Talk:Black Panther Party/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Radical?

Radical implies that the ideas promoted were crazy and out there. Tell me, are civil rights, free speech, law abiding police officers, and constitutional rights considered radical ideas? What is so radical about standing up for justice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyfreesoul (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand what "radical" means. See Political radicalism, where radicalism is defined as "political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


The usage of the term radical was used in connection to the Black Panther Party to showcase that the demands of the party were meant to provide alterations to the social structure that was in place during the time. It was revolutionary because demands like equal education for all, free school lunches, and community security for black communities were changing the value of the systems which encouraged social equality. The term radical was assigned to this movement because it seemed unreal that these demands would need to take place for human beings, demands like this should be items that need to be provided for to anyone and not fought for just because someone's skin tone was darker.Azavalaa (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


I would also say that the Panther Party was perceived as radical because of the boom in volume it received post Martin Luther King Jr's assassination and the perceived notion of the party by America due to the J. Edgar Hoover & the Nixon Administration. According to Bobby Seale, Co-founder of the Black Panther Party, the BPP only had around 400 active members when MLK was assassinated in April of 1968; however, due to the vast amounts of riots and outrage that ensured after this event, the BPP gained up to 4,000 members in the 7 months following this. Now dealing with the different connotation of radical, it has been proven through the leaked documents of Watergate that the Nixon administration had planned to disgrace and disenfranchise the BPP. As the article states, Hoover claimed the BPP to be the "greatest threat to the internal security of the nation" and likened the party to that of the KKK in order to distort the public perception of the party, for they were providing services for the public which the government was not at the time (such as the Free Breakfast Program & Community Health Clinics). The government labeled the party as radical, due to the fact that they were a legitimate political party utilizing politics to promote and truly bring about black power. 71.189.66.36 (talk)August —Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Southern Law Poverty Center

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/new-black-panther-party

The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers.

I guess the SLPC is only neutral and encyclopedic when it comes to persecuting right wing hate groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You obviously missed the "hatnote" at the top of the page that says "Not to be confused with the New Black Panther Party." Your addition is about the NBPP, not the subject of this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Panther Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Is a racially motivated hate group that is allowed to operate without any penalty for spewing hatred.

Jrix83 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please take your "contributions" to another site. Wikipedia is not Facebook or reddit. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Maintaining NPOV in the lede

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

Hi, Ergo Sum. Thank you for communicating some of your concerns here. Until now, our disagreement was over how to portray what sources say (specifically, in the beginning of the 4th paragraph of the lead). A quick review of our article, and a quick review of the Thomas Barker source, showed that your edits were not supported, while the original wording before your changes was indeed supported. Therefore, your change was reverted. For those same still valid reasons, your suggestion now to revert to your version goes against Wikipedia policy.
I see we have now moved on to questioning the quality of the first cited source in the 4th paragraph. That's fine, but we should first make sure we're clear on a few policy specifics and editing conventions. First, as explained in the links you provided above, there are no "self-published sources" involved here (unless you are suggesting Thomas Barker also runs CounterPunch). Second, reliable sources most certainly can be biased or non-neutral, and in fact, those can sometimes be our best sources. Third, the lead in Wikipedia articles is supposed to summarize the key points and sources from the body of the article, and as such, often do not even require source citations. The addition of the cite to Thomas Barker (an admittedly low-quality source), while it supports much of the content in the preceding sentences, is supplementary and not mandatory. With those clarifications out of the way, I think it becomes obvious that our efforts would be best spent focusing on the specific content in question, and the changes to it you proposed with your most recent edit.
If I understand your edit correctly, you would like our article to say that public support for the movement declined specifically because of the "militancy" of the Panthers, rather than a more general and far reaching vilification in the media (including on non-"militant" matters like drugs, intra-organization conflicts, leftist politics, personality clashes, petty crimes, and generally negative gossip and drama). You do realize that reliable sources convey that law enforcement grew militant before this part of the civil rights movement did, right? And in that counterculture era, defiant militancy and radical reaction was more a populist selling-point than a detriment. There also appears to be some confusion on whether government "suppression" of the Panthers generated more public sympathy and support for the movement than the government "oppression" of a people. Would you be interested in discussing these matters further? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not whether biased sources are permissible, but whether they ought to be construed as neutral by their inclusion in the lede section and unqualified presentation. Clearly, this source falls under the category of non-neutral sources. Therefore, it is only sensible to exclude it from a neutral introductory section or modifying it to reflect its opinion status. Additionally, my grounds for contending this source is self-published is that there is no clear evidence of editorial review on the part of CounterPunch. One cannot assume that it underwent a thorough pre-publication review process. If there is no editorial process, it is effectively the same as self-publishing. Ergo Sum 04:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue is ...
No. That wasn't the issue, as evidenced by your edit, which left the Barker source there, and instead changed lead wording to something which was not a representative summary of content and sources already in the body of the article (and incidentally, also not conveyed by the Barker source). That tells me the issue was the content, and not the specifics about an individual source. Perhaps it would alleviate your confusion if the Barker source citation were moved into the body of the article? (The summary lead content would, of course, remain intact where it is - only the cite would be moved.) But if you would like to change the focus of this discussion, we can do that. As a mostly irrelevant aside, "If there is no editorial process, it is effectively the same as self-publishing" is an incorrect statement; it wrongly conflates content & sources & publishers. Content consists of information like facts and opinions; the source is who that information comes from; the publisher is the disseminator of that information. If you would like to change the "issue" to a discussion of a single source citation (Barker), and whether it is a source of opinion or a source of assertion of fact, and whether the publisher of that source (CounterPunch) has editorial control (it does) and "reviewed" the content (irrelevant, if it is considered 'opinion') or the source (it did, the source was indeed verified as Barker), then we can certainly do that -- but we should do so on a more appropriate Talk page instead of here. An education on Wikipedia policies would be better handled on a uaer Talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to resort to superciliousness. If you should like me to explain my rationale for making the edits that I did, step by step, I can do so. Though upon second consideration, it appears that my edits were an insufficient remedy to the problem and I am now of the opinion that the citation and any text associated with it is wholly unacceptable. As for my first point: I made the changes, which I will not reiterate as they are viewable in the article history, to better reflect my understanding of the intent of the citation. For example, in recognizing the citation's use of the word "oppression," my change to the term "suppression" (though it is not used in the source) is to convey - insofar as the matter can be conveyed in a word - the point of the piece, rather than its specific lexicon that may convey an inaccurate concept out of context. As for my second point: all of the former is rather moot, since I am no longer convinced that those edits of mine are sufficient. Instead, the matter of justifying the source's inclusion in Wikipedia is central. The issue that you deem "an irrelevant aside" is quite salient. That is the conversation I believe ought to be had. Ergo Sum 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, got it: your content edits were insufficient, your chosen verbiage isn't in a specific cited source, it's a moot issue anyway (most significantly because none of the text in the lead is cited to the Barker source). You would now like to instead have a discussion on "justifying the source's inclusion in Wikipedia". Sure, we can have that conversation. The source you are referring to (please correct me if I am wrong) is still Thomas Barker, a freelance writer and a Durham University doctorate student with a thesis focus on "tensions between individualism and collectivism in the civil rights movement (and later the black power movement), the New Left, and the counterculture". Correct? As a starting point, can you clarify what specific content you would like to cite to that source? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

earlier start in South for voting rights?

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

There was a Lowndes County Freedom Organization in Alabama from c. 1965 to 1970 that was known as the Black Panther Party. That may be who you're thinking of. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
And that subject turns out to be in a Wikipedia article already, and already cited in this article. The source you cited is good; I'll leave it to people who can judge weight because they know the subject better than I do whether it should be cited in this article, too. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It would probably be misleading to suggest a connection other than the one already mentioned in Black Panther Party (i.e. nothing more than adoption of the logo and the name) as this article (LCFO) states: "There was no formal relationship between the LCFO and the later organization (Black Panther Party for Self-Defense), and Hulett (LCFO's first chairman) and others resented the use of their symbol to represent an organization that encouraged the use of violence." (parenthetical information added). Akhooha (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Heroin

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

Can you link to any reliable sources that discuss this theory, Wlmg? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll work on it, but it's pretty much common knowledge, and has been documented in PBS documentaries. It could also be subsumed over mountains of heroin dumped on American cities in the '60s and '70s--Wlmg (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

anti-white?

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current {Start date|1966} to {start date and age|1966} to correspond to the Black Panther Party's official founding date?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Black Panthers were not a "Black Nationalist" organization

The Black Panthers have too often been wrongly identified as a Black Nationalist organization. This it usually due to lazy reporting, and by people are really unfamiliar with the literature and political thought/writing of the Party leadership. Also, in recent years, Black nationalist have dominated to retelling of the Panther story-line at conferences and events.

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

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

Thank you for your comments. I've reverted your recent edit which removed (2) source citations without explanation. Your edit also introduced a WP:REDLINK in the WP:Leadsentence, which isn't allowed. In addition, a new source that you introduced (Huey P. Newton: The Radical Theorist by Jeffries) states on page 62: Black Panther Party's ideology can be broken down into four phases: black nationalism, revolutionary socialism, internationalism, and Intercommunalism. Yet you removed "black nationalism" from the lead. Any additions or changes we make to Wikipedia articles must be supported by citations to reliable sources. The source you provided contradicts the edit you made.
Would you mind proposing further modifications to the lead here, along with source citations, so that they may be discussed? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment but your categorization is wrong on the page. You are correct in your citation that the Pather ideology went through four distinct phases.
Why then would you choose to label them under the initial phase which they adopted as they first organized rather than under the final phase as they matured politically?
And yes there are at least half a dozen other written sources that discuss the same ideological progression, not to mention recordings and video of the leadership themselves repudiating nationalism.
So why do you continue to mislabel them and distort the history and philosophical legacy of the Party? The sources I already contributed offer more than enough background to make a clear distinction between who they were and who you have mislabeled them to be.
Please allow the correction to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.210.40 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There were several problems with the last edit, which I reverted. First, as far as I know, the old sources don't support the new language -- we can't just substitute one thing for another in front of a footnote and assume the footnote will still be valid.
Second, substituting a word that describes one phase of the Panthers' history with a word that describes a different phase isn't a good solution. If the source says the group went through four phases, so should Wikipedia.
Finally, I don't think Wikipedia has an article about intercommunalism. Adding the word in brackets produces a redlink, so we may want to find another article to link to.
Like Xenophrenic, I suggest we work out a proposed alternative to the current opening sentence. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
What old sources? The Party leaders themselves in their own writings and speeches aren't good enough sources? Give me a break please. And if you say that the Panthers (as we both note) went through phases of political ideology the Wiki page should reflect that then yes I agree. However as it it written it does not mention that instead falsely labels them as "Black Nationalist" when they obviously were not and participated in an ongoing political debate against nationalism.
Finally, because wikipedia does not not currently have a page on intercommunalism is somehow justification for rewriting the historical narrative of the Black Panther Party for your convenience to label them as nationalist when they were not?
There is no justification for it. When they were so clearly not a part of the Black nationalist movement and for the better part of two decades were shunned by them until recently the nationalist have co-opted the narrative of the Party to fit their own.
Please correct the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.210.40 (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"What old sources?" Are you serious? You don't see two footnotes, numbered 1 and 2, after the phrase "revolutionary black nationalist and socialist organization[1][2]"?
Instead of edit-warring, please propose an alternative sentence that doesn't highlight one phase of the Panthers' history over another and that cites reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I cited sources as reliable as yours. And the words of Party leaders themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.210.40 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You can cite as many party leaders as you'd like. (Revolutionary Intercommunalism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination was written by Huey Newton, not Amy Gdala, by the way.) Wikipedia prefers "secondary sources" — please read the link I provided for reliable sources — not "primary sources". Now, once again, instead of edit-warring, please propose a new opening sentence with reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If you knew your literature you'd know that Gdala edited a short book on Revolutionary Intercommunalism which included essays by Newton and Lenin. And what school did you go to where secondary sources were of higher value than primary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.210.40 (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that would be the School of Wikipedia, which is the only school that counts when writing this particular online encyclopedia. Please remember that we are a tertiary source and our main job is to summize what the highest quality secondary sources say. Primary sources should be used sparingly and with great care. I agree with you that, during their period of greatest influence, the Black Panther Party forcefully opposed conventional black nationalism. But we need to make that point by referencing high quality secondary sources such as academic books written by respected historians about the full history of the BPP. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I've offered numerous sources from "respected" historians and you still saw fit to continue with your distortion of the history with your obviously faulty sources since you can't seem to get something this simple correct. I will correct it again and offer up yet more historical sources for you to reject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshahyd (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, Kshahyd, but at least two of us have asked you and your IP buddy to draft a new opening sentence, and all we keep hearing back is "But the article is wrong", "But you guys are wrong". Help us fix it by drafting a new opening sentence, please. That's the only way the article is ever going to get better. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed; please propose your wording change here, along with your source information and your reasoning for deleting reliably sourced content from the article. The key to seeing your changes implemented is to work with the other editors on this article and address their concerns, rather than work against them. But "since you can't seem to get something this simple correct", you are finding your problematic edits repeatedly undone.
So far, you've proposed adding the following sources to the article:
  • Jeffries, Judson (2002). Huey P. Newton: The Radical Theorist. University of Mississippi p. 78.
  • Jones, Charles E. (1998). The Black Panther Party Reconsidered. Black Classic Press p. 57.
  • Gdala, Amy (2004). Revolutionary Intercommunalism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination Superscript Paperback. p. 21.
  • Hilliard, David. They Huey P. Newton Reader Seven Stories Press. p. 181.
  • Newton, Huey (1973). To Die for the People Writers and Readers. (Page number, please?)
  • Foner, Philip S. The Black Panthers Speak Da Capo Press. (Page number, please?)
Can you please tell us which of these sources you feel bests explains why "black nationalism" (which is mentioned more than a dozen times in our article) should be removed? And which source best explains why "intercommunalism" (which is not mentioned even once in our article, and doesn't have a Wikipedia article written about it) should be added? Please keep in mind that the WP:LEAD section of our article is supposed to summarize what is in the body of our article, so it may be advisable to start by explaining in the article body how the BPP followed or practiced these ideologies. Then update the lead paragraph. Like Cullen328, I, too, see some merit in some of your proposed changes, but not the way you are trying to implement them. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that the description of the BPP as a "black nationalist" organization in the opening line is a little misleading. How about we replace it with something a little more broad like: "...was a revolutionary black liberation and socialist organization..." Thoughts? Rockandrollherold (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why you feel it is misleading? (Keep in mind that the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the article.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Well within the article itself, it is stated: "...by late 1968, Black Panther Party ideology had evolved to the point where they began to reject black nationalism and became more a 'revolutionary internationalist movement'". I think the label of 'black nationalist' might create the wrong impression for some readers, as that label is often used in a pejorative manner to describe a group as racist or 'anti-white'. I think it's also worth noting that aside from the line that connects Malcolm X, the BPP, and the influence of black nationalism on the party's founders, pretty much all of the other mentions of 'black nationalism' in the article have to do with the BPP's labeling as such by COINTELPRO. The fact that Hoover described them as a 'black nationalist hate group,' alone makes me feel as if the label is a little problematic in the opening, as history has shown that Hoover might not have had the best intentions. I guess I just think that to someone who isn't familiar with the BPP, this label could give the wrong impression, and I think there is enough misinformation about the BPP that exists in our world already. Do you think it should stay? Unfortunately I have no access to the material that is cited for the opening so I can't respond to that, but I think that there are better, and more accurate ways to introduce the article. Even something like "...was a socialist organization that fought for black self-determination, founded by..." Rockandrollherold (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I need to dig up some sources and re-review them on a couple points. I just wanted to leave this interim note to let you know I haven't forgotten this discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Women in the Black Panther Party

This does not seem significant enough for a page of its own, a section on the main page should suffice. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - there already is indeed such a section that I don't think this article improves upon. The editor who created this page is on a university course and I think may need encouragement to improve the text that already exists. I have notified the lecturer about this discussion. Blythwood (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - per Blythwood.
  • Oppose Although the current article Women in the Black Panther Party is very weak, to say the least, I believe that the roles of Elaine Brown, Kathleen Cleaver and Ericka Huggins justify a spin-off article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    Would they be better off having their own pages, or is there only enough about them to have a page together? Is there more to be added than can reasonably be called a section? Elaine Brown has a section for the party under her leadership on here already for example. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - per Blythwood. As for the notable women in the Black Panther Party, I believe it should be referenced in the Black Panther Party article, and in their respective articles (see Kathleen Neal Cleaver). TBH, one could just copy/paste this article into a subsection, with the exact same name, into the Black Panther Party article, and even create further subsections, such as "Stances" or "Notable women within the Black Panther Party". Aleccat (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cullen. The article should be expanded instead of merged. -- SatanicSanta 01:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support We don't have an article Women in the Democratic Party, or Women in the Republican Party. This should make a good section in the main article. -- Kndimov (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - per Dadbeta. There were many notable women in the Black Panther Party, and there significance should be shown in the same article as their male counterparts 11:53, 2 March 2017 (BHS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DadBeta (talk • contribs)
  • Support The Black Panther Party article has a "Women and womanism" section. I would support a merge due to the fact that the Black Panther page is more notable and more resources can be spent on it. This article does not contribute any knowlage that could not be added to the appropriate section on the larger page. SamHolt6 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Panther_Party/Archive_3&oldid=1032899233"