Jump to content

Talk:Symbionese Liberation Army: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 144: Line 144:


Tune out man!! Aint' that what they was the saying?[[Special:Contributions/99.34.138.70|99.34.138.70]] ([[User talk:99.34.138.70|talk]]) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Tune out man!! Aint' that what they was the saying?[[Special:Contributions/99.34.138.70|99.34.138.70]] ([[User talk:99.34.138.70|talk]]) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

== Why no mention that they were a CIA project? ==

This was a group created to discredit real revolutionaries. You'd think there'd at least be a mention of that somewhere, or at least of the theory.

This is why Wikipedia is mostly useless for those who would know the real truth about anything, or what anything was actually about. All your articles are Citizen Kane without the sled.

Revision as of 18:55, 1 August 2012

The Bonnot Gang

It may just be my fancy, but I'd like to work in a link to the Bonnot gang, who I think were similar in style to the SLA. They were politicals/revolutionaries who robbed banks, used the technology of the times to advantage (The Bonnot Gang used cars to escape, the SLA manipulated the media), and both were decimated by bloody police shoot-outs. Any comments, am I taking this too far? An An 04:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might as well have a link to everyone who has ever been known to wear shoes, since, after all, say what you will about them but the members of the SLA were all known to be shoe-wearers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasnikov (talkcontribs) 05:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla (and Nancy): armed/unarmed?

Right now the section about the shootout says

One woman came out to surrender and the police shot her in the head.

This doesn't jibe with the page on Camilla Hall, which states that

Camilla died in a shootout (May 17, 1974, 9 000 rounds fired) with police in which five other SLA members were killed. Reportedly, she was shot in the head while charging the police with a pistol.

So which is it? Did the police shoot an unarmed woman who was trying to surrender, or an armed one who was charging them? This is significant, especially given what the police are quoted as saying a few sentences earlier. ("Come on out! The house is on fire! You will not be harmed.")

Note: The page on Nancy Ling Perry adds this, which contradicts the "one woman" part above. Hmph.

As the their hideout burned, Perry and fellow SLA member Camilla Hall exited the back door. Police claimed that Perry came out firing a revolver while Hall fired an automatic pistol. Police shot them both immediately. Perry was shot twicel; one shot hit her right lung, the other shot severing her spine. Hall was shot once in the forehead. Investigators working for her parents claimed that Perry had come walking out of the house intending to surrender.

--Ultra Megatron 02:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be stories. Impossible from here to know which is correct. Both should probably be included. Justforasecond 18:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did someone remove the section about the SLA's move to Los Angeles?207.6.175.222 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Skepticism of Hearst

I'm certainly not going to act as an apologist for the SLA but...

In the conditions of captivity section (especially) and in some other places there were some disputable claims regarding Hearst's captivity that were treated as facts. I've tried to `correct those by adding "Hearst claims..." and such.

Also, there were some rather strange remarks that didn't seem to serve any purpose beyond making the SLA seem really, really bad. The line, for example, that claimed DeFreeze was "remorseless" regarding the killings during the Hibernia bank and that he "rationalized" them as "accidents" in the communique. I've heard the communique: While it may be fair to describe the tone as "remorseless" it's certainly dangerously close to editorializing, no? Further, he doesn't exactly "rationalize" them as "accidents." First, "rationalize" like "remorseless" smacks of editorializing. Second, "accidents" implies they didn't mean to shoot them. DeFreeze makes clear that their intent was to shoot the victims and he coldly lays out why.

Finally, it doesn't seem fair to suddenly start using "Tania" for Hearst's name in the discussion of her crimes. While her "Tania" identity has been established earlier in the article, it seems confusing to suddenly start using it for just one section.

I think that covers the edits I made.

Nicks1199 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with your edits, except for the SLA's claim that the conditions of Hearst's captivity were in accordance with the Geneva Conventions; it's not a POV statement for the entry to point out that this claim was untenable.--Galliaz 00:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox headers

Three items in the box strike me as problematic: (1) Listing the SLA's "Role" as "Guerilla Warfare," (2) including a listing for "Battles/Wars," and (3) omitting the Hearst kidnapping. I would list the SLA's role as "Armed Political Action," and replace "Battles/Wars" with "Activities," and include the Hearst kidnapping. It is profoundly mistaken to describe the assassination of the two unarmed school administrators as a "battle."--Galliaz 12:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though my initial query received no response, I still think this is quite a serious problem which mars the entry. Since I can't edit the infobox without breaking it (which I'd rather not do, of course), I'd appreciate a good-faith engagement with the questions I've raised here.--Galliaz 22:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hearst kidnapping has been added and the I added a field to the infobox template to make the label an editable field. I used the word "actions" which I think sounds better than "Activities,". As for changing SLA's role from "Guerilla Warfare," to "Armed Political Action,": I don't think "Armed Political Action," goes far enough but I would comprise if you have another term between "Guerilla Warfare," and "Armed Political Action," -- Esemono 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with you: finding an alternative to "Guerilla Warfare" is pretty difficult. I vote to keep it as it is.--Galliaz 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiowhat?

Is "symbionese" a proper English adjective to "symbiosis", or wasn't it freely invented where the proper word is "symbiotic"? Oh, those revolutionaries!
If so I think that ought to be mentioned in the article. Maikel 08:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language

"Foster, an African American, was popular on the left and in the black community, and his murder was unanimously viewed as counterproductive; " Dont think this is appropriate, what murder would the author have viewed as productive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.217.25 (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; that language suggests that some murders are productive. I'll remove the whole second part of that sentence ("... and his murder was unanimously viewed as counterproductive; thus, the S.L.A. garnered no support from that event.") The word "unanimously" is misused anyway, unless there was a survey I don't know about. Gingerwiki 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some Murders are productive, such as those that remove tyrants from power.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Timehearst.jpg

Image:Timehearst.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernia Bank Robbery

The article linked to the Hibernia National Bank for the Hibernia Bank robbery, but I think this is wrong; HNB was in Lousiana, while the robbery was in San Francisco; I think they're two different banks (with similar names)! I'm going to remove the link for now, unless someone can confirm I'm way off. Laser813 (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Laser183, you are right. The Hibernia Bank that was robbed was headquartered in San Francisco. It later merged into Security Pacific National Bank in 1988. See the 79th Annual Report of the California Superintendent of Banks. Interstate banking was not permitted until the Riegle-Neal Act of 1994, so it would not have been possible for it to have been HNB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchas (talkcontribs) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent Trials" section needs correcting

Paragraphs 1 and 6 in the "Recent Trials" section contain contradictory information about Sarah Jane Olson (date of release, length of sentence, etc.)199.89.170.92 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that famous corny statement they used to make?

"Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the life of the people!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology could be clearer

I'm still scratching my head over what the hell they were about. Presumably Marxist/Anarchist, but black liberationist? The picture of members shows only one person who has obvious African ancestry. There should be more about their alleged purpose. The article has a lot on their activities - fair enough - but it needs to say more about their raison d'etre.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I can't really figure out what they are for or against. All I can see is they like terrorism, random Hindu things, and seven-headed cobras.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really difficult to figure them out, which is why this doesn't seem so far-fetched:

Wolfe had been slain in the L.A. shoot-out. His family hired Lake Headley-- an ex-police intelligence officer who was chief investigator at Wounded Knee-- to find out what had really happened. He and fellow researchers Donald Freed and Rusty Rhodes concluded that the SLA was part of the CIA's CHAOS program [1]Cleshne (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that should be mentioned under "ideology" is that the "seven principles" symbolized by the 7 headed cobra were in fact directly copied from the "seven principles of Kwanzaa." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.200.68 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stone 2004 is throughout the article. Is that a reference?

Why does it say (Stone 2004) throughout the article? If that is a reference towards something, then it should use a proper reference tag. Dream Focus 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, "Guerrilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst, directed by Robert Stone, 2004. (Released under the alternate title : Neverland: The Rise and Fall of the Symbionese Liberation Army.)"

Pop Culture: Network (1976) - Valid?

The article states that the SLA is parodied in the film Network by a group in discussed in the film, the (apparently, though I haven't looked into it) fictional Ecumenical Liberation Army. However, in the movie, BOTH are mentioned, the ELA initially being mistaken by one character to be the SLA, whereupon they're corrected that the two are seprate, distinct groups. Due to the factual mention of the SLA, acknowledging their existence, this hardly qualifies as parody of the group, to me. Should the SLA not have been mentioned, and the ELA stood as an analogue for the SLA, I believe proper parody would be achieved. I propose either a change of wording from "parody" to a "mention" etc. or removal of the list item. Mr.troughton (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna go ahead and change that then. Lemme know if you disagree, but for the sake of practicality and my sanity please be polite about it.

Mr.troughton (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corp. America; It is coming very true!

Although killing the innocent is completely horribly and unforgivible in the the hearts of the masses, these people did want to alert what is and has come to pass. Primarily, they lacked the enate ability of communication, direction, and complete vision.  In life one must have a complete vision from minute,hourly,daily...ect.
  There is much to learn from this.  Today people, or as I say "sheeppeople", are reading, eating, and dismissing so much because there is to much visiual and audio stumuli. The media realizes this and over the span of the last 60 years of television has based commercials on a six grade level to desensatize those that are plugged in.
  Tune out man!! Aint' that what they was the saying?99.34.138.70 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention that they were a CIA project?

This was a group created to discredit real revolutionaries. You'd think there'd at least be a mention of that somewhere, or at least of the theory.

This is why Wikipedia is mostly useless for those who would know the real truth about anything, or what anything was actually about. All your articles are Citizen Kane without the sled.