Talk:Patrisse Cullors/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Learned about Marxist thinkers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(UTC)

This is one of the most ridiculous conversations on Wiki. SHE OPENLY IDENTIFIES AS BEING MARXIST. THAT IS THE END OF STORY. This is insane, but clearly the amount of bias going into yet another completely left wing article will go unchecked. 2601:187:4000:C790:20D3:5370:D55E:2799 (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

Self proclaimed Marists and BLM founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors draws national criticism after confirmed purchase of a $1.4M dollar home in the luxury California beachside enclave of Topanga Canyon 88% white neighborhood with only 1.8% black population. https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate/marxist-blm-leader-buys-1-4-million-home-in-ritzy-la-enclave Jeffrey Alan Kiesnoski (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Gotta keep the truth out of Wikipedia if it would be damaging the woke ideologues.

THen say what you want to add, or do you really want to add she brought a home?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's now being reported that she has bought multiple homes.174.0.48.147 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources with "Marxist" in their title

User:Binksternet removed this source from the article because "Fox source cannot be used". Binksternet explained on their talk page that because the word "Marxist" appears in the title of the source, "it falls far below the norm", and that "The Fox article title by itself is a political slur, a violation of BLP". User:Pete unseth also questioned this edit. Fox Business in not prohibited at WP:RSP or WP:RSPSS, and there has been no consensus prohibiting sources with the word "Marxist" in their title. The input of other would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall that in the past it has been stated that headlines in and of themselves are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The content of the sourced article also mentioned "Marxist". Magnolia677 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Fox source is just reposting a New York Daily Post article. NY Post is not RS (see WP:NYPOST) for fact reporting.

Broadening this scope of this discussion a little, the MSN source is just aggregating from dirt.com], which I'd say is definitely not RS. The Yahoo Finance source is publishing a statement from the National Legal and Policy Center.

We should remove all three. I don't want to participate in the near-edit-war, so please discuss here if you disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK so then we could say "according to fox business", if accept this as a source for a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As per Firefangledfeathers it is true that the NY Post is not regarded by Wikipedia as a Reliable Source for facts, the MSN is just a news aggregate that clearly included non RS sources, and Yahoo finances is just publishing a statement from a right leaning political organisation. Regarding Fox new Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims".

The whole lot are an incredibly weak and undue collection of sources for a BLP. Lots of bad sources do not make one good one. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for "meddling" here, first nobody can decide that just because number of sources, be it one, two or thousand something is invalid, good or bad. Number of sources does not play a game anywhere about validity of stories specially if people tend to interpret them according personal believes not facts. In same time even if source does not exist is it always something completely deniable to exists? Now lets go to the heart of this topic.

Fox Corporation not Fox News is parent company of Fox Business and rules that applies here on Wikipedia for Fox News are not valid for Fox Business as a source. Fox Business is not listed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. In same time not to be on that listing does not make it unreliable. Relationship between different FOX outlets is something like CNBC relates to MSNBC and their parent NBC - all are used in Wikipedia as separate sources regardless parent - child - sibling corporate relationship and there is a separate opinion on their use and reliability on previously mentioned Wikipedia page.

And there are others separate sources - separate one for Patrisse Cullors Marxists beliefs and separate ones for Patrisse Cullors real estates and millions of USD paid for them - and they also could be combined into one or more sentences or paragraphs on Wikipedia page by editors to describe and summarize facts from them. Description and texts on Wikipedia are given by Wikipedia editors not by sources as they cannot be copied directly but copy edited or paraphrased and of course in same time editors should be guided by sources per Wikipedia:Editing policy while providing summaries of accepted knowledge. In same time while sky is blue regardless of sources nobody should claim it is red. It is easy to delete but hard to contribute. Loesorion (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

All of the sources are unreliable for discussion a biography. The Fox Business source is especially bad because they acted upon their reactionary political slant to print a slur about Cullors being Marxist. If there was a sufficient source for Cullors having an expensive new house, and someone kept adding the Fox Business cite because they wished to insert its contentious headline, then that behavior is a violation of WP:BLP. Regardless, the expensive house is being used as a political attack, and I don't see why we are considering hosting that fact here. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

One of the bedrocks of Wikipedia is every statement must be supported by reliable secondary evidence, especially in a BLP. We have found that the few sources offered were definitely unreliable. You claim that Fox news (which is regarded unreliable for politics) to be separate from Fox business. What is the evidence in this case. They are owned by the same parent company, the Day-to-day operations are run by Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox News. So I am not seeing much separation. Its a bit like the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Separately the channels output is described as featuring trading day coverage and a nightly line-up of opinion-based talk shows, Fox's Talk shows are regarded as generally unreliable. No new news source offered appears solid enough to override the community consensus on this BLP page established by the RfC, especially one that involved multiple editors. In BLPS we simply do not make a statement about someone unless it is backed up by solid reliable source. And beyond that she doesn't say anything like "I am a Marxist": she says that accusations of her being a Marxist were laughable, hurtful, indicative of not taking their cause seriously. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want evidence look at corporate records of Fox News and Fox Business or simply read pages about Fox News, Fox Business and Fox Corporation here in Wikipedia. If you still do not understand that they are in same position as CNBC relates to MSNBC and to NBC it is beyond my scope here to further explain someone regarding how corporations are incorporated and formed and how they function. NBC, CNBC and MSNBC are owned by NBCUniversal News Group and further owned by Comcast that further owns many other media outlets and they are all used as separate sources here on Wikipedia regardless of same ownership and in many cases similar content and in same time separately listed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. You cannot have one criteria for one parent media company and their children and different for other company doing the same. Your are saying here in Talk that something is unreliable so what is your evidence to support that? It is not fair and it seems to me that you are breaking Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset in multiple Talks here you are now involved with just one same stance - others editors cannot edit and you even disregards Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons one same policies you are calling others to honor because when you are presented with reliable sources again you are against other editors to act upon them and I am not talking just about this section of Talk here but also others above and below. And in case about Marxism, Fox is already practically secondary source, primary source is Patrisse Cullors YouTube personal video statement. Loesorion (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of this is more fundamental than this one biographic article, I suggest you take your suggestions to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Where did she go under the Fulbright scholarship program?

Now for something simpler and less contentious: The article says that she was granted a Fulbrignt sholarship. In which country did she spend her year? Pete unseth (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Cullors then received a Fulbright Scholarship which allowed her to get a degree in religion and philosophy from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2012, so i guess she stayed in the USA? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous sites on the Web, all appearing to cite the same press release or similar document, stating that Cullors was a Fulbright scholar, e.g. "Cullors then received a Fulbright Scholarship which allowed her to get a degree in religion and philosophy from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2012." She also appears on a Facebook group for the Fulbright program. On a website advertising her as an available speaker, she has desribed heself as "Fulbright scholarship recipient", (Marketplace ESpeakers, with claim to Fulbright scholarship). However, it is not correct that she was a Fulbight scholar. The program only funds Americans if they are going overseas, the program does not fund college scholarships for Amerricans to study in the USA. Her name does not appear on the Fulbright scholars website's list of past recipients: Directory of grantees. I have removed references to the Fulbright program from the article. It appears she has made this claim fraudulently. I am open to correction if I am wrong in my facts. Pete unseth (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This may or may not be correct....it does not matter .... we do not do original research here, see Wikipedia:No original research .... Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. We only include information that is covered by the reliable media. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything about her receiving a Fulbright Scholarship in the article. Am I missing it? Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Pete unseth removed it, I am not sure if he should have removed since it was based on reliable sources and his actions were done in good faith seem to be based on original research see Wikipedia:No original research ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A brief note on "reliable sources". The source that I cited as contradicting her claim to have received a Fulbight scholarship, the Fulbright scholars site, is a more reliable source than the prevoius sources that repeated her credentials. I am open to correction on the facts of the matter, such as maybe "Fulbright" had been a typo. Pete unseth (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree the Fulbright site is top notch but it is a primary source, using primary sources is not totally banned but as you know usually facts in Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, published secondary sources. I am rather surprised that the two higher education establishments she works for did not thoroughly double check her academic credentials. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The two sources that reported Cullors as having received a Fulbright were presumably simply using a press release. Secondary sources, but not serious sources. This is not a problem for those kind of documents. If somebody were hiring her, they would have done serious research. I don't blame those sources for incorrectly reporting these details. But we can think more clearly than they did.Pete unseth (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

How about you actually TELL THE TRUTH and add the massive scandal the world is watching? 86.189.189.157 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Marc Lamont Hill rests his argument on her being a "trained Marxist"

BNC News, Activist Patrisse Cullors Talks Criticisms Surrounding Black Lives Matter Network Foundation: Pt. 1, Apr 16, 2021 (referenced by BNC.tv )

Marc Lamont Hill rests his argument on her being a "trained Marxist," even a past RFC has to consider new sources.

05:47 MLH: There's also a critique though from the left that would say, um, if you are a trained marxist and if we're talking about a certain kind of radical politic, that extravagant homes of any sort or multiple properties of any sort is itself contradictory to the ideology that you hold, so it's not about having money per se, but that it's about, uh, or about property per se, but it's about there being a potential contradiction between your express politics and your lived practice. tickle me 03:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why Mark Lamont Hill's opinion is important here, but as we repeating round and round on this issue here is a copy paste from the above

As was mentioned in the RfC it is entirely unclear what a 'trained Marxist' actually means ...

Simply it could just mean that she is trained to an unknown level in Marxist theory. Does it mean actually she is a Marxist or fully agrees with all aspects Marxism I think it remains unclear.

In the recent YouTube video Am I A Marxist? Patrisse Cullors while she says that she was taught Marxism very early in her career as one of the systems that was useful tools in understanding the political economic structure, she says she believes in marxism as a tool but she also very clearly says that she equally believes in lots of other things too. I think you can using your training in something but not be part of that thing.

She doesn't say anything like "I am a Marxist": she actually says she is a lot of things but the accusations of her being a Marxist are laughable, incredibly hurtful and indicative of not taking her or the BLM cause seriously.

As pointed out to me the article already lists Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong as major ideological influences. She had Angela Davis write the foreword to her book. So the reader can quite easily make up their own mind. If we are overturning the RfC we need better evidence, supported by good sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 05:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

> it is entirely unclear what a 'trained Marxist' actually means ...

It can't possibly get any more Orwellian than that.

Marx, Lenin, and Mao are major ideological influences to her, she called herself trained Marxist in an interview, and Marc Lamont Hill calls her that to bolster his argument, too, which she accepts. Yet, we can't quote her.

> incredibly hurtful and indicative of not taking her or the BLM cause seriously.

None of which is in the least a wikipedic concern, this is not a soap box.

On June 10, 2020, corporate America had pledged $1.6 billion, on Dec 14, 2020, donations to Black Lives Matter-related causes were $10.6 billion, already. It's only fair that Mrs Cullors should get her cut, but the notion is absurd that these matters shouldn't be noteworthy. tickle me 07:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It's laughable that anyone would take these accusations seriously. Clearly it's all a political attack from people who don't want to see Black lives mattering in the USA. Cullors is trained in many things, but she is not those things. "Marxism" has three different definitions. We don't know which meaning was applied by Hill because he didn't specify. And a $1.4M house in the hills above L.A. is not a very expensive house for the area. Cullors has many appreciative fans, and she recently released a best-selling book, which accounts for her moderate new wealth. Binksternet (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

> It's laughable that anyone would take these accusations seriously.

Wikipedically irrelevant. Fox News and other sites do, it doesn't matter that they're hated here.

> Clearly it's all a political attack from people who don't want to see Black lives mattering in the USA.

Wikipedically irrelevant and WP:OR. Doesn't matter whether this is true or not.

> "Marxism" has three different definitions. We don't know which meaning was applied by Hill because he didn't specify.

It hasn't per Marxism – different followers stress different aspects. Irrelevant anyway, as it doesn't matter how Mrs Cullors meant it. She's a relevant political actor, so her political positions matter, whether self-ascribed or ascribed by other relevant actors, whether positive or negative. WP reports on what people do and/or say, it doesn't interpret the meaning of their words, that's WP:OR, too. If at all, it reports on the interpretations by relevant sources.

> And a $1.4M house in the hills above L.A. is not a very expensive house for the area.

$3.2M in total. What WP editors think of that is irrelevant, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, only opinions of relevant sources matter. Even Adolf Hitler's opinion on this would matter wikipedically, if he had one. It doesn't matter that everybody hates him, or anyone. Same goes for Fox, NY Post, or anyone WP editors and admins have chosen to hate at this point.

> Cullors has many appreciative fans

Even if she had billions "appreciative fans," we'd report on the fact, but we wouldn't speak or write after them.

> and she recently released a best-selling book

Corporate donors reward useful activists, journalists, and politicians with book contracts and speaking engagements, as this is less obvious. Irrelevant anyway, even if Mrs Cullors had worked in a dockyard or a coal mine to buy real estate.

> which accounts for her moderate new wealth.

That it is moderate is POV, that it is her sole income is conjecture. Irrelevant.

> incredibly hurtful and indicative of not taking her or the BLM cause seriously.

> a political attack from people who don't want to see Black lives mattering in the USA.

WP is not a BLM outlet, nor for anyone, even if WP editors don't care at all anymore. Unlike BLM and associates, WP isn't sponsored to the tune of 10.6B and counting, either, to enforce the export of jobs and the import of cheap labour and new voters under the guise of anti-racism and diversity. As far as it is already, it shouldn't be. Supposedly there's stern admin oversight over here – obviously not, certainly not to ensure quality. tickle me 23:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Export jobs? Import cheap labor? BLM has no stance on those issues, so I don't know where that came from. You're in the wrong article. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

> BLM has no stance on those issues

They demand immigration reform, which has exactly these consequences, and denounce any opposition as racist. That they don't phrase it that way, doesn't matter – that's what they're being paid for, lavishly. Billionaires all over the world don't shower supposedly progressive activists with affection and Dollars out of the goodness of their hearts.

bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-24/american-prosperity-depends-on-a-nonwhite-future
»American Prosperity Depends on a Nonwhite Future«

bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
»EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief«
(Peter Sutherland, also founder of the WTO, EU-commissioner, chairman of top global players)

nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-election-brian-kemp.html
»We Can Replace Them: ...an embittered white conservative minority [is] terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority. ... American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.«
(NYT is owned by Carlos Slim, who got rich off IT services for immigrants c/o his cronies in the Mex. gov., and the Sulzberger family, billionaires, too.)

economist.com/united-states/2020/12/12/six-months-after-mass-protests-began-what-is-the-future-of-blm
»Donations to BLM-related causes since May were $10.6bn.«
tickle me 00:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Multi-millionaire and Marxism

There is a personal statement of Patrisse Cullors where she says that she believes in philosophies of Marxism on her own YouTube channel, so there is no need to discuss are some other sources reliable regarding that matter. You can watch here www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEp1kxg58kE. It is completely reliable to say in article that she follows philosophies of Marxism. And on top of that she is a multimillionaire. Loesorion (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That material was already the subject of an RfC: talk:Patrisse_Cullors#RfC:Mentioning_Marxism/Marxist?. Consensus was not to include. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not true, this is statement three months old, from Dec 14, 2020 do not use old topic in this Talk and old sources as excuse. She sad it, Did you look video? No consensus in this talk and what consensus do you or anybody else need to hear someone personal statement given in video? Loesorion (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Also buying a 1.5 mill house does not make you a "multi-Millionaire", as that would mean multiple millions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Nor do I even see why the fact she is a multi millionaire even needs to be in the lead, is it in fact a significant part of the article?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

More then 1.5 mill are paid for just three houses(1.5-bathroom home in Inglewood for $510,000, Peach State retreat for $415,000, $590,000 for the 1,725 square-foot home in South Los Angeles) now worth about 1.8mill and she own four real-state in US, bringing total to $3.2 million in the US alone, according to property records. Not included personal cash, money on accounts, real-state outside US. Why not in lead, many articles about persons have it in lead as describes them better. Multimillionaire is just one word. As for Marxism watch YouTube video then place a comment is she said about Marxism or not. Loesorion (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Errr what it is worth now, and what she paid for it then seems to be different. Also does she own them outright, as debt is usually deducted from wealth to determine net wealth? Read wp:lede, that should tell you why not in the lede. And as for AMrxism, you need a new RFC to overturn an existing RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I also note that the California home was not purchased by her but by a "corporate entity" she owns.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this might be relevant for her IRS reporting, but is of absolutely no significance here. She owns legal entity X, legal entity X bought the property. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Try to read carefully source as it says on record it is 3.2mill and 1.5mill real-estate cited is just a part of fortune. You account just one part of fortune. So what is next, RFC on earth is flat, or RFC on for example if USA exists? Simple question here resolves all and has nothing to do about previous RFC - do you state that Patrisse Cullors did not give statement about Marxism in link to her YouTube video I provided? I have spent my time to find this source and do you now claim than in source I provided she has said nothing about Marxism? Loesorion (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FACTS situation. Read the RFC if you want to know what I think, I can add no more to that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Also I can't see where the article, you cite, says what her net worth is, only how much the property she (or entireties she runs(note that means the business not her owns them)) owns, it does not say what her net worth is as far as I can tell.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

So you claim that sky is not blue in this case despite undeniable source from YouTube and in same time you want to prevent edits backed with undeniable sources? You use some of policies of Wikipedia to prevent edits regardless of color of sky? Previous RFC do not mention source I provided and you have not said a word about that source, calling on previous RFC without a regard on source I provided makes no sense to me.

You had a source about fortune posted on article page https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/ but you only cared to delete it not read it and you do not need to read net worth to understand that person who has 3.2mill just in real-estate is multimillionaire. Loesorion (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You could just read the RFC, but OK. As I recall in the video she says she was trained in Marxist theory, not that she was a Marxist. As I (And others) pointed out, lots of people who study politics are trained in Marxist theory (as well as other political concepts). And no owning (and she does not, some businesses she runs do), its not the same thing, owning 3.2mill just in real estate does not mean you are a millionaire, she could owe 3.2 million in mortgage debt on those properties. Her NET (as in after debt) would need to be at least 2 million. The source does not say her net worth is even over a million, there may be a reason for that, but wp:v comes into it, the source must say what you want to say, it does not say she is a multi-millionaire, as I said maybe because she in fact does not have a net with of over a million.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo Finance yesterday reported information about her finances, provided by the National Legal and Policy Center. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems to contain even less information.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the factual NY Post reference ought to be included. It includes for instance a quote from Hawk Newsome (the head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City) Mathmo ^Talk 09:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As to her house, what the source says " Topanga Canyon was recently sold for a tad more than $1.4 million to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled by Patrisse Khan-Cullors, " So yes it does say "corporate entity". IN fact the source is quite explicit, it was not brought directly by her.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven - dear fellow editor, you first do not read sources I provided, do not watch her statement (but latter on here when I point you for not watching you say something like - you recall). You start first with deleting all my edits and then post notices to me on my talk page on Wikipedia and you continue here with more unrelated discussion despite sources and her clear statement claim otherwise. Are you doing all the contrary just for sake of opposing edition of this article - as it seems to me now. We fellow editors are here to improve Wikipedia and to do so we should rely on sources and of course on clear first hand statements of people - what they actually say and do if they exists - we should not edit based on our believes and oppose everything even when it is clear as sky is blue.

Patrisse Cullors has right to be a Marxist and believe in Marxism - do you oppose her right to be?

Instead recalling lets quote her here and now.

In her YouTube video with title: "Am I A Marxist? | Patrisse Cullors" at 1.22 minutes when she start to ask herself "Am I a Marxist? she continues: "I am a lot of things, i do believe in Marxism" "It's a philosophies that I learned really early on in my organizing career" and again later she continues "But i do believe that we can get to a place where there's a socio-economic system that doesn't oppress some groups of people and only uplifts a few.".

So she clearly believes in some set of social and political ideas from Marxist philosophies and believe in Marxism.

Why you prevent editors to state in Wikipedia something she say clearly about herself? Mentioning some Wikipedia rules can not and will not change her statement in given video and will not change other source about her wealth.

And if in source is not written that she is a multimillionaire but she has millions of USD, we editors can write she is multimillionaire as we should not completely rewrite sources on Wikipedia but correctly interpret them trough our edits. On net worth of Patrisse Cullors you could do a search - google probably has already a lot of results. But that term - net worth is not only term do describe multimillionaire - actual capital, money or assets is what describe it best. If ones owns a company or percentage in some company then assets in company are part of personal wealth according to percentage or completely if a sole owner is in question. Don't Mix Grandma and Frogs here. Loesorion (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I watched her "statement" when the RFC was launched. You have added no new points on top of that RFC. ANd (for your information) I have said we can call her a Marxist as she seems to admit it. But we operate by wp:consensus and the consensus was we can't call here that. As I said you have added nothing that we did not already know when that choice was made. As to her millionaire status "And for us to wrote "she has millions of dollars" we have to have a source that says THAT, again you are not making any new arguments. Note the source does not say she owns it, it says "controlled by Patrisse Khan-Cullors", in other words, she runs it, not that she owns it. I have no idea what company that is, or what her position is, as the source does not say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How could you have watched something(source I provided) that appeared on 14. December 2020. while having RFC you like to mention so much started on 1 August 2020 and ended on 15 September 2020. Travel in future maybe? And no one in RFC you mentioned provided link to her own statement again first published on 15. December 2020. And many people in that old RFC you mention opposed because of lack of strong source not because she is not as she claims a Marxist.

Then in old RFC was mostly about "'trained Marxist'" from other sources and we now have her own statement that she belie in Marxism as ideology.

Let me quote people from RFC you like to mention so much regardless of my reason for this new topic in Talk here(I quote examples from opposed side):

"Oppose pending support from additional reliable sources."

"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."

"Oppose Currently the are No Reliable Sources that confirm that she is a Marxist."

"Oppose until there is enough well-sourced material for us to explain what is meant by the word. "

And let me quote you from that RFC:

"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?" and your last comment from that RFC was ". Until we know what "trained Marxist" means we cannot put this in. It can mean anything"

Your later statements out of RFC have nothing to do with RFC. And you say latter in this Talk page "OK she seems to admit she is a Marxist, we can call here that" so why do you oppose my edits and delete my edits? You use old RFC about newer sources that did not have RFC and even claim as it has been talked about them in old RFC?

So please stop mentioning RFC in a way as it has nothing to do with source I provided here in this section and way I have edited this article with sources. I provided a sources that are newer then sources used in that RFC and much reliable. I had read it(old RFC) before opening this section so stop mentioning old RFC that has nothing to do with her new statement.

Controlled - controlling stake - so somebody owns controlling stake in a company, in same time it does not change that she has millions of USD in real-estates personally or trough some company. Loesorion (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your right, I was referring to the follow up in Jan 21 "Patrisse Cullors is a self described 'Trained Marxist' and stated in recent interview that 'I do believe in Marxism'". I apologise. This is why we can't have the same question asked every few months, it gets confusing as to what was said when. And you have still not shown how much debt she has, net worth is what matters, not total worth.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It has already been explained that your edits have been removed because of consensus on the Marxism question and because the sources on wealth do not say what you claim. (For my part I would add you’re also proposing a lot of WP:OR.) You’re welcome to raise an issue, but you did and it has not drawn a new consensus; please be mindful that repeating the same argument over and over starts to become WP:BADGERING. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear editor, Innisfree987 could you cite and explain your WP:OR stance, because I do not see it from my writing. And sorry but from my understanding, no consensus in any RFC does not exist in this talk page about Marxism based on new source provided here in this section, only a old one that had other issue as topic to discuss - "trained Marxist" - based on other older sources.

I try to adhere to Wikipedia:Editing policy and as perfection is not required I am not perfect but I feel here like I am prevented from editing while providing with my edits reliable and one first hand source on matters as explained here. My edits are deleted about two different topics. And I see others it seems to have trouble adding a content on this article using other sources for same or similar matter as I was trying - how do you call you edit of Patrisse Cullors page(as we can see in Revision history) when you delete previous edits that are adding Fox businesses and finance.yahoo.com as source(you delete them as tabloid) while reverting on MSN as source? MSN that is news aggregators is for you reliable source and not a tabloid? It seems to me we have different standpoint about what is reliable source. And what are Wikipedia policies are about prevention of other peoples editing? Maybe Wikipedia:Ownership of content.Loesorion (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I was repeating what an earlier editor had said about the content rather the nature of the source: that it was more fitting for tabloids than encyclopedia. I agreed. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

As for OR, your additions rely on a primary source and on your own interpretation (WP:SYNTH) of claims not expressly stated in secondary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Any new proposal about how to include new sources in this article that are not previously discussed in any RFC and are included here in this topics are welcome. I stipulate use of word "Marxist" and word "multimillionaire" based on reliable sources, while I do not exclude using of synonyms or other similar wording while retaining original intention of describing person in this article based on sources. Please refer yourself of just citing policies of Wikipedia to prevent editing while not proposing any solution and remedies how to edit(yes it is known that old RFC exists with conclusions based on other older sources that are not related with new source while they share word Marxist), thank you for your effort and time. Loesorion (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

One new source does not automatically cancel out the consensus on the page, especially one that involved multiple editors and were inclusion was strongly opposed. Maybe start a new RfC saying the is new evidence, but I would advise you it would probably be a waste of time. Watching the youtube video, no where does she actually say she is a Marxist, she says she is a lot of things (not giving preference to any), she simply says she believes it to be one of the useful philosophies she learned early in her career as a method of critiquing capitalism. Nothing more apart from going on to say that she was working for a fairer economically-socially just world. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

She very clearly states she believes in Marxism, and that's basically the definition of what a Marxist is! But sure, if you want to be rules lawyer and nitpick away, we could not say that she's a Marxist but just simply include the phrasing in her own words that she believes in Marxism and the reader can then draw their own conclusion as to if she's a Marxist. Mathmo ^Talk 09:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this relates to the heading, but I don't see anything wrong with the price of her home being listed on the page, considering it's reliably sourced. Of course, this is up to community discretion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the context, and how widely it was reported, it does seem reasonable to include in the article itself the value of the homes. Mathmo ^Talk 09:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Widley? I see 2 sources, one looks like a press handout.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"Am I A Marxist? | Patrisse Cullors" seems like it should be a slam dunk case to include "...she believes in Marxism" into the article. As "believes in Marxism" is literally in her own words, direct from the source herself, that ought to be totally uncontroversial. Mathmo ^Talk 09:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, not really, while she says she believes in Marxism as a useful philosophy, she very clearly says that she believes in lots of other things too. So she says does not believe in Marxism to the exclusion of other beliefs and is very clear that she is upset of the oversimplified accusation that ignores the social justice campaign she is part of. Its like someone saying that they have Christian beliefs that help them interpret the world but they do not belong to any church, branch or sect. You can learn part of something, find it correct but not be a devotee to an entire tradition.

I would tend to agree, she clearly seems to have a wide range of views some of which are informed by Marxism, but that does not mean she is in fact a Marxist. Anymore than someone who supports (say) Medicaid believes in universal healthcare.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully we are not here to discus is she having other believes or some other views beyond one stated at beginning of this topic - publicly announced and found in source. Topic here in this section of Talk is about that she believes in Marxism and her statement about that exists. Open separate topic in Talk if you need it for other purposes, beliefs and views(like social justice, Christian believes and so on). It seems to me that some editors try to guess what somebody thinks - While I could try to guess what somebody thinks, I do not have crystal ball and I could be totally wrong about what somebody thinks. What I know is that there is a public record about what somebody tells. So again, we are not here to deal with our personal opinions about somebody state of mind or someone views about life or other believes out of this topic. Loesorion (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We tried to provide you with simple comparative examples not to discuss those other beliefs etc but as illustrations that your claim is not solid. While she says she believes in Marxism especially as a useful tool in understanding a situation, she also very clearly says that she equally believes in lots of other things too. She doesn't say anything like "I am a Marxist": she actually says that accusations of her being a Marxist are laughable, hurtful, indicative of not taking her or the BLM cause seriously. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In this article there is many edits that includes qualifications and notations given by different Wikipedia editors about Patrise Cullors supported by in most cases just by one source like vice.com dazeddigital.com and so on. But in case where we have personal statement and multiple sources that confirm just one word added to article you try to prevent adding it with some lame excuses that conflicts the basic principles of editing in Wikipedia.

So some editor on Wikipedia can add in this article page about Patrisse Cullors and I quote:

"She learned about revolutionaries, critical theory and social movements from around the world, while practicing activism"

or

"he also favors reparations for what she describes as "the historical pains and damage caused by European settler colonialism", in various forms, such "financial restitution, land redistribution, political self-determination, culturally relevant education programs, language recuperation, and the right to return (or repatriation)""

supported by only one source - dazeddigital.com or in second case harvardlawreview.org and I cannot add only one word "multimillionaire" in this article supported by numerous sources that confirms she has property valued millions of USD which makes her multimillionaire or in second case three words "believe in Marxism" supported by her personal statement? So other can tell stories and stories about her personality, believes or behavior or describe her in multiple ways in article, but as it is current standing because of few editors here in talk some editors edits is not allowed to just add one word with sources to support that word about her? How about you simply allow editing of article by other editors because anything else you are saying is starting to be beyond a scope of this discussion as it seems to me right respectfully now. Loesorion (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Because you are yet to provide a source that calls her a multimillionaire, please read wp:v and wp:or and wp:symth.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Again if sky is blue it is blue if she has many millions she is a multimillionaire and at leas we can say she is a millionaire, we can paraphrase and summarize sources, I am not combing different sources to get something not described in them. For example I am not using one source saying she has 10.000 and other source telling she has nothing to get a meaning in article that she has millions, or using something not included in sources, so do not cite again Wikipedia policies without previously using basic Wikipedia policies and common knowledge about possibilities to paraphrase and summarize source. Policies you are talking is only needed to be enforced if is somebody quote someone or makes description by combining sources that have totally different content that would give false narrative about something and here that is not a case. Multiple reliable sources gives amount of money she has in real estate. So if someone reads in article on Wikipedia that she is millionaire it can go to source and can verify from source that she has millions in assets and how that makes telling she is a multimillionaire or millionaire wrong or false? I do not need to provide source telling she is millionaire only source needed is to confirm she has millions of USD in assets. We do not call people millionaires just because someone said that exact word about them but because they have millions in assets or money. We should not play a game of words here but summarize source about someone assets. If you have some proposal of using other word then multimillionaire do describe person wealth present it, I think millionaire aside multimillionaire is another good word to describe all her assets in this case. Loesorion (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Except its not sky blues, as she may not in fact have many millions, as she may owe many millions in debt. Again read wp:v, the source must say it, not imply it or we infer it. She may not own them, a company she runs may. I have said this multiple times, this is just going round in circles. I suggest you start an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

New source

https://bnc.tv/bnc-exclusive-blm-co-founder-patrisse-cullors-addresses-criticism-around-personal-finances Black News Channel, interviewer: Marc Lamont Hill

»According to a report by theGrio, the head of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York called for an investigation into Cullors over million-dollar real estate purchases she made in recent years.

It alleges that Cullors spent $3.2 million for four homes in the United States and questions emerged about how she is paid by the Black Lives Matter organization.«

»“I have never taken a salary from the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation,” she told Hill.

She said right-wing media organizations are putting out this information that is “categorically untrue and incredibly dangerous.”

Cullors, who is a college professor, said she is also a television producer with multiple books and has a deal with YouTube.

When it was announced that Black Lives Matter received $90 million in funding after the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, many called on the organization for money, including the father of Mike Brown Jr.

“We are not a charity. We are a power-building body, and so, it’s important that people understand the difference,” she said.«

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-rxVKcDSc BNC News – Activist Patrisse Cullors Talks Criticisms Surrounding Black Lives Matter Network Foundation: Pt. 1 Apr 16, 2021

05:47 MLH: There's also a critique though from the left that would say, um, if you are a trained marxist and if we're talking about a certain kind of radical politic, that extravagant homes of any sort or multiple properties of any sort is itself contradictory to the ideology that you hold, so it's not about having money per se, but that it's about, uh, or about property per se, but it's about there being a potential contradiction between your express politics and your lived practice.

06:17 PC: Sure and I think that is a critique that is, um, wanting and I say that because, um, the the the way that I live my life is a direct support to black people including my black family members, um, first and foremost and for so many black folks who are able to invest in themselves and their community they choose to invest in their family and that's what I've chosen to do. I have a child, I have a brother that has severe mental illness that I take care of, I support my mother and I support many other family members of mine and so I see my money as not my own. I see it as my family's money as well... tickle me 00:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This might get lost up here, maybe move it down to the current discussions? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please move it down as you see fit, I'm not sure which section you're referring to. I've corrected the article ($3.2 million, not 2.9 per NYP, added the NYP link, and expanded per the new sources. tickle me 01:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

How would it get "lost" in its own section? As opposed to all the rambling point/counter-point below?174.0.48.147 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not neutral

It's obviously a pretty big source of controversy with even members of BLM call for investigations (Hawk Newsome) into her finances. Many new sources are reporting at least 3 million dollars worth of property purchases all over the US and abroad. Her own views on Marxism are pretty well documented. But all Wikipedia is allowing for is "In 2021, Cullors purchased a home in Topanga Canyon, west of Los Angeles" in the "Personal Life" section?!?!? What a waste this site is. I will never donate to one of their drives ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.12.203 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, how many have reported her NET WORTH? Does the fact they are not, tell you something? But it may now be possible to mention calls for an investigation, as that is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why can't a successful artist, writer, theatrical and multimedia producer with a multi year contract with Warner Brothers on top of being a lecturer at two colleges have a nice home. This is all NOTNEWS. Even folks who campaign for social justice are allowed nice homes, they don't have to live in a derelict squat. Regards the false accusations of being Marxist see the above, where multiple times it has been found to be unsupported by reliable sources. No where does she say anything like "I am a Marxist", in fact she says that accusations of her being a Marxist were laughable, hurtful, indicative of not taking BLM cause seriously. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the cause of BLM. I'm not trying to promote any view but for this article and wikipedia to pretend this isn't happening in the new right now is insane. At least address this stuff. This may not be the most significant thing she has done in her life, if you believe in her cause, but it is clearly the most news worth thing that has happened to her. To not address this in the article means Wikipedia is not neutral. 6.50.20.116 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The price of her new home has certainly attracted attention; even BLM activist Hawk Newsome from New York calls for investigation into her finances. This is clearly not in the category of NOTNEWS if her organizational allies are publicly challenging her on this. Pete unseth (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The included text is mostly based on a host of unreliable sources that are not suitable for Wikipedia. I simply believe first that Editors Should stop using unreliable sources.

msn.com just a news aggregator, so not reliable

nypost.com not reliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

finance.yahoo.com is just repeating a press release from the right wing National Legal and Policy Center

all three are unreliable, please update with sources suitable for a BLP.

I must admit I believe the gossip around the price of her home is not that notable, and apart from her campaign roles, she is also a successful artist, writer, theatrical and multimedia producer with a multi year contract with Warner Brothers on top of being a lecturer. A professional. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

She has apparently responded to the accusations, here’s a link. X-Editor (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

From the Grio "In a statement provided to theGrio, Black Lives Matter Global Network responded to concerns regarding Cullors’ earnings from the organization."

“Patrisse Cullors is the Executive Director of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF). She serves in this role in a volunteer capacity and does not receive a salary or benefits. .... Patrisse did not receive any compensation after 2019,”

“To be abundantly clear, as a registered 501c3, BLMGNF cannot and did not commit any organizational resources toward the purchase of personal property by any employee or volunteer. Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is categorically false" ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Which goes back to the sources lack of details, it does not tell us how the properties are used, who actually paid for them (they say she is in charge, not who they are), or if they were purchased for cash or with a loan. All of this rings alarms bells in me that this is not quite the "smocking gun" the sources would like. No we need more details.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Fixed my indent I am not sure who you are replying to  :)

I removed the content again from the article sorry under WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPSOURCE "contentious material about living persons that is ... ***poorly sourced*** should be removed immediately and without discussion" PLUS BLMGN have strongly denied that she used any funds AND Newsome is not affiliated with BLMGN so his statement has no relevance... plus a poor source for a biased opinion by a right wing organisation does not make the opinion useable in an BLP. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Maybe we should take this to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A "controversies" section should be added where her multiple home purchases should be discussed. This is common on other pages. She is a public figure and these is absolutely relevant. 75.102.171.187 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)AnonAB 4-14-2021

Simply: No. Not one reliable source has been offered. Using Google search I have looked for better Wikipedia grade sources but I have been unable to find a reliable source.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. "

I am not trying to be difficult but trying to fairly apply policy. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC) edited

A. we try to not to have controversy sections if we can help it.

B. I am not sure that a recent newsy accusation about house buying is a major controversy (see wp:undue). If this blows up into a major issue sure, right now I am not seeing that.

C. I also fail to see why in her case its a controversy, lots of people have multiple home, again we go back to undue.

As I said we lack the details to make a properly enclypecid entry about this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: You removed this source from Black Enterprise. What was your issue? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a discussion for that talk page, not this one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

They mean that Bodney removed a Black Enterprise citation from this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ahh.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

As the whole section is still underdiscusion, and there is no consensus for adding this that one source appears to have been removed when removig the contested section.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It might have helped if it had also included The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation statement.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This BET source is likely more than reliable enough, and gives a good breadth of coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Entire sections of this talk page have also been deleted by the editors, which does not seem like good faith.131.137.245.209 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

" Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives."

As to my motives please read my multiple explanations why all the sources provided were either regarded unreliable under Wikipedia guidelines AND/OR were simply not of a good enough quality for any claim in a Wikipedia Biography (see WP:RELIABILITY and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) OR breached other Wikipedia:BLP guidelines PLUS the relevant Black Lives Matter Global Network have said the insinuation are categorically false. What is left after you strip away all the above is simply unnotable, notnews or UNDUE ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC) * Edited ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP may be referring to my removal of their talkpage soapboxing in accordance with WP:NOTFORUM. They were using another Alberta IP, with generalized griping about Wikipedia and the press. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh that may well is probably true (they do refer to Talk page removals), just in case they were not I just edited my comment I hope that is OK ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly the is absolutely no law against or notability for a black civil rights activist to buy a home in white middle class neighbourhood, civil justice campaigners are not restricted by location or value in property. Cullors is a professional in multiple artistic and educational fields as well as her voluntary work. Its is simply NOT notable news.

Secondly, Regards the implied accusations of wrongdoing WP:SUSPECT A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent. :::::PLUS Black Lives Matter Global Network has answered the calls for investigation responded that Cullors has not recieved a salary since 2019 and works voluntarily for the organisation “To be abundantly clear, as a registered 501c3, BLMGNF cannot and did not commit any organizational resources toward the purchase of personal property by any employee or volunteer. Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is categorically false." Accusation made, found to have no case. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The matter of the additional houses is being selectively edited 131.137.245.209 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you will find that many folks own more than one house, it is simply not notable ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we can add this when

A.We know exactly who brought what when. B.We know if they still own them, and if not when they were sold. C.How much net worth she (as in her, not companies she works for) has. D. Exactly what relationship she has with entities that have brought properties in their name.

Until then this is nudge nudge wink wink tittle-tattle and not encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is a feature about here house in The Independent. This has certainly gained widespread coverage in reliable sources. At this point we should try to reach a consensus about how this should be included in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It still does not really address A B C or even D. But it at least is a more balanced view than just "SHE OWNS A BIG HOUSE!". BUt we can at least now write about the controversy, if not her wealth.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because you say it needs to address A, B, C and D...does not make it so. A consensus of editors who agree this has received widespread coverage would suffice. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

True, but I was saying it does not address MY concerns. As I said I do not think this is enough to have what was written here before. Rather it could be used to write about the controversy itself. But that would then some wording specified.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

At last, the Independent is definitely indeed a highly reliable, neutral, worthy of Wikipedia source, that extremely clearly illustrates why this whole saga is mostly not or should not be notable enough for Wikipedia. ( But it does not justify the rubbish of vilification that has been published before in still unreliable sources.) The is no evidence of any wrongdoing, only success. As the Independent writes "There is no reason why a person can’t have personal luxuries while running profitable businesses and also advocating for racial justice". The article says ~ she has never been about dragging folks down but clearly has been shown to be campaigning for fair equity, about treating everyone equal, and raising everyone up so they have equal access to the same best opportunities. Cullors ~ “We can get to a place where there is a socioeconomic system that doesn’t oppress some groups of people and only uplifts a few,”. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please!! Of course Cullors' multi-million real estate transactions are drawing attention, and of course they've gained enough coverage and comment in reliable sources to merit a mention in her article. We aren't talking about a traditional liberal reformer here. We are talking about someone who lists hard-line leftists, and as far as I can see only hard-line, anti-capitalist, leftists as her ideological inspirations: Marx, Lenin, Frantz Fanon, Angela Davis, etc. The fact that she has now become, at least, a mini real estate mogul is obviously eyebrow raising and has received more than enough attention for a brief mention in her bio. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe she has advocated for grey state run housing for all ? (or for collectivist farms or a communist dystopia as the Indie article puts it, or maybe work camps in Alaska?) The independent She simply believes in questioning the status quo, in challenging economic systems that currently lead to unequal outcomes, and in holding capitalism to account. And yes she does use Marxism as one of the tools to interpret the current economic system. Demanding that she prove her virtuousness by staying poor is absolutely absurd. She is simply successful both as campaigner and as a creative and educator. You can find some aspects of a socio-economic philosophy useful and intellectually interesting, and others not at all, and fight for more equality while at the same time living within a capitalist society. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess unless something solid that is notable is offered that is reliably sourced are we in danger of being foul of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. Indie No matter what the hosts of Fox News or right-wing tabloids might assert, Cullors’ actions are completely consistent with her words. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, the Cullors real-estate spree has gained more than enough coverage in news stories and commentary to be mentioned in Wikipedia's article. Newsweek has just weighed in, at least indirectly, on the controversy: [1]. The issue, of course, is not whether negative coverage of her actions are deserved or not; that WOULD be making the talk page into a forum on the subject. The issue is whether the amount of coverage and commentary in reliable sources merits at least a mention in this bio. It does. Goodtablemanners (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Regards Newsweek Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. You can offer up a 100 unreliable sources, we cant use them, but I am sure some of right leaning rs will pick up soon. As to the non story in Newsweek, it mentions that other unreliable source the New York Post... There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: Snopes.com mentioned the controversy in this article. That’s a reliable source that can be used to incorporate the controversy into the article. X-Editor (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Snoops is reliable but I think it further makes clear that this a non story about "moderately" priced house purchases Snoops reports characterizing the purchase as extravagant do so without noting that prices for single-family homes in Los Angeles are considerably higher than in other markets. Plus the article Fact Checked and found No evidence of wrong doing by Cullors or any other person.

Why are the tabloids and many other unreliable media stirring dirt ..Snoops As the movement ... scored social and political wins, which included major companies affirming their commitment to racial justice and the election of progressive leaders, Black Lives Matter has also been a regular target for right-wing media and commenters. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

For the purpose of inclusion here, does it really matter a how a particular news source covers the story? The {UK} Independent also covered the story with both a news article [2] and an opinion piece. The LA Times ran an opinion column on it: "Fight over the direction of BLM escalates amid Chauvin trial: The timing couldn't be worse". So did the Chicago Tribune: "What was Marx's position on high-end real estate" [3]? So did the the Orange County Register: "Black Lives Matter co-founder cashes in on systematic racism" [4]. Some of the coverage is anti-Cullors, some of it defends Cullors. That's controversy. By the way, the story isn't simply about one 1.4 million dollar home. It's about a series of real estate purchases worth over three million. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Goodtablemanners: Would you mind providing links to the sources? X-Editor (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does very much matter how the reliable sources are covering the story, we reflect what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources are not supporting any of the anti-Cullors rumours but dismissing them, explaining clearly why the were no controversial aspects in any of these purchases (Snopes tells us the other two houses are even more modestly priced in working class areas). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it is any longer a case of "do we include this" so much as "how we include it", as it now seems to be turning (as the independent more or less puts it) into a story about casual racism and the idea that black people cannot in fact better themselves and buy into white suburbs. What this no longer is, is a controversy about some alleged hypocrisy on her part.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Slatersteven. Exactly this is the only approach currently that any inclusion in Wikipedia should and can take. How we include it is indeed very important. Certainly nothing supports inclusion of any suggestion of any alleged hypocrisy or wrong doing by Cullors. We include only the aspect of what is truly notable according to the reliable sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of any accusations ("hypocrisy", ...) there is no reason not to mention that Marxist ideology is a part of Cullors’ belief system. See Politico :

two founders of Black Lives Matter Global Network, Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza, are self-declared Marxists — a description Cullors used in a 2015 interview.

. This was even confirmed by Cullors in a video (

In 2020, Cullors appeared in Switzerland a video where she confirmed she believed in Marxism as a philosophy that questions capitalism.

Fa suisse (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We need to split the discussion about the Marxist label from the ones about her wealth. The two are not linked, should not be linked, and are separate issues (One of which has been discussed at length already). Now is anyone going to propose a text about her wealth?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the sources we use use about her wealth/real estate emphasize her Marxist or, at least, Marxian influenced ideology. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Err no, they would have to link the two, not just mention the two. Of course this then all goes back to what we want to write. Thus (again) we need some concrete suggestions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

What can we include regards Cullors House Purchases

A start please add/edit notable info that is supported in the reliable press:=

Here is base starting point. Please DO add, remove or edit to improve on it so that abides by the guidelines that Wikipedia gives us and is based entirely on reliable sources. (edited text to be more clear than my original sentence above )

'Cullors purchased a relatively modest priced house in Topanga Canyon, despite baseless insinuations in the unreliable press, there has been zero evidence to support those accusation. Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) directly denied any wrongdoing "To be abundantly clear, as a registered 501c3, BLMGNF cannot and did not commit any organizational resources toward the purchase of personal property by any employee or volunteer. Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is categorically false."' Independent: Why exactly do you think BLM founder Patrisse Cullors shouldn’t live in a million-dollar house?Snopes: No Evidence BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Used Donations To Buy House

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If that is your suggested edit no way.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Good grief! I hope that isn't a suggested edit. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As I tried to say I was just offering a base starting point. As I said Please DO add, remove or edit to improve on it so that abides by the guidelines that Wikipedia gives us and is based entirely on reliable sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: This may not be the best place to suggest you read WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, but please stop telling us all what to do and how to do it. I'm also pretty sure "Cullors purchased a relatively modest priced house" will accurately summarize the scope of what has been widely discussed in reliable sources. If you feel too emotionally connected to this article, you may want to sit this one out. Just a suggestion. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest concern from someone who has been of the opposing view. I have no ownership or emotional connection to the article, I merely wish that we follow the neutral guidelines of Wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"In 2021 a controversy arose after the purchase of a number of properties by Cullors or entries associated with her. This led to accusations of racism and a denial of any wrongdoing."Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is about the limit of what this deserves.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I am happy with that this (Slatersteven) version and support it. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The word is "entities" I think; other than that okay except the approximate value of the properties should be mentioned to give the reader an idea of why some people made an issue of it. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"representatives" or "agent"? I think the price is not notable Cullors purchased a relatively modest priced property, to include the value is potentially misleading Snoops Furthermore, reports characterizing the purchase as extravagant do so without noting that prices for single-family homes in Los Angeles are considerably higher than in other markets. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well in this case it is organisations she is in "controls" of (but no information as to what capacity). Thus I am trying to avoid drawing any conclusion or leading the reader. As I said the problem is we have almost no real detail. So I am trying to ensure we only include that we can verify (and that means we do not really know who brought what or when). Yes it should be entities, typo (well auto correct).Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I accept your reasoning and support as corrected. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"In 2021 a controversy arose after the purchase of a number of properties by Cullors or entities associated with her. This led to accusations of racism and a denial of any wrongdoing."

I am unsure about adding the value, as that would then also mean adding analysis of what that might imply (as some sources have said, not a lot).Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't require much analysis that isn't already included in reliably sourced articles. She bought these properties in the relatively expensive Los Angeles area real estate market. Not saying anything about the price leaves the reader in the dark. By the way, being able to choose what market area one wants to live (or invest) in, is part of the privilege of comparative affluence. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The article might also benefit from an explanation of what pushed this into "controversy" territory. She is a trained Marxist who is notable for denouncing white supremacy and capitalism, and then spends $1.4 million to buy a home in a predominantly white neighborhood. Right wing media called her a hypocrite, while "many social justice advocates are voicing their concerns on social media, often comparing Cullors's apparently lavish lifestyle to the experiences of activists on the ground." All of this has been widely reported, so there are no BLP issues. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I also think that her response to the controversy documented in this article should be included in the paragraph as well. X-Editor (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph just outlining the story and including a reasonable question and a reasonable answer to it. I don’t think the article can leave this out. Moonraker (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We are not :) though the was some debate before regards inclusion, now the story is in the reliable press, we are working together on reaching a consensus. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 08:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I do say "This led to accusations of racism and a denial of any wrongdoing.", I want to keep it a brief as possible as I am not sure this really is going to be a big thing in a year's time. Also, I want to try and keep it as NPOV as possible and avoid some of the "well you include this so we must include that ism", which just creates half an article on one minor incident, I have seen elsewhere on wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Now you know why I only wanted one line, this is given way to much coverage by us and I think violates wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I did try to limit additions while consensus was being worked upon. After my efforts failed, I have tried to add better sources, correct what was there (trying to compromise and limit my deleting) and balance the section while it exists. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section added while consensus is being worked on

@Magnolia677: think it is deeply disrespectful that some editors, including very experienced editors, choose to totally ignore the Consensus that is being worked on this talk page on this matter especially so when they are very much aware aware that the subject is being discussed here, to describe the discussion as simply informal is a stretch. Wikipedia is not a newspaper there is no due-date to include information that is of not of major importance, especially in a WP:BLP (its not our job to be the primary vehicle for the spreading claims about people's lives). Please respect your fellow editors and revert. We try to avoid having titles with words like Controvery. The is no need yet to start a RfC while a form of words are being worked on. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added 2 Clean up tags to the section that has been added, the first could be removed but I am not sure I can. The tag simple states that inclusion of a Controversy section may compromise this Biography article's neutral point of view of the subject, the information in the section is disputed, and that it covers recent events that may date quickly and become unclear. And invites editors to join the discussion of this issue on this talk page, where editors are trying to reach a consensus. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 05:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It now also contains information cited to the unreliable New York Post ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 05:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: Even when more reliable sources are included, you keep deleting them: [5][6][7][8]. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS, and wp:brd if you have good reason to think it will be deleted do not add it, but make a case here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to respectfully answer your query Magnolia677 and explain here my reasons. The removal on the 14th was based on

WP:BLPSOURCE "contentious material about living persons that is ... ***poorly sourced*** should be removed immediately and without discussion.

Those reliable? sources as you put it were msn.com (just a news aggregator, so not reliable) finance.yahoo.com (just repeating a press release from the right wing National Legal and Policy Center, a poor source for a biased opinion by a right wing organisation does not make the opinion useable in an BLP and the New York Post (not reliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Their unreliabity has been discussed on this talk page.

The three removals yesterday (17th) were because they were ignoring the talk page discussion that was working on a consensus statement. Plus the inclusion of a Controversy section which compromised the Biography article's neutral point of view of the subject. The information in the section was disputed and was supported by only one weak source Los Angeles Magazine and it refereed to the unreliable New York Post as if it was a reliable source for that information.

I see now the New York Post is now the sole source for the claim in the opening sentence. It should be removed immediately as per WP:BLPSOURCE. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

List format used in the Property purchases / Real Estate acquistions Section

Half the subsection is in now what I would call an unnecessary ugly list, though lists can be used in articles a list like this one is not given an example in WP:LISTPURP MOS:LIST

In articles Prose is recommended over Lists by

"MOS:LISTBASICS Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain.

I believe we should revert the section back to prose, but my attempt was reverted ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: But that isn't what you did. You reverted the section back to the poorly-organized form it had been prior to my magic hand. The reactions of others should not be peppered into Cullors' personal reaction; they need a separate section. I think bullets are more appropriate, but let's see what other think. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

What i was trying to do was return the article back to the normal Wikipedia prose format and I am not sure your list is in a logical order or who is responding to who. I am not sure for instance whether your last reaction, the sinclair group (I am not sure if its a reliable source) should be the last on your list. The seems to be a bit of repetition going on...(is the final Sinclair reaction bullet point/sentence a repetition of the Black News Channel's Newsome bullet point reaction or the so very reliable New York Post story). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am going to remove it until we have consensus here, the back and forth editing is tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No objection. I tried to do that before, saying the was consensus discussion being worked on the talk page. I agree the is an undue problem. I find it strange that this (political) attack story (proven baseless) is given a higher section heading level than the very thing that Cullors is far far more internationally notable for, that being Black Lives Matter; it should be at best a sub section under her personal life section. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor Bodney comments that the real estate topic has attracted a lot of attention, especially compared to Black Lives Matter. True. I think this is because her real estate acquisitions (value, number, and locations) are seen by many as not being in harmony with her political stance. Rightly or wrongly, this has made the topic newsworthy in the press and on the Web. She called the criticism "racist", so the fact that some of her critics are Black is interesting. I'm not editing the article at this time but explaining why I think the topic has generated much attention, serious and otherwise. Striving to Keep Wikipedia a friendly place to edit. Pete unseth (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi ...We do not know if she meant only racists exclusively were attacking her, she refereed to right wing media, it only matters if racists were part of the attack. She has a very reasonable fear of white supremacists, so she probably stressed them. As for the property if people read insinuations and half truths brewed by the press then of course it brings attention, but you know just because it is twisted in certain news outlets it does not make it noteworthy for Wikipedia. What was noteworthy is how the right wing media falsely attacked her. She commits for Black Lives Matter voluntary, her income from her 2 College jobs, contracts with Warner Brothers, with her publisher and other creative works most likely paid for the properties for her family. As we know.... "Nowhere is it written that if you care about and fight for Black lives you have to live in squalor and poverty." Warren Buffett, Gloria Steinem and Amal Clooney etc etc etc are not criticized for advocating for change and they are all far more wealthy than Cullors family. Me busy ...Have look at this opinion piece Why exactly do you think BLM founder Patrisse Cullors shouldn’t live in a million-dollar house? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Today User:Slatersteven removed text which was well sourced and very supportive of Cullors: "Journalist Jasmyne Cannick said, 'Nowhere is it written that if you care about and fight for Black lives you have to live in squalor and poverty.'" Was there a consensus to remove this? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I removed all of it but the one line we seem to have had an agreement on. Read WP:ONUS its down to those who want to include to get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So (as I said above) rather than have back and for edits, let's have some suggestions here for a text, and discuss it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

What can we include regards Cullors House Purchases Part 2

1. "Numbers" or Several Properties ~ I think this might mislead readers into thinking she has purchased more properties than she has and I think should simply say 3 or 4 Houses. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I would rather keep it simple.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Three is a simple word: Public Record searches by USA Today only found the first 3 properties linked to Cullors, purchased over 5 years with a estimated value of $1.5 million not the alleged $3 million (these do not include Topanga Canyon, where the is no public record of Cullors). This whole story is largely an unproven fabrication based on half truths and insinuations brewed up by mostly unreliable news sources such as a tabloid story based on a blog story. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If three properties is not acceptable, could we at least change "after the purchase of a number of properties by Cullors or entities" to "after the purchase of three or four properties over five years by Cullors or entities". Properties is shorter than a 'number of properties', the 'number of' being both superfluous and suggests more than 3 or 4. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

2. I do not think the alleged not proven price of the properties is notable. According to Snopes.com "Compared with other properties listed on Dirt, the home reportedly purchased by Cullors is relatively modest....Even if it’s true that Cullors purchased a single family home in Los Angeles for $1.4 million, we note that because of overall home prices in L.A., that amount doesn’t go as far as it would in other areas." the other two are "When you read past the headline and leading language, the Post story really describes two modest home purchases, one in South Los Angeles (formerly known as South Central) and the other in Inglewood. Both homes are in working class communities" We know these properties were not all brought at the same time, but purchased over a number of years, the single price tag in this article might falsely suggest they were brought all at the same time. The price of these properties is simply not relatively notable. She purchased these homes from her income as a college lecturer, multi media creative artist, successful author and someone with a contract with Warner Brothers etc etc. Nothing is notable about that. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We are using reliable sources in our article, ALL of which note either the approximate selling price of the properties as a group, or else the price of the most recent and most expensive property. They do this to indicate to their readers that Cullors's real estate purchases are substantial; not opulent by contemporary standards, but certainly substantial. Given Cullors's expressed admiration the anti-entrenched wealth, anti-capitalist ideas of such people as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Angela Davis, and Eric Mann there really isn't any great mystery as to why news of these purchases have created something of a stir. "Nothing notable about that" is your own original research, Bodney. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We have no idea what level or parts of Marxism she believes in, yes she cites Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, as "provid[ing] a new understanding around what our economies could look like" and "integrates ideas from critical theory, as well as social movements around the world". She has also said she believed in a lot of other non-Marxian things as well, we do not know if she believes in those other things to a greater or lesser degree. Marxism may well be part of her beliefs, but it may not be her central defining belief. Marxism is a side issue which is vague. The RfC decision was not to include it.

Regards the price, just because something is in the press does not make it a notable aspect of this controversy (is the controversy the simple purchase of property or the media attack on her for doing so), and it is reasonable to suggest that three modest home purchases over a number of years as mentioned in Snopes.com is not notable, that is not Wikipedia:OR. What aspect was notable differed among the New York Post/Sinclair Broadcast Group and the more reliable The Independent. If we do mention the alleged value, we should also correctly inform the reader that the purchase of the 3 houses were made over several years, to not do so might mislead the reader and that the value is only alleged. But i am more in favour of not including the uncertain price tag.

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with telling the reader that the purchases of the four homes were made over several years, in fact it's better if we do. However, as the article now stands future readers would have to consult the listed sources to get an inkling of an idea about the flap. It's way too vague and weaselly. "In 2021 a controversy arose after the purchase of a number of properties by Cullors or entities associated with her." Why? What kind of "properties"? "This led to accusations of racism and a denial of any wrongdoing". Who accused whom of racism? Who denied doing anything wrong? Goodtablemanners (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

OK putting aside I do not think the value or purchase is the notable issue here. If we are talking about properties, how many are there 3 or 4 ?

USA TODAY Fact check: Missing context in claim about Black Lives Matter co-founder's property purchases

"One of the Los Angeles properties cost $510,000 when Khan-Cullors purchased it in 2016. A second Los Angeles home ran her $590,000 in 2018, the Post reported. A suburban Atlanta property was purchased for $415,000 in 2020.

Public records searches by USA TODAY found Khan-Cullors linked to all three of those properties.

The New York Post story links back to the real estate blog Dirt for information about the purchase of a fourth property. The blog reported that Khan-Cullors purchased the home in Los Angeles’ Topanga Canyon for $1.4 million on March 30 through a limited liability company.

USA TODAY was unable to verify the Topanga Canyon property purchase."

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

What can we include regards use of Marxism

It may improve the discussion here if you read the recent past discussions before contributing.

Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist? and Talk:Patrisse Cullors#Patrisse Cullors is a self described 'Trained Marxist' and stated in recent interview that 'I do believe in Marxism' Talk:Patrisse Cullors#Multi-millionaire and Marxism Talk:Patrisse Cullors#Sources with "Marxist" in their title ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: I personally think that her being a trained marxist should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article with the Politifact article as a source. X-Editor (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This article from the Independent also mentions her being a trained marxist. X-Editor (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As has been mention before in the RfC it is entirely unclear what a 'trained Marxist' actually means ...simply it could just mean that she is trained to an unknown level in Marxist theory. Does it mean actually she is a Marxist or fully agrees with all aspects Marxism I think it remains unclear. In the recent YouTube video Am I A Marxist? Patrisse Cullors while she says that she was taught Marxism very early in her career as one of the systems that was useful tools in understanding the political economic structure, she says she believes in marxism as a tool but she also very clearly says that she equally believes in lots of other things too. She doesn't say anything like "I am a Marxist": she actually says she is a lot of things but the accusations of her being a Marxist are laughable, incredibly hurtful and indicative of not taking her or the BLM cause seriously. I think you can using your training in something but not be part of that thing. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: Fair enough. X-Editor (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

She listed Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong as major ideological influences. She had Angela Davis write the foreword to her book. Assuming the reader has a solid high school level education, isn't it a bit redundant to describe her as a Marxist? Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point. X-Editor (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Bodney, certainly you realize that when Cullors says that accusations of her being a Marxist are "laughable, incredibly hurtful hurtful and indicative of not taking the BLM cause seriously" she means that it is saying these things as an accusation which is insulting. In other words, it is people who think and say that being a Marxist is a bad thing, that she finds insulting. Anyone who lists figures such as Marx, Lenin, Mao, Angela Davis, and Eric Mann as positive inspirations doesn't mind being called a Marxist if it's intended as a compliment. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Lets not engage in wp:or, has she or has she not directly said "I am a marxist" or "I am not a marxist"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

She's said "I do believe in Marxism". Had she said "I do believe in Christianity" would we be arguing about whether or not to call her a Christian? That said, I don't believe we have to hammer home the point. It's already obvious to anyone who reads the article as it is. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As you know the are many forms of Christians from those who do not belong to any church or say the Church of England to Evangelicals and the American Bible Belt, many people though they say they are Christian do not believe in large parts of what is written in both the new and old testament :its a vague comparison. The are as many forms of Capitalism, many different level and combinations are practices by countries and individuals, to label every political figure a Capitalist who agrees in some part of Capitalism is almost meaningless.

No where does Cullors say anything like "I am a Marxist". Apart from it being a useful tools in understanding society, we have no clear idea which aspects or level of Marxism she may believe in, the are at least 3 definitions of Marxism and over 8 Marxist schools of thought, and the others which seek to combine Marxism with something else. She also said she believed in a lot of other non-Marxian things as well, we do not know if she believes in those other things to a greater or lesser degree. It might be part of her beliefs, but not her central defining belief. Your opinion regards her feelings regards the accusation is just your opinion and is highly debatable. No where does she say "it is people who think and say that being a Marxist is a bad thing, that she finds insulting." On this topic you are engaging in

WP:SYNTH "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and "combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source".

Wikipedia is not about our opinions as editors or our flawed interpretations, but what reliable sources say. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

"A controversy"

The reader doesn't get to know what was the exact subject of the "controversy". Are the facts and circumstances getting carefully manicured and hidden behind a sterile term?

What controversy?Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You see, the protected elite makes sure, their dirty laundry is not exposed, not even on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:248C:EA00:1145:DC3A:6000:F52D (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If you do not tell us what you want done we cannot do it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this editor wants more details included about her home purchase; details which reliable sources on the left and the right have mostly described as "controversial". Perhaps this editor could be directed to one of the many discussions on this talk page? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Then they should explain themselves, not leave us to try and guess. Yes, if that is the issue they wish to discuss they can above.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The Reliable Press listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources have not called the property purchases controversial. In fact if you read the two reliable fact checking sources [No Evidence BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Used Donations To Buy House] and [Fact check: Missing context in claim about Black Lives Matter co-founder's property purchases] You see The real and only controversy is the unfounded false accusations against Cullors, which was based on half truths and insinuations brewed up by mostly unreliable news sources such as the original tabloid story based on a blog story and then spread by right wing media circus and few others. Oh and I am sorry but its not $3 million its $1.5 over 5 years, the is no public record connection of Cullors to the supposed Topanga Canyon property purchase, according to the USA Today Fact Check. This is not worthy of Wikipedia's attention. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not need yet another thread on this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we close this as we have enough threads on this topic already?Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, apologies, just I can not let what I see as untruths remain unchallenged, sorry. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Question: Can we bring the current What can we include regards Cullors House Purchases Part 2 thread down here ...cut & paste? is that allowed? If it helps our minds on finding consensus.

I would rather not, leave it where it is, or append it to the thread above it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

OK :) i guess it is equally simple to point anyone enquiring (which I should have done) to We are working on an agreed consensus, up here, see previous threads as well. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless one dismisses the story of Cullors (or "entities associated with her") purchasing a $1.4 million home in Topanga Canyon as a hoax, then she spent about $2.9 million on real estate over the last five years, not $1.5 million. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The one reliable WP:RSP source that fact checked the ownership of the properties, disagrees. Shall we discuss this up at What can we include regards Cullors House Purchases Part 2 ? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Never mind comrades, the Ministry of Truth is always right! Anything else goes into the memory holes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2493:B400:1145:DC3A:6000:F52D (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

See wp:soap and wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Bias In This Article

First of all, I want to make it clear. It is scientifically impossible for a human to not be biased., especially if the content is about a notable figure that the person either adores or hates. Denying this would make you hypocritical and I would kindly ask you to step out of this platform.

I know very well how wikipedia editors hide their political bias behind a facade of neutrality. Usually, a wikipedia article becomes less biased as more editors of different political orientations contribute. However, it is impossible to do so when politically-motivated Editors block people from contributing. The Editors in this talk page are intentionally dismissing a popular demand to expand the real-estate scandal - undermining the relevance of this topic when Patrisse Cullors even resigned in admittance of this scandal, despite her previous denial.

The side of the wikipedia community that deals with present politics is infested with incredibly biased Editors who gets away with their biased language by pretend it isn't, and my point is further reinforced when the Co-Founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, literally declares that the neutrality in this site is gone.

I request the expansion of the real-estate scandal by elevating the topic to a whole section visible in the Table of Contents to emphasize the relevance, mention that "she initially denied this accusation by describing it as a right-wing effort to discredit her, before she resigned in admittance", and put a note that she resigned from her position as Executive Director from the so-called non-profit BLM organization due to that reason. I hope to see this change soon. - Reavery (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read the umpteen threads above about this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And [[9]] "Ms Cullors told the AP news agency her resignation had been planned for more than a year and was not related to claims that she had misused donations to acquire her property portfolio.". So at best we could now add "in 2021 she stepped down as a director of BLM".Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now added her resignation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This article and Wikipedia is based on reliable sources (ignoring the obvious first three citations) regarding the last three citations used by you Wikipedia simply considers tabloids and blogs as factually untrustworthy, the Daily Mail is regarded as one of the least reliable sources ~

There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited

If you want facts

• Snopes No Evidence BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Used Donations To Buy House
• USA Today Missing context in claim about Black Lives Matter co-founder's property purchases

How did she raise the money to buy the three properties over 5 years. Firstly: Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) directly denied the unfounded allegations of misuse of funds

To be abundantly clear, as a registered 501c3, BLMGNF cannot and did not commit any organizational resources toward the purchase of personal property by any employee or volunteer. Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is categorically false.

Secondly I lazily quote myself from the last thread:

From 2013-2019 Cullors received a total of $120,00 from the international movement she co-founded, since then she has no longer was paid by BLM, but leads her international BLM section voluntarily. She is also however a successful artist, writer, theatrical and multimedia producer with a multi year contract with Warner Brothers on top of being a lecturer at two colleges, its not unusual for such a person to have a nice home. Cullers brought 3 'modest' homes for herself and her extended family (including her disabled brother), over 5 years. Two of the homes are in Los Angeles working class communities and were purchased for $590,000 and $510,000 respectively, the third is in suburban neighbourhood and cost $415,000 in 2020 (the is no actual evidence that she or her agents purchased the Topanga Canyon property which started the brief tabloid accusations).

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

.

References

Details about Cullors "Marxist" affluence has precedence throughout history

To make my point I'll revisit an old Russian joke. You see the Russians often used the Chukchi, a native people of Chukotka in the most remote northeast corner of Russia, as they were considered primitive, uncivilized, and simple-minded yet clever and insightful in their own way, which meant subversive points could be made because the Chukchi often saw the inner truth of situations. For example in this joke, the luxurious life of Stalin is sharply exposed against the deprivations endured by the proletariat in the Communist eutopia of Soviet Russia:

A Chukcha returning home from Moscow is met with great excitement and interest from his friends.

"What is socialism like?" they asked.

"Oh," begins the Chukcha in awe, "There, everything is for the betterment of man... I even saw that man himself!"

(This jokes references the Russian Communist Party slogan Всё для блага человека! ("Everything for the betterment of man")).

My point to this preamble is that throughout the history of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism, you just have to follow the money. The rank and file might have the zeal and commitment (and the best of intentions for the greater good) but ultimately it's all for the benefit of a small elite who maintain an iron grip on power through force, fear and propaganda (North Korea being the foremost example currently in the world; fat leader, starving population). Yet when collective decisions are taken collectively, rather then through a hierarchical political system, common ownership actually works quite well (eg the success of Kibbutzs).

Currently this article just want to state a fact, but it needs to prove that Cullor is not just another leader who enriched themselves off the greater good, this article needs to do answer this one simple question: when did Cullors acquire the properties? If they were before BLM started, then hell Marxism does pay and we should also start reading Das Kapital but if these assets were acquired after 2012 then see the above.

Besides the juxtaposition of her perceived wealth and the families of men and women killed by police in America could not be more stark at this time. This is from a BBC report about this issue: "The grieving parents of Michael Brown and Breonna Taylor - two African Americans whose deaths at the hands of white police officers were often cited by Black Lives Matter - last month reportedly complained the organisation had done nothing to help them." 81.141.32.123 (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

See all the talk pages threads above and in the archive about this, you have added nothing new, and no we do not need to "to prove that Cullor is not just another leader who enriched themselves off the greater good, this article needs to do answer this one simple question: when did Cullors acquire the properties", its just needs to say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Here we go happily again. This was controversy delivered by way of a blog and a tabloid newspaper. From 2013-2019 Cullors received a total of $120,00 from the international movement she co-founded, since then she has no longer was paid by BLM, but leads her international BLM section voluntarily. She is however a successful artist, writer, theatrical and multimedia producer with a multi year contract with Warner Brothers on top of being a lecturer at two colleges, its not unusual for such a person to have a nice home. Cullers brought 3 'modest' homes for herself and her extended family (including her disabled brother), over 5 years, two of the homes are in Los Angeles working class communities and were purchased for $590,000 and $510,000 respectively, the third is in suburban neighbourhood and cost $415,000 in 2020 (the is no actual evidence that she or her agents purchased the Topanga Canyon property which started the brief tabloid accusations). If you want that fact checked see:

• Snopes No Evidence BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Used Donations To Buy House
• USA Today Missing context in claim about Black Lives Matter co-founder's property purchases

I know its controversial, but I stopped completely trusting the BBC News ever since they appointed the ex Editor of the Sun as its head. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: A funny thing though Bodney, if you look at WP:RSP, all the left wing media are given a pass, while all the conservative media are banned. What kind of rubbish is that? I personally find Daily Mail and The New York Post among the most reliable media around, and the New York Times comparable to Pravda. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Really ALL right-wing media? The Times is right-wing, and it's an RS. Arguably so is the Telegraph. What are not RS are sources that make stuff up, that lie.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll add the sources favorable to her are left of center. It seems that bias is a one way street.

If you have an issue with wp:rs take it to wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Just a curtsy reply ... We are all restrained by what the community as a whole agrees is reliable. I look at the press from a UK angle, where most of the press is controlled by 4 conservative families, and that includes both rags like the daily mail and also wp:rs broadsheets like The Telegraph, Financial Times, The Times etc that are regarded reliable news media by Wikipedia. I find the The i and The Independent are both politically central and trustworthy. For USA news I rely on stream news services like NBC, plus i am sorry to tell you i kinda like the daily Democracy Now vids on YouTube ... which is sort of (lol) a little left wing and i strongly doubt its regarded as WP:RS. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Patrisse Khan-Cullors

If A cn tag is placed you are meant to provide a source. So can we have it sourced?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Brignac?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Purchase of properties

The Personal Life section clearly says it's reported that Patrisse Cullors bought properties, that's a wording for something that is unconfirmed. So there's nothing wrong in m adding an unverified purchase which created a controversy. Why are you reverting me User:Slatersteven? I hope you know the difference between reports and confirmed. And please don't use warnings to threaten me. Merely reverting people once does not count as any edit-war unless you want to continue to reverting. You are edit-warring by your own standard. I suggest next time you try a discussion before resorting to warnings. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Becasue its not all that relevant (see all the threads above about this, you have said nothing new and I have no more to add). As you say, its unconfirmed so its tittle tattle. What we have is a report of the controversy, and that is all we need.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That supposed purchase started this whole controversy and you are inaccurately claiming that she was only reported to buy three properties, verified and reported are not the same. On what basis do you decide what's not relevant? That must be addressed. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I did not make that change, if you care to check my preferred version is the one we now (more or less) have. Vague because we do not in fact have clear evidence of what is going on. And I do not decide what is relevant, WE do by discussion (As I said see the umpteen threads above as to who thinks what). This new thread adds nothing new, so I suggest you start to add to an existing thread. We cannot discuss the same thing in umpteen different places, it makes it hard to follow.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you really need to check the edit history you did partially revert to this version [[10]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think 'a number of properties' is too vague, is it 6 or 9 properties? either 3, or 3 or 4 properties is better. I do think the removed text by LéKashmiriSocialiste added a useful explanation, without it someone is very come along and change it back to include the 4th unconfirmed property (and other places). It is debatable whether the controversy was sparked off because of the uncertain 4th property or the unfounded reports themselves attempting to discredit her were the controversy. Most readers do not search the talk page threads, we are not limited by space, but I don't want to be part responsible for the cause of further edit battles. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

wp:undue, we give topics coverage equal to their importance to the overall article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I know you did not change it Slatersteven, but you did revert me. The controversy did start with that alleged 1.4 million dollar home as stated by Snopes [11]. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You also reverted my grammar correction in the article and me adding Khan-Cullors to her name in the infobox. Likely both are a mistake but I've only restored the former edit with the grammar correction. Please be careful. [12], [13]. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep i was partly responsible for changing had purchased four properties worth $3.2 million as both the value and number of properties are uncertain, maybe i should have written 3 or 4 properties rather than just 3.

I still think several or a number of properties suggests to the reader a larger number houses and/or other properties, three or four proprieties is more accurate, neutral and just as simple. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your concern but several does not mean a large number. It means more than two but not many. Or simply a few. If people don't know the meaning of a basic word and think say 9 or 10 is a few properties, then it's their own fault. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Clearly the moderator is not happy with the truth. Please allow the requested changes to be added. You’re only lying to yourself and the public. BLM4ALL (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the number of properties and their value relevant? Do we usually report the number and value of properties held by other public figures? It would be nice to figure out how to handle this in a way that's consistent across the project. I agree that the wording now is a bit odd. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

zero links to BLM (the org)

each instance of the term Black Lives Matters links to the BLM movement, and no links (unless i am mistaken) to the organization she founded. this should be remedied unless there is some reason that i am unaware of. 173.87.173.6 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Contorvery section

Should the story about her resigning and the housing debacle be added Persesus (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No. The last time this was discussed, there simply weren't any WP:RSes covering it - which sources do you think we could use? --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There is ample evidence in many, many sources about these disturbing allegations. New disclosures have come to light and it seems that it is being ignored here on WP in what could be construed as "protection" for BLM. How about these sources? Do any of them work?, , , , , , , , .

108.34.231.7 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Her support of jussie smollett for one and the money issue Persesus (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That isn’t a source Dronebogus (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

https://theshaderoom.com/patrisse-cullors-gives-an-update-on-jussie-smollett-says-hes-getting-an-actual-bed-after-sleeping-on-a-restraint-bed/ https://filmdaily.co/news/patrisse-cullors/ Persesus (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Persesus, that "shaderoom" link opens a Web page with several stories, but (for me, at least) none are about Smollett. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References