Talk:Eldridge Cleaver/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleaver's accounts of rape

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)

I'm concerned about the accuracy and NPOV of including his defense of the rapes without including the full quote. If you have the book, could you please supply it? RadicalSubversiv E 11:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Will do, I'll look it up and include here.--Ewhite77 19:29, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The quote, from Soul on Ice:

"I became a rapist. To refine my technique and modus operandi, I started out by practicing on black girls in the ghetto-in the black ghetto where dark and vicious deeds appear not as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the Evil of a day-and when I considered myself smooth enough, I cross the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically-though looking back I see that I was in a frantic, wild, and completely abandoned frame of mind"

--Ewhite77 19:03, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up, but I was actually more concerned with the claim that raping white women was an "insurrectionary act". That he admitted to rape is fairly well known. RadicalSubversiv E 20:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- ALRIGHT. There is a bit of a problem here. Cleaver was not at all being "provocative" when he called his rapes "insurrectionary." He did not "defend" them in those terms -- rather, he EXPLAINED what he was thinking at the time, in his "abandoned frame of mind" -- that is, long before he wrote the following:

"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 thought 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." (emphasis mine)

WHY was this quote not included in the article, nor mentioned in this discussion ? How can someone reconcile the assertion that he "defended" anything when he flat-out says that rape is wrong, inhuman, and uncivilized ? I think if the word "defended" is used (wrongly, by the way), this quote needs to be included to balance it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bekaymecca (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good quotes, especially the bold ones. Notice though that it's all, "I,I,I,me,me,me". Not a word about his female victims. This was a very self-centered, selfish and unstable individual - obvious considering the fact he went from Muslim to Black Panther to Christain to Moonie to Mormon to ultra-right wing Republican. Irisismykid (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Eldridge and Rush Limbaugh.

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)

- Uh... Rush is really Eldridge Cleaver, in disguise? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.127.58 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2006 January 16

I think that Scroll is in a drug induced haze for typing shit like this.209.244.43.4 07:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Return from Yugoslavia

I recall reading that when he returned he said 'But there were Commies under the rugs'. Does anyone have a source for that?

Wife

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)

Someone added the assertion: "Around this time Cleaver discovered his wife had a lover. The lover was subsequently murdered by persons unknown." -- attributing it to Cleaver's book Soul on Fire. I added that section on Soul on Fire. I read it, cover to cover, 20 years ago. I don't remember it saying anything about his wife having a lover, or his wife's lover being murdered. I do remember she was with him during the year he lived underground in France. That doesn't mean the assertion she had a lover is untrue. It does mean the assertion is unreferenced. I suggest we wait a reasonable time for it to be referenced, and then we remove it. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disappeared personens

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)

Soul on Fire

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:

• http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/01/cleaver.obit.2/
• http://www.gale.com/free_resources/bhm/literature/soul_fire.htm
• http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcleaver.htm

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)

If it was published before he went to Algeria, how can he reveal "several surprising aspects of his exile?" benjabanup

I reverted the section mistakenly titled Soul on Ice to Soul on Fire (which is, indeed, a real book). As suggested by Geo Swan I think people have switched the book title in the past because they assumed vandalism which obviously seems plausible. Of course as benjabanup seemed to be suggesting, Cleaver could not have revealed anything about his Algerian exile when Soul on Ice was published because he had not gone into exile yet.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The section about "people hijacking planes to algeria to join him" seems like fiction to me but when you read the article it reads like something that really happend. Someone has something to say about that?? --85.230.237.204 (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, Cleaver described the hijackings, and stolen car ring, in his book. It is verifiable that Cleaver described this. If you don't trust that Cleaver wrote it, then please, go down to your local library, and verify it yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

More "dirt" on Soul on Ice

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).

Actually, if you bother reading the book, you'd see that this sentence is attributed to "an old fat Lazarus", a character which illustrates a popular position among African-Americans, a position, moreover, that Cleaver analyzes and criticizes.

It's not like you have to make up dirt on Soul on Ice. There's a lot to look askance at without being dishonest. Tree of Judas 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone plans to add anything about it, but there was a posthumous collection of Eldridge's writings published last year by Palgrave. It's titled Target Zero, and it's edited by his widow, Kathleen Cleaver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.20.66 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2007 July 11

I figure if Soul on Fire deserves its own bullet point, Soul on Ice certainly does too. It seems to me that certain editors are covering up the dirty side of Eldridge's life to keep things clean on his home page. I imagine he'd be rolling over in his grave at this non-confrontational way of dealing with his writings, politics and history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.3.5 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2007 August 3

Cleaver was a libertarian?

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 (kind of) ran for president in 1968 on the Peace and Freedom Party (a left wing political party) ticket which may be what you are thinking of. He became very conservative and involved in Republican Party politics in his later years, and it's possible that at some point in the 1980s he ran on a Libertarian ticket of some sort (not for president though according to the article Libertarian Party (United States), and he is not mentioned anywhere in that article). I have not heard about any association with the libertarians before before but I don't know much about Cleaver in his post-exile years.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just an aside, I find it interesting that even if he had won the 1968 election for President, he couldn't have assumed the office since he was only 33 years old, not required minimum age of 35 from the U.S. Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.3.5 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2007 August 3

I was talking on his support to legalization from drugs. Him was candidate from a libertarian party, but no the official LP USA. http://politics1.com/parties.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs)

The link you provided mentions that he ran for prez from the Peace and Freedom Party which I mentioned in my previous comment and which is already in the article. I don't know what Cleaver's attitude toward drug legalization was, but supporting that position does not automatically make one a libertarian--there are many folks who support legalizing drugs who do not call themselves libertarians. Since I still have seen no information linking Cleaver to any libertarian group, this is all pretty irrelevant. In the future please be sure to sign your talk page comments using the signature button at the top of the edit box, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

When the Peace and Freedom Party was founded in 1967 (first on the ballot in 1968), the Libertarian Party did not yet exist. Peace and Freedom adopted a socialist platform in 1974, at which time the Libertarians left P&F - at least that's how it happened in California, from what I know. --Davecampbell (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cut the following

"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)

I am glad to see the passage has been restored. I was the one who added that assertion. Cleaver described it himself, in Soul on Fire'. Geo Swan (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2009 (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 paragraphsAnotsu9 (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Major organizations"

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)

He was a member of the Nation while in Folsom prison and eventually defected to side with Malcolm X against Elijah Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.203.85 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

this article's obsession with rape of white women

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.

your judgement is based on fantasy; there was nothing "obviously" funny-provocative in Cleaver's statements. It was dead serious.--Radh (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, heaven forbid that an entry for a particular person would make mention of his statements regarding rape, a subject that most normal people tell jokes about, right? Sure thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

bad or terrible

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)

Part-time fashion designer?

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)

Yes, it is true, though I've never seen those pictures before. Cleaver did design pants with a "penis sheath" (or whatever you want to call it) and that is fairly well known. It would probably be appropriate to mention it in the article, though I think there are a lot of other improvements that need to be made first. This article says next to nothing about his involvement with the Black Panthers (which is almost certainly the most important thing about him), his writings when he was a Panther, and his most well known book Soul on Ice. Until we get some of that snuff up to speed (which I personally don't have time for right now) it would probably be a violation of our policy on undue weight - at least the spirit of it - to put in the bit about the penis pants. Obviously that is a fairly trivial aspect of his career which is well known only because it's a bit ridiculous.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:49, 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)

Presidential Candidate?

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)

Here's a link to an LA Times Obituary thats says he ran in 1968 as a candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party and won 30,000 votes. The Panthers weren't big on niceties like age restrrictions, plus no one really thought he'd win. You don't have to be 35 to run, you just have to be 35 to take office. Cheers. David in DC (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, i've used the obit to source the presidential run. I haven't looked carefully, but I'll bet there are other currently unsourced facts that the obit could be used for. I'll put it on my to-do list, but if someone got to it before me, I'd be tickled. David in DC (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=259901 Here's] a link that Eldridge Cleaver's name had been removed from the ballot by then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan because of the ineligibility factor due to Cleaver being under the age of 35. I think this matter requires further discussion and is not settled. 99.235.39.210 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The article says 'Although the Constitution requires that the President be 35 years of age, it does not specify if he must have reached that age at the time of nomination, or election, or inauguration.' Er... if he's inaugurated, he's in the chair, isn't he? Valetude (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

split Newton Cleaver

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.).

He also had dedicated followers in Germany, by the way, esp. at Frankfurt, where a Panthers Solidarity Group (for prisoners) was established and collected moneys from simple German leftists, a lot of the cash went into Cleaver's car-"dealings". Leading members of the BPP Solidarity Commitee were, Roter Stern Publishers founder KD Wolff and J. Weinrich (Roter Stern manager, later RZ) and by later RZ (Revolutionary Cells) leader W. Böse.--Radh (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Anotsu09's revisions

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)

This editor keeps reverting to a version of the article that is substantially flawed. Until he/she can adequately justify these changes here, I'm reverting to the less-POV, grammatically better, more consensus-based version. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:55, 25 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)

The version by Anotsu9 was *hugely* POV, to the point of removing all material about the last part of Cleaver's life (summing it up instead as an "inherently spiritual journey"), presumably because it goes against the ideological "spin" he or she was putting in the rest of the article. I have reverted this, but made sure to add back several paragraphs in which Anotsu9 positively contributed new material. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The recent edits by Iamcuriousblue are a clear improvement. I'd forgotten about this article or I would have attempted something similar. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:39, 3 March 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).

There are three other editors who have voiced concern over your modifications. Redrafting articles without consensus will most likely result in immediate revision. Mephistophelian (talk) 19:15, 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)

One thing really needed on WP (and on the net) would be a true and neutral account of the BPP (Newton-Cleaver) split and about the antics of Cleaver in Algiers and of his militant followers in the US, and for this Soul on Ice is irrelevant, Cleaver was basically an activist then, not an intellectual.--Radh (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A serial rapist writer? An attempted murderer activist?

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)

He's not notable due to his crimes, but he is notable due to his activism & involvement with the BPP.--Chimino (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Eldridge Cleaver's identity as a self-confessed serial rapist should be part of the lead. In SOUL ON ICE Cleaver implies that he left rape behind after his last prison term, however his tendency towards violent misogyny clearly continued well past that time. (Please see Elaine Brown's A TASTE OF POWER.) Actually violent misogyny, including rape, was a staple of Black Panther culture at Oakland, CA headquarters, and they exported this culture nationwide. (Please see Curtis Austin's AGAINST THE WALL.) I have referenced this aspect of Cleaver's character on several occasions, only to have other editors remove it, despite the fact that it is impeccably sourced. It is, IMHO, notable. Apostle12 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Chimino. I went ahead and started to change things before noting all of your changes, most of which I think are quite appropriate. This is tricky stuff to write, because Cleaver confesses to having been a serial rapist, yet he was convicted only of attempted rape, among other serious crimes like assault with a deadly weapon.

In fact Cleaver's tendency towards violent misogyny is well-documented. He bragged to at least one journalist about beating up his wife, Kathleen, and he assaulted Elaine Brown and threatened to kill her. In A TASTE OF POWER she refers to him as "a rapist," although I don't believe she quite acknowledges having been raped by Cleaver (would have to check). According to Curtis Austin, when Oakland Panthers visited the New York chapter, they attempted to force themselves on female Panthers; only armed resistance by New York Panthers prevented their rape. I personally knew at least one Oakland woman who was threatened with rape if she did not join the Panthers; young recruits were considered fair game, whether they consented or not. This culture of rape came from the top down--from Newton and Cleaver at least--and it occurred long after Cleaver claimed to have changed his ways. (Please see Hugh Pearson's THE SHADOW OF THE PANTHER) Apostle12 (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead looks good as-is, and your final change was appropriate. Due to the conviction, and the confessions in Soul on Ice, I do agree his history of rape is notable, just not as the primary description in his bio. I've also read Taste of Power, and to my knowledge she was threatened with rape by Cleaver's entourage while in Algeria (her actual rape was from another Panther leader in L.A.). Of course, it's been several years since I read the books also.--Chimino (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad we're good. Let's see if the edits hold. Apostle12 (talk) 05:39, 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.

• "Insurrectionary act", better known as war rape, a tactic used to terrify civilians.
• "Cleaver practiced raping", this passage made me sick. Premeditated hate crime used as a military tactic.
• "Prelude to Love", The love letters to his lawyer are especially chilling. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your instincts are correct, Darkstar, because Cleaver was in many respects a sociopath--certainly a perpetrator of violent assault, certainly a rapist, certainly a car thief, and probably a murderer. Yet there was greatness in him also. His 1984 interviews with Charlie Rose are especially revealing and make it impossible to dismiss Cleaver as entirely unworthy of admiration. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVauOkdg7v0&feature=related) Apostle12 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Activist should probably be listed first, because he is primarily known as the MOI for the BPP, and for Soul on Ice. Without the book or the Party affiliation, he'd be just another criminal from 50 years ago without a WP article.--Chimino (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that without SOUL ON ICE and his prominence in the Party, Cleaver would have been just another thug. Yet it is his writing that was extraordinary, both for its elegance and its frankness. And it seems clear that Cleaver's "mastery of the word," as Bobby Seale put it, was also his ticket to prominence in the Party. As Minister of Information and editor of "The Black Panther," Cleaver became the voice of the Party, greatly amplifying its influence. His dual identities, as a writer and as a critically influential Party member, are impossible to separate; however, I suspect that fifty years from now, SOUL ON ICE will continue to be read, and yet unborn audiences will be freshly shocked. I doubt they will pay nearly as much attention to his Party membership or what came later. Given all this, I would be in favor of keeping "writer" in first position. Apostle12 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitler wrote a best-seller as well, BEFORE he became a monster, yet everyone remembers the monster part, odd huh? I am not discounting his work, just feel he should be noted for his premeditated torture of women for political gain(is rape torture? when used as a tool of insurrection? When victims are selected by ethnicity?) If we replace "black" with Bosnian, or Rwandan, or Sudanese and tell stories rape in these context, we would be discussing war criminals. The facts he wrote his lawyer love letters while on trail for rape suggest he did not comprehend his crimes, or something far more evil still. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Hitler was not a particulary gifted writer (ever try to wade through MEIN KAMPF?), and he went on to start a war that killed 60 million people, not to mention his systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews and 6 million other "undesirables" (gypsies, homosexuals,and so on). Later in life, Cleaver voiced gratitude to God that he had not been successful in sparking a race war that would have led to "a bloodbath." He also lamented that the Panthers' "romance with the gun" had unduly influenced black youth, leading to unprecedented violence in black ghettos nationwide. After his spritual conversion, Cleaver did seem to grow a conscience.

The "love" letters Cleaver wrote to Beverly Axelrod were nothing more than a cynical, and successful, manipulation of her emotions. Apostle12 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you remove the numbers, and concentrate on the sheer horror a single victim of either man experienced, the difference is nil. Both tortured people for political gain and i suggest their victims will likely consider this there most notable impact in the world, as should we. I am not trying to exclude his accomplishments, rather attempting to place each deed as per its notability. *serial rapist are a small group, most graduate to psychopath/mass murder and he did attempt, and possibly succeeded in killing people. Using serial rape by ethnicity, as a political tactic, narrows the field even more to just war criminal, which should be the opening as the BP did declare war and mounted an insurgency, no matter how ineffective. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably we should narrow our discussion to editing the E.C. article. For the purposes of writing an encyclopedia, I think the current presentation of his roles represents an acceptable compromise. Are you okay with that?

Have you read SOUL ON ICE? One of the most chilling passages has to do with the fact that among Cleaver's black prison mates, MANY admit to a compulsion to rape whites. Though public discussion of same strays far from political correctness, FBI statistics reveal that even today black on white rape far exceeds white on black rape. Apostle12 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not think the lead gives due weight to the transgressions. Yes, reading SOUL made me sad. How would the author of a book about raping women of a specific ethnicity be received today? This person physically and mentally tortured people, how that is not the most notable act, i fail to understand. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we've pretty much covered this. Chimino and I have a different focus, thus we come to different conclusions. With Wiki articles compromise is the name of the game.Apostle12 (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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/w/index.php?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)

Per WP:Lead sentence and WP:LABEL, I don't think that your edit or this piece that the aforementioned IP removed should be there. As noted above, he is not notable as a rapist. That is very likely why the documentary you mentioned didn't speak of it. And as for racism, he's usually not characterized as a racist.

This isn't something I want to spend time debating. So I'm fine with starting a WP:RfC about this early on. Given that you do not seem new to me, despite your newly registered account, I don't think you would have have an issue with starting the RfC. But I will if you'd rather I do it. Also, I prefer not to be WP:Pinged to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it out. Going back to a 2012 version because a 2013 removal wasn't explained is a bit much. Apparently the 2013 removal was not challenged either. He is not known for being a serial rapist, and the article clearly covers the material (he claimed this himself more than 50 years ago, but "unequivocally renounced rape" at the same time he wrote about his past). It does not need to be in the lead, and certainly not in the first sentence of the lead. Meters (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

While I've read Wikipedia for almost two decades, this is my first actual account and attempt at a serious edit. Please pardon me if I'm not up to speed on all the etiquette and social conventions. I'm unfamiliar with the RfC process, so I'll defer to you on that.

I completely agree that "racist" is a weasel-word and should be excluded. My fault for missing that in the 2012 edit. That said, I think Cleaver's history as a reformed rapist remains central to his public identity and rise to fame. His passages on rape are among the most often-quoted sections from Soul on Ice, and his history with / writings on rape were noted in his obituary by both the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/us/eldridge-cleaver-black-panther-who-became-gop-conservative-is-dead-at-62.html) and Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/links/cleaver.htm). These passages and their impact are also noted in Bryan Borrough's history of the 1970s underground movements, "Days of Rage" (https://books.google.com/books?id=PAvTCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q&f=false). Perhaps it doesn't deserve space in the first line, but I believe this facet of Cleaver should feature on the overview, much like George Washington's overview includes his ownership of slaves - not the reason he was notable, but still a key element of his personal history.

As for the documentary's exclusion of this history: it also left out notable acts of kidnapping, torture, robbery, and murder by the several of those who provided narration and interview footage, particularly the torture and murder of Alex Rackley and attempted murder of a witness in Huey Newton's second murder trial (https://www.thedailybeast.com/whitewashing-the-black-panthers). With these significant omissions, I'm not inclined to view it as an objective or comprehensive reference on the history of the Panthers. - StackTrack (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been 9 days since my last comment. In light of the above, my revised suggestion is to add something like, "A reformed serial rapist, " to the overview section's 2nd paragraph immediately before, "Cleaver wrote in Soul on Ice:". For example, the line may read "A reformed serial rapist, in 1968 Cleaver wrote [...]". My previous comment details the reasoning for including this fact in the Overview section. Thoughts? StackTrack (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Start a new conversation. Most readers aren't going to notice this new argument added onto a 7-year-old discussion on this talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 10:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Was Eldridge a racist?

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)

Huh?--Chimino (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

the link to white privilege was only to explain racism is unidirectional. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but that isn't grounds for your theory to be included in the article.--Chimino (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So in your opinion the claim Eldridge was a racist should not be struck from the current article? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no such terminology in the article...--Chimino (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

understood, i will re-add the label for now and see if others weigh in on the matter. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't "re-add" it Darkstar; you added it. The claim that racism is "unidirectional" is nonsense. Anyone who fails to treat a member of a defined group as an individual is a bigot; if the group is defined racially, that person is by definition a "racist." MLK said it best: "...judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character." Black people need to observe that just like everyone else; they don't get a pass on their own racism just because they have been victims of racism.Apostle12 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

i think Apostle has got turned around in good faith, from my talk page, Though I would never include my personal experience in the article, I knew these people during the 1966-71 period--they were Berkeley/Oakland neighbors--and their attitude towards white people was decidedly racist, which included unprovoked threats and assaults on white people. Apostle appears to be arguing Eldrige was racist, yet he keeps reverting the word racist out of the article, maybe by mistake, but ill let someone else add it back. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be added to the article. The idea of Cleaver being a racist is personal opinion, as there has never been consensus historically of the BPP being a "racist" organization.--Chimino (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

and while we're at it, let's leave the "serial rapist" bit out of the lead paragraph. The lead already mentions his criminal convictions, and the rapes are mentioned in the body of the article, which is more than sufficient.--Chimino (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Self-confessed serial rapist" is a legitimate descriptor that is accurate and well-sourced and belongs in the lede. Several editors engaged in a long discussion of this issue, with one editor wanting it to appear as the first descriptor. Our compromise was to keep it in the lede in the third position. Please see the Eldridge Cleaver talk section (just above) titled "A serial rapist writer? An attempted murderer activist?"

That this descriptor appears later in the article is quite normal; the lede is supposed to summarize the article. I fail to see why it is "inflammatory;" though I do think Cleaver's jailhouse admissions in Soul on Ice were inflammatory. Many people will only read the lede; how can you leave out this very important fact about Cleaver's life, that he was "a self-confessed serial rapist," without failing to inform such readers?

I agree that describing Cleaver as "racist" is unsupported. My personal opinion is that he was racist during his early life. (Rhetorical quesiton: "If a white man targeted black women for serial rape, would you question that he was racist?") But there is nothing in the literature that describes Cleaver as "racist," much less that he was a "former racist."

Lots of authors, on the other hand, discuss racism within the Black Panther Party. Austin refers to early "wholesale attacks against whites" on the part of the Panthers, claiming that they later abandoned "black nationalism." Pearson alludes to Panther racism, as does Horowitz. But none of the Black Panther Party authors refer to Eldridge Cleaver specifically, so I don't think we should go there. Apostle12 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I guess we're having this debate in two places now, so I'll copy & paste my last reply to you:

It doesn't need to be added to the article. The idea of Cleaver being a racist is personal opinion, as there has never been consensus historically of the BPP being a "racist" organization.--Chimino (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh please "several editors"? There were three of us, the same three who are on this string now. If Wikipedia turns into a place where 2 vs 1 defines "general consensus" they mightas well throw their servers out of the window now. Again, I challenge you to find any online biographies or obituaries whose leads describe Cleaver as "rapist" or "serial rapist" in the same line as activist, writer, minister, Republican, etc. For everyone you may find, I'll find twenty which mention it in the bodies of their articles with the rest of his life story.--Chimino (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Chimino, frankly just noticed that it was the same three, with Darkstar wanting "self-confessed serial rapist" to appear as the first descriptor. Our compromise was to keep it in the lede in the third position. At the time you agreed that it was notable and belonged in the lede. Why are you now so opposed to it?

You are commenting as though the above discussion was illegitimate, yet often such compromises are working out among just three editors. Apostle12 (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can admit I was wrong at the time, and it never looked or felt right to me. As I said on my talk page, I wasn't the one who removed it, but I will be one to argue it shouldn't be reinstated. I stand by my point above, regarding historical consensus from all other general bios and obits regarding Cleaver not mentioning "rapist" in the same breath as writer, activist, etc.--Chimino (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So now, Darkstar is left completely out in the cold with respect to the previous compromise? I must disagree: I think it was right! I have read lots of pieces about Cleaver, and they never fail to mention the serial rapes. I'll need to review some of those pieces to note the relative prominence of the references. I do agree about the "racist" descriptor. But not this. Apostle12 (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're being (deliberately?) obtuse; I never said the rapes didn't belong in the article, only that they are never mentioned as primary descriptors of the man (which is exactly what would belong in the lead). I've invited at least one other editor to weigh in on the discussion, who is familiar with the subject...--Chimino (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Come on; we've worked together respectfully for years--your insult seems out of character. My comment specifically addressed the idea of "relative prominence," so we are talking about the same thing. We just disagree, that's all. Apostle12 (talk) 21:08, 8 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)

appreciate the extra eyes, but we may have already found a work around, i added a quote from ice in which Cleaver addresses his own racism and his repudiation of such. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

adding a quote

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)

I reverted it because of the other changes you made. I think it would be appropriate (if you added a citation) at the end of the lead, following the bit about his conversion to the LDS & Republican Party.--Chimino (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

feel free to add whatever you like, just replace the actual quote plz. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Chimino, have you read any of his books? that quote was from his most popular, soul on ice. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Chimino (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't seem to locate my copy of Soul on Ice. Could you please source the quote; I think it is a good addition, though repositioned it to maintain proper sequencing....Actually I may be mistaken there; does the quote come from the original edition of Soul on Ice? When I repositioned it, I assumed he said (wrote) this at a later date. Apostle12 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Using the preview function at Amazon, I found it on page 106 of Soul on Ice. I don't know whether the pagination differs from one edition to another. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just edited the last paragraph slightly and sourced the quote. This seems an appropriate way to mention the serial rape issue in the lede, linking it to Cleaver's more inspirational side. Apostle12 (talk) 23:08, 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)

Quote

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)

too late, next time plz bring your issue here and we can debate the notability. much of cleaver on cleaver was about his transformation from an animal to a higher being, by muting his more salacious writing, you may blunt his legacy. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Far from "distracting" the fact that Eldridge Cleaver used black women to hone his rape skills, with absolutely disregard for the impact of his crimes against them, exposes his utter sociopathy during the early part of his life. Yes, mention of this fact is a MUST in any discussion of Cleaver's life journey.

Unfortunately there is clear evidence that Cleaver's criminality was not so neatly left behind as he began writing Soul on Ice. Fellow Panther Elaine Brown refers to Cleaver as a contemporaneous "rapist" during her stay with him in Algeria, and it seems likely Cleaver had his wife's lover murdered while he was abroad. Cleaver himself admits that he staged frequent ambushes of the Oakland police, which led to the wounding of many officers and the death of Panther Bobby Hutton. Mixed in with Cleaver's eloquence and high-mindedness was the darkness of considerable sociopathy. Apostle12 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity

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)

Statement requires a reference

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)

Reasons for rape

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)

I have no history on this article that I am aware of, and I'm not familiar with the subject material.

Normally in an undiscussed content dispute I would undo to the status quo and ask the editor to discuss on the talk page, but in this case I will not undo the entire edit (I did undo the removal of the original reference and I will still ask the IP to discuss the entire edit here).

I see no reason at all to remove the reference. That was there to source the claim about the book review. The "In the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing numerous acts of rapes for political purposes." was added in front of the review reference this January, by the short-lived WP:SPA user:Sirl's Prime, and with no discussion. The edit was made here with the fake edit summary "re ordered", and removed shortly afterwards by user:Rando Calrissian (a user with no [struck word I replaced but forgot to remove] zero other edit history). The material was restored by the original editor six weeks later. Not likely we'll hear from either of them, but they have been pinged.

I can't access the NY TImes so I don't know if the "political purposes" claim really was in the book review, but I doubt it. The first fake edit summary was definitely in bad faith, and the second edit summary "re add referenced content removed and replaced with biased wording" also appears to be fake. Does he actually state in the book that he raped for political purposed? Meters (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Meters, thanks for helping. I've Googled the matter and there are reliable sources confirming that he raped for political reasons. See, for example, this 1999 "Wounds of the Spirit: Black Women, Violence, and Resistance Ethics" source, from NYU Press, page 127. It states, in part, "The political purpose of Cleaver's rapes perpetrated against black women was simply to 'practice' antiwhite man tactics that would later be meted out in his assualts on white women." This 2016 "Deviant Behavior: Crime, Conflict, and Interest Groups" source, from Routledge, page 156, states, in part, "The extent to which political motivations, such as Cleaver's, explain interracial rape is only now being researched." Both sources also note the "insurrectionary act" aspect. Above, I see Malik Shabazz, who is still editing Wikipedia. Malik Shabazz, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been many, many years since I read Soul on Ice, and I don't remember exactly what Cleaver wrote. The New York Times review cited as a source doesn't say anything about the reason for Cleaver's rapes; it's a review of another book of his that only briefly mentions his first book.

I'm a little leery about using late 20th- and 21st-century sources that are informed by feminist sensibilities to analyze a Stone-Age text like Soul on Ice. I suspect that from today's vantage point, most analysts agree that Cleaver's rapes of white women—which he described as motivated by rage at white people (or maybe just white men), and which he said he started by "practicing" on Black women—were political acts. The more significant question in my mind is whether Cleaver described them that way in 1968, or whether any but a small minority of contemporary readers may have understood them as such. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Malik Shabazz. So although the New York Times review doesn't note anything about the rapes, other reliable sources do. So the "In the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing numerous acts of rapes for political purposes." sentence wasn't inaccurate, going by interpretations from reliable sources. It just didn't have a proper source to support it. Seems to me we now need to ask ourselves if this content should go in the lead and if maybe the content is better presented lower in the article with WP:In-text attribution, where we are clear that authors have interpreted Cleaver's rapes of white women to have been for political reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This aspect is still already cited in the article, but it's cited to Cleaver. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:04, 20 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)

Stick to our policies and guidelines. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Date of return to the United States.

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)