Talk:Weather Underground/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dire need of rewrite

POV issues aside, this article is in dire need of a rewrite. It's muddled, repeats itself several times, occasionally contradicting previous statements in the article, uses sloppy wording, is hard to locate information from, and basically reads like a high school essay written by committee.

Going to tag this with {{rewrite}} and suggest starting again from scratch on a sandbox page to produce a properly structured document. --Barberio (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1) This article has achieved a certain level of stability over the past few months, are you really sure you want to reopen this can of worms?

2) Are you suggesting that all interested parties start their own separate rewrites? What happens when we're done? --CliffC (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest going boldly ahead and doing it, better in place than in a sandbox. The apparent stability is illusory. The article was a worse mess several months ago in terms of layout, citations, etc. A number of editors came to the article in 2008 on the POV issue of calling them terrorists and claiming a Barack Obama connection. There was some mild improvement but also some edit warring without much concern for how the reverting affected the article quality. An RfC has been open on the terrorism question for 30 days now (and is presumably going to be closed soon by the bot). Those editors may have stayed away pending the outcome. That's a good thing - two of the other three articles affected by the RfC were protected long-term due to edit warring. But it does not mean any consensus for the current version. I was contemplating rewriting the article after the RfC is done. I see no problem if someone wants to be bold in the meanwhile and start doing it in manageable pieces, keeping in mind that a few content of questions may be resolved by discussion on the RfC sub-page rather than the talk page here. In my experience, the best way to get started rewriting contentious articles is organization - get the headings right and in sequence, move things from the lead or lists to the body if they are not treated there, apply citation tags as necessary, remove or combine redundant sections, and clean up wording and grammar issues. That's generally uncontroversial and people can see the immediate improvement. Once the article is in decent shape organization-wise, then one can tackle the tougher content questions one by one.Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reason why the POV dispute tags remain on the lead and the "Terrorist classification" section is that these two are disputed, and are in part the subject of the RfC. The tag alerts people that in no way is the current language a stable or consensus version - it is simply left as is to avoid continued revert wars. The section on the SF police station bombing is problematic as well because in it Wikipedia is making the case that the weathermen are involved, and we should not use the article to argue for controversial statements. The section tying Dohrn to the murders is an issue because this has not been proven, and she is still living, hence a BLP matter also at issue in the RfC. In fact, at the time both the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were suspected, but the case was never solved. Those tags ought to remain up there until the RfC closes and the results are implemented. Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A start on organization

To get started I created a child article for the two mostly uncited lists - the list of incidents and the list of members. That is notable and could stand as its own child list article. With it split like this the article's size is much more manageable. Also, I reordered some of the sections and did some work on heading names and levels, to try to be more orderly. In this particular series of edits I tried to be careful not to introduce any change in the text, just organization. Wikidemon (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Will someone kindly reinstate my edits? My BLP / article patrol and rewrite total 3 edits in <24 hours so I've self-reverted just to be safe. But this edit by a new editor[1] seems to be counterproductive. I've asked them to revert, but just in case.... Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco police station

This edit[2] is misleading, as is the New York Times source (NYT is obviously a reliable source but this time they are simply sloppy and wrong). The SF bombing was never solved. At the time both the Black Panthers and the Weathermen were suspected and investigated. As noted above it is a BLP violation under the circumstances for Wikipedia to pin the blame on a living person, and it is simply erroneous to say that the bombing is attributed to the Weathermen. It has been attributed in the sense that certain people have done so, but to use the passive voice in that way implies that it is true. The correct statement is that some people suspected they were involved. I will compile the sources at some point and correct the article (they are all in the article already) but this is a rather obvious and important thing, so the mistake should not really stand. Wikidemon (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the other sources in the section support the claim that the Weathermen were one of two organizations suspected / investigated for the bombing, e.g.[3] We don't need to add new sources for the introductory sentence to the section. We should simply say that, and remove the NYT source as inapt.Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, we have a source, an FBI Informant and Weather Underground member who stated that Bill Ayers told him the San Franciso Police Station was a Weather Underground Operation. This source wrote a book on this subject in 1976. In March 2009 he reiterated this allegation both in writing and on a Video. We can carefully state that no charges have been proved in a court of law. There is No BLP problem with this allegation. The liability belongs to the source Larry Grathwohl. It is a credible allegation and has a large number of references. My hope is that this allegation does make it to a court of law where it can be proved or not. ITBlair (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues

Now, anyone who's followed my comments during arbitration cases, and elsewhere, I've never been in support of using WP:BLP as a bludgeon, or applying it as a kneejerk reaction, or in response to people trying to cover up their previous actions...

But in this case, I think it is warranted. Most members of the Weathermen are still alive, and have had their pasts examined quite in depth by both the relevant law enforcement agencies, and the news media. Now, I think it would be well in line with BLP to be exceedingly cautious about ascribing actions to the Weathermen that have not been proven in a courtroom.

This applies in particular to the San Francisco window ledge bomb, which while assertions have been made by various third parties that it was so, it has never been proven to be a Weathermen action. We should be very clear about the lack of physical evidence of a link, and that the evidence presented as a link is solely based on an FBI informers suspicion that Ayers may have been there because he described the result 'vividly'.

It also applies in particular to the Brinks Armed Robbery of 1981. While it's solid evidenced and reliable fact that people who were previously members of the Weathermen were involved, it is a great and illogical leap to attribute this as a Weatherman action considering the group had disbanded in the 70s.

I believe that we should be very careful in representing content neutrally and not reporting 'hearsay' as fact, just because there's a reliable source reference for someone saying it. --Barberio (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is addressed at the RfC (there has been canvassing on the subject so I will not canvass myself - you can go search for it), which primarily addresses calling various members of the organization terrorists (a related BLP concern). Despite concerns over BLP, we have held off dealing with this in the face of a few editors who revert warred to keep the material in, pending the outcome of the RfC. The RfC is more or less wound down and there seems to be a consensus on the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is unrelated and separate to the 'Terrorist' label issue. And I didn't see the problems I point out being raised in the RfC. Generally put, we should be very careful indeed when labelling any living person as responsible for a criminal act, and there are legal issues involved.

For example, we are very careful when describing OJ Simpson's involvement with the murder of Nicole Simpson and Goldman, as he was found not guilty in court, and only received a default ruling against him in the civil case. So we are compelled, for sound legal reasons, to tread carefully when associating ex-members of the Weathermen with crimes they have not been found guilt of in a court of law.

And frankly, this is not negotiable by RfC or community consensus, and could potentially see intervention by the Foundation Office. --Barberio (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

the evidence presented as a link is solely based on an FBI informers suspicion that Ayers may have been there because he described the result 'vividly'.

Grathwohl seems to have gone a bit farther than that; his claim is that Ayers "specifically named her [Dohrn] as the person that committed that act."[4] I don't have any real opinion about what should be said about this, but let's work from the right premises at least.72.95.243.178 (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's also what's called 'Hearsay', and not acceptable as evidence. It amounts to "I know X did it, because Y said so."

Coincidently, I don't think I would be able to accept David Freddoso's word on what the FBI evidence is in your cite, as it does appear to be cherry picking testimony, even if all he could cherry pick was hearsay that was never found to be legitimate enough to take to court, and it's ultimately an opinion piece designed to make Obama look bad by association. --Barberio (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed most of the section per a number of issues. BLP is the most significant - even if we could sidestep the legal liability / defamation issue, Wikipedia is not the place to conduct an independent review of sources to argue for the Weathermen's and Dohrn's having committed a murder. An FBI informant's direct testimony given at an investigation that never concluded, and an election-year campaign book or interviews with police about that testimony, are not reliable sources - particularly when the testimony itself is hearsay. The section never had consensus, and remained only as the product of a dissipated edit war. Anybody who proposes to add it ought to establish consensus here first and, as Barberio notes, BLP is not up for a consensus vote. I will, separately, do my best to implement the results of the just-concluded RfC regarding describing Dohrn, Ayers, and the Weathermen as terrorists.Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There was also no concensus to remove this. I would sugegst you hamemr something out here instead of waging an edit war. CENSEI (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The material stays out. No consensus is needed for removal because there has never been a consensus for including it. The terrorism matter was hammered out at the RfC, and there was no consensus for including terrorist references. BLP is nothing to hammer out. Stop, now.Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There has never been an agreement that this was a BLP issue in the first place. The source meets every single qualification for a WP:RS. CENSEI (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No way is a second-hand account of an informant's hearsay testimony a reliable source for calling someone a murderer. This has been discussed extensively. BLP does not require an agreement, but accusing a living person of murder is as clear a BLP matter as there is. Also, editors should not revert disputed material into articles without consensus. Doing so with BLP material, repeatedly, subjects users to blocking for disruption.Wikidemon (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes way is an account in an FBI agents memoirs a reliable source for alleging someone was onvovled in a murder. BLP requires a relible as notable source, this particular source passes muster on both those requirements. CENSEI (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't allege about living people! What part of this don't you understand! How else do we need to get this through to you! Grsz^X 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You most certianly can allege about living people. Pick a BLP, any BLP, and I will show you all kinds of allegations from relibale sources, all of it sourced and worthy of inlcusion. What you cannot do is make unsourced or poorly sourced allegations about living people. CENSEI (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, I am still waiting to hear why we cannot use a source to repeat an allegation about a living person. CENSEI (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There's the sticking point. "Source". The quality of the source is important. Here's some things which will raise black flags over use as a source for BLP allegations.

• Clear partisanship from the source.
• Repetition of rumour or 'hearsay evidence'.
• Fabrication of evidence, either by direct lie, or by offering opinion as fact.
• Omission of evidence, to cherry pick facts in favour of an opinion while ignoring facts opposite it.

I'm afraid that some of the cites being used here raise multiple of these flags. --Barberio (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently, only two sources are being used for the material (in this version): Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen by Frank Reagan, the NY Times and KRON-TV. Out of these three which of them are Partisan, repeat a rumor of hearsay evidence (and since this is not a court of law thats really no reason for exclusion as its not mentioned anywhere in WP:BLP), fabricate evidence or cherry pick facts? TO the best of my knowledge none of the material cited does any of these, so I am not sure why your flags are being raised. CENSEI (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The cited NYT piece is about the attempts to link Obama and Ayers closely. It mentions the San Francisco bombing in exactly and only one sentence, and serves only to repeat the rumour and hearsay that it was a Weatherman act, and provides no evidence in support of that.

And yes, the entirety of Larry Grathwohl's testimony in regards to this is restatement of rumours and hearsay evidence of what he thinks may or may not have happened with no supporting evidence beyond reporting what he claims Ayers said and how he said it.

The KRON-TV cite, which I think is still there, serves only as a cite for the re-opening of the investigation in the 90s, not any conclusions about who set the bomb. --Barberio (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, I appreciate your calm tone. I hope we can keep this discussion on the same high level. If we were only thinking about this in an abstract way, I would agree with you -- in general, we wouldn't want to be mentioning allegations of a great crime that haven't been accompanied by some kind of official prosecution. That's generally the policy news organizations follow, and generally it's proper. But I think the context is all important here. This is a long explanation, but the context is a bit involved. (If you doubt any of the following facts, I can provide sourcing, most of it online; please feel free to ask.)

Dohrn was a member of the Weatherman central committee (known early on as "the Weather Bureau"). Multiple reliable sources have said that committee reviewed proposed bombings and had to give approval for them before they took place. In the normal course of things, Dohrn would have known about and been involved in the approval of the planned bombing of the officers dance at Fort Dix -- the bombing that was aborted when the bomb went off in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Dohrn also made statements promoting violence and (although she and her husband, Bill Ayers, now deny it) made comments widely believed to have approved of the Manson atrocities of 1970. The KRON-TV source mentions Dohrn as a suspect. Given the very hierarchical nature of Weatherman and the fact that Dohrn was in the San Francisco area, it would be very unusual if Dohrn did not at least approve of the bombing. (The bomb was meant to maim and kill: it was made with staples and other items.)

This does not prove that she built the bomb herself, brought it to the scene or directed the operation, but those parts of it are not the really shocking parts. The shocking part is actual approval of doing this kind of thing, and being an influential person in Weatherman whose opinion, at the very least, sways others, and what I've just laid out shows that this kind of thing is very, very easy to believe in this case. She was the type of person, as proven by her history, to have done such a thing. That's really the worst thing we can say about her (not in the article, but here). What that passage does in the article is say that there is a longstanding allegation out there.

We have no reason to doubt the veracity or reliability of Larry Grathwohl. He and his book (which follows his Senate committee testimony as far as I know) have been cited even by books that are sympathetic to Weatherman (although they don't mention this allegation). His book has been around since 1977 and this year the allegation was reprinted in books and articles. I have never heard of Dohrn specifically disputing it, now or ever. I think, in general, she has said the group did not try to kill in its bombings, but that was a policy decided upon after the March 1970 townhouse explosion, not before (the San Francisco park police station bombing was the month before).

I thought about this a lot before I wrote that passage. When I first heard of the allegation, I went online and found an old copy of Grathwohl's book and ordered it (because I saw the allegation first by an editor of Accuracy in Media and I wasn't comfortable with that as a source -- even though the author was citing Grathwohl's public testimony before the Senate committee). After I saw David Freddoso in The Case Against Barack Obama had also extensively quoted the testimony and after I found Grathwohl's book was cited in the text, footnotes and bibliographies of a range of books about Weatherman, I came to the conclusion Grathwohl is trustworthy. Hearsay evidence is a legal matter, and we aren't a court. We're not convicting or jailing Dohrn. We're reporting on what reliable sources have said: there's an allegation out there. We have an obligation to Dohrn (and even to Osama Bin Laden) not to state as fact anything that does not meet the many concerns of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So we state the fact that there is an allegation out there made or reported by reliable sources. Given the public record on Dohrn, I think the balance should be in favor of giving readers information that reflects reliable sources. It gives a better picture of Dohrn and a much better picture of Weatherman.

This isn't some privacy concern or tabloid topic that is not important to report: It's a concern about the core values of Weatherman and just how far it would go. A major, major point made about Weatherman by many sources has been that it didn't kill people. This information shows that there is reasonable doubt about that. That's important for the readers to know. -- Noroton (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Times ... and the point is what? A relibale source attributed the attack to the WU .. if the Times is a RS, then it is for this as well. Are there any RS's that dispute this?

On Larry Grathwohl's testimony, this isnt a trial (on a side note hear say evidence is allowed: in legal trials) so the objection to Grathwohl's testimony cannot be made on policy grounds, only personal objections. Grathwohl was found reliable enough by both the FBI and the journalsits who used him, isnt that enough?

The Kron TV cite has this specific portion which supports the text:

And now, sources tell us, those investigators have identified potential suspects: former members of two militant groups in the '60s and '70s -- the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army, people who've been out of the spotlight for decades. The most prominent among them is Bernadine Dohrn, a former leader of the Weather Underground and now a law professor at Northwestern University in Illinois.

CENSEI (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Barbiero, in light of this comment, I think it would be well in line with BLP to be exceedingly cautious about ascribing actions to the Weathermen that have not been proven in a courtroom. please see this passage in a New York Times article:

Pakistani officials consider Baitullah Mehsud, the militant leader of the South Waziristan region, as one of the prime suspects in Ms. Bhutto’s assassination. (February 8, 2008) [5]

I think this shows that some circumstances call for exceptions to your comment, which I agree is generally a wise position. -- Noroton (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a newspaper report on an ongoing investigation. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

In responce to the above discussion, I'm going to quote the BLP Policy.

"Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"

"sources tell us" is a weasel word. So the Kron TV cite in support of this is out.

Now, again back to Grathwohl's testimony. No, this isn't a trial. However, BLP requires us to handle his accusations very carefully indeed. All we can report is that he has made this claim. We should avoid giving any additional weight to the claim, particularly by repeating the claim twice just to say he has published a book containing the claim. We should also be clear in describing the claim, and relate that it is hersey evidence, and has led to no prosecutions. --Barberio (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a whole section on Mehsud and the assassination: #Baitullah Mehsud#Benazir Bhutto assassination. It is of no relevance for our purposes whether or not an investigation is "ongoing" or not. I don't consider "sources tell us" to be weasel words. In your last paragraph above (07:05 post) you seem to be suggesting we should rewrite the passage. I don't see anything wrong with a passage reflecting the concerns you just stated. Please propose a new version. -- Noroton (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible confusing statement?

The article states:

The group emerged from the campus-based opposition to the Vietnam War, as well as the Civil Rights Movements of the late 1960s

That can mean two things.

1. The group emerged from campus-based opposition to Civil Rights Movements and 2. The group emerged from the civil rights movements.

Can it be made more unambiguous?

Like:

The organization emerged from the Civil Rights Movements of the late 1960s, and campus based groups opposed to the Vietnam War.

Garg (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence is clear when grammar is accounted for, with the principle of brevity. "The group emerged" [article, noun, verb] "from" [preposition] "the campus-based opposition (to the Vietnam War)" [noun phrase with prepositional modifier] "," [punctuation indicating addendum] "as well as" [transitional phrase] "the Civil Rights Movement." [noun phrase]. As "the group" is the subject of the sentence, the sentence proceeds and concludes in reference to the activity of "the group", on the principle of context, and so does not veer into describing the "Campus-based opposition" as its primary goal. Without brevity, and context in application, the sentence could be made as clear with the addition of "from" after "as well as". To give the meaning cited in example one, above, the sentence would be constructed "...,(and to'Italic text') [instead of](as well as)the Civil Rights Movement." The result would be a clumsy sentence that gave more definition to its object than to its subject. Since this is in reference to a historical era, noting the conditions of the era would be helpful in understanding commentary about it, and there is little, if any, indication that those who stood in opposition to the war were also in opposition to Civil Rights. In fact, much of the opposition to the war was based in a proactive vision for Civil Rights, to which War is a bane, and sought to protect the rights of the Vietnamese and of American youth and families. Bearing this forward was the maturing vision of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose struggle for Civil Rights led him to announce and explain his opposition to the War. The mission, made famous by President James Earl Carter, for Human Rights, was formulated in the struggle for Civil Rights. HipAmerican (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this fiction?

discussion appears to be a hoax
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was around at that time and I don't remember any of this happening. Is this article a hoax? It seems likely, since the people they describe seem so silly and improbable. A guy wearing a helmet? This looks like a Swift Boat PR-style campaign. Patriotic Americans will not fall for this. Mwahcysl (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC) There is a swift-boat style campaign against a presidential candidate on the issue but yes, the Weathermen bombed a lot of buildings, started at least one riot, talked about overthrowing capitalism, and met with and encouraged America's enemies, all during the Vietnam war. Whatever disputes we may have on the details this article is basically sound on the point but if you don't trust what Wikipedia says feel free to follow the citations to the sources, or google the issue. It was a big deal at the time, and their actions upset a lot of people. Still do. Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Still, it seems as though the whole "Weathermen" thing is a hoax. The members are not in prison, which means they were certainly not terrorists. Perhaps we should label this article as a "possible hoax." Mwahcysl (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I have just edited the Murtagh-sourced story. Although he was only nine years old at the time, he's convinced the Weatherman group was responsible. Writing this as incontrovertible fact is, as is so often true with all these related articles, anti-encyclopedic. Once again, Wikipedia is not a red-top tabloid, nor do we aspire to be one. I continue to be disappointed in those who play fast and loose with the truth just to claim an ooh!ooh! notoriety. Mwahcysl, the Weather existed. They set bombs. They were also blamed for every bomb that ever went off. I don't know that we will ever know for sure which were which. They were also a fairly loosely organized group, and had different priorities and viewpoints. After they went underground, it's unclear how much connection they had with each other. When the 'group' did something, it's often unclear which members were involved or which ones even knew about it. Some joined other groups, so it's difficult to say if they were acting as Weather members, or as members of their new group (especially when other members of Weather denounced them for their actions). It was all very fluid. That makes editing these articles even more difficult. So yes, take everything with a lot of salt. Flatterworld (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC) But Flatterworld, I've never seen anything in any newspaper about the Weathermen, I've never seen anything about them in any history book. I've only heard about them from people who would benefit from Obama not being elected. I'm forced to wonder if they made up the Weathermen as a myth to personify their racist insecurity against Obama. Mwahcysl (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC) What's your favorite newspaper? Do a google news search on it and they will have articles on the Weather Underground. You can find scholarly articles via google here and books here. Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Wikidemon and Flatterworld, you've been punk'd. --CliffC (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Good one :) Wikidemon (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC) No, they've been truthed. Ashoton Kutchner is Punk'd. I'm about trying to find the truth. I see no truth, no facts, in this article. I have tried the searches, but there are no results. There are no members of the "Weathermen" currently serving time in prison. We need to recognize that this group is a construction of Republican desires to make Democrats look bad. I think this is sad because I am a Republican/Patriot/Combat Vet who wants to see us win an election based on truth. Mwahcysl (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Very entertaining, Mwah. All we need do is look at your contributions to see that you waste a lot of good editors' time answering your seemingly naive and innocent talk page questions, such as those you have asked here. I see that you have over 40 talk page edits but only four in article space – on net, not a benefit to the project. A recent instance of just jerking us around, a.k.a. disruptive behavior, here. --CliffC (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Mwah, I have uncovered an even greater conspiracy. I don't think there is such an animal as a giraffe. I mean, it's so improbable. It's almost as heavy as an elephant, and it's like a giant horse with a 20-foot neck? ridiculous. I don't think I've ever seen one. Has anyone ever seen a live giraffe? I didn't think so. I think it's just a ploy by the American liberal establishment to get more sympathy for environmental efforts. They've made up so many nutty animals already to get money. Like a hippo? Give me a break. Wikidemon (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a missing heading here?

I don't think we should list in this article events that have not been conclusively attributed to them. There are plenty of things they did admit to, so if we want to pick out some more solid representative examples we should have no trouble. One guy's speculation does not make the event notable to the group - and his speculation itself isn't notable. The SF police bombing may (or many not) be notable, not as an event we know they did because we don't, but as a notable accusation/investigation against the group. There is plenty of room in the new list article for their activities to divide things up into admitted bombings, proven bombings, and speculations / accusations. That article does need much more careful sourcing, and much of what is in there is not completely useful here because of the weak sourcing. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We should only report something that one denies if they have been convicted of doing it by a court, eg if a rapist denied the charge but was convicted of the crime, then we should report that he was guilty, but in this case, seeing as they weren't convicted for the police bombing, and they deny it, then we shouldn't report it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea, and that's probably true for a BLP. But I wouldn't go that far regarding an organization. Sometimes an allegation, suspicion, or investigation is itself notable. I think the SF bombing might rise to that level, but not the NY Justice house bombing. That they did dozens of admitted bombings, and there is a whole article for that, both weigh against choosing any unproven incidents among the few to list here.Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking more about other Weatherman-related articles, i.e. Dohrn and Ayers. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Murtagh bombing

Based on reading the sources, I see the only thing we have have connecting the Weathermen to the Murtagh bombing is speculation from Murtagh's son, who was 9 years old at the time. That speculation is not a reliable source, and other than some recent blogs, editorials, and the like there are no real sources I could find that say the Weathermen did it. The fact that Murtagh believes they did is neither here nor there - we can't go on it, and his personal suspicion is not notable. I've edited the section to be more clear but see no reason to keep it in. Any thoughts? If there's no serious opposition I'd like to take this out and possibly put it into the "activities" sub-article under a section for accusations. If we want to paint a vignette of some of their bombings we should concentrate on this they clearly did. Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the Murtagh bombing to a particular Weather cell has a scholarly source. See--Jacobs, R. (1997). The way the wind blew : a history of the Weather Underground. London; New York: Verso, pg. 98 -- http://books.google.com/books?id=SD2TvqDh8EkC&pg=PA98&dq=Murtagh+home+bombing&sig=ACfU3U1rP-hg8PFqR4c2gUPFISHE2-RKCw. Based upon this scholarly source, I'm adjusting the Murtagh bombing entry to refer to the Jacobs reference.Ajschorschiii (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This 'scholarly source' is not actually making a strong assertation based on evidence, and does infact appear to be restating the rumour as if it were true without providing any evidence to back up. This is not a reliable source for this claim. --Barberio (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki editors have had no problem citing R. Jacobs throughout this article, and I do not note R. Jacobs being questioned as a source in the other instances in which he has been cited. The fact that R. Jacobs published his account in 1997 gives it a separate standing from the political controversies of 2008. An historian will often not interrupt their narrative to cite sources for a particular item in a narrative if they have mentioned interviews elsewhere in their text. Also, by removing the following sentence--"Historian Ron Jacobs linked the Murtagh bombing to the same Weather cell connected with the Greenwich Village, New York townhouse explosion two weeks later, Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997, pg. 98."--the previous Wiki editor has let stand in an article a statement that is clearly not true, that the only source linking the Murtagh bombing to Weather was Murtagh's son. It is a fact that R. Jacobs also links the Murtagh bombing to Weather. The previous Wiki editor may not like this fact, but Jacobs, who has been quoted as an authoritative source throughout the Weather article, does in fact link the Murtagh bombing to Weather. Rather than start an edit war, I'm making this statement for the record.Ajschorschiii (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of a source for a citation is assessed based on what it is being asserted as a citation for, not by declaring the source to be 'reliable' for all and any use as a citation. We can not use this source as citation for a linking of the Murtagh Bombing to the Weathermen, or even to say that Ron Jacobs said it was so... Because the source does not provide a reliable assertion of that. It is a single sentence, in passing, during discussion of a different topic not directly related to the Murtagh Bombing, and Jacobs provides no follow on or evidence for that statement.

We should not repeat rumours as facts, or give undue weight to statement of rumours as fact, which is what your addition did. --Barberio (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Historians have been known to mention a fact in passing when they are very sure of its veracity. They do this all the time. The use of the Murtagh reference in a linking phrase to the Greenwich Village explosion indicates the author treats both with equal weight. Also, R. Jacobs mentioned in his introduction that a number of anonymous Weather veterans advised him on the book, so a reasonable reader can anticipate that he couldn't necessarily cite them by name. Your argument starts from the point of view that the Weather link to the Murtagh bombing is a rumor, and that anyone who states it as a fact is treating a rumor as a fact. I suspect that if R. Jacobs had put a citation stating, "interview with anonymous Weather Underground member A," you would also dispute that source as unreliable. Since I've seen this same go-around in many, many Wiki discussions of controversial topics, I'm noting the "scrubbing" of the R. Jacobs citation for the record. I'll let history judge who's right. I'm also noting in this context that anonymous editors on controversial topics allow for stakeholder editing. This is a weakness of Wikipedia. Controversial topics should be edited by publicly known editors.Ajschorschiii (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just carefully re-read Pg. 98 of Ron Jacob's book, and am amazed that the editor who removed the reference to Jacob's book missed the following lines--"Despite the amount of material damage caused by the firebombing [from the context, this could only mean the Murtagh bombing referred to in the sentence immediately previous in Jacob's text], some members of the cell found it had not been a success because it had failed to cause sufficient material damage. These members, purported to be Terry Robbins and Ted Gold, had devised a campaign which Bernardine Dohrn would later describe as a 'large-scale, almost random bombing offensive.'" So not only did R. Jacobs link the Murtagh bombing to the Weather cell, but he reported part of the conversation in the cell about the Murtagh bombing, and named the purported individuals who had the conversation. This implies Jacobs had a source for the conversation. This is therefore not an "in passing" comment. Since few former Weathermen are likely to speak on the record while it is still possible to be charged for the death of policeman Brian V. McDonnell--there is no statute of limitations for murder--we aren't likely going to get a Weather source on the record pertaining to an act of violence against persons. If we hold to the standard of evidence put forward by previous Wiki editors for this article--the FBI aren't reliable, the police aren't reliable, etc., and because the former Weather people won't talk for fear of prosecution, then there is little possibility of ever finding a source acceptable to the editors for linking Weather to violence against persons--because there are few other sources for making the link except from either law enforcement (whom the editors don't believe) or from Weather sources (who tend to remain anonymous). This having been said, please give me better arguments why there should be no reference to Page 98 of R. Jacobs book in the article text, and why we should let the false statement stand that there is no other source linking to the Murtagh bombing except Murtagh, Jr., keeping in mind that R. Jacobs actually wrote three sentences establishing a link between the Murtagh bombing and Weather, not one.Ajschorschiii (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Because as WP:BLP says, "When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these."

I also note, yet again, that what is said in the book, was not the same as making a hard supported assertation that the weatherment enacted the bombing. I could say that the 7/7 bombings were not successful in bringing london to a standstill or inducing mass panic. This certanly does not imply that I had anything to do with the 7/7 bombings. That Jacobs writes to make this implication, without being willing to offer any hard backing for his statements, makes it a highly suspect source.

We don't know Jacobs's source for his assertion. We don't even know if there *is* a source, or if he is representing his own speculation as fact. You may infer that Jacobs has a source, however, that is conjectural interpretation on your behalf. Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. This is not a high-quality source for this exceptional claim. It stays out of the article. --Barberio (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your bias may have begun to show, in that you have stated that the claim is exceptional, thereby revealing a pre-conceived notion on your part. Exceptional in relation to what? Please state specifically why such a claim is exceptional, and what the "rule" is that this claim "excepts." I think we owe our readers the knowledge that another author--of one of the few books on Weather where former Weather participants were interviewed, and a sympathetic author to Weather, I might add--also has written that the Murtagh bombing was done by Weather, and contains three sentences consistent with that statement. I don't see you enforcing a similar standard to other citations in this article. We need a real and substantial reason to keep this statement out of the article, other than, "It stays out of the article." Or, are you running out of reasons?Ajschorschiii (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the Weathermen are responsible for a bombing they did not claim, and that no one has provided any verifiable evidence that they were responsible for, is an inherently exceptional claim.

If by 'biased' you mean 'not willing to report rumour as fact, or give it undue weight' then the Wikipedia policies themselves are biased. --Barberio (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, but you seem to be assuming that the Weathermen were a consistent organization that always behaved according to certain patterns, instead of a coalition of cells that acted with variable behaviors. It is very possible that your judgment in this case is wrong, and that R. Jacobs, who actually researched this topic, is correct. I suspect that there are not any circumstances under which you would accept, from any source, no matter how well-documented, the attribution of the Murtagh bombing to the Weathermen.Ajschorschiii (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in no place to judge if what Jacobs says is true, only if it is verifiable. Since he provides no cites or evidence himself, it would not be possible to verify. The text you added did not clearly state that it was a disputable matter, and simply started as bare fact that Jacobs had linked the bombing to the Weathermen. This implied that he had provided evidence to do so, rather than just make the assertion that it was so. --Barberio (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Jacobs is a respectable historian and this is far more than a passing mention or aside. He makes a point of in the book of describing the Weathermen's follow-up/reaction to the bombing, and based on his citations and access to the sources he would be in a position to know. That makes his book more reliable, not less, than if newspaper accounts flat-out said it. He devoted more attention and care to studying it than a reporter and editor would, typically. I see no BLP issue if it is reported neutrally. So all-in-all I think that passes the threshold, as long as the text states (as it did) that this was the analysis of one particular historian. Based on that I'll drop my objection that this is a weak example to include. If we find other sources saying no, then it would be worth reconsidering. There's still an editorial decision to make of whether it's useful to mention this particular bombing, as opposed to others, in telling the story. There is a good argument for that because it's one of the very first and set the stage for later ones. All just my opinion, of course.Wikidemon (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am still incredibly reluctant to give weight to a claim not backed up by any evidence. It's still an unverifiable statement, regardless of the respectability of the person making it. And we should be very careful about giving weight to unevidenced statements. The text added in this case was "Historian Ron Jacobs linked the Murtagh bombing to the same Weather cell connected with the Greenwich Village, New York townhouse explosion two weeks later.", which is a bare restatement of Jacob's assertion that could mislead the reader into thinking that Jacob's had provided evidence to support it when he had not. --Barberio (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctant, but the source is strong enough to overcome my reluctance (absent any contrary evidence from other sources). Many pages from the book are available on google[6] so it's easy enough to read. On page 98 the author states that the Weathermen carried out the bombing at the judge's home, but did not consider it a success despite the media attention because it did not do enough damage. In response they started work on more powerful bombs, leading to the disaster at the New York townhouse. As a historian the author would presumably not make such a claim without having some basis - unless we're thinking he made the whole thing up or based it on a rumor, it sounds like he interviewed his sources or reviewed some primary material. He must have had some reason to believe the bombing was theirs. The supporting evidence, if you want to call it that, is that the Weathermen's subsequent actions acknowledged and responded to their perception of a lack of success - that's direct evidence, not hearsay, incidentally. There is a footnote in the book text but the chapter and book endnotes are not available on google as far as I can see. Aren't nearly all reliable sources unverified? Few journalistic pieces cite in the text of the article the factual proof for the claims they are making. A good journalist will keep notes and a good paper will have a fact check department, but as readers we simply have to trust what they write based on our belief as to the reliability of the source. That in turn rests on the reputation of the publisher for fact checking and neutrality, and of the author for honesty and believability. We can also look to context-related indicial of reliability. Would the author be the one to know? Here the historian makes a strong, directly claim that the Weathermen carried out the bombing, not a casual mention or a throw-away. It's a book about these events, so he is banking his credibility on these sorts of claims. He does not hedge by saying it is controversial, unverified, a personal thesis, or a new revelation or discovery. He says matter-of-factly that they did it. If another historian disagrees, or if this historian is shown to be sloppy or untrustworthy, that might be different. But here we have one source and nothing to controvert it. Additionally, it is not a surprising claim nor is it defamatory. It's believable, just one bombing in a string of admitted bombings. It shows a greater contempt for the victims' safety than most of the others but that's not a huge leap, and after all it is one of their first, and it is in a series of events that lead up to people getting killed - it's completely believable that the group got religion, so to speak, when people started getting killed and the leadership was affected as a result. That's all speculation, I'm just saying it is completely plausible and that we have no reason to doubt the historian's account.Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) When we cite newspaper reports that include un-identified sources, we generaly only do so when the newspaper is both reliable, and the story has been carried by multiple newspapers. And we are also sure to make it clear that this is a newspaper report. This citation was reported as if it were verifiable fact that Jacob had 'linked' the bombing to the weatherman. He may well have evidence that links them, but at the moment all we have on that is a statement from a single historian saying it is so. If multiple historians say it, then we can have something along the lines of "A group of historians, including X, Y and Z, state that the bombing was enacted by the Weatherman but considered a failure." If only one historian says it, then we have to consider why other historians don't seem to agree. --Barberio (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Do other historians tell a different account? It would be useful to know. Has anyone looked at other books that mention the bombing, reactions to Jacobs' book, etc? I do agree that if he's a lone voice or it has been challenged, that casts doubt. But if he's the only one who writes about it at all, less so. Moreover, as I said earlier there is an editorial decision whether to include it or not. Just because we can does not mean we should, not if there are better and more solid incidents to illustrate the group's activities. I have no opinion about that. It would be useful here to highlight a few of the most important or illustrative incidents, then relegate the complete list for the other article. Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that R. Jacobs wrote one of the first comprehensive books on the subject. The subject has not grown into a sufficient literature yet. Also, I think there is a tendency in the Wiki article to portray a two-dimensional approach to the Weathermen when they were much more complex and evolved over time. The more deeply you read about the Weathermen, the less consistency you find. That's the way people are. As far as documentation, as I stated above, Weather participants have been reluctant to speak on the record, since for bombings in which someone was killed, like Officer McConnell, they can still go to jail--which might explain why no organization has taken responsibility for the McConnell bombing. So you are not likely going to have a Weather veteran go on the record about an egregious incident. Also, the Murtagh bombing, had Weather taken responsibility for it, would have punctured their Robin Hood image because of its endangerment of life--so there might be reasons they would not take credit for it. As a matter of fact, the Black Panthers themselves disavowed the bombing and apologized to Judge Murtagh the next court date after the bombing ("Panthers express regret over Murtagh bombing," by Edith Evans Asbury, NYT, 2/25/1970)! So a statement like R. Jacobs in this instance, linking the Murtagh bombing to the same cell as the Greenwich explosion, is about the best we can get. The fact that R. Jacobs wrote the book in 1997 (outside of the present political environment), was generally a sympathetic witness to the Weathermen, cautiously reported an actual conversation--using the word "purported," and made his linking statement in matter-of-fact fashion, gives further credence to his account. Perhaps we can qualify the statement in the article further, by stating that the R. Jacobs account is the only account available currently, that due to anonymity of this witnesses he makes the link between the Murtagh bomb and Greenwich cell but does not cite an individual source, and that the matter awaits further investigation. I think the readers deserve fuller information, and think we do the reader a disservice by leaving this detail out. How can we not cite R. Jacobs here, when he's been cited elsewhere? Readers can then read his page 98 for themselves and make a decision. Also, how can we leave the Murtagh bombing controversy out, when it is still a matter of public discussion, and readers will come to the Wiki article looking for further sources and perspectives? What do you think?Ajschorschiii (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you say it best in "The more deeply you read about the Weathermen, the less consistency you find." Wikipedia is not in a position to make judgement calls on a Historian's reliability when they make a disputable claim that accuses people of crimes. So even if we use their works as citation for non-disputed items, we should be very wary of using them as cites for disputable claims.

Unlike, say, citing a historian who proposes a minority, but possibly well supported, theory that Romans settled in North America; citing a solitary historian who makes unsupported allegations of criminal activity against still living people raises ethical and legal problems that we can not ignore.--Barberio (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of room in the "list of" article to break out a section for unconfirmed bombings - accusations, suspicions, and investigations. Again, if described neutrally I don't think there is a BLP or POV issue involved, given that there are plenty of bombings that everyone knows they did. Where the investigation or suspicion is itself notable, as with the Park Police Station or the NY bombings, it's a service to the readers to give that kind of comprehensive treatment. In my opinion the tipping point here is that if we're only going to cover the most important events, in summary style, the degree of certainty over whether they really did it is a tipping point. To make an analogy, Rembrandt is well known for some of the most important paintings in European history. The problem is that half the paintings thought to be his turned out to be forgeries mistaken attributions. Some are still controversial. The Mill (Rembrandt) was thought to be fake but is now accepted. Now, if we're going to write an article about Rembrandt's life and works, it would be a little silly to use a known fake to explain his painting style. It would also be iffy to use a painting where we don't know if it's his or not. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemon (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ajschorschiii, for citing a source. Participants in this discussion could have done a Google Books search to see whether or not other sources back up Jacobs. (Edited to add: I'm sorry, it looks like Ajschorschiii did just exactly that, although with different search terms than I used) Perhaps some editors aren't aware how easy it is to do and how fruitful it is in this kind of discussion about sourcing. If anyone had done it immediately, a lot of time, effort and space could have been saved. All you have to do is go to the Google search page, go to the top line, hit the drop-down menu under "more", then hit "books". Then type in the most relevant words (with phrases in quotes). Here are the results for Weatherman + Murtagh + judge [7], and it leads directly to sources such as:

• Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity by Dan Berger (2006), who is so sympathetic to the Weatherman that he dedicates his book to one of the Weathermen still in jail (for life): February: Weatherman firebombs the New York City home of John Murtagh, the judge presiding over the Panther 21 case. -- page 341 I consider the book biased, but the facts reliable.
• In Search of the Black Panther Party: New Perspectives on a Revolutionary ...by Jama Lazerow, Yohuru R. Williams - Social Science - (2006): ... of Malcolm X's assassination — a Weatherman cell fire-bombed the home of John Murtagh, the judge presiding over the trial of the New York Panther 21. ... -- page 243
• Flying Close to the Sun, by Cathy Wilkerson, Seven Stories Press, 2007. Terry Robbins, who led the cell, discussed the Murtagh bombing with Wilkerson just before she joined the cell. On top of everything else, this should convince anyone. Given the authority of the source and the fact that Robbins blew himself to smithereens while preparing to murder attendees at an officer's dance at Fort Dix, I don't think anyone has any further reason to doubt the Murtagh bombing was committed by Weatherman. Here's what Wilkerson wrote (I took this from a library book I've borrowed, but it can be seen online by following the Google Books result) pp 324-325:

The group, Terry [Robbins] explained briefly, had done an action already, a firebomb that had been thrown at the home of Judge Murtagh, then presiding over the trial of the Panther 21. Judge Murtagh seemed to be following in the belligerent steps of Chicago's Judge Hoffman, who had physically gagged defendant and Panther member Bobby Seale during the Chicago 8 trial in October. In the New York Panther 21 case, Murtagh seemed to take pleasure in summarily dismissing the normal rules of evidence to allow the police to introduce anything they wanted, while repeatedly denying defense motions. He had set up the courtroom with armed police, implying to the jury that he expected n armed attack at any moment. It was, Terry said, a way to prejudice jurors and make them frightened of the defendants, none of whom had ever engaged in armed political action.

I assumed the group's firebombing had been done after consultation with and approval by those Panthers that remained out of jail, although I now wonder. The Panthers themselves never did comment on the action publicly. The firebomging had been dangerous because Judge Murtagh's house was guarded by several New York City policemen twenty-four hours a day. The bottle filled with gasoline had broken against the front steps, burned, and gone out. At least the throwers had gotten away.

By then, of course, I was hardly shocked at this action. I had assumed for weeks that many small groups were being set up to do this kind of action.

[...] Terry continued to update me: The New York collective was now planning to follow their first action with several simultaneous ones.

We can save time if, the next time a question about reliable sourcing comes up, any editor does a Google Books search, or a Google Scholar search or a Google News or Google News Archives search. At the very least, we can establish that an assertion has a wide range of sources. There is no need to mention Jacobs by name at this spot in the article. A footnote reflecting the sourcing will do. This isn't a controversy. No one we know of denies Weatherman committed the act. -- Noroton (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC) added a short comment, noted in text -- Noroton (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that it is the responsibility of those adding content to expend the effort to find the required citations, not demand others do it for them.

Now that we do have multiple cites on this, it's much more acceptable to include "A group of historians, including X, Y and Z, state that the bombing was enacted by the Weatherman but considered a failure." in the article. --Barberio (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I thank Noroton for finding more sources, and to Barberio for agreeing that a multiple-cited sentence is acceptable. Agreed that Google Books is a fantastic tool that should be consulted in almost every case of searching for citations. I would have spent a longer time searching, but actually was writing while sick at home, and had to go back to bed! Those of us with university library access can check newspapers going back 100 years, so we have an obligation to try to use that tool when possible as well. (University alumni are sometimes given this electronic library privilege, so I would suggest checking whether you have electronic journal access through your library.) Another very useful aspect of Google Books is the "Find This Book in a Library" function on the right hand side of the page, which leads to another page in which, on the left hand bottom corner, you can generate a citation in a number of formats, if you have access to a bibliographic program such as EndNote or RefWorks. All this being said, I'll draft a sentence along the lines that Barberio suggests, and insert it in the article shortly.Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Arson/Firebombing

Considering the description of the event given, I'm wondering if we should describe this as "attempted arson" rather than "bombing" or "fire bombing". --Barberio (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All four sources cited in the sentence use the words "firebomb" or "fire-bombing." I've set up links to Google Books within each reference, although I do not know the Wiki trick for compressing these references, other than an outside source like TinyUrl.Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not tied to use the same language to describe something as the cited sources, if a more accurate language is available. "Attempted Arson" gives a more accurate summarised description of the event, at least to me. While "Firebomb" implies the delivery of a hidden bomb like incendiary device. --Barberio (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've edited to better describe the arson attempt, based on the Wilkerson description of the event. --Barberio (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with the wording at present. "Arson" is a term with legal meaning, and we have no cite for that (nor do I think we can, if they've never been charged - a layperson or even a lawyer opining that a given incident is arson is offering a legal judgment in a context where it can only be a matter of opinion. Further, the way it's worded Wikipedia states that it was an attempted arson, not that certain people said it was. I think we're better off using common English terms (and saying "incident" or "event" when that's the easiest).Wikidemon (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

While Arson does have a legal term, Arson has a perfectly good common use meaning as well. It's "Setting fire to something with malicious intent". I doubt *anyone* will be confused by the meaning of the text as edited to Arson, and molotov cocktails. While refering to it as a 'Bombing' and 'Fire-Bombs' does imply that the devices used were much more powerful than molotov cocktails. --Barberio (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

When I hear the word I would assume the legal / technical meaning, just like "murder" or "attempt". Even in common usage, an arson is a deliberate attempt to burn something down, which is not clearly the intent in throwing a firebomb. Also, arson is an offense against property, whereas the bombing was presumably to intimidate the judge and attract media attention. Perhaps something simple, like "threw a ...." - Wikidemon (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, please consider very carefully what led you so quickly to apparently euphemize the language of "fire bomb" to "attempted arson," when all four sources cited linking the Murtagh bombing to Weather, including Wilkerson's, used some expression related to "fire bomb." (I do note that you were above lecturing us about relying heavily on one source, but now the shoe is on the other foot.) Please give more specific reasons for the need for this sudden change in language. You also have not accounted for all the bombs thrown, and have thereby made the language of the article paragraph less factual. The NYT account from 2/22/1970, "Justice Murtagh's Home Target of 3 Fire Bombs," by Emanuel Perlmuter, states: "Of the three bombs that were detonated at Justice Murtagh's home yesterday, one was placed in front of the doorway, one to the right on the ledge of a window, and one under his car. The bombs appeared to consist of gasoline in bottles, mixed with a white powdery substance. Two-inch firecrackers that served as detonators were attached to each. The explosives had been placed in three brown paper bags." In addition, the NYT was specific about the sites of the damage: "Two panes of a front window were shattered, and an overhanging wooden eve scorched. The paint on a car in his garage was charred." The story also contained a picture of the home, and it is evident from the picture, although very dark in the electronic version, that the garage was not at the front. The NYT story also stated, "A few minutes before the explosion, an unidentified woman had telephoned the police to report she had seen several prowlers there. The call immediately brought a radio car to the scene." The NYT story mentions other places where fire bombs were thrown that evening: at a parked patrol car in front of the Charles St. police station in Greenwich Village, another about 75 ft. from the Charles St. site, a third at a Navy recruiting station at Norstrand Ave. and Avenue H, and a fourth at an Army recruiting booth near Brooklyn College. I agree with Wikidemon that "arson" is more of a legal term, but perhaps it is in your usage a euphemism, since a very sympathetic view of arsonists would be that they only like to "light fires" while bombers "blow things up." "Fire bomb" is common, everyday language more suited to an encyclopedia article. A Molotov cocktail is a fire bomb. The fact that "fire bomb" is used in most of the accounts of this incident should indicate that "fire bomb" is the appropriate usage. Also, to quote West Side Story, throughout the Weathermen article there is something of the theme of--"We ain't no delinquents, we're misunderstood. Deep down inside us there is good"--which keeps introducing euphemisms into violent incidents. I recommend that we restore "fire bomb" and "bomb" and take out "attempted arson."Ajschorschiii (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Still no answer in the discussion page from Barberio. His edit has not accounted for all the fire bombs at the Murtagh home, and gives the impression that only one caused damage. I'm afraid there is an editing double-standard here: Barberio stands guard over the article, and expects explanations from others making changes, but Barberio makes whatever changes he likes without coming to the discussion page with a full explanation or responding to the discussion. Barberio prefers Wilkerson's account, and skews the text in that direction. Think this through for a minute--If Wilkerson was a witness to delivering the bombs to the Murtagh home, wouldn't she have run off and not been around to assess the damage? Wouldn't the NYT account of the damage then been more reliable?Ajschorschiii (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Er... My edits were based, as I said, on the cites you provided describing the event. In fact, I describe it in almost exactly the same way as one of the books you cited did. Now, I've lengthened the description to address your concerns.

I don't understand the demand to use 'Firebombs' which is a potentially misleading term, instead of Molotov Cocktail which is a precise description. When you say 'Firebomb' it could mean anything from a Molotov Cocktail to a CBU-55. Why exactly do you want us to use an unclear term, instead of an accurate description? To be frank, I feel that use of 'firebombs' in this context was used by the press to aggrandise what is comparatively minor an arson attempt. "Firebombing" would not, to me, imply some scorched woodwork, broken windows and damaged car paint. "Firebombing" implies much greater damage.

Incidentally, Getting angry because someone doesn't reply to you within two days, is not a good way to behave here. Neither is accusing someone, who has a less than a dozen edits to the page, of ownership because they disagree with you. Please note, I came to the talk page with a full explanation of my change at the time I made it. And I'm open to intelligent discussion, but please try to remain civil. --Barberio (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and for your improvements to the text. With some of your recent changes, the New York City Arson Attacks section is more accurate. At this point it might probably be even more accurately entitled "New York Molotov Cocktail Attacks" rather than "Arson Attacks." I agree with you, upon reflection, that the Molotov terminology is more precise. However, it is uncertain, from discrepancies among the sources, whether the bombs were thrown or placed at the Murtagh site, so if there were a way we could state that some accounts have the Molotov Cocktails placed at the Murtagh site rather than thrown, that would also make the text more accurate. Also, I am sorry to have irritated you. I do not question your sincerity. I do disagree with your tendency as an editor in this case to put greater weight on Wilkerson's account, which minimizes the violent intent of the Weathermen in this case. I thank you for balancing this account with facts from the other sources.Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and quality templates

Can they be removed? If not, why not? Шизомби (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is in a pretty rough state at the moment, and I don't think we can expect it to be improved much until after November 4th when there are less people trying to push the article one way or the other for political reasons. --Barberio (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If we can divide quality and POV into separate issues, it's often helpful to tackle a paragraph at a time and simply clean up the language, formatting, etc., trying hard not to shift the meaning. Citations can be filled out completely, image captions proofread. So it may be possible to get the quality up but I don't think it's there yet. Steadily improving, perhaps.Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article should keep the neutrality tag. This article contains obvious instances of scrubbing of the text to support the POV of editors--see the Murtagh bombing discussion above, and also the current decision to not allow the word "terrorist" as a descriptor, based upon stated reasons pertaining to the current presidential campaign, and not upon historical considerations. I make this statement having thoroughly read the discussions on the "terrorist" question.Ajschorschiii (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those reasons is a good one. The tag isn't there to reflect individual editors' opposition to consensus decisions; it's there to note any unresolved issues. I'm not sure when it first applied but I think it arose from a few editors' attempts to edit war in extensive coatracking about terrorism. Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree about waiting until after 11/4 -- this article is in dismal shape compared to a couple months ago. Then, I felt that it might have a very slightly favorable leaning towards the group, if anything, but now it quite obviously leans toward depicting the group as a radical, "anti-American" "terrorist" faction. I think we can safely point to the Right's obsession with this supposed Obama-Ayers "connection" for this recent swing Johnny^California 07:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's post-election now. Perhaps we can start some clean up? Toyblocks (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

June 10, 1970 police headquarters Weathermen-claimed bombing injured seven

According to the New York Times, 6/11/1970, in a story authored by Michael Stern, the 6/10/1970 bombing of a NY Police Headquarters injured seven. Two identical, separate letters were received by the New York Times and Associated Press signed "Weathermen" claiming responsibility for the bombing. There was no prior warning about the bombing reported in the story, other than a warning received in Chicago more than two weeks earlier of a bombing within two weeks "on a symbol or institution of American injustice." This instance provides an example of 1) injuries to persons related to a Weather-claimed bombing, 2) no specific prior warning received. Some mention of this particular bombing and its circumstances should be in the article, to provide balance against the claims that Weathermen did not target persons and gave specific warnings in advance. I've also been finding out something else while reviewing NYT stories related to the Weathermen from the 1970s--they were called "terrorists" in NYT stories even then.Ajschorschiii (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would check this against other sources, and if there's general agreement that the Weathermen admitted responsibility and that there were injuries (which shouldn't be a hard thing to source) then it's fine to include. Again, we have to pick and choose because a complete chronology would overwhelm the article. I think it's fine to list as a counterpoint to the statement about warnings / no injuries, as long as it's said neutrally and everything is clear. I wouldn't want this article to turn into an essay-style synthesis of the facts though. Jacobs (the historian) makes a good point that they weren't always consistent, tightly managed, or unified in their actions. What one wing did in their name might or might not be the decision of the group as a whole and may or may not follow their objectives. It's clear that a number of sources at the time called them terrorists; others did not. NYT is an important source so it might be worth adding that as a footnote to the list given of contemporaries that used the word.Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also as a general plea, if anyone finds a source for an action could you please add the citation to the list of incidents article too? It's woefully in need of specific citations for each incident it claims, and the accuracy of the list as a whole is uncertain for now.Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Queen's courthouse bombing?

There is mention of this regarding a letter that Murtaugh sittes, but no mention of the action itself. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW

The Weather Underground's manifesto Prairie Fire contains a list of the actions which they took credit for on pp. 4f, as of 1974. They are:

• Haymarket Police statue, Chicago, October 1969 & October 1970
• Chicago police cars, December 1969
• New York Police headquarters, June 1970
• Marin County Courthouse, August 1970
• Long Island City Courthouse, October 1970
• Department of Corrections (San Francisco) & Office of California Prisons (Sacramento), August 1971
• Department of Corrections, Albany NY, September 1971
• 103rd Precinct, NYC Police, May 1973
• Harvard War Research Center, October 1970 (Proud Eagle Tribe/women's brigade)
• US Capitol, March 1971
• William Bundy's office at MIT, October 1971 (Proud Eagle Tribe/women's brigade)
• The Pentagon, May 1973
• Draft & recruiting centers
• ROTC buildings
• ITT Latin America Headquarters, September 1973
• National Guard headquarters, Washington DC, May 1970
• Presidio Army Base & MP Station, San Francisco, 26 July 1970
• Federal offices of the Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, San Francisco, May 1974 (women's brigade)
• Helped Timothy Leary to escape from the California Men's Penal Colony, San Luis Obispo, September 1970

Obviously, this list is not exhaustive; there may other actions they committed which are not included. -- llywrch (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Group Classification

You cannot have a "consensus" on deciding to overlook a fact. The arguement of whether or not the Underground were terrorists is contradictory to the purpose of Wikipedia and is a clear violoation of WP:NPOV. I despise getting into arguments about what a word actually means, so lets just go to the source.

Terrorist --
♠ One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. American Heritage Dictionary

Terrorism --
♠ The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. American Heritage Dictionary

♠ The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. Random House Unabridged Dictionary

Let's just call a spade a spade, and stop the mudslinging and pointless arguments. The Weather Underground was a Domestic Terror Group, self admitted. Regardless of which bombing they actually conducted, the fact is that they used violence to promote an agenda. The bomb that killed Robbins, Diana Oughton, and Ted Gold on March 6, 1970 was dynamite surrounded by roofing nails. Shrapnel is not added to bombs for structural damage, it is added to increase fatalities. I am sorry but there is no difference between these people and those like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Understand that having sympathy for a cause does not change the nature of that cause. The term "Radical left" denotes only an ideology devoid of actions, and should be changed to Domestic Terrorist Organization. --Coldbourne (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If we were to start using such a basis for naming 'terrorists', then any group or individual who at any time used unlawful force or threat of force against people or property to intimidate will be named a terrorist.

This includes such groups as most police forces, private security companies and of course, the US Government... So as you can see, this 'call a spade a space' 'clear cut dictionary definition' is indeed a matter of point of view. Which is why when being 'neutral', people generally avoid emotive phrases such as 'terrorist'. And there is, in fact, a Wikipedia Guideline on how to use this term, which I will quote here.

The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremism" and "terrorism" are pejorative terms, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighters" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article.--Barberio (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit over the top, don't you think? Hopefully we can make a distinction between a group whose sole purpose is "unlawful use of force for political intimidation" (such as TWU) and an organization, such as a police force, which on rare occasions has a member perform an unlawful act. (Or, for that matter, the mugger who unlawfully uses force to intimidate you into giving him your money.) Let's not be disingenuous here. I think that when you say "you can't call someone a terrorist without calling the police terrorists", you've lost the argument in everyone's mind but your own. Jeffr (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To call the group terrorist is not POV as it merely accurately describes their methods. It seems POV since most people reject terrorism and hence think badly of terrorists. But some of course don't. But the facts remain the facts. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the substance. There has been a longstanding consensus, confirmed by an RfC (see Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC), that we do not claim that the Weathermen was a terrorist organization. I do not wish to open that discussion again, but the RfC does establish that there is no consensus for calling them terrorists, nor would it be very likely that a talk page discussion here could establish a consensus that overturns a recent RfC on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of what is worst about WP. Terrorism is terrorism even if some terrorists deny it (and note some readily admit it). Str1977 ^(talk) 10:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

An age-old adage says "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Which is pretty much right; several things the US have done have strayed close, if not went over the line, into terrorism. The Iraq War for one. Although we in the West see that as freedom fighting. "Terrorist" has no clear definition so we shouldn't give it one. The nearest we can do is say who says they're terrorists, and limitng those people to governments, LEAs, and notable scholars. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon - the Iraq War is US Government terrorism? Perhaps you'd better check your fly - your political bias is showing. The Iraq war meets no definition for terrorism. Anyone who says otherwise is selling an anarchist political agenda.

Terrorists?

Can someone enlighten me as to why this organization is not named as a terrorist organization as opposed to the current "radical left". Understandably their goal was not to take human life, however it seems that detonating bombs with the purpose of causing damage to property would fit with the common concept of terrorism. Thoughts? 220.70.250.188 (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see other discussion, above, and follow the links. Wikidemon (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that the author doesn't like the word "terrorist" unless it's proven in a court of law. Even admitted terrorists like Bill "Guilty as hell and free as a bird" Ayers aren't considered a terrorist by the author. I stop short of suggesting the author is sympathetic to the Weathermen, but there is a clear bias here against the accepted definition of terrorism.

Today's New York Times has an OpEd from the "Real" Bill Ayers[8], who asserts that since the bombs that he was involved with were placed in empty offices and were "small" and "symbolic" to try to stop an "illegal" war, he and his "comrades" were not terrorists. Reliable Source - it must be accurate.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ayers says "we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately". Perhaps so – the nail bomb that Mark Rudd admits was to be planted at a dance at Fort Dix, and that fortunately blew up while under construction, could be termed "discriminate" in that it was intended to kill and injure only U.S. soldiers and their dates. --CliffC (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please cool down this discussion, this is not the place to argue your rhetoric. Avoidance of the label 'Terrorist' is not unique to this article, it is a naming convention guideline used across the wiki. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_or_freedom_fighter.3F. --Barberio (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The constant reference to WP:AVOID has no relevency is this issue, as The Weather Underground were designated and investigated as a terrorist group by the FBI. The wiki policy clearly states that the term "terrorist" should be reserved for cases in which "the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources". I am not sure how much clearer this needs to be. The policy does NOT say that a group of users can overide said sources, so again the links to the [[9]] are also irrelevent. Even so, if anything the RfC discussion only confirms that The Weatherman were indeed a terrorist organization, as it provides a compelling amount of sources for that to be established. Most notably, there is no squirming past this, the one organization in America that can LEGALLY label an organization as terrorists, The Federal Bureau of Investigation. And if that is not good enough for you, let's go with the New York Times. The election is over WikiDemon, drop the agenda and let the article be edited by the editors. Cheers. --Coldbourne (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been a consensus to simply state the facts, which include that the FBI called them terrorists on a history page of its website. That is not an official designation and that description of them as such is disputed. The article as it stands includes a paragraph discussing in a neutral way various parties that use the label and those that dispute the label. All of that was exhaustively considered in the RfC, in which dozens of editors painstakingly dealt with this issue. Particularly if we discount the efforts of multiple accounts now known to be sockpuppets of a single editor there is no consensus for Wikipedia to choose sides in order to conclude that they are terrorist or not. Please do not accuse editors of having an "agenda" - it does not help the discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So you acknowledge the veracity of the FBI labeling this organization as Terrorists, you just do not like the format it was provided in? Interesting stance to advocate, along with your ascertation that every editor who did not agree with you was a sockpuppet of user Noroton. The very fact that the RfC quickly turned into an Obama/Ayers connection discussion would indicate that there was certainly less emphasis on providing a proper definition of the group. Regardless, your insistance on sources has led me to the original FBI case files. You will find that according to the FBI, the Weatherman were not just domestic terrorists but labeled as Revolutionaries with known foreign communist ties, making them guilty of sedition. I am curious as to what your problems with this source will be. Until then, cheers. --Coldbourne (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is meandering into minutiae that isn't really relevant to the original question. Wikipedia articles do not begin with such descriptors as "So-and-so is a terrorist organization..." per the simple policies laid out at WP:WTA. That's all that really needed to be said here. Check the articles for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah to see how the lead is handled; state what the organization is in neutral, simple terms, lay out a bit of history, and if relevant, note what nations/organizations classify them as a terrorist organization. Simple. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, all that and more has been discussed at length. The FBI called them terrorists in its blast-from-the-past web write-up, and in its internal investigations by a group that would later become its anti-terrorism group. However, the FBI did not designate them terrorists and there was no system in place for them to do so. Categorizing militant groups that way was simply not an issue, nor was the concept of domestic terrorists as widely accepted as it is today. However, as you note, under J. Edgar Hoover the FBI saw communists under every stone and advertised its crime-fighting mission as a fight for the American way. Given the times notion of Weathermen being militant, radical, anti-capitalist, anti-American, etc., was probably a lot more scary to Americans than calling them terrorists, which for most people at the time evoked an image of middle-easterners blowing up airplanes. I don't know what you are talking about regarding sockpuppets - you are either misreading the RfC, my comments above, or both. The editor to whom you refer canvassed at least one sockpuppet to participate, and at least one other account (perhaps more, it is not worth the time to review that) was later indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet from the same sock farm that was pushing the Obama / Ayers connection. The editor you mention was not the puppet master. Anyway, even including the sock puppets the consensus ran against referring to the Weathermen as a terrorist organization, but in favor of reporting the fact that various people (including, notably the FBI) called them terrorists. Very straightforward outcome to a long, tortuous consensus process. Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know, though I would describe it as ad nauseum rather then at length, I was certainly sick of the topic after I read the entire discourse. I think everyone acknowledges there are more than a few sources, including those I have listed, that have labeled the group as terrorists. I agree, the term was certainly not common vernacular at the time period so was likely not applied until later, but a label at later date does not disqualify said description as being irrelevant. Your POV of the FBI is completely irrelevant and should have no bearings on the article, no matter how much I may agree with you on the issue. I am not interested in battling McCarthyism on the article, but rather I want to make sure that an accurate description is provided for the group. I am completely in agreement with Tarc in regards to the format, though I would recommend the Al-Qaeda article as a precedent for the format. Having a separate section in regards to who has labeled the group terrorists/Revolutionaries or whatever after describing the history. But making sure that it is established near the header, rather then thrown in at the end of the article. Most importantly I want to separate the discussion of the label from the Legacy portion of the article. That section is in need of a clean up regardless, but to throw the discussion of how the group was viewed into a random trivia section is to down play the relevancy of understanding how the group was viewed during it's time of operation. Lastly, the label "American radical left organization" is still lacking in regards to an accurate description of the group. Militant Left Movement or Leftist Political Movement or something more appropriate would move the article forward in regards to giving the reader a better understanding of what The Weathermen were exactly. As it stands now they come off as some sort of glee club for the SDS. Completely happy to discuss and hash this out with you. Cheers. --Coldbourne (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to call a spade a spade then George Washington should be called a terroist under the definition you cited describing a terrorist. Yet no such label is found under his page. If he had lost the war he would have been called a terrorist and not a freedomfighter. So terms as terrorist and freedomfighter are hardly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.237.204 (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Most were preceded by communiqués that provided evacuation warnings"

The statement in the introductory paragraph of the article--"Most were preceded by communiqués that provided evacuation warnings, along with statements of the particular matter to which their attacks were allegedly responding"--lacks strong quantitative sourcing, and is probably more accurately stated--"after the Declaration of War." Both internal Weathermen and outside sources should be cited for making this statement, which is commonly asserted and restated without firm evidence that counts bombings with warnings vs. those without. Law enforcement sources such as the FBI FOIA files on the Weatherman have a much more extensive list of bombings. This source should be balanced with others. Until there is more firm numeric evidence put forward for this statement, the article is in danger of simply restating a myth.Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a fact tag to that staement. --Tom 17:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like the source is a 2002 documentary film. Are there other sources for this claim? TIA --Tom 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note. This is also a plain matter-of-fact summary of other sourced information in the article.

If we have an article with sourced statements saying the Red Sox lost game 2,3,4 and 5 of this years league series, then we don't need to source the statement saying "The lost most of their games", and it wouldn't be considered 'Original Research' to do so. To quote the original research policy, "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." So I see no reason to go looking for extra citation on this. --Barberio (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the source show that this group sent warnings for "most" of their attacks, or just for "some" of their attacks? Thanks --Tom 12:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no comprehensive count of Weather bombings in the Wiki article similar to the list cited by Barberio above noting four Red Sox games. It would be more accurate to state, "In the list of Weather bombings chosen by Wiki editors to be included in the following article, most were preceded by warnings." I suggest that if the article counted the total number of bombings attributed to Weather by various sources, then you might have some kind of case for drawing the conclusion that "most of the bombings were preceded by warnings." But as it is, the conclusion that "most were preceded by warnings," is itself in danger of being "original research," since it is a conclusion drawn from an article that is very selective about which bombings it mentions (after the Declaration of War) and with a list that is by no means comprehensive. Furthermore, citing a documentary movie does not carry the same weight of citing an historical study. The justification for making the statement "most were preceded by warnings" is still flimsy. It would not stand up as representing scholarship without more firm quantitative evidence.Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal regarding SF police station bombing

editor seems to withdraw proposal; closing as soapboxing at this point
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Scjessey has repeatedly removed the following information, claiming that the documentary source is not "reliable", whereas the documentary aired on television and a corresponding paperback was published. The documentary quotes an FBI informant who was a Weather Underground member who discussed and heard exactly what his fellow members had to say; this is available as a video for viewing in case there is any question. So unless Scjessey can make a complelling argument why this material is not reliable, then back it goes. Thanks. I propose including the following highly relevant material: Former FBI informant Larry Grathwohl infiltrated the Weather Underground and helped prevent several bombing attacks by the group. In the 1982 documentary No Place to Hide, Grathwohl described a Weather Underground meeting at which the terrorists discussed the need to murder at least 25 million people—those diehard American capitalists who would resist "reeducation": I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.” Twenty-five million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people. And they were dead serious. No Place to Hide paperback by Robert O'Harrow No Place To Hide, Multimedia Investigation by Robert O'Harrow and the Center for Investigative Reporting No Place To Hide, Website Freedom Fan (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC) A first person account by a participant is hardly a reliable source. The material is scandalous, controversial, and hard to verify. All in all I do not believe it belongs in this article at all. It might belong in an article about the FBI agent himself, or in an article about his book. Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC) An interesting approach: So the more levels of translation removed from the source, the more reliable? Please quote relevant Wikipedia policy. Note that the Weather Underground member/FBI informant was filmed saying this in 1982 when Obama was only 21. Sorry, it just doesn't get more reliable than this. Freedom Fan (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Our encyclopedia is built on reporting what neutral third party sources say about events. First person accounts by participants in events are inherently unreliable. They don't have the fact/neutrality/reality check of going through a neutral party acting as a scholar, news reporter, recordkeeper, analyst, etc. In some parts of society law enforcement officers are given deference because of the importance of their position and their perceived moral virtue, personal sacrifices, etc. That translates into taking them at their word when they say things about their own investigations. However, here on Wikipedia they do not get a free pass anymore than anyone else. It's a dubious assumption that an FBI investigator's word is particularly trustworthy. America was in a severe culture war at the time, and who was the head of FBI at the time but the very J. Edgar Hoover? I believe the FBI was trying to frame John Lennon and Martin Luther King at the time, trumping up charges, disrupting liberal organizations, exaggerating threats to America. We look to reportage, not eyewitness accounts of things. That's part of WP:RS in the form of WP:PSTS. (Added by Wikidemon. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)) Try WP:RS, FreedomFan. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC) "Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others. Whenever they are used, they must be used with extreme caution in order to avoid original research." Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I disagree. Here is the entire Wikipedia policy you reference: Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others. Whenever they are used, they must be used with extreme caution in order to avoid original research. Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Besides, what we have is an eyewitness account of something that the primary source said and it is being reported by a tertiary source. Therefore I believe the FBI agent would be considered a secondary source. So including this information is definitely in accordance with Wikipedia policy no matter how you slice it. Freedom Fan (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC) An eyewitness describing what he sees is unreliable. We report what authors analyze, not what random people perceive. It is only relevant as to what the person at the time of writing recalls about what he thought he saw, assuming he is telling the truth fairly and without bias (all big assumptions), and at that it is a primary source. It is not reliable as to what actually happened (e.g. that he prevented bombings or what the Weathermen intended). If we treated eyewitness reports as reliable, then Wikipedians could go out on the street, interview people, gather police testimony, etc., and start writing their own analysis on Wikipedia. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that we can't trust that Grathwohl's various writings are a fair, accurate, unbalanced, reliable, authoritative word on what really happened. At that rate we might as well follow Bill Ayers' book, or J Edgar Hoover. If we do we're taking one side of a partisan dispute with many sides.Wikidemon (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC) The accusation against a living person that they tried to kill 25 million people is hardly a "basic statement of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself". Using an FBI agent to source a claim against an anti-government organization is like using George W Bush to source claims about the inner workings of the Democratic Party. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC) First, there is no accusation against any particular living person, so the WP:BLP policy is not relevant here. But you already knew that. Second, Wikipedia requires verifiable evidence from a reliable source. That is exactly what we have. Third, someone relating what he heard certainly would be acceptable in court testimony and also certainly is acceptable in Wikipedia articles if it is relevant and verifiable. It is. Fourth, if you have some sort of evidence to discredit this particular eyewitness, that too would be welcome. But you don't. Finally, you personally may not have confidence in the accuracy of the FBI or the police, who are routinely required to risk their lives in undercover assignments and then testify under oath. But your personal opinions are not relevant. This information is consistent with Wikipedia policy and should be in the article. Since it looks like we are not making any progress here, perhaps it is time to call in an administrator to referee. Your move. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC) The source is unreliable, and seemingly biased. Our standards for publishing something as a fact are not the same as a court's standards for admitting testimony for a jury to weigh. No need to discredit the eyewitness; that is not our game here (though there has been plenty of argument why an FBI undercover agent is not the most reliable of witnesses). The lack of confidence is universal and evenly applied. Eyewitness testimony is not a reliable source. Saying that police are no different than anyone else is utterly neutral; claiming that "risking their lives" makes them more reliable is the POV. No need for administrators or anything else. The material is not reliably sourced, and consensus backs this up. Administrators are not here to overturn consensus on content matters. Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I've opened a request for mediation, and you are invited to contribute. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC) For the records, this discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-24 Weatherman (organization). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC) SF police station bombing I have removed a section that was poorly cited, and arguably irrelevant. References includes a PDF of a police department journal (not a reliable source), an Obama attack book (biased, partially discredited source), a book that describes the impressions and thoughts of a paid informant (not a reliable source) and an SF Chronicle story about an unsolved murder that did not yield any indictments or convictions (and is therefore irrelevant). In short, the section was an aggregation of information from poor or barely relevant sources. A proper discussion, involving the building of consensus, should occur before any of this material is added (if at all). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Scjessey removed this section, which was previously deleted by an anonymous editor: text removed per WP:BLP by John Vandenberg (chat) 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC) The footnote cited by the source was Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, "Terroristic Activity Inside the Weatherman Movement, Part 2", October 18, 1974. So apparently Senate testimony by an eyewitness is not reliable enough. Freedom Fan (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC) That is correct. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable for anyhthing, much less an accusation of murder. It is a serious BLP violation so including it is pretty much a non-starter. That has been a longstanding consensus here. Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Moreover, even if the book itself was a reliable source, a footnote within would not be. It would need to be independently available to be usable by Wikipedia. Also, I fail to see the connection between my removal of the section and the previous actions of an anonymous editor. Are you insinuating something? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I find it hard to understand how testimony could be used to convict someone in a court or in a Senate investigation, yet by citing that same testimony we somehow would be violating some unspecified Wikipedia policy for reliability. Wouldn't one suppose that the Senate requested the testimony because they considered it valuable in their investigation? Would the result of the investigation somehow prohibit a Wikipedia reference to the same testimony which was considered by the Senate in arriving at their conclusion? Similarly, would the fact that O.J. Simpson was acquitted prevent use in Wikipedia of any testimony brought by his accusers? I doubt it. The specific chapter and verse of the Senate record has been cited by the source, but the Senate record is not published on line without a fee. If you are saying that unless a source is available on line, just a click away, that it cannot be used in Wikipedia, then please provide the appropriate Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC) The removal, citing "BLP" needs an explanation. Which living person is being protected by that removal? Bernardine Dohrn? (that article mentions the SF bombing, cited to NYT) Larry Grathwohl? (which directs to Bernardine Dohrn#Later_radical_history) Bill Ayers? We are not protecting these people by removing the details from this article - the details have long been fleshed out in very public venues. But, top quality sources are needed, and there are better sources which can be used. Google News archive search of "Larry Grathwohl" shows plenty of sources, and there are a good number of Google Books also. I have uploaded onto Wikisource s:Index:Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial.djvu which contains testimony mentioning this organisation a few times, specifically mentioning the SF incident; see s:Page:Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial.djvu/10 and s:Page:Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial.djvu/19. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks Jayvdb. It appears that Wikidemon almost completely gutted the section on this San Francisco Police Station bombing including the picture and any mention of Brian V. McDonnell, the police officer who was killed in the bombing. He also removed details from the San Francisco Chronicle. Accordingly, I have restored this section. I think it would be appropriate to request a user block if this material is once again destroyed. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Reverted. Do not reinsert BLP vios - this is on top of matters of reliable sourcing and avoiding edit warring against consensus. The people being protected are Bernadette Dohrn and Bill Ayers, both of whom Grathwohl implicates. Grathwohl directly accuses Bernadette Dohrn of murder, and Ayers of complicity. Grathwohl himself is not a reliable source. Freddoso is not a reliable source as to what Grathwohl said. And Grathwohl is basing his testimony on hearsay and personal opinion based on what he claims Ayers said, which is yet another weak link in the chain. The subject is an accusation murder against someone who was never tried for murder. The BLP hurdle there is so high I doubt it is surmountable. That is on top of the sourcing issue. We have recently rejected the exact same material[10] after a long discussion, an RfC, some AN/I reports, and some editors getting blocked. Trying to push this is disruptive, and edit warring on it is disruptive. I do not see a reason to consider the exact same proposal again, particularly at the request of editors who are being tendentious while professsing a lack of understanding for policy.Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC) This article is about the organisation, so it doesnt need to mention that Dohrn and Ayers specifically in this section if that can't be quickly sourced. On s:Page:Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial.djvu/19 you will see that William Kintner clearly attributes those "spectacular terrorist acts" to this organisation. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC) The material as written directly accuses Dohrn of murder, hence BLP vio. It could be written so as not to implicate Ayers and Dohrn. Kintner's statement (more complete link here[11]) is also congressional testimony. It is unverified, and does not have the usual things that would make a piece reliable - editorial oversight, evidence of fact checking, peer review, etc. As such it is the opinion of a professor that the Weathermen committed that bombing. We could conceivably use it to source a claim that some believed that the weathermen committed that bombing, but: (1) it is a primary source to cite the testimony for the proposition that he made the accusation, which does not establish weight - and the fact that this is utterly unreported in secondary sources suggests that his opinion is not notable; (2) there are plenty of other people who believed the Weathermen did it, and whose opinions can be more readily sourced; but (3) there are others who think the Weathermen did not do it, and a second group was also implicated, so for balance all we could say is that they are one of two groups who some believe did it, but that the case was never solved; (4) because we do not know who did it, it is of no relevance (and would be POV) to use this to stand for the proposition that the Weathermen killed people, which seems to be a primary reason this incident is chosen for inclusion over the many incidents we know for sure they committed. The article cannot reasonably detail every single incident. There is another article List of Weatherman actions, greatly in much need of sourcing, that does list all of the confirmed and suspected incidents.Wikidemon (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC) The Wikisource text comes from archive.org; on Wikisource you can edit it to correct OCR errors. I've put together pages for his Statement and Testimony; to correct the text, click on the "[page]" link on the left, and then click edit on the "Page". As far as I can see, this is definitely not a primary source, as it seems he is far removed from the topic, and submitted his statement as a report. I can agree that on its own it isnt a sufficient source, as it wasnt published in a peer reviewed journal. Putting it on List of Weatherman actions looks like a more reasonable course of action. I'm not pushing the point anywhere; I'd rather we find a good set of sources and be sure of how we are going to phrase it. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Solely on the matter of if BLP applies here or not... The argument proposed is that if you don't name someone outright, and instead just ascribe actions to a group, then you are not making accusations about individuals, so BLP doesn't apply. Let's say I point in the direction of a group of people, and yell 'They kicked my cat!'. Obviously, I am accusing the people I am pointing at of kicking my cat. But I haven't named any of them, so under the proposed argument, I haven't accused any of the individuals of kicking my cat, just the 'group'. This is obviously absurd. So my opinion on this is even if the accusation is aimed at a group of people without naming individuals, it is still an accusation against the individuals in that group and BLP applies.. --Barberio (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Definitely dont reinsert it until we have finished discussing this. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I understand Wikipedia policy fine, thanks. The material removed by Wikidemon goes far beyond Grathwohl and any BLP considerations. He nearly gutted the entire section, most of which I did not contribute. This needs to be restored immediately. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC) You are misrepresenting my edits. I will not respond further to that kind of accusation. Further, your statement "I find it hard to understand how testimony could be used to convict someone in a court or in a Senate investigation, yet by citing that same testimony we somehow would be violating some unspecified Wikipedia policy for reliability" if taken at face value indicates you do not understand WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Court and Congressional testimony is not a reliable source per these policies and guideline. Incidentally there was no testimony of this nature given in a court because there was never a court case. Do not edit war. Anyone re-inserting it is committing a BLP violation via edit wars after being warned. Wikidemon (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC) You're right: I misrepresented your edits. Because you didn't nearly gut the entire section, you gutted the entire section dealing with the San Francisco police station bombing. Here is the content you destroyed prior to any of my edits: text removed per WP:BLP by John Vandenberg (chat) 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC) This is one of the most important sections because it shows some of the worst violence, and the reason that Dorn was on the FBI most wanted list. I suggest you restore it immediately. You also cleansed the entire article of any mention of Grathwohl's testimony before the Senate as an FBI informant. This is unacceptable. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC) You continue to misrepresent things. Discussion over, as far as I am concerned. I disagree with the change you have been trying to edit war into the article (which differs from the material above). It is a clear BLP violation so it gets reverted as a matter of course. Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Wikidemon is right. You are misrepresenting his edits, Freedom Fan. It was I who "gutted" the section you are referring to, and I gave my reasons in an edit summary and by creating a section on this talk page to explain why. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Freedom Fan, it doesnt matter who did it; others have been explained why they believe it is a BLP violation, so reposting it is a blockable offense. The next time you repost this deleted text, anywhere, you will be blocked. Find a quality sources, and discuss them here. If you want this incident mentioned, you will need to find compromise wording that is well sourced. The removed wording, which accuses specific people, isnt backed by good sources. If you care about this, I gave a link above to Google News results which could be very useful. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC) There is an obvious solution: report the 2/16/1970 pipe-bomb murder of San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell as attributed at the time to Weather or to the Panthers but remaining unsolved. No mention of any individual suspects need be included. Removing the very mention of unsolved acts of violence from this Wiki article distorts the historical record, and brings this article out of factual concordance with a wide variety of sources, especially the FBI FOIA files. I suggest there be a section in the article on unproved acts of violence attributed to Weather, and that the McDonnell murder be included there. What is lost by removing it? Here's what--The credibility of Wiki as a fair and complete source. Anyone looking up the Weathermen can find a reference to the unsolved McDonnell murder--except now in Wikipedia. This diminishes Wikipedia's credibility. For another source on the McDonnell murder, see-- http://books.google.com/books?id=_hEoAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Brian+V.+McDonnell%22&dq=%22Brian+V.+McDonnell%22&pgis=1 Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Ajschorschiii, you are absolutely correct. This episode is one of the most shamefully one-sided I have ever witnessed. It has the effect of extraordinarily diminishing the credibility of Wikipedia. If you want an unbiased account of the pipe-bomb murder of San Francisco Police Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell, you will need to consult a source other than Wikipedia. There are hundreds of places to find this information; it's not as if this is a particularly controversial topic. Information on this horrible crime was contributed originally by someone else, and had been a part of this article for several weeks. Now all related material has been destroyed from both the main article and this discussion page by certain editors and even a Wikipedia administrator. Any further attempt to discuss this event has been met with a threat to block, citing bogus WP:BLP concerns. Note that BLP policy deals with poorly sourced information about living persons; it does not encourage suppression of information about an investigation of an organization such as the Weathermen. True, at one point there was also material related to specific persons, but that was removed along with the entire section, and any attempt to restore the strongly-sourced part dealing with just the Weatherman organization's involvement has been suppressed. Note that this material was not merely changed to be more balanced or better sourced; all mention of this crime was completedly removed. Here's an interesting dilemma: How do you discuss whether proposed material fails the BLP test without at least presenting it for discussion on the talk page? When I attempted just restore information about the crime and its investigation, I was threatened with being blocked. (Also note while my edits were bold as encouraged by Wikipedia policy, at no time did I violate the WP:3RR rule.) Here's another amazing thing: Apparently Congressional testimony -- that's right, information in the Congressional record itself -- is not considered a reliable source by this group. If you don't believe it, take a look at the record of attempted mediation above. I would encourage you to try to contribute some balance to this egregiously distorted article. However, personally I will not be attempting to contribute any further to this article and perhaps others for a while. Furthermore, I will weigh this experience whenever I read any Wikipedia article in the future. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

I think the first paragraph needs a clear statement as to exactly what the group stood for (or against). You have to read through the second paragraph to start getting the idea that they were anti-war protestors, but still that's not going to be clear to the casual reader (and maybe I'm not getting it right either). OwenSaunders (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Made a stub

"San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing." Then a link to it from here. (Viz the "Weatherman (organization)")  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was an appropriate thing to do, as Grathwhol's claims and testimony have been excluded on WP:BLP grounds, as the evidence used was published by Grathwhol, no one other than Grathwhol has provided evidence to link it to the weatherman, and it is giving undue weight to his accusation to repeat it considering the lack of any evidence in support and that no investigation has ever supported charges against the people he named as responsible for the bombing. --Barberio (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This remainder I'd merged to over there is still in dispute:

Investigatations of the time centered on members of Weather Underground Organization or Black Panther Party militants. An FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, who had successfully penetrated Weatherman from the late summer of 1969 until April 1970, later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that a high-ranking member of the Weatherman in his presence had claimed responsibility for the bomb's constructed and placement. ^{— Grathwohl (1976) pp. 168–69}

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fine idea to create a separate article because as information this wikilinks better to the various people, incidents, and organizations involved - the black panthers, the weathermen, the san francisco police, etc. The BLP issue is the same, whichever article it is in. The event is notable, whether or not Grathwohl's testimony is permissible here. I think treating it fairly and neutrally in its own article may be the best way to isolate that issue from this article. Also, the farther attenuated it gets from the bio of the persons involved, the less disparaging it is to those people, hence the less likelihood of a BLP problem. I think that but for the BLP issue, Grathwohl's opinion and testimnony, though not necessarily reliable, is nevertheless notable. Incidentally, did he say that B.D. told him directly that she did it? I thought he said that B.A. claimed that B.D. did it, which would make the above quote inaccurate, right? Wikidemon (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikidemon.

Well -- since there's of course no such necessity per se of a quorum on Wikipedia -- pending a little longer wait for further input and discussion, I'm going ahead and reinsterting the information above at the stub (after filling in the specification that the informant expressed belief the cadre member by implication accepted responsibility on behalf of the organization). And thanks, Barberio.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sgt. Brian McDonnell

redundant discussion - please see Talk:Bill Ayers
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment The short and well sourced paragraph that Wikidemon keeps deleting is; On February 24, 2009, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” that establish how Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell, a 20-year veteran of the department. The San Francisco Police Department’s Park Station was bombed Feb. 16, 1970, killing Sgt. Brian McDonnell. Eight other officers were injured. McDonnell died two days after the bombing. The case has yet to be solved. This above text is not an accusation; the closing states that "The case has yet to be solved." This is a neutrally worded text of an event verified by mainstream media. For more info, please see; Fox News' article Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing, PR Newswire's article Attorney General Urged to Investigate Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn by Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism, Accuracy in Media's article Bernadette Dohrn, Bill Ayers and the bomb that killed a cop, and Chicagoland's Television's article San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers are a few good examples of this current event. This event, involving San Francisco Police Officers Association and Bill Ayers has been well noted by multiple reliable sources that have verified its notability. As such the section should be not be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon has yet to state how this current event, reported on by mutltiple reliable sources, is a BLP violation. Until you state exactly how this is a BLP violation, you are just making accusations. There are multiple reliable sources that have reported on this event, there is no reason why it should not be included. Reports by mainstream media do not violate BLP - if you disagree - state how. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Palin

Alright, having been asked to comment on this, can we really say that a blog makes a RS? No, according to WP:SPS. However, more importantly to single out Palin is incredibly WP:UNDUE. If it was too fringe to be mentioned in the Obama article how is it relevant enough to warrant mentioning in the Weatherman article? She wasn't even the first one to mention it and to keep inserting it is WP:CHERRY. Soxwon (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would rather keep most if not all of this "material" out of this article and maybe include it in the Ayes article, but to single out Palin and say she made this the central theme of her campaign as some suggest does'nt seem accurate. Anyways, Tom 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Palin had nothing to do with my objections to the latest attempt to change the article, reverted five times in three hours (!).[12] My objection is the POV editorial comments that people (1) questioned, (2) Obama's relationship with Ayers, (3) based on Obama's relationship with Ayers. As the sources say: (1) it was not a question, but a political move; (2) there was no relationship with Ayers to question (the statement presupposed that there was a relationship to question, thus taking the anti-Obama POV); and (3) the questioning was not based on a relationship, but rather based on an attempt to win an election. The second point in particular has longstanding consensus in several articles, and is contradicted by every reliable source on the subject. I agree that we should not describe this in undue detail here on the Weathermen article, but even so, edit warring disputed changes into the encyclopedia on a bogus claim of WP:RS is misplaced - come on people! Are you really claiming that it is unverifiable that Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists?" or that this claim was a notable event? If you think a source is weak, fix the source. Now can we please go back to the neutral description of the nature of the claims?Wikidemon (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous version 1) isolated Palin as the sole critic, which is false and 2) used an unreliable source (a self published blog) to hammer the point. The sources say that Clinton and George Stephanoupolos brought up the Ayers relationship in the Clinton/Obama primary debate, long before Palin was even thought of as the VP candidate. Palin is in the list of accusors, but she is not the only one. To imply otherwise is obviously POV. And I did fix the source and added a second source. Were you so upset with the change that you didn't even notice that? So quick to revert that you didn't even review the change? Bytebear (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

by the way, for similar blockage of changes relating to Ayers, see Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. It seems the same people are following me around Wikipedia blocking changes and trying to prematurely end discussion. Bytebear (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You removed the "palling around with terrorists" quote rather than finding a source for it, and also slanted the POV. This is not really the place to talk about editor behavior, but now that you menion it yes - given your recent edit warring it would not be unreasonable for editors to keep an eye out for attempts to push the Ayers / Obama campaign smear. On the other hand, this has all been tried before on the same articles by a series of disruptive editors so it would also not be surprising if a number of editors happen to have them in their watch list.Wikidemon (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense Bytebear, but you aren't interesting/notorious enogh to wiki-stalk. I just edited in an easy solution; new source, old, non-POV pushing wording. Sarah Palin made the Ayers allegations a central theme in her campaign. By contrast, George Stephanopoulos asked Hillary Clinton a single question in a primary debate, and that was it. To conclude that Palin and Stephanopoulos and Clinton are therefore on equal footing in making Ayers linkage accusations is simply ludicrous. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet you have the Ayers family rebuffing clinton[13]? She was the first to bring it up, and that bears some mentioning. I don't know that it would have even been an issue had she not brought it to the forefront (it was only after she did that the Republicans brought it up). Soxwon (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Tarc, do you have a source for your claim that Palin made this a central theme of her campaign?TIA, Tom 14:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Does any of this really matter? Whether it was a "central theme" or just a repeated campaign statement, Palin's "palling around with terrorists" comment certainly made a lot of news. But if people don't want that in this article, then we don't have to use it. This is an article about the Weathermen, not about Palin's campaign appearances. I have made a hopefully agreeable edit to remove the redundancy of of saying "relationship with Bill Ayers" twice in one sentence, changed "relationship" to "contacts" per lots of discussion here because "relationship" was what some of the people were trying to prove, and also removed Stephanoupolos. We can't list everybody who "questioned" it - we would have to include the early right wing bloggers from England, the GOP, and goodness knows who else. In fact, if we can't come up with a list everyone agrees on we should probably leave the names off because again, that is not the focus of this article. The problem with Stephanoupolos is that he "questioned" the relationship literally - he asked Obama a question about it as moderator of a debate. By contrast, Clinton (mostly via her campaign), Palin, and McCain "questioned" in the sense of criticism. So putting them all in a list together is a bit awkward. BTW, I understand where people are coming from and do not intend this as a reversion of anyone, but all the same I've edited this section 3X in 24 hours, so to be careful I will not do a 4th. Cheers and happy editing, Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine, I don't think there will be any objections. Soxwon (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Bytebear (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Weather Underground

The title "Weatherman (organization)" is inappropriate. One of the dominant themes of the organization was feminism and the "weatherman" name was abandoned early in the organization's history. Fred Talk 12:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing

This "characterized by strident and verbose anti-imperialist, feminist, and Black liberation rhetoric," in the introduction could probably be improved, "rhetoric" has connotations as applied to revolutionary positions. Fred Talk 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty women, handsome men

In my opinion this edit is inappropriate; it is a direct quote from a source in The New York Times. And frankly, speaking from personal experience, those folks WERE pretty, and good talkers too. They were charismatic and articulate, just like the sky is blue or lead is heavy. Fred Talk 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would re-insert it if warranted but put the citation right after the adjectives; perhaps put them in quotes and make sure they conform to the source. Pretty / handsome is not quite the same as charismatic / articulate. Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FBI informant plus 2 snitches

WRe allegations of Grathwohl (see here (starts at 4:55) and here), Steen (now homeless) and Latimer (now dead), see Talk:San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing#Possible Weatherman connex?. ↜Just M E here , now 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

further reading

It's redundant for the article to have two sections titled "further reading" and "external links and further reading." I don't know what the best solution would be.Prezbo (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Weather Underground Organization

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Weather Underground Organization's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Varon":

• From John Jacobs (student leader): Varon, Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies, 2004.
• From Terry Robbins: Varon, Jeremy. Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, The Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence In the Sixties and Seventies. University of California Press: Berkeley, California, 2004.

Reference named "Wilkerson":

• From John Jacobs (student leader): Wilkerson, Flying Close to the Sun: My Life and Times As a Weatherman, 2007.
• From Terry Robbins: Wilkerson, Cathy. Flying Too Close To The Sun. Seven Stories Press: New York, New York, 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Section titled "Injuries and Police Officer Deaths by the Weather Underground"

This section has significant problems.

Fist, on a layout level, it appears to be in the middle of the "Legacy" section, as text on the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee continues after text on about injuries and police officer deaths. That should be easy to correct.

More substantively, however, it makes a number of serious and uncited allegations. This is particularly problematic given that many Weather members are still alive, so the spirit if not the letter of the policy around Biographies of Living Persons should at least help to guide the article. To wit: the text accuses the organization of the "maiming of a lawyer, killing of four to five police officers, seriously wounding another six officers." What are the sources for these accusations of murder and assault of 11-12 people?

The text then refers to planting and attempting to plant nail bombs. Again, what are the citations for these bombings and attempted bombings? It is known that the organization was building nail bombs when they exploded in the Greenwich Village townhouse in 1970, killing three members. This is certainly important. But it is different than actively planting them or injuring or killing officers with them.

The section appears to begin to list officers killed, but only one name appears there (more on that below). Is this list a work in progress? If so, perhaps it should be removed until it is completed. I have looked at past edits, and the only other name that appears to have been in this list is that of Boston police officer Walter Schroeder. I'm not sure of the reasons for that name being removed, but I support the removal, as Office Schroeder's killers, while left-wing militants of the same period, do not appear to have been members of the Weather Underground. [Note, for instance, that Weather is not mentioned in this Wikipedia entry on getaway car driver Katherine Ann Power, and that the FBI website refers to Power as having been "inaccurately associated with the Weather Underground" at http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan04/weather012904.htm .]

The one person listed is Richard Elroy. Presumably, this is Richard Elrod, who was paralyzed during the "Days of Rage" in Chicago in 1969. He was not killed, making the text clearly inaccurate. Still, what happened to Mr. Elrod is tragic. But the cited article and the Wikipedia entry on the Days of Rage make clear that there is, at the least, controversy on how he was paralyzed. As I understand it, Mr. Elrod says that when he tried to stop a Weather Underground member fleeing from police, the member, Brian Flanagan, kicked him repeatedly. Mr. Flanagan says that he did not kick Mr. Elrod, and that the latter's injuries came from hitting his head after trying to stop Mr. Flanagan. Flanagan was tried and acquitted, suggesting that there is at the very least a reasonable doubt that he actively attacked Mr. Elrod.

I welcome comments on what to do with this section. But as is, it clearly seems not to meet quality standards. Mgllama (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section and am placing it here on the talk page for discussion and sourcing. It seems out of place in the middle of the legacy section. Also the claims made in the excised paragraph are contradicted by sourced information in this and related articles.

• The allegation of "four or five" police officers killed is questionable and probably wrong. Judging by the List of Weatherman actions the allegation could be in reference to the San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing and/or to the Brink's robbery (1981). According to San Francisco Chronicle articles of 2007 and 2009 referenced in the Park Station bombing article, there is no evidence linking the WU to the bombing, though police and the FBI continue to investigate. The Brink's robbery was conducted after the Weather Underground disbanded and involved former members, now calling themselves the May 19th Communist Organization who were acting with members of the Black Liberation Army.
• The contention that Richard Elroy's neck was broken by a WU member Brian Flanagan as Elroy attempted to assist police in arresting Flanagan during the Days of Rage is contradicted by the resulting criminal trial ending in an acquittal. This is discussed in depth in Bryan Smith's referenced Chicago Magazine article from 2006.

The excised text follow, if anybody cares to correct it.

Injuries and Police Officer Deaths by the Weather Underground

The Weatherman Underground statements of only committing crimes against property are contradicted by their maiming of a lawyer, killing of four to five police officers[citation needed], seriously wounding another six officers, planting of nail bombs, and attempts to plant nail bombs that had they worked as designed would have killed many more officers.

City Lawyer Richard Elroy neck is broken during Days of Rage in 1969[119]

reference: ^ Bryan Smith (December, 2006). "Sudden Impact". Chicago Magazine. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2006/Sudden-Impact/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc. Retrieved December 29, 2009.

DJ Silverfish (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Time article about the Richard Elrod incident and a retrospective by Chicago magazine in December 2006 which included interviews with both men. I would draw your attention to the end in particular: *And yet, in what may be a final unexpected turn, Elrod seems far less resentful than his adversary. In fact, he believes justice was served through Flanagan's acquittal-at least on the charge of attempted murder. "I don't think he ever meant to kill me," Elrod says. "I also don't think he felt sorry for anyone he has hurt. But I can't go through life hateful or upset at people; life isn't worth it." Thus it was that in 2001, just before the September 11th attacks, Elrod accepted an invitation to dinner with two of the onetime leaders of Weatherman-Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. At a restaurant in downtown Chicago, Elrod and his wife listened as the two former radicals, now long married, with a family of their own, apologized for the heartache and suffering Elrod endured as a result of that day. The pair made it clear that they did not believe Flanagan caused Elrod's injuries, and that they were not disavowing their militant beliefs. Still, "they were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, ‘We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"

Flatterworld (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Name

We're supposed to use the 'usual' name. That means Weatherman or Weather Underground. Anything else belongs in parenthesis to differentiate it from other Weather Underground articles. I fixed the redirects. Flatterworld (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This edit should be reverted. You use "usual names" within an article: an article title should be the actual name, which was in fact Weather Underground Organization (WUO). The article itself clearly states this numerous times. It's also the name self-applied to all the various manifestoes and communiques. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Recruiting

The recruitment paragraph under Practice is substantial enough (with likely more to come) to be its own entry.--Cykesummers (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Combining "Fred Hampton's Murder as a Catalyst" with WUO

Thank you for the suggestion to combine my page with the Weather Underground Page, however there was a reason that I chose not to put it on there. I did debate over whether to add it to the existing WUO page, but there really is not an appropriate place to put it. I also think I provided enough information with enough credible sources that it can suffice as it's own page. Kbm3 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Flint War Council

There are two different depictions of the events of the "Flint War Council" on this page (one "SDS Convention, December, 1969" under Formation and Background, and the other, "Flint War Council December, 27-31, 1969" under Major Activities and Suspected Activities). The description of the event is broadly similar, although there is a discrepency that I would like to see resolved. The SDS Convention entry says that there were two major decisions made during the event, as does the Flint War Council entry. Each, however, lists different decisions. The SDS Convention entry describes the decisions as 1) To begin violent, armed struggle, and 2) to go underground. To my mind, those are merely different aspects of the same broader decision, and the Flint War Council entry describes the decisions as 1) To go underground and begin armed struggle, and 2) to disband SDS. This seems more logical to me.

Whichever version is accepted, however, I believe we should then standardize the other. There should not be two differing accounts of the same event on the same page.--Wrih (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I have edited the SDS Convention entry to bring it in line with the Flint War Council Entry. --Wrih (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)