This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Socialism Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: San Francisco Bay Area Start‑class Mid‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance). Illinois Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora Start‑class Top‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-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 Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance). Discrimination Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political / Contemporary Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Contemporary philosophy

(@Xenophrenic, this is primarily in response to our WP:NPOV phrasing disagreement):
There are several issues with the source provided (14) for the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the lede section. The first concerns whether it is, in fact, a reliable source. The author is described by the publication as an "independent journalist" and doctoral student. Should this be viewed as an academic writing, the status as a student does not pass the muster on reliability. This is all the more compounded by the fact that references and citations, even informal ones, are wholly absent from the writing. Should this be viewed as a journalistic piece, there is scant evidence of editorial review before publication, making it essentially tantamount to self-publication (an issue explained by WP:VERIFY#Self-published sources). Therefore, in no way can the views expressed be verified as anything more than the author's opinion. The next issue concerns the publication itself. CounterPunch, as described on its wikipedia page and elsewhere on the web, is an ideologically oriented publication, self-described as "muckraking with a radical attitude." Other characterizations, all of which are cited in its wikipedia article, include "extreme," "left-wing," "radical," and "anti-Zionist." There are too many issues to name for including and portraying an intentionally partisan viewpoint as neutral tone, though some can be found here: WP:NEUTRALSOURCE, WP:NPOV#Bias in sources. Therefore, the terminology used is simply unacceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I strongly urge reverting to my previously reverted edit, if not excising the part in question altogether. Ergo Sum 19:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ergo Sum. Thank you for communicating some of your concerns here. Until now, our disagreement was over how to portray what sources say (specifically, in the beginning of the 4th paragraph of the lead). A quick review of our article, and a quick review of the Thomas Barker source, showed that your edits were not supported, while the original wording before your changes was indeed supported. Therefore, your change was reverted. For those same still valid reasons, your suggestion now to revert to your version goes against Wikipedia policy.

I see we have now moved on to questioning the quality of the first cited source in the 4th paragraph. That's fine, but we should first make sure we're clear on a few policy specifics and editing conventions. First, as explained in the links you provided above, there are no "self-published sources" involved here (unless you are suggesting Thomas Barker also runs CounterPunch). Second, reliable sources most certainly can be biased or non-neutral, and in fact, those can sometimes be our best sources. Third, the lead in Wikipedia articles is supposed to summarize the key points and sources from the body of the article, and as such, often do not even require source citations. The addition of the cite to Thomas Barker (an admittedly low-quality source), while it supports much of the content in the preceding sentences, is supplementary and not mandatory. With those clarifications out of the way, I think it becomes obvious that our efforts would be best spent focusing on the specific content in question, and the changes to it you proposed with your most recent edit.

If I understand your edit correctly, you would like our article to say that public support for the movement declined specifically because of the "militancy" of the Panthers, rather than a more general and far reaching vilification in the media (including on non-"militant" matters like drugs, intra-organization conflicts, leftist politics, personality clashes, petty crimes, and generally negative gossip and drama). You do realize that reliable sources convey that law enforcement grew militant before this part of the civil rights movement did, right? And in that counterculture era, defiant militancy and radical reaction was more a populist selling-point than a detriment. There also appears to be some confusion on whether government "suppression" of the Panthers generated more public sympathy and support for the movement than the government "oppression" of a people. Would you be interested in discussing these matters further? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether biased sources are permissible, but whether they ought to be construed as neutral by their inclusion in the lede section and unqualified presentation. Clearly, this source falls under the category of non-neutral sources. Therefore, it is only sensible to exclude it from a neutral introductory section or modifying it to reflect its opinion status. Additionally, my grounds for contending this source is self-published is that there is no clear evidence of editorial review on the part of CounterPunch. One cannot assume that it underwent a thorough pre-publication review process. If there is no editorial process, it is effectively the same as self-publishing. Ergo Sum 04:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is ...

No. That wasn't the issue, as evidenced by your edit, which left the Barker source there, and instead changed lead wording to something which was not a representative summary of content and sources already in the body of the article (and incidentally, also not conveyed by the Barker source). That tells me the issue was the content, and not the specifics about an individual source. Perhaps it would alleviate your confusion if the Barker source citation were moved into the body of the article? (The summary lead content would, of course, remain intact where it is - only the cite would be moved.) But if you would like to change the focus of this discussion, we can do that. As a mostly irrelevant aside, "If there is no editorial process, it is effectively the same as self-publishing" is an incorrect statement; it wrongly conflates content & sources & publishers. Content consists of information like facts and opinions; the source is who that information comes from; the publisher is the disseminator of that information. If you would like to change the "issue" to a discussion of a single source citation (Barker), and whether it is a source of opinion or a source of assertion of fact, and whether the publisher of that source (CounterPunch) has editorial control (it does) and "reviewed" the content (irrelevant, if it is considered 'opinion') or the source (it did, the source was indeed verified as Barker), then we can certainly do that -- but we should do so on a more appropriate Talk page instead of here. An education on Wikipedia policies would be better handled on a uaer Talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to resort to superciliousness. If you should like me to explain my rationale for making the edits that I did, step by step, I can do so. Though upon second consideration, it appears that my edits were an insufficient remedy to the problem and I am now of the opinion that the citation and any text associated with it is wholly unacceptable. As for my first point: I made the changes, which I will not reiterate as they are viewable in the article history, to better reflect my understanding of the intent of the citation. For example, in recognizing the citation's use of the word "oppression," my change to the term "suppression" (though it is not used in the source) is to convey - insofar as the matter can be conveyed in a word - the point of the piece, rather than its specific lexicon that may convey an inaccurate concept out of context. As for my second point: all of the former is rather moot, since I am no longer convinced that those edits of mine are sufficient. Instead, the matter of justifying the source's inclusion in Wikipedia is central. The issue that you deem "an irrelevant aside" is quite salient. That is the conversation I believe ought to be had. Ergo Sum 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it: your content edits were insufficient, your chosen verbiage isn't in a specific cited source, it's a moot issue anyway (most significantly because none of the text in the lead is cited to the Barker source). You would now like to instead have a discussion on "justifying the source's inclusion in Wikipedia". Sure, we can have that conversation. The source you are referring to (please correct me if I am wrong) is still Thomas Barker, a freelance writer and a Durham University doctorate student with a thesis focus on "tensions between individualism and collectivism in the civil rights movement (and later the black power movement), the New Left, and the counterculture". Correct? As a starting point, can you clarify what specific content you would like to cite to that source? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but I thought the Black Panthers had an earlier start in the South in support of the right to vote, but got threatened or chased out at gunpoint by the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe they were not under the BPP's name or specific organizational structure, but I understood some of the same people moved from the South to California because of this. I don't have sources and I don't remember where I read it, unless perhaps it was in Elaine Brown's A Taste of Power, but that may not be where. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Lowndes County Freedom Organization in Alabama from c. 1965 to 1970 that was known as the Black Panther Party. That may be who you're thinking of. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that subject turns out to be in a Wikipedia article already, and already cited in this article. The source you cited is good; I'll leave it to people who can judge weight because they know the subject better than I do whether it should be cited in this article, too. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be misleading to suggest a connection other than the one already mentioned in Black Panther Party (i.e. nothing more than adoption of the logo and the name) as this article (LCFO) states: "There was no formal relationship between the LCFO and the later organization (Black Panther Party for Self-Defense), and Hulett (LCFO's first chairman) and others resented the use of their symbol to represent an organization that encouraged the use of violence." (parenthetical information added). Akhooha (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Panther Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blackpanther.org/newsalert.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives brief mention of drug dealing and no mention of heroin usage and dealing amongst members. It also does not discuss later allegations that the heroin was funneled to the BPs as part of counterintelpro. Some believe this all destroyed the BPs. --Wlmg (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to any reliable sources that discuss this theory, Wlmg? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it, but it's pretty much common knowledge, and has been documented in PBS documentaries. It could also be subsumed over mountains of heroin dumped on American cities in the '60s and '70s--Wlmg (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proof that the Black Panthers were anti-white? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.57.154 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was just some childish vandalism. It's gone from the article now. Thank you for your concern. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Panthers have too often been wrongly identified as a Black Nationalist organization. This it usually due to lazy reporting, and by people are really unfamiliar with the literature and political thought/writing of the Party leadership.

Also, in recent years, Black nationalist have dominated to retelling of the Panther story-line at conferences and events.

The Party leadership articulated in many formats, a flat repudiation of nationalism and openly criticized what they termed, "pork-chop" nationalism represented by people like Karenga and organizations like the Republic of New Afrika.

However for some it is easier to label and classify the Party within common political boundaries rather than address the true depth of their political thought and what was meant by the concept of revolutionary inter-communalism which Huey developed as he analyzed the globalization of capital and it's ability to reach beyond and make national borders irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshahyd (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I've reverted your recent edit which removed (2) source citations without explanation. Your edit also introduced a WP:REDLINK in the WP:Leadsentence, which isn't allowed. In addition, a new source that you introduced (Huey P. Newton: The Radical Theorist by Jeffries) states on page 62: Black Panther Party's ideology can be broken down into four phases: black nationalism, revolutionary socialism, internationalism, and Intercommunalism. Yet you removed "black nationalism" from the lead. Any additions or changes we make to Wikipedia articles must be supported by citations to reliable sources. The source you provided contradicts the edit you made.

Would you mind proposing further modifications to the lead here, along with source citations, so that they may be discussed? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment but your categorization is wrong on the page. You are correct in your citation that the Pather ideology went through four distinct phases.

Why then would you choose to label them under the initial phase which they adopted as they first organized rather than under the final phase as they matured politically?

And yes there are at least half a dozen other written sources that discuss the same ideological progression, not to mention recordings and video of the leadership themselves repudiating nationalism.

So why do you continue to mislabel them and distort the history and philosophical legacy of the Party? The sources I already contributed offer more than enough background to make a clear distinction between who they were and who you have mislabeled them to be.

Please allow the correction to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.210.40 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were several problems with the last edit, which I reverted. First, as far as I know, the old sources don't support the new language -- we can't just substitute one thing for another in front of a footnote and assume the footnote will still be valid.

Second, substituting a word that describes one phase of the Panthers' history with a word that describes a different phase isn't a good solution. If the source says the group went through four phases, so should Wikipedia.

Finally, I don't think Wikipedia has an article about intercommunalism. Adding the word in brackets produces a redlink, so we may want to find another article to link to.

Like Xenophrenic, I suggest we work out a proposed alternative to the current opening sentence. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]