This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. California: Los Angeles C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force. LGBT studies: Person C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force. Black Lives Matter C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. African diaspora C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women artists C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Women's History C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Template:BLP noticeboard

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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?^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9].

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

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1]: "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^[2] 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)[reply]

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?^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11]. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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^[12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since the Jezebel has been deleted on this talk page, I am readdind it here.^[13] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]