Talk:Weatherman (organization)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Larry Grathwohl

Can anyone tell me why their is no mention of Larry Grathwohl (FBI informant who worked with the Weathermen) on this article? Orthuberra 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Greenwich Village Statement

I will go ahead an leave the statement as edited by TDC. While I still don't understand the reasons for his edit, (the very next paragraph says "The group took ultimately successful measures to avoid any loss of life as a result of these bombings,") I think the statement he removed can be left out for the above reason, (it's redundent.) I still wish to record my disagreement with the idea that intent requires a source. To compare with a different terrorist group, would we also say that al-Qaeda cannot be stated as intending to cause lethal damage in the 9/11 attacks? I would argue that the fact that they crashed aircraft into buildings conclusively proves lethal intent and that a cite would not be needed. Likewise, I argue that contacting the target of a bombing in advance so it can be evacuated conclusively proves non-lethal intent. Am I wrong in this? Sperril 20:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - -

DJSilverfish, I created the chronology, and I didn't do any selective editing. (Intentionally, anyways.) My sources are:

 * The FBI files on the WUO, available at http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/weather.htm
 * "The Weather Underground", 2002 documentary,
 * http://www.diyzine.com/weatherundergroundarticle3.html , whom which lists his/her sources as:
    
    Secondary Sources
 Caute, David.  The Year of the Barricades: A journey through 1968.  New York: Harper Row,
 1988.
 Fraser, Ronald.  1968: A Student Generation in Revolt.  New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.
 Gitlin, Todd.  The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage.  New York: Bantam Books, 1987.
 Jacobs, Ron.  The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground.  New York:
 Verso, 1997.
 Matusow, Allen J.  The Unraveling of America: A History of Liberalism in the 1960’s.  New
 York: Harper Row, 1984.

    Primary Sources
 Ayers, Bill.  Fugitive Days.  New York: Penguin Puntam Inc, 2003.
 Ayers, Bill, et al.  You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way The Wind Blows.
 New Left Notes. June 1969.

 Chicago Office of the F.B.I.  Weather Underground Organization.  Chicago: F.B.I., 1976. 
 Gilbert, David.  Students For a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground Organization.  
 Toronto: Arm The Spirit & Abraham Guillen Press, 2002
 Grathwohl, Larry.  Bringing Down America.  New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1976.
 Pear, Robert.  F.B.I. Agent Says Cuba Officials at U.N. Instructed Weathermen.  New York
 Times.   25 Sep.1980.
 Rudd, Mark and Green, Sam.  Interview. San Diego Independent Media Center, Sep. 20, 2003.
 Students For A Democratic Society.  New Left Notes. Journal.  Jan, 1966-Nov. 1969. Chicago:
 Students For A Democratic Society, 1966-1969.
 Weather Underground Organization.  Osawatomie.  Newsletter. Spring, 1975-Winter, 1976.  
 Weather Underground Organization.  Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-
 Imperialism.  San Francisco: Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, 1975.

 *Encarta Reference Library Premium 2005 (no information was taken directly, because of copyright)

That should be all of it. If there's still a problem, please contact me! Glad to help. :) - Tap

Thanks for the references! I didn't mean to imply you'd deleted info from your own post. DJ Silverfish 16:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

I added the line about the praise for Charles Manson. It is true. I read it in a number of books, and it is a number of places on the web: http://www.mystery.tv/cults_and_magik/charles_manson/articles/cmcm_01b_the_year_of_fear_1969.jsp http://www.af-north.org/social_relationship.html http://www.charliemanson.com/rolling-stone-1.htm

[edit] Ft Dix

These initially included preparations for a bombing of a US military noncommissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix.

  • The well-bred Weatherman leaders, miscomprehending the origin of their own radicalism, somehow imagined that working-class kids would embrace their extremist creed more readily than bourgeois college students. From Seattle to Detroit to New York, they set up urban communes as bases for organizing the would-be rank and file of the revolution, but predictably they failed to rouse the proletariat. So they turned to what even they themselves now recognize as terrorism. They began building bombs to detonate at sites of their purported oppressors, like a hall in Fort Dix, N.J., that would be hosting an Army dance. But on March 6, 1970, the bomb meant for the American soldiers went off prematurely, blowing up the Greenwich Village town house where its violence-drunk manufacturers were living. Three of them were killed. David Greenberg, Slate [1]. Retrieved April 21, 2005.
  • To their credit, it was an exam they failed. The group seems to have been shocked away from further extremity by discovering that someone could actually die doing this stuff when three of their colleagues perished while making a bomb in the basement of a Greenwich Village brownstone in March 1970. That bomb was intended to kill American servicemen attending a dance at Fort Dix, N.J. Perhaps as a consequence, the Weathermen’s subsequent violence—more than 20 bombings over several years—hurt no one, and appeared largely symbolic, aimed with plenty of warning at government buildings during off-hours. Will Blythe NEWSWEEK [2]. Retrieved April 21, 2005.
  • Susan Wager, Henry Fonda's ex wife, was doing laundry in her basement up the street when the explosion happened. "a real quaver ran through the ground," she said later. She ran out on the street and saw two young women covered in soot- they had managed to escape the fire that was raging in the ruined building. One of them was completely naked- she had been taking a shower when the explosion happened. Wager took them back to her house and gave them clothes. She went out in the street for a moment, and when she returned, they were gone. The women were later identified as Catherine Wilkerson and Kathy Boudin, both in their 20's. Both were out on bail for assaulting a police officer in Chicago. And both were known to be members of the Weathermen, or Weather Underground- a radical student political organization. Three bodies were eventually found in the remains of the townhouse, all Weathermen members. One of the bodies was Theodore Gold, who had been a leader of the student takeover at Columbia University in 1968. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) were major organizers of these protests. The Weathermen were a radical offshoot of the SDS. The name comes from the Bob Dylan song Subterranean Homesick Blues: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows..." In a move of political correctness, they later changed the name to the "Weather Underground". In the wreckage, the police found blasting caps, pipe bombs, 60 sticks of dynamite, and an antitank shell. It soon became clear that this had been a bomb factory- someone had accidentally detonated a device they were working on. It was later revealed that their target was an officer's dance at Fort Dix, N.J. [3]. Retrieved April 21, 2005.
  • The killing of Black Panther officer Fred Hampton is the next set piece. Whitehorn speculates that the government killed Hampton in his sleep for fear of his potential to become a revolutionary leader. There are scenes of Hampton's blood-stained bed and his funeral, and Weatherpeople jump in to explain why they felt they needed to respond by bombing a military dance at Fort Dix. When that bomb accidentally explodes in a Greenwich Village safe house, killing three Weathermen, the group backpedals and dedicates itself to bombing government buildings after they've been emptied, to avoid murder. There's a long, dynamic sequence that recreates the first Weatherman bomb at the San Francisco Department of Prisons with voiceover from the anonymous memoir of the bomber. David Weigel, Reason [4]. Retrieved April 21, 2005.
  • Within the next 24 hours, the cause of the violence became clear: The townhouse at 18 W. 11th St. — flanked by two identical houses — owned by James Wilkerson who was in Europe, had been left in the care of his daughter, Cathy. Cathy was a member of the antiwar revolutionary group the Weather Underground, which had evolved from the Students for a Democratic Society, and which believed, ironically, that the road to peace lay in acts of violence. She had brought in a gang of Weathermen — and Weatherwomen — and they had turned the townhouse into a bomb factory. Something had gone terribly wrong that March afternoon as they prepared a bomb containing roofing nails and dynamite, intended to be exploded at an officers’ dance in Fort Dix, N.J. Ed Gold, Memories of Weathermen explosion on W. 11th St.
  • Less than a year after that, by the spring of 1970, he was a fugitive terror suspect, fleeing federal charges that he'd planned bombings and incited riots in various Midwestern cities. Three Weathermen had blown themselves up while building a bomb in a Greenwich Village townhouse, no more than a mile from where Rudd is sitting today. To the group's everlasting shame, that bomb was intended for an officers' dance at Fort Dix, N.J., where it presumably could have killed not only military personnel but their civilian dates and whoever else might have been in the building. Andrew O'Hehir Salon [5]. Retrieved April 21, 2005.
  • March: A bomb factory explodes in New York's Greenwich Village, and three Weather activists die. Two more -- Kathy Boudin and Cathy Wilkerson -- barely escape the collapsing townhouse. The bomb was intended to massacre servicemen and their dates at a Fort Dix dance. After a year-long retreat, the group will reconceptualize itself, emerging with a philosophy of "armed propaganda," in which bombs are used against property, not people. Throughout the '70s, the W.U.O. will place bombs in government and private offices with "colonial" ties. No one will be injured. [6]PBS American Experience Guerrilla: the taking of Patty Hearst. Retrieved April 21, 2005.
  • On 6 March 1970, days after Dohrn's earnest declaration of war, members of a Weatherman cell in New York accidentally detonated a makeshift nail-bomb intended for a non-commissioned officers' ball at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The explosion ripped the front off a red-brick townhouse in Greenwich Village where the group had been hiding out, killing three members of the group instantly (the blast was so devastating that one of the would-be bombers, Diana Oughton, the daughter of a prominent Republican banker, could be identified only from the prints on her severed finger). Only two people survived: Kathy Boudin, the daughter of a progressive New York lawyer, who had gone underground following the 'Days of Rage' protests a year earlier when students ran riot in a wealthy area of Chicago, smashing store windows and clashing with police; and Cathy Wilkerson, the daughter of a radio-station magnate whose townhouse now lay in ruins. The Observer [7]. Retrieved April 21, 2005.
  • MARK RUDD: The townhouse was part of a small autonomous group in New York City that was being led by Terry Robbins.
  • BILL AYERS: Terry more than probably anyone else represented the view that it was too late for any kind of reconciliation inside this country and that the best that we could do was to bring about a catastrophic series of actions that would get the attention of the world.
  • MARK RUDD: the group that was led by Terry in that house on west 11th street was building a bomb. They had decided to set off the bomb at a noncommissioned officers dance at Fort Dix. The idea being that there are no innocent in this war of aggression.
  • INTERVIEWEE: What we wanted to do here was deliver the most horrific hit that the United States government had ever suffered on its territory. We wanted to light it up. Our slogan was bring the war home, and we really wanted to give the United States and the rest of the world a sense that this country was going to be completely unlivable if the United States continued in Vietnam, and that was the goal of this group.
  • TODD GITLIN: I think what has to be stared at is that they brought themselves, they were not brought, they brought themselves to that point, to the point of which they were ready to be mass murderers. This is mass murder we're talking about. They came to this conclusion which is the conclusion that was come to by all the great killers, whether Hitler or Stalin or Mao, that they have a grand project for the transformation and purification of the world. And in the face of that project, ordinary life is dispensable. They joined that tradition.
  • VOICE OVER: On March 6, 1970, as the Weatherman group on West 11th street put the final touches on the bomb there was a short circuit in the wiring and the device accidentally exploded.
  • NEWSCAST VOICE OVER: An expensive townhouse in Greenwich village was destroyed by three explosions which killed at least three people. The police still only know a part of the story. What they still have to find out is a good deal more about the extent of the bomb plot and the extent to which the student protesters of the 1960's have turned into more serious revolutionaries using far more lethal weapons. One body was identified as that of S.D.S. member Theodore Gold. A second dead man has not yet been identified. A third victim was identified as 28-year-old Diana Outin (Oughton) a member of the S.D.S. Weatherman faction. She was the daughter of one of the richest men in the small town, Dwight, Illinois. When he heard the news of his daughter’s death, James Outin(Oughton), a local banker and former Republican member of the Illinois house, cut short a vacation in London and hurried home.

Transcript from "The Weather Underground" documentary

I hope that will do TDC 03:49, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I put the parts I was able to access in quotes. The rest can probably be accessed later except: What is the internet source of the WU documentary quotes? DJ Silverfish 04:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the attribution of the "most horrific hit" line, currently attributed to Mark Rudd, to Brian Flannagan, the person who actually said it in the documentary. The excerpt of the movie from the Democracy Now show only identifies him as "Interviewee", but the Wikipedia article attributes the line to Rudd, who did not say it in the movie. dnm

[edit] Chronology: selective edits & sources

Anon user 146.96.95.36 exercised some selective edtiting in eliminating parts of the chronology, mostly the pretexts for some but not all of the bombings. I've restored this text. The chronology seems use communiques as sources, but probably not directly. Can anyone name the source for this chronology? DJ Silverfish 18:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There definatly needs to be sources for the chronology. The following entry states that no organization claims creidt. "16 February 1970 – A bomb is detonated at the Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen. No organization claims credit for either bombing." So why is it in the chronology? Is there proof the WUO was involved? If so we need sources. --Datajunkie 20:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is proof the WUO was involved in the Golden Gate bombing (See Congressional Record 10/18/1974 and Grathwohl(1976). Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen (Arlington House)), and this calls into to question the overly broad statement in the preamble that "no one was ever harmed in their extensive bombing campaign" other than their own members in the Greenwich Village accident. Larry Grathwohl testified to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on October 18, 1974 as follows:

“When he [Bill Ayers] returned, we had another meeting at which time―and this is the only time that any Weathermen told me about something that someone else had done―and Bill started off telling us about the need to raise the level of the struggle and for stronger leadership inside the Weathermen ‘focals’ [i.e., cells] and inside the Weatherman organization as a whole. And he cited as one of the real problems was that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act.”

Grathwohl added that Ayers “said that the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.”

He was asked, “Did he say who placed the bomb on the window ledge?” He replied, “Bernardine Dohrn.”

Asked if Ayers said that he had personally witnessed Dohrn placing the bomb, Grathwohl responded, “Well, if he wasn’t there to see it, somebody who was there told him about it, because he stated it very emphatically.”

Grathwohl also includes this conversation with Ayers in his 1976 book, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen. The park police station bombing in San Francisco was "a success," Ayers is quoted as saying, "but it's a shame when someone like Bernardine Dohrn has to make all the plans, make the bomb, and then place it herself. She should have to do only the planning."

For a secondary source, see: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/tribune-covers-for-obamas-terrorist-friends/ --Betterangelsnature (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chile

Let's keep the two links to the Chilean coup in the following sentence. September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation for its alleged connections to Pinochet - brought to power in US-backed coup against the socialist government of Salvador Allende. The two articles should make the cold war context of the coup clear enough, and provide information on why the Weather Underground would be interested. Another user finds the U.S. intervention in Chile and Chilean coup of 1973 pages 'ambiguous', so reverted the links. Ambiguous how? DJ Silverfish 22:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous as to the US involvement in the coup. Also they bombed the Kennecott Corporation not because the CIA was involved in Allende's coup, but because the Kennecott had links, real or imagined, with Pinochet. Unless you can provide a source claiming this was in retaliation to the coup, it is not really connected to this article. TDC 22:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
P.S., not to sound like a dick, but if you think that you are going to go into the U.S. intervention in Chile and Chilean coup of 1973 and significantly modify the language, I should warn you that the article as it exists was compromise that took months to reach. TDC 22:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
So far as the current article goes, the links provide context. I don't think the wording suggests any "official" role in the Chilean coup. It certainly was the WU's analysis that the Kennecott Corp was involved. It seems appropriate to note that here. I'm indifferent as to whether or not the analysis was correct. You seem to be saying that if the analysis was correct, only then could it be mentioned.
P.S.I'm not interested in upsetting the Chilean Coup apple-cart. This may sound glib, but you don't sound like a dick, just paranoid. DJ Silverfish 22:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I fail to see how a loaded term like brought to power in US-backed coup against the socialist government of Salvador Allende, does not suggests any "official" role. TDC 23:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I should add that I personally made significant contributions to the Chilean coup of 1973 that cited Church Committee findings and showed no direct "U.S. backing" for the actual 1973 coup, so any POV changes to that or related articles will be monitored. J. Parker Stone 02:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The new wording is an improvement. We appear to be in vigilant agreement. Cheers. DJ Silverfish 17:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Kudo's for co-co puffs TDC

[edit] New Stuff 'n stuff

A large amount of information has just come to my attention about the Weather Underground’s involvement with the Cuban DGI, and since any inclusion of this material will no doubt be controversial, I would like to make users aware of this before hand.

You forgot to cite the above note with your sig, TDC. Busy? I look forward to checking the highly verifiable sources for your future updates with interest. DJ Silverfish 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About My Latest Edit

I removed the classification of the article as relating to terrorism, as well as the introductory explanation of the group as a terrorist group, because the group satisfies only 4 of 8 (excluding "their may or may not be a claim of responsibility") of the criteria set on the terrorism page for a group to be considered terrorist: their acts were unlawful, their violence was politically motivated, the main target was a government and society, and they were a 'non-state entity'.

This is probably more of a technicality of anything. If anyone objects, please bring it up here. Zanturaeon 00:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weatherman and the Weathermen

They were known as "Weatherman". They were virtually never referred to as "the Weathermen"; it would have been considered sexist even in those days. The title of this whole section should actually be "Weatherman".

I'm not sure who made this older comment, but it is definitely correct. Read the first sentence of the article itself. "Weatherman" or "Weather Underground" are the proper names for the group, "Weathermen" is an unencyclopedic back-formation from the actual group name. We should consistently use the official group name, rather than refer to them informally. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorists or guerrillas

There seems to be a brouhaha over whether the weathermen are terrorists or guerrillas (not only on this page, but also the Bob Dylan article). Perhaps it is time for a discussion on the matter.

I personally would classify them as terrorists because the terrorism page describes terrorism as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Which in my opinion is what this group did. Plus they did seem to bomb civilian targets (such as the ITT buildings in '73).

Well...that's my 2 cents :-) Akamad 04:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to your opinion. I don't even necessarily disagree with you. But WP follows WP:NPOV. From the guerrilla article:
While "asymmetric warfare" is the military term for guerrilla tactics, it is often referred to in the pejorative as "terrorism".
Or from Terrorism:
As a result, those accused of being terrorists rarely identify themselves as such, instead using terms such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, activist, insurgent, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi, mujaheddin, or fedayeen, not that people identifying themselves with these terms are necessarily terrorists.
Characterizing a group as "terrorist" is simply not NPOV. This is a no-brainer, not a close case. Using a pejorative term rather than a neutral one endorses a specific position; and particularly, not a position the Weatherman group itself would have assented to. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw. In recent edits I have taken out the word "guerrilla" too, just in case someone somehow thought that was POV. I just call them a "radical group" which seems pretty plainly factual. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. "Radical group" is far too broad -- there are plenty of radical groups who don't blow up buildings. Of course they were a terrorist group. Unlike Vietnam, there was no war going on inside the U.S. at the time, so it wasn't possible for them to be guerrillas. It doesn't matter if terrorists themselves don't refer to their actions as terrorism, there is a set definition of terrorism, it's not an opinion. Dr. Trey 00:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are radical groups who don't blow up buildings. And there are radical groups who do blow up buildings. And none of the latter call themselves "terrorist", but rather something else (insurgents, revolutionaries, rebels, anti-collaborators, freedom fighters, etc). In the "blow stuff up" camp we have, e.g.: Minutemen (militia), Contras, French Resistance, Brothers to the Rescue, and so on. It's not NPOV to characterize any of these as terrorist.
Btw. None of this is defending any of the actions of the Weatherman organization. In my own opinion, they were quite misguided, and did wrong things. But my opinion isn't an encyclopedia entry. It's just simply not NPOV to say, "I don't like them, so using a pejorative is OK." If you want to argue your own opinion, write a personal blog or something, don't put it on WP.
It's good news to me to hear (for the first time) that the US-Vietnam war was over in 1969. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
lol, it's not "POV" to label a group that blew up civilian buildings terrorist. the reason the Contras aren't called terrorists (even though they did engage in terrorist acts -- ie, killing civilians) is because they targetted the Sandinista govt. and military a good deal of the time. same for the mujahadeen in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. the difference in this situation is that there wasn't a back-and-forth (ie Contras hit target, Sandinistas hit back -- guerrilla warfare, counterinsurgency) -- it was just an extreme-left organization hitting civilian targets. they didn't have their property taken from them like certain Nicaraguans under the Sandinistas -- they weren't being forceably "reeducated" like Afghanis in the People's Democratic Republic of Afghanistan -- they just decided to engage in terrorist activities because they hated the policies of the U.S. govt., none of which directly affected them. now i'm sure they'd argue that it was justified due to U.S. "injustices," but that doesn't make it not terrorism -- hitting civilian targets -- that's the definition, it's NOT an opinion.
and what's with the snide remark about the "war over in 1969"? i didn't say that. what i did say is that there was no war within the U.S. at the time. if there's "guerrillas" there's usually also a war. Dr. Trey 09:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


Please pardon this intrusion by a "newbie", but Dr. Trey seems to have a remarkably skewed "POV". The "Contras" were indeed considered "terrorists" except by the U.S. who sponsored them to purposefully and systematically target a broad range of civilians (e.g., teachers, town officials, etc.). The CIA published a manual illustrating techniques for the implimentation of these activities in rather unambiguous terms. The reason that the "Contra" organization "targeted the Sandinista govt. and military" only "a good deal of the time", and rather killed civilians most of the time, is the fact that they were completely outclassed militarily and were unsupported by the civilian population. This lack of support obviously originated in the fact that most "Contras" were counter-revolutionary forces composed of, or at least representing, those who had oppressed the majority of Nicaraguans for generations. On the other hand, the WUO clearly attacked the military-industrial complex in one form or another, and it seems disingenuous to claim that the WUO was not at war simply because their motivation was primarily ideological, or because their war "within the U.S." was small (i.e., the very definition of "guerilla"). Even the plan of one particular WUO cell to kill people in a relatively tame version of "en mass" was within the context of an attack on the military at one of their bases of operation (i.e., Fort Dix). If this attack had been successful, it would have been only a symbolic reprisal for the millions of people slaughtered in Viet Nam, ignoring for the moment the myriad US historical actions elsewhere in the world (e.g., http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.html). By today's standards of U.S. ruthlessness toward Afghanis/Iraqis or Israel's killing of Palestinians (in either instance, "collateral" or not), the "Robin Hood" tactics of the WUO were relatively blameless, kids' stuff really. So in the end, the issue of definition involves less the propriety of revolutionary groups using armed struggle to achieve their ends, and more the historical analyst's own fundamental identification with state power and its self-mandated monopoly on violence. (Dr. Dave, 11:20 pm, 27 October 2005)


Maybe they're terrorist guerillas? Not all guerillas are terrorists, and not all terrorists are guerillas, but when a group matches the definition for both, which do you choose? If 'terrorist' is pejorative, it musn't be used. If it isn't pejorative, then it should be applied everywhere a group meets the requirements - the CIA and KGB are two groups who are never referred to as terrorist, but according to the definition repeated in above comments, should definitely be considered terrorist alongside the WUO and Abujahedeen. What we need to do is set down a very specific set of parameters for determening what does and does not constitute a 'guerill' and a 'terrorist', and figure out if one is a sub-type of the other, or if they are both sub-types of something else, or parallel and independant groups. No more arguing back and forth about whether or not they were terrorist based on contemporary misgivings and popularization. Zanturaeon 06:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
PS - I find the current introductory explanation to be satisfactory, and as doing justice to the facts as well as the particular POV's: "Its members referred to themselves as a "revolutionary organization of communist women and men," and carried out guerrilla actions, often characterized as terrorist". Yah! Zanturaeon 07:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested this below, i'll plop it up here to: the article says: 'Its members referred to themselves as a "revolutionary organization of communist women and men," and carried out guerrilla actions, now often characterized as terrorist, to achieve the revolutionary overthrow of the government of the United States.'

how about: "and carried out a series of bombings in an attempt to jumpstart a class-war and overthrow the governmant of the united states"... call it what it is, a series bombing. we're not romanticizing it, we're not vilifying it.
Using that definition, you would have to show that the Weather Underground exhibited violence. The Weather Underground made it a point not to harm people, only buildings and structures, so you would have to use a broad definition of violence. The purpose of the organization was actually to combat violence. Not organizing against this violence, in the view of the organization, was actually violent. As Naomi Jaffe puts it: "We felt that doing nothing in a period of repressive violence is itself a form of violence. That's really the part that I think is the hardest for people to understand. If you sit in your house, live your white life and go to your white job, and allow the country that you live in to murder people and to commit genocide, and you sit there and you don't do anything about it, that's violence." Sarge Baldy 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The position that you quote looks like a plausible summary of the group's point of view. However, for our purposes, a definition of violence that excludes all of the activities of the Weather Underground would be so overly narrow as to be misleading. The organization couldn't possibly be characterized as non-violent, in any case, what with the riots and bombings and intent to kill. —Smiteri 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • on a slightly related note, this discussion seems to be along similar lines of what I was trying to discribe below in the "I think this could use" section (the 'spectrum of violence' argument...) could you guys take a look and see if you can discribe it better? Mike McGregor (Can) 11:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC) and now back to the discussion at hand...
If it's of any interest to this discussion, as of the early 1980s, Prairie Fire Organizing Committee was explicitly calling for terrorist activity in its published editorials. Ninquerinquar 04:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth the issue is back with an editor trying (twice now) to re-insert the word "terrorist." I believe it's an inherently POV characterization, especially considering that terrorism means something very different now than it did when the weathermen were operating. It does not add anything to the encyclopedic value of the article to label them terrorists versus violent radicals so I've removed it. On the other hand, including them in the terrorism wikiproject is just fine - it's more than legitimate for a project devoted to understanding terrorism to study this group. Wikidemo (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Members of the group have described their own actions as "terrorism". It certainly fits any extant definition of terrorism. So where's the problem? Make your case.Verklempt (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The burden here is on one who would add controversial content to establish consensus, not the one who objects. No case has been made that the inherently subjective POV term like "terrorist" should be applied as a whole to an organization like this. What they were doing, at the time, was not considered "domestic terrorism." That's a relatively new term used to equate violent radicals here at home with an entirely different sort of militant action that was happening overseas. Applying the label does not help at all in an encyclopedic explanation of who they were and what they did, it just applies a judgment. We're here to chronicle facts, not assign labels and judgments. Wikidemo (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already met the burden of proof by substantiating -- the cite you deleted -- that a core WU member self-defined the group's actions as "terrorism". It's a trivial matter to cite a hundred additional scholarly sources that also label WU as terrorists. Your argument, on the other hand, is not substantiated at all by reference to reliable sources, or to any sources at all. The scholarly literature is the gold standard here.Verklempt (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That misconstrues the standard for inclusion here. Verifiability is one thing; POV and balance are another. Calling an organization "terrorist" is a matter of characterization, not fact. The burden to meet is therefore consensus, not proof, and it is a high burden when making loaded statement. The label terrorist, as I've said, is inherently biased statement about this organization with no explanatory value. Citing an indefinite number of sources that make the same biased statement does not make it unbiased. One needs no sources to point that out.Wikidemo (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is an absurd position. You're saying that evidence and scholarly consensus are irrelevant. All you need do is label a position "POV", and you thus become free to ignore evidence and scholarly consensus in favor of that position. You have twisted the WP:NPOV policy inside out and backwards. The policy clearly comes down in favor of following the established scholarly consensus:
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors."
You are now contending that this policy somehow justifies excluding the scholarly consensus. Where in the policy can you find justification for your position?Verklempt (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, nobody has established that scholarly consensus is that it is a domestic terror organization. You've just added one source, and claimed that there are hundreds others. There are hundreds of scholarly sources, incidentally, that America is a terrorist state but that's not how we lead off the United States article. If we find all music scholars agreeing that disco sucks, for example, we don't edit the lead from "Disco is a genre of dance-oriented pop music" to "Disco is a sucky genre of dance-oriented pop music." We would need consensus for that. And again, this is not a matter for evidence or proof. You cannot prove that disco sucks. Your comment about representing all viewpoints is irrelevant here. We're either calling it a domestic terror organization or not. If there were a call to represent all viewpoints on whether they are terrorists or not you would have to start a section about that and present the view that they are, the view that they aren't, and any other significant views on the subject. That would be pointless because it's not very relevant.Wikidemo (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal from Vietnam

The article states: "The group collapsed shortly after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975, which saw the general demise of the New Left, of which Weatherman had been a part."..yet, American forces no longer took an active combat role from the beginning of 1973 on. I think that this should be changed to 1973, or if not, it should be clarified. I would change it myself, but I am not really sure exactly as to what the exact point the author was attempting to make. Flyerhell 05:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

"United States ghetto rebellions" "With the growing success of the Vietnamese revolt against foreign rule" stuff like that, seems kind of retoricy...Mike McGregor (Can) 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC) ---

Is that what your POV dispute consists of?! Those phrases seem awfully neutral to me, and make up a tiny amount of the article. Please suggest alternate formulations. But this sure sounds like a case was the POV tag was slapped on purely out of WP:POINT as some sort of way to express dislike for the subject matter. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

--- +Sigh+ it has nothing to do with dislike of the wethermen, or viet cong, or whatever... The phrases used are just loaded terms that one might expect to read in a maxist pamphlet or somthing extorting class war...

lets try this.
  • the article says "and carried out guerrilla actions, now often characterized as terrorist, to achieve the revolutionary overthrow of the government of the United States." how about: "and carried out a series of bombings in an attempt to jumpstart a class-war and overthrow the governmant of the united states"... call it what it is, a series bombing. we're not romanticizing it, we're not vilifying it.
The problem with that is that it is factually incorrect, since they carried out a number of actions other than bombings as well. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
the article says: "With the growing success of the Vietnamese revolt against foreign rule, the Cultural Revolution in China, the 1968 student revolts in Europe, Mexico City and other places, the emergence of the Tupamaros organization in Uruguay, and the success of Marxist-led independence movements throughout Africa, the Weathermen believed that any reasonable person could see worldwide revolution was imminent."
In the context of the article, this seems to still be speaking of the motivations for forming the wethermen and they're rational as they formulated they're stratagy... so this directly speaks to events and the political situation prior the days of rage. (logicly, one could conclude that the weathermen came to the conclusion "worldwide revolution was imminant" before commiting to blowing shit up....). so, by "Vietnamese revolt against foreign rule" we mean the vietnam war correct? perhaps from a maoist, maxist or North-Vietlamise POV this would be called a "revolt against foreign rule"... but on Wikipedia, its known as the "Vietnam War" or "Second Indochina War". "success of the Vietnamese revolt against foreign rule" at the time we're talking about here, it would seem this is reffering to the sucess of the Tet Offensive. Well, history says no. Tet failed in its goal to ignite a wider uprising in south vietnam and it crippled the PLAF due to it's losses. It did ignite a stronger anti-war sentament in the U.S, but even General Gaip admitted this was unexpected. so claiming that the Vietnamese revolt against foreign rule was succsessful at this point is not just POV, its an outright maniplation. perhaps " with the escalation of the Vietnam War and anti-war sentament in the U.S...." would be a more appropriat wording...
"the 1968 student revolts in Europe, Mexico City and other places"... in Europe, this would mean French May and Prague Spring correct? perhaps these should be listed individually to avoide the assertion that europe was in flames. and again, calling either of these a success is a streach for NPOV. Also, this part refers to "other places". what other places? Finally, "Student Revolt" is another loaded POV term, when "demonstrations", "protests" or somthing similar would do.
the article says: "At the height of the United States ghetto rebellions of the Civil Rights Movement..." Perhaps somthing like "As a series of riots spread accross poor black neighbourhoods in the united states..." would be more appropriat to Wikipedia. "ghetto rebellions" are what we activists would call them.
I'll come back and suggest some alternat wording for the section above... but lulu, you should realize the the maxist prespective counts as a POVMike McGregor (Can) 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

how about "with the escalation of the vietnam war, which the weathermen regarded as a successful revolt against foreign rule, student demonstrations in Mexico City,..."Mike McGregor (Can) 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More changes are fine

The changes you've suggested, Mike McGregor, seem mostly fine, and me and another couple editors have made them. But these types of wording changes really don't seem to amount to enough POV dispute to just slap the NPOV tag on the article. Sure it can be improved, but that's just normal article editing. The one thing you suggest that is a bit inaccurate is that all Weatherman actions were bombings (they also did a prison break, document "liberation", and other actions); but obviously the bombings should be (and are) mentioned. I would like a few words on their intent to destroy only buildings previously evacuated (which they succeeded in, the only associated fatalities being of three Weatherman members themselves, during bomb building at a non-target). But that need not be belabored either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

perhaps: "and carried out a series of bombings,riots and other militant actions in an attempt to jumpstart a class-war and overthrow the governmant of the united states"...Mike McGregor (Can) 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "a series of militant actions, including bombings, in an attempt..." sounds a bit better (an enumeration that was more complete would include, document thefts, prison breakout, and probably some other things... my form doesn't claim to be exhaustive of the actions). Your latest few changes look good to me, but you made a sprinkling of spelling errors within them. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

sounds good...Mike McGregor (Can) 14:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] supplanting vs supplementing

Article reads: "With militancy gradually supplanting nonviolent forms of anti-war action,..." 71.246.67.218 writes: "supplanting in this context means gradual replacement, and is more appropriate"

It seems as if the assertion is being made that militancy became the norm and non-violence became the exception... is that an assertion that can be made here? is it accurate? can it be backd up? should it read somthing like "the W.U. felt that Militancy was supplanting non-violent anti-war resistance and concluded that university based demonstrations... blah blah blah."? or would it be more accurate to assert that mlitancy was gaining popularity/lagitimacy/whaterver alongside non-violence and therefor supplemnting? (its late, i may need to come back and re-word this whole thing...) Mike McGregor (Can) 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have got caught in a circle because two words with related meanings sound similar. Can we just cut the Gordian knot by using a word that doesn't necessarily sound like either? Maybe: WU felt that militancy was becoming more important than non-violent.... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that wording...Mike McGregor (Can) 05:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I played with the wording a bit in an attempt to improve the flow. I tried not to change the content too much...Mike McGregor (Can) 07:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your last few wording changes all look like nice improvements to me. Hope you're happy I went ahead and pulled out the supplanting/supplementing phrase, as above. Your rearrangment of the "more important than" formulation look good for flow. Btw, looking up in the talk page: sorry I jumped on you when you first came to this page. Perhaps a first action of putting on a "npov" tag wasn't a good first edit (or near first); but your editing and discussion have been excellent, and I should not have assumed so quickly that you were just coming in with an anti-WU POV (as some past editors have done). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think this could use...

I think that the last paragraph of the background section could use a bit more on the concept of fighting capitalism from the "belly of the beast". was it the W.U. that talked about this? or am i thinking of another group? Also, I think the whole background section could be re-arranged to be more cohearent. right now it seems to jump all over the place. I'll come back and work at this later, but in the mean time perhaps others could see what they can do with it?Mike McGregor (Can) 08:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I almost forgot: is any one familiar with the 'activist' concept of the "spectrum of violence" or the "scale of militancy" or what ever the heck its called? (i.e. less violent/militant petitions->lobbying->sit-ins->direct-actiony-goodness->smashing a window with a rock->blowing shit up without harming anyone->rioting/injuring a cop->lethal violence->out and out class war-> the horrors of capitalism ; )most violent/militant ...) I think it would be a good explanation towards the thinking of the W.U and other groups. maybe this article isin't the place for it, but perhaps a link to a stub (which i think would need creating)...Mike McGregor (Can) 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with either of those specific terms. I understand the type of thinking your are trying to describe, but can't think of a simple noun phrase that is generally used to describe it. A quick google check suggests that "spectrum of violence" is mostly used to describe varying severities of domestic violence; even if someone used it in the way you suggest in 1969, it doesn't seem to be how the term would be understood now. "scale of militancy" gets a very small number of hits that seems to be in the ballpark, but all about more recent activities like 1990s-2000s anti-globalism movements. Explaining the concept might be useful, but probably someone should find an original (at least contemporary) source that actually raises this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
A friend of mine used it in workshops, i'll ask him when i see him and start searching from there... also, i think the days of rage could use some more meat to it.Mike McGregor (Can) 08:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement

An editor moved the lead image (or the "days of rage") down to the section most closely matched to it. While I certainly see that it is most illustrative of that section, I find it really nice for an article, where possible, to begin with some sort of iconic or representative image right next to the lead. It gives readers a "warm fuzzy" sense about the article, and sort of invites them to keep reading by the extra visual interest. If the article had multiple images, placing each one in a best section makes sense... but we just have the one image now.

So I'd like to move the image back up. But I won't do so right away... I leave this comment to allow objection or discussion of that change. So chime in. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks better at the top. But either way is fine by me. Mike McGregor (Can) 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Was Weatherman really (see last paragraph of "Background") an "advocate" of "white privilege" ?? The wording here certainly implies that. If so, citation seems called for.

I think the existing wording allowed the correct idea of "advanced the concept", but I tried to clarify this by a minor rewording. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

shouldn't there be a link on this page that goes to the other weather underground (the weather service, www.wunderground.com) page?

i searched 'weather underground' and got re-directed to the weatherman page with no link (that i can see) to the other weather underground page. also, when i searched 'the weather underground' it sent me to the movie's page, with again no link to the other.

opinions on the best way to set this up?

[edit] recent edits

are not well-written-- they're grafts from the movie into the general text, and a lot of them have grammatical errors. If people are going to write, they shouldn't just insert things; they should mold them into the style and voice of the existing article. 71.246.91.214 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Removed Michael Albert from members list who never was a member of Weatherman Underground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.193.199.44 (talk) 21:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travel

Question: it seems, from the chronology, that the Weathermen were frequently traveling back and forth between the east and west coasts. I'm curious whether they traveled by car and how they were able to do that without being identified along the way during these long drives across the country. Badagnani 02:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

... from memory after 35 years... The Waetherman Songbook came from Cleveland

He’s a real Weatherman (Beatles: Nowhere Man) He’s a real Weatherman Tearing up the motherland Trashes banks kills pigs bombs schools And everything Knows just what he’s fighting for Victory in the People’s War Isn’t he a lot like you and me?

Subterranean Homesick Blues (original lyrics, but key lines shouted) The pump don’t work cause the vandals took the handles You don’t need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Sondheim’s Maria from Westside Story Korea I just heard of a Marxist-Leninist state named Korea

Red Party (Dream Lover) When we were young, We went astray With no Red Party to lead the way Red Party is coming soon We kicked the radish out in June Because we need A party To lead the fight We need a Red Party So we can learn to struggle right.

Communism (Money) Some of the best things in life are free If you can steal them from the bourgeoisie Communism! That’s what we do Communism That’s what we dig Communism is what, what we do. Rockefeller’s sure acting big. One of these days were gonna off that pig Communism! That’s what we do Communism That’s what we dig Communism is what, what we do.

Weatherman Machine (Beatles: Yellow Submarine) We all live in a Weatherman Machine Weatherman Machine Weatherman Machine … And our friends are all in jail Many more of us are out on bail

Come Together (Beatler’s Come Together) … and the al Fatah … and the Tupac Amarus

When you’re a Red (Sondheim: When You’re a Jet from Westside Story) When you’re a Red You’re a Red all the way From your last cigarette ‘Til your class takes the state. When you’re a Red let em do what they can You got brothers and sisters You’re a family man

White Riot (White Christmas) I’m dreaming of a white riot Just like the one October Eighth Where the pigs take a beating And everything is leading To armed struggle with the state.

Bad Moon Rising Literal Credence Clearwater Revival: Bad Moon Rising Except key line shouted: Looks like were in for heavy weather

[edit] Massive Attack

should the song "False Flags" by Massive Attack be added to the "Weathermen In Popular Culture" section, the lyrics mention the days of rage and seem to be about them too.

also, sorry for posting anon, i'll log in now.

[edit] Bombings

This is from the Bill Ayers article. It belongs here, not there, but I'm not sure how to integrate the information. I also don't know if the Kushner material is a reliable source or not. The Weather Underground bombed several government buildings, including the United States Capitol (two bombs on March 1, 1970), The Pentagon (May 19, 1972), and the Harry S Truman Building which houses the United States Department of State (on January 29, 1975), along with several banks, police department headquarters and precincts, state and federal courthouses, and state prison administrative offices.[1][2] Flatterworld (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Weather pop culture

List of references moved from article - do we need these? I think they are mostly if not entirely trivia and speculation. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weatherman organization in pop culture

  • Great Neck,[3] by Jay Cantor is a fictional account of a group of Long Island teenagers coming of age during the radical sixties. One of them, Beth Jacobs, joins first the SDS and later the Weatherman in an attempt to make justice for the Holocaust.
  • The Last Rock Star Book, a Camden Joy novel, references the Days of Rage in both Chicago and Canada.[4]
  • The Darling, by Russell Banks (2004) is a novel telling the life story of Hannah Musgrave—alias Dawn Carrington—a member of the Weather Underground, escaping from the U.S. to Liberia.
  • Marge Piercy's novel Vida (1980) is about a radical woman affiliated with a violent antiwar group, who goes into hiding. In physical description and certain biographical details, Vida closely resembles Bernadine Dohrn.
  • Diana (Parts 1 and 2)[5] sung by Grace Slick and Paul Kantner of Jefferson Airplane on their 'solo disc' Sunfighter, released Jan 1971 on the band's own Grunt label, contains the sympathetic response of many contemporary youth at the death of "Weatherwoman Diana" Oughton in the Greenwich Village Explosion.
  • Take the Power Back performed by Rage Against the Machine and written by Zach de la Rocha contains the lyrics "gotta get it together then / like the motherfuckin' Weathermen."
  • American Pastoral by Philip Roth. The daughter of the central character is perhaps a member of the organisation, and the novel incorporates a quote from John Jacobs at the "war council" in Flint. The group is also mentioned in The Dying Animal.
  • Geek Mafia by author Rick Dakan includes a character that was once a member of the organization.
  • 3rd Degree by James Patterson. They are believed to be the culprits in the thriller.
  • Stormwatch, a comic published by Wildstorm, features 'The Weatherman' who lead the superpowered activist group who share the name of the comic.
  • "High Priestess" by David Skibbins. Protagonist Warren Ritter was a member of the organization.
  • Special Topics in Calamity Physics by Marisha Pessl refers to a revolutionary activist group called The Nightwatchmen which provides the background for a major subplot of the novel. This group appears to be modeled on the Weathermen as well as various other activist groups.

[edit] Chronology

Some thoughts for improvement. This is one of those rare cases where a timeline makes sense, IMO, to present lots of information in a clear way. As tedious as it is, each event should be cited. I think the language could be improved here and there, to put everything in a consistent verb tense, avoid saying "Weatherman" too many times, use the passive voice, avoid run-on sentences, etc. One more serious change is that I'm uncomfortable with the tone of phrases like "to represent", "in protest of", "in response to," and the like. Using language that normally applies to legal, professionally run organizations to describe bombings tends to legitimize the bombings as a legitimately undertaken official organizational response, which it was not in any conventional sense. Further, that would tend to endorse their explanations and logic in why they bombed thing. Can one really say that a bombing is in response to anything or a protest of anything? If a garden variety criminal or vandalizes public property because they're upset over something or seeking thrills we would not say the crime was a protest of that thing. Saying the Weathermen were acting in response to something carries some kind of implicit judgment about their motives. "Retaliation" seems to have similar problems. I'm wondering if there is a simpler way to just lay the facts out. Wikidemo (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. FWIW the timeline section is the one I have edited least and haven't gotten around to it; I think your point is interesting about the language. Probably the best possible thing to do would be to present the objective facts first, "They bombed a police station," and second to include whatever their stated motives were if that can be cited, "we did it for the people"(cite). That sort of thing? Kaisershatner (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, get the facts first. Maybe something like inserting the word "announced." The weathermen bombed x, announcing it as retaliation / response / protest of Y. That way we're not endorsing it as a legit or actual cause of their actions. Wikidemo (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert contest

An anonymous editor made a change[8] and User:ClovisPt has reverted twice (so far). For the life of me I can't figure out what the difference really is but they seem to be organizational / style things. Normally the user proposing a rejected change should come to the talk page to explain, and anyone reverting should offer an explanation too. And it's sometimes useful to slow things down and take one or several related edits at a time so we can see what it is. So please be my guest! Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting yet another determined POV edit

I'm reverting (for the 2nd or 3rd time today) yet another IP editor's attempt to call the Weathermen a terrorist organization. This person is edit warring and accusing Wikipedia of "whitewashing" the issue[9][10][11][12] Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Calling a good faith edit "whitewashing" is a POV thing to say and at that point the debate is inescapably POV. We've had a background noise of people wanting to call the weathermen domestic terrorists for some time, and a lot more of it lately with the Bill Ayers election controversy and attempts to discredit Barrack Obama as being good friends with a known terrorist. The problem with this, and the reason the article has avoided the term, is that "terrorist" is a controversial and highly derogatory term being applied to living people who would dispute the label. Calling them terrorists or not is of no explanatory value - it does not change what they did or did not do. It is merely a characterization, a value judgment that what they did is terrorism. Given that there is no authoritative way to decide if they are terrorists or not (and even if there is a cite, the source is presenting analysis and not a fact), there is no reasonable way to include the term. The matter has been discussed again and again on the talk page and the outcome has always been to avoid describing the group as terrorist. Same results on most other similar pages. This particular mention is particularly derogatory, comparing the group and its members to "Islamic terrorists" and Timothy McVeigh. Here we are quoting another person as saying this rather than making the direct claim in Wikipedia but the outcome is the same - calling them names. I'm reverting again as a BLP/POV issue, and suggest that the IP editor be warned or blocked (or we go to semi-protection) if they want to edit war over adding this kind of disputed content. Wikidemo (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Flanagan's self-ID certainly seems relevant. There's no reason to leave this out.Verklempt (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that you've restored the basic claim but not the more colorful comparison to Timothy McVeigh and so-called "Islamic terrorists" (itself a rather incendiary term). I've replaced the sentence "He termed the group's actions as 'terrorism', and also claimed knowledge of bank robberies" with a statement that conforms to the Front Page Magazine citation provided. The article does not discuss his knowledge of bank robberies, and does not say that he termed the actions "terrorism", rather that he compared his group's actions to Islamic terrorists. Getting the source right is a BLP issue so 3RR is moot. Beyond the BLP issue, it's not clear that Front Page Magazine is a reliable source for everything. The publication overall is highly partisan and isn't reliable as far as characterizing the politics of other groups. However, the particular article used as a source is a review and essay relating to a documentary film, and the claims made in the article are about what material is in the documentary. I think we can trust the author to make simple factual statements about what was in the film. However, using it to establish the relevance of things is questionable. Flannagan is a minor, unknown former member of the organization. What he has to say 30 years later about what the organization stood for is fairly marginal. However, if the subject is whether former members were showing regrets or still militant (which this part of the Wikipedia article is), his views on that subject do seem relevant. Wikidemo (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your concern about Front Page as a RS. Flanagan described the "terrorism" (his word) and bank roberies in the documentary. That film would be a better source. Flanagan's status in the org is not for Wikipedia editors to determine.Verklempt (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If someone saw the documentary and is ready to vouch for citing it there, we can assume good faith that he said it in the documentary. Flanagan's status within the organization goes to relevance. If Joe Citizen were to admit that the United States is a "terrorist state" we would not put that claim in the article about the country. If a former President did, we might. That kind of analysis shouldn't appear in the article but it's certainly fair to think through things like that as a basis for determining what's worth saying and what is not. As I said, I don't think it's fair to use the guy's characterization as a source for the way we describe the organization when there are others who would disagree. However, it is an interesting thing to note in terms of describing the question of how the people integrated back into society and what they're thinking now. Wikidemo (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw the film a month or two ago and heard that stuff. You can watch it on your computer if you have Netflix. On your second point, the WU was a very small political cell, not a nation of 300 million, and Flanagan was an active member of that small group. He seems to have been the guy that paralyzed that cop in Chicago, so no wonder he feels guilty. You can read the WU's FBI file online for more.Verklempt (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If he did that, that makes him relevant even if he was not high in their chain of command. Wow. Thanks. Then I would certainly have no problem with a quote by him that he called the group terrorist (but I still think it's unnecessary to bring in Timothy McVeigh or "Islamic terrorists" even if he did) Wikidemo (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new data re "terrorist organization"

The Pinkerton Global Intelligence Service attributed forty one terrorist incidents to the WU. This data has since been collected in the Global Terrorism Database.Verklempt (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "terrorism" again

An editor has twice attempted to add a "terrorist" designation to the first sentence of the lead,[13] as a primary way of identifying the Weathermen. I have now twice moved the material down to the section of the lead where the designation as domestic terrorists is discussed. This is a charged issue, arising during a campaign in which the Weathermen are at issue as a way of discrediting one of the candidates. Wikipedia has been a battleground on the issue of Weathermen being "terrorists", across a number of articles. Although it is notable that the FBI called them terrorists in 2004, three decades after the fact, and their views are worth inclusion (in my opinion), the FBI is not definitive in assessing history. This is not the US state department list of terrorists or any official US designation - it is a history section on the FBI website. Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FBI description of this organization as "terrorist"

When the FBI calls an organization a "terrorist group" it is worth mentioning in the top section. So is the groups own description of itself. I've added the FBI brief descrption, in quotes and attributed to the FBI and footnoted. Wikidemo reverted this with the cryptic edit summary "FBI link is not definitive here; move to section of lead where that is discussed in context" and no explanation on this talk page. Please provide the explanation of your edit, Wikidemo. Specifically, (1) can you say why the FBI report is not "definitive", and (2) why is "definitive" the standard for an attributed quote?

Here is what Wikidemo just removed (boldface):

Weatherman, known colloquially as the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground Organization, was a violent American radical left organization identified by the FBI as a "domestic terrorist group".[6] The group, which organized a riot in Chicago in 1969 and bombed buildings in the 1970s, was founded in 1969 by leaders and members who split from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
Footnote: "BYTE OUT OF HISTORY / 1975 Terrorism Flashback: State Department Bombing / 01/29/04", Federal Bureau of Investigation website, retrieved June 8, 2008

Here is another description, provided by the Weather Underground itself in 1975:

The Weather Undergound Organization (WUO) is a revolutionary organization of communist women and men.
Source: FBI report quotation from the first issue (Spring 1975) of the groups underground magazine, Osawatamie. Each subsequent issue of the publication contained the same self description

Here is what I propose to add to the article, with the additional information:

Weatherman, known colloquially as the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground Organization, was a violent American radical left organization identified by the FBI as a "domestic terrorist group"[7] and by itself (as of 1975) as a "revolutionary organization of communist women and men.[8] The group, which organized a riot in Chicago in 1969 and bombed buildings in the 1970s, was founded in 1969 by leaders and members who split from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).


New footnote: "Weatherman Underground / Summary Dated 8/20/76 / Part #1", "Ideology" section, p 21, 1976, FBI website, retrieved June 8, [[[2008]]

Wikidemo, the next time you revert an edit that you know is controversial -- you are the one who is supposed to start a discussion on the talk page. Please answer the questions above. Noroton (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a compromise lede is in order. It is clear that there are many scholars and historians who label the group as terrorist, and at least one of the former members acknowledges their actions as such. On the other hand, there is enough opposition to that view that it would be POV to let it stand without presenting the other perspective. I propose that some moderated mention of the group's reputation as terrorist be entered in the lede. I agree with Wikidemo that we need to step especially carefully here re NPOV, given the current Presidential race.Verklempt (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
We should be especially clear and accurate especially given the current Presidential race. Why is making the description fuzzier more NPOV? It seems to me that it could make it less NPOV as being unduly favorable to a group that, the more you know about it, the more you know negative information about it. Its nature was violent, illegal and it was full of members wanted by the FBI because of the bombs they set and the violence they perpetrated. That is not inaccurate. I did not label the group "terrorist" -- the FBI did that, and I propose that description in lieu of Wikipedia calling the group "terrorist" just in order to reflect the opinions of editors posted further up on this page. And I don't just advocate using the FBI description, but I add the Weatherman's own description that they put into every issue of their magazine. And we have our own words describing the group, which must include "violent" in order to distinguish it from other nonviolent groups. That seems pretty NPOV to me. What's the problem with it? If I sound irritated, that's because of Wikidemo's pattern of editing (addressed below). I'm still willing to have a reasonable discussion about the lead and I invite your response. Noroton (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Norton, you need to take a deep breath here - you're normally much more delierative. Accusing me of "whitewashing" is unnecessarily provocative, and more or less walks away from trying to establish a consensus. I didn't remove the FBI use of the word "terrorist", I just moved it to another part of the lede where the issue of terminology is discussed. You'll note that I did start a discussion on that explaining why the FBI is not guaranteed first-sentence treatment in any article where they use the word "terrorist" (though I disagree that it's incumbent on me - if your controversial edit is challenged it's up to you to justify it), immediately prior to yours. The lede is already too long, and we should crunch it down into 2-3 paragraphs rather than trying to create a lede for the lede. I would favor taking all of the descriptive material out entirely other than calling it a radical left, violent radical, or whatever organization, and have a heading somewhere about perception, or designation, or description. That's a much more encyclopedic way to do it, and can give the subject its due. Wikidemo (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well what you're doing is following me around making reverts that all seem to have a POV, specifically a pattern of protecting the subjects of various articles from laying out the facts in an NPOV way. You explained nothing. You left a cryptic edit summary. If we take anything out of the lead it isn't information that helps the reader understand just what the group is. You take information out of the lead that doesn't do that. I see assertions in your post above, not reasoning, and that's a flawed way of discussing something. You again here leave a comment that doesn't explain what you meant earlier. You also didn't answer my questions: (1) can you say why the FBI report is not "definitive", and (2) why is "definitive" the standard for an attributed quote? Instead you bring up new objections, as if you're making it up as you go along. The fact is, you don't want the word "terrorist" in the lead no matter what. Isn't that right? It doesn't matter that it's attributed to a reliable source. It doesn't matter that it's included with other description to put it in context (which is why these two short phrases I'm proposing adding belong right where they are. If you're so concerned about the lead, why didn't you shorten it in other ways? Why was this and only this the target of your edit? Why are you giving me explanations, when I finally demand them, that are all over the map, don't address the points I'm making and are so easily knocked down? If you don't like the length of the lead, edit down the other, inessential parts of it and I doubt I'll have objections, but don't destroy the essential purpose of the lead to provide, briefly, the essential information. I notice a pattern in the comments of protective editors at the Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, Bill Ayers election controversy articles and now this article of stating concerns about size when all their points have an underlying pattern of removing information that a certain point of view finds uncomfortable. Comfort is not a justification for censorship. And don't complain that I am irritated at your editing. I am irritated because your edits follow a POV pattern while mine don't. You have a right to your POV, but not to impose it. Noroton (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I have had this article on my watch list for some time. I came to this entire cluster of articles a few months ago when some obvious problem editors started inserting the word "terrorist" in dozens of places on Wikipedia. I only encountered you recently. Your edits are almost universally in the direction of casting more criticism on Obama and things related to him. I could call that POV, and in fact you are editing wit a POV. Nevertheless you have good arguments and are obviously editing in good faith, hence I do not question your motives. I did far more than leaving an edit summary - I started yet another discussion on the subject. I have stood up for and against material on both sides, and have cleaned up a number of articles that were attacking conservatives as well, although I must say that the predominance of POV, incivility, and junk lately in this particular corner of Wikipedia is coming predominantly from those opposed to Obama for whatever reason. More than anything else I oppose problem editors - trolls, sockpuppets, single purpose editors, and uncivil people. You do not see this on the McCain article at all. Back to your point, you can't prove that something isn't definitive - you would have to show the opposite, that it is. Why would the FBI website, of all sources, be the one with the final word on whether something is or is not a terrorist? Indeed, I favor removing the word "terrorist" and other loaded terms of judgment from most articles, and we have a style guideline that explains why we do this. It does not help explain the group at all. They are what they are. Calling that terrorist or not does not clarify anything about them, it's just a loaded term. Might as well call them activists or freedom fighters. If the Weathermen were a group active today and were on the State Department list of terrorists that might be something of particular note. However, here the FBI is joining other sources in performing an act of historical judgment. As a wing of the US government, in a Republican administration, it is not beyond partisanship, nor is it scholarly or academic in its focus. As to the second point, the first sentence of this, like most leads, gives a definitive definition of what a group is. It starts "Weatherman...was a...". If you're going to use an adjective or a direct object, we are saying what it actually is, not what people might have called it. For that primary identification, we need a specific definition. I did not remove it from the lead, I simply gave it the same weight as anyone else by putting it into the section where the matter is discussed. Someday I and other editors probably will fix the rest of the lead, but that's a bigger task. Wikidemo (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I found it: WP:TERRORIST. I should have been the one to come to the talk page first instead of reverting. See WP:BRD. Sorry about that. I may respond to some other points later. Noroton (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That pretty much rules out calling Weathermen "terrorists" as a descriptor. It makes some sense in the article to say they have been accused of terrorism by the FBI, and others, and even get a little bit into the question of terminology. As I noted the FBI mention is on a web page devoted to history, not one of the FBI's crime-fighting initiatives, so in this role the FBI is acting as historian. They are a reliable but potentially biased source here, of less credence perhaps than historians but important because of who they are. Historians probably avoid "terrorist" for the same reason the guideline says - they want to study things, not make value judgments. My point throughout is that whether we call them terrorists or not they threw the exact same number of bombs and made the exact same statements. Nobody (I hope) is trying to cover that up, just to describe it in as informative a way as possible. The reason why this has become charged, as we all know, is that calling the Weathermen terrorists shoehorns (okay, gives a basis for) using the word in the Bill Ayers biography, which then gives a platform for people to say that Barack Obama consorts with "unrepentant terrorists." Now, I would not want to withhold truth from an article simply because someone may misuse it out of context. On the other I think we have to be sensitive to possible unconscious biases in the sources, and in edits - perhaps even our own. Wikidemo (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)