Talk:Bernardine Dohrn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing side comment regarding lack of fatalities, and whether this makes the WUO "notable"

I am removing the note which claims that none of the bombings the Weathermen took part in caused a fatality (other than the deaths of the three members in Greenwich Village) and that this makes them notable as terrorists.

As the main article on the group states, there was at least one fatality in a bombing connected to the Weather Underground. While none of the cells took direct responsibility for the attack, this does not mean they did not do it. After all, the public outcry if they actually *killed* someone might cause some of their supporters to turn against them. (My understanding is that, despite a hall full of witnesses, some ex-members now deny Dohrn's controversial statement supporting the Manson murders.) However, as the Weatherman main article explains, they apparently later took great pains to avoid killing people, despite their (facetious?) boasting about killing rich people. However, the IRA has been using the same methods to avoid civilian casualties (ie calling up and warning of a bomb) so this doesn't make the Weathermen special.

Considering well over 20 bombings of police stations, government buildings, and other public places by the Weathermen - which, by American terrorist standards, makes them greatly successful, it is disingenuous (and a bit biased) to suggest that they mostly are notable for not killing anyone.67.10.131.229 04:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

On October 18, 1974, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the WUO, testified before a US Senate Subcommittee that Bill Ayers, a WUO leader, had told him that Bernardine Dohrn, another WUO leader, had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco. Ayers told Grathwohl the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.

That bomb killed SF police officer Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell. Not only did Weather Underground bombings kill and maim people, but Dorhn herself "...had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.165.28 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is suspicion in some corners that this bomb was the work of the Weathermen, but no strong proof or official conclusion, and it is generally attributed to the Black Liberation Army, which claimed responsibility. That bombing has not been fully explained in nearly 35 years so it's unlikely to get resolved anytime soon. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing further POV and inaccuracies

I removed some additional material and added more details. Rereading it in depth, it appears to have been written by an apologist, as it ignores some salient information about Ms. Dohrn's past, instead only mentioning what she and her husband do today. She is a fascinating and frustrating person, and we should do her justice by telling the truth about her, warts and all (ie not ignoring controversies), without resorting to bias. I've been researching the Weather Underground for several years and was particularly peeved to see "COINTELPRO created dissent" blamed for the breakup of the group, which neither the main article on the Weather Underground, nor any reputable source, claims.

That's pretty insulting to the Weathermen themselves, too - despite having strong beliefs (right or wrong) that they were willing to break the law for, the infiltration of the government (COINTELPRO) created dissent and broke them up? Gimme a break. Most marriages that fail don't need COINTELPRO to help them; and this was a volatile group during volatile times, trying to become revolutionaries. We're also talking about the group that split up SDS in 1969.

COINTELPRO did collect information on the group, and may have put moles into the group; however, the main reason for the group's break includes a) arrests of members, and b) the usual "creative differences", including, finally, much more radical communist theory in the group, and arguments about what the purpose of the group was. A number of the group, including Dohrn, eventually were repudiated or left the group by the mid-1970s. Mark Rudd's interview with San Diego Indy Media is pretty instructive in explaining how isolating the group could get, and how it changed over the years.67.10.131.229 04:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The current article reads like it was written by an opponent instead of highlighting the entire life of Dohrn it chooses to focus heavily upon a specific period of her life and to give it undue weight. I am not sure what you you removed or what you added but as it now stands the article needs to be seriously re-worked or deleted because it violates Wikipedia's policy on living persons. Wikipedia policy clearly states, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous" so your comment about not ignoring controversies directly violate this policy. Wikipedia policy also states that "articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material." I am going to wait a week and if the article is not sourced properly I will delete any references that are of a controversial nature which means pretty much everything about Weather Underground. And I personally urge any editor editing this article to remove all unreliablely sourced or non-sourced information after giving a reasonable amount of time for corrections to be made. Edward Lalone 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd

The final paragraph referred to South Africa as a 'Communist country'. Since this is clearly false, I've deleted it. Just wondering why anyone put it in in the first place, though.--RainbowCommie 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Little Biographic info on the Subject - NPOV

While the subject appears to be notable, there is really very little in the article which discusses her specifically. The majority of this article seems to be about the Weathermen group and its activity -- not about Bernardine, which I think is the reason for the NPOV tag. By the nature of the Weathermen it will be hard to include background information about the group and maintain a NPOV, as any departure from what and when is subjective. The why is not pertineint to Wikipedia and can only be speculated. I suggest that discussion of the Weatherman activities be relocated to the weathermen page (note that the Weathermen page is not currently tagged for NPOV). Also, there are few references -- I have added one which was mentioned on the discussion page. --Kevin Murray 19:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article based on the above concerns and removed the Cleanup and NPOV tags. I have asked another editor to review the new next for NPOV check. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some biographical information on Dohrn including her birthdate and education as well as current information. I am still very concerned about this article from reading it. It is not well sourced and it's hardly biographical. It may be difficult to provide credible sources for this article but my suggestion would be to find links to actual newspaper articles or actual hard-copies of the news information and source that information instead of relying on what is available online as it seems that most of the information online is of a libelous nature. Whether the information is true isn't relevent to Wikipedia policy as all controversial information that is not sourced should be removed. Edward Lalone 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia Policy

This article borders on being libel and needs credible sources. More biographical information is needed and less op-ed about a specific period of her life which which undue weight in this article. Much of this article needs to be re-worked so that it is more biographical. There is no birthdate provided, and no information about her early life or where she was born or who her parents were or even what degrees she holds. This is not an encyclopedic article as it now stands and needs to be seriously re-worked. If I have time I will do more research and do some writing for it. My suggestion though for those who want to edit this article would be to start putting in more biographical information. Based on the content of the article it seems that this article may have been taken directly from one or more articles that were unfavorable to Dohrn without any attention being given to any other sources. Edward Lalone 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Even the material about her notorious days lacks much vital information. For example, there is not even any reference to her being placed on the FBI's "Most Wanted List."75.17.150.16 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable link

Removed a quasi-libelous link [1] calling Dohrn a "terrorist" who was only hired by Northwestern's law school because of nepotism. One can certainly document the controversy surrounding her without using such a biased and slanderous source. The article contains mostly the tirade of an angry alumnus who just spews bile on Dohrn. Find a better source. Inoculatedcities 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Zayd

Her son, Zayd, was a major character in the non-fiction book A Hope in the Unseen by Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind. Should this be mentioned? Mmarks10 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone supply a photo of BD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Manson Quote

It's probably her best-known single statement - should it be included along with her recent (late 90s) claim (mentioned in the NYT) that it was intended as a joke?JustThatGuy2 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If she said it and she's know for it, it's fair game but it really ought to have some context - when she said it, under what circumstances, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Undergraduate Degree

The source for the bachelor's degree is Dohrn's CV which says "Political Science, Education". However Kirkpatrick Sale in SDS, published in 1973, says "Dohrn graduated in 1963, a history major, and spent the next year getting an MA in history in the Chicago graduate school, but the liberal arts world seemed increasingly remote and in the fall of 1964 she switched to law school, planning a career as a liberal do gooding lawyer." So is the BA in political science, education and/or history? RobRedactor (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Sale is more likely to be mistaken than Dohrn, and I don't think she'd lie about that, so I'd go with what she said, but I'll keep an eye out for other sources. It's the kind of gritty little detail that slips through the cracks of someone else, but the person with the degree will always remember. Noroton (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information showing Dohrn led was a terrorist organization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

closed as fork of identical discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)#Addition of info citing reliable sources about Weatherman called a terrorist group - Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bernardine Dohrn has been called a "terrorist". According to WP:TERRORIST we should identify sourcing for that. I had added reliably sourced, cited information that she led the group and the group has been called terrorist. This is justification for the "Category: Left wing terrorists" category link and it is justification for Wikipedia stating that she has been called a terrorist.

Wikidemon has reverted the edits with the edit summary "POV". If we are to consider statements that someone or something is a terrorist "POV" then WP:NPOV allows us to provide the information that reliable sources say it.

Here is the passage Wikidemon removed:

The Weatherman organization which Dohrn led has been described as a terrorist group since the 1970s. "Within the political youth movement of the late sixties (outside of Latin America), the 'Weathermen' were the first group to reach the front page because of terrorist activities," Klaus Mehnert wrote in his 1977 book, "Twilight of the Young, The Radical Movements of the 1960s and Their Legacy". Neil A. Hamilton, in his 1996 book on militia movements in the United States, wrote, "By and large, though, these Weathermen did not rely on arming and training militia; instead, they resorted to terrorism."

Starting in 1970, newspaper articles identified the group as "terrorist" and quoted others doing so. In December 1970, Michael Charney, a spokesman for another radical youth group, the Oberlin Radical Coalition, described the group to The New York Times as an organization "resorting to terrorism." In 1975, a UPI article referred to a January 1971 statement issued by Dohrn, "suggesting that the group was considering tactics other than bombing and terrorism."

References

Wikidemo needs to justify the removal or the information should be put it back. -- Noroton (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renewed BLP questions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{Discussion has moved to Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC -- Noroton (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}}

This ongoing series of non-consensus edits[2] (approximately 13 mentions of "terrorist" or "terrorism" is a serious BLP / NPOV problem, and part of an ongoing content war. I dispute them in their entirety, do not agree with them, and believe they need to be removed again or thoroughly edited. However, consensus discussions have broken down at this point and I do not wish to edit war so I will simply register a standing objection to this particular manifestation of the months-long effort to link Barack Obama to terrorism via accusing certain living individuals with whom he has come into contact of being terrorists. Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you state why you think they are violations of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV? I thought that, based on your recent comments at Talk:Weatherman (organization), specifically [3] and [4], that you no longer had an objection to Wikipedia stating that Dohrn has been called the leader of a "terrorist" organization. I included different opinions on that. Although I believe that "terrorist" is the conclusion of a large majority of the sources on this, at this point the article only says that it is a conclusion of sources and provides plenty of them.

You say that "consensus discussions have broken down" but I haven't stopped being willing to discuss the matter. If you can't explain what it is in the language of the article that you believe is not neutral and specifically state how that language violates WP:NPOV, then there is no point to the NPOV tag, and it will have to be removed. -- Noroton (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my objections many times. I cannot imagine where you got the impression that I acquiesced to this - that strains credulity. Could you point me to exactly where you go that impression from? I said the exact opposite, many times. If you are wish to propose new material for the encyclopedia, please self-revert and make a proposal here on the talk page rather than reverting material that many editors have objected to over a long period of time. Otherwise, your edits in their entirety should be reverted, and the article needs some additional BLP-related clean-up. Wikidemon (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us add a new voice to this consensus building. The Weathermen and Dohrn have both been widely described by law enforcement, the judiciary, journalists, scholars and elected officials as terrorists. The only reason Dohrn is notable is because she was involved in terrorism. Your POV pushing on this and other articles is going to come to an end. CENSEI (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a consensus discussion, sorry. If you wish to make a proposal, and civilly and without edit warring discuss why it should be in the article, you are free to do so. However, there has long been a consensus against calling these living people "terrorists" in the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, could you restate your objections. I guess I misread what you wrote on the most recent Talk:Weatherman (organization) discussion. It would clarify things a lot if you could simply state where WP:BLP or WP:NPOV violations are or what other objections you have (consistent with WP policy and guidelines). As CENSEI points out, Dohrn's notability is tied up with her leading Weatherman, and Weatherman's notability is tied up with being known as a terrorist group. WP:TERRORISM does allow us to say that others have termed her a "terrorist" for heading up a terrorist group. That is why she's got an article in The Encyclopedia of Terrorism from 2003. I don't understand what policy objections there could be to this. -- Noroton (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI points out nothing. I'm not going to be baited into the 30th to 40th fork of this discussion. You certainly know the BLP, weight, NPOV, TERRORISM, and RS objections - you have read them in 40 places or more so far. Revert the nonconsensus edits here and at Weatherman (organization), stop the uncivil accusations, insults, and collateral administrative attacks against me and other editors, and join an orderly discussion about this material. I will start an RfC about this and we can assess the project's inclinations toward this material once and for all.Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yippie! Wikidemon is generous enough to allow me to edit one of his article!

But seriously, if the description of Dohrn as a terrorist can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, then it deserves inclusion here. What is worng with that? Your beef seems to be that there is to be no mention of Dohrn or her activities being described that way, regardless of what the citations say. That is an extremly POV postion of you. CENSEI (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the way to start an orderly discussion was to start discussing, and I am again attempting to do that in a reasonable way. -- Noroton (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not characterize the recent events as reasonable or conducive to discussion, quite the opposite. Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no adequate source for saying Dohrn is a terrorist. There are reliable sources for mentioning that some people call her a terrorist. Whether we do that or not is governed by a number of policies and choices, not just WP:V. WP:BLP is the most prominent but there are also matters of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:TERRORISM. We can discuss that in an orderly, civil environment, perhaps an RfC, but not here - for the 30th+ time - in an atmosphere of edit warring and personal attacks. Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly dont see what you are even objecting to here. Not one sentence in this article says that Dohrn is a terrorist. There are several lines that says she and her actions are "considered" to be terrorist, but its all done according to all relevant policies. It would seem more and more likely that you are either not reading the contributions or are frivolously throwing accusations around to reinforce your argument. CENSEI (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is as orderly and civil an environment as long as we stay orderly and civil, and discussion has begun here. Discussion should not be moved to other spots, per WP:TALK. I think ordinary RfCs simply direct discussion to the article discussion page. The fact is that I haven't called Dohrn a terrorist or even said that she headed up a terrorist group. I've cited others saying she headed up what is a terrorist group. As for WP:WEIGHT, her actions as head of that group are why she's notable -- if those actions hadn't been taken, it's unlikely there would be an article here, because she's not famous for anything else. WP:WEIGHT demands treatment of this question. WP:NPOV demands treatment of it, and the WP:WELLKNOWN section of WP:BLP also demands treatment of it. Sources are easily available and there are many of them. -- Noroton (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dohrn, 30 Nov 2007, Michigan State University SDS reunion

part 1 and 2.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a lawyer // Work at Northwestern Law School

The entry on Dohrn is, at present, self-contradictory, in that it describes Dohrn in the lede paragraph as an "associate professor" at Northwestern, but later describes her employment as being "adjunct" with a title of "Clinical Associate Professor." These facts are mutually incompatible and should be changed by someone who can verify her current employment status at Northwestern. Matthew Baldwin (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dohrn is often described as a "lawyer" but she has never been admitted to the bars of either Illinois or New York. According to this article in the Northwestern Chronicle, Dohrn was unable to pass the Moral Character and Fitness portion of the New York bar due to her criminal past. Therefore, to say she was an "associate" at Sidley & Austin is inaccurate, since at best she was a paralegal or intern. Being a law school graduate does not make one a lawyer. CagedRage 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This discrepency should be researched further as the article also states, "Dohrn's legal career began in 1984 as an associate at the prestigious law firm of Sidley & Austin. At the time, the law firm was headed by Howard Trienens, who O'Shea said represented Dohrn's father-in-law Thomas Ayers when he was running Commonwealth Edison." So based on the article you cite it would appear that she was not "at best a paralegal or intern" but in fact an associate. It is my understanding that an associate is a lawyer and is employed as such and that Partners are those who have part ownership in the firm. The claim that she is a lawyer has been made by several credible sources. Even the article you cite states she was an associate at Sidley and Austin prior to being hired by Northwestern as a Professor of Law. Also Time Magazine states published the following statement "Dohrn, a lawyer since 1967, is today director of Northwestern University Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center. Dohrn is married to ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers, who teaches education at the University of Illinois." It seems that if a credible and reliable magazine can use the term lawyer to describe Dohrn than we can safely do the same until credible sources state otherwise. Edward Lalone 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. The ultimate authorities on the issue are the state bars of New York and Illinois, neither of which list a "Bernardine Dohrn" in their rolls. Search for yourself: New York State Bar and Illinois State Bar. It doesn't matter what articles say what. If she was never admitted to the bars of any state, then she is not a lawyer. Period. CagedRage 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly be an "Associate" without being a "licensed lawyer." Law firms universally hire recent graduates as "Associates" before any of them pass the bar examination. If they never pass, their employment is eventually terminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.201.180.137 (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The preceding unsigned comment is ill-informed; an "associate" at a law firm is a bar-certified lawyer. Rarely, firms hire associates prior to their passage of the bar, but their employment would be IMMEDIATELY terminated if they failed to pass the bar. According to the dictionary definition of "lawyer" is a person who practices law. In the united states to do so without the certification of a bar association is illegal. Matthew Baldwin (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you graduate from law school you are considered a lawyer irrespective of whether you pass the bar. Passing the bar is what allows a lawyer to practice in a particular state. You also can be an associate in a firm without having passed the bar. In fact, it happens at pretty much every big firm in the U.S since first years haven't found out if they passed the bar when they start working yet are referred to as associates both internally and to the outside world (i.e., through the firm's website). The bios just say "associate" and then "JD not admitted." Bottom line: She's a lawyer and she very well could have been hired as an associate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.124.217 (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders - in which articles an dwhere in those articles. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Terror doesn’t have to involve the actual taking of a life or the harming of an individual. It is a feeling that one or more things (people) are subjected too. If you want to focus on the details the real question is how much time does a "thing" need to be subjected to this feeling (fear) before it is considered terror. Walking up behind someone and scaring them isn’t terror because the feeling of fear is short term but if that person develops a condition of being afraid of people walking up behind them because of that one instance, then it can be considered terror. Terror is a behavioral condition that one or more things have because of an action taken by some "thing". The action (terrorism) committed is not the argument but the actual effect that lingers after the action. With this said, you can become a terrorist without even intending to become one. You can be a terrorist one day and not a terrorist the next. The second argument is the act of intention. If a "thing" continues on a pattern of behavior that they know will cause an effect of terror then they are terrorists. Causing terror and being terrorists are two different things. If a child is scared of dogs and a dog approaches this child and causes terror in this child, are all dogs terrorists? On the opposite side, if you have a bully going around a school causing continual fear in his schoolmates this bully could be labeled a terrorist. The third argument is the legality of the action. This is what is typically the deciding factor for most people. Did the action that caused an effect legal? With the case of the Weatherman Group blowing up buildings, there is no question about if this is legal? If they passed a law in Chicago that said, "Blowing up buildings is now legal!" then the Weatherman Group would not be considered terrorists but because it is illegal to blow up buildings they are considered terrorists. They knew that the effect of blowing up buildings would cause terror and they developed a pattern of continually causing this fear. Like they say, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck.” --Xinunus (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Outcome of RfC

Per the outcome of the RfC, consensus is to not discuss in this article that some describe the Weathermen as terrorists. I have edited accordingly. However, I have left in any "...ism" categories because, unlike "...ist" categories they do not imply a determination that Dohrn or her organization(s) are or were terrorists. Please do not re-insert this material. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No consensus was agreed upon in the RfC with relation to this issue, so please dont claim there was. I will now undo your edit accordingly. CENSEI (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You need consensus for inclusion in a WP:BLP. Without, it defaults to exclusion. Stop edit warring. Grsz^X 15:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the results of a content-related RfC can be certified? After a month-long RfC we really should not have to keep re-arguing this matter. Wikidemon (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. In a BLP if there is no consensus for inclusion of text that is controversy, it cannot be included, even regardless of the fact that BLP and WP:TERRORISM state that terrorist is a judgement that Wikipedia should not and cannot make. There is no consensus for inclusion, and many policies stack against it as well. As far as ending arguments, it will not happen. CENSEI isn't fond of project policies to begin with, so why would a definite decision at RfC change that? Grsz^X 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected the page for 2 weeks as a result of the recent dispute. Moreover, in biographies with living sujects there should be a consensus to include contentious material before it is inserted. From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. (my bolding)

When the issue is resolved by discussion then the article can be unprotected. Hopefully this will take less than the current 2 week protection period and protection can be lifted early, rather than extended. I would suggest a request for comment if a resolution is unlikely amongst the current disputants. CIreland (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note RfC here. Thx, Wikidemon (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Birthname

Born Bernardine Ohrnstein[5]  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I added her birth surname in the lead and fixed the link in the Personal Life section. I also changed that section to refer to her parents by their first names, in keeping with Mos:Bio. That also served to reduce repetition. Ariadne55 (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Attractive

Shouldn't the section on Dohrn's biography mention something about how womanly she appeared in her mugshots? Isn't it necessary to mention how beautiful she was? Is she not precisely what we desire nowadays in young women? Intelligent, committed, cynical? With that touch of womanliness, of feminine beauty yet uncorrupted by the "girl" industry?

Let's at least admit it here. Even if such lucubrations aren't worth the webspace. Let us take a moment to honor the beauty of this revolutionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Um..... No. Unless multiple secondary sources have mentioned here beauty then we don't either Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you can hear only what the sounds announces and just see those the light discloses then you can neither see nor hear.(Anonymous?). The point is: let the mugshots speak by themselves.

--Agcala (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

photo incorrect

The photo on the right is not Dohrn. It is Katherine Ann Power. See this page. It doesn't even look like Dohrn from that period (she didn't wear heavy glasses). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a sense of whether this claim is correct or not. The FBI page shows two images, one of Dohrn the other of Power, but the labeling does not make it clear which is which. Looking at a similar age image, e.g. http://media.msnbc.msn.com/j/msnbc/1929000/1929912.standard.jpg... well, I'm not sure. This mugshot indeed does not have glasses, but the resolution of any of them doesn't make it obvious to me if it could be the same person. LotLE×talk 07:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Weatherman (organization) BLP issues?

redundant discussion - please see main discussion at Talk:Bill Ayers
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment From the above articles, there is a short and well sourced paragraph of a current event that editor Wikidemon keeps deleting; On February 24, 2009, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” that establish how Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell, a 20-year veteran of the department. The San Francisco Police Department’s Park Station was bombed Feb. 16, 1970, killing Sgt. Brian McDonnell. Eight other officers were injured. McDonnell died two days after the bombing. The case has yet to be solved. This above text is not an accusation; the closing states that "The case has yet to be solved." This is a neutrally worded text of an event verified by mainstream media. For more info, please see; Fox News' article Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing, PR Newswire's article Attorney General Urged to Investigate Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn by Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism, Accuracy in Media's article Bernadette Dohrn, Bill Ayers and the bomb that killed a cop, and Chicagoland's Television's article San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers are a few good examples of this current event. This event, involving San Francisco Police Officers Association and Bill Ayers has been well noted by multiple reliable sources that have verified its notability. As such the section should be not be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon has yet to state how this current event, reported on by mutltiple reliable sources, is a BLP violation. Until you state exactly how this is a BLP violation, you are just making accusations. There are multiple reliable sources that have reported on this event, there is no reason why it should not be included. Reports by mainstream media do not violate BLP - if you disagree - state how. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Venceremos Brigades

Interesting tid bit, Dohrn was a member of the Venceremos Brigades, an organization that was used by Cuban intelegence as a recruiting tool for them. How notable is any of this information. CENSEI (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry IMO this just is not up to the standards of an international grouping called WIKIPEDIA. There are a number of allegations and insinuations here which require some evidence to back them up. If no such evidence can be produced then these HAVE TO be deleted. They might be mistaken for smear tactics. Here and elsewhere (article on Cuban Five http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five) one has the impression that the articles do not serve the interests of an impartial investigation of the facts. Just some obvious points:

a) if there was such a meeting in Cuba, it took place before the unfortunate take-over by the Weathermen faction. In other words this grouping had not morphed into their armed revolt faction. BTW shortly after which they closed SDS national office down (!!) despite the SDS having had c. 100,000 members. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29). b) There is no evidence that any sort of agreement was reached with the Cubans -- or anyone else -- who may have thought that these students were interested in doing some work on behalf of Cuba e.g. giving talks, raising money etc. Or working on the sugar harvest. c) I simply do not believe that the North Vietnamese were present at this meeting on Cuba. No such meetings took place in Europe with similar groups supporting them e.g. Baader-Meinhof Gang. d) There is no evidence that either the Cuban or N. Vietnamese govt. ever supported terrorism in the USA, and in fact such an insinuation runs counter to what we know about the way they operate(d). e) If this visit took place, what role did the FBI and Cointelpro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro) play in its organization? f) The comment in the discussion about Venceremos also needs a citation or should be ignored.

I could go on.

Summary. This paragraph should be deleted. TJG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.12.41 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC) `71.142.12.41 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Tim Jake Gl 18th December . California

Grathwohl allegations (plus Steen and Latimer)

I made this edit [6] to clarify an ambiguity. Grathwohl apparently considered Dohrn a "top leader" (horrible phrase) of the group, but we should not use that as a source for "while she was a top leader...", so I rephrased to "during this period" which conveys the factual content without necessarily accepting Grathwohl's opinion as gospel. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. When I wrote the passage, I didn't think anyone would dispute the idea that she was top leader (sources are in pretty much universal agreement on this -- but I can't expect everyone to know that, and the subject is sensitive, so it's a good call). There are many sources that indicate she was the most authoritative leader of the group, but a lot of sources are also vague, probably because when the Weatherman split off from Students for a Democratic Society she doesn't seem to have had a formal title. She was one of a small number in the govering board ("Weather Bureau" or "Weatherbureau", called "Central Committee" starting in the spring of 1970), which makes her "a" top leader. Here are some authoritative sources calling her "the" top leader:

1. Over at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC#Noroton's proposal #1 -- for Bernardine Dohrn I've posted new language for that particular passage, with a footnote from an FBI report ([7] "BERNARDINE DOHRN is the acknowledged leader of the WUO [Weather Underground Organization]." (page 188 of the document, page 5 of the PDF)).
2. Since it's founding in 1969, Miss Dohrn was the most important member of the group, which grew smaller as the 1970's progressed. She was at the forefront of a factional fight in 1977, an apparent last gasp to keep the group alive, two of its former members said. -- "F.B.I. Disputes Assertion that Dohrn Surrender Spells End of Weather Underground", United Press International, news article, as it appeared in The New York Times, December 7, 1980, retrieved September 17, 2008 -- probably inaccessable to nonsubscribers, but here's the link [8] (The FBI was disputing that there weren't still other Weather Underground members underground and available for mayhem, not that Dohrn was the most important member of the group)
3. It was old news. Bernardine Dohrn, formerly head of the radical Weather Underground group and once among the F.B.I.'s most wanted fugitives, is a faculty member at Northwestern University Law School. But her husband's recently released memoir about their days as Weathermen has apparently opened new wounds. -- Fountain, John W., "Northwestern Alumni to End Donations if Ex-Radical Stays", news article, The New York Times, November 4, 2001, retrieved September 18, 2008 [9] (again, probably behind the Times' subscription wall)
4. Former Weatherman member Cathy Wilkerson in her memoir, Flying Close to the Sun says Dohrn was in a unique place at the top of the group ("In joining Weatherman, I was , finally and ironically, succumbing to the desire to be one of the chosen, to have power indirectly through my association with powerful men. Bernardine's unique place at the top only made it more palpable." -- p 275).
5. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - NewsBank - Nov 5, 2001 -- Bernardine Dohrn, formerly head of the radical Weather Underground group and once among the FBI's most wanted fugitives, Google News Archives search result
6. According to this Google News Archives search result, several articles call her "the leader" (others say "a leader"):
   1. NY Times, Nov 24, 1980 -- Bernardine Dohrn, the reputed leader of the radical Weather Underground
   2. NY Times, Nov 27, 1980 -- been identified as Bernardine Dohrn, the fugitive leader of the radical Weather Underground.
   3. NY Times, Dec 4, 1980 -- Still espousing, revolutionary causes, Bernardine Dohrn, the 38-year-old reputed leader of the radical Weather Underground, surrendered to the authorities ...
   4. Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1982 -- Bernardine Dohrn, the leader of the radical Weather Underground who evaded an FBI manhunt for 11 years, was jailed Wednesday for contempt of court when she ...

I think this sourcing gives some idea that she was widely known as the top leader of the group (many news accounts call her "a leader" rather than "the leader", but that's just vaguer language (probably due to the lack of an authoritative title -- it doesn't appear she ever used one after the SDS broke up), and it doesn't contradict the idea that she was the most authoritative leader. I think I saw one source that said Dohrn took over from Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd as leader of the organization when it was underground, but only one source said that (and I think the source is wrong -- I can go find the quote if someone wants it.) Whatever the other controversies surrounding this article, her position in the organization is probably something we can all agree on. I can wait for an explicit consensus to form on this or change the sourcing and wording after the block is listed, if no one objects. -- Noroton (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the RFC with some interest last night. I am persuaded that the weight of evidence is pretty solidly behind your interpretation, I just found that once sentence to be open to misconstruction; I suspect that after the RFC we can stop relying on WP:ATTint it just to Grathwohl, since there appears to be a much larger body of sources which supports her being in an influential leadership role at this time. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Plus Steen (now homeless) and Latimer (now dead). See Talk:San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing#Possible Weatherman connex?. ↜Just M E here , now 02:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tate/LaBianca murders

Why the whitewash? It is VERY important because it sadly gave Manson kudos from the Far Left. It also shows complete hypocrisy. I respect her just as much as you but at the same time facts are facts. She gloated and mocked the deaths of innocent people , including a woman who was full term, who were brutally killed by a right wing racist sexist nutcase. By mentioning the documentary I leave it open to another source eg:not being mentioned. plus there is an extensive explanation by her husband so why not further info for balance? Leave it all in please.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 2:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point it looks like it may be more of a behavioral than a content issue, and I have warned the above editor on their talk page accordingly. There is no whitewash, so there is nothing to explain here. Dohrn's statements are shocking and outlandish as it is, and any reasonable reader will understand that. It's our job here in the encyclopedia to say what happened, what the effect was, and what other people thought of it. It's not our job here to adorn things with scandalous details about how many times different people were stabbed just to show the poor taste of someone who made a comment about the incident. The fact of Sharon Tate's being pregnant is relevant because Dohrn seems to reference that with the "fork in her belly" comment. The other stuff is just sensationalism. The fact that a film was made that doesn't reference her comments is not relevant. Do you have any reliable source that links that to the subject matter here? Your own commentary on the significance of the contents of a film with respect to an event not depicted in the film is simple original research on a primary source. This extra stuff should be removed, and you should only add it if you find consensus to do so here. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all behavioral and you are the one protecting povs not me. Those are HER words and they are followed by an extensive section with quotes by her obviously very biased husband backing up how it was just for "camp" value. Her husband's comments should be removed before anything I included. Also what you claim is "poorly disputed" is claimed by her husband and you, I'm not seeing a denial of what was said by her husband , I'm just seeing a denial of intention. So both sides are in, what's wrong with that? And why is it sensationalized? Bugliosi's book sold 7 million copies and its not trashy or exploitative in anyway! I put a link to the film itself so you or anyone can see for yourself.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 2:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume that people who disagree with your content edits are whitewashing things or advancing a POV (see WP:AGF). Of the content changes you have proposed I accept most as improvements to the article, and I raise specific objections to some, and paraphrase others. Better to respond to those specific issues than to make accusations. In fact our preferred versions are very close at this point. I think you were right to remove Ayers' long quote. What sensationalism remains is to give the cumulative stab count of the LaBiancas. What does that have to do with the offensiveness of Dohrn's statement? If they had been stabbed once each it would have been equally out of line. It speaks only to the criminal insanity of the Manson family, something that is already well known and plenty evident by following the links. Books and to some extent newspapers can do that because their tone is expository. They are telling a story. Here we have wikilinks and we are laying out the facts. Also, saying "Sharon Tate was over 8 months pregnant at the time" after, rather than before, Dohrn's statement makes it sound more like we're using the fact to chastise Dohrn than to shed light on things. How does the fact of Tate's pregnancy make Dohrn's statement any different? Here, there is some relevance because the "fork in the belly" comment evokes the murder of the fetus as well, which Dohrn must have intended with such a statement. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you then, I'm just prefer that Ayers apology be stricken which we agree upon. And yes the references to the Labianca's mortal injuries should also be removed. Has SHE ever made a statement about this? Its a huge issue on the blogs and with leftists and conservatives alike regrading her history and this article would do well to have her opinions in here.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 4:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC

I've reverted an IP editor who re-inserted the film reference and Ayers' reationalization. I also went ahead and reworded the first paragraph per this discussion, but in doing so I've come to agree with you that the multiple stabbings is relevant to the quote. It's not just showing that Dohrn is mocking (or approving of, or whatever) an especially brutal murder, but she's actually making a nasty reference to the act of stabbing. Wow. If you gave me a whole week I probably couldn't come up with anything more offensive to say. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dohrn cannot in my opinion have made such comments about the Manson affair. Yesterday I borrowed the film 'The Weather Uderground' (2004. Siegel / Green) from 'Hollywood' the DVD chain. There is a critical commentary on the film by Dohrn and her husband Bill Ayers in the "Special Features' section. a) Dohrn strongly condemns the Manson murders which appear in the context of the (awareness of) wave of the violence in te USA in December 2009 that included the notorious My Lai massacre in Vietnam. b) She appears to be unaware that such allegations had been made against her. c) The film-makers make no reference to it. If there were anything in this allegation against Dohrn, would they not have asked her about it?

BUT I find it inexplicable that they all walked away with a wrist-slap. The sub-text is clear to me, and I shall return to it at a later date. BTW I was a member (loose) of the peaceful movement against the Vietnam War. TJG —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimJakeGl (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In the video mentioned (Siegel / Green) Dohrn's actual words: "Look at this hideous criminal act of Charles Manson that they've conflated,". By conflated she means that Manson's butchery was used by the mass media -- e.g. in the UK where I lived -- as being representative and typical of hippies, a groups Ayers / Dohrn go to some lengths to defend. Isn't what is important, what people are saying now? What on earth is the possible relevance of what sb said in a private meeting 40 years ago? Those were totally different atmospheres in the 1960s, 1970s.. The Weather Underground only attacked property not people.

In effect, focusing so much on this one SPEECH ACT without even mentioning the  hideous death toll of the Vietnam war totally distorts our picture of those days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War gives a figure of c. 3.5 million dead. Without giving this context, the article conveys the impression that this misguided (indeed) group of SDSers were merely psychotics. More explosives were dropped on Vietnam during the USA involvement than all sides used in WW2, and that is a huge amount. + Agent Orange etc etc. In the film, Ayers and Dohrn also make a self-critical comment about how they romanticised violence. TJG —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimJakeGl (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The "fork in the belly" statement is actually misconstrued by Dohrn. It was Leno LaBianca, the victims of the following nights round of Manson murders that had the fork sticking in his stomach. Dohrn was probably capsulizing the two nights of murders, and referring to Tate because she was the most high profile victim. Just an FYI...76.173.77.186 (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the anger towards this statement (and Dohrn in general), but her original quote has been grossly misconstrued here. The "pig Tate's belly" bit, specifically, is an exaggeration/fabrication. Firstly, her speech was during a demonstration of which there is no audio, so any rehashing of her statement is likely speculation. Bugliosi was certainly not present at the War Council demonstration, yet his rephrasing of Ms. Dohrn's words is frequently cited with regard to this issue. Accuracy aside, the quote he attributes to Bernardine in Helter Skelter makes no mention of Tate:

"Just before she went underground, Bernardine Dohrn told a Students for a Democratic Society convention: 'Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.'"

Finally, while it is impossible to determine Ms. Dohrn's exact quote, in the Weather Underground documentary mentioned above, and in most other accounts, Dohrn's words were "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach. Wild." Again, there is no question that the statement was outrageous and insensitive, but that should not be the basis for perpetuating misinformation. Missmeghann (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up here. Frankly, it sounds like she was engaging in 1960s stoner-speak. Wild, man. Freak-OUT! I think the resulting change in the article is good, although I would avoid the word "slightly", as it is an editorial judgment call (and therefore sounds a bit judgmental) to comment on how significant the differences are among the various accounts of what she said. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

For sure (pardon the phrase) - not sure who changed the cite; I think I left it as-is. Thanks!Missmeghann (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please correct English syntax

In Section 3 (Later radical history), the sentence starting the third paragraph, "While Dohrn was leader of the group,went underground in early 1970, and engaged in a series of bombings" has serious issues with English syntax; please correct it. There is a misplaced comma, possibly a missing subject preceding "went", and please clarify who engaged in bombings (Dohrn or the group). Presumably the group, since the next sentence starts with "Its activities". And who went underground, for that matter? All this is definitely outside my expertise, so I am not going to try to correct the syntax, since I would only be guessing the intended meaning. User:Mateat 6:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing Tags

I would like to remove the tags on this page in regards to the neutrality of the article. There was one statement that seemed to be the major focus of this issue. I edited the phrasing slightly and added a reference. This tag was put on back in September of 2008. If for any reason someone feels this has not been resolved, we can try to resolve any other issues.

Terrorist ID

The group committed violence, against humans, effecting death, in its modus operandi. How is their behavior not terroristic? They cannot be simply called a radical communist organization. There are plenty radical and also communist organizations in the United States. They do not act in the same manner as the WU.Dogru144 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My reason for reverting is this: This is an issue that should be discussed at the Weather Underground article and we shouldn't have different discussions (and possibly different outcomes) on every article associated with the WU. Generally I think other articles should follow the lead of that one. Gamaliel (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the label on the basis of WP:NPOV, WP:TERRORIST, and WP:BLP, and because the terrorist label was something applied decades after the fact, mostly in the context of an attempt to smear a modern-day presidential candidate, and was seldom if ever used at the time. Indeed there has been a consensus decided after a great deal of discussion not to use the term with respect to individual former members of the group. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The term terrorist was applied to them and their kindred German and Italian counterparts in the 1970s, not 2008, long before the rise of Al Qaeda. Further to the point, the WU leaders did not think she was with her fork in the pigs comment; and Dohrn declared war on the US. What more do you need?Dogru144 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus and reliable sourcing for one. We've been through this enough times. Please review the article history. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As to smearing of a major presidential candidate. Yes, hers and Ayers' terrorist associations and apologies were exploited for smear purposes. This exploiting is irrelevant. The issues are separate from the President. Simply that some people exploited this does not negate the history of the Weather Underground terrorist activity.Dogru144 (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they were called terrorists primarily by Obama's opponents for political purposes during the 2008 campaign. They were not designated or generally considered terrorists when the organization was active, as the word had different connotations then and was not used as a generalized pejorative for politically motivated violence. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The committed bombings and shootings and these are acts of lethal violence, however much as you are limiting the terror to the claims of Obama's opponents. Read up on the matter; terrorism occurred in the 1970s. {You're OK with this: "politically motivated violence.." Since when has wikipedia been an environment that dismissed political terror as "politically motivated violence."?Dogru144 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

These acts are defensible as mere style? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions Dogru144 (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally avoids labeling people or groups as terrorists, and the reason is explained fairly well per WP:TERRORIST. If a government or other relevant official group designates someone as a terrorist or adds someone to a list of terrorists we would generally note that designation. Further, if someone is widely accused of being a terrorist that accusation, if noteworthy and sourced, is sometimes included subject to WP:BLP concerns. For your information and as a courtesy to inform you of past discussions on the subject (and not as an attempt to re argue them), the bottom line is that the Weathermen and their members were not placed on any official lists of terrorists during the period they were active. Today they are inactive, so they fall outside of the purview of any official body that is in the business of fighting or keeping lists of terrorists - the closest thing is a "homegrown terrorist" page on an FBI history site, but even that is not an official designation. Both then, and now, the reliable sources describe them as radicals, militants, and the like (often with the adjective "violent"). Until the US election there were only a few stray quotes here and there that called them terrorists. The accusations of terrorism in connection with the election are covered in the Bill Ayers presidential election controversy article, and to a lesser extent in the main article about the group. However, there was no consensus, and a lot of concern, over associating individual surviving members of the group with terrorism, something they themselves deny. You can get a fuller sense of that by reviewing the old discussions, but you should be aware that some of the accounts advocating for calling them terrorists were fake and/or have been banned from Wikipedia for violating codes of behavior. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your officious comment about the Weather Underground as never officially called terrorist is a presentist comment. If you were ar9ound then you would have noticed that the government did not use the term as freely as today. Secondly, the fugitive criminals (there, I said it, not actors as the euphemism oges) were on F.B.I. Top Ten Most Wanted lists in Post Offices. I guess eikipedians have been active enough in whiteeashing W.U.'s record and the deaths that resulted.Dogru144 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That they "did not use the term as freely as today" is all the more reason not to use it now. Going back and retroactively applying the "terrorist" label is just pointless. How far back in history would you like to go? Francis Marion? Guy Fawkes? Tarc (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Adams and Crispus Attucks, me thinks. Samson perhaps, you know, divinely inspired suicide mission to demolish an infidel church full of worshipers. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess some of us will never pass clearance for a government job. I notice that kindred spirit Carlos the Jackal has the term terrorist scrubbed off his bio intro. As to"all the more reason not to use it now," I doubt that you'd ever find the term acceptable. How do you describe Hamas rockets against villages? Dogru144 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm rather allergic to fish. All we're discussing here is Bernardine Dohrn and the "terrorist" label. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does the link to Larry Grathwohl only lead back to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowcharge (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Park Police Station Bombing

Why no mention of the bombing? Dohrn has been fingered by several people as one of those involved. Ironic, considering she's now a big time NU Law professor.

Also in the case file were multiple forms from interviews with a former Weather Underground member named Karen Latimer. In the mid-1970s, years after Steen spoke to the FBI, Latimer came forward to say that she had attended a separate planning session for the Park Station attack with Dohrn and Machtinger in the winter of 1970. (In the months leading up to the bombing, Dohrn was living on a houseboat in Sausalito, according to an account in A Radical Line, the family memoir of Thai Jones, son of former Weatherman Jeff Jones.)

At these meetings, Reagan said, Dohrn "seemed to be more or less the ringleader," while "Machtinger gave instructions on how to build the bomb, and they discussed the placing of the bomb at Park Station." http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-09-16/news/time-bomb/2/

The San Francisco Police Officers Association's leadership has been told to muzzle it after signing a letter accusing onetime Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, of being behind the nearly 40-year-old bombing at a San Francisco police station that killed a sergeant. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/17/BA3J16ID29.DTL#ixzz1psDRPTjV — Preceding unsigned comment added by PFSaenz (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Never happened. See conclusions in Matthew Landy Steen Weathervane13 04:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Article needs rewrite

This article deserves a rewrite for better flow. Will work on this gingerly with care and neutrality. Afterwards, article should be assessed; apparently it is now unassessed for the article is far from B-class quality.99.127.230.217 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2013 (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)

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)