Talk:Susan Rosenberg

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Susan Rosenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070807210323/http://www.pen.org:80/author.php/prmAID/173 to http://www.pen.org/author.php/prmAID/173
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121004215549/http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/2288/prmID/1376 to http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/2288/prmID/1376

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede is contested/vandalised
I removed the tern "convicted felon" from the lede as it appears in no similar BLP and is not standard in any way. Given the redundant addition of "ex-convict" and the continued vandalism of the lede text, it is clear there is a concerted campaign of edits due to the publishing of a meme on Donald Trump's Twitter feed.

I will monitor the replies to see if any editor can present a valid reason for their inclusion. Her convictions are clearly stated in the lede as is her sentence. Tanila001 (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As this page has been subjected in the last day or so to innumerable bad-faith edits, almost none of which has been justified with a fair-minded explanation as to how the edit corrects an inaccuracy or supplies a useful piece of information or a reliable source, it would seem to be time for an administrator to lock it down. (And if it is to be protected, I would like to learn how I can obtain permission to contribute further edits, based on my history of several good faith edits on this page that have stood the test of time.) PDGPA (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added the "terrorist" label and it had absolutely nothing to do with the tweeter in chief. I had been reading about the Weather Underground and noticed that Susan Rosenberg's page was a little too "family friendly" considering her convictions (legal and personal) and her actions. It is not controversial to claim that the actions for which Susan Rosenberg was convicted fall under the definition of terrorism. Furthermore, terrorism is the entire reason that she is noteworthy in the first place. Let's keep our personal political tastes out of this article, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:8641:3B60:88E6:A6D8:5BE7:95F8 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the second sentence of the lede as well as the first? The first sentence is in the present tense. The second is in the past tense, with specifics, including the descriptor "terrorist." If you have a reliable source that supports the claim that the subject is presently a terrorist or even supports terrorism, you may cite it. Otherwise an "edit war" is unacceptable on Wikipedia and indicates a lack of good faith. PDGPA (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You are not referencing the lede. You are referencing a different section (Activism and Imprisonment). You can create a talk space for that if you wish. This is about the lede. Given that, do you agree the current lede is accurate and NPOV? Tanila001 (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, it is certainly arguable that "terrorism" is not why she is notable. She is notable as an "activist, writer, and advocate for social justice and prisoners' rights". She was also never convicted of a terrorism offence. She was convicted for having explosives and not for any of the bombings. Tanila001 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think it is disingenuous to dispute whether the subject's activities with M19CO satisfy any objective understanding of "terrorism." The evidence, undisputed by her own statements at the time, in court, in her book, and in later interviews, makes quite clear why she was in possession of 740 pounds of unstable, stolen dynamite when arrested. The article as a whole can reasonably be criticized as overly sympathetic to the subject, although myself I am more or less satisfied that it satisfies BLP criteria in its present form. If today's trolls were actually interested in improving the article to make it more "neutral," obviously that would be fine, and could be discussed according to ordinary Wikipedia standards. But it is clear that is not what they are up to. PDGPA (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out that she was not convicted of a terrorist offence. That is factual and relevant to the "notable" discussion being referenced. She was a member of a terrorist organisation but was never charged or convicted of a terrorist act. As you say though, nuance is a bit moot at the moment with the ongoing attacks. Tanila001 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Domestic terrorism" is not a defined offense in the United States. For example, compare with Timothy McVeigh, who is described in the lede as a domestic terrorist but was not convicted of a terrorism offense. Rosenberg's status as a domestic terrorist, if at all, should be made on the basis of reliable, secondary sources, not primary sources like court documents. I haven't carefully appraised the scholarship here and don't draw an opinion on this. Streamline8988 (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Rosenberg was convicted for possession of explosives, McVeigh was convicted for "use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction with the use of explosives,", ie actually attacking and killing people. Rosenberg was not charged with any attacks or deaths. It's really a side issue to the point covered in your other comment though. This is a not a good time for nuance on this page as I said. Tanila001 (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that now is not the time. There actually is a definition of "terrorism" now in U.S. law, but I don't necessarily think that Wikipedia is limited to legalistic definitions. The use is tricky here, as M19CO bombed buildings with political motives and in an attempt to change public opinion and government policies (one definition of terrorism) while carefully avoiding (yet risking) creating human casualties. They also provided support to the "Family" offshoot of the Black Liberation Army, aiding them in committing armed robberies of banks and armored cars (which they called "expropriations") with no such compunctions against killing or injuring guards or police. The right way to describe all this with NPOV is indeed tricky, and cannot be accomplished at the moment. Thanks for your prompt and effective action, Tanila. PDGPA (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The vandalism is continuing from new/anon accounts with no interest in Wiki rules or procedures. I suggest the page be locked immediately until the vandals find a new obsession. Tanila001 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Enough fighting. Is someone tweeting about this? Whatever happened, it brought a bunch of trolls out of the woodwork. I restored, possibly somewhat arbitrarily, a previous version, one that's less obvious a BLP violation than some of the versions I saw. Good luck y'all. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for protecting the page, Drmies. Yes, there was a Twitter storm (instigated by ("convicted felon," ironically) Bernard Kerik and Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson) using Rosenberg's past actions as a weapon to disparage and falsely attack Black Lives Matter, because she sits today as a Board member of the charitable foundation that handles contributions to the BLM Global Network. Unfortunately the previous version you "somewhat arbitrarily" restored had the effect of re-introducing a number of errors I had previously corrected and deleted a number of what had been useful additions to the article. So there is work yet to do improving this page to proper Wikipedia and BLP standards. PDGPA (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a meme being posted with Rosenberg in it. I have reverted your changes, as the first sentence was clearly a violation of NPOV. If you have a problem with the current lede, you can talk about it here. Tanila001 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Her actions as a member of the WU are the most notable part of her life (and indeed, are *much* of her life by number of years too). They are much too important to relegate to the second sentence of the article. There's no evidence her actions as a social worker or author since her release are of greater notice. For what it's worth, I have serious objections to the current laudatory opening sentence too, which is not presenting the article topic from a neutral point of view.

I added the language "convicted felon" as a split-the-difference compromise between the terrorist descriptor and omitting her actions from the lede entirely. Rosenberg is obviously not still a terrorist; but she *is* still a convicted felon, per the nature of her commutation. Streamline8988 (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The group in question is M19CO, not the WU. She was a member for ~6 years, 40 years ago. That is clearly not "much of her life". It can also be argued it is not the most important part of her life, as she is currently far more prominent than any of her peers in M19CO. It's why this page is being attacked. That prominence is entirely due to her work during and after her sentence. Also, her felony conviction is listed, along with the sentence, in the lede. They are not omitted at all. I listed several BLP of prominent figures convicted of felonies and none has "convicted felon" in the lede. It is not standard at all. Tanila001 (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tanila001, I'm sure I could find you some articles that do have "convicted" or whatever in the lead. Jeffrey Epstein is the first one that comes to mind, and lo and behold. You keep arguing that "oh the bombing isn't an important part of her career", but it's hard to maintain that given that she was convicted to 58 years in prison. I mean, that's longer than 's conviction for civil disobedience. I'm not saying that it should be in the first sentence--but the four jobs you listed in that first sentence, well, it sure looks like very positive editing to me. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One more administrative thing: Next person who inserts "terrorist" or something like that can expect to be scrutinized for BLP violations: I do not see a single acceptable source that has that word. I don't mind being corrected, but whoever wants to make that case better have the reliable sources to prove it. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , still serving time! But, yes, WP:TERRORIST applies. El_C 15:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Terrorist" is not always name-calling. The article on terrorism is pretty good at offering an objective characterization, although it uses the term "violence" without clarifying whether intentional destruction of government (or other ideologically selected) property, with an effort made to avoid casualties (as with M19CO post-Brinks), is or not included within the intended scope of that term. As for a reliable source that describes M19CO as a "terrorist group" and its active underground members as "terrorists," see William Rosenau, Tonight We Bombed the U.S. Capitol: The Explosive Story of M19, America's First Female Terrorist Group (Atria Books, NY, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, 2019), ISBN-10: 1501170120, ISBN-13: 978-1501170126, a meticulously researched (heavily footnoted), if law-enforcement oriented, 252-page book on the subject. Because for various reasons I am very interested in this group, I read the book. I have criticisms of it, certainly didn't love it, but cannot say from a Wikipedia perspective that it is not a "reliable source." PDGPA (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me guess, NYPost is not a reliable source, because it leans right, correct? What do we do when all of the "reliable" sources are sympathetic to this terrorist's cause? Also quite telling how we're being immediately labeled as "trolls" and "vandals" for trying to add much needed objectivity to this page. https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/inside-this-female-run-communist-terror-group-hell-bent-on-destruction/ - there you go, a "journalist" finally used the word, that makes it legitimate, right? Since journalists apparently have final say over what words mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:8641:3B60:75F4:156F:1B55:DA4C (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's amazing to me how blind editors on wikipedia are to their ideological bias. I can't help but feel that at least some proportion are knowingly inserting political slant and just pretending to be oblivious. From the wikipedia page, as "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence for political or religious purposes" The bottom line is that this woman is only noteworthy because she was sentenced to 78 years in prison for plotting to use explosives to advance the same causes that she is advocating for today. The fact that you happen to agree with her activism does not give you license to whitewash her page - right now it is [deliberately] written in such a way as to minimize the atrocity that she attempted to commit. Don't forget to also scrub the disambiguation, because the primary point of disambiguation between this susan and another is the terrorist activity that she is clearly noteworthy for. This is only an argument because this website is dominated by leftist and progressive ideologues who get high on their own collective farts; objectivity for me, not for thee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:8641:3B60:411F:F1E1:DFAC:6492 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is designed to be edited and editable by anyone who is willing to try to do so in good faith. There is no ideological test. Opposing biases are reconciled in an effort to achieve a "neutral point of view." If instead of attacking those who have worked on the article you were to offer suggested changes in a constructive spirit, they would be welcomed. From the tone of your comment, and your failure to sign it, I doubt you are interested in actually improving the article. PDGPA (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is very biased, it is ridiculous to expect NPOW from editors... this woman was a domestic terrorist and is a convicted for her terrorism activities(or she was planning on making a railroad route with all those explosives?). Even if you think she was a terrorist for good that does not change the fact she was a terrorist. Editors just pretend that domestic terrorist is some vague term that only they can understand. For contrast see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.85.29 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I am entirely baffled as to why this article excludes 'convicted felon' from the lede. Dinesh D'Souza's article (to take a controversial political figure on the right) has it in the first sentence. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That information is not excluded from the lede; it's right there. It's just not part of the first sentence, because the subject is not principally notable for having been convicted of crimes. Very few people are. Perhaps you misunderstand what "lede" refers to in the WP context. The precise wording you prefer has not achieved consensus approval from the interested WP editors applying conventional WP standards. That's all there is to it; nothing to be baffled about. As for D'Souza, I've never read much less edited his article, but if "convicted felon" appears in its first sentence, I'd be perfectly happy with your moving or rephrasing it, for the same reason. Nothing's stopping you. PDGPA (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the implication is that consensus from high profile, highly edited articles should be used to inform consensus on low-profile articles like this one, not the other way around. For what it's worth, the articles on Michael Cohen and Roger Stone use the "convicted felon" descriptor in the first sentence, while the articles on James Traficant and Sholam Weiss do not. There may be no general consensus on whether to include this language. Streamline8988 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have raised a very interesting question that might warrant the establishment of a general policy. I am a nobody at WP, however, just an occasional "editor" (contributor) and don't even know how such a policy would be established. Giving it a bit of thought, my initial reaction is that I cannot think of any situation in which "convicted felon" should be used as a primary descriptor of a subject who is notable enough for an article. If the person is notable for their life of crime, say Willie Sutton, Al Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd, I would think the person would be introduced in their first sentence as "bank robber" or "gangster" or whatever (which is exactly what you see when you look at those articles). Where the person is notable for activities other than committing crimes, then neither "convicted" nor "felon" is the point; it just comes off as a pejorative label, designed, I would guess, to denigrate from the actual reason the person is notable. Even if, like Michael Cohen, they probably would not be notable but for their criminal conduct, a description of that conduct ("fixer," "made payoffs", etc.) is more informative than "convicted felon." Someone like Susan Rosenberg is not notable because her radical extremism was against the law or because she was caught and convicted, but because it was unusual, daring and successful enough (in that she and fellow M19CO members actually managed to bomb the Capitol, for example) to command public attention, and clever and disciplined enough to evade identification and capture for quite a long time. And, to be honest, because of the highly unusual, extreme sentences that were imposed on her and her comrades, which in turn led to presidential commutations (after a very long time in very harsh and abnormal prison conditions). I would edit "convicted felon" out of all the articles you identified, so long as they do mention the crimes those people committed and the sentences they received. PDGPA (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There needs to be consensus to add "convicted felon" to the opening sentence. Without such consensus having been secured, the addition of that is prohibited per the discretionary sanctions as authorized by WP:ARBBLP. Thank you. El_C 15:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree we should add "convicted felon" since that is a fact and is important and I think it would satifsy both sides of the argument Rockman107 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The "domestic terrorist" insertion is back as of 2 Jan 2022, apparently by an editor who has not read or considered the foregoing discussion. I left a note on his talk page to ask for a rationale for insisting that this be in the first sentence, when it is the main subject of the rest of the paragraph and is not presently true. The first sentence, like most BLP opening sentences, is in the present tense. So in my opinion, "terrorist" cannot go there. The rest of the lede paragraph is fine. PDGPA (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Isnt your discussion  just   'own research'
 * Just point to a relibale source is al, thats required. Remember  its not your personal  item  to be  written only they way you  prefer
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/nyregion/former-terrorist-now-fights-for-parole.html Okerefalls (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Plz no bully
I got some actual sources, FBI report on terrorism and linked it. She is listed on a 1984 study on domestic terrorism, and was in fact involved in a group that was deemed domestic terrorists. If you want insight on how to label this objectively go see Osama bin Laden where it says "His viewpoints and methods of achieving them had led to him being designated as a terrorist by scholars". Be objective, only state facts please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiskeyFoxtrot7 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

link needed
Please add a link to 1983 United States Senate bombing to this sentence: "Rosenberg was charged with a role in the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building" in the "Activism and imprisonment" section.45.46.252.14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please provide a reliable source for your request. Streamline8988 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

here ya go: https://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/18/nyregion/radicals-found-guilty-by-jurors-in-federal-trial.html Joshoshkosh (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

NPOV?
Seems like this individual was the target of a conspiracy theory, and seems to lack NPOV at certain points. Particularly, the line "a non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter Global Network, among other clients." is interesting, due to the Form 990 Schedule 1 in the citation lists the Black Lives Matter foundation as one of many grants, which doesn't seem to necessitate being written as if it was of primary importance to the TC foundation. It would make sense to label all of them or none, but this isn't the case. Seems to be a NPOV violation in pursuit of meeting a certain narrative. Thoughts? Cantgetusername (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * BLM is particularly mentioned in this context because Rosenberg's indirect connection to BLM through the TC foundation has been the subject to many posts on social media seeking to malign BLM, which has been much in the news beginning in 2020, as connected to terrorism. Making clear the actual attenuated relationship of the groups, and of Rosenberg's relationship to the Foundation, is designed to make accurate and truthful information on the subject readily available to any interested reader.PDGPA (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, the lede states "former terrorist". What does that even mean? Never in my life have I heard of someone referred to a "former murderer" or a "former conspirator" or "former con artist" or whatever. I think for the sake of NPOV, either they were convicted of a crime or they weren't. In all other cases I'm aware of on Wikipedia if they were convicted of a crime the words "convicted bomber" or whatever are used.Dave (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this is probably a case where we'd need RS for both the "terrorist" label, and the explicit connection being made between TC foundation and BLM Global Network. It's certainly on the 1099, but so are many other organizations, so it doesn't make sense to highlight just one. The edit to remove both aforementioned things has already been made, but I would suggest if someone wanted to re-add / re-phrase them, it would be best to have RS that directly and clearly states Rosenberg was convicted for terrorism / that the connection to BLM is more than just a grant, among many other organizations. Otherwise, their presence in the article just seems to indicate the perpetuation of the conspiracy theory I've been seen floating around about her. Cantgetusername (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you a BLM supporter who doesn’t like her support for the group being mentioned? That’s not a NPOV.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:FC0D:2518:72D9:BA65 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Request edit under release section 04APR2021
Change "As of 2020, Rosenberg serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a non-profit foundation[25] that raises money for organizations like Black Lives Matter.[24]" to read:

"As of 2020, Rosenberg serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a non-profit foundation[25] that raises money for grassroots groups"

At least according to their stated mission they don't even work within the United States, so there needs to be a citation to back up the claim that they give grants to organizations associated with Black Lives Matter.
 * Done. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thousand Currents' support for the BLM Global Network is included in its IRS 990 filing, as cited thru ProPublica (note 25). I clarified further per cited references, without overemphasizing this point (per prior editorial consensus). PDGPA (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Blm
Rosenberg and thousand currents have a direct connection to BLM. I will draft a paragraph detailing the connection. Any objections please post. Jacob805 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-black-lives-matter-leader-bomb-us-capitol-1983-1568372 Jacob805 (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Newsweek is not generally reliable post-2013; nonetheless, the source you've given says that Rosenberg is not the Black Lives Matter Global Network head. I've no idea what "a direct connection to BLM" actually means. Wikipedia isn't a host for right-wing hit pieces asserting some global conspiracy around a mass movement against racism. If Rosenberg said that she is involved in activism for BLM, the organization or the decentralized direct actions, then show sources of that. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * she sat on tbe board of directora of thousand oak llc they are the financal arm of BLM. Wiki has turned in leftist propaganda machine.. 2600:4040:9969:6200:5056:73F5:E7A0:9FA5 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021
Reinstate your fact about Rosenberg’s Thousand Currents funding BLM. It is useful information and should not be hidden from a public access informational website. Freedom of information. 184.103.46.212 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Interesting Geek (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-black-lives-matter-leader-bomb-us-capitol-1983-15683722600:1700:EDC0:3E80:5160:A9CD:AD2E:E67A (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Snopes did a thoughtful analysis of this question in the spring of 2020. While Rosenberg's recent position on the Thousand Currents board may be a notable fact for an article about her life, the point of adding it in the way that the commenter suggests is not to make the Rosenberg article better, but rather to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. It depends on a fallacious insinuation of "guilt by association," where the accusation of "guilt" is itself misleading. In other words, conduct of Rosenberg in the 1980s, which she has since disavowed and long since abandoned, is used to suggest a false charge of violence and "terrorism" against BLM today. For this reason, in my opinion at least, it would not be a helpful addition to the Rosenberg article. PDGPA (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)