Talk:Huey P. Newton/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Ghostwriting

There has been discussion above about Kate Coleman's reliability as a source, especially regarding her assertion that Huey was ghosted. I have found a second source that confirms Coleman. Elaine Brown, on p. 326, states that Huey "used tape recorders and transcribers to write his books", and was nearly illiterate, able to read and write only very slowly and with the help of a dictionary.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this directly contradicts Kate Coleman. Writing by dictation is not the same as being ghost written. The former implies that there was help with the mode of the writing, which is not considered a problem academically. The latter implies that someone helped with the content, which is not acceptable in a dissertation. I am removing the Coleman quote unless we get a second source. Francis Bond (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that there may be a fine line between transcribing tapes and ghostwriting, I don't see any contradiction of Coleman at all. Could you please clarify? First, typically ghostwriters work with oral sources, as described by Brown. Therefore, this quote provides support for Coleman. Second, Brown's description of Newton's functional illiteracy -- which she describes as a "secret" -- is consistent with an author who requires ghosting. Third, why is a second source needed at all? As laid out above, Coleman's assertion has been published in several major newspapers, which would be considered reliable sources in any other WP article. I want to suggest that instead of deleting this material, you offer a rewrite that is consistent with your preferred interpretation. Clearly, it needs to be in the article in some form.Pokey5945 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Pearson, p. 286, regarding Huey's undergraduate work: "his papers were written by others whom he dictated to"; faculty felt that his BA was undeserved.Pokey5945 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not actually what page 286 says. Did you mean, "Some felt that the bachelor's degree he was awarded in 1974 was undeserved (although Newton was well read, his papers were written by others whom he dictated to)"? So "some" on the faculty have a thing against dictation? Got it. But that's not the meme you are trying to convey here, is it? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the most recent wording, after I suppose it was discovered that direct quotes weren't conveying the message certain editors were hoping for:

Newton was functionally illiterate, able to read and write only very slowly and with the help of a dictionary, and tried to keep this a secret. He used tape recorders and dictation to write. Because Newton's books and college papers were written by others, some faculty at UCSC felt that his BA was undeserved.
cite to "In the Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America" pg 286
and "A Taste of Power: A Black Woman’s Story." (New York: Doubleday, 1992) p. 326.

Was the term "functionally illiterate" used by a source(s)? Or is that an interpretation of a Wikipedia editor? Which faculty at UCSC felt his degree was undeserved? I sometimes use recorders and dictation to write, so that sentence just hanging there doesn't seem informative. Was that supposed to support the "illiterate" statement, or the "undeserved" statement? Doesn't seem to do either, as partially noted above. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've provided multiple sources, as requested after the complaints about the Coleman cite. I suggest you read them, in order to qualify yourself as an informed editor on this article. It's pretty clear that Newton was involved in writing some of the things that appeared under his name, but not all. It's also clear that he didn't actually *write* any of them because he was functionally illiterate. The Brown quote describes his functional illiteracy, as does the Pearson cite. I don't understand why people keep reverting this stuff. It's non-constructive. I seem to be the only editor here who has actually read the literature.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If you've read the literature (Pearson especially) you know the picture is far more complex than what you wrote. Some faculty did indeed feel that his BA was undeserved, however others supported him wholeheartedly and felt his intellectual pursuits were sincere. If you are going to reference Pearson's work, you need to provide a more complete summary, or simply use more quotes from Pearson's book. You could also quote from the many books that have been written about Newton. I agree with you that the article as written does not accurately convey who Newton was--either as a criminal or as a man with intellectual pretentions.
As you may have guessed, I am not a Huey Newton fan, much less am I a Newton apologist, which I fear at least one editor shows signs of being. I lived in Oakland and Berkeley during the Panther heyday, and I knew them as thugs, pure and simple. I blame the Panthers for the culture of gun violence that came after, for the burgeoning criminality that Oakland has suffered ever since, and for the countless young black lives ruined (or lost outright) to an increasingly dysfunctional ghetto culture--both in Oakland and nationwide.
Please continue to umask Newton, despite attempts by others to make his life sound like one of valiant resistance. I believe the record shows that he was about 80% vicious, unprincipled, narcissistic criminal and 20% brilliant intellectual - not the other way around. Apostle12 (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that faculty supporting their school's alumni is notable, since it is commonplace. OTOH, faculty criticizing their own alumni for not deserving a degree is rather unusual, which is why I included that. I have no problem with taking that tidbit out, or with adding that some faculty supported Newton. What has been frustrating me in working on this article is the non-constructive nature of many of the edits. I don't understand the last revert at all. It would appear the editor hasn't read the works cited, and so decided to revert because s/he didn't like the info added. This is not at all constructive.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've read the cited works. Having done so, it became immediately evident that your interpretation of the sources is ridiculously skewed. Despite you claiming to have read Brown and Pearson, you nonetheless twisted what you claim to have read and concluded that "Newton was functionally illiterate, able to read and write only very slowly and with the help of a dictionary, and tried to keep this a secret. He used tape recorders and dictation to write. Because Newton's books and college papers were written by others, some faculty at UCSC felt that his BA was undeserved." Reading that same passage from Brown about Newton's dream to open a school for black children, I see that Brown refers to Newton as an "untutored intellect" lacking in formal education, but that was effectively masked because "His genius was so great", and that he had taught himself how to read. She never said "he tried to keep this a secret", that's your own fabrication. Reading that passage from Pearson, without the hate-tinted glasses on, I see Pearson refers to Newton as well read, and "serious about his desire to gain academic respectability", and that a majority of his professors expressed positive views about his academic performance. I see that Brown ("used tape recorders and transcribers to write his books") and Pearson ("his papers were written by others whom he dictated to") both acknowledge that Newton's writings are Newton's, even if he did at times use dictation/transcription. That goes against the meme being pushed by certain editors here, doesn't it? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if this is much help, but Fredricka Newton claims that HPN was dyslexic (in Hilliard and Zimmerman, Huey p. 277). Does that offer a way out of this impasse? Jswba (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Coleman/Salon

Several issues:

  1. I could not find any other sources for either of the claims taken from the Coleman Salon piece ([1]) made in the paragraph inserted in the "Death" section
  2. The issue of Newton's love life, if it can be corroborated, should probably not go in the "Death" section.\

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that in the case of the romantic interest alluded to in the Coleman/Salon piece, WP:REDFLAG probably applies. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The Salon piece contains a great deal of information about Newton, some of it well-corroborated in previously published works and some of it new. As usual you have used a meat cleaver to cut out any information that seems even mildly critical of Newton, not that any criticism was intended when Coleman quoted from Newton's recently released handwritten letters to Schneider to support her claim that Newton and Schneider became lovers. Schneider's financial support of Newton is very well-known, and it has been reported by others, yet even that fact has been eliminated from this article. Perhaps Coleman's piece divulging the romantic nature of his and Schneider's friendship at least partially explains why Newton received Schneider's unwavering support, with Schneider paying even for Newton's funeral. All eliminated...on what grounds I might ask? Salon is hardly considered an unreliable source, nor is Coleman's piece sensationally written.
Even less is the paragraph you eliminated in any way sensationalistic or incorrect. It does not spotlight Newton's love life; its appearance under "Death" is because it at least partially explains why Schneider was inclined to foot the bill for Huey's many legal battles and even for his funeral. I have reinstated the paragraph. Apostle12 (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
have you looked at WP:REDFLAG? The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is used there, and i think a romantic relationship, previously unwritten about between these two individuals would qualify as an extraordinary claim for purposes of WP. I would certainly think it needed to be included if there were other authors writing similar things about the letters, but I was unable to even corroborate the existence of said letters through other sources. I also could not find any other suggestions that Schneider contributed money for Newton's funeral. Perhaps you have another source for this claim as well?
As for salon's credibility, I don't have a good sense that they have the editorial or fact-checking acumen of, say, the NYT. Given the previous editorial concerns about Coleman (which I share) I would simply point out that WP:RS states "Any of the three can affect reliability." referring to the piece itself, the creator, and the publisher. Since there have been concerns from both me and others about some of Coleman's pieces even in sources seen as more reliable (e.g. the SF Chronicle) than Salon, I hardly think that the simple fact that Salon published it would be proof of reliability.
If you can find other corroborating sources as to the existence and content of these letters, I would be eager to see them. As stated, I could not find them. Your seeming eagerness to include them based on the assertions of one writer is also noted without comment. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
"Eagerness?" I have held off for months including the new information from Coleman's recent piece. Apostle12 (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
why now then? no new publications have emerged which lend credence to or corroborate the claims in the interim. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Why now? Because the new information, revealed since Bert Schneider's death, is highly relevant to the topic of this article. In a recent edit note you wrote "discuss on talk page rather than simply reverting please." YOU are the one who has instigated a wholesale revert of sourced information, not me! I note this is a habit of yours, on this and other articles. And no amount of reason ever persuades you 1./ a source is good enough or 2./ the emphasis is not undue, if you don't want the information included in an article. Much of the information in the paragraph you eliminated, by the way, has existed in the article for months. You asked me "Why now?" so I will ask you the same question. "Why now do you seek to eliminate anything and everything Kate Coleman writes about in the Salon piece?" "Why does it seem such an exceptional claim that Schneider bought Newton a house and a car and paid more than $1 million in his legal fees (delaying, or preventing, Newton's being held accountable for his crimes, I might add) when other sources say the same thing? Why do you eliminate the highly probable claim (not "exceptional" at all) that Schneider paid for Newton's funeral? All this is nonsense, just as your blinding stubborness on other articles (e.g. "White privilege") has been nonsense. Your editing has become disruptive sir! Apostle12 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I have posted at WP:DRN about this. Please join me in the discussion there. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The allegation, by itself, that person X pays for person Y's funeral is a perfectly reasonable assertion to make, and if that were the only unsourced allegation made in the piece I would probably have left it there, though I frankly do not see why it needs to be in an encyclopedia article. I fail to see what the relevance of that information, even if true, is for a general audience.
That the same piece that contains this allegation also contains accusations of romantic involvement that have not previously been written about by other authors, and furthermore that this relationship is clearly discernible from some cache of personal letters noone but the author appears to have access too, an author that has previously been called out by other scholars in the field for having a "Panther bashing" agenda (see previous threads on Coleman's credibility), well, it just doesn't seem like that is the sort of thing you immediately put into an encyclopedia to me without a several other authors corroborating the claim. After the letters are verified and written about by other scholars and the assertions prove to be true (should they be in fact true, or rather verified by other credible authors), then I will not quarrel with their inclusion in the article, in an appropriate section. But the fact that Coleman alone makes these exceptional claims also calls into doubt her other claims in the piece, especially since she seems to be the only person publicly saying that Schneider "paid for" (in whole or part?) Newton's funeral.
This is why i removed the assertion about Schneider paying for Newton's funeral.
Contrary to your assertions at the WP:DRN page, I have already suggested (perhaps too obliquely) what I feel is usually the primary remedy for these kinds of issues of reliability-of-claims and sourcing in such cases: provide more and better sources for the claims. I was unable to find any, and I thought you might have better luck.
Regardless of what you believe to be the truth here, WP is not set up to promote truth, but verifiability. Poorly-sourced content simply should not be included here. I am truly sorry that my standards for verifiability cause you displeasure. That is not my intent. My intent is to help produce an encyclopedia. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you should review your prejudices. Kate Coleman does not make "accusations of romantic involvement;" she describes a romantic relationship that apparently meant a great deal to both men. In fact, if you have read much of Newton's history, you already know that his other romantic relationships were often lacking in depth, and with many people he was quite harsh. Despite their disagreements, which Coleman describes, there was little harshness in the Newton/Schneider relationship.
Since the romantic attachment Coleman describes can hardly be counted as "Panther bashing," that argument does not apply in this case. But even those who have objected to what they perceive as Panther bashing have never asserted that Coleman's investigatory pieces are inaccurate, much less do they assert any hint of fabrication. Given that track record, established over a thirty-five year period, Coleman's credibility is quite high. Both Coleman, and Salon, track as reliable sources. I am very aware of the verifiability v. truth issue, and I believe this sourcing passes the test. You cannot pretend that "your standards" constitute the same thing as Wikipedia's standards, especially since you seem determined to be the opposite of a "Panther basher," which is to say a "Panther apologist."
Huey Newton was seldom held accountable for what nearly everyone, even close Panther associates like Bobby Seale and Elaine Brown, count as his crimes. This did not happen by accident, or merely because Newton possessed the ability to charm juries. It happened because he had benefactors like Bert Schneider who were willing to pay millions for the best possible legal defenses. The embezzlement charges that were brought against Huey in 1982 are a good example; various legal maneuvers (all paid for by Schneider) delayed even the final slap-on-the-hand plea bargain for a full seven years! Other examples of Schneider's largesse abound, including his paying for Huey's funeral. This information is highly relevant to the story of Huey Newton, and if you "fail to see what the relevance of that information, even if true, is for a general audience," you must be turning a blind eye. Apostle12 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I include my comments from WP:DRN for easy review by other editors:
For about two months now the WP "Huey Newton" article has contained the following entry under the "Death" section:
Hollywood producer Bert Schneider, a Newton benefactor who through the years had provided him with cars, homes, and millions of dollars in attorney fees, paid for Newton's funeral.
This entry was sourced with an article authored by highly-respected journalist Kate Coleman titled: "True Hollywood Story: The Producer and the Black Panther," which appeared in the June 9, 2012 edition of Salon magazine. In this case "The Producer" referred to Bert Schneider, who had recently died, providing access for the first time to handwritten letters he received from Huey Newton during the 1980s.
Kate Coleman (editor UsetheCommandLine mistakenly refers to her as "Karen Coleman") was a natural to gain access to the letters Newton wrote to Schneider, because she has been writing about Newton, the Black Panthers, and the New Left for more than thirty-five years. Her article "The Party's Over: How Huey Newton Created a Street Gang in the Center of the Black Panther Party" (New Times Magazine, 1978) was a carefully researched, seminal piece that pulled back the curtain on Newton's violent criminality and his criminalization of the Black Panther Party. A subsequent article, "Souled Out: Eldridge Cleaver Admits He Ambushed Those Cops" appeared in a 1980 edition of New West Magazine and finally put the lie to Cleaver's and Newton's 1967 claim that the Oakland police had ambushed Cleaver, resulting in Bobby Hutton's death and martydom. Coleman has written at regular intervals about Huey Newton and the Black Panthers, and her pieces have been published in the Bay Area's newspaper of record, The San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and many other national newspapers. Coleman's research on Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party has always been impeccable; there is no reason to distrust her.
After carefully reading Coleman's latest "True Hollywood Story" article (see above), I augmented the "Death" section entry to read:
Hollywood producer Bert Schneider, a benefactor of leftist causes and friend of Newton, through the years provided him with money for a car, a down payment for a home, and more than $1 million in attorney's fees. Journalist Kate Coleman reports that handwritten letters between Newton and Schneider, revealed after Schneider's 2011 death, demonstrate that by at least the 1980s the two had became lovers...."Newton glowingly expresses his 'joy and sensual excitement' after spending his first night following his release from prison with Schneider. The producer had bailed him out, driven him in a white stretch limo by the prison so he could wave to his fellow prisoners, then taken him off to spend the night together 'on top of the (San Francisco) Hyatt.'" In the end, Schneider paid for Newton's funeral.
I believe the information I added is important for WP readers to know, since the fact that Newton and Schneider's well-known camaraderie also became a love affair may go far in explaining Schneider's unrelenting financial and moral support. We know from many other sources that Schneider paid large sums to cover the rent on Newton's penthouse, that he helped Newton escape to Cuba, that he paid untold sums to lawyers (one case alone cost over $1 million), and that Schneider's name was on the mortgage for Newton's residence in the Oakland hills.
During the past 12-13 hours, editor UsetheCommandLine has repeatedly reverted this entire paragraph, not just the new information I added but the longstanding, non-controversial information re: Schneider's extensive financial support and his footing the bill for Newton's funeral. When I objected that he was engaging in disruptive "meat cleaver" editing, he announced that Kate Coleman is an unreliable source, which can hardly be the case--Coleman's credibility regarding Newton, Cleaver and the Black Panthers has never been contested, and it would be difficult for any Newton, Cleaver or Black Panther scholar to ignore her work. In addition, her articles are extensively cited in many WP articles.
I wish to reinstate the paragraph, including the new information about Schneider's and Newton's personal relationship. Editor UsetheCommandLine has now reverted me THREE TIMES (!), and he has been unwilling to suggest any compromise whatever (a shorter quote, for example). This mirrors previous experience with his editing, on this article and others, which has driven at least a few editors away; he pretends to "discuss" the facts on Talk but demonstrates complete intransigence when it comes to his unsupported claims of unreliable sourcing and/or undue emphasis. I have never seen him suggest, or accept, a compromise.Apostle12 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


  • But even those who have objected to what they perceive as Panther bashing have never asserted that Coleman's investigatory pieces are inaccurate, much less do they assert any hint of fabrication. Really?
Coleman follows "the gossipy tales of the FBI in the national press with little regard for their actual truth." --Payne
"Accusations abound about Newton's alleged criminal activities during this period. Few people agree on the specifics, and few of the accusations have been verified ... Some of the most widely touted accusations come from right-wing activists such as David Horowits and Kate Coleman, who seek to vilify the Black Panther Party." --Bloom, Martin and Martin
I think some would disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Insinuations all; I note not a single example of inaccuracy or fabrication. We can dismiss Bloom out of hand for his ad hominem attack on Coleman as a "right-wing activist." Coleman is far-left and proud of it; she and Horowitz agree on very little! Apostle12 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh sure, you can cite them when they support your arguments, and then "dismiss" them when they conflict with your agenda. Fun and games. As for "far-left" and "far-right", they are interchangeable as convenience dictates; just ask her partner Horowitz. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
First of all, my only "agenda" is creating a comprehensive article that accurately presents the various perspectives. You must be delirious to imagine that "far-left" and "far-right" are interchangeable, though I would agree that both extremes breed tyrants.
"...you can cite them when they support your arguments, and then 'dismiss' them when they conflict with your agenda" What in the world are you alluding to? The path you have headed down seems nonsensical. Horowitz did disavow his early leftism; to the best of my knowledge he hasn't reversed himself. Apostle12 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

~ We may have gone past this, but Fredricka Newton states that Newton's funeral was paid for by lots of small donations from the local community (Hilliard and Zimmerman, Huey p. 282). Not that this means Schneider didn't contribute something! Jswba (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pearson

As noted in the edit summary, Pearson is the single most frequent reference in this article, and I don't see why there is such a reliance on his claims specifically. It almost seems like there is a concerted effort to use the more inflammatory and un-corroborated material from Pearson, rather than rely on other sources. I also removed the booknotes interview, since the only reason Pearson's interview is notable here is because of the over-reliance on his one book as source material for this article. I would have added it to Pearson's own WP page, but he does not have one. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In 2005, Hugh Pearson passed away at the unexpectedly young age of 47. He does deserve a WP page; here is some biographical info:
http://hnn.us/node/15154
Pearson was a respected journalist with the Wall Street Journal, and his book "Shadow of the Panther" has never been challenged for factual inaccuracy. In fact much of what he writes has been corroborated by other Panther authors, e.g. Elaine Brown in her autobiographical Taste of Power. Pearson's book is quoted in this article because it remains one of the most comprehensive biographical treatments of Huey Newton. Apostle12 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
This seems like hand-waving to me, and "one of" is the key phrase here. My concern is not that it is included, but that there is relatively too much credence given to it. Four years ago there were half as many references in total, and only one reference to the book, which was published nearly 20 years ago. Now there are at least five. It also seems suspicious that many of the assertions that can be construed as reflecting negatively upon Newton's actions come from Pearson. Given that Jeffries' book is at least newer, and Jeffries also has a much greater number of academic publications on the era and race issues at the time, if there were a source I would think to lend more credence to (and even at the risk of being accused of recentism it would be his book, though it is only cited once. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
So do it, edit away using Jeffries, or whomever, as sources; no one is stopping you. I certainly won't revert the new information you add the way you continually revert me on the grounds of "reliable sourcing" or "undue emphasis!" Quite tired of this nonsense! Apostle12 (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd be a bit concerned about using Jeffries's book as the go-to source for Newton's life. It's an acceptable -- if a bit uncritical -- intellectual biography of Newton (see that Street article mentioned elsewhere on this page, which mentions its shortcomings) but it's a little basic on the detail of Newton's life. OK, so Pearson is critical and Jeffries friendly. Why not use them both and try to tease out the similarities or differences? Jswba (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course, that is what good WP editing is all about--present the whole story so readers can decide for themselves. Apostle12 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminder about WP:DRN discussion re: Coleman/Salon

I just wanted to remind everyone that there is an ongoing DRN discussion about Coleman's Salon piece and its reliability as a source. Talk there has stalled a bit over the last few days, but there are open questions that I think it important to address, because their answers will likely have implications for how we treat Coleman's other pieces. While the initial dispute is listed as being between Apostle12 and myself, because discussion has been opened by the WP:DRN volunteers I think weighing in by anyone active on this article would be useful. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No time to do the research right now. Maybe in a few days. Apostle12 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I am closing the DR/N as resolved. The consensus of editors is that the material should not be inlcuded and Apostle12 was unable to demonstarte that the material was neither fringe or minority view. Salon is a partisan, political publication that, can at times, cover subjects in a less than neutral manner. There does not appear to be any other sources with similar claims. Per BLP policy for figures recently dead, the information should not be included.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Closing the DR/N is premature, since I have not had time to respond. Responding to questions takes more time than simply formulating them, since I must review lengthy books, check their indexes, and so on. Some books I own, others I do not. The claims regarding Schneider and his involvement in providing financial support for Newton are corroborated by many other sources (Elaine Brown, Hugh Pearson, Curtis Austin), and I intend to catalog them. The only new material in the Salon piece relates to Coleman's review of the handwritten letters from Newton that reveal a romantic connection between him and Schneider. For editor UsetheCommandLine to edit out everything that Coleman refers to in her article is meat-cleaver editing.
All publications at times cover subjects in a less than neutral manner (the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle....); Salon should not be singled out in this manner, and Coleman's work has appeared in many other publications that are generally considered reliable sources (the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, among many others). Not every source needs to be "neutral" (certainly pro-Panther authors like Curtis Austin cannot be considered "neutral," yet I would never object to his work being cited in WP articles). Our job is to air various perspectives from reliable sources so the article as a whole presents a neutral point of view and readers can arrive at their own conclusions. Apostle12 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
If there are multiple sources that support a claim, I wouldn't think that using one that also makes unverified, unsupported claims would be acceptable. I will have to review the policies to figure out which one this exactly runs afould of, but I feel fairly confident that this is frowned upon if not explicitly prohibited.
If you're just trying to document that Newton received money from Schneider over the years, then I would it would be less contentious if you used better sources for that. What sparked this whole discussion, if you recall, was your inclusion of the thus-far unsubstantiated allegations of a romantic relationship between them.
I have mentioned to Amadscientist on their talk page that you wish to reopen the dispute. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Apostle 12, you had 7 days to formulate your responses. That is the basic amount of time estblished for a DR/N. If there was still discussion we would not have closed but you stopped responding and left no mention as to when you would return. If you don't have time at the moment to address a DR/N filing in a timely manner please be aware that things may move on without you. This is an informal board and but we have a set timeline and procedure. If you want to continue discussing the issue here on the talkpage that is fine but be aware that the issue raised here fall under a number of policies that allow the removal of contentious material without discussion. Per BLP:

Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Salon is a "Biased or opinionated source". This does not exclude it from being used but would require that this not be used to state any facts. It must be attributed to the author. Now, I am sorry, but this is fringe information at worst and minority information at best. At any rate, niether are included in Wikipedia BLP articles. The figure may not be a living person, but the policy applies. Do not return the information as that would be edit warring. Any editor that removes such contentious material would be exempted from the 3RR brightline rule as well in removing or reverting the addition of the content. You say you didn't have time to research, but what is it you are looking for? Several editors have made it clear this is not information that is either credible or if so, not common knowledge. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are not here to make groundbreaking claims. There is a body of information on a subject. If, in that entire body of work, there is little to nothing on the situations being referred to...they are fringe or minority and not included.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You state categorically that Salon is "a biased or opinionated source." On what basis do you make that judgement? Are you asserting that this judgement represents WP policy on the matter? Or is it just your opinion. Please inform. Apostle12 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is because I am more than a little familiar with the publication and its uses on Wikipedia for political purposes. However that would assume that they have a politcal slant on this subject. As a liberal publication that may not be the point, but as a "Tabloid" they should not be used at all for a BLP. This is from the Salon article:

Responding to the question, "How far do you go with the tabloid sensibility to get readers?", former Salon.com editor-in-chief David Talbot said:

Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that. I've said all along that our formula here is that we're a smart tabloid. If by tabloid what you mean is you're trying to reach a popular audience, trying to write topics that are viscerally important to a readership, whether it's the story about the mother in Houston who drowned her five children or the story on the missing intern in Washington, Chandra Levy.

— [1]
Point blank, Salon is not the publication to use to reference any contentious claims in a BLP article on Wikipedia. Period.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I see, and I understand your point. Regarding Bert Schneider in particular, since his death is relatively recent (December 11, 2011) at what point would you think the BLP policy ceases to be applicable under the "recent" clause? We are now at 1 year, 2 months. Are we talking 2 years, 3 years...? At some point it must expire, since the whole point of "Biography of Living Persons" is to avoid interference in people's lives. Apostle12 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BDP- Subjects are covered by this policy if they were born within last 115 years.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
My question was an attempt to open a discussion about the definition of "recent," and you have responded with an arbitrary statement. Here is the policy as written:
"Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning the dead. However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, or notable suicides, is covered by this policy. Contentious or questionable material that affects living people or about the recently dead should be treated in the same way as material about living people. Anyone born within the last 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. People born over 115 years ago are presumed dead unless listed at oldest people."(Emphasis added)
Certainly you cannot claim that the death of Huey Newton himself would be considered "recent." Reliable sources have it that Huey Newton is dead; therefore he is not covered by this policy even though he was born within the last 115 years. Reliable sources have it that Bert Schneider is also dead, specifically 1 year and 2 months dead. "Recent" is not defined and is therefore open to interpretation.
The policy is not well-written. It says the policy applies to everyone "unless a reliable source has confirmed their death." However it leaves a giant loophole about "material about dead people that has implications for their living friends and relatives"--unless the person lived entirely without friends and relatives there will always be implications. Personally I'm going to put the limit of "recent" at two years, and I think even that is stretching it. Seems to me, Amadscientist, that since the policy as written is so vague, no individual interpretation carries more weight than another, so arbitrary statements are inappropriate. Apostle12 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I am quite glad that you seem to have taken an interest in policy, and would encourage you to continue this discussion about policy over at the relevant pages, i.e. WT:BLP and WP:BLPN. I am interested in the discussion, but think it is out of place here. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I also will admit to a bit of dismay that you feel it is appropriate to unilaterally say that you will place the limit of "recent" at two years. This does not, to me, suggest a collaborative attitude. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree; the discussion should take place there. Do you think stating my opinion is more "unilateral" or less "collaborative" than Amadscientist arbitrarily stating his opinion that "115 years" is the applicable number?" To date, your idea of "collaboration" evinces mostly the image of childhood tattle-talers, who went off to some authority whenever they didn't get their way. As I recall, no one wanted to play with them. Apostle12 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

During the next few months, I intend to create a new section in this article that has to do with the support, moral and financial, that Newton received from various Hollywood luminaries, producer Bert Schneider among them. Certainly other authors refer to this support (Hugh Pearson, Curtis Austin, Elaine Brown, Bobby Seale, and so on), and Kate Coleman's most recent piece becomes a part of this literature. Please keep in mind that Coleman has a history of breaking new ground regarding Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver and the Black Panthers in general. In 1978, she was the first author to go public with information regarding criminal activities that were well-known to those living in Berkeley and Oakland, CA ("The Party's Over: How Huey Newton Created a Street Gang at the Center of the Black Panther Party," New Times Magazine)--later works by Brown, Pearson (who extensively quotes Coleman in his The Shadow of the Panther), and even Panther-booster Curtis Austin confirm Coleman's original take on the subject. Two years later, in 1980, Coleman was the first to interview Eldridge Cleaver and get him to admit that he, Bobby Hutton and others ambushed the Oakland police a few days after the assassination of MLK ("Souled Out: Eldridge Cleaver Admits He Ambushed Those Cops," New West Magazine). Again, subsequent writers have confirmed this fact, especially Austin who is highly critical of Cleaver for not having been a more polished "revolutionary" on the night he attacked the Oakland Police Department, wounding two officers and eventually resulting in the death of Bobby Hutton, who became a pre-eminent Panther martyr. In the currently disputed article, Coleman is the first to write about Newton's and Schneider's romantic relationship, which apparently went far beyond revolutionary comaraderie or simple friendship; given Coleman's excellent track record (none of her writing about the Black Panthers has been discredited), I think it is likely she will also be vindicated re: the true nature of the Newton/Schneider friendship.

Nevertheless, since no other authors have gone on record as having reviewed Newton's handwritten letters to Schneider, I agree that adding information about their romantic relationship to this WP article may be premature. I cannot, however, agree that Salon.com, or Kate Coleman, have been discredited as sources. Apostle12 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you feel such a section is appropriate in a general-interest encyclopedia. --UseTheCommandLine (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who is interested enough to visit the Huey P. Newton article may be interested in the connections that allowed Newton to have an impact on New Left and Black Power politics of the 1960s-70s. Support from various Hollywood luminaries was probably crucial to the rise of the Black Panthers and Newton's role in the politics of that era. Just part of the story. Apostle12 (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I have posted at AN/I regarding this issue. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no "issue." You have purposefully distorted my position. Apostle12 (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
purposefully? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. J'accuse. Or perhaps you simply missed the fact that I acquiesced to editor consensus with regard to incorporating information from Coleman's recent piece concerning the Newton/Schneider romance. You have been dogging me for quite awhile now, substituting tattle-tale tactics for sincere discussion, and I resent it. Apostle12 (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
If i could make a suggestion, why not be proactive about this and write up an RfC asking about the appropriateness of this new section you wish to create? If your arguments are sound on their merits surely everyone will agree with you that such a section should be included. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a minor clarification -- Pearson cites Coleman roughly 12 times (out of a book with ~330 citations), always the New times article (~8) or the accompanying behind-the story (~5). He does not appear to have interviewed her, as he seems to have done with David Horowitz several times. This does not seem to me to fit the definition of "quoting extensively", and regardless, what someone wrote in 1978 may or may not have anything to do with the credibility or reliability of what they write 30+ years later. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The point is that what Coleman wrote thirty years ago has held up through the years. Pearson considered her work relevant enough to cite her when he published Shadow of the Panther in 1994, and Austin obliquely endorsed her groundbreaking interview with Cleaver (though he did not directly reference that interview, he did reference derivative interviews that revealed the same truths) when he published Up Against the Wall in 2006. Coleman comments on the general subject matter at regular interviews (e.g. when there was a Panther conference at Boston's Wheelock College in 2003) and more recently (e.g. the 2012 piece following Schneider's death, which I cited). Coleman has kept her hand in, and her perspective has not become dated or irrelevant; her reporting has been quite reliable over a very long period of time, which only adds to her credibility. Apostle12 (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. This is a collaborative effort and we have set rules in regards to the biographies of both "living" persons" and the "recently dead". Ignore these policies at your own peril. There is no amount of discussion that will convince you that you are wrong. So...we don't attempt to prove that. We simply remind you that there are some sources that cannot be used to source a fact. Identifying reliable sources requires editors to look at the author, the article itself, the publication as well as the context of how the reference is being used. As other editors have stated, the Coleman piece is not RS as it has many issues. Salon magazine is indeed a partisan politcal publication and we do have guidelines for its use. We need to be careful what we reference as fact from such publications.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Spoken from on high, with warnings of peril. Apostle12 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It just means you can do whatever you think is reasonable to improve the article in good faith to the policy and guidelines and you can decide to something else. If you do something else you may be seen as disruptive and could be blocked from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

I think Apostle12 has raised a couple of interesting issues, ones that I would very much enjoy seeing clarification of here:

  1. do the WP:BLP policies still apply to Newton and/or Schneider, and if so, when does their coverage end?
  2. is a section on "support, moral and financial, that Newton received from various Hollywood luminaries" appropriate in this article?

In the former case, I imagine asking at WP:BLPN would be a good place to start. In the latter, I suspect an RfC is in order.

It would be wonderful if Apostle12 could notify the other editors here of the progress of these inquiries. I do understand, though, that time can sometimes be an issue, and I would be happy to pursue them myself if that is the case. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You can ask at the BLP, noticeboard, but I have clarified the issue above. The recently dead are covered through the time period of this subjects death. You can confirm this by reading the BLP policies. It touches on this in the lead and has a section. While most recently dead content may not be covered by the policy it does state that cotentious content that could have effect on remaining family etc should be excluded and treated the same as a living person. I made this that I felt this article fell within these perameters on the DR/N.
Generally it is not encyclopedic to have entire, segregated sections on non, nuetral content. Criticism and praise should be spread throughout the article and not sectioned off with undue weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The section dealing with the moral and financial support the Black Panthers, and Newton in particular, received from various Hollywood luminaries should be completely neutral--neither criticism nor praise are part of the story. Apostle12 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

John Frey admission

So in checking the Pearson reference, it seems a lot like hearsay. Pearson makes this assertion that Newton admitted to killing Frey based on interviews (with Robert Trivors and Willie Payne). The circumstances of both the alleged admission and the mindsets of the interviewees at the time (Pearson paints the scene as a night of drinking) do not give me a lot of faith in this alleged admission, i.e. that people said what they meant, and that it was interpreted in the way they meant it. Are there other reliable sources that make this same baldfaced statement about Newton's culpability, and which do not rely on Pearson for it? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This material has been in the article for years, and I believe you may have been the editor who recently enlarged it to improve context, specifically the part where Newton referred to Frey's murder having benefitted residents of Oakland's rougher neighborhoods by making the police more wary of abuse. Raising the question is fine, however I do not understand why you have deleted such longstanding material without allowing time for discussion. Pearson's interviews and sourcing were subject to intense scrutiny when Shadow... was published in 1994, and they withstood every challenge. Since he passed away in 2006, with notes and interviews perhaps more difficult to access, it seems a bit late to question his credibility on this issue. Apostle12 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I did enlarge it a few months ago to improve context. At the time, I was not as familiar with the WP:BLP policies, and did not have a copy of Shadow to check; I expanded the quote based on the Google Books sample pages. I don't think it matters how long the allegation has been there, either. For example, a number of hoaxes have persisted for years on WP, and their longevity is not a reason for maintaining them.
If the claim has been made by other reliable sources, as you seem to suggest, then it should be easy to find them to corroborate Pearson's statements. I think the article would benefit substantially from the inclusion of such sources, but if it is only Pearson making the claim, based on the possibly intoxicated recollections of interviewees, then I feel more hesitant, and would be inclined to ask at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. Because of the centrality of Pearson's account to Panther scholarship, I expect it may be re-included regardless, but I think it important to get the tone and attribution right. My previous attempt at doing so seems inadequate in retrospect. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, tone and attribution are important. Now that you have Shadow... I hope you will read it in its entirety, as Newton's separate admissions to Robert Trivors and Willie Payne only become clear in the full context of Pearson's research. Pearson is the one who did this research, and all other sources are, to the best of my knowledge, derivative; I did not suggest that independent claims have been made by other reliable sources.
Are you asserting that WP:BLP applies to Newton, whose death occurred nearly twenty-five years ago? To exclude the fruits of Pearson's research and scholarship, especially on the basis of WP:BLP seems entirely unreasonable. To imply that this longstanding information, based on interviews with Trivers and Payne, might somehow be a "hoax" seems even more baseless. Pearson's work is indeed central to Panther scholarship; since the article includes Newton's obviously self-serving account of what happened the night Officer Frey was killed, excluding contrary information takes the article very far from neutral territory. For this reason, I believe Pearson's information should immediately be reinstated. Apostle12 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on Amadscientist's previous statements re:Schneider, I think that yes, the page on Newton is subject to WP:BLP policies. For the record, my main concern is how deeply editors are expected to read into the literature and assess the quality of sourcing. The balance, in my view, is between clarity of the narrative and length, versus making clear exactly what grounds a statement by a source was based on. If it's that important to you that it be "immediately" reinstated I would suggest that you take your concerns to WP:BLPN and WP:RSN in order to clarify things, where I would be both happy to comment and quite interested in the outcome. I might also suggest WP:DRN (full disclosure: I am volunteering there in a dispute on an unrelated topic, and would obviously not comment in that capacity on this dispute.) In the meantime, I intend to be rather conservative on the inclusion of these statements, because per WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
All pages are subject to WP:BLP in the sense that those still living are referred to or discussed. The real question is whether Amadscientist is correct with respect to Schneider and, especially, Newton himself, one who died 1 year 4 months ago and the other approximatey 24 years ago. As you must be aware, much of what Amadscientist is quite unclear (e.g. "The recently dead are covered through the time period of this subjects death."), which is why I have not commented.
You seem to have unlimited time to devote to endless disputes and referrals; I do not. I can understand now why Pokey5945 left in utter frustration. I might add that collaborative editing involves give and take. As noted above, I am more than willing to stand by while you add material and perspectives that run counter to my own opinions. I would ask that you return the favor.Apostle12 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not willing to substitute quid pro quo (even had i recognized it as such) for discussion and reference to policy. If you are confused about the correctness of Amadscientist's statments re:WP:BLP then you might, as I have suggested already, post a question at WP:BLPN.
Please also see WP:NORUSH, WP:DEM, and WP:ENEMY
-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Also aproppriate: WP:CHILL and WP:PANIC. My response to WP:TIAD in this case would be that the information is contained in Shadow already, so interested parties can refer to that. it is still the single-most-frequently-referenced resource in this article, if i'm not mistaken.
If after having a more thorough discussion at e.g. WP:BLPN or WP:RSN, the consensus is that the paragraph should be re-inserted I will be more than happy to do so myself. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you might be willing to acknowledge that substituting wikilawyering for discussion is not a collaborative approach. Have posted at WP:BLPN. Apostle12 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been completely transparent and forward with my arguments and rationale. I was also surprised by Amadscientist's claim that everyone born in the last 115 years is "recently dead" but I was certainly not going to say otherwise without further discussion, as on WP:BLPN. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have posted at the RSN.

graduating without being able to read?

He graduated from tech without being able to read? How is this possible? At the very least this must be an exageration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.215.101 (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There is excellent evidence from multiple sources indicating that Newton was functionally illiterate, and that his college papers, dissertation, and books were mostly ghostwritten. Unfortunately, the POV-warriors will not permit these facts to be included in this article.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that someone deleted my talk page comment above is a good indication of the significant dysfunction in this editing community.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Stop trying to hide my comments.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There have been a number of lengthy discussions about assertions of Newton's literacy level. Please see the talk page archives for additional detail. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 21:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest addition to the John Frey shooting

Until yesterday, 13 February 2013, the section devoted to the fatal shooting of Oakland police officer John Frey concluded with a paragraph sourced to statements in Hugh Pearson's 1994 book, Shadow of the Panther. Various versions of this paragraph have existed on this page for years:

According to writer Hugh Pearson, Newton boasted to close friends that he willfully killed John Frey. Pearson also says Newton made the same claim to another friend, Willie Payne, just before Newton was murdered. Pearson states, "He admitted killing Officer John Frey. He said that before he killed Frey, the police and the power structure could just come down to the black community and do anything they wanted. But after he shot Frey, much of that changed."

An unnamed editor deleted the paragraph, and I reinstated it, after which editor UseTheCommandLine deleted it again. After some discussion on various pages, UsetheCommandLine rewrote the paragraph and again inserted it in the section devoted to the John Frey shooting. It now reads:

In his book Shadow of the Panther, writer Hugh Pearson alleges that Newton, while intoxicated in the hours before he was shot and killed, claimed to have willfully killed John Frey. Although this claim has been repeated elsewhere based on Pearson's account, the allegation remains contentious, and has not been corroborated by others.

While certainly true, this new version of the paragraph has several problems:

-It implies Newton's admission that he willfully killed John Frey occurred only while he was intoxicated during the hours before he was killed. This information is based on Pearson's interview with friend Willie Payne. However, according to Pearson, Newton made the same claim on other occasions. When Pearson interviewed sociobiologist Robert Trivors, for example, Trivors reported that Newton was "unabashedly proud" of killing John Frey and boasted about the killing to close friends . There is no specific indication that on these other occasions Newton was intoxicated. (Though the use of intoxicating substances was not unusual for Huey Newton during much of his adult life - his alcohol, cocaine, and crack cocaine habits were well known, and it may have been difficult to identify a time, even while in prison, when Newton did not regularly consume intoxicating substances.) The source for Newton having "boasted to close friends that he willfully killed John Frey" was Pearson's interview with Robert Trivors, a professor at U.C. Santa Cruz who taught Newton, whom Newton befriended, and who became one of the few white members of the Black Panther Party.
-The allegation remains contentious and has not been corroborated by others, however Pearson's credibility and the interviews he conducted with both Willie Payne and Robert Trivors survived intense scrutiny when Panther... was published in 1994. With two completely independent sources confirming that Newton admitted to killing John Frey (Willie Payne and Robert Trivors are not associated with one another) the allegation is taken seriously even by Panther scholars who disagree with Pearson's negative conclusions about Huey Newton and the Black Panthers in general. Pearson's allegation is referenced in many other derivative works.
-UseTheCommandLine only recently had added the part that until February 13 read: "He admitted killing Officer John Frey. He said that before he killed Frey, the police and the power structure could just come down to the black community and do anything they wanted. But after he shot Frey, much of that changed." This addition was important, because it linked Newton's killing of Officer Frey to a primary stated purpose of the Panthers - to end police brutality in the black ghettos of Oakland, CA. The new version fails to include this perspective.

I think this paragraph needs more work so that it makes clear that Pearson's allegations are not based solely on statements Newton made to Willie Payne while Newton was intoxicated on alcohol and crack cocaine during the hours just before Newton was murdered. Newton made similar statements to close friends, including Robert Trivers, presumbably when alcohol and crack cocaine were likely not prominent factors in his boasts and disclosures. In addition, Newton's stated justification for killing Officer Frey also demands inclusion, especially the fact that he was "unabashedly proud" of killing Officer John Frey. Apostle12 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you by any chance read the discussion at WP:DRN WP:RSN at all? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
p. 290 "But he never came straight out and detailed his guilt in any murder." A search of all the other mentions of Trivors in Shadow suggests to me that maybe you are misremembering things. It happens. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You make a lot of assertions about Pearson, but I really don't see what you're on about. It reads like a dime store "true crime" thriller, with footnotes. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course I read the discussion at WP:RSN
Please be aware that the Panther.. index is not comprehensive. Don't have time to review the entire book this evening, however you might consider p. 291 "Although Newton tended to be vague about his murders, he was unabashedly proud of one, although again he didn't go into details. 'The baddest nigger that ever walked' was the phrase he would use with me, because he had killed a white police officer and gotten away with it," remembers Trivors. Discussion of Newton's murders (and his rapes) continues on p. 292. Apostle12 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to have to say no. The only allegation even worthy of mention (and only as an allegation, because its only notability is in that others have repeated it, per discussion at WP:RSN) is the account on page 5-7, that is again referenced on 211(?). This claim is poorly sourced enough on its own, being as it's apparently based on hearsay from two people rather than just one. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
And just to be crystal clear, what i mean by "say no" is "oppose the inclusion of the statements you are suggesting." You are of course free to do whatever you like to the article, though not without other people reacting. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
No details = poor sourcing = non-RS, as far as I'm concerned. Insinuations like the one you cite are not even worth wasting time discussing. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that, I think I need clarification. If I am reading you correctly, you want additional language placed in the article based on Pearson's writings about Trivors' impression of Newton's guilt? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't formulated exactly what wording might be appropriate. However I believe it is appropriate to include some reference to Trivors statements when Pearson interviewed him. It would be interesting to review any tapes Pearson might have made, although I doubt we will get that chance. My point is that Newton talked about the Frey killing to other close friends, not just Willie Payne, and he acknowledged having been proud that he killed Officer Frey.
The previous paragraph included the fact that Newton boasted about having killed Frey, because that helped a primary Panther cause. The current paragraph fails to convey this and emphasizes instead all the reasons the admissions he made to Willie Payne might be considered dubious.
Not as good in my opinion.
I trust, now that you have a copy of Panther.. that you will read it, rather than just relying on excerpts. In much of the rest of Panther literature, Panther boosters and apologists dismiss Pearson as "right-wing" or even as a "house nigger." If you read what he has to say, it will quickly become obvious that this is not the case at all. Pearson came to his negative conclusions about Huey Newton and the Black Panthers unwillingly; when he began his research he was inclined to give them more credit. Apostle12 (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see also Pearson at p.221: "The rationale for a ruling of involuntary manslaughter, the defense team theorized, was that if if Newton actually shot Frey he did so only after he himself had been wounded (again, years later Newton would boast to close friends that he willfully murdered John Frey)." This was one of the cites for the wording of the original paragraph. Apostle12 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The only reason I am bothering to respond is so that there is a public record of this.
  • I implore you not to ever use that vile phrase -- at the absolute minimum, not in a discussion with me.
  • If you're interested in things like reviewing tapes etc fine, but that has no place on WP as that would be both WP:OR and non-RS.
  • The sourcing of all of those statements is the same: two interviews, which have been uncorroborated by others. Saying it three times does not make it true, or any more credible when it is based on the very same sources. There are no additional sources listed in the reference section for those assertions. They are again, all based on the same two interviews.
  • Which brings me back around to a concern I noted earlier, which is confirmed based on what I have read of Shadow so far -- Pearson is not to be trusted as a source; regardless of Pearson's stated views, the research is shoddy and the narrative descriptions bring only one phrase to mind: yellow journalism
  • I have engaged your concerns on this point in good faith for, quite frankly, far longer than they deserved. In the future, it should not be a surprise to you if I am less willing to engage.
  • Again, I will not be responding further should you feel you need to rebut these points, so feel free to have the last word. Indeed, I will be trying my best to avoid the Talk page here for at least the next few weeks.
  • -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. To the best of my knowledge this is the first time you have engaged in discussion at all - always before you wikilawyered or you posted on various noticeboards, filing bogus complaints about my behavior and seeking reinforcement for your own positions. Sorry you find actual discussion so taxing.
FYI, the "vile phrase" you so obliquely refer to is not something I said, or ever would say. In point of fact, I was quoting an ex-Black Panther disparaging Hugh Pearson - "house n____r" was among the tamer of the insults he used. I have lived in the Bay Area all my life and witnessed the rise and fall of the Black Panther Party. If this "vile phrase" makes you blanche, I can assure you that contact with actual Panthers would upset you far more.
I only said that reviewing any tapes Pearson might have made would be "interesting." I never voiced any intent to edit the article based on such reviews. Pretty religious about O.R.
Trust you will enjoy your break. Meanwhile I will work on a well-sourced revision that better conveys what Pearson wrote, preserving of course your contributions. Unlike you, I don't just wipe out other people's edits; try to build on them. Apostle12 (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Just out of interest folks, why is Charles Garry's autobiography (Streetfighter in the Courtroom) not cited here? I'm pretty sure it has information from the Newton trial (1968) which indicates that Frey was killed by a shot in the back from short range. Given Heanes's distance from the Frey-Newton struggle and the improbability of Frey shooting himself in the back, the implication is clear. It might help to clarify this debate. POUMista (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I wont be editing the article itself for at least the next few months, just FYI. As I currently understand it, the issue is not so much whether Newton shot Frey as the implication Apostle12 made regarding what was effectively a deathbed admission of intent; from what I could find, all the sources that suggest this admission was made are sourced to Pearson, which in turn appears to be sourced to a single interview with Payne. Even Pearson's account of the interview(s) with Trivors are mostly insinuation with regard to Frey, and short on outright assertion. If you think Garry's book is germane, by all means include it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, fine. I'll maybe do it when I have a decent amount of time. Newton apparently also confessed to Ken Kelley, printed in ‘Huey: I’ll Never Forget’ East Bay Express September 15, 1989. An obscure but illuminating article, although not unproblematic! POUMista (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Newton confessed to Kelley that he murdered Kathleen Smith and that he ordered the murder of Betty van Patter. I don't think Kelley document a confession re the Frey murder.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is emblematic of why I stopped editing this article. Hagiographers simply dismiss sources they dislike. A complete rendition of the Frey murder would address the bus-driver witness's account of the murder, Newton's car-jacking an escape vehicle and his confession to the driver/victim.Pokey5945 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Xenophrenia inserted the following: "Eventually, however, the illicit activities of a few members would be superimposed on the social program work performed by the Panthers, and this mischaracterization would lose them support in both the white and black communities." The insertion of the words "few" and "mischaracterization" are blatant POV.Pokey5945 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

While it may be possible to find a source that uses these words (I haven't double-checked the AUstin book yet), there are other sources with different perspective. The fact remains that these two workds are blatant POV.Pokey5945 (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Pokit9548, checking sources before editing is a good habit to cultivate. No words (if that is what you meant) are inherently "POV"; conveying something other than what reliable sources do, however, is another matter entirely. If you intended to say "works", please explain how they are "POV". Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough; all good points. The macro problem with this article has always been the selective use of sources, and the attempts to discount or even conceal sources that say negative things about the subject.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

People's Temple

I don't see the notability of this section. Newton had contact with many individuals and groups. Should we remove it?Pokey5945 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Analysis

The early life and education section is light on citations - no cites to substantiate claims about his family’s wealth or where and when they moved. There is also a claim that says that the Black Panther Party believed that violence was thought of as needed to bring social change which I think should definitely have a citation. The article does a very good job of maintaining a neutral and objective tone throughout and does not ever fall into subjective value-based statements about any of the topics. My two questions are: 1) What else happened during Newton's visit to China, and why specifically did he think of China as a more free and liberated territory? 2) How heavily connected to narcotics was Newton and what set of events triggered his death? Watkina (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Huey P. Newton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huey P. Newton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huey P. Newton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Age and occupation of Smith

I've seen several sources give Smith's age as 17 and state that she was a prostitute. I'll update later if I hear no objection.

— ʀoyoтϵ 06:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Black Power sidebar is broken

The sidebar seems to be broken, if I remove it, the article is displayed correct in the preview, also other articles with the sidebar have the same glitch. I searched how I could edit the sidebar, but one needs to be logged in and have permissions to do so. So please fix the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.255.236.206 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you have such ridiculous pictures of one of the most important figures in American society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.49.133 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference journalism jobs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huey_P._Newton/Archive_2&oldid=1215677942"