Talk:David Gilbert (activist)

message: A lot of this article reads like a novel, but I don't know whether that's allowed or appropriate in an article like this. As an example, in the "Activism and Influences" section, "He could not just stand there and allow it to continue so police turned on him." Or another, in the section on the Weather Underground. "They holed up in a motel in Portland on a rainy night and watched television." This information has no relevance and just looks like some random thing someone picked out of a book to prove that they read it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamki (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of article 

message: There is much more info on the "crimes" committed on the Kathy Boudin page. If anyone wants to move it here, feel free. --Fermatprime 03:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced either. I will delete that particular word it in a few days if no one objects. Litawor (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Big diff between murder and manslaughter, won't go into the legal hereWeathervane13 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

text: David Gilbert was convicted of three counts of second-degree murder, not manslaughter. Human rights respecter (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with your repeated changes is not accuracy or lack of citation. It is that you are in violation of a settled consensus about how to handle these facts in this article. Gilbert's convictions for felony murder are clearly stated in the lede; in fact, in the third sentence of the first paragraph. They do not have to be in the first sentence or in the short summary. (In fact, to say "murder" or "murderer" is misleading, because the average reader would understand that to imply first degree murder, not "felony murder," which was the actual offense of conviction.) You must respect Wikipedia's rules if you edit here, which do not allow repeatedly making the same change. You need to post a rational justification on the Talk Page (at the bottom of this page) for the wording that you prefer, and wait to see whether you can get others to agree with you that your proposed version is better. Otherwise you will just wind up getting blocked or banned. PDGPA (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Will add this to the talk page now.  I find the first sentence in this entry to be at best poorly written and at worst purposely obfuscatory. Human rights respecter (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  older discussion 

message: *He does not deny his role in the robbery and subsequent murders, but nonetheless claims to be a political prisoner and not a criminal.
We have the subject in :Category:Political prisoners and victims. Is this based simply on his own assertion? There must be hundreds of current and former prisoners in the U.S. who claim their incarceration was due to their beliefs rather than their deeds. Since this fellow admits to willingly participating in a crime that resulted in several violent deaths, his claim appears particularly weak. Unless significant 3rd-party sources for the claim can be found, we shouldn't categorize this person as a political prisoner. I note that Gilbert is the only one of the people convicted for the Brinks robbery (1981) who is categorized this way.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political prisoner 

message: "Of all those convicted or tried for the Brink's robbery, why was he given the life sentence? His partner, Kathy Boudin, and mother of his son (who was 14 months old at the time) only got 20 years. Neither one of them pulled the trigger so I really do not get why he got such a horrific and life long sentence. Does he ever get to see his family? I wonder who decided to allow Ayers and Dohrn to care for their son. I wonder if there is any way he could be released sooner. --MyWiki2010 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I would like to know more

message: I like the additions to the article. I noticed a sentence that was a little confusing though, where it says, "After graduating from Columbia College in June 1966, Gilbert spent most of his days and evenings during the fall of 1967 downtown attending grad school at the New School, building an SDS chapter there or attending meetings at the New York SDS Regional Office." It is a little too long, which makes it hard to follow. Maybe take out the "days and evenings" and replace it with "time". And is downtown referring to downtown New York City? Just curious for clarification. Good job otherwise :)Kbm3 (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence Rearranging 

message: I think the information that you have here is great, but it seems to mostly come from one source.  There must be other good sources out there with great info about Gilbert. Hasn’t he been writing while imprisoned?  Another good idea for this post may be to section it out by dates.  The sections may be easier to read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellajack (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there other good sources? 

message: Judith Alice Clark is listed here as Kathy Boudin's daughter. This doesn't make any sense because they were only born seven years apart.--Chaser (away) - talk 15:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judith Alice Clark 

message: : Last first, Judy is Kathy's peer, not daughter.  Didn't see that.  Second, thanks so much WikiTalk for your sincere efforts on this. It seems you initiated article.  Sure, it needs more work and source materials, so I'll try and help with this.Weathervane13 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: First Comments in 1+ Years

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on David Gilbert (activist). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420141752/http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us:80/GCA00P00/WIQ3/WINQ130 to http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us/GCA00P00/WIQ3/WINQ130
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420141752/http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us:80/GCA00P00/WIQ3/WINQ130 to http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us/GCA00P00/WIQ3/WINQ130
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've put the words in bold that new editors consistently fail to read and/or understand. There is no need to duplicate this information in the same sentence. FDW777 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Is this really the most appropriate parenthetical descriptor for him? What is the typical usage in article titles for people who commit violent acts in the name of a political or social cause? Timothy McVeigh (whose crimes were admittedly even more egregious) is listed as "American domestic anti-government terrorist" in his article description, though this is too long for a parenthetical in the title. I would suggest "David Gilbert (terrorist)" instead, or even "David Gilbert (activist, terrorist)" if both components of his identity are seen as vital to include in the title. It doesn't seem appropriate to describe him as merely "activist", given his involvement in violence and conviction for murder. 108.30.61.182 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the most appropriate disambiguator. FDW777 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  "activist and terrorist" I think is the most appropriate, since his group is categorized as a terrorist organization. Eccekevin (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Read MOS:TERRORIST. FDW777 (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I suppose that it may be possible to use a little synthesis and add something like "and a member of the Weather Underground, a far-left militant organization that has been described as a terrorist group" with relevant sources.  Since the group is linked and it's possible to read that there, it's probably unnecessary.  But to add "and a terrorist" it'd require a reliable source that supports it directly about Gilbert.  —PaleoNeonate – 15:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Read MOS:TERRORIST, WP:LEAD and WP:SYNTHESIS. Then when you have read those and understood why your addition isn't compliant, read WP:ONUS since your addition has been disupted. FDW777 (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:TERRORIST juat says not to use the term when it is not warranted. Here it is warranted. It is indeed used in the WUO Wikipedia page too. I added attribution. Eccekevin (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So you've completely ignored WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ONUS? The former is references that aren't about Gilbert, and I'll quote the latter for you.  The FBI never verifiably classified the Weather Underground as anything, they described them as that years later on their website. And what's the relevance to David Gilbert? There's no mention of him being convicted, or even accused, of any terrorist type offences. FDW777 (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter that the references are not about Gilbert, they merely provide important context to that sentence. Weather Underground, as its own page points out, has been categorized as a domestic terrorist group by the FBI and many sources. The current phrasing on Gilbert page makes it seem like it was a non-violent activist group, which is highly misleading and not a benefit to the reader. As User:PaleoNeonate pointed out, "and a member of the Weather Underground, a far-left militant organization that has been described as a terrorist group" is a good way to put it. I also provided attribution in line with MOS:TERRORIST. In regards to WP:SYNTHESIS, where's the violation exactly. The sentence states that WUO has been described as a terrorist organization by FBI and other sources which is true of all the sources added. Eccekevin (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody agreed with you. The other editor said , but the specific objection raised by me was WP:SYNTHESIS, since the references aren't about David Gilbert. And once again, per WP:ONUS it is up to those seeking to include (that's you) to gain consensus for the addition. Also I can only assume you have completely failed to read this article if you don't think it mentions Weather Underground violence repeatedly. FDW777 (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not mentioning the terrorist label of WUO is a disservice to the reader. Nothing in the MOS you cited contravenes at all anything that I did. Again, it doesn't matter that those references aren't about GIlbert, there's nothing in the MOS that says every source has to mention the subject of the page. Here, those sources are important for context.Eccekevin (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Did David Gilbert verifiably take part in any activity that's been described as "terrorism"? Nobody is removing the description from the Weather Underground article, where it belongs. FDW777 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arguably, depending on your definition of terrorist. But that's not what we are discussing here. We're discussing whether, when Weather Underground is described, if it should be mentioned that it is described as a terrorist group by the FBI and multiple sources. I believe so since it is a service to the reader to give a complete picture of this organization of which Gilbert was part of. Eccekevin (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "verifiably" means "according to references", not your own argument. FDW777 (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not even addressing my argument now. You have not provided a reason for which it should not be mentioned that it is described as a terrorist group by the FBI and multiple sources. Context is important, and this provides more context to the reader. Eccekevin (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't have any references detailing David Gilbert's verifiable involvement in activity described as terrorism? Since you don't, you don't actually have an argument that needs to be addressed. As already stated, the article states the violent actions of the Weather Underground. Since your argument boils down to "the Weather Underground were terrorists because they planted bombs", then simply stating the original fact is all that's needed. FDW777 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you're trying to avoid the actual discussion: what argument do you have against the inclusion of "". Eccekevin (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your lack of references proving Gilbert's involvement, alleged or proven, in any activity verifiably described as terrorism. Unless you can actually provide references, there's little to discuss. FDW777 (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you're trying to avoid the actual discussion, this is not about whether Gilbert committed acts of terrorism. It's about Weather Underground itself. What argument do you have against the inclusion of "". You seem to have none. Eccekevin (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not avoiding any discussion. I've asked you to provide references about David Gilbert in order to justify the inclusion. Can you do that or not? FDW777 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence is not about Gilbert, it is about the organization which he joined.Eccekevin (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "(activist)" appropriate in article title? 

message: An ideological (bad faith) edit war has broken out, triggered by the commutation of Gilbert's life sentence on 8/23/21 from a 75-year minimum (effectively non-parolable) to a 40-year minimum (making him parolable). The article needs to be a least temporarily locked, at least against unregistered editors, if not entirely. PDGPA (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lockdown of article needed

message: : Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021 

message: While confined at the maximum security Auburn Correctional Facility in Western New York during the early years of his sentence, Gilbert in 1987 co-founded an inmate peer education program on HIV and AIDS, and a similar, more successful project in Great Meadows Prison in Comstock following his transfer to the eastern part of the state.
Change Western New York to Cayuga County, New York - Auburn Correctional Facility is NOT in Western New York- Western New York is in itself a ambiguous designation but clearly Auburn Correctional Facility is far from western New York- Look at a New York State map
Cayuga County, New York has a Wikipedia article - Thus, Western New York should be replaced with Cayuga County, New York
RK 67.249.88.229 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Imprisonment

message: On November 6, 2021 it was announced that he has been released from prison.  https://kersplebedeb.com/posts/savoring-time-together/ The article should be updated by someone who can edit it. 96.230.247.172 (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that within the next couple of hours, if another editor does not get to it first. Thanks for the heads-up. PDGPA (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Gilbert has been released. 

message: In light of today's flurry of edit-warring, I have requested a renewal of semi-protected status for this article. Awaiting a response. PDGPA (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that my suggestion was granted. Thanks. PDGPA (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected status request on 8 August 2022 

message: First sentence of the first paragraph seems poorly worded and could stand to be improved.  The current description of David Gilbert in the first sentence is: "an American far-left activist who participated in the deadly 1981 robbery of a Brinks armored vehicle".  
Proposed new paragraph:
"David Gilbert (born October 6, 1944) is an American leftist terrorist and convicted murderer. Gilbert was a founding member of the Columbia University chapter of Students for a Democratic Society and became a member of the Weather Underground and the May 19th Communist Organization. Gilbert served as the getaway driver in the deadly 1981 robbery of a Brink's armored car that resulted in the murders of a Brink's guard and two Nyack, New York police offers.  He was subsequently convicted on three counts of second degree murder  and sentenced to three consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison.
Gilbert received a grant of clemency from Governor Andrew Cuomo on August 23, 2021, thereby making him eligible for conditional release. He was granted parole on October 26, 2021, and released on November 4, 2021."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human rights respecter (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These suggestions are not likely to be adopted in a consensus-based project like Wikipedia unless you thoughtfully and in good faith address the issues raised in earlier discussions on this Talk Page, in relation to your proposed changes. Just expressing your opinion or preference doesn't advance the ball. PDGPA (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand why in the case of this particular person, who was convicted of second degree murder, we do not use the phrase "convicted murderer" but rather the overlong, confused participated in the deadly 1981 robbery of a Brinks armored vehicle.  It is poor writing, but I do not think you are willing to engage on the level in this case. Human rights respecter (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF.  Also, WP:NPA PDGPA (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence wording 

message: Why was the article talking about Chesa Boudin's career in David Gilbert's personal life section? This article is about Gilbert, keep Boudin's career in Boudin's article. GhostOfMuir (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I had the same reaction to those sentences. I will go edit them now. PDGPA (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not realize you had already made the edit. I think you went a little too far. See what you think of my further change. PDGPA (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine, just seemed like folks were trying mention the recall in any place they could think of. GhostOfMuir (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life