Jump to content

Talk:Bernardine Dohrn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Community Tech bot (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 14 May 2022 (Files used on this page or its Wikidata item are up for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Verifiable Evidence?

<<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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tslateonex (talk • contribs) 20:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is 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. Dwpaul Talk 20:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"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. p232) That source was easy to find; I'm sure with just a little effort you will find others. Dwpaul Talk 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That source says she supported King's efforts, like millions of others. It is not evidence that she actually worked with him, which is what is implied by the current wording. Sounds like this should be fixed.StormWillLaugh (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I've never seen anything about this; direct work with King would be quite a feather in her cap and she would document it clearly; the wording is evasive and apparently desined to mislead. This woman worked with killers. She was NOT admitted to the bar due to her poor ethics and history of criminal behavior. It should not be upon the reader to have to disprove extraordinary claims; it should be on the article to support them. 70.127.17.241 (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is utterly ridiculous, particularly considering the wording has already been changed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests and trials

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

​​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

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=1087713453"