Talk:San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing

Not sure I understand

why this article shouldn't mention the Weather Underground - given the timing of the incident, and the fact that there is one informant who claims they are responsible (and those claims are found all over the Internet, in addition to the book cited) and the 2003 SF Chronicle article also quotes sources saying they were investigating former Weather Underground members when they reopened the case. I'd suggest the article simply say, "There is some evidence that the Weatherman may have been responsible." Donbkatz (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)donbkatz

Agreed. Quote from SF Chronicle article added.Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a different SF chronicle article quoted an anonymous police source to say that there was "no evidence" implicating the Weathermen. I have added that for balance. Wikidemon (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They were scapegoats ridfled with FBI, HOW DO WE KNOW THEY DIDN'T DO IT Gsnfph62 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Undocumented assertion on L. Grathwohl's employment

Removing the assertion on L. Grathwohl's employment, since it is undocumented.Ajschorschiii (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored, but reframed the statement to get the gist of what happened. Grathwohl works for America's Survival, per the Chronicle article about this. The employment connection is pretty central to the issue. A conservative advocacy group has hired the man who accuses Ayers of murder, and whose claims on the subject are the only source for the allegation. Amidst a bunch of fringe bashing of Barack Obama that continued after the American presidential election, the group decides to play up the Obama/Ayers/terrorist connection by lobbying for the government to charge Ayers with murder. They have no support within law enforcement and there is no reason to expect that investigators or prosecutors want to take a new look at the case - they are just making publicity. The head of Grathwohl's organization manages to get an expression of support from a police union, and runs with that for their press release. It gets some minor press, and presto, the issue is in the Wikipedia article. To stay neutral we have to cover this without judgment, but if we do decide to cover it, what we should cover is the totality of the event, not just the letter itself that Grathwahl's boss solicited from the union. Wikidemon (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, in case anyone comes here without having seen the child articles first, the question of whether and how we repeat the murder allegation is as of now under discussion at WP:BLP/N. Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I'm afraid you misread the Chronicle article, which stated Mr. Grathwohl "who is working with" America's Survival--which is why I deleted your assertion of his employment initially. There is a difference between "working with" and "working for." Please state your evidence for Mr. Grathwohl's employment. You presently have not solidly established his employment. He is obviously "working with," but where is your evidence for "working for"?Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Weatherman connex?

"Matthew Landy Steen, who has used the alias William Hellis Coquillette[...]told agents he had attended a Bay Area meeting in January 1970 at which half a dozen Weather Underground activists discussed their plans to plant a bomb at Park Police Station. Among those Steen placed at the meeting were Dohrn, the Weather Underground's charismatic leader; and Machtinger, who investigators believed to be one of the group's principal bomb technicians. [... ...] Karen Latimer[...]came forward to say that she had attended a separate planning session for the Park Station attack with Dohrn and Machtinger in the winter of 1970."---PETER JAMISON (see here)

↜Just M E here , now 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Infiltration

If there's doubt over whether Grathwohl actually infiltrated the Weathermen, can you add a source to that effect so it's clear why the article is saying that? Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. For a claim that he "infiltrated" the Weathermen one would need a source. The Examiner, the source used for the claim, is fairly weak because it refers to the matter only tangentially by calling him a "mole". Being a mole does not necessarily mean infiltrating an organization. Much of what is known about Grathwohl comes from Grathwohl himself, and he is not terribly reliable on claims regarding his own role in events. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what being a mole means? The SF Chronicle describes him as "a former FBI informant in the Underground."[1] Is this an objection to the Examiner article or something more general?Prezbo (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Or here, this NYT article[2] describes him as "an F.B.I. informer who infiltrated the Weather Underground."Prezbo (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear at all that he "infiltrated" the weather underground. The New York Times is a reasonably good source, although the age of the story and proximity to events cast that in some doubt. A mole is someone on the inside who is actually working for a rival and acting to feed information out and/or plant misinformation. "Infiltrated" suggests that he was on the outside and worked his way in for some purpose. To say he infiltrated means we have to establish that it was more complex than just signing up (infiltration is working actively), and that he did so in order to be a mole (otherwise he is just an informant / double agent). Does that make sense? My main concern here is that it implies that he was sent by the FBI to spy on the WU, and I want to make sure he's not just a WU person who had second thoughts or was otherwise induced to cooperate with the FBI. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I see the distinction. I don't care whether he "infiltrated" Weatherman or not, I just want the article to not say "purportedly." If your objection is just to that word, would it be acceptable to you for him to be called "an FBI informant within the Weather Underground"?Prezbo (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that he was. I realize that "purportedly" is probably one of those weasel words, so going with the facts is best. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Two or three points re this page. First, an update is neeeded. Second, Grathwohl was an undercover informant employed by the FBI, as a stringer. He was

not a 'doubter'; there is irrefutable proof of such in the print media from that period, including the centerfold expose that we had published in The Berkeley Tribe in July 1970. This published (and citable) expose was also simultaneously published in other underground newspapers around the country. He passed our 'acid test'. As soon as an expose appeared in different parts of the country he would also appear. More later. Third, the term 'terrorism' was not in general use in the 60s and 70s as a general description.Mlsteenwx13 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Rather, it was 'commies', 'fellow travelers', revolutionaries, radical left. This general term didn't really enter the public lexicon until the actions of the European underground radical left, such as Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, Greek ETA, Japanese Red Army and the rise of the Palestinian cause (PFLP/PLO) from 1970-1980. The term simply was not applied domestically except to refer to us occasionally as anarchists because it was well known that many of us were familiar with Leninist actions and the principles of bolsheviks like Bakunin and Molotov. I believe the first use of the term in North America happened in 1970 with the actions of the FLQ in Quebec when the provincial minister of interior (?) was kidnapped and later killed and the FLQ leaders arrested. After this, the use of the term accelerated with actions of the IRA/INLA. But, again, the term was not in the American currency at the time. More later Mlsteenwx13 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC) One more thought - the drumroll for usage of this term was ususally reserved for incidents involving an intentional loss of life - a benchmark that was never crossed by WUO; the Townhouse does not qualify. However, this benchmark was indeed met with the underground in Japan, Greece, Italy, Germany and Ireland, but not the United States and the WUO. As an aside and posing a question I'll answer later, is the Black Panther Party or the Black Liberation Army considered 'terrorist' now or then. And the SLA?? And in Wikipedia? Mlsteenwx13 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not the one I meant, were more Gsnfph62 (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Prezbo`s right ive read these and more documents Gsnfph62 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)