Talk:Sterling Hall bombing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
| This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles. |
|
WikiProject Crime To-do:
|
|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Creation
I created this page to elaborate on the Sterling Hall bombing, which I felt we could go into more detail about if it were on it's own page. I did not want to detract from the UW-Madison history by discussing this even in too much detail.
I'm also interested in this article personally, not only because I took classes in this building, but now I actually work in the building next door (to which the physics department has moved). So please don't just speedy delete. There is a lot more to be said about this topic, I just didn't have time recently myself to do it. So is this a way of saying "hurry up!"? JabberWok 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- An article with original research meeting Wiki standards could be appropriate but not in the sense that the new article detracts the history of Sterling Hall from the History of the University which must remain on the main page. Also, the topic heading, Hall needs to be capitalized.
[edit] Content
There is more content on the page today, however sketchy. It appears to be going beyond what is on the main page.
So far it is kinda anecdotal and non researched.
You might expand by looking into the Karlton brothers being hometown boys from the blue collar side of town, dad worked at Gisholt on East Washington where perhaps they got some of their orientation (as opposed to being West Siders). And David was sorta a New Yorker outatown guy. It was kinda pathetic when he was released on bail in his pink sweater to see him putting up "Free David" posters all over campus by himself to be viewed by a student community that did not even remember his name by that time. Of course, the locals did.
Leo was the one that looked the part of a radical, he was a terrifically friendly guy on the rowing team with long "radical hair" that made him standout as being close to whatever secret things were going on. You might describe his writing and editorials on the Cardinal and his role as Editorial Director.
An article would be greatly improved by profiling the bombers backgrounds and also the interplay of the campus administration totally failing the community by not recognizing the ticking time bomb on their hands (admin not faculty). There probably should be inclusion of Chancellor Young who was a very nice guy, but again, had his head in the sand.
Also, this article would require a comprehensive research of the damage that ocurred, its costs, bio on the fatality, info on the MATH research project and its denials. And inclusion of how the bombing completely shocked the campus, local and state community. And how the bombing changed the anti war movement on campus.
Kyle Andrew Brown 02:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Much of the information I've placed on this page is derived from the two books I've placed in the "References" section. So I'm confused by your "anecdotal and non researched" statement. Tom Bates researched his book with many personal interviews - even interviews with Karl Armstrong, and David Fine themselves. I've also personally looked up and printed off full copies of stories that ran in the Madison papers after the bombing. But I'll try to add more references as soon as I can.
- Also, it sounds like you seem know a lot about the bombing and the campus at the time. You could add some stuff too, no? JabberWok 03:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] is the quote significant?
What is the significance of the the Howard Zinn quote? It's factually incorrect, and it doesn't add anything new or insightful. Either get rid of it, or add more to make a balance. There are lots of quotes in Bates' book, and plenty of others have publicly commented on it, including James Michener (sp), Paul Soglin, and John Wiley. Professor (retired) Frank Scarpace was interviewed about the incident in May, 2007, on Wisconsin Public Radio.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.67.11.216 (talk • contribs) 21:59, June 6, 2007
- In what way is it factually incorrect? Please list references. JabberWok 03:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Maybe the anon means the last part where Zinn says: "But one man was working there, and he was killed." versus "injuring four men inside, and killing Robert Fassnacht, a post-graduate student and promising young physicist." [1] or maybe they mean "planted a bomb in a military research building" versus "parked a stolen Ford Econoline van next to Sterling Hall" [2] which was not a "military research building". Maybe the anon takes issue with the statement "remarkably nonviolent movement", even though this was the only car bombing that occurred, there were riots and major cases of civil disorder in other locations that forced national guard call-ups, and caused thousands of dollars in damages. One such incident was in Carbondale, IL at SIUC, "By the end of the May demonstrations, windows were broken out of 78 businesses causing more than $75,000 in damages. The University reported $25,525 in damages to the campus as a result of the demonstrations." [3] I'm sure there are other examples, perhaps they should clarify themselves. I also fail to understand why this article needs a quote section, especially one with just one quote. What other quotes would be added to it? --Dual Freq 04:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dual Freq raises some very interesting points about the Zinn quote, and I'd like to add one more. The bomb was not "timed" to go off; there was no timer switch. It was ignited by an ordinary fuse. The perpetrators made a warning call to the police at 3:38 AM; the bomb detonated 4 minutes later. The perpetrators saw lights on the building, and were aware that the building was in use 24/7, based on their prior surveillance (the perpetrators left behind notebooks detailing their plans). These facts are substantiated in Bates' and Morris' books. If Zinn has other quotes pertinent to the political implications of the bombing, those would be fine. But his quote in the article is a mischaracterization of the bombing altogether.
- Dual Freq, thanks for finding the interesting quotes from Behr and Knowles.
- Dual Freq raises some very interesting points about the Zinn quote, and I'd like to add one more. The bomb was not "timed" to go off; there was no timer switch. It was ignited by an ordinary fuse. The perpetrators made a warning call to the police at 3:38 AM; the bomb detonated 4 minutes later. The perpetrators saw lights on the building, and were aware that the building was in use 24/7, based on their prior surveillance (the perpetrators left behind notebooks detailing their plans). These facts are substantiated in Bates' and Morris' books. If Zinn has other quotes pertinent to the political implications of the bombing, those would be fine. But his quote in the article is a mischaracterization of the bombing altogether.
- Maybe the anon means the last part where Zinn says: "But one man was working there, and he was killed." versus "injuring four men inside, and killing Robert Fassnacht, a post-graduate student and promising young physicist." [1] or maybe they mean "planted a bomb in a military research building" versus "parked a stolen Ford Econoline van next to Sterling Hall" [2] which was not a "military research building". Maybe the anon takes issue with the statement "remarkably nonviolent movement", even though this was the only car bombing that occurred, there were riots and major cases of civil disorder in other locations that forced national guard call-ups, and caused thousands of dollars in damages. One such incident was in Carbondale, IL at SIUC, "By the end of the May demonstrations, windows were broken out of 78 businesses causing more than $75,000 in damages. The University reported $25,525 in damages to the campus as a result of the demonstrations." [3] I'm sure there are other examples, perhaps they should clarify themselves. I also fail to understand why this article needs a quote section, especially one with just one quote. What other quotes would be added to it? --Dual Freq 04:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "...to this day..."
I have tagged this {{when}} not because I don't understand the expression, but because in this context it is meaningless.
Whenever it was added, it meant that he had not been captured as of whatever date the source was. Now it's some period of time later. Maybe the source is only a couple of days old, maybe it's five years old. Reading the article, we cannot tell if he had not been captured as of 15 January 2008 or 17 January 2003.
For clarity, this should say "and as of (date of source) was still at large."
Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. It means 'as of the day you are reading this, he is still at large', with the task of updating the article to add the additional information (i.e., date) of an eventual capture left for the future. I will do it if no-one else will. HenryLarsen (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
