Weather Underground

[arkon]

Just curious for some opinions, cause I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

Is describing the WU as a terrorist organization (will do it with attribution at some point to a brazillion people/articles/publications/books) some stupidly wrong/unethical/whatever thing? Seems so straightforward, but I've run into some wonderful weird opposition.

Oh yeah, fun links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... n_articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weat ... n_the_lede

[The Joy]

They certainly engaged in domestic terrorism. What sources are you and the opposition using?

[arkon]

They certainly engaged in domestic terrorism. What sources are you and the opposition using?

I was originally using the ones that existed in the article currently (FBI NYT come to mind), but I'm gathering more just cause. I have no idea what the opposition is doing other than political POV driving them. (Also to preempt a possible derail, I messed up originally apparently by not attributing to the sources, plan on doing that next time). Would love to know when labels become acceptable in wiki voice and when they aren't, but that has never been consistent in my time there.

[The Joy]

They certainly engaged in domestic terrorism. What sources are you and the opposition using?

I was originally using the ones that existed in the article currently (FBI NYT come to mind), but I'm gathering more just cause. I have no idea what the opposition is doing other than political POV driving them. (Also to preempt a possible derail, I messed up originally apparently by not attributing to the sources, plan on doing that next time). Would love to know when labels become acceptable in wiki voice and when they aren't, but that has never been consistent in my time there.

The problem is that "terrorist" is hard to define. As the saying goes "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I certainly see the Weather Underground as "domestic terrorists." I'm sure there are sources from the FBI and law enforcement that call the group "terrorists" though you will have some argue they were "freedom fighters."

[arkon]

They certainly engaged in domestic terrorism. What sources are you and the opposition using?

I was originally using the ones that existed in the article currently (FBI NYT come to mind), but I'm gathering more just cause. I have no idea what the opposition is doing other than political POV driving them. (Also to preempt a possible derail, I messed up originally apparently by not attributing to the sources, plan on doing that next time). Would love to know when labels become acceptable in wiki voice and when they aren't, but that has never been consistent in my time there.

The problem is that "terrorist" is hard to define. As the saying goes "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I certainly see the Weather Underground as "domestic terrorists." I'm sure there are sources from the FBI and law enforcement that call the group "terrorists" though you will have some argue they were "freedom fighters."

Well sure, that's expected, however that doesn't really conform to a) reality b) wikipedia policies/guidelines. The pushback hasn't been reference or policy based.

[Kelly Martin]

There was a massive fight over this issue in 2008 during President Obama's first Presidential campaign, due to the very tangential connections between Obama and Bill Ayers. Wikipedia House POV, especially in this area and at that time, leans Democratic, and the parties that were trying to use Ayers to smear the Obama campaign were unsuccessful in their quest to stamp both Ayers and the Weather Underground with this particular scarlet letter. All parties involved in the campaign to do so were branded as sockpuppets. Whether they actually were or not is irrelevant; such conclusions are irrefutable whether or not they're legitimate. Thus, Wikipedia house POV now includes the essentially irrebuttable presumption that anyone who attempts to tag either Weather Underground or Ayers as a terrorist is a sockpuppet of some disreputable and disruptive influence, and must be banned.

TLDR: Wikipedia has already decided that Weather Underground and Ayers were not terrorists. You are not permitted to challenge this conclusion. It does not matter if there is a reasonable dispute on the matter; the matter has been decided and is settled for all time, or at least for as long as the administrators who enforce this decision remain administrators at Wikipedia.

Welcome to the reality of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" farce.

[Midsize Jake]

There's actually an error in one of the sentences explaining the avoidance of the term:

Dan Berger, in his book about the Weatherman, Outlaws in America, asserts that the group "purposefully and successfully avoided injuring anyone... Its war against property by definition means that the WUO was not a terrorist organization."

Whether or not they were terrorists, they were at least made up of more than just one guy.

[greybeard]

The definition of "terrorism" is clear, at least if you agree with the FBI and other US authorities. The FBI definition of domestic terrorism is:

-- Involves acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

-- Is intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;

By these definitions, the acts of the Weather Underground arguably fit the bill, through they were not intended to be "dangerous to ... life", even though they often were so.

This definition, however, long post-dates the WU, so there's always that question -- do you apply contemporary labels to historical events? That's not a rhetorical question. We now call the Armenian situation a genocide. Some things rise to the proper level, and perhaps some do not.

Scholars are the appropriate people to determine this, not Wikipedia nut-jobs.

[The Devil's Advocate]

There was a massive fight over this issue in 2008 during President Obama's first Presidential campaign, due to the very tangential connections between Obama and Bill Ayers.

They were hardly "tangential" connections, not that it matters as the whole thing was overblown. Incidentally, Wikipedia's article on the campaign controversy seeks to downplay the matter, though not quite as much as the Obama campaign. Wikipedia says "Investigations by CNN, The New York Times and other news organizations concluded that Obama did not have a close relationship with Ayers." No sources appear to support the "other news organizations" claim anywhere in the article and The New York Times stating Obama had downplayed his relationship with Ayers is completely absent. A couple more minor connections are mentioned in the lede, when the article itself lists several additional connections that are more substantive. Oh, and here's a fun one. Conversation on the title is a real doozy.

[Poetlister]

We need to extend Arkon a

[Casliber]

There was a massive fight over this issue in 2008 during President Obama's first Presidential campaign, due to the very tangential connections between Obama and Bill Ayers. Wikipedia House POV, especially in this area and at that time, leans Democratic, and the parties that were trying to use Ayers to smear the Obama campaign were unsuccessful in their quest to stamp both Ayers and the Weather Underground with this particular scarlet letter. All parties involved in the campaign to do so were branded as sockpuppets. Whether they actually were or not is irrelevant; such conclusions are irrefutable whether or not they're legitimate. Thus, Wikipedia house POV now includes the essentially irrebuttable presumption that anyone who attempts to tag either Weather Underground or Ayers as a terrorist is a sockpuppet of some disreputable and disruptive influence, and must be banned.

TLDR: Wikipedia has already decided that Weather Underground and Ayers were not terrorists. You are not permitted to challenge this conclusion. It does not matter if there is a reasonable dispute on the matter; the matter has been decided and is settled for all time, or at least for as long as the administrators who enforce this decision remain administrators at Wikipedia.

Welcome to the reality of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" farce.

Consensus can change, as in the Hilary Clinton article losing "Rodham"....

[Midsize Jake]

Well, I think this is all going to ultimately be moot point, since the article will soon have to become a disambiguation page in response to the incredible success of the Weather Channel's new hit show, Weather Underground.

Moreover, during my visit to the Weather Channel's website I learned that just hours ago, a large construction crane in Mecca was knocked over by high winds and landed directly on the Grand Mosque in the middle of Hajj season, tragically killing at least 100 people and injuring at least 200 more - with absolutely no "terrorist" involvement whatsoever. Our hearts all go out to the families and friends of the victims. And whether or not this warrants a Wikipedia article in itself, this incident won't be good for the Saudi government's much-criticized informal competition with the UAE to see who can build the tallest and most wacky-looking skyscrapers in the Middle East that nobody there actually needs.

Hopefully that puts things in a little perspective, if you know what I'm sayin'.

[Malleus]

Moreover, during my visit to the Weather Channel's website I learned that just hours ago, a large construction crane in Mecca was knocked over by high winds and landed directly on the Grand Mosque in the middle of Hajj season, tragically killing at least 100 people and injuring at least 200 more - with absolutely no "terrorist" involvement whatsoever.

The Hajj hasn't started yet.

[Midsize Jake]

The Hajj hasn't started yet.

Yes, but has the season started? It might be like the NBA, where the season starts in November but nobody actually pays attention until the playoffs begin months later.

[Malleus]

The Hajj hasn't started yet.

Yes, but has the season started? It might be like the NBA, where the season starts in November but nobody actually pays attention until the playoffs begin months later.

To make such a suggestion might well be a beheading offence in some parts of the world.

[Vigilant]

The Hajj hasn't started yet.

Yes, but has the season started? It might be like the NBA, where the season starts in November but nobody actually pays attention until the playoffs begin months later.

To make such a suggestion might well be a beheading offence in some parts of the world.

Do shut up Eric.

[Hex]

The Hajj hasn't started yet.

Yes, but has the season started? It might be like the NBA, where the season starts in November but nobody actually pays attention until the playoffs begin months later.

I'm sure the world's premier source of reference will be able to help answer that: Mecca crane collapse (T-H-L)

[Poetlister]

The time you're supposed to be there for the Hajj hasn't started yet, but a lot of people arrive early so they can get the best deck chairs.

[Anroth]

While the above is fairly flippant, a non-trivial number of my muslim co-workers, friends etc left weeks ago. For the them the Hajj is about the entire journey and ending up at Mecca. It pretty much starts when they leave their front door.

[Midsize Jake]

While the above is fairly flippant, a non-trivial number of my muslim co-workers, friends etc left weeks ago. For the them the Hajj is about the entire journey and ending up at Mecca. It pretty much starts when they leave their front door.

Well, exactly. Then again, we shouldn't be dashing Mr. Malleus' hopes by stating things like this publicly, as long as he thinks there's still a legitimate chance he can get me beheaded.

[Malleus]

While the above is fairly flippant, a non-trivial number of my muslim co-workers, friends etc left weeks ago. For the them the Hajj is about the entire journey and ending up at Mecca. It pretty much starts when they leave their front door.

Well, exactly. Then again, we shouldn't be dashing Mr. Malleus' hopes by stating things like this publicly, as long as he thinks there's still a legitimate chance he can get me beheaded.

If only!

[Vigilant]

While the above is fairly flippant, a non-trivial number of my muslim co-workers, friends etc left weeks ago. For the them the Hajj is about the entire journey and ending up at Mecca. It pretty much starts when they leave their front door.

Well, exactly. Then again, we shouldn't be dashing Mr. Malleus' hopes by stating things like this publicly, as long as he thinks there's still a legitimate chance he can get me beheaded.

If only!

Shut up, Eric.
Just shut up.

You bring nothing of value to this site.

[Midsize Jake]

Yeah, if you hand someone a super-juicy straight line like that and "if only" is all he can come up with, then what's the point of having him around? Hell, I'm practically weeping over the lost comedy potential. At least go with something like "how would we notice the difference?" or "please be sure to post the video if you manage to make it happen."

This website demands quality, dammit! We must maintain our standards!

[Vigilant]

I might have gone with, "I'm starting with the little head and working up."

[Zoloft]

"His putative executioners might be saddened and disgusted to find him already bereft of any brains."

[arkon]

Alright, back from a wonderful vacation. Appreciate the input I suppose.

[Cla68]

I just went and tried to insert a compromise.

I notice in that discussion that you ran into the usual response when you made an unapproved edit to an article currently owned by a small cabal. They impugned your motives, called you a troll, implied that you were an idiot, and otherwise did their best to rudely chase you away from the article as quickly as possible. I probably shouldn't try to fix stuff like that when I see it, because allowing behavior like that to continue in WP helps contribute to its ultimate demise, but it bothers me to see that sort of arrogant bullying.

[arkon]

I just went and tried to insert a compromise.

I notice in that discussion that you ran into the usual response when you made an unapproved edit to an article currently owned by a small cabal. They impugned your motives, called you a troll, implied that you were an idiot, and otherwise did their best to rudely chase you away from the article as quickly as possible. I probably shouldn't try to fix stuff like that when I see it, because allowing behavior like that to continue in WP helps contribute to its ultimate demise, but it bothers me to see that sort of arrogant bullying.

Man, honestly, I expected the POV warriors that popped up, but the lack of backup for something fairly clear cut (at the least with attribution) and the super weird responses from Swarm and Nil in the AN/I makes this one of the stranger wiki episodes for me. And I've been around for a whooooole lot.

[Cla68]

I just went and tried to insert a compromise.

I notice in that discussion that you ran into the usual response when you made an unapproved edit to an article currently owned by a small cabal. They impugned your motives, called you a troll, implied that you were an idiot, and otherwise did their best to rudely chase you away from the article as quickly as possible. I probably shouldn't try to fix stuff like that when I see it, because allowing behavior like that to continue in WP helps contribute to its ultimate demise, but it bothers me to see that sort of arrogant bullying.

Man, honestly, I expected the POV warriors that popped up, but the lack of backup for something fairly clear cut (at the least with attribution) and the super weird responses from Swarm and Nil in the AN/I makes this one of the stranger wiki episodes for me. And I've been around for a whooooole lot.

It appears that there are only about 3-4 people who are currently watching that article like a hawk to keep it from saying "terrorists" in the lede. So, just getting a few extra people involved might be enough to override their "consensus." Might be one of those cases in which a content RfC might actually work.

It appears that they were, as Kelly mentioned, used to their POV being the "house" POV. That's why they took you to ANI so quickly, because they thought sympathetic admins would jump in and take their side. I think they were a little surprised that it didn't happen. So, it looks to me that right now is a good time to get the article changed. It seems to me that if the FBI had classified WU as a domestic terrorist organization, then there isn't anything wrong with saying that the FBI said that in the lede. It doesn't have to be in WP's voice.

[tarantino]

From seven years ago, Talk:Weather Underground Organization/Terrorism RfC (T-H-L).

Wikidemon (formerly Wikidemo), made 175 of the 766 edits to that RFC.

I have to wonder why he spends so much time defending them from being called terrorists.

[greybeard]

I have to wonder why he spends so much time defending them from being called terrorists.

For the same reason that SlimVirgin fights equally hard (or harder) to keep various "animal rights" and extreme environmental activists from being so-labeled -- it simply conflicts with his/her worldview, and rather than seeking some independent or academic version of the facts, they resort to partisanship. As we know, Wikipedia is rife with that, in areas both comparatively benign and completely malevolent. ... But I assume your question was rhetorical.

[Cla68]

I have to wonder why he spends so much time defending them from being called terrorists.

For the same reason that SlimVirgin fights equally hard (or harder) to keep various "animal rights" and extreme environmental activists from being so-labeled -- it simply conflicts with his/her worldview, and rather than seeking some independent or academic version of the facts, they resort to partisanship. As we know, Wikipedia is rife with that, in areas both comparatively benign and completely malevolent. ... But I assume your question was rhetorical.

If you look at that editor's editing history, it's quickly apparent that he/she spends about 70-80% of their time in WP promoting the Democratic Party platform. That's fine, of course, because people should edit WP about the things they find fascinating. The problem I have is when they resort to bullying and cabalism to support their agenda, which, as we know, SlimVirgin was a pioneer in doing.