Jump to content

Talk:Bernardine Dohrn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Dohrn, Bernardine|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=B |s&a-work-group=yes |listas=Dohrn, Bernardine |s&a-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Wisconsin |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Wisconsin|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Chicago |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=low |FBI=yes |FBI-importance=High |listas=Dohrn, Bernardine}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low |FBI=yes |FBI-importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Women |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=}}

}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp}}{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30|dounreplied=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
Line 19: Line 20:
}}
}}


{{Broken anchors|links=
== Verifiable Evidence? ==
* <nowiki>[[Weather Underground Organization#Declaration of a state of war.2C May 1970|"Declaration of a State of War"]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Declaration of a state of war.2C May 1970) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/592118517|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Declaration of a state of war, May 1970","appear":{"revid":502691670,"parentid":496943100,"timestamp":"2012-07-16T21:48:57Z","replaced_anchors":{"Anti-imperialism, Anti-racism & White privilege":"Anti-imperialism, anti-racism & White privilege","Major Activities and Suspected activities":"Major activities and suspected activities","Underground Strategy Change":"Underground strategy change","Declaration of a State of War, May 1970":"Declaration of a state of war, May 1970","June 1970 NYC Police Bombing":"June 1970 NYC Police bombing","Plot to Bomb Office of California State Senator John Briggs (1977)":"Plot to bomb office of California State Senator John Briggs (1977)"},"removed_section_titles":["Anti-imperialism, Anti-racism & White privilege","Major Activities and Suspected activities","Underground Strategy Change","Declaration of a State of War, May 1970","June 1970 NYC Police Bombing","Federal Grand Jury Indicts 13 Weathermen Leaders","Pentagon Bombing, 1972","Charges Dropped, 1973","COINTELPRO","Plot to Bomb Office of California State Senator John Briggs (1977)"],"added_section_titles":["Anti-imperialism, anti-racism & White privilege","Major activities and suspected activities","Underground strategy change","Declaration of a state of war, May 1970","June 1970 NYC Police bombing","Indictment of 13 Weathermen leaders","Pentagon bombing, 1972","Withdrawal of charges, 1973","Cointelpro","Plot to bomb office of California State Senator John Briggs (1977)"]},"disappear":{"revid":592118517,"parentid":592118387,"timestamp":"2014-01-24T03:27:05Z","replaced_anchors":{"Declaration of a state of war, May 1970":"Declaration of war, May 1970"},"removed_section_titles":["Declaration of a state of war, May 1970"],"added_section_titles":["Declaration of war, May 1970"]},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Declaration of war, May 1970"} -->
}}

== Arrests and trials ==
The article currently contains the following:
:On October 31, 1969, a [[grand jury]] [[Indictment|indicted]] 22 people, including Dohrn, for their involvement with the trial of the [[Chicago Seven|Chicago Eight]], and she was again indicted on April 2, 1970, when a Federal Grand Jury indicted twelve members of the Weatherman group on conspiracy charges in violation of anti-riot acts during the "[[Days of Rage]]." However, all of these convictions were reversed on November 21, 1972, by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]] on the basis the judge was biased in his refusal to permit defense attorneys to screen prospective jurors for cultural and racial bias.

The first problem is that the third sentence refers to convictions. What convictions? There is no indication that Dohrn had been convicted of anything at that point. So the sentence makes no sense. The second problem is that a quick search of the cited source for the third sentence (''U.S. v. Dellinger'', 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972)) reveals that Dohrn's name is not even mentioned in it. How could her conviction (if there was one) have been reversed in a court decision that didn't mention her name? That doesn't make sense. There is a verification problem. I don't have time to dig into this right now. Does anybody who is more familiar with Dohrn's history have any light to shed? [[User:SunCrow|SunCrow]] ([[User talk:SunCrow|talk]]) 00:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

== [[WP:BRD|Discussion]] on whether the term "Terrorist organisation" belongs in the header ==

{{hidden ping|Yuleting|Firestar464}}As per [[MOS:TERRORIST]], we should avoid using the term "terrorist" in articles, generally. Maybe use "militant", if anything? Besides, it's kinda obvious that it's a militant organisation, both due to Weather Underground's article and the fact that the article's subject is wanted by the FBI. Thanks for y'alls time. [[User:Opalzukor|Opalzukor]] ([[User talk:Opalzukor|talk]]) 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
:Edit made was obviously in direct violation of [[MOS:TERRORIST]], since there was no attribution. I would oppose inclusion even with attribution, since the article makes it clear what they did without any needless labelling. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 08:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph states Dohrn was a wanted fugitive without stating the crimes she was wanted for. It seems like an obvious omission. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yuleting|Yuleting]] ([[User talk:Yuleting#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yuleting|contribs]]) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Alleged crimes, since she doesn't appear to have been convicted of them (misdemeanor charges of aggravated battery and bail jumping are a separate matter). Also the alleged bombings committed by Dohrn are not mentioned in the body of the article, they would need to be mentioned there before even considering adding them to the lead. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 08:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
<<While attending law school, Dohrn began working with Martin Luther King, Jr.>>


Seems a weak attempt to associate Dohrn with King without any verifiable evidence. No reasonable person would assume she actually "worked" with King. I find the association to be highly questionable, a clear definition of "worked with" needs to be made in this context. My belief would be more aspired to, believed in, supported rallies (such as in millions of others) but hardly "worked with" on any personal level with him or the movement that this quote gives the impression of. It also seems purposefully placed at the top and out of context to her actual history and notoriety. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tslateonex|Tslateonex]] ([[User talk:Tslateonex|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tslateonex|contribs]]) 20:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Thanks [[User:FDW777|FDW777]], [[User:Firestar464|Firestar464]], and [[User:Opalzukor|Opalzukor]]. I see the Proud Boys article lead describes them as "neo-fascist" but the article itself never explains what beliefs or activities justify the label. I'm not a fan of the Proud Boys (I decided to check their page because they're a much less aggressive group than Dohrn's organization, but are on the other side of the political spectrum). In the interest of fairness, since you were concerned about labeling Bernardine Dohrn a terrorist, will you go to the Proud Boys page and remove the "neo-fascist" label until someone provides a basis for it within the body of the article? If nothing else, you'll restore my faith that the reversal of my edits was not based on political bias but on objective content standards. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yuleting|Yuleting]] ([[User talk:Yuleting#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yuleting|contribs]]) 08:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It is [[WP:V|verifiable]] in the sense that the claim includes a cited source (Siegel, Bill et. al. (2004). "The Weather Underground". [ahr.oxfordjournals.org American Historical Review].) Have you reviewed the source? Please do so before challenging the claim. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">[[User:Dwpaul|<font color="#006633">Dwpaul</font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:Dwpaul|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 20:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
:"During her years as a law student at Chicago, Bernardine was drawn to activism. [Dohrn] spent a summer in New York City working with an anti-poverty program before returning to Chicago to support the efforts of Martin Luther Ling, Jr. to integrate all-white suburbs." (Browne, Blaine T; Cottrell, Robert C.: ''Modern American Lives: Individuals and Issues in American History Since 1945''. [https://books.google.com/books?id=kkTfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=Dohrn+began+working+with+Martin+Luther+King,+Jr&source=bl&ots=p7H5zzSHML&sig=0FoF9gSvcgGU6EXUV3qdNk5UC3g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IchrVdGHBYvRggSGp4D4CQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Dohrn%20began%20working%20with%20Martin%20Luther%20King%2C%20Jr&f=false p232]) That source was easy to find; I'm sure with just a little effort you will find others. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">[[User:Dwpaul|<font color="#006633">Dwpaul</font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:Dwpaul|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


⚫
::Remove.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
== Manson quote ==


:I have no intention of making any such edit to Proud Boys, nor suggesting such an edit. That would be against the consensus from the recently closed (11 November) request for comment at [[Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 5#RfC: Statements in lead]]. In the absence of any significant change in the last two weeks as to how references see the Proud Boys, even suggesting such a change would be a waste of time. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 10:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The Manson quote has previously been discussed, but it does seem primarily to be an attempt to denigrate Dohrn. It is also mentioned on the [[Charles Manson]] page. If Ayers is to be believed, then it is taken completely out of context.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 11:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
:The quotes from Ayers' blog accurately describe his recollections about Dohrn's comments and their context. I have restored them, as your condensation of them to "[Ayers] described the story as a 'Big Lie' and said Dohrn's comments as{{sic}} taken out of context" is a far ''less'' accurate reflection of his comments. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 12:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::Ayers says:
:::Another Big Lie is the famous Charles Manson story.... Her speech was focused on the murder just days earlier of our friend Fred Hampton, the Black Panther leader... “This is the state of the world,” she cried. “This is what screams out for our attention and our response. And what do we find in our newspapers? A sick fascination with a story that has it all: a racist psycho, a killer cult, and a chorus line of Hollywood bodies. Dig it!…” ...Not only is it apocryphal and demonizing, it’s irrefutable.
::He doesn't use the word "ironic". He doesn't use the term "political point". If you want to reject his comments, OK, but don't say that you're being accurate. You aren't.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 12:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
:::No, he doesn't use the word "point". He says: "So I heard it partly as political talk ...". "Political talk" is talk generally intended to make a political point. And he doesn't use the word "ironic", but if you don't understand why accurately reflects Ayers' characterization of the comment as "perverse humor" within a speech "focused on the murder just days earlier of our friend Fred Hampton, the Black Panther leader, a murder we were certain—although we didn’t know it yet—was part of a larger government plot", you should review [[wikt:irony|the meaning of the word ''irony'']]. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 12:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
:::By the way, I'm not "rejecting" Ayers' comments, or anything at all but your attempt (with unclear motivation) to gut our rendering of Ayers' comments here, condensing them down to a meaningless sound-bite. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 12:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::::The fact that he describes the accusation as a [[Big Lie]] is of overriding importance. It's also important that he said it was taken out of context. Saying he says it was "ironic" might be true, but it doesn't convey anything specific. Saying it was "political" almost goes without saying. To describe references to the murder of [[Fred Hampton]] in terms of "perverse humor" is itself perverse, and not funny. It's your rendering of the comments that is meaningless, not mine.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::It was you who cited the absence of the phrases "political point" and "ironic" from his ''verbatim'' comments, not me, and now that I have explained why those are accurate reductions of his statements, you seem to be backtracking. And I fail to see how your having replaced direct quotes from Ayers with one sentence containing "Big Lie" and "out of context" imparts more meaning than his comments themselves did. If you think "Big Lie" needs to be in there somewhere, by all means add it. I'm responding to your removal of the direct quotes. If, as you claim, Ayers' use of the phrase "perverse humor" was itself perverse, we should reflect that perversity accurately, but this appears nowhere in your one-sentence condensed version. Nor do Ayers' comments about the attempts to refute the depiction of Dohrn's comments in the press. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 13:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
⚫
::::::I think the quotation is inaccurate.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 13:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


[[User:FDW777|FDW777]]Are you sure that's the consensus? Here is the quote: "Support 2 [the label "neo-fascist"]: 13/36..." Sounds like only 13 out of 36 supported the label. Oh well, good to know. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:E000:160E:C2F9:6420:472C:6445:24DF|2605:E000:160E:C2F9:6420:472C:6445:24DF]] ([[User talk:2605:E000:160E:C2F9:6420:472C:6445:24DF#top|talk]]) 10:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Name spelling ==


:{{tq|There is a rough consensus for 2}}. 2 is "Neo-fascist". Not my decision, and [[WP:NOTAVOTE|not a vote]]. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 10:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Is the name Bernadine or Bernardine, with an 'r' before the d? The article uses both spellings interchangeably. The New York Times, in their archives, seems to prefer the latter (with the 'r'.) I believe I remember reading it an errata in some article somewhere correcting it to the 'r' spelling. Anyone have a better handle on this? [[Special:Contributions/23.240.216.105|23.240.216.105]] ([[User talk:23.240.216.105|talk]]) 20:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


== Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion ==
:It looks like Bernadine is just a mispelling.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 09:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Bernardine Dohrn published 1970.jpg|Bernardine Dohrn published 1970.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-05-14T02:41:29.388787 | Bernardine Dohrn published 1970.jpg -->
* [[commons:File:Young Dohrn profile sketch.jpg|Young Dohrn profile sketch.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-05-14T02:41:29.388787 | Young Dohrn profile sketch.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with FBI most wanted|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:42, 15 July 2024

Arrests and trials

[edit]

The article currently contains the following:

On October 31, 1969, a grand jury indicted 22 people, including Dohrn, for their involvement with the trial of the Chicago Eight, and she was again indicted on April 2, 1970, when a Federal Grand Jury indicted twelve members of the Weatherman group on conspiracy charges in violation of anti-riot acts during the "Days of Rage." However, all of these convictions were reversed on November 21, 1972, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the basis the judge was biased in his refusal to permit defense attorneys to screen prospective jurors for cultural and racial bias.

The first problem is that the third sentence refers to convictions. What convictions? There is no indication that Dohrn had been convicted of anything at that point. So the sentence makes no sense. The second problem is that a quick search of the cited source for the third sentence (U.S. v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972)) reveals that Dohrn's name is not even mentioned in it. How could her conviction (if there was one) have been reversed in a court decision that didn't mention her name? That doesn't make sense. There is a verification problem. I don't have time to dig into this right now. Does anybody who is more familiar with Dohrn's history have any light to shed? SunCrow (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on whether the term "Terrorist organisation" belongs in the header

[edit]

​​As per MOS:TERRORIST, we should avoid using the term "terrorist" in articles, generally. Maybe use "militant", if anything? Besides, it's kinda obvious that it's a militant organisation, both due to Weather Underground's article and the fact that the article's subject is wanted by the FBI. Thanks for y'alls time. Opalzukor (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit made was obviously in direct violation of MOS:TERRORIST, since there was no attribution. I would oppose inclusion even with attribution, since the article makes it clear what they did without any needless labelling. FDW777 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph states Dohrn was a wanted fugitive without stating the crimes she was wanted for. It seems like an obvious omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuleting (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged crimes, since she doesn't appear to have been convicted of them (misdemeanor charges of aggravated battery and bail jumping are a separate matter). Also the alleged bombings committed by Dohrn are not mentioned in the body of the article, they would need to be mentioned there before even considering adding them to the lead. FDW777 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FDW777, Firestar464, and Opalzukor. I see the Proud Boys article lead describes them as "neo-fascist" but the article itself never explains what beliefs or activities justify the label. I'm not a fan of the Proud Boys (I decided to check their page because they're a much less aggressive group than Dohrn's organization, but are on the other side of the political spectrum). In the interest of fairness, since you were concerned about labeling Bernardine Dohrn a terrorist, will you go to the Proud Boys page and remove the "neo-fascist" label until someone provides a basis for it within the body of the article? If nothing else, you'll restore my faith that the reversal of my edits was not based on political bias but on objective content standards. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuleting (talk • contribs) 08:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of making any such edit to Proud Boys, nor suggesting such an edit. That would be against the consensus from the recently closed (11 November) request for comment at Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 5#RfC: Statements in lead. In the absence of any significant change in the last two weeks as to how references see the Proud Boys, even suggesting such a change would be a waste of time. FDW777 (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FDW777Are you sure that's the consensus? Here is the quote: "Support 2 [the label "neo-fascist"]: 13/36..." Sounds like only 13 out of 36 supported the label. Oh well, good to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:160E:C2F9:6420:472C:6445:24DF (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rough consensus for 2. 2 is "Neo-fascist". Not my decision, and not a vote. FDW777 (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernardine_Dohrn&oldid=1234684934"