Talk:Bill Ayers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Ayers article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

This article was/is a total mess. I deleted all of the quotations and most of the obvious hagiography. Someone else want to try improving this? Cheers, Skinwalker 00:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"co-conspirator's bomb" is ambiguous. It was either also his bomb because he was a co-conspirator or a bomb someone also in the weathermen had created without his help, in which case he was not a co-conspirator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.235.147 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Obama Redux

Obama is seeking the presidency. At minimum, Obama should disavow any form of friendship or association with a terrorist who has rather explicitly not repented. Indeed, anybody who supports Obama should want Obama to clearly explain why proximity or anything else would rationalize hanging around such a person.

Also, the article doesn't explain how Ayers went from terrorist to "distinguished professor" and why on earth any reputable university would employ this sort of individual. (added) 02:08, 14 April 2008 70.44.148.23

[edit] Obama

I removed the paragraph about Obama. The links to him are strained and malicious. These two figures live and work in politics in the same neighborhood. Of course they're going to be on the same project or panel occasionally. The only intent of making these links is to suggest a close relationship and smear Obama by association. They are misleading and are not relevant to Ayers' biography. --PFR 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there should be some sort of information about how Ayers is a controversial figure whom many regard to be a terrorist. It's oddly absent.--Gloriamarie (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Ayers/Obama link, no matter how tenuous, is an increasingly salient topic of discussion among some people, including in the Times of London, this controversy does need to be reflected in this entry. Oregondesert (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

i will admit that i am no obama fan but i think politico.com is a pretty credible source. obama has been to the guys house, while it may be true that people who want that information on the page have "malicious intent" that by itself those not discredit the facts. Ben Smith at politico is a non-biased journalist i think, and he reported that obama had a much closer relationship than you guys suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

i added the obama thing back. its just a copy and paste from bill smith's article at politico. i think its fair but i know that there are some real obama lovers out there. It is an issue btw, its talked about on FOX news. I just heard them talking about it on Hannity and Colmes. I don’t think its fair to just suggest that some right wing blog is trying to sabotage obama so the information should not be reported. It may very well be used in the general election. Hannity already said that he was going to bring it up, so that makes it a relevant issue in the political race even if its not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

here is the url to 1 example of main stream media talking about obama's relationship with ayers. http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?030308/030308_hc_2rove&Hannity_Colmes&Karl%20Rove%20Part%202&acc&Hannity%20%26%20Colmes&-1&Shows&342&&&new —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ok someone took away me edit. i know you guys apparently have had this issue with other people, and have decided to not include it in the article, but could someone at least explain why ? its talked about in the main stream media, its not some dumb internet thing like calling obama a muslim. people, he is running for the president of the USA, it is very dangerous to shield him from criticism just because you think he is the best. also the link between obama and bill is not as weak as the above posters suggest. did you guys read the article at politico.com . are they biased and stretching to ? the only argument i see is that people who want the criticism have an ulterior motive. ummm ya, they want to have people informed when they are choosing their president. i think a supporter of obama should factor this into his decision. just to label people as part of a right wing conspiracy is an illogical fallacy, this is news, its reported on, i don't understand you people ahhhhhhh. check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV_h-XwchkY , it makes a lot of claims about obama with ayers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted again because you added it back contentiously. It would take a lot to explain, but the citations used to support the edits are not reliable - they're political sites. Saying that this person is a "friend" of Obama, or that Obama visited his house, is not relevant to his own history. This is an article about Bill Ayers, not Obama or the 2008 presidential campaign. It's only relevant to the attack politics surrounding the election. The fact that Fox News says it, and then someone else talks about it because Fox News talked about it, and now it's an election issue, is utterly unconnected to the notability of Bill Ayers. We're an encyclopedia, not a political pundit site. Please don't keep adding weakly sourced material that has no consensus here. Wikidemo (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Either you are wrong or Wikipedia has thousands of articles that should be deleted immediately. Wikipedia has articles about utterly unimportant persons like JonBenét Ramsey, Laci Peterson and Natalee Holloway which are notable ONLY because Fox News and other media are endlessly talking about them. So if Obama and Ayers connection is completely bogus, there should still be section about the fact that Sean Hannity of Fox News is talking about it every single day. And face it, that is practically only reason why anyone reads this article anyway. Again, considering the way how Wikipedia handles media controversy, there should be article about Ayers - Obama connection even if Ayers were completely fictional person made up by Sean Hannity!!! Warbola (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That argument amounts to "because we have a lot of junk we should have some in this article too", which isn't an inclusion criterion here. Those other examples don't relate to this case but in any event a Fox News pundit advocating an issue does not make it worth covering on Wikipedia, nor does it make the issue relevant to any particular article. Wikidemo (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

check out http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080401/NATION01/603988821.

He served on the board of the Woods Fund, a small radical foundation, with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn late of the Weather Underground, the radical cell that killed cops and tried to plant a bomb in the U.S. Capitol. They're married to each other now and after a decade on the run turned themselves in and served prison time. They're unrepentant. In an interview with the New York Times, Prof. Ayers boasted that he had no regrets about setting bombs to kill innocents: "I feel we didn't do enough."

When the senator and the unrepentant bomber served together on the Woods Fund board, the Fund awarded $6,000 to Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church "in recognition of Barack Obama's contributions of Woods Fund as a director." Later the Obama-Ayers board awarded a generous grant to the Arab-American Action Network. It's entirely possible that Barack Obama missed the board meetings when such awards were made. He says he missed Jeremiah Wright's incendiary sermons, too. The man has a gift for avoiding the wrong place at the right time.

ok, so its not just about being friends. it is relevant to ayers life because its what he is doing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama served with Ayers on the board of a small, leftist foundation, the Woods Fund. Ayers later chaired the board and is still a member. Obama served from 1999 until 2002 and received several thousand dollars annually as compensation. According to the 2001 annual report, the fund made a $6000 discretionary grant to Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church "in recognition of Barack Obama's contribution of services to the Woods Fund as a director." Serving with Obama and Ayers was the prominent Palestinian activist, Rashid Khalidi, then a historian at the University of Chicago and now the Edward Said Professor at Columbia. (While they were all on the board, the Woods Fund gave a generous grant to the Arab American Action Network, headed by Khalidi's wife, Mona.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080331/cm_rcp/four_stumps_in_the_water_for_o

to the moderator, this is recent publications. please review these articles before making the same decision. I’m not just adding it again and again to be rebellious, this info came out in the last 3 days.

ok, i think i met wikis criteria.

Ayers serves presently on the board of the Woods Fund, a leftist foundation. Notable members have included Barack Obama who worked there from 1999 to 2002


ref http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080401/NATION01/603988821

i know, i know, its so perfectly fair and balance, i don't know how i do it. thank you thank you



[[Category:]]

[edit] Heads up

This is on the front page of Redstate. Page protection might be in order.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/moe_lane/2008/feb/22/and_obamas_pet_minitruthers_start_editing_bill_ayers_wiki_entry --Vlvtelvis (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why page protection? Do you have real evidence of RightWingers defacing pages? It's usually not the Right defacing free speech in the name of some greater "New Speak". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve LA (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Obama" and "leftist foundation"

Just deleted these references from the final paragraph of the Biography section on the grounds it is nonneutral to describe the Woods Fund of Chicago as "the Woods Fund, a leftist institution" and to mention the name of a current presidential candidate just because he and the subject of the entry served in the same organization. Hurmata (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a long discussion with Wikidemo about that edit. It was extremely watered down from its original form, it was sourced and it was informative. First it tells the reader what ayers is doing presently. It then says what the organization represents, I am surprised by the way that you find the word leftist non-neutral. I know there are some of you who don’t believe in “labels” and think being called a liberal is a dirty word but that exists in your own mind. The Nolan chart is a tool recognized in political science and certain philoisphies do fall under a “label”. The woods fund is a leftist organization, so it believes in things advocated by the liberals, like ending the war in iraq or having socialized medicare, debatable issues, and regardless of what side of the aisle you are in, it is not slanderous to have the ideology of liberalism associated with a persons biography. Your watered down version even takes away what the organization stands for, william ayers I believe would be proud of his beliefs and for you to suggest they are slanderous to a persons biography truly puzzles me.

The obama mention serves the purpose of promoting the prestige of the woods fund. To say who a person worked with, especially prominent people is also not slanderous or part of attack politics. My information was sourced, and the article I used had some truly slanderous things on obama which was not put in this article.

Please stop with this over protection of obama and the charge of non-neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have the material slightly differently but I have no objection to the inclusion of the mention at this point. The Woods Fund of Chicago is probably notable in its own right and a full article would mention prominent current and past participants - the two most prominent being Ayers and Obama. Although their joint tenure on the Board has been used to make a minor but very partisan attack on Obama (and may have motivated some people who kept adding it to the article), the underlying fact that they served is relevant to the fund, and it doesn't seem like a huge stretch to mention that here by way of establishing the context and importance of the fund. I'm not advocating for including it, just saying I personally don't object. I objected in the past to more detailed, sometimes poorly cited, argumentative material that was trying to make Obama look bad. Now it's just reporting an (arguably) relevant fact. Wikidemo (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
User 66.130.90.42 copied the above two paragraphs to my user page, and didn't sign his comments then either.
To Wikidemo: the mere fact that Obama was a trustee of the Woods Fund fails to significantly "establish the context and importance of the fund". All it tells us is that this fund is an enterprise Obama supports (or did not too long ago). Ah, but what range of enterprises does Obama support? There you have the beginning of a long discussion. If you stick in such a remark without including that discussion, you probably shouldn't make the provocative insertion. It's probably just propagandizing -- about which I'm about to elaborate.
This user 66.130.90.42 speculates on my motives, and I don't object to that in principle. I do the same. His clumsy rhetoric of "please stop with this over-protection" and the groundlessness of some of the speculations ("some of you don't believe in labels" he pouts; but how does he tell whether I, hurmata, am really one of those people?) demonstrate that 66.130.90.42 just wants to propagandize. I see I need to do more to formulate the reasons for my objections.
I believe it is an abuse of this encyclopedia to do politicking. That is what you would be doing if you inserted a mention of a candidate in every article whose topic his life has touched, because the only rationale for you to do so is to create publicity in order to promote or oppose that candidate. Today, 13 April 2008, we have three candidates left in the presidential race. To take every last activity that each of these three have done in their careers and insert mentions of them throughout Wikipedia is just politicking ("McCain passed through this town in 1994" at the *town's* Wiki entry, "Hillary C did legal contract work for this company" at the *company's* Wiki entry). Imagine if Obama had never entered the 2008 race. Then the urge of people like 66.130.90.42 to make these edits about *him* would have been faint indeed! Likewise if Obama loses the Dem nomination. Every last thing Obama has ever done in his adult life has is really *not* notable. If you're going to mention his service on the board of some fund -- at the Wikipedia entry for that fund -- maybe you need to list *all other* current and former board members. If you're going to mention his service on the board of the same fund -- at the Wikipedia entry for Obama -- maybe you need to list *all his other* current and former board memberships. If you're going to mention his intersection of service with Bill Ayers at the Woods Fund -- at the Wikipedia entry for Bill Ayers -- maybe you need to insert the same mention at *all other* Wiki entries of persons who served as trustee at *all other* associations Obama has ever belonged to. If you make a contextless mention of Obama's service on that board at Bill Ayers' entry -- Bill Ayers being one of America's preeminent urban terrorists -- you're just propagandizing.
I myself do accept the use of the labels "left wing" and "right wing" *in principle*. (BTW, in America we do NOT use "leftist" and "rightist".) But these lables *are* contentious, they are *not* standardized vocabulary items, not ideologically neutral. To apply these labels in passing in an encyclopedia article is often POV-ing. Consider one thing our facile, partisan 66.130.90.42 does *not* do in the Bill Ayers entry: he does not endeavor to catalog all the associations (foundations, political cause groups, birdwatchers, etc.) that Ayers has held leading roles in, nor even just the ones Ayers currently helps lead. He singles out a social action funding source whose board members have also included one of the three remaining presidential candidates (soon to be reduced even further, to two). Politicking. Hurmata (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I suggest it is pointless to add the word "primary" to the description of Obama as "Democratic presidential candidate". Hurmata (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i didn't read your whole paragraph because it was boring hurmata. the label and over protection comment is based on the frustration i have been having with this edit which has been changed repeatedly. this article is about BILL AYERS, and saying the names of PROMINENT people that worked with bill and his organization helps establish the PRESTIGE of the organization. As for you playing detective and saying that my motives lie in political propaganda, whatever. I admit I don't like him but that doesn't change the fact that my edit complied with the rules of wikipedia and the information contributed to bill ayers biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My thinking on including articles in the Washington Times, Washington Post, and Politico.com about Obama link to Ayers is it is very interesting and notable the coverage Ayers is getting in the 2008 presidential election. He is now a figure in the 2008 election, although it was probably not Ayers intention to be involved in the race. Very interesting and quite notable. My inclusion of the statement of face about Ayers being linked to Obama was highlighting the notable press coverage and not taking a position on the matter. Ayers has recieved more press coverage due to this link that he has received in a while. Notable, I think and quite interesting. Wikidemo, could we would to get a consensus on whether this information: the press coverage on Ayers, should be included in the article? thanks it is me i think (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I maintain nonnotability and POV objections to mentioning 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's former service on the board of a philanthropic foundation that Bill Ayers happens to have served on. As I have suggested in my entry above, this sort of edit is partisan due to its hyperselectivity and nonnotability. It is *not* necessarily notable for an article on *another person* that Obama was a trustee of some foundation six years ago, while a state legislator, *two years before he achieved national prominence* by running for U.S. Senate and giving the keynote speech at his party's presidential nominating convention ("2004 Democratic convention"). This article is about Bill Ayers. Hurmata (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be helpful to everyone to work to build a consensus on the issue of mentioning Bill Ayers relationship with Barack Obama. It appears to me that many wiki users who have added this information about their friendship (according to a statement by the Obama campaign). Given so many attempts, their must be a reasonable number (whatever number that may be), who believes this information is noteworthy and should be included in the article. Should someone try to mediate the case? It is me i think (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ayers' Connection to Obama

Clearly, Ayers and Obama have a relationship even if it is not personal in nature. There is a political relationship. I have added this information as I was shocked to see it not included in this article. Having a relationship with someone does not necessarily mean that you hold the same views on all issues. However, given that Obama is now a public official running for the Presidency, information such as this is important. My post does not insinuate anything other than a modest relationship and is supported by facts from articles from Bloomberg News and the Washington Post. Comments are always welcome. If you would like to read the articles click on the links below.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adgAs9YOxRSc

The Washington Post article says the opposite of what you are claiming, that there is no connection, only a Republican attack on Obama: "the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one"..."This whole connection is a stretch." The Bloomberg article is the same. It does not describe any relationship between Ayers and Obama, but rather speculates that Obama "might face Republican criticism." It's preposterous to say that a $200 donation to a Senate campaign is relevant. The question of whether Obama's service on that board is relevant to a description of the charity has been raised and discussed, and can be discussed further, but there is no credible source to say that having served together on the same Board creates a relationship. This is a serious BLP violation, and I have again removed this content per BLP policy. If any administrator considers this a 3RR violation despite BLP policy please say so and you or I can revert and we'll take this to AN/I. I suggest the page be protected given the POV pushing and edit warring on the subject. Wikidemo (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your contention that the article says the "opposite" of what "I" am saying. First of all, I am not saying anything, I am letting the news accounts speak for themselves. While it is true that the Washington Post article speculates about how Republicans will use this connection in the campaign, that is only half of the article. The article clearly states, and I will quote verbatim,

"Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles."

The magnitude of their connection may still be something that has not been determined but to state that their is no connection is simply false. In my original edit, I did not include any POV at all. Please refrain from omitting information that is relevant and documented in the press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.7.46 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to agree or disagree with, it's simply the truth of what the article says, which is that this is a "tenuous" connection and a "stretch" being promoted for political purposes. Which runs against the premise of Wikipedia. You said there is a "relationship." The article you claim supports that says there is not a relationship. If it "has not been determined" then we should not include it. It's not our purpose here to breathlessly report the tenuous facts behind every act of political partisanship. Even the newspapers are mostly leaving this non-issue alone. We try to be less sensationalist than the newspapers, not more. Wikidemo (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that after tonight's democratic debate where George Stephonopolis asked about the Ayers questions, and it is clear that they served on a board together and also that Obama attended a fund raiser hosted by Ayers at his own home, this issue will finally be resolved and his connection to Obama published on Wikpedia. This is a fine institution and to let partisan feeling affect the reality of the subject and have it be hidden from the public -- I really think that the founding purpose of Wikpedia really is the antithesis the position you are taking based on you obvious partisan feelings in favor of protecting Obama from the truth of his connection with this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.7.46 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No - no new information provided in the debate at all.[1] Give it up, and please stop the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith.Wikidemo (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the word "alleged" be removed from this line: "Ayers was in the news over an alleged connection to Democratic candidate Barack Obama"? Look up a paragraph and you see the connection: they were on a board together. So "alleged" is just plain incorrect.

[edit] PLEASE ASSIST Continued vandalism by User:Blist14 on wiki article about Bill Ayers

New user, Blist14, continues to delete biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has no other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. Also, can we get the page protected? It is me i think (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE User Blist14 has been temporarily blocked. It is me i think (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous IP user removes reference to Ayers board position

86.42.134.57 IP address removed the reference to Ayers board position. The mention of the board position does not appear controversial. Is there any consensus on this issue. Also, is anyone in favor of semi protecting the article to minimizing these unhelpful changes? thanks It is me i think (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think semi-protection is a good idea given the continued edit warring and vandalism, mostly from IP accounts. Mentioning the board position isn't controversial (IMO) even if the motivation for some to do so has to do with Barack Obama being a former board member too, and trying to tie the two of them together. However, per WP:WEIGHT concerns we should make sure it is a significant activity in the life of Bill Ayers, not presidential election politics, and worth noting as part of describing who Bill Ayers is. I think it is. For a person of his stature (mid-level notability, to be honest, other than the Weathermen connection), I think a nearly ten year board membership on a several million dollar per year charity is worth mentioning. It helps understand his life and career, and context in the world of social activism. If he's got other activities of similar importance we should mention those too. If it turned out we had 50 things to list, sure, we could cut down. But if this is one of ten major activities of his it should be mentioned, and if the reason this one comes up now instead of the others is because of the 2008 election, so be it. I don't think we should question motivations of editors, but rather whether their edit makes sense in creating a better article. Wikidemo (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama connection

This material should be listed in a seperate article about the Woods Group. Having it placed within a biographical article about Bill Ayers is politically motivated.

I think the Woods Group itself is likely notable and yes, in an article about the group it would be appropriate to mention every notable major participant if the total number is within reason. It would also be appropriate to link to that from here if it's a major activity of Ayer's in view of his overall career. Note that the Woods Foundation of Chicago is one of several related organizations. Wikidemo (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: I added a link to the website of the Woods Foundation until it has its own article. That website includes a list of all the current board members as well as the staff.Flatterworld (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overall

There are now several other articles relating to the Weather Underground and their activities in depth (I've added wiki-links to them), and we need to keep this article focused on Bill Ayers ONLY. There are still a couple of 'citations needed' statements that need to be chased down, but on the whole I think this article is fairly complete. Ayers was a member, not a leader, of the group. Sometimes that's forgotten because he now has a higher profile than the rest, especially because he wrote his semi-memoir, but facts are facts. Not to put him down, but there's only a limited amount about him that's interesting and/or important.Flatterworld (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should Barack Obama be mentioned?

Let me say first that I think the connection, such as it is, between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama is extremely weak and tenuous; if it had been given the lack of attention it deserves, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But since it has been mentioned by major news organisations, most recently in the ABC News Obama-Clinton debate, it's arguably notable and should be included. I'm sure I'm not the only one who, after reading the coverage of the debate, came here to find out who Bill Ayers is and how he and Obama are connected; hence, it seems necessary to have some sort of mention of him here. Does anyone else agree? Terraxos (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This really is not a question after the ABC debate last night legitimized the tie between Obama and Ayers. If properly cited, there is no reason a brief mention of Obama should be deleted. I get the feeling that some Obama fans are trying to clear the record here, and that sort of political meddling is not good for the Wiki community--BacchusAcolyte (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to assume bad faith then the discussion is over. The whole issue is politically motivated. We've clearly had partisan POV pushers trying to add inappropriate material, although perhaps there are some good faith editors who believe it is to some degree okay. I'll add that the material you've just tried to add is clearly overstated and argumentative - you say that there is a "close relation with Ayers", and include the rhetorical argument that "Obama did not apologize for affiliating with Ayers." The debate last night did not legitimize that there is any relationship between Obama and Ayers, only that these incidents, which clearly do not amount to a relationship (as per all of the reliable sources I have read), have become fodder for political speculation. Are we going to use this article to list every notable person Ayers has ever donated money to, served with, been on a panel with, or visited? I don't think so. The only reason to call out these incidents is because it plays into a presidential race as a way to attempt to taint one of the candidates. That's inherently and unavoidably political. At most, if the issue becomes significant in its own right and is relevant to Ayers himself, we would mention that he is the subject of partisan speculation in connection with the election.Wikidemo (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, Obama should be mentioned.

Read this article. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j7cAG1TxjwCG7Xv6Wdn5m7kp_RfwD903N7N80 the important excerpts are below.

[copyvio removed)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.235.66 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That article (which I removed here - you can't quote copyrighted text, a link is enough) says the exact same thing as all the others, nothing new. Wikidemo (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We should indeed assume good faith, and imo this is a reasonable question to discuss. Whether or not ABC covered it is irrelevant. They cover plenty of things we wouldn't dream of including in Wikipedia (as do the rest of the news media). I think this tenuous Ayers/Obama connection can be mentioned in Wikipedia, but belongs in a 'Controversies' section in one of the Barack Obama articles (presidential campaign?) rather than in this Bill Ayers article. This isn't (really) about Ayers, it's about Obama - same as the Rev Wright controversy and the madrassa school/Manchurian candidate controversy and the flag pin controversy and the Kindergate controversy and others. This is of very little importance to Ayers's own life and history ('proportionality'). We're an encyclopedia and what's really important (to us) is to keep material where it belongs.Flatterworld (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We could also discuss the possibility of a separate 'controversies/attacks in the 2008 presidential campaigns' to include the appropriate attacks on the other candidates as well such as the recent McCain Recipegate (which has also been well-covered in all the major news media). I'm not saying that's my recommended solution, just that it's an alternative we can talk about. I think we should get all the possibilities on the table so we can discuss them.Flatterworld (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. I think I'll float a version of the article as a trial balloon and see what kind of interest it generates. The subject is encyclopedic, although it sounds like more of a list article than a subject article. As such I think one has to establish some ground rules and inclusion standards. Otherwise it could turn into a hotbed of sockpuppeting, trolling, incivility, edit warring, and all the other bad things. Is there a precedent for doing this or does such an article exist already? I'm concerned that if we do create a new precedent we could be unleashing quite a beast....imagine a Wikipedia where every political campaign potentially has a companion article that details controversies and attacks. Wikidemo (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I bring you: 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks. I've seeded it with one minor controversy about each of the three remaining candidates. Obviously it's grossly incomplete but let's see how this one goes. If anyone wants to add election-related controversies here or anywhere else in articles not about the election, you can point them to that as a good repository for that kind of information. Wikidemo (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an entire section in the article on Rev. Wright about his relationship with Obama. Much of Monica Lewinsky is about her relationship with Bill Clinton. Sometimes people are notable for their relationship with other people... this article should mention a sentence or two about his relationship with Obama. If nothing else, lots of people will be looking at this article over the next few days and most of them will think we're much less complete because we're omitting that information. Leaving this out is just a bad idea and makes us look silly. --Rividian (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way, in my opinion, is to have a very brief mention here - perhaps a sentence, then link to a longer treatment of the subject wherever that is (for now, the new article). That way it doesn't overwhelm this article, but people can find it. That also gives more freedom to explain the issue fully in the other article where it belongs, instead of having to answer the question all the time "what does this have to do with Bill Ayers?" Ideally, every subject worth mentioning should have a home base somewhere in Wikipedia where it fits best, and with links to it from every related subject it applies to. Just my opinion of course. Wikidemo (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
One sentence is fine... it would help establish that Ayers remained controversial (so it's biographical information about Ayers, not Obama). We already mention his disinvitation to the education conference... this is in pretty much the same spirit as that, so I'd suggest adding the sentence right after that. Just for starters, how does this sound: "Barak Obama, a democratic freshman senator from Illinois, has been criticized for his close relation with Ayers during the 2008 presidential race." Well that's not very good... I took it from one of the edits that got removed from this article. But I'm just trying to get us started. --Rividian (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say something like this "During the 2008 United States Presidential election, a controversy arose over Ayers connection to Democratic candidate Barack Obama" and find some way to link it. No reason to over-define who Obama is, I think people can get it. And there's nothing in the sources (and it would perpetuate the dispute here) to describe the connection as "close." Just say there's a connection and let people make up their own mind based on the facts. Wikidemo (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Your sentence sounds fine... I didn't mean to suggest the relationship was close, I'm sorry. This seems like an okay reference: [2]. It's a mainstream source and specifically mentions the connection as a controversy. --Rividian (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence and it states as fact a "relationship" while various news sources have verified that the association was via membership on the board of the Woods Fund a Chicago-based charity. If that association was made accurate on the article I wouldn't object to it being placed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I moved the Obama information to after the original Woods Fund statement. This is a controversy for Obama. For Ayers, it's simply an interesting overlap of board membership of people who live in Kenwood. Any and all 'controversial' aspects can be covered in the new 'trial balloon' article.Flatterworld (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just came to this article from the Weatherman one, after trying to figure out what the big deal was with all these people (forgive me, I'm an ignorant Canadian). I had quickly clicked through to the name people have been associating with Senator Obama and was surprised not to find any confirmation that I was at the right page. I was going to add it but thought I should check the discussion and WHAMO!, here it was. I think that fairly or unfairly this is now a sufficiently notable fact about Ayers to justify its inclusion in the article. I share some of the concerns about defining the relationship. I'm going to try a variant of Wikidemo's sentence that focusses on the notability of the fact rather than the nature of the relationship. I hope it pleases: "During the 2008 United States Presidential election Ayers was in the news over an alleged connection to Democratic candidate Barack Obama". That's not great, but I think it's better than nothing. Perhaps it can link to the trial balloon on "controversies". Here goes nothing...Markdsgraham (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am going to edit an edit that removes Senator Obama's name from the last line of the article; I think the consensus on the page is that he should be mentioned, because he is part of Ayers' notoriety, but that it must be carefully worded to avoid POV with respect to the nature of the connection between the two men. I'm not too hesitant doing this, as the editor does not appear to have given any reasons for the removal. Markdsgraham (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
LA times article LA Times mentions Ayers hosted a fundraiser at his home, an Ayers and Obama spoke at 2 different events together. Should this be added to provide further credible sourced information about their relationship?
I see that the reference to the recent attention Ayers has received over the (alleged) connection to Senator Obama has been removed again without, as far as I can tell, any discussion. I won't just add it back in, because I don't have the patience for such an edit war. But let me put on record: it is a glaring omission in this article to fail to mention the one thing for which many people probably know the man. IMO, there is no possible case to be made that being asked not to participate in some conference is more notable than this. I appreciate the sensitivity of the matter, but seriously... surely there is a way to note the attention while avoiding POV. Does nobody agree?Markdsgraham (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that we should mention the connection to Obama. They served on the Woods Foundation board together. Also Ayers had a fundraiser for Obama at his house. That is not mentioned in the article, but I think it should be. Most people come to this article because of the connection to Obama. MikeWren (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike, that is indeed the consensus and that's what's been done. The board membership is mentioned, as that's the only clear connection. The 'fundraiser' issue has already been discussed thoroughly on this page. Follow the 'See also' link for the Obama campaign issues. This article is not a 'Fact Checker' page about any supposed connections with a political candidate. This article is about Bill Ayers, NOT Barack Obama.Flatterworld (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Flatterworld, there is no genuine consensus. There are just three or four people (aside from those who are clearly gung-ho for playing up the "Obama connection") who have *acceded* to having the mention. I am offended that you declare that consensus. I hold that you can't declare consensus until you've engaged the arguments of those who disagree with the erstwhile consensus finding. You have not engaged my arguments against mentioning how Obama's tenure as Woods Fund trustee overlapped with Ayers' tenure. That's understandable because you yourself are not really an advocate of making the mention. But actually, nobody has engaged my arguments (see Talk:Bill Ayers headings "Obama and leftist foundation, His academic career ...), and my arguments are serious (they seek some objective basis and they are detailed) so there is no legitimate consensus. Consensus means everybody's persuaded. Several people have largely agreed with me not to make the mention, but nobody has tried to refute me. Besides the issue that consensus doesn't exist there's the issue of how does Flatterworld or anyone else attain the privilege of declaring consensus. Hurmata (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course Barack Obama should be mentioned. His connection to Ayers is one of the main reasons Ayer's is notable. In my opinion, the passage discussing Obama's connection to Ayers should be in its own section. People shouldn't have to plow through a ton of verbiage to determine how Obama and Ayers are connected. VeritasAgent (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying Ayers is only notable because he knows Obama? If you feel that way, perhaps you should nominate this article for deletion, though I don't think that's what you were going for. Grsztalk 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on your (VeritasAgent) contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VeritasAgent I'd suggest what's 'notable' to you is not necessarily what's notable to most Wikipedians or Wikipedia readers.Flatterworld (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If something appears in multiple national newspapers and on national TV news then its notable. So its not really the opinion of "most Wikipedians" of whats notable that matters. Its the press. However, there is a large overlap between consumers of the media and Wikipedians. The media prints and broadcasts what's of interest to its consumers. But when something has been in the press this gives us an objective standard of notability. Ayers has been in the press both on his own and relating to Obama. The Ayers article mentions both aspects. MikeWren (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not true.Flatterworld (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A little while ago, I deleted the mention of Obama's service as a trustee of the Woods Fund. Some of the same contributors keep restoring this mention without humbling themselves to justify their edit in the face of my arguments against. You don't have any business insisting on putting content in if you refuse to engage the arguments of those who object. Just playing "is so! - is not!" does not constitute engaging your opponents. I have stated my reasoning at length on this page. I even alluded to it under this heading within the last few minutes. Hurmata (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The majority of this section seems to be of the opinion that Obama should be mentioned -- serving on the Woods board with Ayers. However, consensus as you define it -- everyone agreeing, is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is notability. Wikipedia:Notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The issue with Obama and Ayers has been well covered in the press -- in newspapers and on TV news, not just in blogs. That's an objective fact. Notability is not about our opinion. Its not who or what Wikipedians think is notable. Its what the press thinks is notable. (And when someone takes out the mention of Obama from the article, it soon gets put back in. This is an indication that the majority of editors think it should stay in.) MikeWren (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The only way to present the overlapping board membership (Obama, 1993-2002; Ayers, 1999-present) neutrally results in information not relevant to this biography. It is relevant to a biography of Bill Ayers to note his membership on the philanthropic organization's board of directors. However, it is not relevant to a biography of Bill Ayers to note that Barack Obama also served on the same board for three years (1999-2002). Unless I am missing something — did something happen during the three year period that makes Barack Obama's service on the same board relevant to Bill Ayers's life? TheslB (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Meta-break! For what it's worth, consensus is whatever truce may be worked out among those who participate. Rules do not trump consensus (though they could make people more emphatic about their position or embolden one to argue that everyone else is wrong); consensus is still the process to figure out what the rules say and how they should be applied. Notability says whether an article should be there in the first place. Once the article is in place there's no universal standard for inclusion. People tried to make one a while back, and the farthest they got is that any material proposed for inclusion in the article should be encyclopedic, i.e. worth reading and relevant to the notability of the subject of the article....and of course subject to every other policy on the subject, such as NPOV, NOR, WP:V, written in good English, etc. The need for verifiability and relevance is similar to notability but not as high a standard. Sometimes things with a weaker source or a minor mention that would never demonstrate nobility get in the article. An obvious point is a company's own website used, for example, to say who their CEO is. That proposal failed but it's still a useful way to figure out what should be in an article. !end of Meta-break! As I've said elsewhere, I'm fine with adding the mention of Obama's being on the Woods fund board (and any other prominent member) if it's brief and to the point. I'm also fine leaving it out. The small relevance is that Obama's service helps further define the Woods Fund, a concept that most people reading the article won't have heard of, and does have connection however slight to Ayers' notability. The small problem is that there are POV and BLP concerns that are reasonable but I don't think rise to the level of a violation. It seems like a close call to me, so the article will not suffer terribly either way.Wikidemo (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That Ayers and Obama served on the Woods Fund board together tells us a lot about Ayers. He is so prominent in Chicago politics that he served on the same board as a State Senator. (He held a fundraiser in his home for him, but the article doesn't mention that. I think it should, but include the caveats mentioned elsewhere on this talk page.) If we don't use notability as a criteria, then how about we use the criteria of "reader expectations". Ayers has been in the press a lot lately because of Obama. That's how many readers will find the article. A reader of the Ayers article would expect to find out what the connection is. It makes the article more interesting and thus more encyclopedic. I don't think we are violating NPOV, NOR, WP:V or any of the other rules. MikeWren (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
MikeWren, that is EXACTLY why that new article was created. It's linked in the 'See also' section of this Bill Ayers article.
You pointed out Wikipedia:Notability, now read it: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." We are NOT a Fact Checker section, although we can (and do) link to them. Flatterworld (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (1995-2003), the Director of which was Obama (appointed by Ayers, the co-founder) has not come up at all on Wikipedia. A relationship that lasted eight years [3] All the verifiable information in the above link has yet to be added to the main page...I will leave that to a non-newbie. Withyouanon (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Aeyrs was certainly involved in school reform in Chicago, and that's mentioned in this article. The final report of the Challenge mentions a lot of people, but I searched both Part 1 and Part 2 and didn't find 'Obama' or 'Ayers':
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=60
I'm not saying it's true or false, but we need better sources than a POV blog. Unfortunately, the official Annenberg website link points to a website that no longer exists as the group was folded into another school-improvement group (it doesn't mention Obama and Ayers either). Flatterworld (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguished Professor

As most of his life has been in education, this article appears pretty unbalanced in the sense of violating Wikipedia's 'proportionality' guideline. I'm not suggesting we reduce the Weatherman part, just expand on his career as we do other notable professors.Flatterworld (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're totally right. Ayers is widely cited in scholarly works and textbooks about education/pedagogy. I mean... I took a college class on education and Ayers was cited in everything we read, it seemed like. I'm pretty sure he's an important figure in this field and there's more to say about him here... I just don't know how to do it yet. --Rividian (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an expert in the field, but I'd guess adding a summary of some of his major theories would be a good start. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a direct link to his CV (the way we do it for politicians) to encourage some Wikipedian to use it to expand the article, and in the meantime to help anyone glancing through the article to find further information. (I need to get back to creating stubs for the rest of the state senators and representatives, preferably in time for the next election. There are thousands!)Flatterworld (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a gazillions of college profs out there who aren't in Wiki. Why? Because they didn't throw bombs. That's what makes Ayers stand out from the rest and that's PRIMARILY what gets him into Wiki. There's nothing in Wiki policies that says that a certain percentage of any bio should be about the subject's nominal day job. The day job may be totally incidental to the subject's move from obscurity to Wikipedia/public knowledge. As example of proportionality, properly applied, would be adjusting the OJ Simpson article if it spent all of its time just identifying things that supported just one side of the question of whether OJ was innocent or guilty. Propportionality would not be relevant to the contention that too much of the article is about his extracurricular activities. The criteria for dealing with that contention would be analogous to the criteria for article deletion, which isn't the same thing. If the up shot of this is that there really isn't a proportionality policy distinct from the NPOV policy, I'd say that may well be the case since I can't even find proportionality in the policy list anymore.Bdell555 (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, perhaps someone was inspired to start or expand this article because of the bomb thing, but Ayers is one of the most notable contemporary education writers. He's widely cited in scholarly works on pedagogy... to the point where it would probably be surprising to me to read a good paper on say, standardized testing, that didn't mention Ayers. All college profs aren't notable, but Ayers is, even if he had no political past. --Rividian (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That's very interesting, and notable (even if not widely known among the public). If there's a good source that conveys that ubiquity, and not just that he is a respected academic, it would be useful. Wikidemo (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, if the Weatherman part is too lengthy, one could cut it back by dropping Ayers' spin on his quoted comments, which is another way of suggesting that news organizations like the NY Times be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to whether or not they are quoting their subjects out of context or not.Bdell555 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Give the NY Times the benefit of the doubt? What a mistaken piece of advice, since that newspaper has suffered several highly publicized lapses in professional quality in just the last five years! What a (apparently) naive mistake! It is also a mistake (and likewise apparently naive) to make this recommendation for any other major newspaper. Hurmata (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And blogs haven't suffered "lapses in professional quality"? Because that's what is being turned to here to supposedly fill out the story. One person's filling out the story by providing the subject's version of context is another person's sending the story through the subject's partisan spin cycle. I simply think there should be consistency; what's the precendent being set here. Not every remark by a subject requires going back to the subject to get the last word in. The lapses of the NY Times have been identified by other non-blog media, and so correction could be sourced to that other media. Why can't that standard be applied here? How often does ANYONE who has been profiled in a media piece say, "they've got me exactly right. I have nothing more to add, especially with regard to my more controversial statements"? All of the bios in Wikipedia are going to end up puff pieces if we have the subjects themselves effectively write the articles in place of published media.Bdell555 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that I haven't even tried to remove Ayers' spin. I've simply tried to insert a link to a video provided by another news network that suggests the NY Times quote was not taken out of context after all. This keeps getting removed, for no apparent reason other than wanting to let Ayers' obviously partisan blog have the last word. Reasons offered to date are that the video of the subject speaking is "hearsay" (??? what could possibly be more direct?) or my edit is "argumentative" (why do we bother with having a Talk page then?).Bdell555 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The blog is a reliable source for the fact it supports, that Ayers said X. Nothing at all wrong with that. It is normal on Wikipedia, when reporting a controversy or criticism of something, to state the issue or the complaint then state the other person's response. That is all. Adding material to attempt to discredit either side's statement is simply argumentative. The question in this case is not the strength of the source, it's the appropriateness of using the article as a debate forum. Wikidemo (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
re "adding material", EXACTLY. The people that think the NY Times' account needs to be argued with are being argumentative. There is no call here to "discredit" the New York Times' account. That's why I suggest the space savers cut that out! If one is nonetheless going to persist in taking issue with the NY Times as a source, then it is arbitrary to cut it off with Ayers' spin and remove anything further that might provide support for the NY Times' account. This should not be a debate forum, but if it is, then you can't run the debate on your own terms. If both Ayers' spin AND the link to the video where Ayers repeats what the NY Times said he said are removed, that is in fact the most encyclopedic, in my view.Bdell555 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't get it, do you? We can have: (1) one claim of a controversy, plus (2) one explanation of the accused's side of things. We should not add material from other sources in an attempt to discredit either. Otherwise we are debating, and that whole thing has no place here. Wikidemo (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You are starting a debate as soon as you demand that "plus" (and politicized Wikipedia by arguing that when Wikipedia mentioned an Ayers' quote cited to a valid source that "claimed a controversy"). You cannot demand a "plus" for one "side of things" and not the other.Bdell555 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If I might make a meta-observation here, I'd note that a lot of people were upset with ABC News' moderators at the April 16 Hillary vs Obama debate because the MSM is expected to play a gatekeeper role between what circulates in the blogosphere and what makes it on to the MSM. I would include myself amongst those who think that the connection between Ayers and Barack Obama is probably your typical blogosphere conspiracy theory that should have been checked, or at least thoroughly patted down, at the gate of the MSM. But here we have people wanting to use the blogosphere to check the MSM. Be careful what you wish for.Bdell555 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I've removed the video again. The transcript is here, by the way. It's a complete BLP violation. First of all, there is no "nonetheless" or "without qualification" to the video. That's not only original research, it's not in the clip. There is nothing to tie the clip to the New York Times report or Ayer's explanation of his statement. Adding the clip is simply an attempt to discredit Ayers. Second, it's a coatrack of an interview with Carl Rove attacking Barack Obama on one of the Fox News pundit shows. For goodness sakes, people, you should know better than that. Wikidemo (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"That's not only original research, it's not in the clip." Pot, meet kettle! What do you say to the obvious retort that not only is what follows the NY Times' cite original research, it's not in the NY Times article! Thanks for bringing us to a more obvious appreciation of exactly what the point is here; namely, that, "it's not in the [article]". re your point that there's no evidence for my negative claim, point granted, because it is impossible to prove a negative. In other words, point granted as you've made no point at all! Once you decided to decided to jump through the looking glass and call into question the sufficiency of the NY Times' account, it becomes necessary to note that "People say, "Do you regret anything you did against the government in those days?" And my answer is, "No, I don't."" corroborates the idea that "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough" is sufficiently representative.
You evidently have a problem with the fact there are other things in the source you don't like. I shouldn't have to point out that what is not being cited is not relevant to what is. Are you now going to go through Wikipedia and remove all valid citations if somewhere else in the cited article, video, or transcript there is an "attack on Barack Obama"? I would think you are going to have enough of a battle keeping Obama's name out of this article (a battle where I'd support you, by the way) that you'd recognize that you are asking for a lot if it's to keep his name out of all of the cited sources as well.Bdell555 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm done talking to you. You're being uncivil and incoherent. You're simply coatracking and edit warring over a POV, trying to get Carl Rove's comments about Obama into the encyclopedia. The material is improper - it stays out. Wikidemo (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not true. Your accusation of bad faith with respect to my motivations is unsupported. And I am not "simply edit warring" if I am arguing for an edit here on the Talk page, something you've evidently decided that you will refuse to do.Bdell555 (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemo for the following reason: Ayers is actually saying the same thing that Hillary Clinton said about her vote in Iraq. Whether you believe either, neither or both of them, we shouldn't play "soundbite politics" in Wikipedia. Ayers and Clinton don't regret their past actions based on what they knew then. At the time, Hillary thought there was WMD and she thought Bush would let the UN inspectors finish (remarkably naive on her part, but apparently true). Ayers thought he was protecting the US from its slide into imperialism and lying to the American people (see Robert McNamara's later confession of this), and (at age 23) he saw the bombing of buildings as the only way to stop this. If they knew then what they did now, both would have done something else. They don't regret what they were trying to accomplish: protect the US. The problem is, when they're asked about it the question is phrased along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?" There's no good and sufficient short answer. It's a fine point, but an important one. That's why that video clip is just another misleading "soundbite politics" hit job and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If there's one thing we can do as Wikipedians, it's to try to clarify what "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is, not just repeat soundbite quotes taken out of context and label them "the truth". I had a teacher who often reminded us there's a difference between truth with a small 't' and truth with a capital 't'. Something to keep in mind.Flatterworld (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In that same New York Times article, we find, "So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? 'I don't want to discount the possibility,' he said." Is that what Hillary is now saying? That she would do it again? And who is choosing the "phrasing" / doing the loading of the question to Ayers in the video you want suppressed? Why, it's Ayers himself!
So you are going to lead the Wiki crusade against "soundbite politics"? I might first note that it isn't Wiki's job to play MediaMatters, who say they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." And even it it was, I must point out that even MediaMatters isn't taking up the guantlet here: "don't regret" appears at least four times in http://mediamatters.org/items/200804170010 and MediaMatters doesn't take issue with the accuracy or context of the quote even once!Bdell555 (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redux

Well, I for one think that even though the title is correct it's also a little obscure and misleading. We don't include "most reverened" or "his holy excellency" and other drawn-out titles, instead using the common word that gets the point across. I think he should be simply described as a professor, or if necessary a "professor of education" or "tenured professor of education" or whatever it is in fact. My $0.02. Wikidemo (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why 'Distinguished Professor' is wikilinked. Wikipedia uses lots of terms which people not familiar with a topic may find obscure and misleading, and wikilinking allows those who ARE familiar with the terms not to get bogged down in explanations. Flatterworld (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. But I did just leave the wikilinked article and I'm no more clear on the subject than before. Wikidemo (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist

It is worth noting that Ayers disputes the label. If nothing else, saying this point blank in the lead is probably poor NPOV. I suspect there's a good way to get across the point that he participated in acts that killed people without a controversial label. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Also in response to the statement "he participated in acts that killed people" I am pretty sure that is incorrect. The only Weatherman related incident in which people were killed was the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion which I don't think Ayers was involved in. The other bombings were done to property belonging to the federal government with no casualties.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
From what I've read, Jersey Devil is correct. The Brinks robbery killed three people, but that was after Ayers and Dohrn had been 'purged' from Weather.99.135.154.237 (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I forgot about the Brinks robbery which had casualties as well but as the above user stated that was done in 1981 after Ayers and Dohrn had left the group in the mid 70s.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think a quick mention of what the Weather Underground did would not be amiss in the intro, however. Someone more familiar with the history than I can add it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's better to leave that to the Weatherman (organization) article. It appears fairly complicated because of the number of times they 'morphed'. For example, it seems the Brinks robbery was done by Weather Underground members who joined the Black Liberation Army. I'm not clear on whether they had 'dual membership' in the two groups or they had left the WU or the WU had split. Quite honestly, I think if we tried to summarize it beyond 'radical activist group' we'll probably mislead people. If people are interested, they can click on the wikilink.Flatterworld (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So the only terrorists in the world are those that self-identify as terrorists? If someone fits a definition then it is not "POV" to describe someone accordingly. In fact, it is POV to NOT do so! The label should not be removed UNLESS the remover plausibly defines terrorism in such a way as to exclude Ayers. The fact Ayers wants himself excluded is not good enough!
If 9-11 was Al-Qaeda's only job and the hijackers had been overpowered while on the plane would that have meant they were never terrorists? Then what would they have been then? Distinguished professors? Does violent intent count for nothing?Bdell555 (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's more that "terrorist" is a tough word to use in a NPOV fashion. Note that Osama bin Laden avoids calling him a terrorist in the lead, while still giving a very clear idea of the horrible things he was responsible for. A similar approach should be used here - describe acts, not identities. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is a "tough word" to use in a poltically correct environment, which is an environment where people shouldn't be described in terms of identity. You are making an assumption in your argument that requires some justification. If another article is politically correct that doesn't mean they all should be.Bdell555 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not political correctness, it's NPOV. The term "terrorist" is loaded with value judgments that defy neutrality. The statement "he was a member of a group that did these things" is not, but conveys all the same information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't dispute that people in general are non-neutral about terrorists. At issue is whether that fact is relevant. A similar argument existed on the Barack Obama page with people arguing that the label "liberal" should not be used because the term is POV. It begs the question because the question at issue is the criterion for being a "terrorist" or "liberal" or whatever the term is that the PC community thinks marginalizes or devalues an individual in the eyes of the mainstream. NPOV calls for an OBJECTIVE definition. "loaded with value judgments" is SUBJECTIVE. Where's the objective definition? Does the subject fit that objective definition or not?Bdell555 (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, NPOV calls for a neutral presentation of all significant viewpoints. As there are significant viewpoints in both directions on whether Ayers is or was a terrorist, simply declaring him to be so does not comply with the policy. There is no serious dispute that he was a member of the Weather Underground, nor over what they did. Those facts, thus, can be given neutrally. The statement that he was a terrorist is never a NPOV statement because it remains controversial. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No, NPOV does not call for the "presentation of all significant viewpoints". An article does not have to say "So-and-so is a terrorist according to some, but for others he is a freedom fighter. He worked as a janitor in his youth, say some sources, but others say he was a residential custodian, etc etc." NPOV rather calls for a presentation from a neutral, unbiased viewpoint. When you say a NPOV statement cannot be controversial, you seem to be saying that if what the neutral, unbiased viewpoint is is contested, then there is no neutral, unbiased viewpoint. That simply doesn't follow. Your point that subjective perspectives vary isn't relevant when what NPOV calls for is the objective perspective. The policy calls upon us to adopt the neutral, unbiased perspective even if there is not unanimous agreement over what that perspective is.Bdell555 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that the distinction on whether is or is not a terrorist is a viewpoint. It's not like a scientific theory where, say, half the astronomers believe a star is binary and the other half believe it is not. There it makes a difference, and notable non-fringe schools of thought ought to be reported. Here there is no dispute as to the facts so far as I know, it's just over whether to use a loaded word in describing them. I first came to this article when I noticed that one editor added "terrorist" to about a dozen articles at once. This whole thing is only an issue right now because of the supposed Obama connection. If you doubt that check the news. Google news: "ayers + terrorist" - 341 hits this morning. "ayers + terrorist + obama" - 327 hits. This is just not the right time to be playing into that. If a whole bunch of political partisans are now saying that Obama is a terrorist, we could report that in 2008 there was a campaign to describe him as a terrorist as part of the presidential primary campaign, but that news would belong in the Obama campaign article, not this one. Wikidemo (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Is being a "lawyer" or not "a scientific theory"? Obama is irrelevant to how this article should read.Bdell555 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is, what is the definition of terrorist? To some people, it means killing innocent civilians/bystanders to advance a goal (force people to give in to them, a type of blackmail, whatever). To others, it's any sort of violent activity. By the first definition, Ayers is NOT a terrorist. By the second, he is. The obvious solution is to describe what he did and didn't do and leave it at that. It's best for Wikipedia to avoid using words with connotations that are different for different readers.

Along that same line of reasoning, I'm not comfortable with the Categories of Terrorism: Category:Terrorism in the United States and Category:American terrorists. As you can see, someone's added Weather Underground and its members to those categories. We DON'T want people to assume, as Clinton said in the most recent debate, that the Weather Underground and all its members set out to kill people. Whatever we think of the group and its members, that's simply not true. (Other than those who joined the Black Liberation Army, in which case that may or may not be true as they were getaway drivers and may or may not have known what the actual robbers would do although the possibility of killing was clearly there. Still, robbery was the goal not terrorism.) Let's talk about it, but in the meantime I'm removing those categories for Ayers as I find them misleading.Flatterworld (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is disagreement on what the definition of a terrorist is, that should be covered in the article on terrorism, not repeated in every article where that would be an issue. I'm fine in principle with the categories, though. Someone may be of interest to someone studying a subject, without necessarily being in the subject class. I think it's a POV violation to call Ayers a domestic terrorist when there's disagreement on the subject, but I would think that anyone studying domestic terrorism would want to at least consider the case. I don't remember what the category names are but something like "domestic terrorism in the United States" is a much less controversial category than "domestic terrorists". Wikidemo (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"that's simply not true". Then explain Ayers' 1970 statement, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at." Is it your contention he never said such a thing? If so, let's discuss the sources for that remark.
Even if he didn't, the US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons OR PROPERTY to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (my emphasis). The British Terrorism Act of 2000 is even broader. This group engaged in acts dangerous to human life. Is there any dispute that Bill "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon" Ayers is at least a bomber? The first sentence of the article introduces him as just "Distinguished Professor". Nowhere in the article does it say Ayers is even a bomber. The one time he is quoted as saying he "set bombs", the quote, which is from the NY Times, is immediately challenged by a reference to Ayers' blog to indicate that Ayers did not actually mean what he said and/or he is being quoted out of context. I added an edit that suggested he has recently repeated what he said elsewhere such that he was likely not being quoted out of context but that was removed (see discussion under "Distinguished Professor" above). You then decided to add Ayers' spin in another place as well, saying that with respect to alleged "errors" in his book, it was "not a scholarly research project." Is there ANYTHING that this guy has done such that you don't feel inclined to make excuses for him? He's not even so inclined to make excuses for himself as you are, given his own remark that he's "Guilty as sin, free as a bird."Bdell555 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to want the article to serve as some sort of rectification of a perceived injustice regarding Ayers's life. To which I can only say no. Not going to happen. We can include sourced information about notable things he's done, whether noble or horrible. But that's it. This article will not pass judgment, and will not use a contested term with an ambiguous definition like "terrorist" to describe him. If that's not the article you want to write, go elsewhere. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that "terrorist" is "not in the article you want to write". And I have no problem with that because you have as much right to be here and to edit as I do. I could try to speculate on what you "seem to want" as well but don't see the relevance. There's no need to speculate to note that you want the article to "not pass judgment". What you do not explain is why exceptions to that non-judgmental principle of yours should be made in order to make the judgements that the subject is a "Distinguished Professor" and is not a "terrorist" or even a "bomber".
Yes,"we" can include "sourced information". But "we" are not. The only editing I have done to this article is add a sentence cited to a video of Ayers' speaking and that duly sourced addition is repeatedly reverted because it is supposedly out of context and/or misleading. Never mind that even openly partisan media watchers like MediaMatters have not made that allegation. Fact is, this article can and SHOULD "pass judgment" if the judgment is NPOV and based on duly sourced facts.Bdell555 (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Distinguished Professor" is a title - it's the promotion above full professor. It is not a comment on the quality of work, but a job title. If there are significant sources that argue that he is not, in fact, employed by UIC with the job title "Distinguished Professor of Education" then the statement should go. Otherwise, it is his indisputable job title, and it is simple to check whether he is or is not one in a manner that is agreeable to all interests. "Terrorist," however, is a slipperier word. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." The OED gives a number of definitions for terrorist, including "Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation." Ayers more clearly meets the OED definition, but there remain important questions of intent and motivation that render it a non-trivial issue. If nothing else, Ayers himself - surely a notable and important viewpoint on the subject - disputes the term. Much less disputed - even Ayers would seemingly agree - is that Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a group that conducted an organized bombing campaign against American targets. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Deirdre McCloskey and Ananda Chakrabarty have jobs that come with the title of "Distinguished Professor" and in neither case are they described as such in the intros to their Wiki articles. Why is Ayers more "Distinguished" than they are?Bdell555 (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Because those intros are poorly written. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Greg Mankiw is the Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics at Harvard. Not only is Mankiw's official job title not mentioned in the intro, it is not mentioned in his Wiki article at all! Mankiw's article is typical. If mention of the official job title is the highest priority in a well written article, why does the rest of the Wiki community generally disagree with you? What of the argument that what belongs in the intro is the person's occupation generically, or a description of what he or she does functionally? If the efforts here to highlight the "Distinguished" label are truly warranted, it should be possible to point to some other Wiki articles where this was the accepted practice.Bdell555 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bdell555, there's such a thing as irony. Bill uses it, you apparently don't. (He and his wife currently care for Bill's father in their home. Until her death, his mother-in-law lived with them.) As for the US Code, yes that's one definition. That was my point. There are several definitions and that's why we're linking to such articles as the Weatherman (organization) article so we don't have to go through all those explanations in multiple places in Wikipedia. We state what everyone DOES agree with, which is that Weather was a radical group. Wikipedia is an international source and as such we don't want to mislead people. Look at the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations and you'll find all of them purposely kill civilians/bystanders http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/08/103392.htm Domestic terrorists include the KKK, the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City bombers - clearly intending to kill civilians/bystanders. The Weather Underground didn't do that. I don't know why Clinton claimed they killed people (I believed she mentioned Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta Centennial Park bomber, as killing the same number of people) and implied they were connected with 9/11 - but that doesn't mean we have to repeat her misstatements of fact. This is 2008, that was 1969 through early 1970's.Flatterworld(talk) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So if a Myers' quote isn't being rejected for being "out of context" or "misleading", it is being rejected because the speaker is being "ironic"? Under what circumstances would you take an Ayers quote as is? Are there ANY quotes that could POSSIBLY remain in Wikipedia if Ayers now says he didn't really mean it?
The fact he cares for his father proves he isn't a terrorist? You'll excuse me if you were merely being ironic with that "argument" since you've noted my trouble with the concept. I suppose Al-Qaeda isn't a terrorist group unless "everyone" agrees that it is? After all, perhaps Al-Qaeda isn't on the Taliban's terrorist list! Wikipedia is an "international source" after all and we wouldn't want to mislead those living in Taliban country, would we? Yet you have no problem calling the KKK terrorist.
According to Ronald Radosh:
What Ayers does not mention is that the bomb that killed his friends was an antipersonnel bomb meant for an army dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. Had it exploded at its chosen target, thousands of soldiers and their dates would have been killed. "Terrorists destroy randomly," he writes, "while our actions bore...the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate." Somehow, the GIs his comrades aimed to kill — or the policemen he might have murdered had a bomb he planted in a Chicago station gone off — do not count. And the GIs’ dates, and the civilians working at the police station, also do not count. Their deaths would simply have been a way of educating people — as Bill Ayers continues to educate them at the University of Illinois, Chicago.
According to Christopher C. Harmon (see http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/facultyID.22/profile.asp for bio):
Grathwohl, a government informant, wrote that Ayers had a helped direct a pair of attempted police building bombings in Detroit in February 1970. After doing his assigned job in reconnaissance, Grathwohl disagreed with Mr. Ayers over the placement of one bomb, which could easily kill black patrons who favored an adjacent restaurant, but that Ayers dismissed such sentimentality as unrevolutionary. The informant was glad to be dismissed from the operation by Ayers. Forty-four sticks of dynamite were then formed into two bombs and put into place, before Grathwohl's information allowed police to dismantle both. Ayers's memoir—which freely admits to incompleteness—says nothing of this episode, or Detroit, or the month of February 1970.
Bdell555 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Your notion that there are viewpoints we do not need to represent is anathema to this project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So how is the viewpoint that Ayers is a terrorist, a viewpoint you evidently believe that we "need to represent", represented in "this project"?Bdell555 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Find a reliable source that calls him a terrorist and add the claim, clearly attributed, to the body of the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I did, citing an expert source that calls him an "educated terrorist", but did not add the word "terrorist" to the article. User Wikidemo reverts me regardless, to the version where Ayers' version of events remains unchallenged. Perhaps Wikidemo will explain here why Wiki readers should not be advised of the fact that Ayers' accounts, especially with respect to actions that endangered human life, are incomplete.
I've engaged on this Talk page for an extended period of time prior to editing and still can't avoid an edit war, apparently. What is the solution here? Arbitration? Do you have anything to say here, Wikidemo, or are you still "done talking to [me]".Bdell555 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As you note I'm not going to engage you due to your lack of civility. I have reverted your improper comments again. You would do well to take a break from editing this page. If you have a dispute over content you want to add you're free to use the dispute resolution mechanisms but I don't think you have much chance of success. Best to give it up.Wikidemo (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that you are refusing to discuss but it is not clear if you are agreeing to an alternative dispute mechanism or not. Would you participate in a joint call for arbitration or not? An edit war is mindless and I believe every attempt must be made to avoid that. Surely we are both rational, mature adults. I find it unfortunate that an edit war is occuring anyway despite all of my efforts at advance discussion.Bdell555 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

The same editor has introduced the same derogatory material three times in an attempt to discredit Ayers' statements,[4][5][6], after repeated attempts to do so before [7][8][9]. I have removed the material three times today, and would be justified in doing so again (see WP:BLP - WP:3RR does not apply, and this is an poorly sourced, controversial allegation that the man conspired to attempt murder). However, I will mention it here in hopes that others can help stem all of this POV-pushing.

  • Argumentative. The article already lays out that Ayers has published a book and that the book has been criticized as incomplete and factually inaccurate (as well as Ayers' rationalization that it's not supposed to be a complete, academic work). Adding a sentence that Ayers "declines to discuss" an attempted bombing is nothing but a rhetorical argument aimed at contradicting the subject of the article.
  • Accusation of a crime. The proposed material, if true, indicates that Ayers deliberately ordered bombs placed in a location, knowing that they would likely result in death of bystanders. Nowhere in the article is a source that indicates this is a proven and well-established fact. Per WP:BLP you can't do that.
  • Insinuation. The material about killing "black patrons" is racially charged and irrelevant. The only value is sensationalism.
  • Unreliable source. The analysis is sourced to an editorial[10], and is an argument lifted almost verbatim from that editorial. The accusation of attempted murder is sourced, via that article, to an unspecified writing by a government informant made in an unstated context or time. The accusation itself is clearly not widely known, if the editorialist saw fit to bring it to light. Surely we don't repeat in Wikipedia articles relatively unknown criminal accusations about the subjects allegedly leveled by government informants.

The article has gained a lot of attention lately due to the connection with Barack Obama. All of a sudden people are trying to portray Ayers as an unrepentant terrorist, and taint Obama for associating with him. Please, don't let this article become fodder for this sort of thing. We have to keep the information neutral, factual, and reliable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidmo, we have to be mindful of NPOV. Where is the evidence that Ayers is repentant or where is the evidence that he is unrepentant?
From the current article it says "When asked he would "do it all again," Ayers replied, "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers later explained that by "no regrets" he meant that he didn't regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade; the two statements were not intended to elide into a wish they had set more bombs.[7]" This statement is very murky in regards to really establishing what Ayers is really saying.
In regards to the Obama connection, being a noteworthy individual and serving on a board with the US Senator could be a noteworthy addition to a wiki article, depending on reliable sources. Many reliable sources: ABC, MSNBC, and others have covered this story. If is were not noteworthy, why would we be getting so much interest in the this article? It is me i think (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The latest POV content / edit war is over accusations that he tried bomb something in a way that would kill people, not his repentance or lack thereof over his actions overall in the Vietnam era. That second is a minor issue - in most cases the question of former prisoners' level of regret is not encyclopedic. But his statement about having "no regrets" did get some press, and someone added it, so perhaps it's fit to include. Our custom is to let the guy speak for himself by carrying his statement about what he really meant. After that, arguments on either side about what he truly thinks, supported by circumstantial evidence (e.g. the brief video clip in the Fox News pundit piece) is just debating. I personally don't argue for removing the Obama mention, just that it deserves a link and a pointer to a more full treatment somewhere else rather than a summary, so I'll leave that one alone. Wikidemo (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think Ayers words should be included, I just this they are confusing, which leads both sides to speculate on what Ayers words mean. As far as Obama, I think the continued consensus is he should be added to the section about the Woods Foundation. In regards to listing his name in context of the presidential race, my sense if everyone wants to wait for some more notable sources. thanks It is me i think (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the support for this account of what "our custom" is? It seems to be the Wiki custom is more likely to leave duly sourced quotes be as opposed to to going back to to the speaker for a response. That practice fits the ordinary definition of "debating".Bdell555 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A few observations on the "no regrets" issue. It's irrelevant to say it "opens" with the statement - that was an editorial decision by NYT. Some other stuff there is wordy and gives unnecessary detail about the interview process, and I do think his apologetic rationalization is overdone too. A more neutral, fact-based, concise way to treat it that could potentially be sourced by some criticism without trying to argue the point:
In Ayers's interview with the New York Times about his (published, by historical coincidence, on September 11, 2006[6] Ayers says "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."[5] Ayers later claimed that by "no regrets" and "didn't do enough" he was referring to his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and not specifically to bombing.[7] The statements have lead to some controversy[cite].
- Wikidemo (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ayers excludes NOTHING from "his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War". Go through http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/im-sorry-i-think/ where he goes on for pages and tell me where the additional clause "and not specifically to bombing" is supported. The closest I've seen is from another comment where he suggests that third parties who say "he has no regrets for setting for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings" are mischaracterizing him. Does he consider it a mischaracterization because he doesn't agree with the "and", because he's become an "either / or" guy with the fullness of time? Who knows. All we know is that he doesn't like what is said about him.Bdell555 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
My proposal is to form, not the exact language. If we want to simply say that Ayers does not believe that particular thing he said to the NY Times reporter fairly describes his opinion we could say that too. I tend to agree that we don't know (and probably don't want to know) exactly what he is thinking, we can just report that he said it and that he has some kind of problem with the way his quote is being portrayed, leading to a controversy. Wikidemo (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So presentating "Ayers' rationalization" is not itself "argumentative"?
And Ayers should not only not be accused of terrorist activity, you say, but he should not even be accused of criminal activity? I note that because of the US' exclusionary rule, an accused will not be prosecuted even if proven guilty when the proof was obtained by illegal procedures. Indeed, in this case, by Ayers' own account he did not escape prosecution because he was innocent. Rather, he is "Guilty as sin, free as a bird, America is a great country. It makes me want to puke."
If you want to elide "black", go ahead, since it shouldn't make any difference. Generally, though, our job to simply identify sources, not spin them.
So you concede that Ayers has been challenged for being "factually inaccurate", but insist that Ayers' blog remains a "reliable source"? Meanwhile, (un-Distinguished?) Professor Harmon's account is "unreliable"?
If "the accusation itself is clearly not widely known" that would, in fact, argue more in favour of its reliability since it would suggest that Harmon got it from his research of the primary sources (keep in mind this is a source whose authority on terrorism has been called upon by the US House of Representatives and multiple research institutions) instead of from, say, a blog (!). As for Ayers not being an "unrepentant terrorist", that is very much at issue. Re your comments about the "attention lately" when did YOU come to this article? Obama has nothing to do with keeping this article "neutral, factual, and reliable" and indeed bringing Obama into this as you insist on doing here is opposed to that objective.Bdell555 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not argumentative, as explained. Again, allowing a source to speak for themselves if their words will be quoted is how things are normally done here. A blog is a reliable source when cited for the proposition that the blogger said it. You seem to be arguing that BLP is a bad policy and that we should instead repeat unproven criminal accusations from government informants if they can be cited. I can't help you there, just point you to the policy.Wikidemo (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not how things are "normally done". Webster says "disputatious" is synonymous with "argumentative". You, on Ayers' behalf, are disputing the NY Times' account. If there is no dispute then why the need for the retort?
Where did I say "BLP is a bad policy"? I am saying you are clearly misinterpreting and/or misapplying it when you say Wiki should not accuse someone of a criminal act when, to take an example, the accused says (boasts?) that "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the the Pentagon." Or is there nothing illegal about bombing the Pentagon?Bdell555 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. This is a Wikipedia policy, not Websters word definitions. We're just quoting what Ayers said, and what he claims he meant by it. That's sourcing. No argument at all. Trying to discredit his claims or prove what he meant is arguing. And no, we should not accuse someone of a criminal act based on an uncorroborated claim that a government informant allegedly claims at some unspecified time that he committed it. There is no dispute that he made admissions to some things. However, this particular incident of attempted murder is not one of them.Wikidemo (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You are not getting your definition of "argumentative" from a dictionary I know of, so which commonly recognized source are you getting it from? If it is a Wikipedia policy what are the words of the policy that you are applying here? You evidently not going to tolerate Lemish's observation that Ayers has made "serious factual errors" much longer either since Lemish (or the Wiki editor who cited Lemish) "discredits his claims" more clearly and directly than anything else I've seen in this article. Why doesn't that fit your curious definition of being "argumentative"? Or are you conceding here that there is "no argument at all" for having the "and" part of the "We are just quoting what Ayers said, and..."? Why clutter Wikipedia with stuff that has "no argument at all" for its inclusion?
The specified time is February 1970, not that that's necessary. Can you provide the hour and second for every other claim in Wikipedia? And no, "we" are not "accusing" anyone of anything. "We" should in fact stay out of it, which is why I think that if there is a really an argument to be taken up with the New York Times, it should be possible to find and cite a third party making the argument (someone besides Ayers and Wiki editors). Citing a valid source is not levelling an accusation. Even if it were, it is not "attempted murder". Who does Ayers want dead? Nobody in particular. But neither is he much concerned that innocents could be put at risk. It's criminal negligence, and criminal negligence with the romantic flourish of el Che ("... unrevolutionary sentiment"). You, dear acquaintance, are the one making Ayers out to be a moral monster here, arguing as you are that he would be an "attempted murderer" if the informant is not lying. If he is not guilty of criminal negligence then what is he guilty of? Using bad language? Wiki readers can draw their own conclusions about how much weight to place on the word of the informant. We've got a terrorism expert here who cites the informant without reservation. It's not our job to play judge and jury unless the Wiki sourcing violates a policy or there is some other clear reason to believe the information is false. The informant is credible enough for TIME Magazine to source him. See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913516-6,00.html which says "Grathwohl helped plan the bombing of the Detroit Police Officers Association headquarters in February 1970". Are you going to throw TIME in the shoddy reporting bin for listening to what this guy has to say along with the NY Times (and every other source that Ayers hasn't had a chance to correct - as per "our custom")?Bdell555 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This continues to be very strained. I'm simply upholding the policies about the kind of material that does and does not belong in the encyclopedia. It should be clear that "argumentative", "debating", etc., refer to material that is not by itself relevant to the subject of the article, but instead advances a position. It's a cousin of WP:SYN. If you are going to republish in Wikipedia a single controversial quote that the subject of the article said, then it is absolutely appropriate to also state the person's explanation of what it means. That is not debating anything or any argument against the New York Times, it is encyclopedic information about the subject of the article. On the other hand, adding other quotes that seem to contradict the statement to discredit the explanation, or that support the explanation, is is advancing a position and not providing encyclopedic information. A well-sourced comment that a notable book is full of errors is potentially relevant to the book. Using that statement to discredit a claim made in the book would be synthesis. The source cited regarding the attempted murder says nothing of the timing of the government informant's claim, and very little else about the claim, only that it was a claim made by a certain person about events that happened in 1970. Placing a bomb in a location where people are likely to die is a form of attempted murder. If people had died it would have been murder, manslaughter, or some similar charge. If the attempt was not made or was unsuccessful it would be some kind of conspiracy charge. It is vastly beyond criminal negligence. Accusing someone of that here, without confirmation to a reliable source, is a pretty bad BLP violation. BLP does not say that we should accuse people of crimes unless there is a clear reason to believe the accusation is false, then let people make their own conclusions. Time Magazine is besides the point. Take a look at the language of the policy. We are not Time Magazine and have higher standards than Time does before accusing living people of criminal acts, but if Time has some reliably sourced encyclopedic material to add that is otherwise according to policy then it can be a source for that material. Wikidemo (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Why didn't the New York Times do what's "absolutely appropriate" if it is, in fact, so "absolutely appropriate"? If an "explanation" is not only "absolutely appropriate" but "encyclopedic information", then you should be able to point to a biographical encyclopedia article that has a quote, controversial or not, of someone cited to one source and an "explanation" of that quote cited to another, no? And where is the policy that calls for this "absolutely appopriate" editing?
How is the allegation that a book contains "serious factual errors" relevant if doesn't "discredit" the book's claims? Are you saying that if the allegation was in the singular instead of the plural, i.e. Ayers made a "serious factual error" instead of "errors" then that WOULD "discredit" ONE claim and that, ladies and gentlemen, would be "synthesis", such that you would get that allegation of error out of there? I agree with you that "this continues to be very strained"!
Suppose a researcher speaking about a subject told you that, according to the primary sources, X said Y to Z in February 1970. Do you typically say, "well, I doubt that because not only did you not tell me which day this was said, professor, but you haven't told me what else was said that day." If that information is indeed quite so relevant to the credibility of the source, why isn't there a Wikipedia policy saying that information is relevant to the question of credibility? Are you going to go around Wikipedia reverting all the sourcing that doesn't provide this information? The bottom line is that the material IS confirmed to a reliable source. I see I'm not the only one with a law degree, since you seem to know a lot about the charges that would apply here and their gravity! For it to be more serious than criminal negligence, the DA would have to prove intent. Where do we have evidence of that? All I see is a guy who doesn't give a ***, and that's negligence. And Ayers has already admitted to negligence! Or don't you think there there was any negligence involved in, say, bombing the Pentagon? No possible risk to anyone? Not even a crime? The BLP policy does not support reverting everything in a bio that does not make the person look like Mother Theresa. It says, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Such is the case here. And, no, we do not "have higher standards than TIME" because TIME is considered a reliable published source and therefore what TIME says Wikipedia may say. If you disagree then show some consistency and start reverting stuff in the bios of living persons that is cited to TIME.Bdell555 (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue seems to me not to be that Time is or is not a reliable source (it clearly is) but that not every piece of reliable information is something we put in articles. Also at issue is its significance to the larger topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course not everything should be put in. This is not, however, insignificant trivia. Earlier, you told me to add a claim that Ayers is a "terrorist" "clearly attributed, to the body of the article". So you think THAT, which includes the additional judgment that the subject is a terrorist, should be included, but not this? I can't help but note that your current (new?) position is the polar opposite position to Wikidemo, since Wikidemo says the edit at issue is far too significant to be included, and you seem to be suggesting that it is not significant enough!Bdell555 (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My question is why doesn't the essay list any of the bombings this guy participated in? There's a whole section devoted to his distinguished professor career, but the radical section doesn't even list the bombings. Any essay that doesn't list his crimes is not objective, imo. LostInWilderness (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
He is not linked to any. In fact, he has never been tried for anything. Hurmata (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a long list of bombings in the Weathermen (organization) article. It makes the most sense to have the master list there instead of multiple partial lists on the pages of each of the members. Wikidemo (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hitler's page has a segment on WWII and the Holocaust. Stalin's page has a segment on the purges. Those topics aren't hidden away in the pages on the Holocaust and Russian history - those subjects are prominantly discussed on the pages of the individuals who are responsible for them as well as the other pages. But not Ayers. And saying Ayers has not been linked to those bombs is disingenuous. He hasn't been tried for them, but he's certainly been linked. An objective observer can't help but think TPTB are hiding Ayer's crimes from wikipedia readers. LostInWilderness (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
With that demonstration of Godwin's law I'm outa here for a bit. Cheers. Wikidemo (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Pfft. That's a good excuse for leaving a debate in which you can't justify your position. Hitler and Stalin just happen to be 2 names that come easily to mind. Osama bin Laden's page mentions 9/11 and several other bombings. You don't have to follow the link to al Qaeda to see his crimes. Bill Ayers is listed in Wikipedia for one reason - he bombed a bunch of stuff. Not for his distinguished professorship. But the second is listed on his personal page instead of the first. It's bias pure and simple. LostInWilderness (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No, really. There's no position. You asked a question; I gave you the simple answer. Cutting and pasting content relating to a group on each member's page is unnecessary and redundant, which is a problem with the Bin Laden articles. This article and the one for the Weathermen could use a more in-depth discussion of exactly what Ayers' role was in the organization. But a simple list of their group actions on the page of each member who participated is pointless. As for the question of notoriety versus notability, that has been discussed elsewhere on this page. Wikidemo (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't take an entire list. One simple line that says "Ayers, as part of the Weathermen, was involved in the bombing of the Pentagon, the Capital, and several other government buildings." That's it. The details can be in the Weathermen page. But Ayer's page doesn't even mention bombs, which is the only reason he's in here, except in his the paragraph with his refutation. I think that shows bias. LostInWilderness (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No one will willingly own up to "bias". But they may be forced to own up to inconsistency. I made an observation here about the inconsistency with which Wikidemo applies his deletionism, but that observation was itself deleted!Bdell555 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemo for the reasons he has already

put forth. It's really not that complicated. Flatterworld (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (TE)

The amount of TE and Censorship involved here is amazing. Please stop censoring and revising this subject and allow it to truly reflect whom Dr. Ayers is, and what he is best known for. Let's get real here and work together on this. The information will be more lucid and educational if we all take a deep breath, take time to read and consider the outstanding Wiki definition of TE and cease wasting time, energy, and bandwidth on censoring and revision to fit one or two peoples "consensus" view of reality. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. The page has failed to take shape because most editors envolved seem determined to avoid writing an article that paints an unfavorable picture of the subject. The truth is that the bulk of this article is now Ayers' reactions to his characterization as a radical or even a "terrorist". Any attempt to discuss the causes for these characterizations is met with a brick wall of opposition. We need to stop the God-awefully long arguments over every word and see if we can create an article worth reading. I understand the need for NPOV, and I do honestly seek it, but to talk about Ayers without mention of his more radical actions is POV. I understand that the bombings are described in the article on the Weathermen, but there isn't one single listing of a bomb in this article other than the townhouse explosion. In seeking a NPOV, you have taken out the causes of Ayers' recent notability but not his reaction to those causes. Ayers is not notable for being a man who publicly responded to accusations of terrorism; he is notable for the accusations of terrorism.Mrathel (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How the "Obama connection" went from blog to mainstream

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/18/how_obama_and_the_radical_became_news/ `Hurmata (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Dreier: Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama A lengthy story by a political science professor and urbanologist revealing the long running propaganda campaign against Obama that a Hillary Clinton adviser has been waging by email. "Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal", a senior White House aide during the Clinton administration. ". . . Some Clinton supporters who also knew about Ayers have been discreetly trying to catapult the story out of the right-wing sandbox into the wider mainstream media. On April 9, Fox News' Sean Hannity interviewed fellow right-winger Karl Rove, who raised the Ayers-Obama connection." I am aware that the Ayers project dates back earlier than that. The controvery over Obama was injected into this talk page at least as early as Feb. 22. Hurmata (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should Ayers involvement on a foundation go under a new philanthropy section, it is not formally part of his accademic career?

thanks, It is me i think (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

His academic career seems to be heavily about social justice, and so I'm not sure how easy it is to actively separate the two. Given how short the new section would be, it doesn't seem worth it to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with the merger. Wanted to point out that this is not an insignificant in Ayers' life, he has been on the board for 9 years, and in 2006 received $6,000 in compensation from being on the board. See the end of the added Form 990 filed with the IRS> Image:Wood Foundation 2006 990.pdf It is me i think (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is also not bad part time pay for someone on a professor's salary. It is me i think (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a chat room. Please stay on topic. Flatterworld (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] According to Ayers' webpdate bio, his partner is Bernadine Dohrn. Should his relationship be listed as such?

Bill Ayers bio from his website It is me i think (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so - she appears to be a private and non-notable figure. Though it is public information that she is his partner, we should note that he is, right now, likely the target of a fair number of crazies, and there is a big difference between a mention on his blog and a top ten website. We ought err on the side of caution with non-notable living people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bernardine Dohrn is his wife and the mother of their two sons. Of course that should be included. ('Partner' is a British terms when used in this sense and shouldn't be used in an article about an American.)Flatterworld (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Partner is also used by liberal types who are uncomfortable with the lack of equivalent terms for spouse, husband, and wife in same sex couples. In this regard it's also a matter of identity politics - a desire not to claim what is seen as a heterosexual privilege implicit in the term "spouse" or "wife." If Ayers prefers the term, it is possible that this should be reflected. That said, Dohrn does not seem to me to be notable, and so I don't see why the information is encyclopedic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dohrn has her own wiki entry: Bernardine Dohrn It is me i think (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Well don't listen to me then. I must have typoed her name when I looked for it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's that second 'r' - I don't think it's the usual spelling. I'll add a redirect because I've mistyped it myself. (edited: Never mind. The redirect has existed for years so you must have typed yet another variation.)Flatterworld (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

Hi, this section should provide an overview of the article (all politicking and Obaming aside), and I have attempted to expand it accordingly. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the lead should be consistent with what other Biography artciles includes. A very breif summary. You've simply repeated the sections themselves.Flatterworld (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Flatterworld, I think if you review WP:LEAD you may come to think differently. Most featured articles and other good articles have an extended 3-4 para intro that summarizes the subject. I think the biggest deficiency with my version is that it doesn't adequately cover his 1980s-onward career. I am not an expert in it, so if you want to flesh that part out, it would be a welcome addition. Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead is clearly too long in proportion to the article, and it's a word-for-word copy. Wikidemo (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I can reword it if that's at issue. I'm just saying it should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article (per WP:LEAD). I'm also saying I'm not an expert in his later accomplishments so more text about that would be useful. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It was (and now is again) a concise summary. The article isn't that long.Flatterworld (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there no Obama Mention?

Is someone trying to white-wash this article? I don't see anything about the link to Obama. This is bizarre. I think someone is going to great pains to edit the truth. JettaMann (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In one of your 21 April 2008 revisions of this article you added text describing the Weather Underground as "a group responsible for the bombing murders of several people." This contradicts the main Weather Underground article. Please explain.Joeljunk (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
While it MIGHT be a useful question to ask why Obama evidently didn't avoid an association with Ayers, why should Ayers avoid an association with Obama? News that Ayers travelled in the some of the same circles as Obama in recent years would add little to what we already know about the Ayers of recent years from this article.Bdell555 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Because there's very little link to Obama - he held a fundraiser for a local politician and served on the board of a local philanthropic organization with him. He is not an advisor or, it seems, a close friend.
Now a section on the media firestorm triggered by the debate might be worthwhile. In fact, it would be. But what is signifigant is not his links with Obama (which are tenuous and, by our standards, probably not significant) but the wealth of comments others have made about the situation and about him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In the debate when Ayers came up Obama said he was "also friendly" with Tom Coburn. If I'm "also friendly" with a second guy, I must be "friendly" with the first guy. David Axelrod has also stated that Ayers and Obama are "certainly friendly", as well. So I don't think you can claim that Obama and Ayers are not friends, close or unclose, without contrary evidence. Also, the board of that "philanthropic organization" seemed to consist of political fellow travelers to a degree. Not that it matters; the links don't say much about Ayers and Ayers the subject of this article.Bdell555 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that we do not mention everybody that someone has "been friendly" with in their Wikipedia article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would hope so as well!Bdell555 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the Obama connection, being a noteworthy individual and serving on a board with the US Senator could be a noteworthy addition to a wiki article, depending on reliable sources. Many reliable sources: ABC, MSNBC, and others have covered this story. If is were not noteworthy, why would we be getting so much interest in the this article? It is me i think (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Those same 'reliable sources' cover Paris Hilton, corn flakes shaped like a state, small dogs falling off cliffs and surviving, and various other misc., so coverage per se is irrelevant. We don't include material that ISN'T covered by reliable sources, but that doesn't mean we include EVERYTHING covered by reliable sources. Does that clear things up? The 'See also' link is the main reference to Obama. I didn't take it out, and I don't have a problem with re-including the sentence about Ayers and Obama serving on the same board at the same time. As for 'holding a fundraiser', it was actually a 'meet my protege' meeting held by Alice Palmer, Obama's predecessor in the Senate, in the Ayers house.Flatterworld (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
To my mind the issue needs to be framed correctly. The fact that he has some minor connections with Obama is not notable. The fact that he was the subject of a brief media firestorm is. The information should not, thus, be his connections - it should start with something like "In April of 2008 Ayers became a source of controversy when..." and then go into the specific charges raised at the ABC debate, Obama and Clinton's responses at the debate, and what media commentators said about the kerfuffle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election_controversies_and_attacks#Bill_Ayers starts out that way. That where the information is, and where it belongs.
I think this whole 'friend' thing has been misinterpreted. Axelrod said both their kids went to the same school, and they were 'friendly'. Which is true, but about 15(?) years apart. Obama's kids go there now, and I've read that Bernardine Dohrn is on the school board - that was the school connection. At least in Chicago, 'friendly' doesn't mean the same thing as 'friends'. It means you don't make the sign of the cross and run when you see someone. Chicagoans avoid using the word 'enemy', or even admitting there may be people they don't like or who don't like them. It doesn't mean they hang out together.
Ayers held a fundraiser (state senator race, 1995)? Not exactly. Alice Parker wanted a meeting to introduce her chosen successor to her supporters. It was held at the Ayers house. Ayers knew Parker. Ayers had a large enough house to host the meeting. That doesn't mean Ayers was personally acquainted with Obama at that point. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but some are implying they were fast friends at that point. Not likely.
'Fellow travelers' on the Woods Fund board? As in a Director of Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill? A Director of UBS Investment Bank? I didn't think so.
Let's just stick to the facts, as opposed to jumping to conclusions (as people like Hannity have done). There's a reason none of this has been considered 'notable' in Chicago since 1981 when Bill turned himself in.Flatterworld (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is why I think we should go on the side of caution and describe the relationship at Axelrod describes it "friendly". You can be friendly with people you aren't friends with just as much as you as you be mean to someone who you like. The simplest thing to do is mentioned they were on a board together and an Obama campaign spokesperson describes their relationship as friendly (cite). It is me i think (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's best not to characterize their relationship at all rather than be mistaken. Axelrod misunderstood 'kids went to the same school' and said 'kids went to school together' (meaning same time). I don't see any reason to assume he got the 'friendly' part absolutely correct either. When things clarify (as most things do), we can update the article then. Right now it doesn't sound like they ever had an actual relationship.Flatterworld (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. To omit this entirely because someone has issues with the journalism is dodging the facts. Frame it properly. JettaMann (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Paris Hilton also ha a good Wikipedia entry too. Why woudln't we also have a good Bill Ayres page? Your logic makes no sense. JettaMann (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comment again. And in future, please post your comments AFTER previous comments, rather than inserting them where they both disrupt the flow of the earlier discussion and won't be noticed by as being additions. Flatterworld (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Read the Weatherman organization article. Two police officers and a security guard were killed. JettaMann (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Read the article yourself. The Brinks robbery was a Black Liberation Army operation in which some Weathermen, who had merged into the BLA group, participated in. Ayers had already been purged from the Weather Underground by then. Please read previous discussions on this page so we don't have to keep repeating the facts. Flatterworld (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "hearsay"

Hearsay refers a "out of court statement", according to Wikipedia. How do you know that this was out of court, Flatterworld? Not that it matters anyway, since there is no "hearsay" policy in Wikipedia. We have accepted policies for what is adequately sourced and what is not. You cannot just make up your own. Can you identify which accepted policy is not satisfied? What we have here is an academic who went through primary sources and found this. Most of Wikipedia is built upon secondary sources in this way. Ayers' bombing is NOT covered already, either. In fact, it isn't covered at all in this article! You are also jumping into an "edit war" that is already being discussed above. Are you going to participate in that discussion or not?Bdell555 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ayers made the alleged statement to a co-conspirator turned government informant, the informant wrote it at some unspecified time in an unspecified document, and then an fellow at a conservative think tank paraphrased what he claims the informant says in the context of an editorial condemning Ayers. The editorialist is in not a reliable source and his claim about Ayers' alleged disregard for human life in the course of bomb plotting is based on a government informant's claims. The policy is BLP: "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in policy). Wikidemo (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Is "poorly sourced" whatever you (or I) say it is, meaning that if the time is unspecified or what have you the source is "poorly sourced"? No, it is not. Wikipedia has policies that apply with respect to sourcing. Show which policy is violated. The source here is also an Associate Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College and a former Chair at the Marine Corps University, not just a "conservative think tank". I find it ironic that you consider it a gross violation of principle to call Ayers a bomber but have no reservations about calling Dr Harmon a liar. Authors of secondary sources "paraphrase" what the primary sources tell them all the time. This is essentially what history textbooks are: one big paraphrase of what primary sources say happened. Academics also often address topics in columns in a variety of publications. As I noted earlier, TIME magazine doesn't have any reservations about the informant's credibility, either. Can you name ANYONE who DOES? Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to suggest that this source is indeed not "reliable"?Bdell555 (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is getting more and more ludicrous with every post. The policy violated is WP:BLP, which I have already quoted here. The uncorroborated claim of a federal informant is not a reliable source as to the details an alleged crime committed by a living person. The fact that the informant's statement isn't even sourced as to time, document, etc., just adds another layer of unreliability. A conservative think tank's self-published editorial piece isn't even a reliable source as to what the informant actually said. Your just arguing, not making any points. Nobody called Dr. Harmon a liar. Enforcing the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline isn't calling anyone a liar, it's asking for an appropriate source on material that needs to be verified. Wikidemo (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is ludicrous, and what is ludicrous is the idea that you can universalize your standards about what constitutes a reliable source. If this gets thrown out then most of Wikipedia ought to go. There is no BLP violation if the edit is duly sourced. Or do you disagree that the BLP policy says that? It then turns to whether the edit is, in fact, duly sourced. You are just making up your own rules about what is a reliable source. If not, then identify where it says a secondary source may be challenged because the primary source is "a federal informant"? Following your logic, that TIME article is also not a "reliable source". Where does it say that your additional "layer" is relevant? And, yes, you are calling Dr Harmon either a liar or a shoddy researcher who is misusing a primary source: if you say you have 2 apples in your left hand and 2 apples in your right hand, you are saying you have 4 apples in your hands, no matter how much you deny. You have no problem with an article that describes Ayers as "Distinguished Professor" not once but TWICE (some hammering is required to penetrate the thick skulls of some readers, I suppose!), but with respect to Harmon you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that he might be anything more than an "editorialist". Is it the four years that Dr. Harmon spent as a foreign policy advisor at the House of Representatives that warrants your charge of "unreliable source"? Would he be advising the House if he were widely recognized as a mere "conservative" partisan who just makes stuff up? May I refer you to what others have said about this "unreliable" "editorialist"? Reviews of his book "Terrorism Today", published in 2000, include:
"In the chapter dealing with future threats, Harmon all but predicted the events of September 11th."
- US reader
"one of the best books out there on terrorism"
- Thomas O'Connor, Professor, Criminal justice
"a masterly survey of the big picture of world violence"
- Ronald Payne, Times Literary Supplement (London)
"Anyone interested in unraveling the many aspects of terrorism under its contemporary conditions must start with a solid overview of the present-day dimensions of terrorist organizations and activities. Terrorism Today offers precisely that."
- Mathieu Deflem, Associate Professor U of South Carolina, review in Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management
Bdell555 (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So? Nothing in this is worth a response. We don't source criminal accusations to editorials or informants here. You either aren't understanding or don't agree with the verifiability and reliable source policies, and you're just continuing to ague and try to make things personal. I was probably right the first time to cut this off on civility grounds. So I can't help you. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Civility means that what YOU say IS worth a response. Wikipedia's RS policy says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I provided more info that goes to that "reputation". Note also that "Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable". A fellow professor called Harmon's work "solid" in a review that appeared in a scholarly journal (see http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/aims.asp?ref=0966-0879&site=1). That's relevant to "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals" to quote from the RS policy again. "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used". This material is from a scholarly source, but I note that according to your standards TIME Magazine uses unreliable sources, a dubious contention when most people would say TIME is closer to "The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press," Wiki's example of "high-quality", than to a tabloid.
Do you not believe arguments appealing to Wikipedia policies are "worth a response"? I have no doubts YOU understand. You are an intelligent person. But your account of what the reliable source policies are is demonstrably wrong. If you don't want to make this personal, then why not provide evidence challenging the source's reliability or quote a Wiki policy that this edit violates instead of accusing me of incivility? Where and when have I attacked you personally, as opposed to your argument? Yes, I am arguing, because discussion is more intelligent behaviour than simply edit warring. Edit warring should always be the last resort. Surely we can establish what is fact and what is not without having that determined by the persistence of brute force or numbers. What WE don't do is make up our own policies. There is no "informant" policy, for example. What WE do is follow the reliable source policies. This is a reliable source. You have provided nothing that questions that reliability despite repeated requests to do so. If your policies really exist, show where they have been applied elsewhere in Wikipedia. An academic believes the primary source is accurate. TIME Magazine believes so as well. No other source has challenged its accuracy. In any case, the edit clearly says "ACCORDING TO THE INFORMANT". If there is truly an unwritten "informant" policy that we should all be applying, readers will apply that as soon as they read it! So what's the problem? The readers that WON'T apply that policy? So you are going to essentially force them to accept your policy? What happened to live and let live?Bdell555 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The source you are using does not rise to the level of verifiability. Please keep in mind that the burden of proof falls upon you to make the case for why this should be included and why the source should be considered both verifiable and reliable. You may want to start by finding a better source for this information. If you cannot find this accusation anywhere else, then it would be hard to argue that this is even notable enough to include, much less verifiable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, the policy you cite there says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Another scholar called the work of this source "solid" in a submission that was published by an academic journal. I am well aware where the "burden of proof" is. However, that burden has to be universalizable, meaning you don't shift it for whatever you don't like. If this isn't good enough for inclusion, are you going to go around Wikipedia deleting all the sourcing that is to the same standard as this? And what would be a "better source" than an academic who has reviewed the primary materials, had his scholarship described as "solid" by another academic in a professional journal, and has served as an expert advisor for four years to the House of Representatives? re WP:NOTABLE, provide a quote from the NOTABLE policy that applies here.Bdell555 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is wrong on so many levels. The information is third-party, if you prefer that to the word hearsay. Informants are often not reliable. Do you not remember Chalabi and Curveball? That's why corroboration of facts is so important. There is none. In addition, this has W:WEIGHT issues. If it's included, we should include totally in-depth coverage of the entire investigation. That's not the job of an encyclopedia, and the WU article links to the FBI papers. That's a sensible approach.Flatterworld (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The overwhelming mass of human knowledge is "third party"! Are you going to go delete the article about Alexander the Great? Pretty much everything we know about that guy comes from academics who have reviewed primary sources. Again, WIKI POLICIES APPLY HERE NOT THE POLICIES YOU GUYS ARE INVENTING! Have you been following your dictates here and "corroborating" all of your own citations? Where in the Wiki policies does it call for what you are calling for? If "totally in-depth coverage" is in order what is stopping you from providing that?Bdell555 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology and intro

Sorry, but I think a two sentence intro is really not adequate, and I object to Flatterworld's reversion of the expanded and then cut down introduction. Also, what is the problem with putting his life into chronological order? It doesn't make any sense to put his education "accomplishments" first and then say oh, by the way, he was a fugitive from the FBI for eight years in the 70s before any of that happened. His student radical days should come first, then his surrender to authorities and educational career. And that's not merely chronology, it's also notability. I doubt very much he'd have a significant wp article if he hadn't been a Weatherman first. Does the rest of the Department have biographical articles here? Kaisershatner (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From what other people have said, Ayers is highly notable in his own right and routinely cited in education textbooks, so I would imagine that his academic career is independently notable. It also seems to me sensible to, for a BLP, balance concerns of current accuracy with chronology. The body of the article should no doubt be chronological, but the lead section seems like it should start with an account of the subject's most recent notable activities. This is in part because they are a living person, and starting about them in the past tense seems weird. If the article began "Bill Ayers was a 1960s radical" it would give the initial impression that he is dead. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Notability as in notable to whom? There are many scientists, such as research physicists and biologists, extremely well-known in their own fields, whom the general public has never heard of. Bill Ayers is 63 or 64. He was in the Weather groups(s) for about 6 years. He's been in education from 1982-2008 which is 26 years, 21 of those years after he received his doctorate. I can understand the popular press focusing on his Weather Underground years, but it really isn't what he's most notable for in his life. (Even as a Weather member, what he's most notable for is that he was the first one to leave the underground life. If he hadn't been, he's be Bill Who? now instead. I doubt there would have been a book, at least not one he would have written.) Most famous people have an uninterrupted career so this sort of thing doesn't come up.
As for who does or doesn't have a Wikipedia article, that's always based on the interests of our group of Wikipedians. We don't have a lot of academic-focused Wikipedians around, let alone any with a great interest in the philosophy of education. We DO have a lot of politics-focused Wikipedians around. That's pretty much the entire explanation.
As for sequence, I started out creating the stubs with a chronological sequence until I realized that wasn't how it was being done elsewhere. The major part of the person's career was first, followed by whatever led up to it, followed by personal life. Once I saw those, it made sense to me, especially for a politician who had already had, for example, another career. If this format is again changing, and things like this do change at Wikipedia over time, I'll go along with it even though I don't think it's as good. (made changes)
As for the length of the lead, it should be in proportion. This is a short article, so it should have a short lead. I think a couple of sentences is sufficient.
As for facts, Bill was NTO born into a wealthy family. His father worked his way up in business, and it wasn't until Bill was a teenager that the family became 'wealthy' at all. His father wasn't CEO until 1973, years after Bill had gone underground. "Born into a wealthy family" isn't true, and that's why it wasn't in the Personal life section in the first place. He didn't always attend a private school, so one could say 'received a public school education' and be at least as correct. The impression being given was simply not factual. Diana Oughton was a Weather member who came from a wealthy background (see her article), not Ayers.Flatterworld (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Flatterworld, thank you for your comments and your willingness to compromise. Also thanks for correcting the factual errors I inadvertently introduced (my mistake). When I started with WP I worked on the Biography collaboration of the "week" and biography is an area of interest to me. This is not to make the argument from authority - just to report that I think chronological order is the way to go and that Featured biographies tend to be structured that way. I appreciate that the point is moot, since you are willing to compromise on the section order. In that spirit, I will live with the short Lede section, even though I think it is three sentences too brief. Phil Sandifer, I hear where you are coming from, but if the birth dates are included in the lede sentence, that should remove any confusion as to whether the article's subject is alive. In any event, thank you both for your willingness to discuss. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld, you wrote that: "As for facts, Bill was NTO [sic] born into a wealthy family... it wasn't until Bill was a teenager that the family became 'wealthy' at all. His father wasn't CEO until 1973, years after Bill had gone underground." and you wrote that "Born into a wealthy family" isn't true." --You have offered these remarks in support of a decision to remove from the article, any wording to the effect that Bill enjoyed the advantage of coming from a wealthy family. I disagree. A brief search of the web shows that in 1957, Bill's father was already vice-president of CommonWealth Edison (the electrical utility for millions of people in the Chicago area), and that he became president in 1963 (or 1964, in one source)... It is true that he did not become 'CEO' until 1973, but that is irrelevant to the question of the family's wealth at the time Bill became a teenager. Do you imagine that Bill's father was a janitor or a file clerk in 1956, or anything else other than a highly paid executive? It is ludicrous to believe or imply such a thing, or to believe that Bill did not enjoy the advantage of wealth during his teenage years (1959 onward.) If your point is that Bill's father earned his money as opposed to having inherited it, I fail to see the relevance. If you are focusing on a distinction between the comparative wealth of the family when Bill was born, versus 13 years later, and have evidence that the family was not yet wealthy when Bill was born, then why not reword to that effect? Publius3 (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You could simply say (if sourced credibly) that his father was a business executive, rising within Commonwealth Edison to become CEO by the time Ayers was a teenager. I think the father's occupation is relevant but the exact amount of wealth isn't that telling. Wikidemo (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to write an article of Bill's father, including his rise to CEO of Commonwealth Edison, feel free. This article is about Bill. We're not writing a chatty, book-lenth biography about him, but stating facts - same as other biographical articles in Wikipedia. The details of his father's career are irrelevant, although his (eventual) stature as CEO is not. This is yet another issue that has already been resolved.Flatterworld (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A brief statement of parents' occupations and backgrounds is fairly normal in any short bio, including those on Wikipedia, as is a brief description of how they related to the subject. Pick a name and look up the article on Wikipedia. There's often a sentence or two about the parents. A good article keeps on topic, and won't editorialize or speculate on parentage (calling a family wealthy because the father is a business executive would be synthesis, and quite possibly untrue. It just reports verifiable relevant facts. Having said that, I think the current level of detail about Ayers' father is just about right.Wikidemo (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "criminal accusation"

Apparently nowhere in this article is it ever going to say that Ayers bombed anything, because that's a "criminal accusation". But Ayers DID bomb! Or does the "criminal accusation" crowd honestly believe Ayers never bombed (or did anything "criminal")? Or you DO believe he bombed but just don't want Wikipedia's readership to know what you know? If inserting material from sources that is considered negative is "accusing", then everything considered positive must be "praising". Are Wikipedia editors just praisers and accusers? Is every scholar that writes something about a person a praiser or an accuser? If what an informant said is a "criminal accusation" then why wasn't it prosecuted? There have been decades of opportunity for prosecution. Is that not an objective standard suggesting that it is NOT a "criminal accusation"? More importantly, we apply Wiki policies, we don't just make up a policy to fit whatever our agenda is. Where is the Wiki policy here?Bdell555 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with a basic point of Wikipedia: the hyperlink. Weather Underground is a hyperlink in this article. I can't believe anyone reading this article wouldn't at least have a general idea of what the Weather Underground group was about, but if they don't they can click on the hyperlink. That's how Wikipedia works. We DO NOT, for instance, tack on ', a mainstream political party in the United States of America,' every time we write 'Republican Party' or 'Democratic Party' in Wikipedia, but we do hyperlink it at least the first time in the article. That doesn't mean we're trying to mislead readers into thinking those are baseball teams or bridge groups or something to do with balloons, cake and ice cream. At some point, we have to assume readers possess some basic information already, and if not they know how to click on a hyperlink.Flatterworld (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is not (or should not be) about the actions of Ayers' fellow freedom fighters, or whatever you want to call them. It is about the actions of AYERS. Mentioning an association is not a sufficient substitute for a subject's own history. If Ayers bombed something, it should be mentioned (and currently is not). As an aside, have you done a survey showing that the "Weather Underground" has the same recognition level as "Republican Party"?Bdell555 (talk)

A number of users that have popped up who insist on reverting an edit cited to a scholar whose research on another point has been described as "solid" by a fellow academic in a review printed in an academic journal. These reverters take issue with the primary source, which is not Wiki's job (in other words, original research) (and even then no evidence challenging the primary source's credibility has been offered). Never mind that OTHER reliable sources (like TIME Magazine) haven't had a problem with the same primary source. The reason for this reversion? Changes all the time, and doesn't involve quoting from a Wikipedia policy as opposed some policy of their own they believe the Wiki community should adopt (starting right here), but the common element is that it is supposedly a "criminal accusation". Never mind that Ayers accuses himself of criminal behaviour and shrugs it off as "Gulty as sin"! In any case, it looks like the charge that Ayers bombed something, never mind the charge that he's a terrorist, is never going to get appear for more than a few minutes in this article in this environment, so I give up. There is only one American who has "Distinguished Professor" in his Wiki introduction (and later in the article as well!), so clearly the subject of this article is a special person to whom special rules apply!Bdell555 (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, where to begin....If the same accusation is mentioned in a Time article then why don't you cite the Time article? That would seem to solve the verifiability issue, at least. Failing that, a single kind word by another professor isn't exactly what is meant by "peer-reviewed and fact-checked." It's a pretty big accusation to make in a WP:BLP so it's going to have to be verifiable to be included (and not just on the word of one professor somewhere publishing on a website). Demanding specific passages in wiki-policy concerning professors is just a bunch of wikilawyering and ignores the essential point of these policies. Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this so if there are objections to a single source, why not find a more readily accepted reliable source? Does another source exist? If not, then your argument isn't terribly solid to begin with. As for bombing, there are several mentions in this article of bomb-making by Ayers and his associates (see the section on radical history and the NYT article). I'm not sure why you would say that it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact the accusation was made, which is what the editorial sources, is not remarkable at all. A government informant claimed that when informed a bomb he was overseeing might kill people Ayers rejected a change in plan and dismissed the concern as "unrevolutionary" (in the editorialist's words, not the informant's). Even if we could find a reliable source for the proposition that the informant made the accusation, it's just not worth including. People accuse each other of lots of things, and I'm sure Ayers has been called much worse by people of far more consequence. The accusation itself did not affect Ayers life or anyone else's; it was just something the informant published. The actual substance of the accusation, however, is very serious. Bomb-making and plotting is a very serious felony, and plotting to do it in a way that one knows will kill people raises the stakes from mere destruction of public property (or whatever the specific charge would have been in those days) to murder. An informant is certainly not a reliable source for an unproven allegation like this. I believe the statement is being used for this second purpose, not to stand for the proposition that an accusation was made against Ayers. The blessing of even the most reliable source, showing that the statement was made, does not get around the fact that the statement itself is not reliable per Wikipedia standards. Moreover, I don't think there is any practical way any expert or newspaper could be reliable in opining that the informant was correct and that Ayers did, indeed, intend to kill people. If it did it would have to rely on evidence far more persuasive than something an informant happened to say. To sum up, anyone is welcome to try sourcing a fact, but I just don't see how this particular fact can be both relevant and reliably sourced.Wikidemo (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind we are writing an encyclopedia entry, not attempting the definitive autobiography of Bill Ayers.Flatterworld (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Including information on his arrest would be pertinent to the article (e.g., his mugshot), and is a major point that should be put in any article on Ayers...his "alleged" criminal activity, after all, is the only reason anyone knows anything about Ayers. tc2011 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His academic career vs. his personal life

For the second time, I have relocated the mention of service on the Woods Fund board out of the section, Academic career. Ayers' career is teaching theory of primary education as a professor and publishing about this discipline. If he were to hold political office, to write a syndicated column about matters besides education, or to serve on boards of nonprofit organizations, those would NOT BE PART OF HIS ACADEMIC CAREER. The Woods Fund is not about education, so his service there is beyond question not part of his *academic* career. Now, if you wanted to create a section, "Other careers", that would be defensible. Hurmata (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to disagree. On the UIC Education Department website, it says "Bill Ayers's interests include teaching for social justice, urban educational reform, narrative and interpretive research, children in trouble with the law, and related issues." The first phrase is instructive - teaching for social justice means that he views scholarly and political/philanthropic activities as linked. Thus it is not entirely sensible to dissociate the two. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not see anything related to one's academic career about serving on a board of directors for a philanthropic organization. Without a source that directly connects the two in Ayers' life, we should not speculate on how he might view it due to his interest in teaching for social justice. TheslB (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is more that, given an academic interest in social justice, there stops being a clear line to be drawn between his academic work and his social justice work. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to point out that Ayers' did receive $6,000 is salary for being on the board, see the end of the added Form 990 filed with the IRS> Image:Wood Foundation 2006 990.pdf. Would this salary make his involvement apart of his career? It is me i think (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at copies of IRS forms and trying to draw conclusions from them seems like original research to me. TheslB (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this created such a fuss. I noticed it was in the personal section, and thought I was inappropriate there. Grsztalk 03:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If we were talking about a local homeowner's association, that would be clearly Personal life. This is different. I don't care which section it's in, so Personal life is fine with me since that seems to be where the strong feeling is. As in most boards, the idea is to represent various areas of expertise. This board is anti-poverty. Obviously there's a connection between education and getting people out of poverty. So...I could make a case either way. It's connected with his career, but perhaps not part of it. The salary issue is irrelevant.Flatterworld (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hasty reply to Phil and Flatterworld. Ayers' take on what extraneous activities are relevant to his vocation are not probative. He could join the ACLU claiming that somehow that advances the cause of social justice, which in turn advances the cause childhood education. Clearly, his colleagues would NOT consider "take leadership roles in private, social cause organizations" to fall within their profession. Such activities are a personal choice, not an element of being a working educator or an education theorist. Hurmata (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hurmata back to enlarge on what I wrote an hour ago. It is the biggest error to think that if someone is hyperideological, like Bill Ayers (or Karl Rove, or ...) then every last thing they do that has the least social or political connection and is also reliably sourced belongs in their Wikipedia entry. There's a stream of facile arguments to seduce us into believing so. What if this were some legislator -- Obama, or Ted Kennedy? Then every last damn vote they have cast in elected office would be OK -- it's PUBLIC INFORMATION, it was PART OF THEIR JOB, and they themselves INTONED ABOUT ITS IMPORTANCE (ideally, a legislator wouldn't cast votes they don't take VERY seriously, and indeed, every vote by a legislator could change the lives of millions), etc. All of Ted K's 100,000 votes (or however many) in nearly 50 years of federal elective office. How would you justify where you draw the line? Oh, and Ted voted with STROM THURMOND on this, and with superliberal SENATOR SO-AND-SO on that, what does that TELL US about Ted K? Blah blah.

TheslB above made a good point. Somebody with Ayers' views could join 50 political action or charitable organizations and donate to 500 more. As for the Woods Fund, unless you can *reliably source* that they put him on the board expressly to advise them on education matters (like grants to schools, which seems to lie outside their mission), then his service in the Woods Fund lies outside his education career.

What does a civil engineer do? They build bridges and dams, or they engineer traffic, or they train future civil engineers at a university, or they research new recipes for concrete. What does an education professional like Ayers do? They teach kids, or they teach people how to teach kids, or they do research in education theory. How about "part of being an education professional is to help run antipoverty foundations"? NO! That does NOT make you a working educator or an education researcher. How about "part of being an education professional is to promote candidacies for public office"? No again! How about, "one branch of the education profession is journalism specializing in education"? NO! And science reporters are not scientists. How about, "to be an education professor means you advocate on behalf of low income working mothers in order to improve the lives of the kids who will be served by the teachers you train"? Bullshit. Yeah, I really don't see any difficulty in telling where Ayers' *education career* ends and the rest of his life begins. Hurmata (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What about placing it under a new section ==Board/membership== His involvement on the board of a public charity falls outside of the realm of someone's personal life, and in this case he is paid $6,000, so it would not be considered philanthropy or charitable giving (which could be viewed as private. Also, this board appears to have civic activists, academics, and, formerly, a US Senator (sorry for the lack of cites). This is more of a public charity than a private family foundation. It is me i think (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As to the definition of a new section, I would prefer something like "Miscellaneous activities". Seems silly to have a section just for board of directors memberships. How prevalent is *that* among Wikipedia biographical entries? Besides, I wonder how notable this involvement is to begin with. If we are going to persist with listing Ayers' involvement with the Woods Fund, it would be nice to have *all* his active board memberships listed, to not be singling this one out. The rest of your comment seems to be a straining attempt to prove the notability of his leadership in this charity. After all, we can expect every philanthropic organization's board to be a mix of persons of high career accomplishments and civic leaders. And where does the final sentence come from: *has* the Woods Fund been widely assumed to be a private family foundation, and anyway, what difference does it make how private or public it is? The statement that compensation paid to a trustee "[therefore] would not be considered philanthropy or charitable giving" seems not to make sense: everybody realizes that a salary is not a charitable gift. You're trying to say "Ayers didn't make a private donation, so there's every reason to put this into Wikipedia". But Ayers isn't making donations -- he's getting paid. What next, oh Wikipedian with the arch, self-mocking handle suggestive of a foolish Asperger's person ("it is me i think")? Hurmata (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hurmata, it's fairly clear 'it is me i think' was pointing out 'Personal life' might imply 'family foundation' - no need to be sarcastic. As I've said, leaving the Woods Fund membership in 'Personal life' is fine with me. I see no reason to have a separate section unless and until we have other major memberships or activities. I think this argument can be considered resolved.Flatterworld (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am really indifferent hear, my comments about we just to point out this is a more pubic position, versus if it were a private gift or private foundation. Just adding a suggestion, but really I am indifferent.It is me i think (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Flatterworld, that is interesting. It certainly did not cross my mind -- to me it was not fairly clear -- that anybody would interpret "Personal life" so narrowly that they would conclude that any philanthropic foundation cited under a "Personal life" must be an enterprise of his own family. Now that you point it out, it makes some sense, but it still isn't obvious at all. I am not saying to myself, "of *course*! How did I miss that?" Hurmata (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Assume good faith." Even when it's difficult. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To make fresh points. I just perused a few other BLP's (biographies of living persons) for inspiration on outlining. I am going to create a subsection, "Civic involvements". I don't think it's really necessary, but it's not a bad idea either. Other reasonable alternatives for his participation in the Woods Fund would be to leave it in "Personal life" or to place in a section with a different name than what I have chosen. I would tend to put political campaigning in this subsection as well (right now, the entry contains no such mentions). In that case, the subsection might get renamed "Civic involvements and political activism".

Bob_Kerrey is a former longterm U.S. politician. Presently, he's a university president. His recent advocacy of two candidates for elective office has been placed under "Personal life". Other solutions are quite possible, but this supporting individual politicians is not part of his current career, and he's quit his old career.

Betty_White's animal welfare activism has been placed under the heading, "Charity".

Actor Susan_Sarandon's political activism is under Biography > Political activism. The outlining of her entry is especially instructive. Discussion of her individual performances has been put in a section, "Body of work" separate from "Biography > Career". Hurmata (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A civic involvement section would include political activity, should his early fundraiser for a future leading presidential candidate now be mentioned? If someone with a wiki article hosted one for George W. Bush, it would probably appear in their article because it would be perceived as notable. Ayers was their when noone else was and now Obama is a leading candidate for president and a minority with even a better chance than Rev. Jesse Jackson. Significant? It is me i think (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, holding a neighborhood coffee would NOT be considered significant or notable. If someone was a 'Ranger' for George W. Bush, it might well be noted in their Wikipedia article. This is nowhere near that level of money or influence. "Ayers was there when no one else was"? What are you talking about?! Get a grip, and please stop making mountains out of molehills. Flatterworld (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is mentioned that his involvement with the Woods Foundation has become controversial with the 2008 election, it should be mentioned why, for example because of his connection to a board member, or what projects they have supported, or because it is based in Chicago, or whatever the legitimate and notable reason why his being on the board has been controversial and is now noteworthy in regards to the 2008 presidential election. I don't think it is good just to say it has become controversial and not give a single reason why it has become controversialIt is me i think (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what the hyperlink is for. If that isn't sufficient, we can simply remove the entire sentence and leave the See also link. I don't care which, but we're not going to load up this article with a lot of words about irrelevant (to Bill Ayers) matters. Flatterworld (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of related article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2008_United_States_presidential_election_controversies_and_attacks I suggest you add comments there unless you want to restart the argument over whether it ALL belongs back here. I can't imagine the Barack Obama presidential campaign article will be willing to clutter up their article with rumor and innuendo. It really needs to be addressed somewhere, and I can't see that it rises to the level of requiring its very own article. Flatterworld (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also

The article has changed so much, I think this section needs to be revisited. At this point, all 3 items are wikilinked within the article. I don't have particularly strong feelings about it one way or the other, but we may want to delete this section as being redundant. Or, just keep the link to the controversies article (assuming it isn't deleted).Flatterworld (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this makes sense It is me i think (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Done Flatterworld (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments before 9/11

Can we include his comments right before 9/11 about not having tried hard enough to bomb his targets.

No, because that isn't what he said, nor when he said it. We footnote for a reason, and it's to avoid rumors such as the above. Not that we're entirely successful (obviously) but we do what we can. Even when we have to deal with unsigned, anonymous comments such as the above. Flatterworld (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The reference to Ayers being controversial in the 2008 presidential election is misleading

The current wording seems to indicate his being on the board of the Wood Fund controversial in context of the 2008 presidential election. This is wrong, it is Ayers connection to Obama (who is on the board with Ayers) which is controversial not his specific position on the board. Obama and Ayers could have been on any board (Kraft foods, United Nations Food Programme, doesn't mater). This issue is not the specfic board, but their connection, which the board is the evidence. I feel this should be changed because the issue of the controversy is not clear, and could be misunderstood by people not familiar with the facts. It is me i think (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have the separate article. Flatterworld (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Flatterworld, are you suggesting, that it is ok to have misleading statements suggestion the reason Ayers is an issue in the 2008 election because he sits on a board because their is a seperate article. The statement in the article is its suggession the issue is his board membership is both unfair to both Ayers and the Wood Fund. I believe it should be more clear. It is me i think (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading at all. The board is the main connection between Ayers and Obama. $200 for his state senate campaign (NOTHING for his presidential campaign) and one coffee meeting at the Ayers house does not a connection make. Flatterworld (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What should we do with unsigned posts?

There are several unsigned posts on this page, meaning, they don't even have the URL of the computer they were sent from, let alone a Wikipedia editor account. I totally surprised me to see that Wikipedia's software lets this happen. Shouldn't all such posts be deleted from this page? For example, the entire entry, "Obama Redux". Hurmata (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that entry earlier. I've now gone back through History and it was added: 02:08, 14 April 2008 70.44.148.23 (→Obama)
It's what Wikipedia does. I don't think we should delete anything, but I'll add that information to the post. Flatterworld (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Chronology and quotes

I read the blog and the NYT letter to the editor. THe letter to the editor is clearly written to address his concern that his book and motives were being forever associated with the terrorist attacks of 9-11. The letter to the editor does not disavow ANY quote. The letter to the editor contests the theme of the article-- that Ayers is a man who loves violence. The blogs do not start until the OBAMA campaign is confronted with the Ayers association (7 years after the controversial interview). The blogs do NOT specifically disavow the quote from the NYT article. Phrasing the paragraph in the manner that Flatterworld and others have phrased it is an attempt to formulate a denial of the quote that does not exist on teh blogs or the letter to the editor. Hence I re-edit. Mrdthree (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Ayers's quote makes that crystal clear. That's why it was included as a quote. There is no denial of the three quotes. Hence I reverted your edit, as it made other unfounded assumptions. Flatterworld (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I rephrased that section, adding that he did not deny the quotes. That should clarify it. Flatterworld (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I rephrased the sentence from "In the ensuing years, he has repeatedly avowed that "no regrets" had been spoken in reference to his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" had been spoken in reference to his opinion that efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War were obviously inadequate as the war dragged on for a decade." to: "In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he says he has "no regrets" or that "we didn't do enough" he means only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War which "...were inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."" Mrdthree (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me. Much more concise, thanks. Flatterworld (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A malapropism in the section, "Radical History"

Long ago, somebody added, "remarks ... not intended to ELIDE INTO a wish that". They must have meant 'glide into', which still is a malapropism for 'segue into'. But 'segue into' isn't quite right in meaning. I already fixed this within the last two weeks, and some dork undid it. Hey, dudes: 'elide' means "To omit or slur over (a syllable, for example) in pronunciation ... to abridge ..." etc. Hurmata (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what Ayers meant, and 'elide' was originally part of a direct quote from him. Not that I particularly care, but it does demonstrate you didn't check out the footnotes. And having a connection with Little Dorking in Engliand, I really don't mind your blayground name-calling. I'm certain you're much closer to that age than I am. Flatterworld (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Your two claims are false -- below I present the direct quote that you incorrect allude to. But first, to introduce it. Not only are you incorrect about what Bill Ayers wrote, but you fail to see that our old Wiki version was actually a *paraphrase*, not a direct quote. For you to write "was part of a direct quote from him" is technically correct, but in substance, Ayers's use of "elide" was divergent from the Wikipedia editor's rendition. Ayers decried *others* picking out sentence fragments of his to fabricate quotes.
"I’m sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say 'no, I don’t regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.' Sometimes I add, 'I don’t think I did enough.' This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings." http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/, third paragraph in, under "1. Regrets".
I'll make one more criticism of your reasoning. I shouldn't have to check all footnotes; after all, copy editing and fact checking are time consuming enough -- there are just 24 hours in a day. If Ayers himself had been enough of a dork to write "I didn't mean to elide into", then an encyclopedia writer making a verbatim citation should use quotation marks AND the notation "[sic]", because the editor should know English well enough to see this as bad diction. Our old editor did not make a verbatim citation, and so properly did not use quotation marks. BTW, the Web page containing the quote does not enable searching with CTRL + F, so it was a little more tedious to find the quote. As I said, at some point we are supposed to be able to rely on the diligence (and writing skills) of fellow Wikipedians. Hurmata (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Following up the preceding comment. The editor or editors who alluded to the above Ayers quote turned it into sloppy writing: poorly chosen vocabulary, clumsy syntax that leads to ambiguous readings. My interpretation of the mess, namely, my taking "elide into" as an intended synonym for "insinuate" (as I edited in one time) or "imply" (as I have edited in more recently) *are* the interpretations that are the best justified. It turned out (after I was prompted today to "check the footnote") that things were even worse than I had noticed: the Wiki text *put words in Ayers* mouth inconsistent with his intended meaning.
Flatterworld, you have derided me for deriding others. Fair enough; but the bottom line is that my assertions are well founded, and yours are erroneous. My derision is righteous. It *is* false to claim the passage conveys "exactly what Ayers meant", it *is* most likely that the previous editors he/she/they were unfamiliar with the words "elide" and "elision" (that's the best explanation for how they could have used "elide" in a way that does violence to how Ayers used it), it *is* false *in substance* that the Wiki passage I edited is "part of a direct quote" because the closest it comes to being a direct quote is that Ayers's "is elided into" becomes "to elide into" -- again, without keeping to the original sense. It *is* also true that a person's own coy, flippant description of their own just published book is proper to include in their Wikipedia biographical entry. Hurmata (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ineptness and censorship in the section, "Radical History"

Since I edited the section April 25, people have been making invalid changes. That includes bad grammar, grammatically-on-the-edge clauses, and leveling the POV criticism against Bill Ayers' own, in-context statement. The foreword to a book is NOT spelled "forward". It is NOTABLE that an professional academic would be so flippant as to write an autobiography, entitle it "Memoir", and proclaim *within* it, "memory is a motherfucker . . . I myself remember almost nothing". The POV act is in deleting that quotation. Also, there's a difference -- a fine one, but hey, we're an encyclopedia -- between when a letter was published and when it was written. The interview with the NYT was published Sept. 11, Ayers' letter in protest was published Sept. 15. Ergo, with 99% probability, the letter was written the 11th, 12th, 13th, or 14th. Newspapers don't have same day turnaround time. You don't need a master's degree to appreciate all this. Hurmata (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one of my April 25 edits that was undone was the change from reporting that Ayers was asked not to attend a conference to reporting that he *claimed* that happened. I made that softening precisely because I "checked the footnote". Actually, I didn't read the source, I just read its title provided by the footnote. But it indicated that the source of the claim was Ayers himself. This leads me to recommend that unless and until we get an acknowledgement of the disinvite from the *anonymous* (!) organization (or an equivalently compelling confirmation), proper journalistic practice would be to report what I reported. I'm sure Flatterworld in particular would second this, because he/she advertises their participation in the Wikipedia Journalism Project(!).

BTW, just now I *have* checked the actual source, and it *is* an interview with Ayers and the organization *is* left unnamed. Let's all be clear, I am not suggesting that Flatterworld is among those who have undone my edits, because I have not bothered to comb through the edit history to determine who did. My only reasons for singling out Flatterworld in this connection are that (1) F. is a sharp critic of mine lately (as I am a sharp critic of them lately); and (2) I expect painstaking fact checking and use of the language from someone who advertises they have a master's and they participate in the Wikipedia Journalism Project. Hurmata (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a controversial person's statement that he was excluded from something should be flagged as a claim, not a fact. I don't agree that the "memory is a motherfucker" claim is relevant. Without context, and some analysis, we have no idea what he means by that. Professors and others often make provocative statements like that at the beginning of a book, speech, etc., just to keep the audience on its toes. It proves nothing more than that he uses this style of discussion; it says nothing about the accuracy of his memory, which itself is not a terribly relevant concern. I'll remove it for that reason. No conclusion on the competence of editors here. Seems average to above average for Wikipedia. Anytime an article is heavily edited you get some grammar entropy.Wikidemo (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You just wrote, "his memory ... is not a terribly relevant concern". What a cynical attitude. What an inappropriate attitude for a biographical entry. That's the worst thing of your comment. It's also incorrect that we need more context and analysis in presenting the remark. Really, the context is that a leading intellectual of the social upheaval of Sixties wrote a autobiography about being a federal fugitive for a decade, and accusations of him wanting to bomb people are being addressed. You don't perceive the presence of context?! Hurmata (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemo, you explained your deletion thus: "Comment that it's 'striking' is an uncited opinion". The stance that subjectivity of this type needs to be a cited opinion is invalid. Let's look at one of your own articles, that is, an article you created -- although it may well have been someone else who authored the word. (The article is "Internet meme".) The caption to the illustration at the top of the page says, "The Hampster Dance is one of the first widely distributed Internet memes and illustrates the characteristic silliness of much of the genre" [emphasis mine]. If you think the word "silliness" is impermissible "uncited opinion", you now have notice to go over and remove it. When we look at the lead to the article, the definition of "Internet meme" does not include that it is "largely inherently silly". Wikipedia is full of subjectivity which is considered unobjectionable. If one were to forbid all subjective judgements, Wikipedia would be a stuffy, third rate information source.
Two sources cited in the article found notable the quotation (or at least the sentiment it expressed) that Wikidemo "removed". Wikidemo's remark about "keeping the audience on its toes", etc. is, *at best*, such a chain of overgeneralizations as to be irrelevant to the issue at hand and to fail to support any conclusions. Also, I reject in any case the reasoning that anything that can be minimized as common behavior doesn't belong in a Wikipedia BLP. It *is*, as the two sources concurred, notable about Bill Ayers that he made a statement that could be characterized as coy and or flippant in the the partial biography of a notorious person, himself -- indeed he has long been dogged by rumors of having being a conspirator to actual bombings and/or planned bombings. Take note that I have not introduced the words "coy" or "flippant" into the article! The considerations that his reputation has positive aspects too and that his negative reputation may be undeserved do not undo the fact that he is notorious. This notorious person, this public figure, marketed a memoir to tell his side of the story and he made a flippant comment to the effect that he will not allow himself to be pinned down on the factuality of anything he says in his own memoir. This is how I conclude that Wikidemo's "removal" is censorship of content tending to be unfavorable to the subject of the BLP. It is clear from at least two sources that Ayers's "I remember almost nothing" is meant as a characterization of his book. Hurmata (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The title of the book includes the word memoir, not autobiography. The following (from the article) already covers the point you are supposedly trying to make, in a context that's sensible, and avoiding unnecessarily inflammatory language. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.
"The historian Jesse Lemisch (himself a former member of SDS) has contrasted Ayers's recollections with those of other former members of Weatherman and has alleged serious factual errors. Ayers, in the foreword to his book, states that the book was written as his personal memories and impressions over time, not a scholarly research project."Flatterworld (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Most decent Wikipedia articles don't preface facts or quotations with opinions in the voice of the article narrator that they are "striking" (or "interesting" or "notable", etc). I'm not a fan of the WP:PEACOCK guideline but it's useful here. That also tends to make things sound like an essay, whereas it is more encyclopedic to let the facts speak for themselves. I see no relevance to inserting a slightly provocative but rather pedestrian quote that (ostensibly, but not really) casts doubt on the quality of the speaker's memory. If he is being coy or flippant (which seems to be the case), it says more about his writing style than anything else, and this is not an article about his writing style. If the point is to take a single quote to show that his words overall should not be trusted, that is general disparagement and not very appropriate. Incidentally, It is a description, not an opinion, to say the hamster dance exhibits the trait of silliness. If anyone truly disagree that silliness is a characteristic Internet memes, or that the Hamster Dance has this trait, they are free to challenge this like any factual claim. However, I find the attempts to complain about me about being cynical among other things, and complain about another editor's competence here, to be unhelpful, as is waving around the term censorship. Wikidemo (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're claiming that "silly" is reliably deemed a objective comment, not an esthetic judgement, but "striking", "coy", "flippant" are consistently opinions (subjective). This does not pass the smell test. The rest of what you say is also important to respond to, hopefully this can be done soon. Hurmata (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not claiming that, if you would care to actually read and understand and stop making stuff up. If reasoned discussion does not pass your smell test, you apparently have no sense of smell. Please keep things civil and to the point.Wikidemo (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing, Hurmata. I'm sure someone was impressed. Flatterworld (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Fl., go ahead, divert attention from doing what you accuse others of (you got caught not reading footnoted sources after making that accusation against someone else). You let two instances of sloppy journalism slip through -- maybe you even restored those two edits -- and you belong to the Wikipedia Journalism Project. Hurmata (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing needs to stop

The article should include a list of the bombings carried out by Ayers and his fellow travellers as well as a clear statement in the introduction that he is a former terrorist. His ties with Barack Obama also need to be elucidated more clearly. As it stands now, the article is masterful example of whitewashing. VeritasAgent (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to understand, VeritasAgent, that this is a "Biography of a Living Person". That means that edits entirely consistent with WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE), WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTABLE, etc can still be reverted by citing WP:BLP. A truly NPOV article will apparently have to wait until the subject is deceased!Bdell555 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"Terrorist" would be a POV term in this context. I am happy to see specific acts he carried out described, however. As for his ties to Barack Obama, he held a fundraiser. This is hardly a notable occurrence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Earlier you advised me to "Find a reliable source that calls him a terrorist and add the claim, clearly attributed, to the body of the article" but here you seem to say that it is impossible for "terrorist" to appear in this article without violating WP:NPOV. Changed your mind, Phil? re distinguishing between the intro and the body, why doesn't the intro describe the subject's profession generically like most articles do (e.g. professor, economist, tinker, tailor, etc)? If the subject's official job title was "Distinguished Professor and Champion of Righteousness" would you include "Champion of Righteousness" as well?Bdell555 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I might add that I challenged you earlier with respect to your unsupported contention that Obama does not consider Ayers a "friend", noting evidence to the contrary. You evidently continue to disagree with me on that point. It's one level of notability to have a friend, and another to have a friend who says "everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon". Personally, I've never even met someone who has bombed the Pentagon, never mind befriended them. If there's evidence that that makes me some sort of odd freak, please call our attention to it!Bdell555 (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I can live with a list of specific acts he carried out as a compromise. I have to disagree with you about the fundraiser, though. When the next president of the United States rubs elbows with a violent radical who has no regrets about setting bombs, it's notable. Another reason the fundraiser is notable is that it has been mentioned in the national press. VeritasAgent (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added back the 'See also' for Bill Ayers election controversy as that's where the information you're talking about belongs (and currently exists). With the various changes to the Civic involvements section, the wikilink became more difficult to notice.
As for specific bombs connected to Ayers, there aren't any to list. The Weathermen claimed responsibility as a group, so that's why the bombings are only listed in that article. The charges against Ayers were dropped, so stating he committed certain felonies when no proof is possible would be slander, which is illegal. That's the law.
I've also been seeing claims by various Wikipedians that something is notable BECAUSE it's in the national press. Wrong. First, something has to be notable. THEN it has to be referenced in reliable third-party sources (such as the MSM) before we include it. This is a two-part test, not an if-then construct. Flatterworld (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
re "As for specific bombs connected to Ayers, there aren't any..." So in Flatterworld's world, when Ayers said "I bombed the Pentagon", that's a misquote, since he actually said "we"? Any sources for your contention, Flatterworld?Bdell555 (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Ayers's own statements are credible evidence he carried out terrorist bombings. It's also well known the only reason he wasn't prosecuted for his activities was because of inept police work. In my opinion, we need to compromise on this issue. If he's not going to be clearly labeled what he is -- a terrorist -- then a list of bombings should be included so readers can judge the facts for themselves. VeritasAgent (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further up in this thread, the user Bdell555 wrote: "You have to understand, VeritasAgent, that this is a "Biography of a Living Person". That means that edits entirely consistent with WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE), WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTABLE, etc can still be reverted by citing WP:BLP. A truly NPOV article will apparently have to wait until the subject is deceased!"

Bdell555, it should be obvious that not everyone agrees with that interpretation of WP:BLP. Wikipedia is supposed to be consensus driven, and I count three editors who have touched this page in the last 24 hours who agree Ayers should be identified as a terrorist and only two who do not. If you agree Ayers should be identified as a terrorist, then it's 4 to 2 in favor of that position. It's not clear to me why the minority view is being upheld. I'd change it back myself, but I don't want to start an edit war. I'm willing to wait and see how many other editors weigh in on this issue. VeritasAgent (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. It's unlikely there will ever be consensus for adding disputed descriptions like "terrorist" to articles like this, based on arguing the "evidence." The tone about "whitewashing", edit summaries, etc., and some of the edit histories, suggest that the proponents of this term are here to get into POV fights. That's not going to work. Wikidemo (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I and other editors have a different opinion. It doesn't mean anyone is here to get into "POV fights." A consensus on using the term terrorist could very well be reached if enough editors express their views on the matter and if it becomes clear the term is only "disputed" by a minority of users. Let's not forget that Ayers himself is the one who took credit for planting bombs. He fits the definition of a terrorist by most people's standards. VeritasAgent (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
How is the presence or absence of a "consensus" relevant if "it's not a vote", Wikidemo? Why does your second sentence exist given your first? Does the relevance of consensus depend on whether it agrees with you or not? If you want to avoid a "POV fight" then acknowledge the value of collaboratively establishing an OBJECTIVE criterion for terrorism and then test for whether the subject of this article fits the criterion.Bdell555 (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayer's was "a member of a terrorist organization". No source that I know of states that he built or planted any bombs himself. MikeWren (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't blame you for your limited knowledge, Mike, because this Wiki article supports your level of knowledge. That, however, is a reflection of the fact that evidence to the contrary is being suppressed by some editors of this article.Bdell555 (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
MikeWren wrote: "No source that I know of states that he built or planted any bombs himself." Even if that's true, and I'm NOT conceding that it is, I'm not sure it matters. An avowed Klan member who did not burn crosses himself is not less reprehensible than one who did. The same is true for terrorists like William Ayers and the weather underground. VeritasAgent (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt we are going to reach a consensus on calling him a terrorist. How about as a compromise we add terrorist to the description of the Weatherman -- "Ayers joined the Weatherman, a radical terrorist group". MikeWren (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A reasonable suggestion which I can live with. My sentiment is that we make your proposed change. VeritasAgent (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Still POV analysis. Wikidemo (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, wikidemo, fair enough -- you've voiced your opinion as one editor among many. Let's wait and see what the other editors who have weighed in on this issue have to say about inserting the language "Ayers joined the Weatherman, a radical terrorist group." So far it's two to one against your view. In actuality, Mike Wren's proposed language is as factual/NPOV as you can get. It is a simple, declarative, fact-based statement backed up by numerous reliable sources. At the same time, it accomodates the concern that identifying Ayers himself as a terrorist would be improper. We can turn to the issue of whether the bombings should be listed once we dispense with this one. Several editors seem to be in favor of listing the bombings. VeritasAgent (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as the 'consensus' argument goes, that does not apply to U.S. law and Wikipedia guidelines. (If you don't understand the laws of libel and slander, I suggest you look them up.) The U.S. government has annual lists of groups it recognizes as foreign terrorist groups. For those groups we can write something like "...was on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Groups list from 19xx-19xx." If you can find the equivalent for domestic terrorist groups (try the FBI website), that's a FACT which can be added to the Weatherman Group article. If you find something specific to Ayers, that's FACT which can be added to the Bill Ayers article. This 'everybody knows what a terrorist is' argument doesn't cut it. Unless and until you do that, 'radical' is the most descriptive term to use.
If you would STOP this scatter-gun approach of 'opening a new discussion' on the same topic in a new Talk section every day, all the arguments would remain together. Including the one on why it would be illegal to link Ayers to specific bombings. I realize it's your attempt to wear down what you see as the 'opposition' to your personal attack on Ayers, but it's not going to work. Flatterworld (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The person who doesn't "understand the laws of libel and slander" is yourself, Flatterworld. Your dissemination of misinformation about libel law is merely creating a libel chill. I might add that even if there ever WAS an issue there, WP:OFFICE would take care of it without any help from you. WP:OFFICE removes not only "illegal" material, but "questionable" material as well, so you need not worry that the OFFICE does not reserve sufficient powers for itself such that your services as censor are required. If you are going to cite the US government as the authority here, may I note that the US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"? Do you seriously contend that Ayers was not a terrorist by this definition? re what is "FACT", you evidently continue to deny that Ayers ever said "I bombed the Pentagon" given your failure to respond to me above, and continue to provide no evidence that questions even ONE of the gazillion sources for that Ayers quote.Bdell555 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed it's not a libel/slander issue, just a Wikipedia issue. But we don't apply analysis to legal or dictionary definitions to label people. Otherwise, for goodness sakes, we would call George Bush a criminal, Britney Spears a slut, and Microsoft an international money laundering gang. Wikidemo (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
TIME has used the word "terrorist" with respect to Ayers but has yet to use "criminal" with respect to Bush. How is that possible if, as you contend, the former action would inevitably require the latter, especially if TIME is as unconcerned about making accusations of criminality as you've claimed: ""We are not Time Magazine and have higher standards than Time does before accusing living people of criminal acts." No, we wouldn't call Spears a slut, because being a slut is not notable, regardless of whether true or not. Slutty pursuits are not equivalent to terrorist pursuits in terms of notability. If someone has a "mugshot" of Microsoft (or GWB), why shouldn't that be provided? And if Microsoft has, by its own admission, engaged in behaviour that is clearly described by the US Code of Regulations as that of a "money laundering gang", and these "money laundering" activities are what Microsoft Corp is most notable for, then would it not be POV to NOT provide that information to the reader?Bdell555 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
One can find major publications that call Bush a criminal and America a terrorist state. But you missed the point. You and others have tried to include the word "terrorist" based on your chosen definition of what the word means, and your analysis of how that applies to Ayers and the Weathermen. That kind of analysis and argumentation is not appropriate. Actually, being a slut and practicing slutty pursuits are notable. What do you think celebrities are famous for? But we don't make those value judgments and labels here based on behavior. Also, we would not make the connection that someone has done a criminal act from an analysis of their admitted behavior and the US Code. That's the kind of analysis that we're supposed to avoid - see WP:OR, WP:PSTS, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's take this one step at a time. One: is "America a terrorist state", yes or no? There is no point wasting time arguing that issue if you don't seriously believe that. Do you? Two: NOTHING is "based on [MY] chosen definition". It's based on a third party definition. I've invited you to identify alternative definitions, the objectivity of which can then be discussed. So far you've rejected that path to a resolution of this dispute in favour of applying your own definition of terrorist, which you have yet to elaborate on besides suggesting that Ayers does not fit your definition. Name an encyclopedia out there that considers "slutty pursuits" notable if they are, in fact, so notable. NOWHERE in those Wiki policies you cite does it indicate that acknowledging the obvious, as reliable sources have done, constitutes "analysis that we're supposed to avoid". What's original research is your contorted research which concludes that either Ayers is not a terrorist OR that he is, but it's not notable. Which brings us to the next step. Is Ayers a not terrorist or is he, but that's not notable? We can't resolve this dispute when you keep shifting your position around, such that when one position becomes untenable, you just segue into another.Bdell555 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My position has not shifted, and it does not matter what my definition of a terrorist is or whether I think he is one. It is improper to apply a disputed pejorative term like terrorist to a living person based on an argument that his actions fit the definition of the term, when it is a subject about which many disagree. Throughout the encyclopedia we do our best to avoid making judgment calls about whether given people or organizations are terrorists.Wikidemo (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter. If the subject is a terrorist and you believe he is a terrorist then the problem here is simply that you want the article slanted. This is a different problem from whether your concern is substantive. You are not resolving the "dispute" when you refuse to discuss the "disputed" term. The fact of disagreement means working to resolve the disagreement, not imposing your will on those who disagree with you. We do indeed "avoid making judgment calls" by taking the neutral point of view and using objective terminology. You are not adopting the NPOV when you refuse to acknowledge an objective fact by calling any such acknowledgement "pejorative". Just because something is pejorative does not mean it should be censored, unless Wikipedia is supposed to simply be a collection of love letters to its subjects. According to you, NO ONE and no entity may be described as terrorist. Are there no criminals either? Isn't that pejorative as well? I should think that there would be an explicit Wiki policy saying that people and organizations may not be described as terrorist or criminal if, in fact, there is such a policy.Bdell555 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
So where's the link to the FBI page that explicitly lists Ayers as a terrorist?Flatterworld (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to address your objections we are no longer talking about describing Ayers himself as a terrorist. We are talking about forging a compromise by identifying the weather underground as a radical terrorist group. I'm sure you are aware the FBI site does indeed describe them as domestic terrorists. Given that the FBI site also refers to them as a criminal organization, it seems to me that including an identifier other than "radical" is justified. Radical is too general in this context. Unlike the weather underground, a lot of groups pursue "radical" agendas without embracing violence. The weather underground's support for and willingess to carry out violent acts distinguishes them from most other radical groups. And by the way, I'm not trying to wear anyone down any more than you are; like you, I'm just arguing my position. When I open a new discussion, it's to stimulate a fresh look at the issues. I won't do it any more if it's considered improper. Furthermore, you have my promise I won't pursure the issue further if it turns out most other editors agree with you and wikidemo. Right now I count two editors opposed to Mike Wren's compromise langauge and two in favor of it. Let's wait and see what happens. VeritasAgent (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article about the Weathermen does not describe it as a terrorist organization for much the same reason. To do so here as a WP:FORK by way of disparaging the subject of the article is simply not acceptable. The facts are the facts, and they speak for themselves. Applying the disputed label "terrorist" is a value judgment on how bad the facts are. It adds nothing to our coverage of Bill Ayers, who he is, what he did, just a condemnation. This is not something that gets decided by momentary agreement of the people who happen to be on one page at one moment (and even at that, Wikipedia processes is not a system of votes and majority rule). There have been persistent attempts to discredit Ayers on all fronts, particularly on him being a terrorist, that ramped up greatly when detractors of Barrack Obama began to trumpet a supposed relationship between the two. Indeed, most of those who want to describe him as a terrorist are active in the articles concerning the 2008 Presidential campaign. We can't let this article, or Wikipedia generally, become a battleground for partisan politics. Wikidemo (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ayers Showing Contempt for America

Mainstream, credible media outlets have recently published a picture of William Ayers stomping the American flag. Should this picture should be added to the article if a wiki-compliant version can be found? I tend to think it should. VeritasAgent (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article had a photo of Ayers' police mugshot until the Obama connection flared up, which of course brought in the political activists who censored it, leaving us with no photo at all.Bdell555 (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish. We don't have mugshots for every person involved in Watergate, either. Why would we? You're making a totally specious argument. Flatterworld (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Where was the argument for removing that photo? hint: there was no argument. The photo wasn't replaced by another photo, it was replaced by nothing at all. The only identifiable cause for the removal was that a possible Ayers - Obama link had emerged.Bdell555 (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree the mugshot should be added based on notability and direct relevance to Ayers involvement in the weather underground. The flag stomp photo should be added too to underscore a central element of Ayer's thought -- deep and abiding contempt for America. Let's try to build concensus around this point. VeritasAgent (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how the flag-stomping photograph would plausibly pass our free content proposals, among other problems. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Wikipedia is not Hello! magazine. Flatterworld (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should compromise. Assuming wiki-compliant versions can be located, I suggest we add a photo of Ayers giving a lecture (or something along those lines) to the Academic section and add the mug shot or flag stomp photo to the radical section. VeritasAgent (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I really doubt Chicago Magazine would provide free use for one of their photos, especially taken out of context as you suggest. So, I've added something about their interview (which provided an interesting contrast to the NYT interview which was done on the same subject at roughly the same time) to the article, so the interview with its photos is now included as a footnote. I think that's much more in the spirit of Wikipedia. Flatterworld (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither. Some day you will tire of trying to use this article to disparage its subject. Wikidemo (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you ever going to tire of trying to whitewash the subject, Wikidemo? How about giving the politically partisan battling a break in favour of a NPOV approach and all of us assuming good faith while we are at it?Bdell555 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice try, but you have come to this article and done nothing other than to disparage its subject. The notion that describing a subject in a neutral and non-accusatory way is "whitewashing" is a POV position. Edits made to stop what you might see as whitewashing are inherently POV edits. Wikidemo (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "This became controversial in the 2008 United States presidential election, as ..."

In the article, "This" refers to Ayers' service for the Woods Fund. The fact that Ayers and Obama both served the Woods Fund does not satisfy WP:NOTABLE nearly as well as Obama's description of their relationship as "friendly" (or, alternatively, the statement by his campaign that they are on "friendly terms").Bdell555 (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please create articles for the thousands of people Obama is on "friendly terms" with. You can start with each and every student, professor and staff at the University of Chicago. Then move on to every Illinois State Senator and Representative, along with their staffs. Everyone who lives in Kenwood-Hyde Park. Then of course there's everyone in Washington D.C., every state he's campaigned in,.... Flatterworld (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's notable. I'm saying it's MORE notable than merely serving on the Board of a local organization at the same time. Where are the articles for everyone else that served on that board? Your argument doesn't follow because you assume that being friends with a terrorist (or "radical", as you prefer, although I'd note that Bill Ayers has declared "I'm not that radical", and, according to some around here, Ayers should always get the last word on his characterization) is no more notable than being friends with anyone else. IF you can provide evidence that pretty much everyone is on "friendly terms" with someone who bombed the Pentagon and thus it's totally prosaic to run with such types, THEN I'd entirely agree that, indeed, there's nothing to see here, folks, move along!Bdell555 (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What became notable is not one single thing, nor even the series of tenuous links between Obama and Ayers, but rather the controversy surrounding it. "This" is imprecise. You could say something like "Ayers became a point of controversy in the 2008 United States..." Or substitute "focus" or some other word for "point." Wikidemo (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 9/11 as Date of Quotation

Perhaps his most famous quotation, as everybody reading this probably knows, is "I don’t regret setting bombs... I feel we didn’t do enough." This quotation has been attributed to Ayers on the specific date of September 11, 2001... can anybody confirm or deny this? If so, I think the date would be relevant in context. CopaceticThought (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could start by reading the actual article and checking the actual footnotes. Or, check the earlier discussions on this. But to save you the effort...his remarks were PUBLISHED in the NYT interview on this date, so obviously he made then EARLIER. Flatterworld (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I had, in fact, glanced through the earlier discussions but saw no mention of it. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts Strangely Missing From This Article

In his book, Ayers writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.

Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings. The FBI labeled the Weathermen as a "domestic terrorist group."

Ayers said the bombings were a reaction to the Vietnam War and what he termed racism in America, including the fatal police shooting of Illinois Black Panther Party leaders.

In 1970, Ayers’ then-girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other Weathermen members were killed while making a bomb that they intended to use at an army dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Ayers admitted that the bomb would have done serious damage, “tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.”

Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers turned themselves in to authorities on December 3, 1980, in New York.

His sons are named Malik, and Zayd. They were the legal guardians of Chesa Boudin, whose parents are serving prison terms for the 1981 Brinks robbery.

In 1995, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a fundraising event at their house to introduce Barack Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. The board met four times a year, and the group hosted dinners for members.

In 1997 Bill Ayers was invited by Michelle Obama to speak in a joint appearance with Barack Obama at a University of Chicago panel on juvenile crime. Obama and Ayers spoke together again in 2002 at another University of Chicago panel on Intellectuals.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.238.199 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing strange at all. Some of those don't belong in the article at all and have been removed; some are properly placed in articles where they more directly relate to the subject; others simply have not been added because Wikipedia is forever a work in progress and nobody took the time yet. Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] activism

Once again, Justmeherenow has changed the article without discussion, adding incorrect dates. Bill Ayers was purged from Weather Underground in the mid-1970's, yet Justmeherenow claims he was a leader until 1980. Bill Ayers still considers himself a radical ("in the sense of going to the root") activist, which is why the statement was phrased as it was. I'm thinking we should start having sections for every revert required, just to reduce the number of reruns we seem to be forced to watch. Flatterworld (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do we treat Bill Ayers on the Barack Obama page?

How much information should Obama's bio article have on his embarassing associates -- Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko? The Barack Obama talk page now has an important discussion about this (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details).

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Other examples:

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article. On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (here, at least). Noroton (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP issues

I've reverted (a couple times) some material. Although I belive such material can per WP:BLP be reverted immediately without discussion, or without waiting for discussion, depending on whichever version of BLP is in effect at the moment, I think a discusison would be healthy. Direct accusations of lying and fraud (and being a legend in his own mind, etc), even if written in a book review or op ed piece in the New York Times, should not be included unless: (1) the accusation is established in some sense, or (2) the accusation itself is notable. Before we add this kind of thing to the encyclopedia let's get some discussion. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Description of weathermen in lead

I've scaled back[11] a recent expansion of the lead that, while putting the weathermen in some context, also seemed less than completely encyclopedic. I think it's useful to use a few adjectives beyond simply "Weatherman", to let the reader know exactly what we're talking about. The phrase "whose controversial tactics were deplored by mainstream activists of the era" misses the point I think, introducing some editorial conclusions like "deplored" without actually being very clear in saying which group we're talking about. The group's tactics were beyond just controversial among the mainstream at the time. They were illegal then and now, and very few people supported them. But every word you might come up with seems to take a position. "Controversial" is an understatement. "Revolutionary" seems to imply support or at least sympathy for them. "Terrorist" is a value judgment that many people disagree with. "Liberal" or "leftist" taints those broader groups by association. The best might turn out to be "radical" because it is strong yet fairly neutral, but that understates the point. Anyway, as much as possible I think we should avoid trying to characterize the weathermen in the lead here because it's an article about Ayers, not his group...most people know wo they are, and if they want to know more they can read this article and others.

Incidentally, I changed the "known for" field too. It had implied his notability came from the memoir about the involvement, and I think it's the involvement itself. I'm pretty sure that Ayers is known for his association with the Weathermen enough that along with his professorship it is a primary reason for his notability. Either, alone, would justify an article. They're just of interest to people in different contexts.

Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We can follow the facts: "violent, underground, radical group" -- there is no controversy whatever about any of that. Every single source that bothers to describe them would agree with it. Noroton (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I see mention of the Weathermen is deleted again from the infobox on claiming that it's an academic infobox and the field is supposed to relate to academic accomplishments. I don't think "known for" is that important because it's already in the lead but he is in fact known for being a Weathermen founder. If the infobox is intended for something else, then either we can make the infobox fit the article or it's the wrong infobox. Templates don't create policy, they're just supposed to help format articles. A quick search shows about as many google and google news hits for Ayers in connection with "weather" (or weathermen, weatherman) as it does for "professor" or "university of Chicago". That's just a quick hash, but I'm almost 100% sure you'll find his notability relates to the group as much as academia. Wikidemo (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, his notability is far greater for his Weatherman activities, and there is no reason at all that the fact that the box is generally about academia should exclude it. If it isn't added back, I'll add it back.Noroton (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
And you are the sole and permanent decision-maker on this? Thanks for letting us know. Shall I pass the word to Jimmy Wales? Your attitude is totally appalling. Why bother with Talk page discussions when you clearly believe you are 'above all that'? The Weatherman connection is in the lead sentence. Is that not clear enough for your intended audience? The Academic Infobxes are important as they can be used, relying on their consistent structure, to collate information on multiple academics. I'm sorry you have no interest in Education as an academic study, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the interests of others. Flatterworld (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Norton here-- the notability of Ayers focuses almost solely around his activist years. To use the academic infobox then cry foul when others fail to let it dictate the main subject in the article is irresponsible. You can't not impose the needs of the few who are looking for information on Ayers the academic on the vast majority of those who view this sight to learn about Ayers and his underground activities. Mrathel (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We owe readers some service, but we can't poll them nor is reader expectation a criterion of notability. The implications of that project-wide would be drastic. Not that google news is that reliable but it is closer to one criterion, weight of reliable coverage - and as I said the coverage of Ayers seems to evenly split between the Weathermen and academia. Comparing the two is an apples and oranges thing, and really depends on the audience. A random comparison Ravi Shankar is probably most widely known as Norah Jones' father... but he is also known as a great musician and musical mentor to the Beatles, among others. Which is more notable? Depends on the audience. As I said, I think both should be mentioned and covered. As long as they are both treated reasonably I don't see weight as a problem. Incidentally, Ayers is not noted for accusations of terrorism. He is known for radical acts. The focus is and should be on what he did, not the controversy surrounding it, in my opinion.Wikidemo (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
...and incidentally, please no more reversions until we finish the discussion, okay? The Weathermen founder line has been out of the infobox for some time, and was in for some time I believe, and nobody died either way. We should get it right in the end but it's only a medium-level issue in terms of how much it affects the reader's experience - people read the lead usually before the infobox.Wikidemo (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We now have Justmehere, Noroton and Mrathel agreeing that the main thing that Ayers is known for is what goes in that part of the info box, and we have Wikidemo and Flatterworld opposing. There was a consensus of 2:1 to keep when I put the information back (Justmehere and me vs. Flatterworld), so this statement was always incorrect: And you are the sole and permanent decision-maker on this? And the subsequent personal attack based on it is baseless. So far, it's a consensus to keep. Let's wait another day. Perhaps Flatterworld or somebody can explain to me how adding the information conflicts or interferes with this: The Academic Infobxes are important as they can be used, relying on their consistent structure, to collate information on multiple academics. I'm not sure what exactly "collate" means here. If including the information somehow disrupts something, it would be good to know how. Noroton (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose that it's the "main" thing, but I would support that it is an important thing, so I am on the side of including it in the infobox. There's no exact formula for duration or plurality needed. I'm not sure I understand Flatterworld's argument here. Is it solely a technical issue, that the infobox is incapable of handling notability outside of academia and if you put these nonacademic items in there it messes up the sorting? If that's the case why not fix the infobox by adding a field to allow for notability outside of academia? Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There's something in WP:STYLE about this, maybe I can find it: Normally, priority (in any context in an article) goes to what a person is most or more known for by the general reader. Ayers was famous in the 1960s and 1970s for his Weatherman activities (he was on the governing board), and even if that had faded or been surpassed by whatever fame he has as an educator (and within the field he has some fame), the publicity around his book, which appeared almost exactly on 9/11, together with the election controversy makes his Weatherman activiies much more famous, and on an ongoing basis. Again, if there's some overriding reason why academic infoboxes need to list his education credentials first, we can work around that -- by moving the box down to the relevant section. I expect to add some information directly related to his academic life to the article. I got it from the Chicago Tribune Magazine -- from a 2001 article about his Weatherman activities. There is no coverage of his non-Weatherman activities that remotely comes close to the Weatherman-related stuff. Not nearly, from what I can tell. If anyone has any information contrary to that, please bring it up, but I've been looking through the New York Times and Chicago Tribune and this is what I've seen. Noroton (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find what I was looking for in WP:STYLE. I did find this WP:LEAD which is worth looking at. Noroton (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, accepting that anyway, I would still say the life and the memoir of his life are merged into the same issue. This isn't a non-notable person who achieved fame through a memoir, e.g. William Least Heat-Moon writing the autobiographical Blue Highways. I would analogize this to Scott McClellan, famous for being White House Press Secretary. The memoir, What Happened, is an extension of that career, not a separate event. Regarding the academic career you might want to look through google scholar, [12]. A current events figure who is also a serious academic raises some interesting issues about notability. I think it's apples and oranges. Wikidemo (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Agreed. It reads: Past involvement with the Weather Underground I'd change it to a past leader of the Weather Underground How's that? (and my mention of WP:LEAD was irrelevant, I was confusing this discussion with you with the discussion with you at Talk:Weatherman (organization). Noroton (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Wait a minute, I thought you were agreeing with me. The memoir's very title is Fugative Days and his entire adult "career" as of 1980 or '81 was in the Weather Underground. That was the part of the book that he spoke most about and that was reviewed most. See this and tell me what's most prominent in his life. Isn't it pretty obvious? Noroton (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I am agreeing with you. Now just what was the proposal again? Just kidding. I'm fine with the proposed "known for" statement. Flatterworld has a concern that seems to relate to academia topics - I'm not sure of Flatterworld's take yet. Wikidemo (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)