Talk:Bernardine Dohrn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bernardine Dohrn article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.


Contents

[edit] Removing side comment regarding lack of fatalities, and whether this makes the WUO "notable"

I am removing the note which claims that none of the bombings the Weathermen took part in caused a fatality (other than the deaths of the three members in Greenwich Village) and that this makes them notable as terrorists.

As the main article on the group states, there was at least one fatality in a bombing connected to the Weather Underground. While none of the cells took direct responsibility for the attack, this does not mean they did not do it. After all, the public outcry if they actually *killed* someone might cause some of their supporters to turn against them. (My understanding is that, despite a hall full of witnesses, some ex-members now deny Dohrn's controversial statement supporting the Manson murders.) However, as the Weatherman main article explains, they apparently later took great pains to avoid killing people, despite their (facetious?) boasting about killing rich people. However, the IRA has been using the same methods to avoid civilian casualties (ie calling up and warning of a bomb) so this doesn't make the Weathermen special.

Considering well over 20 bombings of police stations, government buildings, and other public places by the Weathermen - which, by American terrorist standards, makes them greatly successful, it is disingenuous (and a bit biased) to suggest that they mostly are notable for not killing anyone.67.10.131.229 04:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

On October 18, 1974, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the WUO, testified before a US Senate Subcommittee that Bill Ayers, a WUO leader, had told him that Bernardine Dohrn, another WUO leader, had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco. Ayers told Grathwohl the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.
That bomb killed SF police officer Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell. Not only did Weather Underground bombings kill and maim people, but Dorhn herself "...had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.165.28 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There is suspicion in some corners that this bomb was the work of the Weathermen, but no strong proof or official conclusion, and it is generally attributed to the Black Liberation Army, which claimed responsibility. That bombing has not been fully explained in nearly 35 years so it's unlikely to get resolved anytime soon. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing further POV and inaccuracies

I removed some additional material and added more details. Rereading it in depth, it appears to have been written by an apologist, as it ignores some salient information about Ms. Dohrn's past, instead only mentioning what she and her husband do today. She is a fascinating and frustrating person, and we should do her justice by telling the truth about her, warts and all (ie not ignoring controversies), without resorting to bias. I've been researching the Weather Underground for several years and was particularly peeved to see "COINTELPRO created dissent" blamed for the breakup of the group, which neither the main article on the Weather Underground, nor any reputable source, claims.

That's pretty insulting to the Weathermen themselves, too - despite having strong beliefs (right or wrong) that they were willing to break the law for, the infiltration of the government (COINTELPRO) created dissent and broke them up? Gimme a break. Most marriages that fail don't need COINTELPRO to help them; and this was a volatile group during volatile times, trying to become revolutionaries. We're also talking about the group that split up SDS in 1969.

COINTELPRO did collect information on the group, and may have put moles into the group; however, the main reason for the group's break includes a) arrests of members, and b) the usual "creative differences", including, finally, much more radical communist theory in the group, and arguments about what the purpose of the group was. A number of the group, including Dohrn, eventually were repudiated or left the group by the mid-1970s. Mark Rudd's interview with San Diego Indy Media is pretty instructive in explaining how isolating the group could get, and how it changed over the years.67.10.131.229 04:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The current article reads like it was written by an opponent instead of highlighting the entire life of Dohrn it chooses to focus heavily upon a specific period of her life and to give it undue weight. I am not sure what you you removed or what you added but as it now stands the article needs to be seriously re-worked or deleted because it violates Wikipedia's policy on living persons. Wikipedia policy clearly states, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous" so your comment about not ignoring controversies directly violate this policy. Wikipedia policy also states that "articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material." I am going to wait a week and if the article is not sourced properly I will delete any references that are of a controversial nature which means pretty much everything about Weather Underground. And I personally urge any editor editing this article to remove all unreliablely sourced or non-sourced information after giving a reasonable amount of time for corrections to be made. Edward Lalone 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd

The final paragraph referred to South Africa as a 'Communist country'. Since this is clearly false, I've deleted it. Just wondering why anyone put it in in the first place, though.--RainbowCommie 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a lawyer

Dohrn is often described as a "lawyer" but she has never been admitted to the bars of either Illinois or New York. According to this article in the Northwestern Chronicle, Dohrn was unable to pass the Moral Character and Fitness portion of the New York bar due to her criminal past. Therefore, to say she was an "associate" at Sidley & Austin is inaccurate, since at best she was a paralegal or intern. Being a law school graduate does not make one a lawyer. CagedRage 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This discrepency should be researched further as the article also states, "Dohrn's legal career began in 1984 as an associate at the prestigious law firm of Sidley & Austin. At the time, the law firm was headed by Howard Trienens, who O'Shea said represented Dohrn's father-in-law Thomas Ayers when he was running Commonwealth Edison." So based on the article you cite it would appear that she was not "at best a paralegal or intern" but in fact an associate. It is my understanding that an associate is a lawyer and is employed as such and that Partners are those who have part ownership in the firm. The claim that she is a lawyer has been made by several credible sources. Even the article you cite states she was an associate at Sidley and Austin prior to being hired by Northwestern as a Professor of Law. Also Time Magazine states published the following statement "Dohrn, a lawyer since 1967, is today director of Northwestern University Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center. Dohrn is married to ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers, who teaches education at the University of Illinois." [1] It seems that if a credible and reliable magazine can use the term lawyer to describe Dohrn than we can safely do the same until credible sources state otherwise. Edward Lalone 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but no cigar. The ultimate authorities on the issue are the state bars of New York and Illinois, neither of which list a "Bernardine Dohrn" in their rolls. Search for yourself: New York State Bar and Illinois State Bar. It doesn't matter what articles say what. If she was never admitted to the bars of any state, then she is not a lawyer. Period. CagedRage 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little Biographic info on the Subject - NPOV

While the subject appears to be notable, there is really very little in the article which discusses her specifically. The majority of this article seems to be about the Weathermen group and its activity -- not about Bernardine, which I think is the reason for the NPOV tag. By the nature of the Weathermen it will be hard to include background information about the group and maintain a NPOV, as any departure from what and when is subjective. The why is not pertineint to Wikipedia and can only be speculated. I suggest that discussion of the Weatherman activities be relocated to the weathermen page (note that the Weathermen page is not currently tagged for NPOV). Also, there are few references -- I have added one which was mentioned on the discussion page. --Kevin Murray 19:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article based on the above concerns and removed the Cleanup and NPOV tags. I have asked another editor to review the new next for NPOV check. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I added some biographical information on Dohrn including her birthdate and education as well as current information. I am still very concerned about this article from reading it. It is not well sourced and it's hardly biographical. It may be difficult to provide credible sources for this article but my suggestion would be to find links to actual newspaper articles or actual hard-copies of the news information and source that information instead of relying on what is available online as it seems that most of the information online is of a libelous nature. Whether the information is true isn't relevent to Wikipedia policy as all controversial information that is not sourced should be removed. Edward Lalone 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of Wikipedia Policy

This article borders on being libel and needs credible sources. More biographical information is needed and less op-ed about a specific period of her life which which undue weight in this article. Much of it needs to be re-worked so that it is more biographical. There is no birthdate provided, and no information about her early life or where she was born or who her parents were or even what degrees she holds. This is not an encyclopedic article as it now stands and needs to be seriously re-worked. If I have time I will do more research and do some writing for it. My suggestion though for those who want to edit this article would be to start putting in more biographical information. Based on the content of the article it seems that this article may have been taken directly from one or more articles that were unfavorable to Dohrn without any attention being given to any other sources. Edward Lalone 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable link

Removed a quasi-libelous link [1] calling Dohrn a "terrorist" who was only hired by Northwestern's law school because of nepotism. One can certainly document the controversy surrounding her without using such a biased and slanderous source. The article contains mostly the tirade of an angry alumnus who just spews bile on Dohrn. Find a better source. Inoculatedcities 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References for Talk Page

  1. ^ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,979269,00.html

[edit] Zayd

Her son, Zayd, was a major character in the non-fiction book A Hope in the Unseen by Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind. Should this be mentioned? Mmarks10 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Can someone supply a photo of BD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manson Quote

It's probably her best-known single statement - should it be included along with her recent (late 90s) claim (mentioned in the NYT) that it was intended as a joke?JustThatGuy2 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If she said it and she's know for it, it's fair game but it really ought to have some context - when she said it, under what circumstances, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)