipulated for white supremacist and right wing fear mongering." There's so little basis in verifiable, reliable sources for characterizing her as Marxist that it all hangs on this one nebulous phrase she said in one interview, but you proposed putting something about it into the beginning of an article about her? Forgive me if I'm not assured of the genuineness of your wish to make sure her self-description is faithfully reproduced here on Wikipedia. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 10:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not calling for a reference to marxism in the beginning. I think it prefectly legit to summarise (or quote) her listing her various inputs. And also quote her as she says it was manipulated. I think both elements would show readers the tensions regarding Cullors' political position. The fact that it is disputed is important for readers trying to understand Cullors. An article about a living person should be careful, but it does not need to try to present Cullors only as she herself would like to be presented. Gently, Pete unseth (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to make diametrically opposing arguments from one comment to the next, going from pleading "Who are we to edit her self-description?" to "forget about the way she would like to be presented" I think you should examine your own motivations here more closely. After doing that, all the "Gently" in the world isn't going to make you seem calm and measured and coolly rational or anything like that.

The only argument for applying the rhetorically-useful label of "Marxist" to her is that she said that one unclear phrase on that one day—to claim it's evidence that she characterizes herself as a Marxist, because no one else does independently in a verifiable manner in reliable sources, otherwise we'd have heard from them in the last bazillion paragraphs. And that argument evaporated once Politico elicited the statement from her where she said she's "trained in different economic philosophies" and said that the quote was manipulated and reductionist. She doesn't depict herself as a Marxist and if you stick a phrase she said once into the article both on the premise that she did so with that phrase, and while simultaneously saying "oh we don't need to try to present Cullors only as she herself would like to be presented!" you aren't trying to help anyone understand anything, you're misleading the reader. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 21:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be nice if you could refrain from attacking others' use of the word "Gently", which was very appropriate considering your aggressive tone in this section.

On the substance, again, the quote is due because it was so heavily covered, both in rightwing and non-rightwing media, and not just in passing but as a centerpiece of multiple articles. Fa suisse (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

My fellow editor, Struthiouis Bandersnatch, we have both edited other articles constructively. Here, we find ourselves with different perspectives. Let's assume good faith all around. I will try to explain my ideas precisely so that I am not confused with what others have said. I am not saying we should label Cullors as a "Marxist". I am saying that she gave a list of theories in which she had been trained. The article cites "critical theory, as well social movements around the world." I think it would be perfectly within Wikipedia policy & practice, somewhere in the article, to cite the specific influences under which she herself said she has trained. (There is no Wikipedia policy that says a person can only be quoted if they say something more than once.) It would also be perfectly within Wikipedia policy & practice to cite her disputation of the way some have labeled her as a Marxist. People complain that Wikipedia has become a hostile environment for editors. I hope my edits are seen as both constuctive and open to conversation.Pete unseth (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether labeling her as Marxist or a non-Marxist or anything helps BLM or detracts from BLM has nothing to do with the veracity of the point: has Karl Marx influenced her? Frankly, as a professional editor, it's embarrassing that anyone here is even considering how her label affects BLM. The only thing that matters is whether or not it's true. It clearly is. In fact, further, it's ruthlessly desctructive to her identity that editors here are consistently imposing their own beliefs on Cullors; if she believes Karl Marx has influenced her, who are you to say otherwise? Her memoir, as cited by various reliable sources, clearly indicates the influence of Karl Marx upon her life. TIME: (https://time.com/5171270/black-lives-matter-patrisse-cullors/) (NYPOST:https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/) As others have noted, various videos (which are reliable in themselves, regardless of the intent of the publishers) have proven that she calls herself a Marxist. Don't destroy her identity because you are concerned about how it makes others look. She is a human being, with her own beliefs, taking away her voice, is covering over her identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.78.142 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have inserted a quote from Cullors that mentions Marxism as one of her influences. It is not meant to be a label, but to show that she has had multiple influences. This is done after a long discussion on the topic. Pete unseth (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion that arrived at a consensus to not include this quote in the article, involving a full month-and-a-half long RfC on the subject closed by an uninvolved admin. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 20:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The quote that I just inserted was about "Professor Angela Y. Davis", not Cullors. Seems odd to censor Cullor's description of somebody else. Her description of Davis was not part of the EfC. On a slightly different note, I would be grateful if somebody would post where she explained that the quote about her training is out of context. Trying to foster a quality article about a woman of great influence, not create a quarrel. Pete unseth (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt I even have to point out that it's obvious from the time stamps that I was referring to your edit which again added the quote covered by the RfC to the article, not the edit you made after my above comment here was saved... you appeared to have acknowledged this here in the talk page, then edited that It has been removed acknowledgement out of your above comment just after you posted it. That's super constructive and non-hostile and quality-fostering of you.

As for the quote about Angela Davis, I'll have to think about it, but of course putting that in does not exactly disabuse me of the perception that you are trying to get the word "Marxist" into this article any way you possibly can. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 21:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I regret that I had edited this page and forgotten to include my digital signature. I came back today and found my earlier mistake and then inserted the signature which created a later date than the original edit. Unintentional, and I'm sorry. I've been in many circles where "marxism" and "marxist" were not negative words. I find it useful to use people's own words in writing about them. But I will not be part of an edit war on this at this time. I hope to see your digital signature on other articles where we both constructively edit. Pete unseth (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about with signatures, which my diff link above shows is the one thing you didn't change when you re-wrote your comment. The time stamps I'm referring to are in the revision histories of the article and this talk page. There is of course no question of there being an edit war between us because I have not edited this article in a month. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 03:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors is a self described 'Trained Marxist' and stated in recent interview that 'I do believe in Marxism'

Why are people choosing how she should identify and ignoring the interview where she says this? Is this not tone policing a person of colour's identity and outlook? In the first discussion, it was not changed by talk who wrote '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)'

In that case, mentioning that she is a "self-described Marxist" should be in the article at the very least. The ifs and buts as to whether this is politically important or bad for the movement, are nothing to do with us as editors who are to edit not according to our political affiliations and outlooks. In the article it already states that Lenin and Mao are influences on her ideas for economy, that is progress in terms of accurately reflecting her, why are editors scared to quote Cullors and why do these editors think it is appropriate to tone police her choice of politics? Since the video - it is important to note that Cullors has not denied this or talked about it since, thus it is logical to assume until she does (if ever) so that she still identifies in this way. The convoluted discussions above do not seem to provide a consensus and are messy about something very simple. Thanks. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Because it was one interview, and she did not say "I am a trained Marxist". Being taught about something is not the same as being it (see the RFC above).Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

She said: 'We actually do have an ideological frame, myself and Alicia in particular are trained organisers, um we are...are trained Marxists'. If that isn't clear then I don't know what is. Why does it matter if it was only one interview? That is a bizarre attempt at a riposte. So in her case, being taught about something and then admitting to being a trained Marxist is pretty evidential and reasonable to the assertation that she is what she claims to be. You are just 'tone policing' her and doing exactly the sort of thing she is campaigning against by not believing or accepting how she chooses to define, which is quite ironic. Also in this recent video she states 'I do believe in Marxism, it's a philosophy that I learnt very early on in my organising career' which denotes a subscription to Marxist ideals. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Reliable secondary sources would be helpful here, so we could follow them and Wikipedia editors' OR would not have to make the call in either direction. (Sometimes I marvel at the wisdom of making WP:NOR policy; let the experts sort it out!) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC) ETA: already resolved by RfC. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

We discussed this for six weeks and concluded it was not worth mentioning. The main arguments against it were that nobody knows exactly what she meant by "trained Marxists", and that it was one interview, with no similar later statements for emphasis or clarification. Pincrete made the comparison to being a trained Christian, but living as an atheist. Or being a trained historian but not a historian. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, thanks for pointing to that, I’ll strike my request. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's rocket science to know what she meant and there is further clarification in her recent interview in which she stated I do believe in Marxism'. This is more evidence. The Christian comparison is weak as she has now stated that they are trained Marxists (A Christian who is living as best as they can as an atheist as you say - although I would imagine most atheists would reject this notion and remove the Christian part) but now affirmed her belief structure (A Christian who is living as best they can as a Christian) in Marxism too. You should also note that being political is different from being a historian. If a Historian trained as one but is no longer- then they are a former historian or a former Marxist, or a former Christian etc. I have never met someone in the real world who has said, 'well I'm a Human but I don't practice humanity' or anyone who has said 'Oh I'm a democrat, but I'm not practicing so I'm no longer a democrat, but I kinda am'. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

OK she seems to admit she is a Marxist, we can call here that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, now that we have details about how she actually describes herself in relation to Marxism from the December 14 video, something about that can appear—properly cited and identified as WP:ABOUTSELF—in the article.

Note, though, that she doesn't say anything like "I am a Marxist": she says that accusations of an insidious Marxist or communist agenda (of which she reads examples) against her and BLM are laughable, hurtful, indicative of not taking their cause or what they say seriously, and she draws parallels to Martin Luther King, Jr. being called a communist constantly and then everyone going quiet about it after his assassination and when describing the ideologically-sanitized posthumous version of him for late twentieth and twenty-first American consumption. The article should reflect what she actually says about this, not simply handwavily try to associate her with Marxism. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well she has already said that herself and Alicia are trained Marxists - I'm not sure how much more explicit she can be. Also, it's hard to discount those who are saying she is a Marxist with this 'insidious Marxist or communist agenda' when she has said these things and not denied it either, while quoting Mao and Lenin on economical models. But this is A bit off topic, and it will be a struggle for her to overcome of which I am sure we can all imagine it will bring a lot of pressure - but we are not here to 'protect her' in some way by leaving it out, just in case it attracts negative attention. She is clearly a very smart person who is clever enough to understand what she is saying and gauge the reactions it may have and she also has a lot of experience in campaigning. It would be wrong to not respect her right to self determination and her own honesty (of which she has been very open and honest about - which should be respected) in this context. She may well feel it is hurtful etc. to be targeted for this, and while I appreciate the feelings in this regard, for her to compare herself to MLK is a bit of a reach - he never claimed to be a 'trained Marxist', and he never said 'I do believe in Marxism' - which she has, so while I do sympathise with her position (no crown ever felt light), objectively, I don't think there is any hand waving going around considering her clear position on this and besides, it isn't up to us to decide how she is described in a protectionist way. Thus, being that the case is now undeniably clear - these two quotes should be included/reflected in her article in some way and we should respect her right to identify in these ways. The most recent source I provided includes some new context, perhaps include the full quote, but it is undeniable that Marxism is a big influence on her organising, personal philosophy and a belief she is passionate about - as it is for many philosophers and Historians like Chomsky and Hobsbawm. It really doesn't need to be as sensationalist as perhaps it is being incubated both here and on social media etc. Surely it rightfully deserves to be mentioned - perhaps even it deserves it's own subheading to give it the proper attention it deserves to be fair and reasoned. You mention her laughing, I think this is more about how big of a deal people are making of this and sensationalising it- the quicker we include something and face it - and show people that the world isn't going to end just because she does identifies in this way - the better. Hopefully then at least a little rationale can then return to the world. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The bits about her supposedly comparing herself to MLK seem to exemplify what she says about people not listening to her or taking what she says seriously, regardless of your sugarcoating your comment with words like "respect".

On one hand, you seem like you're recycling verbiage from the month-and-a-half-long RfC, about "protect her"—where is that quote from, and how exactly does following WP:P&G while writing this article protect her from white supremacist death threats and state security forces killing Black Lives Matter protesters?—but on the other hand, by saying I'm not sure how much more explicit she can be than using the phrase "trained Marxists", it's like you haven't read any of this talk page.

I mean—if it's so explicit, just write out what it means without using the words "trained" or "Marxist" as a proposed addition to the article—something, I would note, nobody could do during the entire RfC. If it's not ambiguous, and not even an implicit meaning, that should be a snap.

Would you say you do not believe in Marxism? If so, what is it you don't believe? For example, our Wikisource translation of Das Kapital has the first sentence of Part I, Chapter 1 as,

The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as "an immense accumulation of commodities," its unit being a single commodity.

If you believe that capitalist societies are wealthy or that they accumulate commodities to an immense degree, you may believe in Marxism. (the bit in quotation marks above is a quote from a different text by Marx)

Likewise, when Cullors explicitly says things such as "we believe in the liberation of every single human being" in the video which she titled "Am I A Marxist?" and which she answered that question in, she's saying what she means when she also says in it, "I do believe in Marxism."

Describing what she actually says is not "sensationalism", it's careful use of WP:PRIMARY sources per policy. Trying to do a bait-and-switch to imply someone else's definition of Marxism if we include that term in the article, even by simply leaving out her own explicitly stated meaning, is what would be sensationalism. And would also be contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

No need to be "quick" at all, this encyclopedia is WP:NOTNEWS. What we need is to be accurate and follow P&G. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I feel this is convoluting the issue a little; It is not 'supposed' in her comparison to MLK, she does do this, but to me the point misses the mark for reasons explained above. I don't think that stating respect for someone is sugar coating anything, If I didn't respect her then I would say. Anyway, more segwaying aside, Whether or not 'I believe in Marxism' or the tooth fairy for that matter is a private matter until I disclose otherwise and thus none of your business (and yours is none of mine) and irrelevant to this in my opinion.

We can all cherry pick Marx quotes, perhaps even add in some of Lenin's or Mao's who she has mentioned...probably best not though as I am trying (trying!) to keep my replies concise and short to keep this talk accessible, but if we are to define this more objectively, Marxism is defined as 'the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis of communism.' according to the Oxford dictionary, so she as a trained Marxist - subscribes to this definition as 'a supporter of the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.'. And your quote from Das Kapital is but one description/definition from his prolific writings of but one aspect.

One can either believe in Marxist theories or not and that is fair enough. But you are conflating types of belief to make a moot point; if someone is able to critique capitalism and see the wealth accumulation as an issue - while they may then 'believe in Marxism' (you are right that they could) as an answer to socioeconomic woes, but they also may not believe in it as an answer and might just be critical of both in the same way Radical Centrists are...unless they then state 'I do believe in Marxism' that is - which she has. Believing that Marxism exists is different to having a belief in Marxism and the same goes for anything else E.G...I believe Marxism exists, but whether or not I believe in it is a different notion. I believe you exist - but it's fair to say I do not believe in you in regards to your philosophies or what you stand for. About the protection aspect - what other reason do you really have for denying it should be included when it is clearly a key part of her identity? Are you saying that, or do you think it should me mentioned but with appropriate context? Given that her work is based in this 'struggle' and she herself has been explicit in her definitions, I'm not sure why is it up to us to psychoanalyse what she means beyond reasonable Wiki explanations. By the way, it's also important to note that I don't think it is universally accepted among Marxists that Marxism can be easily defined (I'm not saying you are saying that - I just find it interesting) as 'the liberation of every single human being' and historically speaking any or Marx's quotes on revolutionary terror, arguably proves that not 'every single human being' actually mattered to him at the time, but if you think that is a way to add context as to what she means, in perhaps a more modern understanding then fair enough. I think that perhaps more modern Marxists feel the same and see the movement as the pursuing of 'the liberation of every single human being'.

The sensationalism I am referring to is when this issue is blown out of proportion - like it is to an extent here; She is a trained Marxist who believes in Marxism - to me this isn't shocking, a 'good' or 'bad' thing, or the end of the world and it surprises me when people take issue with her identifying in this way as if to suppose that she doesn't really understand what she is on about in a condescending manner. Why make something as simple as this into a mountain that it doesn't need to be when it (adding in some of her quotes with context) follows Wiki guidelines? Not sure why you mention quick either - I don't think this should be rushed either. You may have glossed over the other aspects of my comment as your reply doesn't cover everything I wrote to back up why I think it is clear and explicit. I never said that 'Describing what she actually says is not "sensationalism",' so I think that you may have misunderstood my comment. It would not be sensationalist to describe what she says at all within fair reason as long as it includes the actual quote t warrant further explanation and depth- I support it actually. I think it is sensationalist to think that just because someone says they are a 'trained Marxist' - that this means the world will end and that these 'pesky trained Marxists' must be plotting and behind the fall of western civilisation.

When she laughs in the video - I think she also does so at this kind of sensationalist arbitrary logic. It is very clear to me how she identifies in conjunction with universal definitions of Marxism - and what it means to me is again somewhat irrelevant, her explicitness in defining herself as a 'trained Marxist' who also states that 'I believe in Marxism' is explicit, and I think any anthropological connotations behind this; are her own business until perhaps a more in depth interview is given- if ever...until then I think it is pretty clear to me what she means and I accept the way she chooses to identify. Cheers.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Founder

Isn't it highly debatable whether this woman is the "founder of BLM"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickmind (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it’s widely accepted that Garza, Tometti and Cullors created the hashtag and then elaborated the project, even if it’s grown beyond them since then. Here’s the US Library of Congress’s BLM history recognizing them as the founders, if you want more than what’s already cited. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Interview

Hi Phoebe, thanks for your work on this entry. I wanted to flag for you that there is a CC-licensed video of Cullors—it could be uploaded and used to make the entry multimedia, if there’s a clip you like. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks @Innisfree987:! Video editing is not really my thing but I'll try to get to it if someone doesn't beat me to it :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Phoebe, sure thing and it does turn out to be harder than it should be—the uploading tool, video2commons, is 90% nonfunctional. I hear it does occasionally work but I have yet to succeed in uploading a video. Bummer when there is great stuff out there... Innisfree987 (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)