Jump to content

Talk:Judi Bari

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Implying the FBI bombed Bari is the mark of fanaticism

[edit]

This is one of those Wikipedia articles where a small group of true believers can write wildly because the issue just isn't that important to those who might take a balanced view.

For starters, this article states that COINTELPRO was still in existence 15 years after it was disbanded, a paranoid belief in wide circulation in the Northwest anarchist subculture to which Bari belonged.

The FBI investigation can easily be called flawed, but to jump from there to a conspiracy is an incredible leap. Even facts that would establish Bari was not knowingly carrying a bomb but which fails to corroborate an FBI conspiracy theory is ignored. Jurors thought that the FBI was so sure Bari planted the bomb that they dismissed the possibility it might be another group or individual. But this isn't good enough for the editors who tend this page.

Whether they know it or not, such biases are rather transparent to anyone not invested in anarchist subculture. Indeed, it suggests that the FBI might have been on to something in suspecting Bari of knowingly transporting a bomb, but just did a poor job of proving their case. There are numerous other possibilities, but an FBI plot is not one of them. 98.248.125.79 (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)AECwriter[reply]

The FBI theory is only one of several presented. It is up to the reader to decide which one is best substantiated. Hopefully recent additions have corrected one glaring omission that put the FBI and "Lord's Avenger" theories in the WP:UNDUE category. I'm convinced that the bomb was an attempt on Bari's life, but I also must concede that that the possibility that she was knowingly transporting a bomb (without knowing that it would become motion-triggered within 12 hours from the time it was placed in the car) cannot be entirely eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.11.42 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

To what extent should allegations that the FBI itself was responsible for planting the bomb be mentioned? --Daniel C. Boyer

To the extent that you can find citable sources alleging that. DanKeshet
Might I suggest this page? It's an interview with Judi that touches on these points. I'm on my lunch break now, but when I get home I will try to find some time to write something up. Loverevolutionary 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be sources other than the person who has an interest in promoting the theory of FBI conspiracy. Yes, the FBI had conducted COINTELPRO earlier against radical groups, but this is a separate case at a separate time. From Stephen Talbot's 2002 article in Salon, Bari had personal reasons for diverting attention away from her ex-husband, Mike Sweeney, although she had told Talbot in confidence that she suspected him of the bomb attack. (Then she denied it publicly.)Parkwells (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that, maybe someone ought to insert a few words about Bari's great sense of humor; for instance, her comment about the FBI investigation into the case: "They ought to find out who did this [the car bombing]--and fire them!". --66.52.186.142 07:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC) [as-yet unregistered human][reply]

Why is the bomb mentioned as motion triggered? The FBI investigators found only a timer, meaning that it might have been Bari's but went off accidentally. Also, why no mention of the theory that Bari's abusive exhusband, linked to earlier political bombings, may have been at fault? 

--smb2a


"...SSA David R. Williams, the FBI bomb expert who analyzed the bomb at the lab in Washington DC. Williams is one of the FBI's six top bomb experts in the country, and was the bomb expert whose testimony convicted the World Trade Center bombers. His testimony in our case confirms what we thought about the bomb scene, that there was nothing tricky or ambiguous about it. The bomb was located exactly where it looked like it was, hidden under the car seat, and meant to kill.

SSA Williams was impressed that I had survived the bomb, which he described as "an inferno mixture." But he would have been equally impressed if I had made it. Williams considered the bomb complex, but well-designed and assembled with good craftsmanship. The bomb itself was an 11"x 2" pipe wrapped with finishing nails for shrapnel effect. The triggering device consisted of a wind-up pocket watch with the minute-hand broken off, with a screw drilled into the clock face connected to a wire, so that when the hour hand moved around and made contact with the screw it would complete a circuit. But the clock itself did not trigger the bomb. It was merely a delay mechanism to allow the bomber to safely get out of the way. The real trigger was a motion device, consisting of a half-inch diameter ball bearing, which had to roll to connect two looped wires and complete a circuit. In other words, the bomb was triggered by the motion of my car.

The presence of the ball bearing, according to Williams, meant that the bomb was a booby trap device. SA Frank Doyle and the other bomb technicians at the scene certainly knew this, because they found the ball bearing and one of the looped wires among the bomb debris. But you sure never heard anything about the motion device in any of the press accounts that were leaked out by police sources back then. It is also interesting to note that, on my original arrest warrant, I was first charged with violating code section 12355(b), which is possession of a booby trap device. This was crossed out, and in its place is written code 123032, possession of an explosive device. The Oakland Police have testified that this was a clerical error.

Besides the clock and motion device, the bomb also contained a light switch as an overall safety mechanism. So in order for the bomb to explode. the light switch had to be turned to ON, the clock had to be wound and tick down until it made contact with the screw, and the ball bearing had to roll and connect the wires. The assumption behind the arrest of Darryl and me is that we were knowingly transporting this bomb when it accidentally exploded. But SSA Williams disagrees. "I believe that it functioned as designed," he told us. "I believe the ball bearing made the circuitry complete..." [1] Neophaedrus (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting quotation. Too bad it's useless because it is unsourced.

Georgejdorner (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.judibari.org/bomb-school.html

death

[edit]

was her death in 1997 related to her injuries? --Lehnen (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. She died of breast cancer.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biased?

[edit]

The article seems biased. GenQuest (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's biased. This needs to be flagged. It is written from an advocacy point of view, and resembles more a hagiography.

Judi was controversial and this article doesn't show that

[edit]

As a Willits resident during her tenure, I can assure you that she was pretty roundly hated by a considerable number of her neighbors.

Her role in blocking timber fallers and loggers from earning a living for their families should be explored, for the sake of balance in this article.

From personal experience, I can tell you that she could be oblivious to her effect on blue collar workers. She was widely resented because she was perceived as a trust fund baby who did not have to work for a living. The general impression among the more conservative Willits residents was that she was contemptous of anyone who had to work and live from paycheck to paycheck.

I was a participant in an incident when she was willing to sabotage a veterans benefit involving many thousands of dollars and many hundreds of hours of volunteer labor because she wanted to make a political point. When I was delegated to point out the consequences to her, she was unmoved. My impression was she was contemptous of military veterans. I also was struck by the feeling that she lacked a sense of self preservation. I am not mean spirited enough to have been happy she was bombed, but I was not surprised either. She was a victim looking for a perpetrator.

None of this shows in the article. Perhaps some or all of it can't be verified in reliable sources. However, in the interest of the balance needed for NPOV, it should be explored.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George -- You said "Perhaps some or all of it can't be verified in reliable sources. However, in the interest of the balance needed for NPOV, it should be explored." Actually, WP:NPOV requires that we cover reliable sources in a balanced manner. It doesn't require that we balance information backed by reliable sources with information backed by no sources. If you find any reliable sources that found it newsworthy how much "more conservative Willits residents" hated her, then feel free to include this information in the article (along with the sources). But we cannot start including information without sources -- especially contentious information. -- Mesoderm (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, I have no illusions that many conservatives in the area hated her -- after all, she was a feminist, environmentalist, and social justice activist. Of course, they would hate her. And I think that this is important, considering what happened to her. What I'm wondering though are if there are any reliable sources that talk about this?) -- Mesoderm (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"From personal experience, I can tell you that she could be oblivious to her effect on blue collar workers. She was widely resented because she was perceived as a trust fund baby who did not have to work for a living. The general impression among the more conservative Willits residents was that she was contemptous of anyone who had to work and live from paycheck to paycheck." -- I'm curious what her relationship with the IWW says about this? Speaking of the historic role of timber industries, she did, after all, refer to workers and the environment as mutual underdogs: "Historically, it was the IWW who broke the stranglehold of the timber barons on the loggers and millworkers in the nineteen teens [...] Now the companies are back in total control, only this time they're taking down not only the workers but the Earth as well. This, to me, is what the IWW-Earth First! link is really about" (Shantz 2002, quoted in the article). Maxisdetermined (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I EVER called for non-sourced information to be included in a WP article. Above, I did call for exploration of fact in a search for reliable sources in an attempt for NPOV. Saint Judi of the Redwoods had feet of clay as well as a pelvis full of shrapnel. She was human, that's all.

I have called for an exploration of the very points noted above–that of her local impact because she was a feminist, an environmentalist, and a self-proclaimed social justice activist.

The present sources cited all were located hundreds of miles from the scenes of her activism. Even so, one of them is quoted as saying, "Bari's in-your-face tactics over the years have rankled many mainstream environmentalists, politicians and timber interests." I didn't even have to dig very far into the sources to find that; it popped out in the first reference check I made. However, it appears nowhere in the present text. In fact, as it stands now, the article consists of a lead and an account of her bombing, with no account of her Redwood Summer activities, her service as a shop steward, or her feminism.

Reputable local sources that could shed light on Judi Bari include The Willits News, The Ukiah Daily Journal, The Fort Bragg Advocate News, The Lake County Record Bee, and The Santa Rosa Press Democrat. I would seriously doubt the veracity of the Anderson Valley Advertiser. The Mendocino Beacon is another possibility. The Oakland Tribune would probably offer considerable information for the bombing and subsequent trial.

Apparently, none of these have been explored. And my quick check that turned up the quote about her tactics would seem to indicate that the present sources have been cherry-picked to reflect a non-neutral point of view.

So–once again–how about some NPOV in this article?

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My god, a "feminist"! Shudder. No more explanation needed..... Maxisdetermined (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I have to agree with Georgejdorner here on many points. I came to this article to read about what the leading theories concerning the Judi Bari bombing were currently. What I see is that sources that sources sympathetic to Judi Bari are "talked up", while Secret Wars of Judi Bari is introduced only to be disparaged, as if that was the "consensus" opinion on the topic. Like it or not, no matter who published the book (and that deserves mention), the book was a written by an investigative journalist who had reported on the case previously, and it is a reliable source. The pros and cons of the case given in the book need to be given. BTW, I've change the tag from "NPOV language" to straight "NPOV". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplying cites from current sources

[edit]

I have gone through the sources presently cited and added citations to the greatest extent I could.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been directed here as a result of a minor edit that I made to the Judi Bari article. The article mentioned an organization named 'Seeds of Peace' and provided a link to the Wikipedia page Seeds Of Peace. The linked-to organization is a completely different organization, related in absolutely no way to the 'Seeds Of Peace' collective in Berkeley referred to in the Judi Bari article. The quickest, easiest way to verify this is to compare the date of the bombing -24 May '90 - to the date of the founding of the linked-to organization, given in that article as "...founded in NYC in 1993" or something similar.

The intent of my edit was to clear up the obvious error of linking two non-related and very different organizations.

The Seeds of Peace referred to in relationship to Judi Bari: This Seeds was an anarchist collective (yes, an oxymoron, and difficult to live within...) committed to non-violent revolution; its principal focus was nuclear weapons, but it was involved in every imaginable progressive social cause, ranging from the profound to the completely dingy.

Seeds had sprung directly from the Great Peace March. After the GPM those who would found Seeds scrounged enough porta-potties, old school buses, and movable kitchen facilities that they could 'sub-contract' services to other organizations in the social-justice movement; along with sanitation and food, contracting organizations got Civil Disobedience/Direct Action and non-violence trainings, as well as a hard-bitten, decidedly not hard-core team of Actionists who would conduct DA in conjunction with the principal organization. If they had the cash, they got the whole collective.

Sounds insane? Was insane.

It was also quite serious. In the year before the bombing, we did 2 large Nevada Test Site actions, actions at Oak Ridge TN, Wall Street, Vermont Yankee, and some small ones now forgotten; all of which resulted in our arrests and jailings. In addition there were 'normal' tasks like Food Not Bombs, the Anarchist Festival, u.s.w.

We got ourselves out of jail in Tennessee and all the buses and gear, tons of it, and got back to Berkeley the morning of the earthquake, whenever that was. Oakland fell in love with us: we had all the gear, we were ready...we set up in the Red Cross Parking lot and fed 8- and 9,000 meals a day, delivered chow and coffee to all of the rescue workers, 24 hours a day for weeks. Seeds had several 'safe-places' around the country, but the main facility was the Berkeley Seeds House on California St. There might be as many as 25 Seeds in residence at the Berkeley House at any given time, and almost always 'guests'; Collective Policy forbade closing the door to any in need, which contributed to the general weirdness. There was a printing operation and political out-reach and 3 or 4 buses to be maintained feeding and kitchen work and etc. ...it was always busy.

Anybody could be a Seed. Within the Seeds there was a group of 'consensed members'; only the consensed members could say "no" to anything, but everybody could say "yes" ...an interesting power structure. There were but a tiny few consensed members - I can remember perhaps 7 or 8 being in residence at the Berkeley House at any given time, another handful across the country. This is the Seeds Of Peace that dealt with Judi Bari: essentially, she was a client of ours. I had almost no dealings with her, and I certainly had no animus towards her. When we were 'working', my functions were strictly tactical, strictly Direct Action; that was my only expertise, and my focus was on nuke weapons. When we were 'down', I worked - kinda - for a guy half my age, keeping the buses working. All Seeds worked, either in-house or for wages outside - we paid 50% income tax if we had outside income.

In the event, I was trying to find some way for us to work INEL in Idaho, all those nukey-weird things they have up there, and was not focused on (or very interested in) Redwood Summer. I thought Judi Bari one hell of an organizer ...organizing is the hard part, DA is just adrenaline ...but I didn't think her an especially good revolutionist. This is not meant as a slight to Judi, but rather to remark on the strengths of the people in the collective, the revolutionists with whom I lived daily. At risk of being accused of sexism, I will mention that the best revolutionists, the most solid, were the wymyn. Years of oppression seem to bring out the best in leftoids, I guess.

And in truth, Judi's having allowed herself to be photographed holding the Uzi sub-machine gun...and the subsequent publication of that photo...did not endear her to me. It struck me as stupid and amateurish. I've never done anything stupid or amateurish myself, of course...

Judi and Darryl stayed overnight at the Berkeley House several times in conjunction with organizing Redwood Summer. On the 22d or 23rd of May another consensed member and I left Berkeley for Idaho, heading to INEL to find soft places where we might be able to have some fun, see what chance there was to start a 'community of resistance', that sort of thing. On the morning of the 24th, my foster daughter was in the car behind Judi and Daryl, helping them get to some school talk or something, when the bomb went off. Now, I was not there when the following things happened...so I am no longer a 'primary source', those we historians are so fond of semi-trusting. But this I believe from brothers and sisters with whom I have been beaten and jailed: the Oakland PD, BATF, and the FBI descended on the house. They arrested and cuffed everybody they could find - I do not remember the number, but about a dozen. They ripped the lovely well-burnt nylon flag from the wall, pulled down the bookshelves (the Berkeley House had a large library), broke the leased photocopy machine, pistol-whipped the dog Avator (who may have had it coming, he was jerk of a dog), tore holes in walls in order to retrieve wiring samples, took wiring samples from several vehicles (disabling them), confiscating any cutting tools and all nails and wire bundles, upended the thousands of card files of donors and friends...and a bunch of other nasty things.

Seeds all over the country reacted. Almost all of us had warrants of one kind or another from the various actions, and almost all the warrants for silly things ("Entering Federal Land After Being Advised Not To") that weren't worth getting excited about, but that could sure trip you up if'n cops were looking for a reason to screw with you...so we hunkered down or 'went other places'. Me, I dithered around with a handful of other Seeds in Oregon and nice places like that before finally getting smart and moving to southern Mexico for 12 years or whatever it was. Now, THE BOMB: Spent a lot of time, in a lot of strange places, with a lot of equally strange people - that is, other Seeds - thinking about that bomb. 1. I have a low tolerance for stupid people, and neither Judi nor Daryl were in any way stupid. Certainly not stupid enough to carry an armed, fused explosive device under the front seats of the automobile in which they were riding. 2. That device was built by either an (A) an amateur who either didn't know or didn't care what the device would do, or (B) a very good explosives person who knew what he was doing and got the effect he was doing so. (B) is extremely unlikely, but serves as fodder for the inevitable conspiracy nuts who find paranoia to be its own reward, so let's forget (B) and look at who an (A) might be. It turns out to be surprisingly easy to get a least a glimpse...I used the word 'historian', but I'm actually an historiographer, so let's see how good I am at my craft...but bear in mind I'm doing this from memory, eh?

  • Newspaper published photographs of the automobile show the windshield of the car crinkled but generally intact, popped out and confined by the windshield wipers. This would seem to point to a low-velocity explosive; a quicker explosive would have done much more damage while confined inside the car, and the over-pressure would have done different kinds (and much more severe) damage to Judi & Daryl.
  • There is some chance that the bomber could be an Air Force or Navy veteran, but almost none that the bomber would be an Army or Marine veteran.
  • An amateur is not going to have the skills or desire to mess around with sophisticated detonation techniques; no motion-fusing, no vibration-fusing, none of that. He/she/it is going to stick with simple, which means a timer: easy to learn, easy to acquire, easy to rig. A wristwatch, right?
  • What 'wristwatch' implies is that once armed/fuzed, the device would explode WITHIN 12 hours of having been set.
  • Explode, that is, if it was explosive. Where to get explosives? Modestly difficult in the Bay Area, but go north a ways and getting various kinds of gunpowders is as easy as asking for it...hunting supply stores, re-loaders, hand-loaders, that crowd: and all of the powders sold are (relatively)low velocity explosives.
  • Parking overnight on California Street...we seldom locked vehicles because the radios had already been stolen. Don't know if Judi & Daryl locked their car, but quien sabe?
  • I think the bomb went off around 9:30, 10:00 a.m. - so a 12 hour max on the timer makes it the night before, while the car was in front of the Seeds House. It is certainly not out of the question that the bomb was placed in the car before they left for Berkeley, but seems unlikely...unless it was a real botch-job bomb that didn't go off when it was supposed to.

In my mind, it's always seemed more logical to think the bomb placed the night before, in Berkeley, but constructed by an enemy closer to home.

So. That's the background on the silly edit I made. Verification of the Seeds Of Peace stuff? Probably impossible to gather; not worth the candle, as the Brits say. Various newspaper archives have stuff - especially Knoxville papers, which seemed more afraid of Seeds than of Sherman - but anarchist collectives who live with a constant undertone of impending arrest...those are not organizations that are going to have records of their own activities, and members of such organizations will have an understandable reluctance to provide reference or contribute to bibliographies. History once again will be forced to ignore smiles supported only by memory...we say we will never forget, then we die...and it is forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.49.18 (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All interesting stuff, this. Conspiracy theorists could run amok with possible bombers...and they have. There are unsupported theories not given in the article, simply because they are unsupported theories.

An edit made in the name of accuracy is certainly not silly. If Berkeley's Seeds of Peace was so controversial, it seems there would be local news articles on it. However, I will check out the wiki-link in question.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Judi Bari posting

[edit]

Pardon: My unfortunate use of the word "silly" as in 'silly edit' ...Of course, you are correct; I meant silly in the sense that I had - have, actually - a short paper due on that great bug-a-boo "Objectivity", and was taking myself to task for giving the Bari thing greater priority. Avoidance, that's what it was, and avoidance is almost always silly (to say nothing of being a bit stupid).

In truth, the article had awakened ghosts that would not release me until I had gone through the whole Seeds thing again - for the n th time. What I wrote was poorly edited and only marginally coherent, and so I appreciate all the more your having taken time with it.

I blew another hour looking for Seeds stuff on the net. Out of hundreds of things, perhaps one or two about the collective, no more. Many of us adopted the name 'Seeds' as surnames, especially those whose activities did not require 'work names'. One or two of those names that pop up on searches refer to some the collective's members, but if any of them wanted to write something about their Seeds time, they'd have done so by now. ...And (ahem!) there may be statute of limitations issues, even almost a quarter-century later...some of that stuff can get a bit freaky, you know? Activities, financing, current activities - stuff best left asleep.

Improvements in archiving and distribution may make more information available in the future, but it really was/is too insignificant to warrant much work; casual interest, maybe. Nebulous, amorphous, fleeting - believing can often be a silliness of the heart, and believing it possible to stop the American war machine with school buses and porta-potties: that's what's silly.

But it was fun while it lasted.

There is also an organization that claims direct lineage to the collective. The connection seems a bit tenuous, but this 'new' group is doing necessary (and therefore honorable) work, so good on 'em...even if'n it's not my cup of tea.

Regards. Thanks for your professionalism. And now...off to de-bunk the preposterous idea of objectivity-in-history, something else that I am now doing for the n th time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.49.18 (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked info to combine redundant parallel sections

[edit]

Hi to all, & thanks especially to those of you who contributed such great info to this article. I just combined several sections and made a few clarifications here and there. I religiously avoided injecting or deleting editorial content--focus was solely on rearranging. I hope you all find it's even more readable now. No doubt, it can stand more tweaking. I was fortunate to see the "Forest for the Trees" film some years ago on PBS. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death & Lawsuit

[edit]

In the section on "Death and posthumous civil rights trial" it says that:

On 2 March 1997, Bari died of breast cancer at her home near Willits.
Bari and Cherney had filed a federal civil rights suit claiming that the FBI and police officers falsely arrested the pair and attempted to frame them as terrorists so as to discredit their political organizing in defense of the redwood forests.

Although an alert reader can figure out that the suit was filed prior to her death from the verb tense and the context, it should say so clearly for the benefit of less alert readers and those who don't have a strong command of verb tenses in English. Ideally the date or at least the year the suit was filed should be given. In 199_, Bari & Cherney ....) In the absence of an actual date, the second paragraph should be revised along the following lines:

Prior to Bari's death, she and Cherney had filed a federal civil right suit ....

It should also perhaps include a sentence at the end along the lines of:

Bari's estate and Cherney continued to pursue these claims. Ileanadu (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headed Congressional committee?

[edit]

I couldn't find anything that reflects Bari's participation in any congressional committee, but she certainly did not "head" one, or sit on one, not being a House member. I modified it to insert "advisory" committee. Also, I couldn't find any source for her role in creating a "Cahto" wilderness area. There does not appear to be any such area. I wonder if it was a "South Fork Eel River" area, drainage for Cahto Peak, or if it was referring to contemporary or traditional Cahto tribal lands? Activist (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article is so slanted - it's so focused on minutiae and doesn't even mention the legacy legislation that came out of this movement that protected parts of the Headwaters.

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judi_Bari

this article is so slanted - it's so focused on minutiae and doesn't even mention the legacy legislation that came out of this movement that protected parts of the Headwaters.

And as far as the lumber hating Bari : The local racists hated Martin Luther King Jr too but he ended up changing things (in the long run) in a way that represented the slow slouching towards a better humanity that all these fights move towards.

Judi - and most leaders - have feet of clay. What matters and should at least be -effing mentioned is the legacy of preservation that came after.

It's so obvious that the people who rewrote this entry from the first one on her had a real axe to grind.

Great job Wikipedia at providing an objective knowledge source - and this is specifically why I don't waste money on "donations" to this half-baked "pedia". It doesn't really deserve any kind of association with "encyclopedia" if it not going to provide a well-rounded overview. This article on Ms. Bari is so very obviously slanted in one direction! Shame shame shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C454:1170:8049:D8D1:5099:6B27 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Top Jitu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judi Bari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest creation of separate article on bombing and aftermath

[edit]

This is supposed to be an article about Judi Bari. While the bombing of her car was important, the discussions about theories of evidence, who or what business or organization might have been responsible (along with public recanting of private statements about persons with personal animus), and who was to be believed among local activists and others overwhelms other information about her life. (For instance, way too much material about theories from writers with the AVA.) The 2002 trial took place posthumously; the jury found in favor of Bari and Cherney's suit, and awarded damages. Two documentaries were made after the trial, one by the daughter of their attorney. Cherney made a 2012 film based on videos of Bari and her narrative of the case, and was arranging (with his attorney) for a private lab to analyze DNA recovered from the Cloverdale bomb. It is unclear if DNA was ever taken from Mike Sweeney, an obvious suspect. The case has never been solved. It would be easier to focus on Bari, Redwood Summer, and legacy legislation as well as other events, if the bombing/investigation/trial were moved to another article. There the detail devoted to these elements would make more sense.Parkwells (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Uprising questionable source

[edit]

This book was published as chapters and is available online, self-published by Steve Ongerth. It can be listed under a header such as "Further reading" but should not be cited or listed as a Reliable Source because it is self-published, per Wiki MOS. This article should be edited to delete cites to this publication.Parkwells (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judi_Bari&oldid=1205735531"