Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 17 September 2008

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Wisconsin Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Removing side comment regarding lack of fatalities, and whether this makes the WUO "notable"

I am removing the note which claims that none of the bombings the Weathermen took part in caused a fatality (other than the deaths of the three members in Greenwich Village) and that this makes them notable as terrorists.

As the main article on the group states, there was at least one fatality in a bombing connected to the Weather Underground. While none of the cells took direct responsibility for the attack, this does not mean they did not do it. After all, the public outcry if they actually *killed* someone might cause some of their supporters to turn against them. (My understanding is that, despite a hall full of witnesses, some ex-members now deny Dohrn's controversial statement supporting the Manson murders.) However, as the Weatherman main article explains, they apparently later took great pains to avoid killing people, despite their (facetious?) boasting about killing rich people. However, the IRA has been using the same methods to avoid civilian casualties (ie calling up and warning of a bomb) so this doesn't make the Weathermen special.

Considering well over 20 bombings of police stations, government buildings, and other public places by the Weathermen - which, by American terrorist standards, makes them greatly successful, it is disingenuous (and a bit biased) to suggest that they mostly are notable for not killing anyone.67.10.131.229 04:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

On October 18, 1974, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the WUO, testified before a US Senate Subcommittee that Bill Ayers, a WUO leader, had told him that Bernardine Dohrn, another WUO leader, had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco. Ayers told Grathwohl the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.

That bomb killed SF police officer Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell. Not only did Weather Underground bombings kill and maim people, but Dorhn herself "...had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.165.28 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is suspicion in some corners that this bomb was the work of the Weathermen, but no strong proof or official conclusion, and it is generally attributed to the Black Liberation Army, which claimed responsibility. That bombing has not been fully explained in nearly 35 years so it's unlikely to get resolved anytime soon. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing further POV and inaccuracies

I removed some additional material and added more details. Rereading it in depth, it appears to have been written by an apologist, as it ignores some salient information about Ms. Dohrn's past, instead only mentioning what she and her husband do today. She is a fascinating and frustrating person, and we should do her justice by telling the truth about her, warts and all (ie not ignoring controversies), without resorting to bias. I've been researching the Weather Underground for several years and was particularly peeved to see "COINTELPRO created dissent" blamed for the breakup of the group, which neither the main article on the Weather Underground, nor any reputable source, claims.

That's pretty insulting to the Weathermen themselves, too - despite having strong beliefs (right or wrong) that they were willing to break the law for, the infiltration of the government (COINTELPRO) created dissent and broke them up? Gimme a break. Most marriages that fail don't need COINTELPRO to help them; and this was a volatile group during volatile times, trying to become revolutionaries. We're also talking about the group that split up SDS in 1969.

COINTELPRO did collect information on the group, and may have put moles into the group; however, the main reason for the group's break includes a) arrests of members, and b) the usual "creative differences", including, finally, much more radical communist theory in the group, and arguments about what the purpose of the group was. A number of the group, including Dohrn, eventually were repudiated or left the group by the mid-1970s. Mark Rudd's interview with San Diego Indy Media is pretty instructive in explaining how isolating the group could get, and how it changed over the years.67.10.131.229 04:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The current article reads like it was written by an opponent instead of highlighting the entire life of Dohrn it chooses to focus heavily upon a specific period of her life and to give it undue weight. I am not sure what you you removed or what you added but as it now stands the article needs to be seriously re-worked or deleted because it violates Misplaced Pages's policy on living persons. Misplaced Pages policy clearly states, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous" so your comment about not ignoring controversies directly violate this policy. Misplaced Pages policy also states that "articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material." I am going to wait a week and if the article is not sourced properly I will delete any references that are of a controversial nature which means pretty much everything about Weather Underground. And I personally urge any editor editing this article to remove all unreliablely sourced or non-sourced information after giving a reasonable amount of time for corrections to be made. Edward Lalone 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd

The final paragraph referred to South Africa as a 'Communist country'. Since this is clearly false, I've deleted it. Just wondering why anyone put it in in the first place, though.--RainbowCommie 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a lawyer

Dohrn is often described as a "lawyer" but she has never been admitted to the bars of either Illinois or New York. According to this article in the Northwestern Chronicle, Dohrn was unable to pass the Moral Character and Fitness portion of the New York bar due to her criminal past. Therefore, to say she was an "associate" at Sidley & Austin is inaccurate, since at best she was a paralegal or intern. Being a law school graduate does not make one a lawyer. CagedRage 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This discrepency should be researched further as the article also states, "Dohrn's legal career began in 1984 as an associate at the prestigious law firm of Sidley & Austin. At the time, the law firm was headed by Howard Trienens, who O'Shea said represented Dohrn's father-in-law Thomas Ayers when he was running Commonwealth Edison." So based on the article you cite it would appear that she was not "at best a paralegal or intern" but in fact an associate. It is my understanding that an associate is a lawyer and is employed as such and that Partners are those who have part ownership in the firm. The claim that she is a lawyer has been made by several credible sources. Even the article you cite states she was an associate at Sidley and Austin prior to being hired by Northwestern as a Professor of Law. Also Time Magazine states published the following statement "Dohrn, a lawyer since 1967, is today director of Northwestern University Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center. Dohrn is married to ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers, who teaches education at the University of Illinois." It seems that if a credible and reliable magazine can use the term lawyer to describe Dohrn than we can safely do the same until credible sources state otherwise. Edward Lalone 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. The ultimate authorities on the issue are the state bars of New York and Illinois, neither of which list a "Bernardine Dohrn" in their rolls. Search for yourself: New York State Bar and Illinois State Bar. It doesn't matter what articles say what. If she was never admitted to the bars of any state, then she is not a lawyer. Period. CagedRage 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Little Biographic info on the Subject - NPOV

While the subject appears to be notable, there is really very little in the article which discusses her specifically. The majority of this article seems to be about the Weathermen group and its activity -- not about Bernardine, which I think is the reason for the NPOV tag. By the nature of the Weathermen it will be hard to include background information about the group and maintain a NPOV, as any departure from what and when is subjective. The why is not pertineint to Misplaced Pages and can only be speculated. I suggest that discussion of the Weatherman activities be relocated to the weathermen page (note that the Weathermen page is not currently tagged for NPOV). Also, there are few references -- I have added one which was mentioned on the discussion page. --Kevin Murray 19:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article based on the above concerns and removed the Cleanup and NPOV tags. I have asked another editor to review the new next for NPOV check. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some biographical information on Dohrn including her birthdate and education as well as current information. I am still very concerned about this article from reading it. It is not well sourced and it's hardly biographical. It may be difficult to provide credible sources for this article but my suggestion would be to find links to actual newspaper articles or actual hard-copies of the news information and source that information instead of relying on what is available online as it seems that most of the information online is of a libelous nature. Whether the information is true isn't relevent to Misplaced Pages policy as all controversial information that is not sourced should be removed. Edward Lalone 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Misplaced Pages Policy

This article borders on being libel and needs credible sources. More biographical information is needed and less op-ed about a specific period of her life which which undue weight in this article. Much of it needs to be re-worked so that it is more biographical. There is no birthdate provided, and no information about her early life or where she was born or who her parents were or even what degrees she holds. This is not an encyclopedic article as it now stands and needs to be seriously re-worked. If I have time I will do more research and do some writing for it. My suggestion though for those who want to edit this article would be to start putting in more biographical information. Based on the content of the article it seems that this article may have been taken directly from one or more articles that were unfavorable to Dohrn without any attention being given to any other sources. Edward Lalone 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable link

Removed a quasi-libelous link calling Dohrn a "terrorist" who was only hired by Northwestern's law school because of nepotism. One can certainly document the controversy surrounding her without using such a biased and slanderous source. The article contains mostly the tirade of an angry alumnus who just spews bile on Dohrn. Find a better source. Inoculatedcities 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

References for Talk Page

1. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,979269,00.html

Zayd

Her son, Zayd, was a major character in the non-fiction book A Hope in the Unseen by Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind. Should this be mentioned? Mmarks10 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone supply a photo of BD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Manson Quote

It's probably her best-known single statement - should it be included along with her recent (late 90s) claim (mentioned in the NYT) that it was intended as a joke?JustThatGuy2 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If she said it and she's know for it, it's fair game but it really ought to have some context - when she said it, under what circumstances, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Undergraduate Degree

The source for the bachelor's degree is Dohrn's CV which says "Political Science, Education". However Kirkpatrick Sale in SDS, published in 1973, says "Dohrn graduated in 1963, a history major, and spent the next year getting an MA in history in the Chicago graduate school, but the liberal arts world seemed increasingly remote and in the fall of 1964 she switched to law school, planning a career as a liberal do gooding lawyer." So is the BA in political science, education and/or history? RobRedactor (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Sale is more likely to be mistaken than Dohrn, and I don't think she'd lie about that, so I'd go with what she said, but I'll keep an eye out for other sources. It's the kind of gritty little detail that slips through the cracks of someone else, but the person with the degree will always remember. Noroton (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information showing Dohrn led was a terrorist organization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

closed as fork of identical discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)#Addition of info citing reliable sources about Weatherman called a terrorist group - Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bernardine Dohrn has been called a "terrorist". According to WP:TERRORIST we should identify sourcing for that. I had added reliably sourced, cited information that she led the group and the group has been called terrorist. This is justification for the "Category: Left wing terrorists" category link and it is justification for Misplaced Pages stating that she has been called a terrorist.

Wikidemon has reverted the edits with the edit summary "POV". If we are to consider statements that someone or something is a terrorist "POV" then WP:NPOV allows us to provide the information that reliable sources say it.

Here is the passage Wikidemon removed:

The Weatherman organization which Dohrn led has been described as a terrorist group since the 1970s. "Within the political youth movement of the late sixties (outside of Latin America), the 'Weathermen' were the first group to reach the front page because of terrorist activities," Klaus Mehnert wrote in his 1977 book, "Twilight of the Young, The Radical Movements of the 1960s and Their Legacy". Neil A. Hamilton, in his 1996 book on militia movements in the United States, wrote, "By and large, though, these Weathermen did not rely on arming and training militia; instead, they resorted to terrorism."

Starting in 1970, newspaper articles identified the group as "terrorist" and quoted others doing so. In December 1970, Michael Charney, a spokesman for another radical youth group, the Oberlin Radical Coalition, described the group to The New York Times as an organization "resorting to terrorism." In 1975, a UPI article referred to a January 1971 statement issued by Dohrn, "suggesting that the group was considering tactics other than bombing and terrorism."

References

1. Mehnert, Klaus, "Twilight of the Young, The Radical Movements of the 1960s and Their Legacy", Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1977, page 47
2. Hamilton, Neil A., "Militias in America: A Reference Handbook", a volume in the "Contemporary World Issues" series, Santa Barbara, California, 1996, page 15; ISBN 0874368596; the book identifies its author this way: "Neil A. Hamilton is associate professor and chair of the history department at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama"
3. Kneeland, Douglas E., "Bombings Cost Militants Potential Gains in Support; Incidents Are Alienating Many Radicals and Youths Who Might Join Cause Student Ambivalence Is Found Bombings Cost Militants Potential Gains in Support", article, The New York Times, December 14, 1970, page 1
4. No byline, UPI wire story, "Weathermen Got Name From Song: Groups Latest Designation Is Weather Underground", as published in The New York Times, January 30, 1975, "On Jan. 19, 1971, Bernardine Dohrn, a leading Weatherperson who has never been caught, issued a statement from hiding suggesting that the group was considering tactics other than bombing and terrorism."

Wikidemo needs to justify the removal or the information should be put it back. -- Noroton (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Renewed BLP questions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{Discussion has moved to Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC -- Noroton (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}}

This ongoing series of non-consensus edits (approximately 13 mentions of "terrorist" or "terrorism" is a serious BLP / NPOV problem, and part of an ongoing content war. I dispute them in their entirety, do not agree with them, and believe they need to be removed again or thoroughly edited. However, consensus discussions have broken down at this point and I do not wish to edit war so I will simply register a standing objection to this particular manifestation of the months-long effort to link Barack Obama to terrorism via accusing certain living individuals with whom he has come into contact of being terrorists. Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you state why you think they are violations of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV? I thought that, based on your recent comments at Talk:Weatherman (organization), specifically and , that you no longer had an objection to Misplaced Pages stating that Dohrn has been called the leader of a "terrorist" organization. I included different opinions on that. Although I believe that "terrorist" is the conclusion of a large majority of the sources on this, at this point the article only says that it is a conclusion of sources and provides plenty of them.

You say that "consensus discussions have broken down" but I haven't stopped being willing to discuss the matter. If you can't explain what it is in the language of the article that you believe is not neutral and specifically state how that language violates WP:NPOV, then there is no point to the NPOV tag, and it will have to be removed. -- Noroton (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my objections many times. I cannot imagine where you got the impression that I acquiesced to this - that strains credulity. Could you point me to exactly where you go that impression from? I said the exact opposite, many times. If you are wish to propose new material for the encyclopedia, please self-revert and make a proposal here on the talk page rather than reverting material that many editors have objected to over a long period of time. Otherwise, your edits in their entirety should be reverted, and the article needs some additional BLP-related clean-up. Wikidemon (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us add a new voice to this consensus building. The Weathermen and Dohrn have both been widely described by law enforcement, the judiciary, journalists, scholars and elected officials as terrorists. The only reason Dohrn is notable is because she was involved in terrorism. Your POV pushing on this and other articles is going to come to an end. CENSEI (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a consensus discussion, sorry. If you wish to make a proposal, and civilly and without edit warring discuss why it should be in the article, you are free to do so. However, there has long been a consensus against calling these living people "terrorists" in the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, could you restate your objections. I guess I misread what you wrote on the most recent Talk:Weatherman (organization) discussion. It would clarify things a lot if you could simply state where WP:BLP or WP:NPOV violations are or what other objections you have (consistent with WP policy and guidelines). As CENSEI points out, Dohrn's notability is tied up with her leading Weatherman, and Weatherman's notability is tied up with being known as a terrorist group. WP:TERRORISM does allow us to say that others have termed her a "terrorist" for heading up a terrorist group. That is why she's got an article in The Encyclopedia of Terrorism from 2003. I don't understand what policy objections there could be to this. -- Noroton (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI points out nothing. I'm not going to be baited into the 30th to 40th fork of this discussion. You certainly know the BLP, weight, NPOV, TERRORISM, and RS objections - you have read them in 40 places or more so far. Revert the nonconsensus edits here and at Weatherman (organization), stop the uncivil accusations, insults, and collateral administrative attacks against me and other editors, and join an orderly discussion about this material. I will start an RfC about this and we can assess the project's inclinations toward this material once and for all.Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yippie! Wikidemon is generous enough to allow me to edit one of his article!

But seriously, if the description of Dohrn as a terrorist can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, then it deserves inclusion here. What is worng with that? Your beef seems to be that there is to be no mention of Dohrn or her activities being described that way, regardless of what the citations say. That is an extremly POV postion of you. CENSEI (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the way to start an orderly discussion was to start discussing, and I am again attempting to do that in a reasonable way. -- Noroton (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not characterize the recent events as reasonable or conducive to discussion, quite the opposite. Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no adequate source for saying Dohrn is a terrorist. There are reliable sources for mentioning that some people call her a terrorist. Whether we do that or not is governed by a number of policies and choices, not just WP:V. WP:BLP is the most prominent but there are also matters of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:TERRORISM. We can discuss that in an orderly, civil environment, perhaps an RfC, but not here - for the 30th+ time - in an atmosphere of edit warring and personal attacks. Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly dont see what you are even objecting to here. Not one sentence in this article says that Dohrn is a terrorist. There are several lines that says she and her actions are "considered" to be terrorist, but its all done according to all relevant policies. It would seem more and more likely that you are either not reading the contributions or are frivolously throwing accusations around to reinforce your argument. CENSEI (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is as orderly and civil an environment as long as we stay orderly and civil, and discussion has begun here. Discussion should not be moved to other spots, per WP:TALK. I think ordinary RfCs simply direct discussion to the article discussion page. The fact is that I haven't called Dohrn a terrorist or even said that she headed up a terrorist group. I've cited others saying she headed up what is a terrorist group. As for WP:WEIGHT, her actions as head of that group are why she's notable -- if those actions hadn't been taken, it's unlikely there would be an article here, because she's not famous for anything else. WP:WEIGHT demands treatment of this question. WP:NPOV demands treatment of it, and the WP:WELLKNOWN section of WP:BLP also demands treatment of it. Sources are easily available and there are many of them. -- Noroton (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dohrn, 30 Nov 2007, Michigan State University SDS reunion

part 1 and 2.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders - in which articles an dwhere in those articles. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Terror doesn’t have to involve the actual taking of a life or the harming of an individual. It is a feeling that one or more things (people) are subjected too. If you want to focus on the details the real question is how much time does a "thing" need to be subjected to this feeling (fear) before it is considered terror. Walking up behind someone and scaring them isn’t terror because the feeling of fear is short term but if that person develops a condition of being afraid of people walking up behind them because of that one instance, then it can be considered terror. Terror is a behavioral condition that one or more things have because of an action taken by some "thing". The action (terrorism) committed is not the argument but the actual effect that lingers after the action. With this said, you can become a terrorist without even intending to become one. You can be a terrorist one day and not a terrorist the next. The second argument is the act of intention. If a "thing" continues on a pattern of behavior that they know will cause an effect of terror then they are terrorists. Causing terror and being terrorists are two different things. If a child is scared of dogs and a dog approaches this child and causes terror in this child, are all dogs terrorists? On the opposite side, if you have a bully going around a school causing continual fear in his schoolmates this bully could be labeled a terrorist. The third argument is the legality of the action. This is what is typically the deciding factor for most people. Did the action that caused an effect legal? With the case of the Weatherman Group blowing up buildings, there is no question about if this is legal? If they passed a law in Chicago that said, "Blowing up buildings is now legal!" then the Weatherman Group would not be considered terrorists but because it is illegal to blow up buildings they are considered terrorists. They knew that the effect of blowing up buildings would cause terror and they developed a pattern of continually causing this fear. Like they say, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck.” --Xinunus (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please correct English syntax

In Section 3 (Later radical history), the sentence starting the third paragraph, "While Dohrn was leader of the group,went underground in early 1970, and engaged in a series of bombings" has serious issues with English syntax; please correct it. There is a misplaced comma, possibly a missing subject preceding "went", and please clarify who engaged in bombings (Dohrn or the group). Presumably the group, since the next sentence starts with "Its activities". And who went underground, for that matter? All this is definitely outside my expertise, so I am not going to try to correct the syntax, since I would only be guessing the intended meaning. User:Mateat 6:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Venceremos Brigades

Interesting tid bit, Dohrn was a member of the Venceremos Brigades, an organization that was used by Cuban intelegence as a recruiting tool for them. How notable is any of this information. CENSEI (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected the page for 2 weeks as a result of the recent dispute. Moreover, in biographies with living sujects there should be a consensus to include contentious material before it is inserted. From Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. (my bolding)

When the issue is resolved by discussion then the article can be unprotected. Hopefully this will take less than the current 2 week protection period and protection can be lifted early, rather than extended. I would suggest a request for comment if a resolution is unlikely amongst the current disputants. CIreland (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note RfC here. Thx, Wikidemon (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Wisconsin articles
• Unknown-importance Wisconsin articles
• Unassessed Chicago articles
• Unknown-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles