Jump to content

Talk:Weather Underground/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Lede

I spent some time reading the archived discussions and the RfC on how the group should be classified. Although there was an overwhelming number of sources, including the FBI, categorizing the Weather Underground as a terrorist organization, it never made it into the article's lede. I think this is a mistake and one that editors wont be so willing to fight over now that the 2008 election is history. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the widespread off-Wikipedia discussion about Bill Ayers and Weather Underground supposedly being both terrorists and Obama friends died down shortly after the 2008 election. There was no consensus at the time to add the description, and no particular change in the sources since then. No FBI source was offered that classified the group as terrorist. The one FBI history page that used the word decades after the fact was not an official designation, and it seems unlikely that there could be such a designation as there was no FBI list of domestic terrorists at the time nor is there today a mechanism for retroactively adding defunct groups to a list. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking back at the news articles of that era, it seems abundantly clear that the WU was considered a terrorist organization by the government as well as the press. [1]. I understand the political implications of the 2008 election, but I really don’t understand why this is still so controversial a topic.
Would some wording like "according to various sources, the WU was considered a domestic terrorist organization" or something to that effect suffice? ZHurlihee (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Dozens of people participated in a very long process that resulted in no consensus to describe the group as terrorist. You may disagree with the outcome, nothing wrong with that, but you've presented no new sources or arguments that were not already considered. I don't have the score card handy but please be aware that some on the "pro" side were either not legitimate accounts or were later blocked/banned from Wikipedia for behavior related to political advocacy. No, the WU was not considered a terrorist organization at the time. A single "blast from the past" (excuse the pun) page that FBI's public relations department wrote a couple decades after the fact calling WU homegrown terrorists does not mean that the FBI considered them terrorists. As I've said the concept was not widely applied at the time to domestic insurgents, saboteurs, and militants. Terrorists were people who hijacked airplanes or blew up hotel lobbies. Then as now some people used the term in varying ways, or as a term of derision, but cherry picking sources (38 + 58 sources - though some aren't referring to WU) that happen to use the word does not make it an official designation. By that standard we should call them "radical" (75 + 572) or just not use a designation (575 + 3880 sources). We specifically avoid using words that mostly serve the purpose of making value judgments. The article is explicit as to what the group did and is accused of doing. The only thing it adds to say that this is considered terrorism is to put a judgment on it. What to make of the fact that 5-6% of all the sources at the time used the word "terrorist" in articles discussing them? Not much, without context. To report on the application of the word terrorist to the group would require some sourcing of that question, who called them terrorists and why. That would be developed in the body of an article, and only added to the lede if it were a core issue. It wasn't considered an issue at the time. The interest in whether they were terrorists or not started well before the presidential election, sometime around 2001, as people's conception (or at least use of) the term was expanding to include saboteurs and violent militants: people who cut power lines, disabled logging trucks, or released lab animals. There's a bit of that in the Bill Ayers article and also Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist

Article pages are not a forum for airing opinions on the subject matter, or gripes about Wikipedia. This comment does not appear reasonably likely to result in productive discussion about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This group is a terrorist organization. why is that not listed. they're motivation is to use fear though violence and threats to force a political agenda. the essence of terrorism. so conveniently left out. wikipedia is a joke. you only post things that are backed up by mainstream media thus everything on wikipedia is the mainstream medarm. what is the point of wikipedia other than to brainwash everyone further by mainstream media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland bombing

Is there any reason for no mention of the 1970 bombing of The Thinker at the Cleveland Museum of Art? --Chimino (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick search and couldnt verify it. Do you have a particular source? ZHurlihee (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
There is this: PRE http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic37-02-002.html JAIC 1998, Volume 37, Number 2, Article 2 (pp. 173 to 186) /PRE from the page on the Cleveland Museum of Art - which is verifiable (I assume) as to the fact that the attack was alleged to have been the work of WU. But I don't know where it would go in the article - a whole separate sub-section is overkill for just an allegation of involvement. (Why don't PRE tags work on Talk pages?) Jimw338 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed the source, but there's a sister article, List of Weatherman actions, that might be a more useful place. There are so many confirmed and unconfirmed weatherman actions there's not enough room for them all in this article, so rather than be incomplete it's best to choose just the most significant ones here, and keep a separate compendium. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point on listing. Only major actions (Pentagon, State Dept, US Capitol, etc) should be covered in this article, while all others should be submitted to List of W actions.Weathervane13 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Formatting problem

In the 1977-1981 section there is the string “< ref>”, which surely doesn’t belong. JDAWiseman (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Refining new content

This added content could do with some unpacking. It is a bit heavily quotative, particularly of secondary sources, and could explain more fully (ideally with examples) some of the rather categorical claims that appear here. For instance, views were probably less monolithic than this portion of the entry might suggest. Not only did members of the organization hold divergent perspectives, but also the group as a whole developed/shifted its thinking over the life of the organization. One partial remedy in this regard would be to reference pivotal events or statements, anchoring them in known chronology.Historytrain (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Anti-imperialism, Anti-racism & White privilege

Hey,

So for one of my classes while researching Weather I've come up with a new section for the Weather page. I first wanted to add to ideology and then I realized that what I really wanted to do was bring out aspects of Weather's ideology. When reading through the Weather narrative on Weather's main page there was no talk of how their anti-imperialist stance was fundamentally anti-racist and by implication working to fight white privilege- (at least in their eyes). I've drafted up a section and put these ideas under a new section called, "Anti-imperialism, Anti-racism & White Privilege" . I was one looking for feedback under some of my verbiage, my content, & my placement of it in the overall narrative. Thanks Wiki world! (springer1521) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springer1521 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be able to expand the section on white privilege by considering the theory of structural racism in the U.S. See the section on the academic use of the term on the White supremacy. Much of white privilege is based within this system. Fledglingrsrchr (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

US population in 1960

The article claimed that "In the year 1960, almost 50 percent of America’s population was under 18 years of age...". The actual figure, from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, is 36%. (See http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab1951-1994.htm). The sentence has been corrected to "In the year 1960, over a third of America’s population was under 18 years of age..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.149.250 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

i stand by my comments that this organization is a terrorist organization

"This group is a terrorist organization. why is that not listed. they're motivation is to use fear though violence and threats to force a political agenda. the essence of terrorism."

http://www.nctc.gov/site/other/definitions.html

Terrorism Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.

taken from the National Counterterrorism Center US gov website. how is weather underground exempt from this title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research, and provide academically peer-reviewed scholarly secondary sources specifically describing the group as a terrorist organization. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Technically, the only thing this organization "is", is defunct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello person who stands by his comments. I think it was my edit. At the time, there was no citation and it seemed like a political statement. I am O.K. with the edit that was done after my own, where they say that the WU were categorized as a terrorist organisation by x,y and z. Personally, I think that there is a wider problem with how people use the word terrorism. It is true (whether you like it or not) that one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and vv. armies cause a state of terror, hence they may be categorized as a terrorist organisation and it is in fact unfair(and intellectually meaningless) to categorize one group as terrorists and another as not - it is never objective and has no place in a global encyclopedia.

Updating citations in reflist

With a reflist template how does one update a citation contained therein? See what I've done (!) to the reflist. My update appears as a tag appended to the bottom of the list. Help.Weathervane13 (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Weather Underground is also a Weather Website.

Weather Underground is a weather station and I don't want to be confused by looking up this station by being affiliated with this group.

[redacted] - Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

21:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.60.184 (talk)

There is a link at the top of the article to what is known as a "disambiguation page". From there, you can find the article about the weather website, Weather Underground (weather service). It makes sense that this article is the main link, as the weather station appears to have been named after the organization. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was confused also, so I updated the disambiguation page link to be clearer, it now notes that this page is about a political organisation. I didn't change it to "Weather Underground redirects here, for the weather forecasting company, click here" because on viewing the disambiguation page, they're not the only other "Weather Underground". -- Calrion (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Usually when I do a search for a term in need of disambiguation, the search takes me directly to the disambiguation page, whereas for "Weather Underground," the search takes me straight to the page for the no-longer-existing political organization. I presume that this has something to do with the redirection page that exists in addition to the disambiguation page. It makes sense that if I search for a term with enough need for disambiguation that a disambiguation page exists, that I be taken to that page, and not to someone's favorite entry on that page. It also makes sense that if I'm searching for "Weather Underground" in 2013, that the statistical likelihood exists that I might be interested in the organization that exists in 2013, rather than the organization whose activities came to a close about 30 years prior to 2013. 184.13.10.253 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)John Harry Banister

Misleading 3rd paragraph

The third paragraph states no people were killed, but then as you read further down, it's clear that several people were in fact killed by this group. The Brinks Robbery killed three people alone. Sarahjintexas (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)sarahjintexas


The Weathermen were not Marxist Leninist. Marxist Leninists do not resort to adventurism and terrorism. It is very likely that the CIA was behind these bombings.

"In Weatherman theory "oppressed peoples" are the creators of the wealth of empire, "and it is to them that it belongs." " They theory that the proletarians and opressed workers of the world is the theory of Marxist political economy which is a component part of Marxism-Leninism not of the "Weathermen" in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempted coordinated bombings of Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian embassies in DC 1971

Little or nothing has been mentioned about the attempted bombings in Washington DC in spring 1971 of the embassies of S.Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The ordnance (pipe bombs) was planted in the gardens of each embassy and later reported on by The Washington Post, with credit claimed by an affiliated WUO collective. Mlsteenwx13 (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking99.127.230.217 (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

defunct terrorist org category

I don't understand the rationale given for revierting this cat. The FBI has described WU as a terrorist org, as mentioned in the article body. Shouldn't the categories reflect the article content?Pokey5945 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look in the archives of this talk page there has been extensive discussion about this article and some related biographies on the issue. Per WP:TERRORIST there's an aversion to labeling people and organizations as terrorists or other pejorative labels. Nobody called them terrorists when they were an extant organization, the word simply wasn't used in that sense then. The issue became heavily politicized in the 2008 US Presidential election when Obama's association (such as it was) with Bill Ayers, as a campaign tactic to disparage Obama as "palling around with terrorists" — see Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy. Regarding the FBI site, the FBI is not designating them as terrorists, this is a single page of a historical archive. The FBI keeps a list of current organizations that are deemed terrorist, but their mandate does not extend to opining about which historical figures fit the current definition of terrorism. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reponse. I browsed the 2008 discussion, and did note that it was strongly influenced by the 2008 election. Certainly the content of WP articles today should not be driven by temporary politics of the past. Perhaps a more nuanced perspective is possible today. I agree also that the FBI should not be the sole arbiter of the historical definition.
That much agreed on, is there any real debate among experts that WU qualifies as a "defunct terrorist organization"? This is more or less how it's identified in every other encylopedia and database of terrorist organizations. Why should WP take a different position?Pokey5945 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
We have several really good sources in the legacy section. See reference 128, in particular. It shows the term being used during their time. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Weather Underground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphan article?

There seem to be no link to this article (or to the Weather Underground) from the Vietnam War or Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War articles. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Although this was long ago (I was 76.10.128.192), this is no longer an issue; a template box of the opposition articile now links here. PaleoNeonate (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism label in the lede

Regarding Xeno's revert, how does conflicting descriptions (your revert reason) end up with the one you reverted to? Arkon (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Your question, Arkon, asks me to explain something that did not happen. Your edit took one disputed, conflicting descriptor ("terrorist") from the body of the article and placed it in the article lede in Wikipedia's voice as an asserted fact. My edit undid your insertion. I didn't also add (or "end up with") a conflicting description (i.e.; "not terrorist"). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the content matter is being discussed at Talk:Bill Ayers‎, and the edit warring at WP:AN/I - Wikidemon (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll look for, and respond to, any additions to this thread at the Ayers Talk page just to keep things together. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No, you reverted to the previous description, obviously. Which is what I said. Why do you feel it's ok to put that in Wikipedia's voice, and not the other, which is just as well (actually better) supported. So you dodge the question. Not too important at the moment I suppose, as I'll be correcting it with attribution (and silly amount if that's what you like). Arkon (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not see any good justification, or a new consensus, for adding the terrorist descriptor to the lede, with or without attribution. No source or argument has been advanced that was not already discussed in the earlier RfC. If there is anything new we can look at it, but the RfC already considered a few dozen sources of varying quality. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but you are at the wrong article, that descriptor was in the stable version of the article, is more than well sourced, and summarizes the body. Arkon (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
What stable version? Could you link to it, please?--TMCk (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure! [2] Arkon (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
To verify that you're at least operating in good faith here, Arkon, could you pull together a justification of why you are asserting that the link points to a stable version of the article? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Because it existed prior to this editing dust up? That's the general definition. Also, considering it seems to be you in the history repeatedly removing this sourced information that is attempting to adhere to WP:LEAD, it appears you are letting your POV get out of control. Arkon (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll ignore the accusation as an attempt to dodge the question, but do you seriously mean to advance the existence of this particular revision as a justification for your claim that the stable article called the organization terrorist? You're clearly wrong, I'm just trying to figure out if this is deliberate obtuseness or just garden variety sloppy reasoning. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You know what, it's becoming boring having these side excursions while you continue to avoid addressing the facts of the edit. So I'm done engaging with you on anything that is not related. So here it is again. The descriptor is well sourced, in the body, WP:LEAD dictates that the lead summarizes the body. That's it. If you can't or won't address that, you're just being disruptive and OWNy. Arkon (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
If you think this edit 4 days prior made it a "stable version" you're very much mistaken. That would make any version you like the stable one.--TMCk (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No, that was definitely the last stable version, feel free to point me to a different one if you disagree. Would be interested in seeing what you consider "last stable version" if not the one prior to the latest edit dispute. Arkon (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Does repeated vandalism too become the stable version? B/c that's what you're arguing here.--TMCk (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Good lord. No, I stated what the stable version was, and why, if you think this edit is anything like vandalism, you should report it as such, but it's not, so you can't. Also you didn't provide "your" stable version. Weird. Arkon (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The stable version is the one that gained consensus and appears in between the "terrorist" disruptions.--TMCk (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Shocker, after accusing me of selecting my preferred "POV" version, which is based on selecting the one before edit conflicts, you actually transparently select your "POV" version. Impressive. Arkon (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(outdent) Arkon, if it's too "boring" to get your facts right, I'll do it. For the record, the edit calling them terrorist stood for 5 days 19 hours from September 4 to September 9, over a holiday weekend here in America. The immediately prior appearance of the label lasted about six hours of minor edit warring on July 22[3][4][5] Before that, less than a minute on June 14[6] and about 12 hours on February 1-2[7][8], and 1 minute on November 13, 2014,[9]. So, in the past 365 days Wikipedia has called the organization terrorist during five episodes totaling just over 6 days, mostly from IP and mobile edits, reverted by five different editors and a vandalism bot. There is no way you can claim in good faith and with due WP:COMPETENCE that a stable version of the article designated them as terrorist. Your claims that this is sourced and in the body are equally dubious but I've done enough of your work for you, it would be up to you to justify a proposed change here. Flinging accusations when caught making obstinately untrue statements, and accusing me and other editors of lying about this article's history, is not going to convince anyone. Face it, you're flaming out here. Best cut your losses and engage in some productive editing somewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Your inability, or unwillingness, to address the merits of the edit are noted. You'll go spend time to dig through a years worth of history to try to claim your edit was to the last stable version, yet won't actually justify the edit. Where did I say you lied? I'll repeat one last time:
  • The descriptor is well sourced, in the body, WP:LEAD dictates that the lead summarizes the body. That's it. If you can't or won't address that, you're just being disruptive and OWNy.
You're welcome to dispute those things, since it's so "dubious". Arkon (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's up to you to present your case if you wish, not for everyone else to dispute a case you haven't even presented. Petty argument tricks, like stubbornly insisting on something that any competent editor would know is blatantly untrue, then accusing editors of over-scrutinizing when they prove you wrong, do not make a case for anything.The baseless and untrue accusations that I am lying are here and here. You accuse TracyMcClark of dishonesty immediately above, in this thread. Please, just cut all out all this nonsense. If you want to present a specific proposal for changing the article and a justification to try to convince editors to accept it, go right ahead, ideally in a new subsection that isn't full of distracting accusations. Take all the time you want, the encyclopedia is not going anywhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, regarding the claptrap about me being a liar, after Arkon carelessly said that this article describes the Weather Underground as terrorists I checked it out and found that indeed, there had been yet another drive-by edit that people had somehow missed. Usually these get caught in somewhere between 1 minute and a few hours (per my analysis of the last five times this happened in the past year) but this time the edit stood 5 days, over the Labor Day weekend in America. So I explained this to Arkon[10] concluding my comment with: Incidentally, the Weatherman article does not designate them to be terrorists. Editors occasionally make that drive-by edit and it is quickly reverted. For some reason nobody noticed the last one, five days ago, but I've fixed that now. BTW, please don't edit war. I am informing Arkon that I have removed the label, which is not properly part of the article. How they could possibly twist my informing them that I was editing the article into an accusation that I lied by hiding that I had edited the article is hard to fathom, but lots of Arkon's statements on the subject are pretty random. Classic illustration of why you should assume good faith, here and in real life. It's a lot more likely that you are simply having trouble with logic or reading comprehension, or at worst miscommunication, than that another person is deliberately lying about something they just did in front of everybody for all to see. Rather stunning that people don't get that. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Guys, whoever ends up with the last word, can someone other than me please close this discussion, as it does not appear to be fairly directed to a proposed change or improvement to the article. There is an open WP:AN/I thread to discuss any behavior issues. Any content proposal ought to be in a new place devoted to discussing content, not other editors. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hahahaha. Seriously? How many times must I say "well sourced, in the body, lead should summarize body". That's the argument. Refute it or find something useful to do. As to your accusations of calling you a liar, do you dispute the content of those links? Cause timestamps don't lie. That's a fact based description of your actions, not an attack on your character, though if you dispute those facts, that might change things. Still not addressing the merits of the edit. Arkon (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, anything about this so-called accusation or anything other than arguments related to the edit belong on my talk. Go there. Arkon (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Are you done with the accusations and personal attacks, because if not we can continue this on AN/I. Your prior edit was rejected by the community. No change to consensus. Your move, if you want to pursue this any further or propose something different. Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
My prior edit wasn't rejected by anyone other than you and xeno (others have suggested a better way, others still sourced the previous edit). And neither you nor xeno, (though he did a little better with some blp handwaiving), have actually provided policy/guideline based reasons for your reversions. Are you at some point going to learn your attempts at intimidation are just funny? Arkon (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Wikidemon: Don't get yourself worked up on what has quickly involved into a troll thread with no substance. No closing tho b/c I believe it'll likely turn into more silly drama. My advise: Ignore as long as there is no basis for improvement presented.--TMCk (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:LEAD Arkon (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point, TMCk. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • [11] Since there is some dispute over calling the organization a terrorist grouop in WP's voice, I changed it in the lede to state that it was the FBI who called them that. So, now it's attributed and not in WP's voice. I think it should be mentioned in the lede, because the FBI is the US's designated organization for dealing with domestic terrorism. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That's the point (or the problem if you prefer): The FBI is indeed "the US's designated organization" and they have so far not designated the WU as a terrorist organisation.--TMCk (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted. That proposal has failed to gain consensus to date. The source does not establish what the edit purports, and is unsupported by the body. The source is a single FBI web page, a history section, that uses the term "terrorist". That is quite different than the FBI making that claim. Even if this could be sourced, it is of undue weight to make that a defining statement in the lede. This was all discussed at length in the RfC. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Arkon has a list that he linked to above that undeniably refers to the organization as terrorist. So, I encourage you to stop edit warring, as the sources support the new version in the lede. Since you have a problem with the FBI page, I'll use some of the other sources that Arkon found and readd the text in a little while. Again, please don't edit war when the sources are contrary to your position. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Please do not do that without a consensus to do so. This matter has been discussed at length, and there was no consensus to do so in the lede. There is some discussion in the body about different reactions to describing the group as terrorist, and that is an appropriate place to introduce any new material. Only if that material truly rises to something of due weight, and can be described in a neutral, non-misleading way, would it belong in the lede. If Arkon has found any new sources they ought to be presented and discussed here first, rather than trying to shoehorn this in by edit warring. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It appears we have a new consensus here, Wikidemon, or at least enough editors objecting to your version to invalidate the previous consensus. I tried to find a compromise by putting the passage with attribution instead of WP's voice, but you have rejected that without offering an alternative compromise. That's not how WP works. We work together. So, if you don't want to keep edit-warring over it, please offer an alternative. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
A brief edit war followed by an admonition on AN/I and a few inconclusive comments on a talk page does not overturn a widely-discussed consensus that has held for seven years. There is no new proposal or argument, no new sources and no new developments, that call for much discussion or compromise. Right now the article does mention the subject, but not in a very well-developed way. To develop the coverage here of the group being called terrorist it would helpful to add and re-organized some sourced discussion, not just a list of people and groups that have used the term with Wikipedia editors trying to make sense of what it means, but some sources about the significance and history of their being called terrorist. When Ayers makes denials he is talking about that subject. Is anyone else? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a long winded way of trying to claim OR. But no, the sources are clear and abundant. Arkon (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Arkon, AkldGuy, and myself are in support of using those sources to put "terrorist" in the lede and Xenophrenic and Wikidemon are against. Although it doesn't give "us" a clear consensus to add it, it definitely refutes the argument that there is consensus against it. So, again, I suggest that we find a compromise here. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
If you have a proposal to make, you're welcome to do so and present any justification. Making hasty pronouncements about consensus is going to take any discussion off track, because it's a long way from calling any earlier consensus under question and the answer to that is an unambiguous no. It may or may not be possible to establish a changed consensus absent a new RfC. Timing-wise might want to wait for Arkon to complete and summarize the attempt at sourcing, if that's going to happen. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Did I just see someone do a head-count to determine what consensus is? Facepalm Facepalm That one will never get old, and always provides a chuckle. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Add mention of being designated/identified as a terrorist organisation in the lead. Why is this being opposed...oh, yeah, ownership and agendas. I hate when a small cabal of editors try to own an article and drive away people who add reasonable, sourced content just because it doesn't match the owners' agenda. JackTheVicar (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

+1 Arkon (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The content is already in the article, so you aren't "adding reasonable, sourced content", correct? You are instead suggesting that a portion of existing content be duplicated in the lead? If I understand your proposal correctly, you'd like to copy text to the lead which says an anti-government organization has been designated by a government organization as a "terrorist organization", correct? You do realize that the anti-government organization has likewise described the government (and its bombing campaigns in Vietnam, racial subjugation, assassinations of civil rights leaders) as terrorist, too, correct? Yet you are proposing to add just one side of that controversy to the lead of this article? Uh huh. That's not how we construct article leads. Perhaps it would help if you reviewed our Terrorist article to better understand just how convoluted, complicated and subjective such a subject is, and why longstanding consensus has been that it is a matter for nuanced explanation in the body of the article rather than problematic summary quips in the lead. At least we agree in our hatred of small cabals of editors with agendas; which is why I prefer to stick with the consensus of a larger body of editors after reasoned discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
There is so much wrong in that comment, but the actual somewhat on-point part regarding the WU's opinion's existing in the lead....Have you read the lead? I think I counted 6 references to WU papers etc. Arkon (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
If the relevant authorities did in fact, designate the organization as terrorist, then or now, that designation might well be significant enough to be in the lede. No agency did that at the time because the conception of terrorism was different in their day than now, and none is likely to do so now because there is no agency charged with making retrospective historical judgments. The history editor from the FBI's website communications department is not the one to make such an announcement. This article does face this stuff regularly, so the editors who have watched it for a while do not have a very high patience level for shenanigans. That's not ownership, that's taking the encyclopedia seriously instead of letting political sentiment color things. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikidemon and Xenophrenic haven't proposed a compromise solution, so I'll go ahead and do it on my own. Judging by JackTheVicar's statement above, it appears that there are at least four editors who may be willing to mention "terrorism" in the lede in some form. In a little while, unless someone else gets to it first, I'll propost a text statement below with some accompanying citations and we can do a quick straw poll on it. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
No detailed proposal has yet been made recently to change the article. If you can make one, we will have something in front of us. Based on the discussion to date I am skeptical that anything new is in the works — but to be fair, it's best for everybody to keep their minds open. I wouldn't describe it as a compromise, but a middle-ground solution would be to explain somewhere in the lede if not in the first sentence that the organization has sometimes and sometimes not been descried as terrorist. So (to simplify), instead of reading "The WU was a radical leftist violent group that has been called terrorist. They bombed stuff" it might read "The WU was a radical leftist violent group that bombed stuff. [perhaps another sentence or two in between] A number of journalists / commentators / organizations in their own day, and now, described their actions as terrorism. Others disagree with the characterization". This is not a "quick straw poll" thing — if it's cleary reasonable it could be quickly accepted. If it doesn't look reasonable, it would have to go through a consensus process which, given seven years and an RfC since the last one, would take wider involvement. Regardless, though, if we are going to expand on the question of calling them terrorists or not, we should do that primarily in the body of the article. The lede is not supposed to contain new information, just a summary of the body. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A consensus decided seven years ago frankly doesn't matter. No matter how many times you say "we decided this 7 years ago" it's a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority...sorry, but the result of a small discussion by a few users of similar agendas most of whom aren't even here anymore does not matter in 2015. That's like saying Darwin's critics at the time he published "The Origin of Species" with their outmoded theories that no one considers erudite and valid 170 years later deserve equal time today. Comparatively, you have some on the left that call WU an organization with a cause, some on the right who said they were a bunch of bomb-chucking terrorists. Both sides have valid reasons. There's little difference of opinions amongst sides 40 years later. If there's a very key criticism of WU discussed in the article body, a criticism that has persisted against WU for four decades, it deserves a mention in the lede. There is no rational reason to have a perfectly reasonable summary like "WU is regarded by the FBI, etc. as a terrorist organization" in the lede unless it's for reasons of agenda-driven obstructionism. If that's the case: it's not an encyclopaedia article, it's propaganda. If Cla68 creates a compromise draft of the lede, let's discuss it. But I'll say this emphatically: there will be a mention of WU being described and categorized as a terrorist organization in some way, shape or form. And it's something worth going to ArbCom about if you insist on any agenda-driven whitewashing or removal of it. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Past consensus certainly does matter, but you are welcome to try to wish it away. You are also welcome to try to mischaracterize the past RfC or diminish it in all the various ways you can conjure up. (i.e.; "small discussion by a few users of similar agendas" — Incorrect; 2 dozen editors were notified, several noticeboards were pinged, with 30+ additional editors eventually joining in what amounted to many pages of discussion and debate.) You can also try attacking your fellow editors as "agenda-driven", just because they disagree with your personal opinion. I predict, however, that the community will quickly see through each of those tactics. If you then still retain editing privileges, you will have no recourse but to shelve your "emphatic" proclamations and instead work collaboratively with your fellow editors to produce policy compliant content. Why not skip straight to the collaboration part? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to respond specifically to your assertion: There is no rational reason to have a perfectly reasonable summary like "WU is regarded by the FBI, etc. as a terrorist organization" in the lede...
Your proposed wording is not a summary; it's one-half of a summary, and therefore in violation of Wikipedia policy. You really can't propose to insert a summary of only your preferred half of the controversy over the "terrorist" description. No one disagrees with the facts that the government organization has called the anti-government organization "terrorist", and the anti-government organization has called the government "terrorist". There are plenty of citable sources which agree with both organizations. Your proposed wording also fails to provide any meaningful information to the reader; that's like saying "Politician John Doe has been called controversial", without giving any further explanation what that means until the body of the article. "Terrorist organization" couldn't possibly be more vague, meaningless and ambiguous. The lede already mentions that they were "a bunch of bomb-chuckers", to borrow your phrase, but you appear to want to also equate that with "terrorism" — something contradicted by the fact that the bombings were preceded by advanced declarations of intent and warnings with instructions to evacuate bomb target areas. It is also a sourced fact that WU was never officially added to a government list of terrorist organizations. There are numerous "rational reasons" why your proposed addition to the lede is problematic, ranging from policy-based to simple common sense. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I would hope that editors will massage any problems with wording once this change is made through editing and the talk page instead of blind reverts. Arkon (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. Rather than repeating the discussions we just had, please see my comments above, particularly those at 19:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC), 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC), 23:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC), 01:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC), and 02:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC), and Xenophrenic's comment of 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC), as well as the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#Arkon on Weatherman articles. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal of charges

The first paragraph of the Withdrawal of charges section has some citation problems. Added citation needed tags to problem areas. One link is dead and it points to an Archive.org page that does not exist: https://web.archive.org/web/20150131210957/http://www.seattlepi.com/archives/04-10-72/

SteveJEsposito (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Footnote 89, second paragraph appears fabricated: "New York Times.com/archives/1972/"Barnard Coed Subpoenaed to Seattle" A search for that title at http://nytimes.com has no returns on that title.

Footnote 90: "New York Times.com/archives/1978/"Presidential Amnesty for Vietnam War Objectors" Also appears fabricated. A search at nytimes.com returns no items with that title.

SteveJEsposito (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Paramilitary group?

I see a lot of controversy regarding whether or not these people were terrorists. Considering the evacuation warnings, and the fact that they targeted governmental buildings against whom they had officially declared war. They're certainly compliant with basic military courtesy. Certainly more so than the US government itself, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Beirut_car_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

These are two instances of bombings carried out on behalf of the US government without any of the aforementioned considerations. If the US Government can do that without being branded a terrorist organisation, then I don't see why these people are terrorists. The notion that anyone who uses violence for political goals is a terrorist is simply absurd. Terrorism throughout most of history is the use of violence as a means of coercion to subvert democracy.

If we're supposed to be a neutral page, then why on Earth would we base the article on what the US Government thinks when they themselves were an involved party? This must be observed from a neutral perspective outside of the involved parties. That's a very basic and fundamental principle of objectivity.

Vladimir Tepes was a terrorist, because he genuinely created a climate of fear to undermine democratic assertion by the public. Daesh are terrorists for the same reason. Which can be demonstrated.

But the WUO had lots of support from the public. Perhaps they did not directly support this particular organisation, but their ideals and wanted policies were praised by the international community. Particularly in South America and even in the US. Especially during the latter years of the Cold War.

Even the United Nations have recognised collective property as a fundamental human right. Something which the radical left have fought for since the French Revolution.

This was not a group trying to use violence to repress the public. This was a group who used violence to fight an enemy which they perceived as a threat to the public. One might argue whether this is true or not, but to claim that this article is without bias when it completely distorts the meaning of terrorism in favour of US bias is absurd. You might as well use the ministry of information as a referenced source when writing articles about the first world war. It's just poor research.

So I am not saying that WUO were right, and the US government was wrong. But I am saying there is an ambiguity. An ambiguity which makes it more appropriate to define them as a paramilitary group, or perhaps even an insurrectionist group, due to how they certainly pay more heed to articles of war than most governments do, and let the readers make their own judgement. Perhaps they were revolutionaries, or perhaps they were terrorists. But those two words are entirely subjective in this context.

I think that's a rather balanced resolution which might settle the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Weather Underground. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Weather Underground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weather_Underground/Archive_4&oldid=1041445667"