Wikiwand AI

Talk:Patrisse Cullors/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Attempts to discredit her

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

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

Snopes

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

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

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

Plus as i have tried to add, If anyone actually looks at the article the editor is using as a source regarding this particular property. The article does not say Cullors purchased this new property. But the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGN) purchased it as an intended for studio space and housing for recipients of the Black Joy Creators Fellowship. Plus Cullors was/is no longer the executive director of the organisation. This just another attempt at ineptly throwing dirt. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The NY Mag article says she was present at the property in question, discussing a previous property purchase during a live stream "a few days" before she resigned as executive director of BLMGNF. I think whether or not she was the one who signed the contract in the name of BLMGNF is irrelevant. Put in blunt terms; she was the executive director at the time and she is thereby either directly involved or severely mismanaged access to the organizations assets.
Furthermore I've seen this mentioned in plenty of places. Since I'm from Sweden and still read about it in part through local news sources, this is now as an international story. MrPorpoise (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have visited the Tower of London, I do not own it. I would need an RS to say I did. Do these sources say she owns it? Slatersteven (talk)
Forgive my tone but that sounds like a rather bizarre statement, what bearing does that have on the conversation? MrPorpoise (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
As per your request for consensus according WP:ONUS: I vote for inclusion of this currently reverted proposal in the article, with a ref cleanup (7 sources for 2 sentences is borderline ridiculous and not even an IPA should expect that to stick). As mentioned in the above reply, this is now an international headline and therefore it is my opinion that this qualifies under WP:DUE.
I would also like to point IPAs to WP:TALKDONTREVERT; do not revert edits because you don't agree with them and don't engage in WP:EW. We all want Wikipedia to be the best it can be, and we need to calmly work together in order to achieve that goal. MrPorpoise (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:ONUS, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion so it's no use pointing to references. Especially when there's no clear relevance to the biograsphy of Patrisse Cullors. FDW777 (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm well aware verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, but that's more a statement of fact than an argument. What does speak for inclusion however is the merit of significance. This is an international story with mainstream coverage, therefore I stand by my opinion that this situation is significant enough for inclusion. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Which source says she owns it? Slatersteven (talk)
Probably very few since BLMGNF legally owns the asset from what I can tell. The proposed text from the IPA doesn't make any such claim either under what I would consider a reasonable interpretation. Can you please clarify what the point of your question is, are you suggesting some rewording of the proposed text? MrPorpoise (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
So it's of no relevance to a biography of Patrisse Cullors then. FDW777 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I was about to say that, this page is not about BLM it is about Patrisse Cullors. We can't imply guilt by association that is not (explicitly) made by RS. Even then wp:blp is clear that serious allegations of wrongdoing can only be included if they are backed up by some really good RS. So unless RS say she brought them it is not relevant to this article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Patrisse Cullors was the acting executive director of BLMGNF at the time, which is why this asset acquisition belongs on this page instead of the BLM page, just like the previous one already accepted by consensus in the article. Acquisition of the asset in question is not necessarily endorsed by the BLM movement as a whole and this disconnect between BLM and BLMGNF is even clarified in the NPR article. In other words; it's undeniably relevant to her and BLMGNF. This isn't guilt by association either; there are multiple consensus-approved WP:RSPSS (NRP, The Independent, The Telegraph, and those are just the ones in the proposed edit) directly implicating her in the acquisition itself. Again, even if we say she weren't the one who held the pen when the contract was signed by BLMGNF she was still the one who was ultimately responsible for management of the BLMGNF funds. Finally, if you do not believe proposed edit satisfies WP:BLP then feel free to vote no on the proposed edit, this vote has become a lot noisier than it needs to be, and from my perspective this amount of back-and-forth is really not helping your side of the argument either. MrPorpoise (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Please read wp:or and wp:synthesis, we need RS saying it, using their words. Do any of them accuse her of buying this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
It's certainly not my duty to spoonfeed you the sources from the proposed edit. However, for the sake of argument, I'll include this quote from The Independent (link in the proposed edit): A year after one of the founders of the movement, Patrisse Khan-Cullors, alleged she was suffering from “right wing harassment” over her purchase of houses in the Los Angeles area, a controversy that would eventually lead her to quit the organisation, [...]. The Independent is in WP:RSP and I see no reason to doubt their claim unless you want to border into the territory of WP:OR. If you want The Independent stricken from WP:RSP then I do not envy you in the uphill battle you'd be taking upon yourself. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, please. Plenty of RS points at Mrs. Cullors directly yet we have two long-time editors who after protection of this article refuse to budge to consider these RS's. Here's a very relevant accusation straight from NY Mag[1]: "Two weeks later, a man named Dyane Pascall purchased the seven-bedroom house that would become known as Campus. According to California business-registration documents, Pascall is the financial manager for Janaya and Patrisse Consulting, an LLC run by Cullors and her spouse, Janaya Khan; Pascall is also the chief financial officer for Trap Heals, a nonprofit led by Damon Turner, the father of Cullors’s only child." Here'a anoter: "One conversation from June 2021 — after Cullors announced her resignation — concerns her assistant confronting a man who had been found snooping around the premises." Another: "The Janaya and Patrisse LLC was created and controlled by Patrisse Cullors." Even Snopes[2] admits it when they state "But in the 2022 Intelligencer report, Black Lives Matter movement leaders indirectly acknowledged that Cullors had purchased homes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.231.7 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The details you refer to from the Independent are already in the article. They read In 2021, a controversy arose in some media outlets, following reports that Cullors (or entities associated with her) had purchased several homes during a five-year period. Those would be the properties purchased by Patrisse Cullors using her own money, which did not come from donations to BLM. FDW777 (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
No, now you're venturing into the art of misdirection. The article in question is specifically about the acquisition of the 6 million USD asset in question. There would be no need for inclusion of Patrisse Cullors by name in the article about an asset owned by BLMGNF if she had purchased it "using her own money". It stands to reason that The Independent would not just throw random fun facts into an article about such a grave matter. This is also clearly a distinctly different story than those mentioned in the quote you provided, since these articles are written from new material that surfaced in 2022, not 2021. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
You appear very confused. The quote you provided at 01:09, 18 April refers to Patrisse Cullors resiging from the BLMGNF in 2021, at the time there was invented controvery over her purchase of homes with her own money. The April 2022 details about the BLMGNF purchasing a $6million property are a different event entirely. FDW777 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
This thread is obviously still about the 2022 development. I have been very patient with you, and I would strongly suggest you read up on WP:CIVIL. I have explained in very clear terms why I think the edit should be accepted, I have justified its inclusion within reason, and I have suggested it might still need minor edits before or after being accepted. Either argue the points or disengage. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
This point has been refuted repeatedly. The references don't support the narrative you want to add to the article. I quote from @Hipocrite: below This addition grossly violated WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. Whomever added it should be last-warned about their conduct...Further attempts to imply someone committed a felony that do not use impeccably reliable sources that clearly state someone committed a felony should be reverted per WP:BLP, and individuals who insert such implications should be blocked by the nearest admin. FDW777 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The quote in question has nothing to do with this thread. Please double check which thread you're writing in. Furthermore, there is not a single one of those points which you have refuted, you've only expressed how you're displeased with the reporting of The Independent, which would be an issue between you and WP:RSN. MrPorpoise (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It quite blatantly is, since Hipocrite is replying after my comment regarding this addition to the article (which you restored without consensus). Other than the IP, there's not a single editor who agreees with the addition and many who disagree with it, so I suggest you move on to something more productive. 1FDW777 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I shall repeat, can users wanting to claim SHE purchased a home in 2022 please provide a source (with a quotation, in other words, it must say SHE purchased it, not anyone else) supporting that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Source for the claim that she was involved in the acquisition of the asset was provided in the proposed edit, and quoted from The Independent earlier in the thread upon request from @FDW777:. There was no serious effort to challenge that quote from neither you nor FDW777, and since the thread kept moving past that quote afterwards I would presume there's consensus on the authenticity of the quote. MrPorpoise (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
That does not say she brought it, it is just talking about BLM doing it a year after the controversy involving her "it was been reported that the group bought a $6m property, that was subsequently transferred to the ownership of a company in Delaware, ensuring the property’s owner could not be disclosed.", note "the group" not "Patrisse Cullors" (please read wp:v). Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It has to say She bought it, or (at the very least) she was directly involved in the purchase. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Two things; (1) the source says pretty much flat out she was involved if you read all of it instead of just the last few words of the second paragraph, and (2) we're still talking about BLMGNF, not BLM. BLMGNF is a legal entity claiming to represent BLM, BLM is a movement. These two are different things, as explained many times before, yet you keep ignoring that. If you can't even make that distinction then we're done here, since I no longer believe you're taking this seriously. Which then means discussion has stalled and a bold edit might be in order. MrPorpoise (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Bold is followed by Revert is followed by Discussion. I see no presented evidence supporting your position. You haven't been able to gain consensus for this position in extended (and stalled) discussion. We're way past bold right now. Misusing BOLD at this point is a recipe for escalating warnings and a block. BusterD (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
My position is pretty simple actually, but it has been misrepresented over and over in this thread; Patrisse Cullors was the acting executive director of BLMGNF at the time. The previous allegations from 2021 are in the article already (see Patrisse_Cullors#Personal_life). Therefore the 2022 developments belong in the article. I don't think this would be controversial at all if @FDW777: and @Slatersteven: hadn't argued semantics. Basically the bottom line for me is either the 2022 developments go in or the 2021 developments go out. If we have one it's dishonest not to have the other. As for what I meant by bold, please see WP:BRD. MrPorpoise (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Lets be abundantly clear this event has nothing to do with the property purchased in 2021 by Cullors. The fact she might have present or involved is irrelevant, it does not mean that she brought the property for herself, this purchase has zero to do with her own personal or her family's property. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Feels like I'm trapped in Groundhog Day or something at this point. Nobody has claimed she brought (I assume you mean "bought") the property for herself. I don't know how many times I've had to say this in this thread. BLMGNF allegedly acquired the asset at way above market value under her leadership. 6 billion USD is such a large value that she had to be either directly involved or severely mismanaged access to BLMGNF funds. Either way this is a very significant event related to her. I have yet to get a decent counter argument against the inclusion of this (she didn't buy it for herself isn't an argument, it's an irrelevant statement of fact), and until I get one I'll maintain my position that this belongs in the article. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually I shouldn't say statement of fact since I don't have any reliable source to back it up, but I currently have no reason at all to believe she acquired the asset for herself. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Then what does this have to do with her? This article is about here, so only information relating to here should be here. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Also she stopped down from her leadership role in BLM in 2021, so anything they did in 2022 is not down to her (unless a course contradicts that, snoopes does not). Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The asset in question was acquired in October 2020, yet again you seem to be confusing this with something else. You might also want to either disable autocorrect or proofread your comments since they're becoming a bit hard to decipher. MrPorpoise (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Apart from the agreed erroneous connection to her personal property and private life, please can you tell us where the is source that this totally separate property was purchased at way above market value, I am unable to find any evidence of this assertion in the reliable press to back up your claim. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Please provide something to back up your claim of this being an "erroneous connection". As for my claim that it was sold for way above market value, I have found out through some original research that it might not be true, but I can not find any accepted reliable source that refutes that claim (only NY Post and Daily Mail). MrPorpoise (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

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

There does indeed seem to be some form of misunderstanding here. I know the doesn't own the asset, nor does she claim to own it, as far as I know anyway. But this is a significant event surrounding her. She is deeply involved in the controversy no matter how you look at it. Therefore it is my opinion that it should be mentioned in her article. You can argue the proposed edit needs some work, because you would have a good case there, but the center of the discussion should be the binary decision of including anything about the 2022 controversy of the 2020 asset acquisition. To me the form of how we include it is a tangential issue. From my interpretation of the second example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE this would be a clear cut case; Patrisse Cullors is a public figure, multiple major newspapers have published the allegations (please still keep in mind I'm from Sweden and I read about this in a local newspaper), and there's a public scandal. Now if we word it as being an alleged misappropriation of funds it could almost be a carbon copy of the example I referred to. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
What are your sources for the accusation of the alleged misappropriation of funds. To link anyone with criminal activity, public figure or not needs very solid high quality reliable sources, especially if the is no conviction... A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law,(and therefore such edits are more likely to be reverted). Plus gossip in local papers is not the best source WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPCRIME & WP:RSPSOURCES. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Right, I forgot "misappropriate" can be a legal term in English. What I meant was using the funds inappropriately. It doesn't necessarily imply criminal behavior, but it's still widely regarded as bad. Just like the affair in the WP:PUBLICFIGURE isn't necessarily criminal (to my knowledge having an affair isn't illegal in the US). "Gossip" is your own characterization of the subject and I'd refrain from including my personal commentary of the papers in question, the credibility of the papers themselves isn't in question here. MrPorpoise (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

The controversy isn't about BLM, it's about BLMGNF under the control of Patrisse Cullors. BLM (as in the movement) has very little, if anything at all, to do with this and BLMGNF is just the formal entity Patrisse Cullors supposedly signed the legal documents with. Either way I'm done with you not making that distinction, and how you refuse to keep those apart tells me you've stopped taking this matter seriously. This is a Wikipedia article talk page, WP:NOTAFORUM. If you want to vent your feelings about this there's always the teahouse or whatever actual forum you prefer. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
From which she resigned her position in May 2021, this new stuff is about a purchased see a year later. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Then if solid evidence exists it belongs in the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation article except once again accusations need solid indisputable evidence reported in high quality reliable sources to be included in Wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Solid evidence of allegations? If there was solid and established evidence then it wouldn't be an allegation, then it would be an ongoing or finished legal case. This is a controversy in major news sources as quoted in numerous other edits here, both from myself and others. MrPorpoise (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep Wikipedia, especially in biographies of living people, concentrates on facts and matters that receive significant coverage in the established reliable news sources, not mere controversies possibly reported in your local media or mine. Please kindly guide me, which major news source articles relate to specifically this property purchased by BLMGNF (not Cullors) and apart from yourself which other editors support your argument for inclusion. ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Modern (April '22) sources regarding housing affair

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

Contradictions

RfC on recent sources on recent sources

Revert of Fulbright alumni

Enrichissez-vous

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2023

You can’t rob a car

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks