Talk:Patrisse Cullors/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Attempts to discredit her

This line "She said that her resignation had nothing to do with attempts to discredit her" is kind of confusing without any indication of anyone saying anything bad about her in the article.

It's not necessary to give a supporting source for these allegations, just to describe what was going on that at the very least got a response from her. Otherwise it probably doesn't make sense to mention her talking about the attempts to discredit her if those attempts are not notable.

Snopes

Given Snopes says In 2021, we found no evidence that Cullors had used donated money to buy the homes cited by Dirt and the New York Post, and noted that Cullors, a public figure with multiple ventures, had her own sources of wealth it's truly remarkable that this BLP has the text It later emerged that almost exactly one year later, revelations of another, larger real estate purchase, this time by the foundation, sparked fresh controversy referenced by it. Should anyone wish to come up with an actual neutrally written addition they are welcome to propose one. FDW777 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I could not confirm this source said she had purchased another home. Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I refer again to WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. FDW777 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Plus as i have tried to add, If anyone actually looks at the article the editor is using as a source regarding this particular property. The article does not say Cullors purchased this new property. But the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGN) purchased it as an intended for studio space and housing for recipients of the Black Joy Creators Fellowship. Plus Cullors was/is no longer the executive director of the organisation. This just another attempt at ineptly throwing dirt. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The NY Mag article says she was present at the property in question, discussing a previous property purchase during a live stream "a few days" before she resigned as executive director of BLMGNF. I think whether or not she was the one who signed the contract in the name of BLMGNF is irrelevant. Put in blunt terms; she was the executive director at the time and she is thereby either directly involved or severely mismanaged access to the organizations assets.

Furthermore I've seen this mentioned in plenty of places. Since I'm from Sweden and still read about it in part through local news sources, this is now as an international story. MrPorpoise (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I have visited the Tower of London, I do not own it. I would need an RS to say I did. Do these sources say she owns it? Slatersteven (talk)

Forgive my tone but that sounds like a rather bizarre statement, what bearing does that have on the conversation? MrPorpoise (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

As per your request for consensus according WP:ONUS: I vote for inclusion of this currently reverted proposal in the article, with a ref cleanup (7 sources for 2 sentences is borderline ridiculous and not even an IPA should expect that to stick). As mentioned in the above reply, this is now an international headline and therefore it is my opinion that this qualifies under WP:DUE.

I would also like to point IPAs to WP:TALKDONTREVERT; do not revert edits because you don't agree with them and don't engage in WP:EW. We all want Wikipedia to be the best it can be, and we need to calmly work together in order to achieve that goal. MrPorpoise (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion so it's no use pointing to references. Especially when there's no clear relevance to the biograsphy of Patrisse Cullors. FDW777 (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, but that's more a statement of fact than an argument. What does speak for inclusion however is the merit of significance. This is an international story with mainstream coverage, therefore I stand by my opinion that this situation is significant enough for inclusion. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Which source says she owns it? Slatersteven (talk)

Probably very few since BLMGNF legally owns the asset from what I can tell. The proposed text from the IPA doesn't make any such claim either under what I would consider a reasonable interpretation. Can you please clarify what the point of your question is, are you suggesting some rewording of the proposed text? MrPorpoise (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So it's of no relevance to a biography of Patrisse Cullors then. FDW777 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I was about to say that, this page is not about BLM it is about Patrisse Cullors. We can't imply guilt by association that is not (explicitly) made by RS. Even then wp:blp is clear that serious allegations of wrongdoing can only be included if they are backed up by some really good RS. So unless RS say she brought them it is not relevant to this article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors was the acting executive director of BLMGNF at the time, which is why this asset acquisition belongs on this page instead of the BLM page, just like the previous one already accepted by consensus in the article. Acquisition of the asset in question is not necessarily endorsed by the BLM movement as a whole and this disconnect between BLM and BLMGNF is even clarified in the NPR article. In other words; it's undeniably relevant to her and BLMGNF. This isn't guilt by association either; there are multiple consensus-approved WP:RSPSS (NRP, The Independent, The Telegraph, and those are just the ones in the proposed edit) directly implicating her in the acquisition itself. Again, even if we say she weren't the one who held the pen when the contract was signed by BLMGNF she was still the one who was ultimately responsible for management of the BLMGNF funds. Finally, if you do not believe proposed edit satisfies WP:BLP then feel free to vote no on the proposed edit, this vote has become a lot noisier than it needs to be, and from my perspective this amount of back-and-forth is really not helping your side of the argument either. MrPorpoise (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:synthesis, we need RS saying it, using their words. Do any of them accuse her of buying this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly not my duty to spoonfeed you the sources from the proposed edit. However, for the sake of argument, I'll include this quote from The Independent (link in the proposed edit): A year after one of the founders of the movement, Patrisse Khan-Cullors, alleged she was suffering from “right wing harassment” over her purchase of houses in the Los Angeles area, a controversy that would eventually lead her to quit the organisation, [...]. The Independent is in WP:RSP and I see no reason to doubt their claim unless you want to border into the territory of WP:OR. If you want The Independent stricken from WP:RSP then I do not envy you in the uphill battle you'd be taking upon yourself. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please. Plenty of RS points at Mrs. Cullors directly yet we have two long-time editors who after protection of this article refuse to budge to consider these RS's. Here's a very relevant accusation straight from NY Mag: "Two weeks later, a man named Dyane Pascall purchased the seven-bedroom house that would become known as Campus. According to California business-registration documents, Pascall is the financial manager for Janaya and Patrisse Consulting, an LLC run by Cullors and her spouse, Janaya Khan; Pascall is also the chief financial officer for Trap Heals, a nonprofit led by Damon Turner, the father of Cullors’s only child." Here'a anoter: "One conversation from June 2021 — after Cullors announced her resignation — concerns her assistant confronting a man who had been found snooping around the premises." Another: "The Janaya and Patrisse LLC was created and controlled by Patrisse Cullors." Even Snopes admits it when they state "But in the 2022 Intelligencer report, Black Lives Matter movement leaders indirectly acknowledged that Cullors had purchased homes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.231.7 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The details you refer to from the Independent are already in the article. They read In 2021, a controversy arose in some media outlets, following reports that Cullors (or entities associated with her) had purchased several homes during a five-year period. Those would be the properties purchased by Patrisse Cullors using her own money, which did not come from donations to BLM. FDW777 (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No, now you're venturing into the art of misdirection. The article in question is specifically about the acquisition of the 6 million USD asset in question. There would be no need for inclusion of Patrisse Cullors by name in the article about an asset owned by BLMGNF if she had purchased it "using her own money". It stands to reason that The Independent would not just throw random fun facts into an article about such a grave matter. This is also clearly a distinctly different story than those mentioned in the quote you provided, since these articles are written from new material that surfaced in 2022, not 2021. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You appear very confused. The quote you provided at 01:09, 18 April refers to Patrisse Cullors resiging from the BLMGNF in 2021, at the time there was invented controvery over her purchase of homes with her own money. The April 2022 details about the BLMGNF purchasing a $6million property are a different event entirely. FDW777 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This thread is obviously still about the 2022 development. I have been very patient with you, and I would strongly suggest you read up on WP:CIVIL. I have explained in very clear terms why I think the edit should be accepted, I have justified its inclusion within reason, and I have suggested it might still need minor edits before or after being accepted. Either argue the points or disengage. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This point has been refuted repeatedly. The references don't support the narrative you want to add to the article. I quote from @Hipocrite: below This addition grossly violated WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. Whomever added it should be last-warned about their conduct...Further attempts to imply someone committed a felony that do not use impeccably reliable sources that clearly state someone committed a felony should be reverted per WP:BLP, and individuals who insert such implications should be blocked by the nearest admin. FDW777 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The quote in question has nothing to do with this thread. Please double check which thread you're writing in. Furthermore, there is not a single one of those points which you have refuted, you've only expressed how you're displeased with the reporting of The Independent, which would be an issue between you and WP:RSN. MrPorpoise (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It quite blatantly is, since Hipocrite is replying after my comment regarding this addition to the article (which you restored without consensus). Other than the IP, there's not a single editor who agreees with the addition and many who disagree with it, so I suggest you move on to something more productive. 1FDW777 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I shall repeat, can users wanting to claim SHE purchased a home in 2022 please provide a source (with a quotation, in other words, it must say SHE purchased it, not anyone else) supporting that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Source for the claim that she was involved in the acquisition of the asset was provided in the proposed edit, and quoted from The Independent earlier in the thread upon request from @FDW777:. There was no serious effort to challenge that quote from neither you nor FDW777, and since the thread kept moving past that quote afterwards I would presume there's consensus on the authenticity of the quote. MrPorpoise (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That does not say she brought it, it is just talking about BLM doing it a year after the controversy involving her "it was been reported that the group bought a $6m property, that was subsequently transferred to the ownership of a company in Delaware, ensuring the property’s owner could not be disclosed.", note "the group" not "Patrisse Cullors" (please read wp:v). Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It has to say She bought it, or (at the very least) she was directly involved in the purchase. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Two things; (1) the source says pretty much flat out she was involved if you read all of it instead of just the last few words of the second paragraph, and (2) we're still talking about BLMGNF, not BLM. BLMGNF is a legal entity claiming to represent BLM, BLM is a movement. These two are different things, as explained many times before, yet you keep ignoring that. If you can't even make that distinction then we're done here, since I no longer believe you're taking this seriously. Which then means discussion has stalled and a bold edit might be in order. MrPorpoise (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Bold is followed by Revert is followed by Discussion. I see no presented evidence supporting your position. You haven't been able to gain consensus for this position in extended (and stalled) discussion. We're way past bold right now. Misusing BOLD at this point is a recipe for escalating warnings and a block. BusterD (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

My position is pretty simple actually, but it has been misrepresented over and over in this thread; Patrisse Cullors was the acting executive director of BLMGNF at the time. The previous allegations from 2021 are in the article already (see Patrisse_Cullors#Personal_life). Therefore the 2022 developments belong in the article. I don't think this would be controversial at all if @FDW777: and @Slatersteven: hadn't argued semantics. Basically the bottom line for me is either the 2022 developments go in or the 2021 developments go out. If we have one it's dishonest not to have the other. As for what I meant by bold, please see WP:BRD. MrPorpoise (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Lets be abundantly clear this event has nothing to do with the property purchased in 2021 by Cullors. The fact she might have present or involved is irrelevant, it does not mean that she brought the property for herself, this purchase has zero to do with her own personal or her family's property. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Feels like I'm trapped in Groundhog Day or something at this point. Nobody has claimed she brought (I assume you mean "bought") the property for herself. I don't know how many times I've had to say this in this thread. BLMGNF allegedly acquired the asset at way above market value under her leadership. 6 billion USD is such a large value that she had to be either directly involved or severely mismanaged access to BLMGNF funds. Either way this is a very significant event related to her. I have yet to get a decent counter argument against the inclusion of this (she didn't buy it for herself isn't an argument, it's an irrelevant statement of fact), and until I get one I'll maintain my position that this belongs in the article. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually I shouldn't say statement of fact since I don't have any reliable source to back it up, but I currently have no reason at all to believe she acquired the asset for herself. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Then what does this have to do with her? This article is about here, so only information relating to here should be here. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Also she stopped down from her leadership role in BLM in 2021, so anything they did in 2022 is not down to her (unless a course contradicts that, snoopes does not). Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The asset in question was acquired in October 2020, yet again you seem to be confusing this with something else. You might also want to either disable autocorrect or proofread your comments since they're becoming a bit hard to decipher. MrPorpoise (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the agreed erroneous connection to her personal property and private life, please can you tell us where the is source that this totally separate property was purchased at way above market value, I am unable to find any evidence of this assertion in the reliable press to back up your claim. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please provide something to back up your claim of this being an "erroneous connection". As for my claim that it was sold for way above market value, I have found out through some original research that it might not be true, but I can not find any accepted reliable source that refutes that claim (only NY Post and Daily Mail). MrPorpoise (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

MrPorpoise, The has been some misunderstanding, you yourself said Nobody has claimed she brought (I assume you mean "bought") the property for herself which is in line with the sources. So I was simply pleased that we all agree that property does not belong to her. If it does not belong to her, then it has zero connected to her own personal (separate) family homes, plus simply any property assets owned by her former advocacy organisation does not belong in her personal life section. Did someone mention Groundhog month? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There does indeed seem to be some form of misunderstanding here. I know the doesn't own the asset, nor does she claim to own it, as far as I know anyway. But this is a significant event surrounding her. She is deeply involved in the controversy no matter how you look at it. Therefore it is my opinion that it should be mentioned in her article. You can argue the proposed edit needs some work, because you would have a good case there, but the center of the discussion should be the binary decision of including anything about the 2022 controversy of the 2020 asset acquisition. To me the form of how we include it is a tangential issue. From my interpretation of the second example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE this would be a clear cut case; Patrisse Cullors is a public figure, multiple major newspapers have published the allegations (please still keep in mind I'm from Sweden and I read about this in a local newspaper), and there's a public scandal. Now if we word it as being an alleged misappropriation of funds it could almost be a carbon copy of the example I referred to. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What are your sources for the accusation of the alleged misappropriation of funds. To link anyone with criminal activity, public figure or not needs very solid high quality reliable sources, especially if the is no conviction... A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law,(and therefore such edits are more likely to be reverted). Plus gossip in local papers is not the best source WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPCRIME & WP:RSPSOURCES. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, I forgot "misappropriate" can be a legal term in English. What I meant was using the funds inappropriately. It doesn't necessarily imply criminal behavior, but it's still widely regarded as bad. Just like the affair in the WP:PUBLICFIGURE isn't necessarily criminal (to my knowledge having an affair isn't illegal in the US). "Gossip" is your own characterization of the subject and I'd refrain from including my personal commentary of the papers in question, the credibility of the papers themselves isn't in question here. MrPorpoise (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

To add, (again) this article is about HER not BLM, so any material must say something about HEr, not BLM. As we already mention the controversy over HER purchases of home a couple of years ago this adds nothing to our understanding of HER or the controversy surrounding HER. So this now needs to be dropped, it is clear that wp:consensus is against using adding this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The controversy isn't about BLM, it's about BLMGNF under the control of Patrisse Cullors. BLM (as in the movement) has very little, if anything at all, to do with this and BLMGNF is just the formal entity Patrisse Cullors supposedly signed the legal documents with. Either way I'm done with you not making that distinction, and how you refuse to keep those apart tells me you've stopped taking this matter seriously. This is a Wikipedia article talk page, WP:NOTAFORUM. If you want to vent your feelings about this there's always the teahouse or whatever actual forum you prefer. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

From which she resigned her position in May 2021, this new stuff is about a purchased see a year later. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Then if solid evidence exists it belongs in the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation article except once again accusations need solid indisputable evidence reported in high quality reliable sources to be included in Wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Solid evidence of allegations? If there was solid and established evidence then it wouldn't be an allegation, then it would be an ongoing or finished legal case. This is a controversy in major news sources as quoted in numerous other edits here, both from myself and others. MrPorpoise (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep Wikipedia, especially in biographies of living people, concentrates on facts and matters that receive significant coverage in the established reliable news sources, not mere controversies possibly reported in your local media or mine. Please kindly guide me, which major news source articles relate to specifically this property purchased by BLMGNF (not Cullors) and apart from yourself which other editors support your argument for inclusion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Can all users take personal comments or warnings to either talk users talk pages or wp:ani? Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Modern (April '22) sources regarding housing affair

There is ample evidence in 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) 03:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Immediately going to give a big no to Fox News, NYpost and WaEx, and a HUGE no to the Daily Mail, per Wikipedia:Perennial sources. Independent, Snopes and NY Mag are generally respectable. No consensus on Jezebel. No information on KHOU. Overall the incident is notable. A bigger question would be “what does this incident specifically have to do with Patrisse Cullors?” Dronebogus (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The big problem of course being that Snopes doesn't say what people would like it to say, using phrases such as In 2021, we found no evidence that Cullors had used donated money to buy the homes cited by Dirt and the New York Post, and noted that Cullors, a public figure with multiple ventures, had her own sources of wealth. For example, Cullors co-authored the New York Times bestseller book “When They Call You a Terrorist,” and had struck a deal with Warner Brothers to help the network develop programming and Almost exactly one year later, revelations of another, larger real estate purchase, this time by the foundation, sparked fresh controversy. So Snopes does not reference a 2022 controversy that needs to be added to this biography. The same applies to several of the other references I bothered to check. Should someone be willing to come up with a suggested addition to this article with appropriate references I would be willing to consider it, but I'm not going to waste my time reading any more articles that have no direct relevance to Patrisse Cullors. FDW777 (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We are discussing these new allegations above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You see? There seems to be an intention to protect this person by not even considering more recent sources such as the new Snopes article which, by the way, acknowledges their past reporting and confirms that Mrs. Cullors DID buy this house. The relevant Snopes source states: "But in the 2022 Intelligencer report, Black Lives Matter movement leaders indirectly acknowledged that Cullors had purchased homes...".

Also, why a big no to Fox when MSNBC, NBC, Vice, and HuffPo are included in the main articles sources? See here where Fox themselves complain at the lack of "legacy media" coverage when NY Mag did a great job of obtaining all the needed paperwork to prove that Mrs. Cullors is benefiting from a $6 million mansion purchase financed by the BLM nonprofit. Of note, NY Mag is considered a liberal publication. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

YOu need to go to wp:rsn and ask that. As it was at RSN that the community decoded these were (or were not) RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Patrisse Cullors purchased property. Using her own money. Not Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation money. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation purchased property. Property that belongs to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. Not Patrisse Cullors. There is no 2022 controversy, except by those who seek to smear. FDW777 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

So, Mr. FDW777, per your accusations, NY Mag, Snopes, Jezebel, and The Independent, all liberal publications, are "smearing" Mrs. Cullors? Also, Fox News, Washington Examiner, and otheds considered "conservative", right? Have you even read from your recently quoted Snopes that even they admitted to be wrong about Mrs. Cullors using a nonprofits money for her multimillion-dollar real estate purchases? There are many good, reliable sources here. We need to prevent this kind of openly biased WP editor from touching this article. This needs to be escalated to an Admin. It is sad the amount of stonewalling some editors will do to protect this one Mrs. Cullors. Even Jezebel, an ultra-liberal publication, stated that "We Want Answers. Allies are asking for transparency as the organization is accused of misusing donation funds." This has been referenced earlier in this thread. I repeat, this is status quo stonewalling and needs the attention of an Admin. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Then take it to wp:ani, I would suggest you do not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No, they are not smearing at all. Because, as already stated, the references (in particular Snopes) does not say what you want it to say. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For further clarity, since you do not apparently get this, a reference saying We Want Answers. Allies are asking for transparency as the organization is accused of misusing donation funds is by definition referring to the organization (hence the use of the organization). It is not accusing Patrisse Cullors, therefore as repeatedly pointed out there is no direct relevance to a biography of Patrisse Cullors. FDW777 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the Jezebel has been deleted on this talk page, I am readdind it here. RE Mrs. Cullors, and directly contradicting FDW777 and his stonewalling attempts, "Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, along with the other BLM founders, is under investigation after the organization allegedly bought a $6 million dollar mansion with donation funds...". It also further states "This isn’t even the first time that Cullors has been accused of making frivolous property purchases on BLM’s dime. Cullors has been long under scrutiny for her loose handling of BLM finances." It concludes with "Chapter members ultimately held Cullors’ feet to the fire for her opacity and elusiveness in May 2021, resulting in Cullors stepping down as Executive Director of the organization."

FDW777 Do you still stand by your accusations of a "smearing" campaign by NY Mag, Jezebel, The Independent, and many other RS? You stated "It is not accusing Patrisse Cullors" regarding the Jezebel article and yet I just source three direct quotes from said article that contradict your accusations. Do you see how your negative on this protected article amounts to stonewalling? 108.34.231.7 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't understand. The references don't smear her. You smear her, by deliberately mispresenting what the references say. FDW777 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

OK simple question, provide a quote from each source (including the name of the source) that says in 2022 SHE brought a home. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

"Patrisse Marie Khan-Cullors Brignac[1] (née Cullors-Brignac; born June 20, 1983) is an American activist, co-founder of the"

Replace Activist with "terrorist" 209.89.76.156 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Without any backup sources (WP:RS, WP:CITE).--A09090091 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Contradictions

The paragraph about her arrest at 12 contradicts itself. First it says she was at the Sherman Oaks middle school when arrested. Later in the paragraph, it says she was at Van Nuys middle school at the time. Which is it? 2601:98A:4100:D410:686E:7BCC:3702:7ED1 (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on recent sources on recent sources

In the past week new documents concerning allegations of misused nonprofit funds have been published and reported by NY Mag, Snopes, Jezebel, The Independent, and other RS. Many other non-RS have picked up on this. The culprit, from the documents unearthed, is Mrs. Patrisse Cullors and she is being directly accused as the beneficiary of over $6 million dollar homes with misused BLM funds. After a request for protection on this page was granted, Slatersteven and FDW777, two editors who collaborate together frequently as seen by visiting FDW777's talk page, have refused to add any of these RS sources. FDW777 going so far as accusing all these RS of orchestrating a smear campaign and only referring to year-old articles from these same sources to argue for non-inclusion. After requesting an outsider to take a look at this, Slatersteven directed me to the Admin's noticeboard and told me not to post anything there in what could be (mis)understood as a menacing tone. I would humbly request to community to read this Talk Page recent issues and chime in. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude this disputed and BLP violating addition. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the references don't criticise Patrisse Cullors in relation to the $6million purchase because she didn't purchase it. Therefore it's of zero relevance to a biography of her. That you are incapable of grasping this very simple fact despite it being repeatedly explained to you is the current problem here. As pointed out what Snopes actually says is In 2021, we found no evidence that Cullors had used donated money to buy the homes cited by Dirt and the New York Post, and noted that Cullors, a public figure with multiple ventures, had her own sources of wealth. For example, Cullors co-authored the New York Times bestseller book “When They Call You a Terrorist,” and had struck a deal with Warner Brothers to help the network develop programming and Almost exactly one year later, revelations of another, larger real estate purchase, this time by the foundation, sparked fresh controversy So the first controversy (in the article) isn't even a controversy since it's her own money, and the second contorversy doesn't involve her because it's the foundation. So it goes in the foundation's article, not this article. FDW777 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• 108.34, I removed the RfC tag. I'm not sure if you've used the RfC process before, but you'll see some guidance at WP:RFCOPEN. It's important that the opening statement be neutral, brief, and clear in asking a specific question. Your original opening statement was definitely not neutral, and it would be hard for newcomers to know which issues to chime in on.
  I don't think we need an RfC, but I'd be happy to help you craft a neutral statement. You might draft some proposed language and say "Should the article include the following text, yes or no?" Or you might propose a given length of content and ask something like "Should the article include an X-sentence-long mention of the recent real estate purchase controversy?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear editor Firefangledfeathers, thanks for your offer to help. What this article sorely needs is an outsider, neutral viewpoint. Perhaps you can help us here. The key issue is that, after this article received protection, two editors, FDW777 and Slatersteven have refused to permit addition of very recent RS's that directly Mrs. Cullors of misusing BLM foundation funds for multimillion dollar house purchases. As can be confirme by reviewing FDW777's talk page, they both tend to edit articles together. This same editor went to my IP's talk page and put a warning label, as a chilling effect, and has been quite aggresive in his responses. Additionally, editor Slatersteven misdirected me to Admins complaint board. Thus, a RfC was created. Other editors who havd posted recently in this talk page also agree to include verbiage from these very recent RS's. But editor FDW777 states that we are all part of some sort of "smear campaign" (his words). This current situation needs experienced and neutral outsiders to look at this. Thank you. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! I can't claim to be a neutral outsider, as I've edited the article and talk page multiple times, and I participated in the debate over how to cover Cullors' real estate purchases from last year. One option is to use the Dispute resolution noticeboard, which will involve a neutral moderator facilitating structured discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I afraid that you are woefully confused FDW777 and Slatersteven are simply applying very basic Wikipedia guidance, based on years of experience in thousands of articles in...that news sources must be reliable and if mistakes occur those news sources correct their errors quickly. I suggest you head over to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources and simply check if Wikipedia based on experience trusts your source. Some like the Daily Mail, NY Post, Washington Examiner are considered unreliable by the community, others are unclear like Jezabel. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. And for Biographies of Living People we are duty bound to be extra careful when adding any thing that is probably contentious about living persons that is poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Editors are not attacking you personally, they are correctly applying Wikipedia guidance. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but it seems you might have missed the already established RS some editors and me have proposed, such as NY Mag, NRP, The Independent, Snopes, and The Telegraph. Even Slatersteven recognized them as such. Do review them and let me know. Thanks. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Round in circles again. The references that are reliable don't support the negative slant you wish to add to the article. FDW777 (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I believe you are not even reading any of the quoted RS cited above. Many, many inline citations yet you do not have an issue with any of them in particular but still respond to me with a general "I am right" statement. This seems to be in bad faith. Unless you wish to provide direct criticism of what has been cited to you, I prefer you do not respond to me. Due to your past hounding of my comments and leaving two "warnings" in this IP users Talk Page, this is clear WP:HARASS. Have a good day. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The references don't say what you want them to say. They don't support the narrative you want to add to this article. No amount of you denying this will change what the references say, and what they don't say. FDW777 (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

THis is being discussed above, do we need two threads that are going over the same ground? Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

When you put an RFC tag on an article, it causes a bot to summon people to the article to help. I am one of those people summoned: diff. This addition grossly violated WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. Whomever added it should be last-warned about their conduct. Please do not add another RFC tag asking about this same, obviously inappropriate edit. Further attempts to imply someone committed a felony that do not use impeccably reliable sources that clearly state someone committed a felony should be reverted per WP:BLP, and individuals who insert such implications should be blocked by the nearest admin. Hipocrite (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) Agree that this needs a real RFC, and a properly organized and formatted one. Please feel to ping me if you create one. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not certain we do need an RFC here. We have a BLP responsibility and one IP editor who just won't take no for an answer. I'm not seeing any support for the position this trivia needs to be inserted without clear and reliable sourcing making the case first. Nothing so far, even NY Mag looks like scuttlebutt to me. Based on sources this appears to be an attempt by the dedicated folks at 1211 Seventh Avenue to smear an entire popular movement by painting a single capital investment as something bad. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear editor North8000, thank you for your kind offer. I will give it a go. Here is a very short, direct, and neutral RfC message based on RS':

"{{r f c|bio|soc}}"

Should this BLP contain a sentence mentioning nonprofit funds misuse accusations? Relevant RS below.

Signature would go here.

Then, in a comment, as to avoid the bot from not picking up all the text, just add the following RS links. Nothing else.

-https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/black-lives-matter-6-million-dollar-house.html

-https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-lives-matter-california-property-cullors-b2052447.html

-https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/05/black-lives-matter-leaders-accused-using-6m-donations-buy-luxury/

-https://jezebel.com/black-lives-matter-founders-allegedly-bought-a-6-milli-1848758277

-https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/04/04/home-purchase-by-black-lives-matter-foundation-scrutinized/

-https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-lives-matter-leaders-condemn-allegations-mismanaged-funds-rcna23882

Note: I have inserted spaces to prevent the bot from picking this up. If adding in-line citations would be better, let me know please. Thanks again for helping.

108.34.231.7 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The addition of the NBC News source improves the case for insertion considerably. For the record, I've already made my opinion clear, but if I may be allowed to comment on the proposal itself, I'd think a clearer RFC would actually state the exact words you wish to insert, with formatted citation. Asking the RFC participants to parse the language may make for a less satisfactory result. For my part, I would not use independent, jezebel or telegraph, but I might add back the source Daily Mail (because it is quoted and further investigated in NYMag). May I raise one more question? The sources, especially the NBC source, seems to give context and to my reading make this clear: This is a Black Lives Matter issue, not a Patrisse Cullors issue. Why does this belong in THIS pagespace? I think this a more reasonable insertion on the BLM page, the board of which agreed to invest in useful property, as opposed to leasing. It would be good if the insertion was to make this distinction. BusterD (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  This already is included at Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation#Real estate and salary dispute. Your question Why does this belong in THIS pagespace? is one that has been repeatedly asked of the IP editor, and has yet to be answered to anyone's satisfaction. FDW777 (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  That its funds may have been mismanaged seems very relevant to BLMGNF of course, but that she stands accused of having mismanaged BLMGNF funds also seems very relevant to a discussion of Cullors' career. CptnJustc (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Precisely the reason these editors are requiring the high level of sourcing from the inserter. I see nothing in the presented reliable sources which makes the accusation you've described. A reasonable search finds nothing considered reliable which does. Those sources who weigh in, seem to make this BLM foundation purchase like a yacht or a sports car. It's clearly not, it's a capital investment, based on sources found. Media people with agendas to push have pushed the "accused" and "mismanaged" angles with no actual evidence. NYMag makes a better argument and the NBC source makes a less hyperbolic one. I can't see how this makes it into a BLP. BusterD (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think there's confusion among the editors between "mismanagement" and some sort of provable intentional wrongdoing, as per NY Mag: "It’s not a critique that says what you’re doing is illegal or even unethical; it might just be unstrategic." That seems to be more testified to by some of the sources, e.g. NYM's "The statement did not address why, if the house was primarily intended to be a creative space, relatively little content has been produced there over the course of 17 months" along with examples of Cullors' personal use of it and discussion of the transfer of ownership, questioning the assertion that it was a straightforward/sensible capital investment. I agree that it's a little light for inclusion, but I disagree with prior editors in that I think generally that the topic is pertinent to both BLMGNF and Cullors, and therefore appropriate for inclusion should the sourcing get deeper/story get larger. CptnJustc (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

OK simple question, provide a quote from each source (including the name of the source) that says in 2022 SHE brought a home. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to make one last assertion (if a bit FORUMy). IMHO the way the media has treated this "scandal" says much about the way media treats progressive non-profits (and not coincidentally mirrors the way big media frequently punches down). I'd assert that if the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation or AEI (institutions serving power) were to purchase a 6 million dollar mansion, the press would largely ignore it, and no individuals would be mentioned in coverage except for the institutions' chosen spokesperson. Because this is about Black Lives Matter GNF (a movement and foundation serving the out-of-power), any large purchase gets incredible personalized scrutiny from the RW echo chamber, much like "they can't be poor! Look! they have iPhones!" No irony, this is the pattern revealed by the presented sources. BusterD (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This should be reconsidered now that she has recanted some of her previous statements and acknowledged hosting parties in the home on at least two occasions. She also said hosting parties at the home was a lapse in judgement. 2600:1700:1111:5940:2DE4:6C0E:886A:FE11 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Clutching at very thin straws, having one or two parties in an organisation's property (I have done that, more than a couple of times) does not change the fact, that the property purchase belongs to BLMGN article and not Cullors. Seriously this is a very minor development and adds nothing. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

As I read the discussions about the purchase of real estate, I think that two different properties are being discussed, which inevitably muddies the water. Cullors bought some property on her own. That is her property. She says bought with her own money for family members. There is also one home that was bought for GNBLM, bought with GNBLM funds. That is where she admits to having hosted parties. Do other editors think that these are kept clear in the article and in the discussion? Only hoping for clarity. Pete unseth (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Revert of Fulbright alumni

@Pete unseth if you look to the wikidata of this item it’s already referenced three times but you mentioned that she is not included in Fulbright website which means there is a list available of all laureates which definitely overrides any references. Can you please share this list as I added many to this category based on similar references and it will good to cross-check. Thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I added some content noting the grant, inserted a citation, and restored the category. @FuzzyMagma: regardless of what's on Wikidata, the categories/articles here need to meet WP:CATV, meaning the Fulbright info and a reliable source citation need to be present in the article. You may want to review your work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers thanks for the advice. Please note I was the one to add these references to Wikidata but thought there was a list from Fulbright itself as mentioned when my edit was reverted. I understand that categories need to reflect what is already written and referenced in the article not the other way around. Anyway, no harm in more due diligence and will revisit my category edits. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The online list of Fulbright alumni does not include Ms Cullors: https://us.fulbrightonline.org/alumni/grantee-directory. At least a year ago, this article listed her as having received a Fulbright scholarship that allowed her to graduate from UCLA. I deleted this error back then, also. I cited her absence on the list of Fulbright alumni on the Fulbright website. Also, I pointed out that Fulbright does not give scholarship money for students, but rather sends graduates overseas. These corrections about her were made and explained in the Talk page at that time.Pete unseth (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

That directory doesn't claim to be comprehensive, and it is unlikely to be so. For example, the Department of State said while releasing some 2020-2021 data that they give the award to "more than 2,200 U.S. Students". The directory you link only has 1390 names for 2020 and 1027 for 2021. Prior discussion in the archives shows others questioning the use of a primary source like this, and I share their concerns. In addition to all the high-quality secondary sources that verify this fact, the Fulbright Program named Cullors as an alum in a Facebook post. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I have inquired of the Fulbright program whether they grant scholarships to undergraduates. I will wait to hear. If I have been wrong, I will reinsert the material I deleted.Pete unseth (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

We may have a dilemma, at least for some. In reply to my inquiry to the Fulbright program, I received this message, "In order to receive a Fulbright U.S. Student grant applicants must have a conferred bachelor's degree or equivalent before the start of the grants." Anyone reading the Fulbright program's website would find that there are no programs for undergraduates. Yet, it is claimed she "received a Fulbright Scholarship which allowed her to get a degree in religion and philosophy from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2012." https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/cullors-patrisse-1984/. Her degree in religion and philosophy is identified as an undergraduate degree https://www.thehistorymakers.org/biography/patrisse-cullors. The Fulbright program does not give financial tuition grants, and has no programs for undergraduate students.

There are different definitions of "original research", but the Fulbright program website is an open, public website. Many of the websites that mention her Fulbright award do not seem to claim any special knowledge. The reference to "high-quality secondary sources that verify this fact" seems too strong. I do not here blame Ms Cullors for this incorrect claim to having been given a Fulbright scholarship. But the claim that she was a Fulbright scholar is not supported by evidence. Pete unseth (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Enrichissez-vous

"Under her leadership, Cullors authorized a six-figure payout to be given to her child’s father for various services, paid $1.8 million to companies owned by her relatives, and ensured that her brother, Paul Cullors, was one of the highest-paid employees of BLM." https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-the-real-takeaway-from-black-lives-matters-sketchy-finances --62.26.155.34 (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

might be able to say something about this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

While WP:RSP states "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast." it goes onto state "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." To satisfy neutral inclusion the needs really to be good quality supporting sourcing for any inclusion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know, but Associated Press should fit (see below) according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources--62.26.155.34 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

it might... "For example, the tax filing shows the foundation paid nearly $970,000 to Trap Heals LLC, a company founded by Damon Turner, who fathered a child with Cullors. (...)

The foundation paid more than $840,000 to Cullors Protection LLC, a security firm run by Paul Cullors, Patrisse’s brother, according to the tax filing."

https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-race-ethnicity-philanthropy-black-lives-matter-5bc4772e029da522036f8ad2a02990aa 62.26.155.34 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but did Cullors have administrative control or influence of the organization when the payments were made? If so, then I think it should probably be stated since it is a fact and it happened under Cullors' administration. If not, then I think it is irrelevant to the article.

(I'm also a virtual pedestrian searching information. It does not sit well with me that information could be witheld based on politics. It is manipulative and a disservice to Mediawiki readers.).

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure where this reply should go but regarding concerns about the sourcing: a copy of the tax filing is available on the BLM website: https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/blmgnf-tc-form-990-2020-2021-01.pdf

The filing shows the payments to the independent contractors mentioned as being controlled by her relatives and close friends. It also shows that Cullors was the organization's only employee, which suggests she had complete discretion as to the use of the funds. Hope this helps. Sambarasch (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

We need to leave this out because right-wing agitators will only use it to smear the BLM movement as a whole. It's important to take this into account when adding what might be seen as 'negative press' to WP articles. 65.190.186.126 (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That reason may violate wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

i think, it's an article about P.Cullors, not the BLM-Movement. I as non-american didn't even know, that BLM had a federal legal frame on the top before and I didn't know Cullors before either. I'm just virtual pedestrian searcing information, which was/is lacking.--62.26.155.34 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Really? You need to leave this out because you are afraid of the political fallout? This is a factual summary, not a political fluff piece. What right do you have as an editor to worry about how RW readers would interpret facts? Facts are fact. How can this article have any modicum of reliability with comments like these? 2A04:241E:301:3780:FC56:48D0:CF48:DA3 (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. X-Editor (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of the subject of this article will be deleted and you will be condemned to cancellation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.104.23 (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We need to update the photo of patrice in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowdash (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC) i'm confused, how is it that $840k went to HER BROTHER, $970k to HER BABY DADDY, and $2.3m to some old friend's COFFEE SHOP? even if she was not in charge of grant authorizations herself, someone was doing all this to win favor with her, no?

have there been no legal charges in all this? 4 million dollars is a bit much to just wave away and say "i had no say in all that". 2601:19C:527F:A660:DC6B:6C56:27E2:10F (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You would need to ask the authorities. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2023

Warner Bros rescinded the deal in 2023 after Cullors failed to submit anything the deal stipulated she was to deliver. Freextoxchoose (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)