This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In his book, "Soul on Ice", Cleaver admits to raping numerous women. How should this be included in his entry? - Ewhite77 16:21, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Both Rush Limbaugh and Eldridge are(was) die hard mavericks and into "the righteous way". To their credit - to a point. In the case of the latter - a zealous Christianity.
Both fell into drug induced haze.
Anyone see a pattern here?
-- Scroll1 07:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I recall reading that when he returned he said 'But there were Commies under the rugs'. Does anyone have a source for that?
I don't see any reference to Kathleen Cleaver who I think he was married to (1967 to 1987?). Jake b 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The assertion that Cleaver had persons he did not like vanish from the face of the earth both in California and Algeria surfaces from time to time (D. Horowitz, Abbie Hoffman also, "Revolution for the hell of it"). -- Radh ( talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the unexplained excision of the section on Cleaver's book "Soul on Fire".
I have reverted misplaced edits multiple times to the section on this book.
The book was released in 1978. I've read it, from cover to cover. The book is for sale on Amazon. Its existence of the book is well documented, including here:
What I suspect is happening is that well-meaning people, who are aware of Cleaver's more well known book, have misinterpreted WP:BOLD, because they are convinced "Soul on Fire" is a typo, or vandalism, and it didn't occur to them to check first, edit second.
If there is some other reason behind the most recent excision, let's discuss the concern here first.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 16:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In his book Soul on Ice, Cleaver writes "I'd jump over ten nigger bitches just to get one white woman." Some civil rights leader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.57.42 ( talk) 09:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I have read Cleaver was a presidential candidate from Libertarian Party. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tioeliecer ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 2007 June 18
"Cleaver was followed by other former-criminals-turned-revolutionaries, many of whom hijacked planes to get to Algeria. The Algerians expected Cleaver to keep his proteges in line, which he described as increasingly difficult as their increasing numbers stretched his North Vietnamese allowance to the breaking point. Cleaver organized a stolen car ring to employ his revolutionary proteges, stealing cars in Europe to sell in Africa."
Onaccounta...if 'many' people were hijacking planes and landing them in Algeria, you'd think we would have a confirming source for it. Ethan Mitchell 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There are still 3 places in SOUL ON FIRE & LATER LIFE sections that require citations, if they do not have citations soon I will delete just those paragraphs Anotsu9 ( talk) 04:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is Cleaver listed as belonging to the Nation of Islam? I have never seen any evidence of that. The only Islam he was involved with was working on creating his own variation of " Christlam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddsschneider ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This article --and the discussion--are pretty much obsessed with this topic. Which pretty much underline's Cleaver's point in making these provocateur statements. Yeah they're disgusting statements. But they're obvious provocations and the article falls for 'em.
By the way, it's a terrible article, needs a rewrite from the ground up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbrown ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the worst biographies I've read in wiki - and that's saying a lot. I read it to Kathleen Cleaver - she was aghast. I will have some free time during my semester break and try to tackle some of this. BTW - yes, I knew Eldridge, and yes, I was a member of the BPP. I also teach the history of this entire period. DeeOlive ( talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It's been four years since this last comment and we're still in great need of a rewrite. This article is still trash. Mind if I get started? Cwalto10 ( talk) 07:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I was sent the link below recently.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/1830633334_ff32506b21_o.jpg
Could there be any truth to this? 79.103.178.172 ( talk) 10:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not so sure anymore that the pats stuff was only a National Lampoon joke. But, also important for the post-BPP Cleaver is his Roling Stone interview, Sept 11, 1975 (funny date!)-- Radh ( talk) 07:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be true. He later said he intended those cock pants to be an antihomosexual statement( Chris McLaren quoting a 1982 interview with David Mills). (As if gay fashion designers wouldn't want males to flaunt their parts. And those "Eldridge de Paris" Cleavers are as queer as it gets.) This should be included in the article because it shows an important aspect of his gender ideology.-- 87.162.39.54 ( talk) 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The article states that Cleaver was a Presidential candidate in 1968. How could that be? He was born in 1935, and in 1968, he would have been <35 years old, and thus ineligible for the Presidency. 45750born ( talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It should at least be mentioned? I know the FBI had its hand in this, but Cleaver and Newton also had true disagreements: Cleaver ca. 1970 was all for urban warfare, Newton was more cautious. Cleaver had a large power base in the Party in the country (NYC etc.).
Seems to me the latest revisions by User:Anotsu09 are highly POV as well as unsourced opinions. Am I missing something? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Jpgordon should back up such claims with specific examples, otherwise it is just his own unsourced opinions. My changes were heavily referenced grammatically clear. Please clarify and justify calling my version was "substantially flawed". The problem I have with the "consensus-based version" is that it seems a bit sensationalist and slanted towards a neo-conservative point of view. Cleaver's historical importance is as the author of Soul on Ice and as the main theorist of the Black Panther Party, his post-exile 'fall from radical grace' is only relevant in contrast to his earlier revolutionary trajectory. Unfortunately, the "consensus-based version" places unmerited emphasis on his post-exile misadventures in what appears to be an attempt at discrediting his earlier radicalism. I don't buy that "less-POV" claim, what User:ClovisPt is implying is that I have the wrong POV, at least according to him/her. Anotsu9 ( talk) 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I initially removed the material about Cleaver's later life because it was and still is LARGELY UNSOURCED WITH NO REFERENCES. I'm giving whoever wants to keep it up a week to properly source it or I will remove it again. Every paragraph from my initial version was properly sourced although I actually approve of most of the changes made to it, it does read a bit clearer now. I still don't get why in the case of Cleaver's 'rape as insurrectionary act' someone keeps referencing a secondary source instead of the primary source which is SOUL ON ICE itself, so I changed that as well. I find it extremely POV to leave out Cleaver's rejection of rape while including his endorsement of it. Peace, Anotsu9 —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
addressing - Mephistophelian. The number of editors is of no concern to me, the quality and accuracy of the content is all I am concerned with. You will find my changes are always thoroughly backed up by research and references. For example to call Cleaver an 'activist' is extremely inconsistent with his intellectual contributions to the Black Power movement, both through SOUL ON ICE and as the main theorist of the Black Panthers before he eventually left. I get the sense that most of the other editors know ABOUT Cleaver through SECOND HAND accounts but have not actually read his work itself. peace, Anotsu9 ( talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is unduly weighted in favor of the prominent leader Eldridge. His accomplishments: brilliant praised essays, his transgressions, serial rape. I fail to see how essays rank above serial rape? Shouldn't the article begin, "serial rapist..." Darkstar1st ( talk) 03:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
An improvement indeed! I am still struggling with "writer" being the lead descriptor. He didn't become a rapist or activist because of his writing, quite the opposite. It was only while in prison did he write the essays, which were about rape. Strange times we live when the criminal is more notable for writing about a horrific crime than committing the crime.
My edit to include "rapist" in the top-level description was just removed. Having discovered this Talk page, I've created a Wikipedia account to appeal the removal. Appeal follows below:
I'm nearly done watching PBS's "The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution" (2015) on Netflix. Knowing a bit about history, I was surprised when the narrator introduced Eldrige Cleaver with no mention of his conviction for rape. This, the reason for his imprisonment and subsequent writing, was totally excluded from the show. I found this to be an absolutely egregious omission; in the context of the film, the viewer may easily conclude that Eldridge was jailed by a racist judge for some made-up offense, when in fact he was a convicted and self-confessed multiple rapist. Given how his status as a rapist drove his writing and subsequent rise to fame, I feel it should be mentioned in the first-line summary, if only so that future documentarians don't fail to notice it. What do you think, Flyer22 Reborn? StackTrack ( talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: I see that "reformed serial rapist" was added in 2012 by Apostle12 ( talk), who did extensive research and discussed the dit. That paragraph was deleted without comment by a random IP in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eldridge_Cleaver&oldid=561732000
Instead of accepting my shorter edit, I'd suggest we reinstate Apostle12's paragraph. It was accepted at the time and removed without justification, so if there's still concern over wording, at least it'd be a good place to start. Please let me know what you think, Flyer22 Reborn. StackTrack ( talk) 17:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible to be racist while being a victim of racism since birth? why would the label "racist" be used in this article? is it possible to be racist and not white? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege Darkstar1st ( talk) 11:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to review this discussion. I think Apostle12 is right; in order to describe Cleaver as a racist (or a "reformed racist"), you need sources that say so. Even if you had such sources, I think WP:LABEL requires that the description be attributed in the text (in other words, we can say "X describes Cleaver as a racist", but not "Cleaver was a racist"). Furthermore, if you could find such a source, you need to consider whether you're giving the view undue weight. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
would anyone have a problem with me adding a quote, If a man like Malcolm X could change and repudiate racism, if I myself and other former Muslims can change, if young whites can change, then there is hope for America., if so, please explain why the quote is not notable as it appears germane to his political and literary work. Chimno, if you reverted this by accident, please replace. Darkstar1st ( talk) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Good collaboration here. Goes to show that if we just stick with it, the result can be better than each of us individually might achieve! Apostle12 ( talk) 23:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The "sourced quote" about "practice" is a distracting bit of lurid detail that is already described in the Soul on Ice article. If you really feel it must be present here too, go ahead and add it back in, but please don't simply revert. SteveStrummer ( talk) 05:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The article states, in the section "Black Panther Party":
Cleaver returned to the United States in 1975, became a born again Christian, and subsequently renounced his ultra-radical past.
Further down, in the section "Exile and Soul on Fire (1978)"
He then lived for a time in France. Cleaver became a born again Christian during his year of isolation, while living underground
Which statement is correct? Cgwaldman ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have rewritten the line that formerly read: "The eight Panthers who ambushed the police department had two objectives: bust Huey out and kill some cops", to reflect NPOV and encyclopedic tone. (New line: "The eight Panthers who ambushed the police department had two objectives: to break Newton out of jail and to kill police officers.") However the second claim is explosive enough that the line should be either be referenced or deleted. Laodah 00:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
With this and this edit, an IP removed text stating that Cleaver raped for political reasons. The IP's justification for the first edit is the following: "The source material does not corroborate this claim. While Cleaver admits to having been a rapist, and reflects upon this retrospectively, this was before he was sent to prison and subsequently began his involvement in politics. Cleaver writes 'I was in a frantic, 'J!, I, and completely abandoned frame of mind." The IP's justification for the second edit is the following: "This is also unsubstantiated. Cleavers reflections on his actions were retrospective, and in no way indicate that they were consciously motivated by any political considerations whatsoever."
As seen here and here, I reverted the IP, stating that not being involved in politics at the time does not mean that his reasons for rape were not political. I also stated that we should go by what the source states. It seemed to me that the IP was going by his own interpretation (the retrospective aspect included) rather than what the source states. But with this edit, the IP reverted me, stating, "Yes, I agree, we go by what the sources state. And the source does not substantiate, but on the contrary contradicts, your claim." I don't have access to the source, and have brought the matter to the talk page for discussion and will not revert again unless further investigation of the material shows that a revert is in order.
Meters, can I get your thoughts/help on this? I'll invite the IP to the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that the matter has also been discussed before, higher on the talk page: #Cleaver's accounts of rape. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies upon those who make the positive claim - that Cleaver's rapes were politically motivated, in the sense of being guided with definite political intent, rather than, as Cleaver claims, an expression of his "abandoned frame of mind." It's true that it's impossible to prove definitively that it wasn't purely retrospective (It is just as much impossible that Cleaver could respond to his own Wikipedia article decades in the future), but to deny this would be a gross distortion of the context actually established by Cleaver. Meanwhile, it's not necessary to refer to "reliable" second hand sources, instead, we can refer directly to Soul on Ice for evidence:
"Recently, I came upon a quotation from one of LeRoi Jones' poems, taken from his book The Dead Lecturer:
A cult of death need of the simple striking arm under the street lamp. The cutters from under their rented earth. Come up, black dada nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mothers' throats.
I have lived those lines and I know that if I had not been apprehended I would have slit some white throats. There are, of course, many young blacks out there right now who are slitting white throats and raping the white girl. They are not doing this because they read LeRoi Jones' poetry, as some of his critics seem to believe. Rather, LeRoi is expressing the funky facts of life." [Soul on Ice, pg 33-34]
According to Cleaver, LeRoi Jones is merely describing - rather than prescribing - the "funky facts of life" - a description which Cleaver indisputably identifies his own previous actions. Thus the burden of proof lies upon those who would say that Cleaver's actions were done consciously and prescriptively, rather than in a "frantic, wild and completely abandoned frame of mind" [Soul on Ice, pg 33] which Cleaver decided to interpret and imbibe with meaning retrospectively.
Of course, let us grant for a moment the notion that his actions were in fact politically inspired. Given that Cleaver is a well-established political personality in history, while the current page acknowledges his later renunciation of his actions, the claim that they were 'politically inspired' without further qualification is misleading.
That is, if they were indeed "politically inspired" than it must at the very least be established that the "politics" Cleaver had then ascribed to then were not the same politics that Cleaver would eventually become known for having.
That is, whether we want to agree or not about whether his actions were politically inspired at the time, what is an indisputable matter of record is that Cleaver, at the time of his actions, was not a member and had nothing to do with the Black Panther Party, to say nothing of being a figure of prominence in the black power movement. In fact Cleaver's very despair and remorse over his actions constituted a definitive breaking point in the journey that would lead him to the politics he is now well known for having possessed:
"After I returned to prison, I took a long look at myself and, for 'the first time in my life, admitted that I was wrong, that I had gone astray-astray not so much from the white man's law as from being human, civilized-for I could not approve the act of rape. Even though I had some insight into my own motivations, I did not feel justified. I lost my self-respect. My pride as a man dissolved and my whole fragile moral structure seemed to collapse, completely shattered. That is why I started to write. To save myself. I realized that no one could save me but myself. [...] I learned that I had been taking the easy way out, running away from problems. I also learned that it is easier to do evil than it is to do good." (Soul on Ice, pg. 34)
"I know that the black man's sick attitude toward the white woman is a revolutionary sickness: it keeps him perpetually out of harmony with the system that is oppressing him. [...] The price of hating other human beings is loving oneself less." (Soul on Ice, pg. 36)
It is curious that passages similar to those shown above, which clearly establish Cleaver's reflection and remorse upon his actions as a detail of great significance in his political and general moral development, are omitted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.158.164 ( talk) 11:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The article claims the Cleaver returned to the States in 1977, but the footnote for that assertion does not seem to support it. Elsewhere I've seen it suggested that he returned in 1975. Has the LA Times article changed significantly since 2017? jaccarmac ( talk) 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In his book, "Soul on Ice", Cleaver admits to raping numerous women. How should this be included in his entry? - Ewhite77 16:21, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Both Rush Limbaugh and Eldridge are(was) die hard mavericks and into "the righteous way". To their credit - to a point. In the case of the latter - a zealous Christianity.
Both fell into drug induced haze.
Anyone see a pattern here?
-- Scroll1 07:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I recall reading that when he returned he said 'But there were Commies under the rugs'. Does anyone have a source for that?
I don't see any reference to Kathleen Cleaver who I think he was married to (1967 to 1987?). Jake b 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The assertion that Cleaver had persons he did not like vanish from the face of the earth both in California and Algeria surfaces from time to time (D. Horowitz, Abbie Hoffman also, "Revolution for the hell of it"). -- Radh ( talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the unexplained excision of the section on Cleaver's book "Soul on Fire".
I have reverted misplaced edits multiple times to the section on this book.
The book was released in 1978. I've read it, from cover to cover. The book is for sale on Amazon. Its existence of the book is well documented, including here:
What I suspect is happening is that well-meaning people, who are aware of Cleaver's more well known book, have misinterpreted WP:BOLD, because they are convinced "Soul on Fire" is a typo, or vandalism, and it didn't occur to them to check first, edit second.
If there is some other reason behind the most recent excision, let's discuss the concern here first.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 16:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In his book Soul on Ice, Cleaver writes "I'd jump over ten nigger bitches just to get one white woman." Some civil rights leader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.57.42 ( talk) 09:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I have read Cleaver was a presidential candidate from Libertarian Party. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tioeliecer ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 2007 June 18
"Cleaver was followed by other former-criminals-turned-revolutionaries, many of whom hijacked planes to get to Algeria. The Algerians expected Cleaver to keep his proteges in line, which he described as increasingly difficult as their increasing numbers stretched his North Vietnamese allowance to the breaking point. Cleaver organized a stolen car ring to employ his revolutionary proteges, stealing cars in Europe to sell in Africa."
Onaccounta...if 'many' people were hijacking planes and landing them in Algeria, you'd think we would have a confirming source for it. Ethan Mitchell 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There are still 3 places in SOUL ON FIRE & LATER LIFE sections that require citations, if they do not have citations soon I will delete just those paragraphs Anotsu9 ( talk) 04:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is Cleaver listed as belonging to the Nation of Islam? I have never seen any evidence of that. The only Islam he was involved with was working on creating his own variation of " Christlam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddsschneider ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This article --and the discussion--are pretty much obsessed with this topic. Which pretty much underline's Cleaver's point in making these provocateur statements. Yeah they're disgusting statements. But they're obvious provocations and the article falls for 'em.
By the way, it's a terrible article, needs a rewrite from the ground up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbrown ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the worst biographies I've read in wiki - and that's saying a lot. I read it to Kathleen Cleaver - she was aghast. I will have some free time during my semester break and try to tackle some of this. BTW - yes, I knew Eldridge, and yes, I was a member of the BPP. I also teach the history of this entire period. DeeOlive ( talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It's been four years since this last comment and we're still in great need of a rewrite. This article is still trash. Mind if I get started? Cwalto10 ( talk) 07:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I was sent the link below recently.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/1830633334_ff32506b21_o.jpg
Could there be any truth to this? 79.103.178.172 ( talk) 10:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not so sure anymore that the pats stuff was only a National Lampoon joke. But, also important for the post-BPP Cleaver is his Roling Stone interview, Sept 11, 1975 (funny date!)-- Radh ( talk) 07:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be true. He later said he intended those cock pants to be an antihomosexual statement( Chris McLaren quoting a 1982 interview with David Mills). (As if gay fashion designers wouldn't want males to flaunt their parts. And those "Eldridge de Paris" Cleavers are as queer as it gets.) This should be included in the article because it shows an important aspect of his gender ideology.-- 87.162.39.54 ( talk) 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The article states that Cleaver was a Presidential candidate in 1968. How could that be? He was born in 1935, and in 1968, he would have been <35 years old, and thus ineligible for the Presidency. 45750born ( talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It should at least be mentioned? I know the FBI had its hand in this, but Cleaver and Newton also had true disagreements: Cleaver ca. 1970 was all for urban warfare, Newton was more cautious. Cleaver had a large power base in the Party in the country (NYC etc.).
Seems to me the latest revisions by User:Anotsu09 are highly POV as well as unsourced opinions. Am I missing something? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Jpgordon should back up such claims with specific examples, otherwise it is just his own unsourced opinions. My changes were heavily referenced grammatically clear. Please clarify and justify calling my version was "substantially flawed". The problem I have with the "consensus-based version" is that it seems a bit sensationalist and slanted towards a neo-conservative point of view. Cleaver's historical importance is as the author of Soul on Ice and as the main theorist of the Black Panther Party, his post-exile 'fall from radical grace' is only relevant in contrast to his earlier revolutionary trajectory. Unfortunately, the "consensus-based version" places unmerited emphasis on his post-exile misadventures in what appears to be an attempt at discrediting his earlier radicalism. I don't buy that "less-POV" claim, what User:ClovisPt is implying is that I have the wrong POV, at least according to him/her. Anotsu9 ( talk) 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I initially removed the material about Cleaver's later life because it was and still is LARGELY UNSOURCED WITH NO REFERENCES. I'm giving whoever wants to keep it up a week to properly source it or I will remove it again. Every paragraph from my initial version was properly sourced although I actually approve of most of the changes made to it, it does read a bit clearer now. I still don't get why in the case of Cleaver's 'rape as insurrectionary act' someone keeps referencing a secondary source instead of the primary source which is SOUL ON ICE itself, so I changed that as well. I find it extremely POV to leave out Cleaver's rejection of rape while including his endorsement of it. Peace, Anotsu9 —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
addressing - Mephistophelian. The number of editors is of no concern to me, the quality and accuracy of the content is all I am concerned with. You will find my changes are always thoroughly backed up by research and references. For example to call Cleaver an 'activist' is extremely inconsistent with his intellectual contributions to the Black Power movement, both through SOUL ON ICE and as the main theorist of the Black Panthers before he eventually left. I get the sense that most of the other editors know ABOUT Cleaver through SECOND HAND accounts but have not actually read his work itself. peace, Anotsu9 ( talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is unduly weighted in favor of the prominent leader Eldridge. His accomplishments: brilliant praised essays, his transgressions, serial rape. I fail to see how essays rank above serial rape? Shouldn't the article begin, "serial rapist..." Darkstar1st ( talk) 03:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
An improvement indeed! I am still struggling with "writer" being the lead descriptor. He didn't become a rapist or activist because of his writing, quite the opposite. It was only while in prison did he write the essays, which were about rape. Strange times we live when the criminal is more notable for writing about a horrific crime than committing the crime.
My edit to include "rapist" in the top-level description was just removed. Having discovered this Talk page, I've created a Wikipedia account to appeal the removal. Appeal follows below:
I'm nearly done watching PBS's "The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution" (2015) on Netflix. Knowing a bit about history, I was surprised when the narrator introduced Eldrige Cleaver with no mention of his conviction for rape. This, the reason for his imprisonment and subsequent writing, was totally excluded from the show. I found this to be an absolutely egregious omission; in the context of the film, the viewer may easily conclude that Eldridge was jailed by a racist judge for some made-up offense, when in fact he was a convicted and self-confessed multiple rapist. Given how his status as a rapist drove his writing and subsequent rise to fame, I feel it should be mentioned in the first-line summary, if only so that future documentarians don't fail to notice it. What do you think, Flyer22 Reborn? StackTrack ( talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: I see that "reformed serial rapist" was added in 2012 by Apostle12 ( talk), who did extensive research and discussed the dit. That paragraph was deleted without comment by a random IP in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eldridge_Cleaver&oldid=561732000
Instead of accepting my shorter edit, I'd suggest we reinstate Apostle12's paragraph. It was accepted at the time and removed without justification, so if there's still concern over wording, at least it'd be a good place to start. Please let me know what you think, Flyer22 Reborn. StackTrack ( talk) 17:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible to be racist while being a victim of racism since birth? why would the label "racist" be used in this article? is it possible to be racist and not white? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege Darkstar1st ( talk) 11:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to review this discussion. I think Apostle12 is right; in order to describe Cleaver as a racist (or a "reformed racist"), you need sources that say so. Even if you had such sources, I think WP:LABEL requires that the description be attributed in the text (in other words, we can say "X describes Cleaver as a racist", but not "Cleaver was a racist"). Furthermore, if you could find such a source, you need to consider whether you're giving the view undue weight. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
would anyone have a problem with me adding a quote, If a man like Malcolm X could change and repudiate racism, if I myself and other former Muslims can change, if young whites can change, then there is hope for America., if so, please explain why the quote is not notable as it appears germane to his political and literary work. Chimno, if you reverted this by accident, please replace. Darkstar1st ( talk) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Good collaboration here. Goes to show that if we just stick with it, the result can be better than each of us individually might achieve! Apostle12 ( talk) 23:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The "sourced quote" about "practice" is a distracting bit of lurid detail that is already described in the Soul on Ice article. If you really feel it must be present here too, go ahead and add it back in, but please don't simply revert. SteveStrummer ( talk) 05:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The article states, in the section "Black Panther Party":
Cleaver returned to the United States in 1975, became a born again Christian, and subsequently renounced his ultra-radical past.
Further down, in the section "Exile and Soul on Fire (1978)"
He then lived for a time in France. Cleaver became a born again Christian during his year of isolation, while living underground
Which statement is correct? Cgwaldman ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have rewritten the line that formerly read: "The eight Panthers who ambushed the police department had two objectives: bust Huey out and kill some cops", to reflect NPOV and encyclopedic tone. (New line: "The eight Panthers who ambushed the police department had two objectives: to break Newton out of jail and to kill police officers.") However the second claim is explosive enough that the line should be either be referenced or deleted. Laodah 00:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
With this and this edit, an IP removed text stating that Cleaver raped for political reasons. The IP's justification for the first edit is the following: "The source material does not corroborate this claim. While Cleaver admits to having been a rapist, and reflects upon this retrospectively, this was before he was sent to prison and subsequently began his involvement in politics. Cleaver writes 'I was in a frantic, 'J!, I, and completely abandoned frame of mind." The IP's justification for the second edit is the following: "This is also unsubstantiated. Cleavers reflections on his actions were retrospective, and in no way indicate that they were consciously motivated by any political considerations whatsoever."
As seen here and here, I reverted the IP, stating that not being involved in politics at the time does not mean that his reasons for rape were not political. I also stated that we should go by what the source states. It seemed to me that the IP was going by his own interpretation (the retrospective aspect included) rather than what the source states. But with this edit, the IP reverted me, stating, "Yes, I agree, we go by what the sources state. And the source does not substantiate, but on the contrary contradicts, your claim." I don't have access to the source, and have brought the matter to the talk page for discussion and will not revert again unless further investigation of the material shows that a revert is in order.
Meters, can I get your thoughts/help on this? I'll invite the IP to the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that the matter has also been discussed before, higher on the talk page: #Cleaver's accounts of rape. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies upon those who make the positive claim - that Cleaver's rapes were politically motivated, in the sense of being guided with definite political intent, rather than, as Cleaver claims, an expression of his "abandoned frame of mind." It's true that it's impossible to prove definitively that it wasn't purely retrospective (It is just as much impossible that Cleaver could respond to his own Wikipedia article decades in the future), but to deny this would be a gross distortion of the context actually established by Cleaver. Meanwhile, it's not necessary to refer to "reliable" second hand sources, instead, we can refer directly to Soul on Ice for evidence:
"Recently, I came upon a quotation from one of LeRoi Jones' poems, taken from his book The Dead Lecturer:
A cult of death need of the simple striking arm under the street lamp. The cutters from under their rented earth. Come up, black dada nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mothers' throats.
I have lived those lines and I know that if I had not been apprehended I would have slit some white throats. There are, of course, many young blacks out there right now who are slitting white throats and raping the white girl. They are not doing this because they read LeRoi Jones' poetry, as some of his critics seem to believe. Rather, LeRoi is expressing the funky facts of life." [Soul on Ice, pg 33-34]
According to Cleaver, LeRoi Jones is merely describing - rather than prescribing - the "funky facts of life" - a description which Cleaver indisputably identifies his own previous actions. Thus the burden of proof lies upon those who would say that Cleaver's actions were done consciously and prescriptively, rather than in a "frantic, wild and completely abandoned frame of mind" [Soul on Ice, pg 33] which Cleaver decided to interpret and imbibe with meaning retrospectively.
Of course, let us grant for a moment the notion that his actions were in fact politically inspired. Given that Cleaver is a well-established political personality in history, while the current page acknowledges his later renunciation of his actions, the claim that they were 'politically inspired' without further qualification is misleading.
That is, if they were indeed "politically inspired" than it must at the very least be established that the "politics" Cleaver had then ascribed to then were not the same politics that Cleaver would eventually become known for having.
That is, whether we want to agree or not about whether his actions were politically inspired at the time, what is an indisputable matter of record is that Cleaver, at the time of his actions, was not a member and had nothing to do with the Black Panther Party, to say nothing of being a figure of prominence in the black power movement. In fact Cleaver's very despair and remorse over his actions constituted a definitive breaking point in the journey that would lead him to the politics he is now well known for having possessed:
"After I returned to prison, I took a long look at myself and, for 'the first time in my life, admitted that I was wrong, that I had gone astray-astray not so much from the white man's law as from being human, civilized-for I could not approve the act of rape. Even though I had some insight into my own motivations, I did not feel justified. I lost my self-respect. My pride as a man dissolved and my whole fragile moral structure seemed to collapse, completely shattered. That is why I started to write. To save myself. I realized that no one could save me but myself. [...] I learned that I had been taking the easy way out, running away from problems. I also learned that it is easier to do evil than it is to do good." (Soul on Ice, pg. 34)
"I know that the black man's sick attitude toward the white woman is a revolutionary sickness: it keeps him perpetually out of harmony with the system that is oppressing him. [...] The price of hating other human beings is loving oneself less." (Soul on Ice, pg. 36)
It is curious that passages similar to those shown above, which clearly establish Cleaver's reflection and remorse upon his actions as a detail of great significance in his political and general moral development, are omitted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.158.164 ( talk) 11:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The article claims the Cleaver returned to the States in 1977, but the footnote for that assertion does not seem to support it. Elsewhere I've seen it suggested that he returned in 1975. Has the LA Times article changed significantly since 2017? jaccarmac ( talk) 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)