Talk:Weather Underground
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. State of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the socialist movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
|
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 medias arm. 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)
--Mlsteenwx13 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)some of this aftertalk is entirely on target re antedated voice activators. Such red herrings are baseless fabrications of some white people still so angry that others would wantonly divest white skin privilege or white collar prerogative to join such a severely repressed racial minority. What happened to us? Perhaps our youthful altruism, our spark. It still burns all around us and within us as our candle begins to burn lower. And we will implant this seed whenever and wherever we can until we are senescent. My FD-302's can never be used. It is 2012 and the wrong time of the year now. And there is no proof. No proof that Pine Street was any more of a tactical facility than the safe house on the corner of Haight and Ashbury or the Ivy street alley. Any information ever gleaned in 1972 was rendered legally useless by forced behavioral modification conditions and drugs as well as compromised by CoIntelPro activities in Portland, Seattle, New York and Boston and empaneled special federal grand juriess in Seattle and Portland, as explained by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1972 reversing the federal contempt citation of Sylvia Brown on the grounds of illegal mail openings and wiretapping by the FBI.
And so, all of this old talk of Barack Obama in 2008 cannot be renewed except to our benefit now in 2012. We have won. What was started in the 60's was not explosion but the seed. As with all previous generations in any nation or people, some of us have lived long enough to nurture to fruition our youthful ideals, however watered down. By the way, we did not spit on our returning soldiers in Seattle or anywhere; you spit on their crosses with such ideological venom. Mlsteenwx13 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
|
