Talk:Bernardine Dohrn

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

Manson quote

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.--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. General Ization ^Talk 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.--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 the meaning of the word irony. General Ization ^Talk 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. General Ization ^Talk 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.--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. General Ization ^Talk 13:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the quotation is inaccurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Name spelling

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? 23.240.216.105 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Bernadine is just a mispelling. I've corrected it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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. So 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)