This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Weather Underground article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a WP:BRD discussion.
This revert, caught my eye. Which characterization is more correct: "militant organization" or "terrorist organization"?
Lead sentences from WP articles:
The subsection headings in the Major activities section of the article seem to fit with terrorism. An fbi.gov article titled Weather Underground Bombings says, "A domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground claimed responsibility ...". WP:EUPHEMISM says n part: " Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use issue for problem or dispute; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage."
It seems to me that "terrorist organization" is the more correct characterization.
Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
in June 1969 a faction of the SDS, naming themselves Weathermen, resolved on a course of terror
and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution(emphasis added for the part that was left out of the post). The lead already does this in the second paragraph. FDW777 ( talk) 13:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
But we're not terrorists, I thought, no matter how many times they repeat the charge. We came close, it's true—whenever there are guns and bombs, the line narrows between politics and terror, between rebellion and gangsterism. We were part of a movement, and then of a tendency to armed struggle... To me the distinction was huge. Terrorists terrorize, they kill innocent civilians, while we organized and agitated. Terrorists destroy randomly, while our actions bore, we hoped, the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate. No, we're not terrorists. [1]
Bill Ayers rejecting the label "terrorist" is irrelevant. So is the rejection of the label offered by the other admitted activists cited above. No reliable source that I'm aware of has characterized this group as anything other than a terrorist group. Being sympathetic to their cause doesn't mean we should avoid using the correct label. 2600:387:F:4313:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
To add to this article: an explanation of how this terrorist group possibly got access to the Pentagon in order to place a bomb inside a bathroom there. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Fred Hampton personally disavowed the Weather Underground and called them "anarchistic, opportunistic, chauvinistic, and Custeristic". For some reason this is mentioned nowhere in the article. The Weather Underground looked up to the BPP a lot, but that doesn't mean they were allies. 69.145.32.181 ( talk) 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This edit removed a sourced statement and added new, unsourced commentary about Larry Grathwohl. Per the source I placed in-line, which was originally at the end of the paragraph: "To start, there is the testimony of a controversial and arguably untrustworthy source: Larry Grathwohl. He was the principal police and then FBI informant inside Weatherman in early 1970..." This suggests that Grathwohl is not good for self-sourcing. Further, the cited source notes, "But when Weatherman went underground, forming itself into small and clandestine collectives of deeply committed activists who had known one another personally for a long time, informant penetration of Weatherman became close to impossible. The FBI complained continually about this problem."
Per BRD, I have reverted to the original text, with the addition of the in-line citation I added for the specific claim. To change this, please bring reliable sources, AGF, and achieve consensus. Freelance-frank ( talk) 01:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Weather Underground article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a WP:BRD discussion.
This revert, caught my eye. Which characterization is more correct: "militant organization" or "terrorist organization"?
Lead sentences from WP articles:
The subsection headings in the Major activities section of the article seem to fit with terrorism. An fbi.gov article titled Weather Underground Bombings says, "A domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground claimed responsibility ...". WP:EUPHEMISM says n part: " Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use issue for problem or dispute; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage."
It seems to me that "terrorist organization" is the more correct characterization.
Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
in June 1969 a faction of the SDS, naming themselves Weathermen, resolved on a course of terror
and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution(emphasis added for the part that was left out of the post). The lead already does this in the second paragraph. FDW777 ( talk) 13:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
But we're not terrorists, I thought, no matter how many times they repeat the charge. We came close, it's true—whenever there are guns and bombs, the line narrows between politics and terror, between rebellion and gangsterism. We were part of a movement, and then of a tendency to armed struggle... To me the distinction was huge. Terrorists terrorize, they kill innocent civilians, while we organized and agitated. Terrorists destroy randomly, while our actions bore, we hoped, the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate. No, we're not terrorists. [1]
Bill Ayers rejecting the label "terrorist" is irrelevant. So is the rejection of the label offered by the other admitted activists cited above. No reliable source that I'm aware of has characterized this group as anything other than a terrorist group. Being sympathetic to their cause doesn't mean we should avoid using the correct label. 2600:387:F:4313:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
To add to this article: an explanation of how this terrorist group possibly got access to the Pentagon in order to place a bomb inside a bathroom there. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Fred Hampton personally disavowed the Weather Underground and called them "anarchistic, opportunistic, chauvinistic, and Custeristic". For some reason this is mentioned nowhere in the article. The Weather Underground looked up to the BPP a lot, but that doesn't mean they were allies. 69.145.32.181 ( talk) 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This edit removed a sourced statement and added new, unsourced commentary about Larry Grathwohl. Per the source I placed in-line, which was originally at the end of the paragraph: "To start, there is the testimony of a controversial and arguably untrustworthy source: Larry Grathwohl. He was the principal police and then FBI informant inside Weatherman in early 1970..." This suggests that Grathwohl is not good for self-sourcing. Further, the cited source notes, "But when Weatherman went underground, forming itself into small and clandestine collectives of deeply committed activists who had known one another personally for a long time, informant penetration of Weatherman became close to impossible. The FBI complained continually about this problem."
Per BRD, I have reverted to the original text, with the addition of the in-line citation I added for the specific claim. To change this, please bring reliable sources, AGF, and achieve consensus. Freelance-frank ( talk) 01:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)