Talk:Black Panther Party/Archive 1

This article and the Fred Hampton article are some of the most biased that I have ever run across on wikipedia. Please keep a neutral point of view and don't claim things that are opinions and not factually proven! Anomie666 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)



I really wish there was more on the Fred Hampton murders along with that of his 4 Black Panthers. Maybe I'll research more deeply and add on, but it's important to understand that the government's agendas are not always so clean. The shooting by FBI agents that killed 5 men while they were sleeping is horrible and it should be posted here so many could see. For background, the incident goes that the FBI labeled Fred Hampton and the Black Panthers as 'the biggest social menace possible,' and later, FBI agents snuck into Fred Hampton and 4 of his associates' apartment and shot them all almost 50 times. The story went that Hampton and his friends had had guns, but evidence later shows that there were no shots fired, and when the FBI said that they had simply shot randomly to protect, there were almost twice as many shots in Fred Hampton's wall. Fred, however, survived the initial attack, and an FBI agent took a gun to his head. Why isn't this in the article? I will research to get a better scope of this, but i really think that it's important this be in here, because the article seems to highlight the 'militancy' of the Black Panthers, but fails to show you most of the reason behind it.

Richard Aoki
Someone (with an axe to grind?) keeps removing all references to Richard Aoki from this article - who is it, and why are they doing it? Many independent internet sources confirm that Aoki was a co-founder of the BPP. I only learned of Aoki's existence from the mention in a previous incarnation of this article - coming back a few weeks later, I was rather surprised to find all mention of him deleted! 84.65.77.43 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in any documentation you have that can verify that Richard Aoki was a co-founder of the BPP. I've read enough to know that it was Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton who co-founded the party. I don't have a complete list for you, but I can find at least three sources from official party members. I just say that to say that if someone is deleting your information, maybe its wrong. MAYBE. Who knows in this crazy world we live in. And I didn't delete it. I'm here for a whole 'nother reason. Just passin' through. So don't even go there. Haxwell 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw Bobby Seale on CNN the other weekend. Per Seale, Richard Aoki was there at the beginning. He may not be a "co-founder", but Seale says he asked Aoki how to get in touch with Huey Newton. He knew Huey from the neighborhood, but Huey had already graduated from Merritt College. He also credits Aoki with providing the Panthers with their first gun. The CNN show, Book TV, was on the release of the official photographer's photographic history book of the Panthers.Bleacherdave 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict
The article says "The party rejected the integrationist stance of King, and made it clear from the beginning that it sought no compromise with the "white power structure"

and shortly after goes on to say "Although the party was characterized by varying degrees of black nationalism, Newton and Seale rejected cultural nationalists as "black racists". Contrary to popular perception, the BPP was not a separatist organization, and worked closely with many white activists"

Which is it? --Graphic 22:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well..... both they wanted to overthrow the "white power structure" and replace it with a new one one that included everybody in the decision making process. Hence the slogan All Power To The People, which meant everybody regardless of race, gender, etc.

stripe66506 15:20 6/15/06

Thats not a conflict at all. 'White activist' does not equal 'white power structure'. See Weatherman vs Nixon administration or Greenpeace vs Big Oil. (I know I'm hella late, but I worked so hard on this edit before I noticed. Whatever. Its still true a year later.) Haxwell 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV?
There's a big POV sign on the front of this article and the talk page has no mention of why. Can somebody tell me what's going on?

The 'white power structure' is very different from working with white activists. The Party work closely with socialist/communist groups comprised of white activists who sympathised with the Black Panthers. The Panthers had white members, such as actress Jane Fonda.

Correction: Though the BPP formed alliances with other nonwhite organizations, they never admitted white members into their ranks. This wasn't because of any black nationalist doctrine on their part, but because they believed that each community should organize around its own issues. They key phrase was "self-determination for black people," which encouraged black people to look for solutions for problems affecting the black community.

"White activist" is pretty misleading. The fact that the BPP would happily ally with fringe lunatic white leftist groups that also espouse violent overthrow of the govt so it can be replaced with some utopian socialist/communist ideal which they think can be achieved (though every past attempt has led to a brutal dictatorship), seems immaterial. The tone of the entry implies that the BPP is just fine with "white people" just not "the govt". Thats a REAL stretch. They're "just fine" with anyone willing to bomb a govt building is more like it.

- This is a very ignorant understanding of the BPP. They were not willing to allign themselves willy nilly with anyone "willing to bomb a govt building". There is demonstrable acceptance of non-violent white people dedicated to progressive causes such as John Sinclair, the manager of the MC5. The misleading aspect is the writer's assessment when he says, "The fact that the BPP would happily ally with fringe lunatic white leftist groups that also espouse violent overthrow of the govt so it can be replaced with some utopian socialist/communist ideal which they think can be achieved (though every past attempt has led to a brutal dictatorship), seems immaterial."


 * 1) 1 the leftist groups are unfairly characterized as "fringe" and "lunatic"
 * 2) 2 the ideal the BPP had was not some nebulous mix of utopian, socialist and communist thought. It was its own distinct ideology, and worth studying as such, rather than unfairly conflating it with pre-existing theories.
 * 3) 3 to say every past attempt has led to a brutal dictatorship shows your obvious bias, and also shows you have a poor understanding of both history and leftist thought. My advice is to turn off O'Reiley & Limbaugh and try reading a history book instead, preferably written by someone outside the US.

Ward Churchill's book
If you read the book "The COINTELPRO Papers," by Ward Churchill, you can find all the information you requested. It has FBI documents and analysis as well. Punkche

April 16, 2003 edits
I removed:


 * under which Panthers Bobby Hutton and Fred Hampton were murdered, and Newton and Seale were frequently framed for crimes.

In reference to COINTELPRO because I don't think any of these specific instances of COINTELPRO disruption are known to be true beyond any doubt. Some specific examples, of which there are many indisputable ones, would be great, and a summary of the issues surrounding Hutton, Hampton, Newton and Seale would also be great. Tuf-Kat

Proposed structure by Graft
Article needs reorganization, so i'm just laying out this structure mostly for myself.

Introduction
 * Ten point plan
 * Breakfast program
 * Merger with SNCC
 * COINTELPRO & East/West split
 * Decay, BLA etc.

Graft 15:40, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

DanKeshet to SonofRage re: UN Plebiscite
SonofRage, you said that the UN plebiscite bit is "apparently a mistake copied from MIM". What are you basing this on? What does it mean? (MIM means Maoist Internationalist Movement to me...) I don't have my books in front of me right now, but it's been in pretty much every book I've read on the panthers, and at the linked source. Could you explain? DanKeshet

SonofRage response to DanKeshet re: UN Plebiscite
DanKeshet,


 * If you go to http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm you will see no mention of the UN plebicite. My source saying it was a mistake on the part of the Maoist International Movement was Marxists.org. You can see it here: http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/1966/10/15.htm

SonofRage

DanKeshet further response

 * Thank you, SonofRage. That is quite interesting.  When I get my books of Panther documents (they're in the mail), I will confirm against them.  The information at marxists.org is itself quite interesting and perhaps should be noted in a footnote.  The UN plebiscite version is quite widespread.  DanKeshet

Follow-up from SonofRage

 * Hmm, perhaps I should change that link as well. Please update on what is in your books though. Conflicting information makes things confusing.

SonofRage

DanKeshet, Jan. 14, additional information on UN plebiscite
My books have arrived in the mail. I have the 1995 edition of The Black Panthers Speak, originally compiled in 1970, ISBN 0306806274, ed. Phillip Foner. In it, they print what they label as the 1966 Black Panther Party Platform and Program. The program is identical to the one listed at the 1960s website, the one that we used to have in this article. My guess is that there was a later version of this document that eliminated the UN plebiscite and that this is where the confusion is from. It's also possible that marxists.org simply themselves have an incorrect copy. But I'm pretty sure that the original, 1966 program included the call for the UN plebiscite. DanKeshet

no this is not true

SonofRage response, Jan. 15
Hmm, perhaps there should be a reference to it being included in the original and a clarification that the one listed is the one that was most recently adopted.

SonofRage

DanKeshet re: time of revision, Jan. 15

 * That would be good, but can you confirm that it was indeed revised? Can we figure out when it was revised? DanKeshet

SonofRage responds re: time of revision, Jan. 16

 * We're going to have to try and find some concrete sources to be sure.

SonofRage

Comments from Primexx
so uh...u left out a big part, they were a political party at first, then they turned to shooting and such to reach their goal in the middle, then they turned to the traditional side and started the breakfast program and all the other programs...i dont remember the details and dates cuz i dont have my notes here with me right now...for refrench go to world book encyclopedia(i used 2002 edition) and look for Blank Panther Party --Primexx 01:47, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

it would also be good if someone included some famous speeches in here.... (note: also posted by Primexx) ok

Neutrality questioned
The neutrality of the article should be questioned, since it lays the entire responsibility for the disintegration of the BPP solely on the FBI, whereas there are other reasons that led to their demise, e.g., the degeneration of the Panthers to a security service for drug dealers in black neighborhoods. (note: posted by anonymous 24.107.207.28)


 * I'm afraid I know very little about the black panthers, however surely this should not be a "Neutrality" question but instead is a minor factual issue with a single sentence. Could this not be resolved by changing the sentence to:
 * The Party eventually fell apart due to a number of reasons including rising legal costs and disputes resulting from COINTELPRO, ...
 * and then adding other reasons. Having said I know nothing about it, it does seem to me that "degeneration ... [in] to a security service for drug dealers" would be more an effect of the gradual disintegration rather than a cause. MrWeeble 00:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Movement?
I am trying to find some information about the movement, or riot or whatever its classified as that occured durring the ~70s. I have heard it was in Philidalphia. Does anyone have any information on this?
 * Are you referring to the MOVE organisation and the 1978 attack on their house in Philadelphia? Wikipedia has an article on them, but it's not very good. It should be enough for you to find other sources, however. I suggest you read it with a grain of salt and read from a variety of sources to try and get a full picture of the fairly controversial events. Graft 19:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes that's correct. I found it after I came back from lunch. Thank you for the input.

It's true that as the BPP began to decay, some members were snapped up by gangs like Cips and Bloods, but this was by no means condoned or relfected by the ideology of the Panthers or of any of their most high profile figures.

Horowitz's association
IIRC Horowitz was never a party member; he was on the staff of one of its projects. According to Seale, membership in the party proper was not open to whites. A brief mention of Horowitz somewhere in the article, that does not overlap too much with his own article, is probably appropriate. Gazpacho 00:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intergrationist
"The party rejected the integrationist, nonviolent stance of Martin Luther King, and made it clear from the beginning that it sought no compromise with the "white power structure"."

Yet the party's literature shows without a questionable doubt that the BPP was neither anti-integration nor anti-white, they were anti-white power. Huey Newton himself said in an interview in the 1970s something to the effect of, "We are not anti-white. We accept white revolutionaries; the only requirement to being a friend of the Black Panthers was being a friend of the revolution. The fact that most white people were not was merely a coincidence."

More than that, in it's later years the party renounced it's militant views, the official statement being, "The gun is the tool of the pig to fight the revolution and to opress the people; we do not need the gun. We are above the gun."

Angela Davis, UN plebiscite
Took Angela Davis off the "Famous Black Panther Party members list" because she wasn't a Panther. She was in CP-USA.

As far as the UN plebiscite is concerned, there are two versions of the Ten Point Program. The original from 1966 lists Point Ten as, "We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And as our major political objective, a United Nations-supervised plebiscite to be held throughout the black colony in which only black colonial subjects will be allowed to participate for the purpose of determining the will of black people as to their national destiny." However, the Ten Point Program was rewritten in 1972 and Point Ten became, "We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice, peace and people's community control of modern technology."

Here's a reference: I really hate what I have written...I am not very smart!

"Live From Jail" on PBS
I saw one of the original party members "live from jail" on PBS - who would this have been? For some reason I thought it was Peter Reid but Peter Reid is an Ironman athlete. (I swear, to this day, that it was Peter Reid: Live From Jail, but someone suggested it might have been Bobby Seal.) The special aired in 2001, October, on local WQEX 16 Pittsburgh: if anyone knows who that was, it was a great special, a very motivational speaker even through the television.
 * I believe it was Huey P. Newton. But I trhink the special in question was an actor's one-man show based on the life and writings of Huey, not Huey himself.  If its the same one I saw, he's on stage in a theater-in the round, and the scenery is that of a jailhouse.  his audience looks down on him from above.  Pretty good special.--Rockero 20:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

James Cromwell?
I think we should assume that James Cromwell, the Black Panther, isn't the same person as James Cromwell, the actor. MK2 05:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, this bio says that the actor was a member of the Committee to Defend the Black Panthers. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Was a what?
The first sentence says "the Black Panther Party (originally called the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) was a racist, anti-Semitic..."

Whether one can call black nationalism racist is debatable, and I'd like to see proof that the BPP was anti-semitic.


 * The line objected to above was restored and I've deleted it again. The sentence now reads "The BPP was a black nationalist..." which is sufficient.  "Racism" is distinguished from "black nationalism" in paragraph three of the article.  The assertion that the BPP was anti-semitic is unsupported by the texts that I've seen.  They may have been anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian.  If someone has evidence to THAT effect, please reference. DJ Silverfish 00:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The BPP definitely had a pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist slant. I can recall seeing at least one book in which Panthers were visiting Yasser Arafat.


 * Anti-Semitic? As a group, no. Individuals who came out of the group, sure, and their individual biases can be noted on their individual pages. It also needs to be said that there was also a scarily vibrant movement of outright racist Jewish idealogues around, including the infamous Irv Rubin and Meir Kahane of the JDL, who were going around whipping up anti-black hysteria wherever they went. --Daniel 05:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Eric gersham
Hi, could someone verify Eric gersham and if worth keeping move it to Eric Gershman? Rd232 talk 12:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Integrationism
The following paragraph is inconsistent with the article:


 * Contrary to popular perception, the BPP was not a separatist organization and worked closely with many white activists (for example, California's Peace and Freedom Party and the Irish Republican Army). Indicative of this was the BPP's use of the slogan "All Power to the People!" which represents a more internationalist (and Marxist) perspective than the famous slogan, "Black Power!".

It cannot be both true that the BPP was an organizatrion that opposed integrationism and that was not separatist. Moreover, the link doesn't provide any evidence to substantiate the claim that they were not separatist. For this reason, I'm temporarily removing it. Sir Paul 23:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that you have misread the article - it says that "The party rejected the integrationist stance of King", not that the party opposed all integration with white people. This distinction is supported by their cooperation w/ the (largely white) Peace and Freedom Party and the IRA. Additionally, the topic is discussed in Seale's autobiography Sieze the Time. If this is confusing, I'd recommend rewording the bit about King. The BPP was clearly not a seperatist group and I don't believe that *any* literature written by Newton or Seale would support such a claim. Nihila 21:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. I located the proper source for this bit about the slogans . Since the source is now fixed, I've taken the liberty of restoring the paragraph. Nihila 21:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Name
Is there any relation between the name of the Black Panthers and the U.S. 761st Tank Battalion, an all-black unit that fought during World War II and had the same name?

Alan Rosenberg
According to the Alan Rosenberg article, he was a Black Panther. If this is true, it might be worthwhile adding him. Even tho he was never very active I guess he's quite famous in his own right due to being an actor and now the president of the screen actors guild. The fact that he's white (AFAIK) is also substanial since it's further evidence that the black panthers weren't anti-white...Nil Einne 10:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This article accuses the FBI of assassination
But I didn't see any names of FBI employees who were convicted of murder. I call "bull shit".

Sir, are you calling 'bull shit' because you think that if a secret FBI organization arranges the death of a political activist, then naturally individuals from the FBI would be called out and convicted of murder? The names of the FBI employees convicted of murder aren't there because there were no convictions of FBI agents. Is it so surprising to you that government organizations have some amount of (illegitimate) legal immunity that they provide their members with?

Besides that, 'assassination' isn't as glamorous as in James Bond movies, where a secret agent drops in through the roof and so on. The steps for the most part in the Black Panther assassinations went like this:

1. defame the political activists targeted as gangbangers or drug dealers 2. organize a police raid on the 'criminals' 3. shoot to kill

Please research exactly the scenarios in which these men died, in detail. It's easy to be fed phrases such as 'gang-related violence' which make one assume certain scenarios when in fact the scenario might be quite different. In these cases, the police raids were often organized to find drugs or guns which, after the targeted activists were killed, were never actually found (oops?!?), and often in the middle of the night, when the activists were asleep, in bed, and otherwise completely unarmed and outnumbered--situations in which if these were normal police actions, they could easily have been overpowered, arrested and locked away without having to have been killed.

There's also a different kind of 'assasination' which doesn't involve murdering a political activist, but merely incapacitating their power and influence by cutting off their contact with the world, by putting them in jail. Such a case could be argued with Huey Newton, who was jailed for three years on charges that were thrown out once the case reached a court of law, three years during which the Black Panther organization desperately needed solidarity and strong leadership.

Finally there is also government-documented proof of the FBI infiltrating the Black Panther organization as well as another coexisting movement called United Slaves (US) precisely for the purpose of creating and exacerbating inner conflicts and pitting the groups against each other.

In fact there is government documentation of all of the tactics utilized by the FBI and its clear intentions in directing these efforts towards dissolving the Black Panthers and cutting its power. The FBI organization to research is called COINTELPRO, and it was headed by J. Edgar Hoover. Here is a good source for online independent research of these documents themselves: http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm Or, you could go to the library.

In any case, remember that the government makes the laws and is responsible for convicting those who break them. When you steal a cookie, do you slap yourself on the hand? No. Likewise, when a government agency does something corrupt, it doesn't convict itself!

BPP Chapter Histories
what about a section for chapter histories? i just completed a basic history of the boston chapter and think it would be a good addition, especially for chapters in places like New Bedford, Massachusetts where not much is written about it. It could be a very short history, condensed to a paragraph or two, perhaps.

--

I picked up a book on the history of the New Orleans chapter. It's a collection of interviews from people who were involved in the events of that chapter. I also have a video of an interview with one of the leaders of the New Orleans Panther's chapter. So ... how about someone starts a section on chapters while I gather my thoughts? Tall Girl 08:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Check
This article repeatedly glorifies the murder of police officers, and gives no sources to prove that the people the Black Panthers attacked were actually racist or engaged in violence, just links to other Wikipedia entries, while making sweeping generalizations about unconnected matters of racism at the same time. It needs a POV check and it needs it bad, so I'm adding it. -RannXXV 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First, there's no such glorifying of the murder of anyone in this article - and there shouldn't be, since the Panthers as a rule did not go around "murdering" police officers but defended themselves and their community with lethal force.
 * Second, if you have a problem with black men having guns to defend themselves, I recommend you read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution where it says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In other words, contrary to popular rumor, rednecks are not the only people allowed to keep weapons in this country.
 * Third, if you want to talk about a black nationalist group that murdered and glorified it, then take it to the Black Liberation Army article.
 * Fourth, if this needed a POV check, then it's for ever taking the racist opportunist piece of garbage David Horowitz seriously enough to include his completely unsourced accusations. --Daniel 04:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Somehow, I knew that this would turn into "You hate black people, don't you!" Because obviously you can't in any way call into question an entry about the Black Panthers if you're not some racist shithead.


 * Very obviously, since you're also going around denying the atrocities of Tulsa. --Daniel 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article, as it is, is a puff piece, completely whitewashing (and no, that is not a pun, and no, it does not mean anything) the entire history of the group. People would be enraged if this was done to other groups, as well they should be... an article portraying the KKK as being just a "group of white males interested in protecting their families and cultural heritage" would be deeply offensive.


 * People should be enraged at any attempt to burnish the Klan's image, since the Klan are by their own admission a group dedicated solely to spreading white supremacist terror. The Panthers were not the Klan. Nowhere did the Panthers ever say that whites were inferior; that blacks should dominate over whites; that you should be killed for whistling at a black woman. They did say that if you're going to act like an occupying army, then expect resistance.


 * If you want to see the difference between those claiming a right to oppress others and those who claim the right to resist oppression, then see the difference between the entries for Waffen SS and ZOB. --Daniel 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article's phrasing pretty much brags about the number of people the Black Panthers killed. There are no sources given in this area, no links to any archived news stories, not even web pages, to substantiate the claim that they were defending themselves.


 * Wrong. The article says nothing of murder. It says 11 police officers were killed in confrontations, with no claims as to motive (and murder implies motive and premeditation). Where there is no claim, there is no need for substantiation.


 * If you want to go ahead and see how blacks were routinely harassed by police in places like Oakland and Chicago, how the Panthers reacted to it by legally witnessing arrests, and then how the police (and later the FBI field offices) responded with even greater violence - be my guest. As such, the current phrasing is cut and dried: cops and Panthers clashed; the cops killed Panthers; Panthers killed cops.--Daniel 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If they were doing so, and it's certainly possible that they were, then it should be sourced, and even then phrased in neutral terms. As it is, the page praises them as heroes for these actions, which it should not be doing even if they were indeed killing in self-defense. A neutral point of view means that you're not just neutral towards the bad stuff, you're neutral towards the good stuff as well. -RannXXV 06:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have published interviews with people who were involved in the Desire shootout in New Orleans with the police. What I've read supports the position that the Panthers acted in self-defense and were harassed.  Give me some time and I'll try to copy some of the material into here.Tall Girl 08:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very true that this page nees to be better referenced. I will try to reference the more controversial pieces of information, if I can.  Please let me know if there are any particular facts that you dispute.  As for whitewashing, I think that the BPP was very different from the KKK, but neither this page nor the page for the KKK are featured article quality, and that is what we are seeking.  If you have additions that you want to make, go ahead.  If those additions might be controversial, talk about them here first.  If you revert or are reverted, talk about it here.  We can all bring references, and good times can be had by all.  If everyone assumes good faith, the we each can bring what we know and feel to the table, and get a good article out of it. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually don't know a lot about the Black Panthers, which is one of the reasons I looked them up on Wiki in the first place. It's also why I'm disappointed that the page seems to be heavily focused on a rose-tinted view of them, when even here on the talk page there are controversies and problems that seem to go unaddressed other than just not appearing in the article. I'd like to see the whole picture presented, good and bad, and get an overall view, rather than something that reads rather like advertising literature for the movement.
 * So, I'll leave expanding and neutral-izing the article to others, but I do think it needs it, and badly. -RannXXV 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Pros & Cons of BPP on Civil Rights Movement
I have a paper that is due this weekend, and i was just curious as to everyones opinion on how they see things. There is always a resolition to every problem, but is violence the answer? then again, nobody likes to be bullied. I would appreciate your comments. Thank You
 * As you can see from the POV disputes above, this page is not an example of a great wikipedia article, but it should introduce you to some of the basics of the BPP. You should be able to see a little bit about its positives and negatives.  Take a look at the ten point plan, and the social and community activities that they took part in.  Then think about, for instance, the Black Liberation Army or the Rice/Poindexter Case.


 * A major hole in this article is that there is no discussion of the inspirations of the BPP. The BPP was inspired by the actions of, for instance, the Black Consciousness Movement and the ANC in South Africa.  These groups, too, have mixed legacies.  It is hard to say if their legacy was good or bad.  Certainly there are good people who were killed, and this must not be overlooked, so it is important to bear in mind those bad things.  For me, the BPP introduced activists of my parents generation to emancipatory anti-colonial writers such as Frantz Fanon (see Négritude); these activists then turned around and formed such groups as the American Indian Movement.  So I would say that the BPP was very inspirational to many oppressed peoples who were not satisfied with any form of civil rights which felt vaguely assimilationist.  On the other hand, many of the tactics of the BPP (and related groups such as the Black Liberation Army) alienated many good people who would like to have supported civil rights. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been told that Huey P. Newton, when asked why he'd choose a violent creature as the mascot (for lack of a better term) for his organization, responded that panthers are not aggresive, attacking animals. It is only when a panther is backed into a corner that he is driven to violence.


 * It was Seale according to Voices of Revolution: The Dissident Press in America by Rodger Streitmatter (2001) pg 226. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This was probably the stock explanation of the name and its significance to the members. As such, it could have been said by any number of its leaders. --Daniel 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality is the issue.
We seem to be forgetting the point of this discussion. This article does not meet the wikipedia neutrality policy, and needs revision. The neutrality policy is not the enemy. The purpose of Wikipedia is to gather and share human knowledge. Bias serves to pervert that goal and make it impossible to gain a proper understanding of the world. Writing a sympathetic article on the Black Panthers, from the point of view of the panthers is as unjust as presenting the KKK sympathetically. It doesn't matter that the KKK was this and the Black Panthers were that. The point is that an unbiased presentation is necessary to Wikipedia's goal. Those of us who believe that an emotional/personal view on a topic is necessary to totally understand that topic are free to go out and get a book or hear a testimony.

The paragraph above is the very essence of the problem with the article. Saying that being sympathetic to the Black Panther is the the same as being sympathetic to the KKK is completely unjust. The KKK were a group that was with out common goals other then the elimination of minorities abilities to suceed in life and have equal oppurtunities. Where as the Black Panthers were largly organized with the purpose of fighting social unjustice against Black People in particular but all people on the whole. There original purpose was to fight social injustice the only way they knew how. Starting with educating the common black person about his rights, hence when ever a black person would be questioned by the police that a panther saw they would immiediatly run over and inform the person of there rights. They then immieditly started feeding poor black children. I am sure that it would seem quite obvious when compared to the above stated that the goals of the KKK and the Black Panthers couldnt be farther from each other. So to summarize to state that one is taking a sympathetic view of the Panthers for not shining them in the same light as the KKK would make it obvious that this persons perspective is biased, therefore anything they mention should be taken for a grain of salt. Given the massive amount of money the FBI spent on this then, along with the destruction of the party IE: questionable arrests questions over the various goverment agencies (CIA,FBI) working with the Contras and Hells Angels to distribute Crack to the Panthers and black community, it is safe to say there are still probably agents working to supress and discredit such information.

The biggest problem with this article is rampant language bias. Adjectives that are unnecessary (meaning they do not contribute the goal of framing the issue and furthering understanding) prevent this article from being an adequate representation of the Black Panthers. As the neutrality policy reminds us:

"When one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct."

It is pretty clear that the emotionally charged language used in this article does what the neutrality policy expressly condemns. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and no matter how a particular individual or group feels about a topic, it is supposed to be presented academically and realistically. Another good example from the policy:

"Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article: You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources."

Much of the section on police brutality is worded in such a way as to villify police of the time, but it doesn't have any solid examples to accompany repeated assertions of police brutality. Ideally this can be replaced by examples and possibly links to descriptions of notable historical events, since indisputable fact IS the best way to condem (as the author seems determined to do). Also, characterizing the police departments as "furious" and "frustrated" serves no purpose in an encyclopedic compliation, since assigning an emotion to an entire group is absurd. If the revisor (a job for which I am unqualified) feels it is necessary to describe the reaction of the police community, they will do so by presenting facts that are representative of what was going on. They will do so WITHOUT the colorful descriptions, and WITH sources cited.

The above is valid point there are lack of facts to describe the covert actions against against the black community as a whole because the people recording the facts were the guilty party. The guilt was not recorded in there actions but in there emotions, hence saying that the police were "furious" does hold quite abit of credence. So to compare a covert emotionaly hate based campaign to a well documented goverment run hate based campaign by the Nazi party is incomparable. As far as the federal goverment, there actions are still largely undocumented because they used 3rd party paid agents much in the same way that the CIA uses NOCs.

One more comment on the section on police brutality. The following sentence makes me slightly queasy:

"Several Panthers were jailed and murdered but the police did not go through unscarred. By 1970, the Black Panther Party had killed 11 white police officers and in some cases such as Huey Newton, some members managed to serve a reduced prison sentence for doing so."

The above sentence, in combination with the overall tone of the article, serves to make it sound a lot like, "they killed some of us, but don't worry, we got them back and got away with it too." Regardless of the intentions of the writer of this sentence, it is poorly written. If one deems the information necessary to frame the issue, it can be reworded (like the rest of the article needs to be) to say something like, "Both members of the Black Panthers and Police officers were killed" blah blah blah. ..

A good way to re-organize the article to make it smoother and less redundant is to start with the political climate (here is where the police brutality and black poverty fit in), which leads to the reasons for founding the Black Panthers and their choice of a name. Then political associations and philosophy of the Panthers could come next. The ten point plan would be good here, and then the writer could move on to consolidate the sections "community work," "self defense," and "Political Activities" into one section describing the work and accomplishments of the Black Panthers. Finally describing the COINTELPRO and causes for the termination of the association would end the article neatly.


 * Sorry, but on this we part ways. I agree in general principle, and I think that unlike Rann you have acted in good faith. But COINTELPRO and the Hoover-era FBI and law enforcement repression was a part of the overall relationship between the Panthers, their constituency, the authorities, and each other; heck, it was part of the reason why the Panthers decided to carry arms and carry law books in the first place. People knew already, back then, that King had died while being watched by an FBI crew; people knew that Malcolm X had been shot while being watched by an NYPD undercover officer. The Bay Area, the cradle of the Party, was already chock full of racist cops and FBI field agents. So to relegate the COINTELPRO section to the end is as absurd as relegating anti-Semitism on the end of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article. --Daniel 07:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What Mstngofire said. -RannXXV 23:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, you are essentially refusing to adhere to NPOV, as well as refusing to pay heed to any and all rational approaches in favor of emotionally-charged language. Wikipedia is a collection of information, it is not anyone's bandwagon, whatever side they may be on or belief they may ascribe to. If you cannot communicate in a civil and neutral manner, but instead continue to toss around thinly-veiled insults (as well as disrupt the apparent flow of talk with the placement of your comments), you cannot expect to be taken seriously. -RannXXV 07:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. Daniel is simply noting that the BPP cannot be understood outside of its context. Seems pretty reasonable. -Nihila 15:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Rann:
 * Don't give me a lecture on NPOV and Wikipedia policy. Been there, done that, read the style guides. I'm not the one inserting unsourced right-wing POV into this page, Tulsa Race Riot, and elsewhere.
 * And if I were so inclined to insult you I would hardly need to resort to those of the thinly veiled variety. I am not so inclined, because who you are is utterly irrelevant - it's what you do that is an offense, and not to me but to the aims of Wikipedia. If you can't take the time to even look at the page that you're criticising, can't bother to fact check or source your additions, or take the resultant correction as some insult - well, that's your problem, not mine. --Daniel 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems odd that you 1) consider unsourced POV to be fine, as long as it's going the way you want it to, 2) consider working towards NPOV an offense to Wikipedia, while at the same time claiming you are doing so, while at the same time admitting in another place that the article is only "mostly" factually accurate (and then becoming highly defensive of any perceived wrongdoing by the article's subject), and 3) view only your "corrections" as insults rather than your hostile tone, emotionally-charged manner, and accusations of racism and bias. -RannXXV 21:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it's not odd. I never said I found unsourced POV to be fine, and I dare you to bring up a single instance where I said I did. And if you would read, I said that inserting right-wing POV under the guise of NPOV is offensive and a perversion of the meaning of NPOV (the same as Fox News's slogan is an offensive perversion of the words fair and balanced).
 * As for a charge of racism being insulting - well, them's the facts. You've inserted the racist charge that African Americans demanding justice for Tulsa were spreading "urban legends." No evidence, no sources. Just some uppity blacks protesting a non-event apparently. Then you come in here, and assert that the merest mention that the Panthers were exercising a 2nd Amendment right to armed self-defense is "POV" - even though it was in a clearly dispassionate manner.
 * What can I say? If the shoe fits. . . --Daniel 22:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No Mention of Mark Essex--Daniel 22:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This description of the Black Panthers is appalling! It needs to be edited immediately. And notice how the brutal black panther murders committed by Mark Essex are nowhere to be found. Also, Mark Essex's name is mysteriously absent from the list of members. Gee, I wonder why?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/mark_essex/


 * Maybe b/c you didn't take the time to add it? You are invited to help cleanup this article, don't hold back. -Nihila 15:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you'll excuse me: so what if you find the description of the Panthers appalling? Since it's mostly factually correct, then maybe what you find appalling are the Panthers themselves, which is really of no consequence.
 * As for Mark Essex, there's no evidence in the website you cite that he acted on behalf of anyone other than himself. He is mentioned as a member of the Black Panthers in New York, and to my knowledge never a part of a branch in New Orleans.
 * And dare I say that if Essex did act on behalf of the Party, then their reasoning was as self-evident as the culture of brutality and corruption of the New Orleans Police Department. --Daniel 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the problem people have is that you find mostly factually accurate to be acceptable, as long as the lack of factual accuracy goes towards making the subject of the article look good, apparently. This would be, pretty much, a textbook case of bias. -RannXXV 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, the only person who has a problem with me here is you, because I called you on the mat to account for what you said above to start this whole nonsense.
 * Second, "mostly factual" is kind of like "kind of pregnant" - it's nonsense. If something is factual, then it's factual. Essex may be someone worthy of listing as a former Panther, in the same way it might be worthy to list Timothy McVeigh as a former member of the U.S. Army. But there's no evidence presented to support the case that Essex did things on the authority of the Panthers in New Orleans, any more than McVeigh acted on behalf of the Army in Oaklahoma City. Therefore it's misleading and counterfactual to put any significant portion on the Essex shootings into this article.
 * And I repeat: even if Essex did act as an agent of the Panthers, NPOV would mean that you present the motives in as dispassionate manner as possible. That is, even if Essex was acting as an assassin on the part of the Panthers, you would still have to show why they would target New Orleans police officers - and, lo and behold, there's more than enough third-party evidence (from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department (!) of all people) that the New Orleans Police Department has been a particularly brutal, racist, and corrupt organization. --Daniel 22:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting this Page
I just spent a few minutes doing some initial revision of this article. I was mainly trying to remove some of the blatantly POV language and unsourced opinion. Obviously this is just the tip of the iceberg in making this article a high-quality entry. Lots of cleanup remains and there are numerous angles and aspects that are not yet included.

My apologies if I have removed anything that was important to anyone. Feel free to replace sections that I've cut but please source stuff that you add. I could not find a source on the number of police killed by Panthers. Can anyone help with this? -Nihila 17:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Effective End of Debate
I feel that User:Dtasripin, going by "Daniel", has made it clear he is not going to allow any significant cleanup or change to the article, as he will view all attempts at true NPOV and balance of the issue as a biased attack. I feel his manner on this page adequately illustrates that the article itself lacks NPOV at this time, and that the template noting this article's lack of NPOV should remain for the foreseeable future. Until the user in question is either overruled or the article is heavily rewritten to remove the sensationalist, emotionally charged, and heavily biased wording, unsourced claims, and general treatment of the article's subject with praise rather than simple statement of fact, I believe the note that the article may not be NPOV must remain. Please note, I have no problem with the BPP being seen in a positive light. However, as noted above, I believe that all their activities should be laid out in neutral, factual manner. I think only in this way that people will be able to judge for themselves what the BPP is. If the facts, stripped bare, support them as being a group of well-meaning or even heroic individuals, then I for one would be happy. I have no more wish to see them vilified than I have to see them put on a pedestal. -RannXXV 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That said, you're full of crap. You claimed there were tons of NPOV issues that upon second look they weren't issues at all. Since then, there've been a tons of edits (most of them minor refinements) that have gone on here since you came in here. I've reverted none, because they were made by people who could be assumed to be acting out of good faith rather than hostility to the subject matter.
 * And by the way, notice that I didn't even remove the NPOV tag, as there's some serious POV issues (such as the unsourced Horowitz accusation) that are downright libelous.
 * The areas where I've chimed in here (on the Talk Page) were to provide some level of guidance in response to misguided attempts to either remove *necessary facts* in understanding the Party, or to add incorrect or defammatory information to the page.
 * So get over yourself, please, and excuse the rest of us if we do not indulge your martyrdom fantasies. --Daniel 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Speaking with you has become obviously pointless. I no longer consider any comments by you to have any bearing other than as a source of bias and inflammatory remarks. I will not be responding to any more of your trolling. -RannXXV 23:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In other words, you're taking your ball and going home. --Daniel 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

introduction, Influence and formation
I think the opening section should be split into two, one for an introduction to the article, and the second to discuss the formation of the BPP, both its influences and the context in Southern California where the originators started. If anyone thinks that anything more belongs that isn't there, but doesn't want to add it themself, go ahead and mention it here and someone will try to integrate it in. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposal for a new introduction, I'll try to put the formation stuff directly into the article, but this should start at the talk page since it is so major:
 * The Black Panther Party (originally called the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) was a revolutionary, Black nationalist organization in the United States founded by Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale, and Richard Aoki.  Forming in October 1966, the party grew to national prominence in the United States and is an iconic representative of the counterculture revolutions of the 1960s.  The group was founded on the principles of its "Ten-Point Program", which called for greater autonomy of black Americans and justice for many real and percieved slights against blacks.  The groups political goals are often overshadowed by the violent episodes which constantly dogged them, violence which is due to the aggressive attitude of both the police and Black Panther Party Members.  The group fell apart in the early 1970s due to a combination of internal problems and suppression by state actors, especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation (whose methods included arrests, stirring-up of factional rivalries via infiltration and, allegedly, assassination).
 * I've tried to include information which is already in the intro, while making it seem more like an intro. The two paragraphs which were after this one will become a section devoted to the formation, which should discuss in more depth the influences, which are now more like a list of sometimes conflicting statements which don't make sence unless you know exactly what it means to be (for example) a Marxist-Leninist party or a black nationalist. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to remove the reference to Castro's funding and training the orgaanization (unless someone can give a reference) from the early parts of the article, and to add a section discussing the relationship between the party and Cuba, both as a place where BPP members went to get asylum, and Cleaver's more negative relationship with the country due to his attempts, for instance, to start a BPP chapter in Cuba. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Great changes / additions! This is starting to look much better. - Nihila 15:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by 216.186.99.254
Nihila's the second person to have to take off the phrase "They did a lot of weed!" as added by a user at IP address 216.186.99.254. (Myself being the first.) Obviously this is a recurring vandal... I'd report them, but the vandalism reporting process seems a little... muddled. -RannXXV 22:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * RANNxxx SHOULDN'T YOU BE SUCKING ON SOME DICK INSTEAD OF SPEWING YOUR RACIST RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA HERE?


 * You sound more than a little intolerant yourself there, feeling a little insecure about your sexuality boss?

Hillary Clinton & Assassination
According to Snopes, Clinton's legal support of the BPP is a myth. - Nihila 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that the "allegedly" in front of the word "assassination" (in the first paragraph about the FBI methods) should be dropped, as it is patently obvious black panthers such as Fred Hampton were murdered. Also perhaps local police departments like the Oakland or Chicago PD's should be included with the FBI as major state actors contributing to the break up and dissolving of the Black Panthers. -Alex

"Patently obvious" is only workable if it's backed up by facts you can cite. Just saying it's obvious does nothing, as some people consider it patently obvious that Aeon Flux is the best movie of the year, while others consider it quite obviously worse than Catwoman. If you want to remove the "allegedly", that's fine, but you're going to have to link to widely-available and neutrally-aligned evidence when you do, else it would be POV. -RannXXV 07:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Can such a citation be found? Given the frequency of the allegation, it should be easy to find a source. - Nihila 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The question to me is if those sources are, as Rann says, "neutrally-aligned". I think it would be nice to cite that claim, but as far as I know it is a claim.  I am not saying that these people were not murdered (I think that is certain), but that the FBI's involvement is usually verified by authors on the left.  It would be nice to find it in the records of some federal investigation of the FBI or COINTELPRO, or at least to find a major newspaper/newsmagazine making that statement.
 * To get started, "The Angela Y. Davis Reader" on page 11 says "police, assisted by federal agents, had killed or assasinated over twenty black revolutionaries in the Black Panther Party." She cites on page 23 (citation # 26) Joanne Grant, Ward Churchill, Jim Van der Wall, and Clayborne Carson.  These sources may be well researched and valid, but the authors are not completely without bias. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If researchers' allegations of assasination are not justified, then we need to provide a refutation source. Otherwise, undercutting the reliability of such claims amounts to independent research... In other words, we can name several authors who say that the FBI did use assassination - so what authors claim that they didn't? If there aren't any researchers refuting this allegation, then the subject should be included without disclaimer; otherwise, we should cover it as a controversy.
 * That being said, it would be great if a governmental source could be found to supplement independent (left-wing) sources. For example, didn't Congress investigate COINTELPRO? Maybe Congressional findings could be cited? - Nihila 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem there is that just because there's no one officially saying it didn't happen doesn't mean it did happen. Researchers are often just as prone, if not moreso, to bias. Now, depending on the quality of their research, bias might not matter... if the evidence in that research is solid, rather than (figuratively) them starting from a point of "We think it happened" and going around asking people "Did it happen?" "Yeah, it happened!" "Ah, I see."
 * It is, after all, vastly more difficult to prove something didn't happen than it did. If it didn't happen, all you can turn up is a LACK of evidence, and which can then be refuted by "But what if it's just been covered up?" While I suppose we can't do independent research, we can still take a look at these sources and rate whether they are credible enough to justify essentially "removing doubt". IE, all thoughts of bias aside, what is the nature of their research? Do they have government documents? Is there any kind of visual documentation? Or is it essentially just "Did it happen?" "Yeah, it happened!" "Ah, I see.", is what I'm saying.
 * While the research should be included regardless, its nature would be what would determine whether it is solid enough to essentially remove any ambiguity over whether it happened. -RannXXV 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the senate "Church Committee" of 1975 and 1976 investigated COINTELPRO, and they discussed the FBI's actions with regards to the BPP quite a bit. The claim about Fred Hampton is a bit subtle, and can be found on page 223 of "Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans" of that report.  Here is a scan of that page, which comes from this table of contents (at aarclibrary.org).  This page (at mindfully.org) has  the relevent pages (185-223) written in readable (and quickly downloadable) text.  There was an FBI memo which played a key role in the police raid which led to Hampton's death.  I did not find the memo itself.
 * Thus, in light of the committe text, I would say that "Hampton's death was the result Chicago police raid that the FBI orchestrated or helped orchestrate." This fits with what Angela Yves Davis said ("police, assisted by federal agents, had killed or assassinated over twenty black revolutionaries in the Black Panther Party.").  That said, the word assissinate is possibly inflamatory, as these deaths, although not without any hint of premeditation, were not "hit man" like, but were rather results of traditional (although possibly illegally performed) police actions.  So using the word assissinate is probably appropriate only if after describing one or two cases such as Hampton's, we say that "these events have led some (citing Davis, et al) to claim that the FBI's actions amounted to assassinations of Black Panther Party members."  I do prefer using the term, as it reflects an understanding of the events that will be highly present among various readers who may feel obliged to add it if it is avoided entirely.
 * The legacy of Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who led the committee, has (sadly) been tainted recently by those who advocate greater intelligence gathering powers for government agencies (see this commentary from the Center for Individual Freedom). Thus it may seem that even the Church Committee Reports may not be considered "neutrally-aligned". Smmurphy(Talk) 08:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. - Nihila 15:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -RannXXV 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the COINTELPRO section based on the Church Report, and I pulled these two paragraphs out of that section. They could probably be added somewhere else, so I've put them here.
 * While part of the organization was already participating in, or on the fringes of local government social services, another group was in constant run-ins with the police. The separation between political action, criminal activity, social services, access to power, and grass-roots identity became confused in bizarre and contradictory ways. As a result, the Panther's political momentum got bogged down in navigating the criminal justice system.
 * Support for the Panthers became widespread and was characterized by the now famous clenched-fist salute at the 1968 Olympics by two medalists during the playing of the American national anthem.

Please look at what I've added to that section and make any changes necessary. Also I am not sure if each paragraph needs to be cited seperately, or if the one church citation at the end of the third paragraph is sufficient. Finally, do we leave "allegedly, assasination" at the begining and add a qualification to the footnote, do we remove it, or do we change it to something else? Smmurphy(Talk) 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent addition! This is becoming a strong section. I think that it would be reasonable to use the word "allegedly" in the intro and then elaborate on the controversy/claims in the COINTELPRO section... One question - why is this section titled COINTELPRO & East/West Split instead of simply COINTELPRO ? Anyone object to changing this? - Nihila 03:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I restored the two removed paragraphs, but I had to move a few things around in order to make it flow. Any objections? I put the Alex Rackley / George Sams info in the COINTELPRO & conflict with law enforcement section because it relates to police informants (or paranoia about police informants) rather than Decay and disintegration. - Nihila 03:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing NPOV banner?
So, it has been several days since the last significant edit to this article and the general quality of the page's content has increased dramatically. Obviously there is still a lot more that can be done; however, I think that things are starting to look pretty good. Does anyone object to removing the NPOV banner from the article? If so, what sections are still in dire need of attention? - Nihila 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been busy, but there are still a couple of points that should be cited, the part about carying weapons in Oakland and how that affected their relationship with the police (in the section called "Self-defense"), as well as the part about predominately white police departments leading to race riots (in the section called "Police brutality"). In fact, that section is still very problematic.  Also, having a section titled "Police brutality" is probably a little NPOV, and that stuff could go under the section now entitled "COINTELPRO and the conflict with law enforcement".  I know that that would make one of our longest sections even longer, but (IMHO) that means that we should expand our short sections, not shy away from making the sections make sence. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Self-Defense section is non-neutral. The title alone is a problem. Also, the section fails to mention that Panthers instigated some of the clashes with police. These cannot be described as "self-protection" and still be neutral. Further, the section fails to mention that the Panther violence and criminality often made them a legitimate target for law enforcement. Second, the Community Work section is way off NPOV. It ignores the fact that drug-dealing and embezzlement were intertwined with the social service initiatives.Pokey5945 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, kool. I just wanted to make sure that the page wasnt in stasis. I agree w/ comments about the "Police Brutality" section. Pokey5945, are there any specific events that you would like to include where Panthers instigated clashes? I'd be happy to work on fleshing this out. - Nihila 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the book Shadow of the Panthers, and one of the famous early shootouts with the police in the Bay Area in which a Panther was killed. This gave them a lot of publicity as victims of police violence, but one of the participants has more recently admitted that they instigated the incident. I'd have to reread the book to get more detail.Pokey5945 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally Biased
This article has some very deep problems in which barely proven statements are backed up by sources which are dubious at best. Does anyone actually believe that Ward Churchill is a credible source? Please. There is also no mention of the very important fact of how many police officers and other innocent people were killed by the Black Panthers.


 * Just because someone is controversial doesn't mean they do their homework. For Agents of Repression, Churchill used FBI files released under the Church Committee hearings and Freedom of Information Act requests. If you're looking for yet more proof of the nogoodnik nature of the Hoover/COINTELPRO-era FBI, check out Brian Glick's War at Home, cited in the COINTELPRO article. --Daniel 03:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen a reliable source on the number of police officers killed by BPP members. Can you provide one? I can't imagine that anyone would object to its inclusion. - N1h1l 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out the part of the first paragraph that says assassination, "as alleged by former members". Factually, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were assassinated in their sleep by the FBI in conjunction with the Chicago Police. So yes, in at least one instance the BPP leaders were subject to outright assassination, in my mind making the "alleged by former members" derisive of actual occurences.

Formation Date?
The article states that the Black Panthers were founded in October 1966, but I have a newspaper article in front of me referring to the group in September 1966. When was it actually formed? Uucp 03:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Police Officers Murdered
Response to posting below: Firstly, the death of a police officer, doing his/her proper job is a truly sad thing. (Proper job meaning defending the public from crime). However, it is interesting that many officers were used to attack the Panthers. Thus, if some officers died while attacking innocent Black Panthers, this is much more different than if a Black Panther killed an officer in cold blood. Secondly, what proof is there that none of the officers died from friendly fire. It is disgusting that people would attack the Panthers without giving further details. It is as though a soldier or police officer is beyond reproof!!!!!

=
I'm removing this from the page for now, for POV, sourcing and formatting work. Also Faulkner doesn't really belong on this list (the circumstances of the other officers notwithstanding) because his alledged killer was not a member of the BPP at the time of the killing. As anyone familiar with the case will know, all aspects of the killing of Faulkner are disputed, and so must be handled very carefully. The whole list will require sourcing an NPOV discussion anyway. DJ Silverfish 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

''The following Police Offices were murdered by members of the Black Panther party in the name of "Self Defense":

Police Officer John F. Frey

Oakland Police Department, CA

EOW: Saturday, October 28, 1967

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Officer Thomas E. Johnson

Metro Nashville Police Department, TN

EOW: Tuesday, January 16, 1968

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Officer Charles W. Thomasson

Metro Nashville Police Department, TN

EOW: Sunday, March 17, 1968

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Officer Nelson K. Sasscer

Santa Ana Police Department, CA

EOW: Thursday, June 5, 1969

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Patrolman Frank G. Rappaport

Chicago Police Department, IL

EOW: Thursday, November 13, 1969

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Police Officer John J. Gilhooly

Chicago Police Department, IL

EOW: Friday, November 14, 1969

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Police Officer James T. Sackett Sr.

St. Paul Police Department, MN

EOW: Friday, May 22, 1970

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Police Officer Glenn E. Smith

Detroit Police Department, MI

EOW: Saturday, October 24, 1970

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Park Ranger Kenneth Carmel Patrick

United States Department of the Interior, US

EOW: Sunday, August 5, 1973

Cause of Death: Gunfire

Deputy Sheriff Ricky Leon Kinchen

Fulton County Sheriff's Department, GA

EOW: Friday, March 17, 2000

Cause of Death: Gunfire ''

Room for improvement
I can certainly understand how it is that this article has been met with so much criticism. It is true that encyclopedia accounts should remain unbiased. However, this is not to say that articles should not contain and put forward the major arguments concerning a particular group or event. The historiography of a subject deserves as much space in an article as the history itself, and this is especially true for the Black Panthers.

The Panthers have oft been depicted as a group of murderous thugs who utilised a mish-mash of Marxist-Leninism to cover up their covert criminality. Due to the content of such popular films as Forrest Gump this is the image that remains particularly reasonant within popular society. There is also the point of view that the Panthers did many very positive things through their aid programmes. Some believe that they were persecuted by the police, and some recent judgments certainly suggest this. For those who question such a comment I would advise you to look into the case of Geronomio Pratt.

I believe that this article thus addresses a very important point. The legacy of this group has long been dirtied by right-wing sociologists and commentators accusing them of being anti-semitics etc. bent on organising a totalitarian party - in response to those who said that this article stinks of, and I quote, 'bullshit', it is the comments of Horowitz etc. that are unfounded bullshit. Of course it is true that emotive language has no place in an encyclopedia, and I do believe some of the phrasing needs to be reworded.

I would also suggest that a significant amount of the article needs reworking. This is particularly prevalent towards the end, when the demise of the group is quickly skirted over and attributed almost soley to the actions of the FBI. As is often the case with the Panthers, there seems to be very little mention of Elaine Brown's period of leadership. Also there are many factors contributing to the Party's demise: Robert Michels elite theory is certainly applicable to the leadership style of Newton; the recruitment of the lumpenproletariat is certainly key; the lack of organization; dialectical discovery of the Panthers by the media via law enforcement groups; the overly-rapid expansion of the Party and the list goes on. I recommend that you take a look at Charles E. Jones, 'The Black Panther Party Reconsidered'

--Djsweaty 14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, these monkeys never did get themselves killed. I can't even believe someone was rude, ignorant, and racist enough to post that. I mean are you kidding me?! Anyway I personally do not feel that the BPP was racist in anyway... I believe that racism is the instituional di

Neutrality Dispute?
Is there any objection to the removal of the neutrality dispute banner? This article still needs work (I'd endorse the inclusion of a brief "Criticism" section although I'm not qualified to write one), but I see no ongoing disputes on the talk page. - N1h1l 02:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection. This article is quite biased. More needs to be added about the murder of innocent whites in intimidation campaigns by Party members, the protection rackets, and other activities that would today be classified as "terrorist". This article falsly leads people to believe that the Party was peaceful, productive, and persecuted. 71.80.168.243 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, find some reliable sources and lets get a criticism section started! - N1h1l 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Panther 21
I started a page on the Panther 21 - just a sentence or two off the top of my head. Someone may want to turn it into a real article. -chelydra

COINTELPRO
I feel that this article is not only biased, but factually wrong: the activities of COINTELPRO are made to sound like conspiracy theories, when in fact there is government documentation of these activities which has since been declassified and is available to the public.

A good source for independent research on COINTELPRO is the website http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

The neutrality dispute banner should stay up until this, at least, is corrected.
 * I believe that you are incorrectly reading the article. For instance, you stated that "This article accuses the FBI of assassination"; however, the article merely notes that "have been a variety of allegations"..."including allegations of assassination." (emphasis mine) I believe that this is an NPOV statement of fact. - N1h1l 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Was this man a founding member?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoneth/133891593/in/set-1562065/

This homeless man in San Fransisco who goes by the name Walter claimed to be one of the 12 original black panther founding members. Can anyone prove or disprove this?

The Beginnings
The BPP was not actually founded by Seale and Newton-it was only formed by them. It was established by members of SNCC forming the Lowndes County Freedom Org. It was organized as an independent political party against the democratic party with a balck panther as the symbol. Certain groups of the south intended to create violence around election time to ensure the independent party would not win. SNCC realized the threat and used their contacts across the country to come and help protect the area. The idea of BPP spreading outside of SNCC was the result of creating a force to protect the Lowndes area during elections. From an interview with Stokely Carmichael, "The one who came from California to take it back was a brother by the name of Mark Comfort. He was the one who took the idea originally back to California, and it was from his that other groups sprang up and finally later on, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale and them came on the scene."

Link to the interview: http://www.teachersdomain.org/9-12/soc/ush/civil/carmich/iml04_doc_fullcarmich.pdf

Where does it mention the violent actions of the Black Panther Party? Going simply by the article you'd think this was a peaceful political organization, but it was a very violent organization even advocating black people killling white policemen if they ventured into prodominantly black neighborhood. And their slogan, "Bread, Land, Peace, Justice" sounds suspiciously similar to Lenin's "Bread, Land and Peace." This article is particularly biased because there is no mention of the negative things it did, and the claims of the party are taken as Gospel truth, such as the part about a military using black people to murder other colored people. This article might as well have been written by the press secretary of the Black Panther Party, and I think it likely that a former member or "fellow traveller" who sympathized with the Black Panther Party wrote this article. JAD

I am offended by the mention of Huey P Newtin as a "black racist" he is just a man who tried to come up with a way to protect his people from the WHITE POLICE who beat blacks for no reason that is not a black rascist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * You may find people take you more seriously if you limit yourself to one exclaimation point. Also, for emphasis, try using all caps, bold, or italics, but not combinations.  Also, periods are your friends.  They separate sentences! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.137.245.199 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

"Acquitted by a hung jury"
At the very end of the "Action" section, we have the statement that "[Bobby] Seale was acquitted by a hung jury". This is impossible as stated. In the U.S. criminal legal system, a hung jury results in a mistrial and is neither an acquittal or a conviction, and the case can be retried. I presume what happened is that after the mistrial, the prosecution decided not to drop the case instead of retrying Seale. This would be similar to an acquittal for the defendant, in that, as I understand it, jeopardy would have attached and once the charges were dropped, he could never be tried again for the alleged crime. But it is not the same thing. I did not find details on the result of this case but if someone does, the text should be corrected.
 * You're correct that the wording is incorrect and contradicts itself. You are incorrect that the prosecutor's decision not to retry amounts to an acquittal. The prosecutor retains the option to reopen the case until the statute of limitations expires.Verklempt 04:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited out racist comments from white supremacist scum
Somebody had added a whole paragraph of stupid stuff such as "get a job niggers" and I took the liberty of deleting it. If there is anything else that I missed later on in the article, I'm sorry.

Most absured bias
The Black Panthers -- a racist, terrorist organization -- were a "civil rights and self-defense" group? LOL. NPOV. SveinForkbeard 12:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrorist? Who did they kill? I'm serious here because I've never heard anything about that. It sounds like you have a pretty pov interpretation yourself.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 19:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The original founding of the BPP was fully justified and it was for all the right reasons, though the issue is that sense its founding some sects have turned into more of a black version of the KKK. Though, it should definitely be noted that the KKK sense its start has been an abselute piece of trash, and should have never been allowed. The key is, the true BPP is actually good it is now the watered down existence that makes it look bad to the un-knowing world--MJHankel 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom Party is not pacifist
I removed the tag "pacifist" from the description of the Peace and Freedom Party because that party has never been a pacifist organization. For example, the party has always had in its platform a plank defending the right to keep and bear arms. Please note the difference between "pacifist" and "anti-war". --Davecampbell 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

the ten point prgram
Some one has edited the ten point program and put racist text in capital letters in it,

''IM A CRACKA. SHUTUP U SLAVES.

1. We want DICK. We want power to determine the destiny of our black and oppressed communities. 2. We want full employment for our people FOR THE COTTON INDUSTRIES. 3. We want an end to the robbery PERSEUTIONS, EVEN THO WE DO ROB PEOPLE 4. We want decent CARDBOARDING FOR PANELING, fit for the shelter of human beings. 5. We want decent education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society. 6. We want completely free health care for all black and oppressed people. 7. We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people, other people of color, all oppressed people inside the United States. 8. We want an immediate end to all wars of aggression. 9. We want freedom for all black and oppressed people now held in U. S. Federal, state, county, city and military prisons and jails. We want trials by a jury of peers for all persons charged with so-called crimes under the laws of this country. 10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice, peace and people's community control of modern technology.

D'EM CHICKEN FINGERS R FINGA LICKIN GOOD!! SO IS THEY WATAMELONS....mmmmMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. ''

this should not be allowed, and i have decided to remove it, however did this should be ashamed of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.149.253.106 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

the ten point prgram
Some one has edited the ten point program and put racist text in capital letters in it,

IM A CRACKA. SHUTUP U SLAVES.

1. We want DICK. We want power to determine the destiny of our black and oppressed communities. 2. We want full employment for our people FOR THE COTTON INDUSTRIES. 3. We want an end to the robbery PERSEUTIONS, EVEN THO WE DO ROB PEOPLE 4. We want decent CARDBOARDING FOR PANELING, fit for the shelter of human beings. 5. We want decent education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society. 6. We want completely free health care for all black and oppressed people. 7. We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people, other people of color, all oppressed people inside the United States. 8. We want an immediate end to all wars of aggression. 9. We want freedom for all black and oppressed people now held in U. S. Federal, state, county, city and military prisons and jails. We want trials by a jury of peers for all persons charged with so-called crimes under the laws of this country. 10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice, peace and people's community control of modern technology.

D'EM CHICKEN FINGERS R FINGA LICKIN GOOD!! SO IS THEY WATAMELONS....mmmmMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

this should not be allowed, and i have decided to remove it, however did this should be ashamed of themselves.

Circa 5,000, really?
Is this necessary? Because to me it just looks ridiculous. Circa should be reserved for ancient history subjects. I was going to change it myself, but wanted to get some consensus first. Update-changed c.5,000 to c.1969 Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  03:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)