Talk:Bill Ayers/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Praise and Criticism of Ayers (draft)

Now that the election is over, we need to add a section on notable criticism and praise of Ayers. The relevant BLP policy is here; specifically, Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. . .

Anticipating that this could become controversial, here is a proposed draft for a new section to be added to our article:

Praise for Ayers and his work

In 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his work on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project.

William C. Ibershof, formerly the lead federal prosecutor for the Weather Underground case, wrote in 2008: "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."

Ayers was elected Vice President for Curriculum Studies by the American Educational Research Association in 2008. William H. Schubert, a fellow professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, wrote that his election was "a testimony of [Ayers'] stature and [the] high esteem he holds in the field of education locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally."

Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank praised Ayers as a "model citizen" and a scholar whose "work is esteemed by colleagues of different political viewpoints."

Criticism of Ayers and his work

Radical bomber Jane Alpert criticized Bill Ayers in 1974 "for his callous treatment and abandonment of Diana Oughton before her death, and for his generally fickle and high-handed treatment of women."

In 2001, Ayers published a memoir, Fugitive Days, to mixed but largely negative reviews. For example, Timothy Noah's 2001 Slate Magazine review says he can't recall reading "a memoir quite so self-indulgent and morally clueless as Fugitive Days." By contrast, Studs Terkel called the book "a deeply moving elegy to all those young dreamers who tried to live decently in an indecent world."

Neoconservative education reformer Sol Stern is a long-term critic of Ayers; he has "studied Mr. Ayers's work for years and read most of his books." Stern has written critiques of Ayers' career as an education reformer for City Journal and elsewhere. His criticism in a nutshell: "Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer." . "The media mainstreaming of a figure like Mr. Ayers could have terrible consequences for the country's politics and public schools."

Feminist commentator Katha Pollitt criticized Ayers' December 2008 [1] New York Times opinion piece as a "sentimentalized, self-justifying whitewash of his role in the weirdo violent fringe of the 1960s-70s antiwar left." She criticizes Ayers and his Weathermen cohorts for making "the antiwar movement look like the enemy of ordinary people."

?

What do you think?

Hopefully we can work out a consensus version here, and avoid edit wars at the article. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's for sure a good start and the right approach to establish consensus for inclusion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - very interesting and informative stuff. I'm always uncomfortable with "controversy" and "praise / criticism" sections, but maybe this is a good case of a guy who generates some surprising praise, and lots of understandable criticism. There are a few places in the criticism section where I think the language could be more formal and therefore encyclopedic. "Radical bomber" sounds a little ecclectic as a description of someone. "Says he can't recall 'a memoir so'" could be something like "called the memoir '....". I think "in a nutshell" is a little idiomatic. Light stuff like that which doesn't really require consensus anyway. As long as it's reasonable, sourced, and not a coatrack I would support this section. Good work. Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. "Radical bomber" is what the NY Times called her, FWTW. We can certainly polish it a bit -- and add more (well-sourced and encyclopedic) material. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a full spread of criticism here. There are many who are very critical in Chicago "Ayers fails to appreciate that his '70s rhetoric is as dated as bell-bottoms. Yet, he still takes himself seriously." "Just dump Holder now: Chicago Tribune 9 December 2008"

Despite some attempts to suppress labels and views there is a valid reference, a book by the Emmy Award winning Journalist Bernard Goldberg "Arrogance : Rescuing America from the Media Elite ISBN 0446693642". This book goes into details critiquing other reports interactions with Ayers measuring him as a "charismatic bomber" and "a former terrorist who pines for the good old days." This material is not meant as derogatory; this book also mentions details of the word "terrorist". Such a word aught to be mentioned as a POV criticism and, for WP, it should be made clear it is not written as fact. Hasbrook (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anything appropriate in the ChiTrib article (but didn't read it closely). If you have a copy of Goldberg's book, perhaps there's something appropriate there. You might want to read WP:BLP before posting anything. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already read the WP:BLP but thank you for posting it; maybe you have a different interpretation of the reading. Please remember it's suggested to add "criticisms". The suggestion above seems limited to left sided critiques. The Chicago Tribune article may seem very inappropriate to some, however that is published local to Ayers' and a very pertinent. Unlike average biographies a critics section could appropriately seem inappropriate. The ChiTrib entry is a destructive criticism towards Ayers, but still a factually existing critical viewpoint.

The quotes I provided are appropriate under the subsection title you've provided. The book is linked above by Google Books (or here) for your review. If this sort of "criticism" is not included the section title should be changed to "friendly critiques by fellow activist" or the like to reflect the contents.

This section should also mention, link or merge with the Bill_Ayers#Statements_made_in_2001 section, because of the highly publicized criticisms.Hasbrook (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since reaction to this proposal has been generally positive, I'll go ahead & post it, after a bit more work. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say. Try to keep editors concerns in mind while you rework it and make sure there are no "major glitches" so we can work and edit directly at the article rather than filling the talk page with proposals. In this case it seems to me the best and logical way to go.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• " By contrast, Studs Terkel called the book "a deeply moving elegy to all those young dreamers who tried to live decently in an indecent world." [64]" This probably shouldn't go in the criticism section, but rather in the praise one. I'm hard put to see the criticism in these words.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'm hard put to see...". Don't you think those might be not the proper and decent words to express your opinion? You sure can do better (if you attempt).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it parses. It would be more useful for you to express agreement or disaproval as to if it belongs in the section in which it appears. I really can't see the inappropriateness of my comment or to which policy your objection is based.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I used it in the exact sense of its definition found here [[2]]. Sorry if you were offended ( and mystified as to the nature of the wounded sensibilities)Die4Dixie (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha, you can't lure me into an argument or else. You know exactly what I was talking about and I don't buy your excuse so let's keep this off this page since (that part) won't help improving the article. And offended? You can't offend me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Policy of common sense.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Does the quoted material belong in the praise section. This should make it more focused.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you convert the "64" into a link? Then I might give you an answer tonight [it's night at my residence] or tomorrow. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so good at that stuff. If you look at the article it appears here [[3]].Die4Dixie (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, still not an external link. Hard to believe you can't manage it (since you're not a newbie at all) and my guess is you're just trying to play with me but anyway, if you just copy and paste the link here I'll convert it for you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides that, what is the "pray section" for you? Maybe you want to clarify so there is no misunderstanding there?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

MY computer skills and typing skills are well known and documented here on Wikipedia. My lap top's spell check doesn't work, and I use two fingers. I suppose I could go in as if I were going to edit i, and then cut and paste it here. I do think you are operating under some misconceptions about me, but I will indulge you. BRB.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In 2001, Ayers published a memoir, Fugitive Days, to mixed reviews. Timothy Noah's 2001 Slate Magazine "Radical Chic Resurgent", by Timothy Noah, Slate Magazine, Aug. 22, 2001] says he can't recall reading "a memoir quite so self-indulgent and morally clueless as Fugitive Days." By contrast, Studs Terkel called the book "a deeply moving elegy to all those young dreamers who tried to live decently in an indecent world." Fugitive Days: A Memoir at Amazon; scroll down for Terkel blurb. Die4Dixie (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[[4]] is the section in which it appears. Not sure what you are talking about with a "prays" section. If I made a typo, please point it out, as it is the "PRAISE" section to which i refer.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, (the "Praise and Criticism of Ayers"section). Sorry, my fault. Anyway, please take a look at my talk page. See you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to Hasbrook's earlier link to what he called a Chicago Tribune commentary. It's actually Dennis Byrne, a so-called conservative syndicated columnist famous for his Ann Coulter-like columns. And this is what Hasbrook tries to pass off as an encyclopedic source? Apparently none of you bother to check by-lines. Or know. Or care. Pathetic. This is still nothing but a witch-hunt supported by a collection of cherry-picked quotes. Perhaps someday you'll learn the difference between literary criticism and just being critical. Flatterworld (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the appropriateness of the book review "blurb" by Tarkel appearing in the praise section.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know and can't tell the difference between Studs Terkel and Dennis Byrne, it's time for you to find another hobby. Apparently you're one of the children left behind by their schools we've heard so much about. Flatterworld (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter if you're right or not, don't judge the editor (here), judge his edits. You still can explain him the difference between Studs Terkel and Dennis Byrne on his talk page. Just keep this personal "crap" off articles talk pages (which are going off topic way to much). Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should I waste time with someone so determined to be ignorant? I would suggest you deal with Hasbrook's ridiculous claims then. If someone's edits reflect willful ignorance, I don't see the point in ignoring that particular elephant in the room. Or do you not think he posted total "crap" as you put it? Flatterworld (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as an editor believes in his "inputs" it's considered good faith till you prove it wrong. I won't give my personal opinion about this editor since it doesn't belong here and if you see it as a "waste of time" you have the option to ignore him, plain and simple.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: Terkel's blurb, from the OP. I didn't separate his remark because I thought it better to keep all the comments re Ayers memoir in one spot. But I have no strong feelings, if the consensus is to strictly separate praise and criticism. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the tags from this section, as the text has been stable since 12-08, with no new discussion since 3 January 2009. Pete Tillman (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Trying to be Controversial

I was in the process, this morning, of adding Template:AmericanDomesticTerrorism to a great many articles. Since this article is presently being subjected to probationary status, I wanted to make it clear my posting this Template to the Bill Ayers article at this time is simply a coincidence, not any attempt to be clever or abrasive, but is simply part of an ongoing project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of American domestic terrorism, past & present. With all due respect to Mr. Ayers supporters, Template:AmericanDomesticTerrorism recognizes The Weather Underground as an American, domestic terrorist organization, and Bill Ayers as a member of it. No offense, or intent to defame, is intended on my part. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notice. I see no problem with terrorism templates or categories here (though they are not binding to us here) because they simply categorize and direct people who are interested to articles like this that are germane to the subject. By the way, as far as I can tell the BLP/NPOV objections raised on this article were not a matter of support for Ayers personally. Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I see a huge problem with it and have put this template up for deletion. The statement "With all due respect to Mr. Ayers supporters, Template:AmericanDomesticTerrorism recognizes The Weather Underground as an American, domestic terrorist organization" is a bit laughable (a template has agency now, and too bad for any living person who has been deemed "terrorist" by it?) and no matter how you dance around it the template is associating Ayers (and many others) with terrorism, which is a massive BLP problem for Wikipedia and opens us to the possibility of a lawsuit. I'm hoping the whole template will be deleted in the near future but folks who want to remove it from here while that is being discussed should feel free to do so. I've said my piece on this here and elsewhere and am not going to take further actions removing the template from articles unless others agree.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in the deletion discussion, the article on The Weatherman makes it very clear the organization was involved with terrorism. The article also claims Bill Ayers was a member (and I don't think either of these claims is particularly controversial). The template simply doesn't say anything new about Mr. Ayers, or any of the other persons listed on it. All persons listed on the template are persons Wikipedia already claims are members of terrorist organizations; the template merely reflects what has already been stated about these individuals. Deleting the template would serve only to obscure information which already appears on Wikipedia. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not call the Weathermen a terrorist organization, for a number of sound reasons that are quite fundamental to Wikipedia. Efforts to brand living former members of the Weathermen as terrorists, something that got tied up in the negative campaign tactics of the recent American election, were repeatedly rejected. I'm not quite sure I agree with all the reasoning behind the template's deletion, but I do agree that to the extent the template implied Ayers a terrorist that's not a good idea here.Wikidemon (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I've posted numerous times (as this claim has been made numerous times), complete with a link to the FBI's own definition, the FBI did NOT consider Ayers a terrorist. Flatterworld (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that while this article's lead is WEAK on reporting Ayers' actual, clearly verifiable history as a violent radical (if you don't wish to use the word "terrorist"), others know who Ayers was and he is still on one country's criminal (terrorist???) WATCH LIST. Canada on January 19, 2009 refused to let Ayers enter Canada because he is on their badlist for some past crime. Here's a USA Today link http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/01/bill-ayers-turn.html This is also reported by other news sources... Apparently Ayers said he "didn't know" why he was turned away. I hope that the final version of this article reflects the actual, sourced history of the Weatherman and Ayers' (and wife B. Dohrn's) leadership role in that destructive group.Victorianezine (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a talk forum. If you have anything specific to propose we're all ears. Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiD: I think the comment by Victor is very informative and useful for advancing discussion. In fact, I think his observation should be worked into the article - don't you? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"A spokeswoman for the Canadian Border Services Agency would not comment on why Ayers' entry into Canada had been denied, but said Immigration officials turn people away for reasons ranging from health and financial issues to perceived security threats.' Chicago Tribune As Canada hasn't made an office statement on your conjecture, there's nothing more to say. Furthermore, both 216 and Victorianezine should read my previous comment on the terrorism point. If you don't like the facts, take it up with the FBI. Flatterworld (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can't use the term domestic terroist group how about violent anti war group that engage inillegal activitesSolarsheen (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OrphanBot

Is there a problem with the image in the Infobox that needs to be corrected, or has that been done now? Flatterworld (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of murder and BLP

The accusation of murder against Ayers has been rejected before as a BLP violation. It is poorly sourced - the only source for this is an FBI informant. It is well sourced that the informant made the claim, and that the police union picked it up, but the republishing of a poorly founded murder accusation does not make it reliable. Ayers has not been arrested or charged, and law enforcement authorities do not suspect him at this time of murder. The weather underground was investigated at the time, and one more time as well, but the murder is unsolved. Generally, we do not repeat accusations like this. Also, the mere reporting of the claim without the context that makes the claim not credible is unfair. This article[5] makes clear that the latest accusations involves no new evidence or finding, is based solely on the single FBI informant who made the accusation before (who, per earlier discussions, is not reliable), and seems to be politically motivated. Ayers accuses him of lying.Wikidemon (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The short and well sourced paragraph that Wikidemon keeps deleting is;

On February 24, 2009, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” that establish how Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell, a 20-year veteran of the department. The San Francisco Police Department’s Park Station was bombed Feb. 16, 1970, killing Sgt. Brian McDonnell. Eight other officers were injured. McDonnell died two days after the bombing. The case has yet to be solved.

This above text is not an accusation; the closing states that "The case has yet to be solved." This is a neutrally worded text of an event verified by mainstream media. For more info, please see;

Fox News' article Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing, PR Newswire's article Attorney General Urged to Investigate Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn by Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism, Accuracy in Media's article Bernadette Dohrn, Bill Ayers and the bomb that killed a cop, and Chicagoland's Television's article San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers are a few good examples of this current event. This event, involving San Francisco Police Officers Association and Bill Ayers has been well noted by multiple reliable sources that have verified its notability. As such the section should be not be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikidemon has yet to state how this current event, reported on by mutltiple reliable sources, is a BLP violation. Until you state exactly how this is a BLP violation, you are just making accusations. There are multiple reliable sources that have reported on this event, there is no reason why it should not be included. Reports by mainstream media do not violate BLP - if you disagree - state how. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The police officers' association is not accusing Bill Ayers of murder? That's not what the article says. The chron article says that the organization is lobbying to have Ayers arrested for murder, via a letter to some conservative group. Poorly founded murder accusations are BLP vios, end of story. I won't argue that point. The Chron also reports that the accusation is not based on any evidence, but is simply repeating an old accusation. We're not a mouthpiece for libel, even if mainstream news picks up on the fact that the defamatory statement occurred. Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This subject has been reported on by multiple reliable sources, even if the accusation is found to be untrue, the fact that the accusation was made by a notable group and recieved widespread media attention - this alone is worthy of noting in an article. Even BLPs can not ignore multiple media reports from reliable sources on a subject. The accusation by the San Francisco Police Officers Association is notable for the amount of media attention is has recieved. The accusation itself is notable!!! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:HARM#TEST, which is not official policy but makes sense here, "Is the information definitive and factual? Wikipedia is not in the business of speculation, or publishing dubious allegations, unless such allegations are notable in themselves. In particular, possibly false allegations that would significantly harm an individual's life should be avoided. Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media; in these cases, the allegations should not be given undue weight. In circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, it is acceptable for Wikipedia to give details of the ongoing investigation and/or trial, but speculation must be avoided." Because the content here deals with speculation and allegations of a very serious crime it might be best to delay adding this information until the subjects are actually charged with the crime. If you really want to include the content maybe limit it to the article that specifically deals with the bombings, San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing. TharsHammar (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They won't be charged with a crime - it was just a political move. Anyway, the discussion is now centralized at WP:BLP/N. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there was a crime or not is a moot point. The issue is that there has been multiple reliable sources that have commented on this current event concerning Bill Ayers being accused by the San Francisco Police Officers Association of acts against the San Francisco Police Department. These reportings by reliable sources are a fact. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You just poisted the exact same comment to WP:BLP/N, where the discussion seems to be now. Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And the discussion will continue on this talk page as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• For more information, please see;

San Francisco Chronicle - S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing

The Politico - Group puts Ayers back in spotlight

Fox News - Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing

WorldNetDaily - [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91546 Cold case: Will Ayers be brought to justice?]

Fox Business - San Francisco Police Officers' Association Supports Effort to Bring Charges in 1970 Bombing Case

FrontPage Magazine - A Murder Revisited

KGO-TV - Union accuses Ayers of 1970 bombing

The San Francisco Examiner - Police union targets ’60s radical

Chicago Tribune - San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We're not a news organization, and we're certainly not going to toss out WP:BLP concerns to publish accusations of murder. It seems consensus here is fairly clear. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral POV for this article

I don't believe this article was neutral to begin with. On 5/4/09, I modified the article's opening paragraph so it read as:

"William Charles Ayers (born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist and former leader in the movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for the radical nature of his activism, which began in the anti-war movement of the 1960s, as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. In 1969 he co-founded the violent radical left organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. He is now 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 2008 Presidential campaign, a controversy arose over his past contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama."

The changes in the paragraph that were made were attempting to correct biases, distortions and point-of-view. I don't believe that IP75 was justified in undoing my edit. The present paragraph seems to whitewash Ayers' life to a significant degree.

1. Is it accurate to describe the 1960s/70s Ayers as primarily an "anti-war activist"? He was involved in the movement, but went a separate way and along with a few others became a bomber. That is what he is known for - the Weather Underground. And that he was an "anti-war bomber" is an undeniable contradiction that the article as it was didn't attempt to adequately deal with. Encyclopedias have an obligation to get at the truth, even if it undermines popular mythology. Ayers is a known bomber, so using the "anti-war" label to describe him has to be carefully and responsibly used. At the very least, the "anti-war" and "bomber" contradiction has to be much more seriously addressed. As is, this article has decided to equate "Weather Underground founder/member" to "anti-war activist" by giving Ayers that primary label, which is simply not NPOV. That's why I changed "anti-war activist" to "leader in the movement that opposed the Vietnam War." In the same way, I added to "He is known for the radical nature of his activism" that it "began in the anti-war movement of the 1960s" to relate the truth that, yes, he was involved in the anti-war movement but later turned to radical and criminal activity (that I would now think of changing to "had begun in the anti-war movement). Note also that "anti-war" in this opening paragraph links to "peace movement," not "anti-war," even though it's clear that those articles themselves bring up differences between the two. Those distinctions aren't dealt with either.

And again, the popular mythology that Ayers was "anti-war" is undermined by his own words:

“But the Vietnamese refused their assigned role in Washington’s script, and the National Liberation Front wouldn’t quit—they retreated when necessary, holed up underground as required, and reemerged suddenly to beat back the invaders. The Vietnamese refused to lose.” http://www.billayers.org/downloads/62112191hon_201_social_conflicts.doc

2. Not mentioning the Obama-Ayers controversy of the 2008 election smacks of censorship since most Americans today know Ayers, and that controversy is what they know him for. One can argue over the merits of the claims, which still have merit to many, but the controversy was real enough. See the opening paragraph of the Jeremiah Wright article which mentions the controversy involving him during the 2008 campaign. Omitting mention of the controversy in the opening paragraph is a clear attempt to manage perceptions of the situation for political purposes and undermines the credibility of this encyclopedia.

- Psalm84

Although I found the changes generally inoffensive, I disagree with the reasoning or with the statement that the article is POV as it stands. Planting bombs in government buildings is not the same as conducting or advocating war. The peace / anti-war movement of the time included a lot of radicals who sympathized with or expressed support for America's enemies, or the civilian populations of Vietnam. That does not make them pro-war. Very few actually encouraged North Vietnam to conduct acts of war against America, and I see nothing in the sources to suggest that was Ayers' belief or mission. The claim that Ayers was pro-war or not pro-peace seems to be supported only by synthesis / personal opinion based on an argument about the sourced facts, not directly by any reliable sources. Failure to include conclusions that an editor feels should be included does not make an article POV and is not "censorship", and describing proposed changes as being in opposition to that is usually not going to be productive in terms of generating a consensus for them. Incidentally, there is a heading and an entire paragraph devoted to the 2008 election controversy. There was much discussion both during and after the election cycle about how prominent this should be, and the current version represents a consensus on the matter. On the one hand, you are right that many Americans who were unfamiliar with these things before became aware of Ayers only through the election year politicking on the matter and the controversy that created. On the other hand, none of that affects Ayers directly - he did not have a hand in, and was largely unaffected by, the controversy, which ended up dying down after the election and seemed to have very little effect. Ayers is a tenured professor with a long career, as well as an infamous past as a radical. The actual bomb planting is a lot more significant and has a lot more longer-term notability than the brief political maneuvering to tie that to Obama's campaign. We weight articles for long-term issues, not giving undue attention to this year's news. Finally, please do not make accusations, founded or as in this case unfounded, about any ulterior purposes Wikipedia editors have singly or as a group in their editorial choices. Any proposal justification on that basis is pretty much a non-starter. Wikidemon (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon, I haven't been by this article since the election, but I have to agree with some of Psalm84's points. To wit, Ayers & Co. were expressly not "anti-war"; they elevated violence to the top of their methodology for advancing revolution. [Add: and they were not against the Vietnam War out of pacifism, but because they believed in the native/third-world/indigineous/People's Vanguard path to world communism. They were just against the US winning the war. Addendum ends here. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)] Second, to reply to your edit summary, the fact that (in your POV) Ayers et al. had "no serious chance" of accomplishing their goal of a Maoist-style communist revolution in the US does not in any way change the objective fact that the group that Ayers founded was a revolutionary group. As in, their goal was (violent) communist revolution. Their state of delusion and/or ineptitude at accomplishing this does not change the nature of their ideology. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the ping-ponging regarding the identificatory designation of the Weather Underground -- are they a "maoist organization", a "far-left" group, a "revolutionary communist" group, a "violent militant" group, etc -- I think that hardly matters for purposes of his biography. The identifications with Mao, communists, etc., were superficial, as hot-headed as they were at the time. There was no serious chance of the group causing revolution in America, or the rise of a communist state, or whatever other strange nonsense they were espousing, and nobody adheres to that today, not even the group's alumni. What matters in terms of Ayers' legacy is that they were a militant group that bombed a bunch of buildings. However true it may be that they used revolutionary rhetoric, published polemics, claimed they were Maoist, or militant feminist, or whatever, that is not very relevant to Ayers' association with the group. Overspecificity is distracting. Suppose a famous person chokes to death on a potato - need we identify (however correctly) what variety of potato it was? Or if a person dies in a train accident, we don't identify the maker of the locomotive. Looking to the sources for clues, nearly every article on Ayers will mention that he was a founding organizer of the Weather Underground in his youth, and most throw in an adjective or two - militant student organization, violent, radical, etc. Yet very few of the sources call them revolutionary or identify just what variety of politics they espoused because that is beside the point of the article. If anyone wants to know more about that they can turn to the article about the Weather Underground, but tellingly, that article too focuses mostly on the bombings and the cultural impact, not the group's nominal political identification. Wikidemon (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon, thanks for your reply. And I do see where you are coming from to some extent. I don't think your analogy is exactly comparable; if an article said a famous person choked on a piece of food, and we instead identified it as a potato, that might in fact be better encyclopedic writing. The WU wasn't merely "a group," or "a student group," or "an organization," but I do see how it can be tricky to find just the right adjective (Maoist, communist, revolutionary, and violent are all correct AFAIK, even though each may be insufficient in itself.) Also, I realize you correctly do not want to spend that much time parsing the nuances of what the WU was, in the intro to this bio article about all of Ayers' life. Perhaps we can meet in the middle. My concern is that the WU should [not] be misleadingly described as an "anti-war" group, when this is a technicality. Ayers & Co. were the opposite of pacifists, as splitters from what they saw as an insufficiently violent movement. I also think it is germane to Ayers' biography that he founded an organization which was not violent at random, but rather violent in the service of advancing communist revolution in the US. That was the reason they had a group, that was their goal, and again, whether or not they were totally delusional or incompetent in pursuing this goal is secondary. Readers hoping to learn about the life of Bill Ayers should know he organized a violent communist revolutionary group [in his youth]. I am optimistic you and I can find a way to word this that is mutually acceptable, and thanks for taking to the talk page here. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro, again

Is there actual discussion? (see my last comments above from 5 october) Or were my (now cited) changes just removed? It is factually indisputable that the WU was a violent revolutionary group. Communist seems safe, although I would argue they were Maoist. Much more detail is probably not needed in the lede of this biographical article. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't replied because I thought the article was going to be stable. I think we all agree on what they were, but it's really a wording problem. I reverted the recent changes to the status quo version while we talk about it, but people seem to have itchy fingers today so no doubt someone will install their preferred version. For the record, I think this is a friendly process and isn't any kind of disruptive edit warring... we'll see. Anyway, the problem with calling them almost anything is that for the most part they were wannabes. They pretended and went through the motions of things - ending the war, feminism, communism / maoism / whatever, overthrowing the US government, being militant violent revolutionaries - but for the most part it was a lot of hot air and speeches without any real commitment to actually doing it, or any expectation or likelihood of success. Another interpretation is that they were just drugged out, megalomaniacal, or plain crazy. They got farther with the bomb throwing and apparently some sexcapades than anything else but even at that it was not enough to make them a significant organization in terms of their accomplishments, effects, depth of participation, etc. Mostly they just upset, alarmed, and disturbed people, so they succeeded in that as a PR goals. The problem is, do we call a group X if they are pseudo-X. In isolation, no. But perhaps most or all American radical groups share a similar conceit. Few if any have the same substance of their counterparts in countries that actually have revolutions and communist coups. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The other thing about the version I reverted was that I don't think we should have a long footnote with arguments to try to justify the label.[6] Let's just agree on it and if necessary have a hidden link to this conversation for the reason. How about something like a "radical left" group (which is sourced and true, if insufficiently specific), and then add something along the lines of "that spouted communist revolutionary rhetoric", but in proper encyclopedic tone if possible. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would include "violent" somewhere since that does seem to seperate and highlight the groupss notability....the rest can be hammered out :). Good luck, --Tom (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Tom about "violent," which is also objectively true. Wikidemon, thanks for reopening the discussion. I think you are in error in removing the footnote. The description of the WU has been fought over at this page since at least the 2008 Presidential campaign and for all I know, earlier. Citing our description is a simple way of anchoring the words to something objective/some measure of proof that we haven't selected at random the description du jour. If it makes you more comfortable, I would be happy to add something like "a self-described violent communist revolutionary group..." with the footnote. This should take care of your concern about what the WU actually was, by instead describing what they themselves claimed to be. And the footnote is necessary IMO- it annihilates any possible objection to this description, as objective proof that in their own words the group Ayers founded was what we say it was. (NB for the record I think Maoist is more accurate and more specific, but communist seemed less contentious the last time this was in flux, in October 2009.) If you'd like the footnote to be shorter I can add some more ellipses. Would that work? Kaisershatner (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, adding "self-described" addresses all my concerns. As long as that's clear, Maoist is okay too. I think the fighting was mostly over calling them actual terrorists and communists, and this was going on in parallel with that weird "Obama pals around with terrorists" political angle. All that has died down so I think any editing disagreements here are probably easily manageable. Thanks for hashing this out. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussions about what the group was or wasn't belong in the article about the group itself. Finding one (1) columnist who uses a particular phrase certainly isn't good enough. The earlier consensus was 'radical left'. 'Terrorist' and 'violent' have always been discarded because of a) FBI's own definition and b) because both words imply violence towards persons, not buildings. Some version of 'bombing buildings' is what was determined to be descriptive while avoiding additional implications. Flatterworld (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed thoughts about the new 'communist revolutionary group' version, especially as the ref itself doesn't specifically support 'communist'. Maybe someone can find an additional ref, but for now I'd leave it - I wasn't 100% happy with 'radical left' either. The problem with a term like 'communist' is that its connotation is different to different people, so it can imply something it shouldn't - which is probably the point of adding it? Gasoline on fire? (Although the WU did their own share of that in speeches and statements.) However, the WU wasn't aiming to merge the US with Russia, China or Cuba, just put 'the people' back in charge. Kind of like 1776, in their own view. Ever see Rashomon? Anyway...should 'revolutionary' be wikified? Flatterworld (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Flatterworld, thanks for your comments, and you are certainly right that the term is imprecise. I find it difficult to find a perfect synthesis between those here who would like only the very briefest description of the WU to be present in the intro to Ayers' biographical article, and those who would like the most specific description, as well as the most objective/free of interpretation. I don't think an extensive analysis of the WU is needed in the intro to this article, although it must be mentioned since it is the chief reason for Ayers' notability. The current wording represents an attempt to summarize Ayers' own description of his group. If you prefer, for accuracy I would change it to something more like the WU, "a self-described revolutionary group in the style of Mao's Red Guard," or the precise term he uses to describe it. I have no strong opinion about wikilinking "revolutionary." Finally neither your nor my opinion of what the WU "just" wanted is really that important, as long as we can cite them in their own words. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An example of the point I was making is that "in the style of Mao's Red Guard" elicits quite different ideas from different people. Neither of us have any idea just what aspect of Mao's Red Guard it was that Ayers was referring to, or even if he meant it seriously or was simply trying to get headlines. You can claim 'using their own words' as often as you like, but that doesn't mean anything is being clarified. As in all things, one has to take words and views over time and discover the commonality, not simply look for the most ooh!ooh! wording possible and insert it in the lede with a "so there!" attitude. Our users are interested (presumably) in what Bill Ayers seriously thought, not some soundbite he once uttered for who knows what reason. Do I make myself clear? Because this 'concept' has surfaced in quite a few Wikipedia articles and it detracts from our image as a balanced source of information, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Flatterworld, thanks again for your comments. I think I understand your point of view, especially about my choice of example. You'd rather not have something sensational and potentially misleading, since people interpret any vague wording in different ways. Help me find the solution: at the same time, there is strong sentiment here for a brief description, which IMO correctly argues against a very long exploration of the WU in the intro to Ayers' article (this isn't an article about the Weathermen), however NOT describing the WU at all is a serious problem since it is Ayers' chief reason for notability. Therefore given the consensus for "brief" and the consensus for "fair and objective", the best solution I can think of is to use the WU's own words to describe them. This does not eliminate the possibility that people will conclude different things about the WU when reading the description, but it does eliminate argument among the editors about whether "Maoist," "communist," "radical," "violent," etc. are the exactly correct words. That is an argument with no solution, as you have pointed out; people will draw their own differing conclusions when faced with these broad terms. What we have now may not be ideal, but it is the best of possible answers, as I see it. [And FWIW, I guess we could all wish that Ayers and company hadn't founded a violent leftist group that sought to destroy the US government and replace it with a dictatorship of the vanguard party as imagined by such communist philosophers as Chairman Mao, but since he did, we should try to mention that as accurately and succinctly as possible in this article. :) ] Kaisershatner (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be laughing so hard at you if you weren't so careful to cherrypick only certain adjectives Ayers used. You want to pretend those are the only adjectives he ever used to describe the group? Go ahead. And go ahead and pretend you're not biased, too. Editing in good faith? No, I don't think that's descriptive of your 'work' here. Buy hey - as long as you think you've won some important argument, knock yourself out. Just keep on destroying whatever credibility Wikipedia once had, and then you can shrug your shoulders and say, "Who knew?" Flatterworld (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Flats, your personal attack and failure to assume good faith notwithstanding, I am sorry that the facts of Ayers' past are so deeply upsetting to you. It is hardly cherry-picking, two minutes of googling produces literally hundreds of examples. If you are interested in some of Ayers' other words used to describe his "organization,":

• "We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men ... deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism."
• "Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside."
• "The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war."
• "Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle."
• "Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory."
• "We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society."
• "Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism."
• "Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit." Looks like a cherry tree to me. If you end up feeling more civil, I would be happy to discuss further. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind me

I'm sure this has been discussed to death by now, but I can't help but giggle a bit at the fact that this article has a section where Ayers defends himself against being called a 'terrorist' in about six different ways, yet as far as text reads nobody is accusing him or ever has accused him of being a terrorist. That's comedy, right there. 98.212.148.14 (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The above is what happens when someone walks into a movie in the middle.... Flatterworld (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bill Ayers

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bill Ayers's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sale":

• From Weather Underground Organization: Sale, SDS, 1973.
• From John Jacobs (student leader): Sale, SDS, 1973.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ayers vs. University of Wyoming (Free speech lawsuit)

I think the recent controversy at the University of Wyoming and subsequent lawsuit in Federal Court is a worthy of a mention in this article. If you're not familiar with the details, here is a short version:

Ayers was invited to speak at the University of Wyoming, then was uninvited by the the University President, Tom Buchanan. A UW student (Meg Lanker) invited Ayers back to speak and the University denied them access to any venue on campus. With Denver attorney David Lane, Lanker and Ayers filed suit in 10th District court, saying their right to free speech had been violated and sought a preliminary injunction to allow Ayers to speak on campus. Judge Downes agreed with them and ordered UW to allow Ayers to speak on campus.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_01bd1b85-831e-5506-a673-3caf0c25022a.html

Ayers as frequent guest at White House?

I removed an unsourced statement that had been added by Gcodom, to the effect that Ayers has been one of the most frequent guests at the White House. Didn't see anything on the talk page about it, if there is in fact a source for that point (which I rather doubt), I'll back off. Mfenger (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mug shot of Ayers?

Editor VernoWhitney removed this photo, long a stable part of this article, commenting: "removing mugshot - BLP issues and fails WP:NFCC#1"

I don't see a BLP issue, please explain.

NFCC#1 is "no free equivalent". It's vanishingly unlikely that there's a free copy of Ayers booking photo extant. Please explain your reasoning. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP issue: the policy states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." The caption of the photo says it's from 1968, and there's no mention of that particular arrest (or any arrest in 1968) so there's no context for the picture other than the general fact that he has "several arrests". It's replaceable in that there's a free image of him available in the infobox, so it is unneeded for identification. See also WP:NFC#UULP. If the purpose is to identify a significant event, then why is the picture from before the formation of the Weathermen? What moment is captured that cannot be conveyed in words? VernoWhitney (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with this and other mug shots. Look at that photo, then try to describe it to me in words. That photo leaves a very strong impression of his attitude, the subject, the times. Words cannot easily convey it. Moreover, from a NFCC perspective the case is weak. The Chicago Police Department is unlikely to sue anyone over this image, and it's not going to constrain the mission of creating a free encyclopedia. If anyone cares that much over copyright, why not just ask them? On the BLP issue I generally don't like mugshots, they disparage the subject and they aren't really necessary. For example, I say every time I have a chance that we don't need to include Mel Gibson's mug shot, as handsome as he is, in Mel Gibson DUI incident. What does that really add to the article? But in this case I think it does add something encyclopedic, which is to show the endpoint of extremes of the subject of the article - at the one hand, a respected professor, and at the other, a revolutionary radical. Showing him arrested as a young man is easily as revealing as showing him as an intellectual middle aged man. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the image went through an MfD on this subject and the result was apparently a "keep". Although I haven't looked into the details, that may indicate a consensus on this. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the proposed deletion, and I don't see an MfD or FfD, it looks like it was just reviewed by User:Kevin with the comment "not replaceable - used in article to illustrate mugshot", so it was a consensus of one. I agree that there's likely not a PD mugshot so in that sense at least it's not replaceable, but when it comes to using a generic mugshot, I guess I'm on the other side of the fence from you and think it fails WP:NFCC#8, in that I don't feel that what he looked like then adds anything encyclopedic, merely interesting. The fact that they're unlikely to sue anyone isn't the guiding line, otherwise most photos online would be fair game. And now back to the BLP issue, I completely agree with you about Mel Gibson DUI incident and even more so in the main Mel Gibson article. Articles about people whose entire notability is there criminal acts, I'm less concerned about BLP issues, but in this case while from what I know his notability is certainly founded on his past, there are plenty of more recent references that I guess I'm just not seeing the context for this photo in particular which I feel presents him in a "disparaging light". VernoWhitney (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Due to lack of a discussion here, I have sent the file to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 June 18#File:Bill Ayers mug shot.jpg for further review. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism

He's considered to be a member of all sort of groups, but why is he not classified as a terrorist? He's admitted it in everything but name 208.58.25.136 (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the first sentence "William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born December 26, 1944)[1] is an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in the movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War." When it should read, "William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born December 26, 1944)[1] is an American Terrorist."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbcoker (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that he is an admitted terrorist I don't know why it doesn't say that either, save that persons of particular political bent are probably protecting the article from saying as much. It appears to be remarkably whitewashed, carrying large amounts of pro-Ayers writing as well as an immense amount of quoting him, while devoting an incredibly short section to criticism. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I take it there is a consensus to include terrorists in the lead?Unicorn76 (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There certainly isn't consensus to describe Ayers as a terrorist, which is a word to avoid. How does it improve the article to describe Ayers as a terrorist, rather than stating the facts about the groups he was involved with and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions as to whether the term applies or not? VoluntarySlave (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you are theonly one on the thread sayng he isn't. But Ayers is more known for his violent action than any academic contributions.Unicorn76 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Ayers nor the Weatherman org. are admitted terrorists. That's a campaign meme from the last US presidential election, used as part of some election ploys regarding Barack ("palling around with terrorists") Obama. Ayers admitted to acts that some people describe / decry as terrorism, which is a very different point that already receives several sentences here and at Weather Underground (organization). There is a long-term consensus not come out and call Ayers a terrorist or his acts terrorism, and I do not particularly wish to reopen the discussion. The most focused discussion on that topic took place at [[7]] during the election cycle, and this article already goes farther than consensus established there on the subject. At best it found no consensus for the proposal to call Ayers a terrorist, although there some support for describing in the Weathermen article the accusations that had been made. The RFC overstates the apparent support for calling people terrorists, because two of the participants were later found to be sockpuppets. Past misbehavior on the part of people agitating for the "terrorist" designation, and the frequent edit warring on the subject by anonymous, opinionated, and newly registered users, makes this subject rather unpleasant, and editors reluctant to rehash it.

Lack of accusations does not mean favoring someone; adding accusations and defenses to articles is an exercise in point of view writing, not an encyclopedic one. More broadly it is unhelpful to describe articles as being "pro" or "anti", they just cover the facts. We just say what happened; we're not here to convince people to support or oppose it. Also, saying that an article is "whitewashed" is not going to encourage useful discussion, and is a borderline accusation of bad faith against its authors. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion needs reopening. As far as I understand the process all that is required is that I call for it to be reopened. When one of the citations in the "criticism" section is an outright defense of the man, the article has POV problems.. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you there, not interested in rehashing this. In case you're interested in Wikipedia process I'll leave a message on your user talk page that gives you some pointers. But if you are a new editor, I suggest you learn the ropes a bit and hone your talents before jumping into contentious editing disputes populated by misbehaving editors and fake accounts. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not oppose a mention of the fact the FBI described the Weather Underground as a domestic terrorist group. [8] rather than just going by the groups own definition of themselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That link was thoroughly discussed as well. It is a historical piece, not an official designation. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "justification" is a two year old discussion? More than enough time has passed for a new discussion. So far, Wikidemon, you're the only one here saying no to a discussion. Given that the group's goal was violent overthrow and they definitely committed murder of noncombatants, as well as definitively (by their own admission) planning to attack Fort Dix, I don't see how you avoid calling them terrorists. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself. They were violent extremists at a time when we hadn't coined the term "domestic terrorists". There are plenty of reasons why we respect community consensus and why as an encyclopedia we don't call people terrorists, particularly when the label is disputed. If you're a new editor it would behoove you to learn more about Wikipedia before launching a time-wasting effort. If not, have you edited here under a different account name? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not using the proper term for them - terrorists - seems to me to be a stretching quest to POV Ayers' history through the use of WP:WEASEL words. Whether There's Weather Underground (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether There's Weather, your confusion seems to caused by your belief they killed 'non-combatants'. The only people ever killed were those in the Greenwich Village explosion. If you read Ayer's memoir, you'd know he was confused about the supposed Fort Dix plan. He thought Diana might have blown up the bomb in the townhouse to prevent it from being used, as she was so completely against hurting or killing people. He was still in Michigan so he never knew what actually was going on in NY, but he couldn't believe she would be part of such a plan. This has all been discussed before, at length. This all happened years ago, and afaik no new facts have surfaced, so a two-year-old discussion' remains perfectly current. I also recall I posted an FBI link that said they were NOT considered a terrorist group as they didn't fit the definition, but you'd have to go back through the archives to find that. Flatterworld (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That editor is indefinitely blocked at this point, probably a sock. Their talk page is an interesting read. I'm guessing that the slight uptick in "terrorism" drive-bys has to do with Ayers' recent retirement announcement, and probably something echoing around the conservative blogosphere on the occasion. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What policy says that the word "terrorist" can be applied only if the person applies it to himself? It is not like someone having to self-identify as a homosexual. I have no opinion as to whether Ayers is or was a terrorist. But I am puzzled by the apparent failure of this article to present criticism of Ayers which has appeared in mainstream news sources in the past few years. In the Chicago Tribune in 2008 a column by John Kass, reprinted in other papers nationally, said "Ayers is a terrorist." Tony Keller wrote in Macleans from Canada wrote in 2009 "...the man used to be a real life bomb thrower. He used to be a terrorist." Fox News referred to him March 11, 2009 as "former domestic terrorist." Michael Barone in US News and World Report August 22, 2008 referred to him as "..the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers.." and said "Ayers was a terrorist in the late 1960s and 1970s whose radical group set bombs at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol." For most bio articles, sources such as this would have a place in the "criticism" section or would be cited in the section about their activities which were the basis for the statements. His response in a November 19, 2008 National Public Radio interview to such sources as well as the McCain campaign labelling him a terrorist could serve as a counterpoint in the criticism section. He said his group's bombs were "vandalism" since they did not kill members of the public. He said that in 1970 "three of our colleagues killed themselves in the process of making a bomb." A March 3, 1971 AP story said the Capitol bomb could have been 15 to 20 sticks of dynamite according to Congressional testimony by an Army bomb expert. Edison (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edison, please read the previous Talk discussions on this (both in this article and about the use of 'terrorism' in general). btw - columnists (and bloggers) are not necessarily journalists. For example, John Kass says many things, mostly to get a rise out of his readers. That's fine, that's his job, but we're an encyclopedia and we rely on serious sources. Just because a column is printed in a serious source doesn't make it a serious source itself. Flatterworld (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing would be adequate in any other bio article to be included in providing a well rounded NPOV treatment of the subject. Edison (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added corrective material that supports the contention that by any objective measure that he was a terrorist and a supporter of domestic terrorism. Ayers has engaged in historical revisionism and I have found and added documentation that proves it. Without this information much of the article shows a clear Left-wing bias that favors accepting his later statements at face value. The addition of this material provides a more objective and neutral POV since it is showing documented facts. Despite this, two or three people deleted the added documentation, causing the article to retain its Left-wing bias and dissemination of false information, information that is NOT supported by the evidence. They are in essence vandalizing the corrective material which helps to provide a NPOV. RickW7x2 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The material you added tended to express a POV. That "published articles contradict this later claim," is a particular position which, if it were put forward by an RS, we could cite, but not something we can assert based on our own evaluation of earlier sources. Likewise, the claim that "Contemporary accounts, however, challenge his rebuttal" needs to be sourced, as does the relevance of the activities of Weather Underground members (and Days of Rage participants) other than Ayers. I began to attempt to rewrite your additions in an NPOV way, but on looking at your sources, I don't think your additions are well supported. The article from Life you reference doesn't name Ayers as the person who said "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." The later section only contains a reference to a Chicago Tribune article discussing the Days of Rage, not discussion either Ayers or the other WU members mentioned in the addition. The other reference is to Volokh Conspiracy, which is a blog and so not, I think, a reliable source. So I don't think there was any well sourced, non-POV content that could be salvaged from your additions.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The article from 'Life' did not stand alone. If you would have read the next citation from the Los Angeles Times from 1970 you would see the same exact quote attributed to Ayers. It's there in the article, and I found others but there is no need to be redundant. I added the quote from the New York Times and followed it up with material to verify its accuracy. It was not. Therefore by deleting the other material I added it creates false history and non-neutral POV. The quote needed context and by deleting the evidence that provided context you made it out of context and non-neutral. If it is a fact that he made the quotes attributed to him then the proof that he said them is a neutral POV. You may not like that he said those things, but the historical evidence is that he did. How many sources do you want me to cite before you believe it and stop deleting the evidence? The quote from Life gives the earliest citation and the reference from the Los Angeles Times from 1970 gives him the credit. The mention of the other WU participants contradict his claim that they were non-violent against people. Since he was one of the leaders of the WU it is relevant information. Finally, the use of the Volokh Conspiracy, while it is a blog, the blog is by a respected law professor at UCLA who gives well-thought legal opinions and it serves as a refutation to "He also reiterated his rebuttal to the charge of terrorism" which was left alone as if his opinion matters when it comes to defining terrorism. If Osama bin Laden said he rebutted the charge of terrorism, would that be left to stand alone in an article? If it were it would not be objective and neutral, but would serve as a defense and an apologia of his position. Letting the terrorist make all the points is not neutral. It is biased. Wikipedia is supposed to be about presenting the facts in with a neutral POV. It should not be a POV that gives free rein to terrorists and their defenders, and the article on Bill Ayers should not be one to make him look like a misunderstood saint who made a few mistakes in his youth.RickW7x2 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted and left a caution on the editor's talk page. I too find nothing in the proposed addition that is viable, much less agreeable, for the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed all my additions to this article. Clearly some users who only wish to see agreeable articles rather than factual ones want to delete documented facts in line with Wikipedia's statement that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" that they don't like. They prefer to keep something that is one-sided and biased rather than truthful while making threats. The article is left to its original non-neutral POV that it was in before I added corrective and verifiable content.RickW7x2 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC) As a reminder to Wikidemon and others, this is the Wikipedia policy as found in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability." The policy was not followed but instead deleted verifiable material. Life magazine and the Los Angeles Times are accepted sources. I acknowledge that the reference from Professor Volokh may have been controversial, and at worst I would have accepted that it be moved to criticisms. But to delete the other material was a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy.RickW7x2 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. The response of the other editors here was correct, and your approach here has been so aggressive and accusatory, combined with completely untenable content, that it is barely worth engaging in discussion. If you do wish to continue editing the encyclopedia you would do well to learn a bit from this instead of accusing other editors of impropriety, bias, etc. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, you don't address the issue at hand which why the recommendations of Wikipedia, especially what it said regarding deleting material, was ignored. Instead you engage in red herrings, ad hominem and threats. You have not shown how the verifiable facts using legitimate citations were deserving of deletion in violation of Wikipedia's recommendations. In the article WP:POV in the section of Good Research it says "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." This is what was done. I suggest you read [[9]]. Take note especially where it says "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted."RickW7x2 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that you proposed some content, which has been rejected in its entirety by other editors here on a number of content policy grounds already mentioned, including lack of sources for statements of personal opinion. Where material is unacceptable in its entirety it may be reverted in its entirety, and it's up to the editor proposing a change to gather consensus for it - the correct pages for that are WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. No threats - just a caution (since you brought it up) that further edit warring might have resulted in an administrative block, and advice that if you care to collaborate with others you'll have to try to get along. As you do not seem willing to let go of criticizing me and the other editors over this, I do not care to further discuss. Over and out. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

namesake

Unless you're trying to say the man was named after the building, I suggest you choose a different word. (Second error on this I've seen today.) Flatterworld (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish, anti-Semitic, or neither?

I've seen postings made on various fringe blogs claiming that Ayers is either Jewish (claimed by antisemitic paleocons and white nationalists) or anti-Semitic (claimed by radical neoconservatives or Kahanists). Does either of these claims have any truth to it?

I'm seeing an increasing trend lately where there seem to be 2 basic types of conspiracy theorists: one faction that claims everyone in power is secretly Jewish, and the other faction (typified by the likes of Jeffrey Kuhner, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz, Debbie Schlussel, Alan Keyes, etc.) that claims that most non-Americans, the UN, Barack Obama, etc, are covertly anti-Semitic. Two paranoid, twisted worldviews that contradict each other, but are also uncannily similar to each other in an odd way. This leads to mainstream (non-crazy) political figures like Barack Obama being accused of being secret Zionists and secret anti-Semites simultaneously. Bill Ayers isn't exactly mainstream, but the same thing has happened to him, too. Getting smeared on two fronts, if you will. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I would steer clear of such blogs. Also regurgitating that garbage here doesn't really help. Anyways--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note what's posted at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Ayers article. 1. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Follow the link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Whatever your theory, this isn't the place to discuss, nor on any other article Talk page. You may want to read List of conspiracy theories#Ethnicity and race though. Flatterworld (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my theory, it was other people's theories. I myself find both of these groups of people distasteful, but they unfortunately have a lot of influence in today's political climate (for example, Geller managed to singlehandedly create the so-called "ground zero mosque" controversy, while Kuhner is given a free platform by the Washington Times and David Duke won 40% of the vote for governor in Louisiana). Stonemason89 (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair question, and a fair (if slightly strong) answer. Flatterworld is right that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, so this isn't a good place to speculate about a person's religion or prejudices. However, it is a good place to point out sources that make claims and work through whether they're reliable, significant, and relevant enough to include in the article. The difference is pretty subtle, mainly that you have to point to a source and the discussion would potentially lead to something added to the article. I don't thing we're going to get any reliable sources that say he's antisemitic, because except in extreme cases reliable sources don't make those judgments. If he's Jewish then surely there are major sources that say so. I haven't even given that any thought. One thing reliable sources will do is that they will report that a rumor or claim exists, or that a person said something. But if there's no reliable sourcing that these things are true, I don't think we would print rumors about someone's beliefs or religion, even if we can source that these rumors exist. If false or unproven rumors get to the point of being a major impact on things, then we might put that in a separate article as we do with Bill Ayers presidential election controversy (or in Obama's case, with Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories). - Wikidemon (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean my answer to be even slightly strong. What you're likely to learn from reliable sources is that he was raised a Presbyterian, his father-in-law was Jewish, and his mother-in-law was a Christian Scientist. Unreliable sources will of course differ greatly. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sirhan Sirhan dedication

To save time, I've moved the reference to where imo it belongs (with his denial of emeritus status) and rephrased the statement to be what he actually said (according to the referenced article. It's a fairly nuanced position, as he didn't explain how Sirhan's name ended up on the dedication page. With so many authors involved, it's not clear whose idea that was, or even why he was chosen: Something other than his crime? Just the fact he's in jail? Different authors had different reasons? So...imo it's best to simply say what the article said. If someone can find an interview or statement, that might help. I didn't find anything in a quick search of his blog, although that would be the best source for what he really meant. In the meantime, I hope what I've done is okay with everyone. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Other WIlliam Ayers

In the 23 August 2011 New York TImes was an Associated Press report that a therapist William Ayers (age 79) was ruled incompetent to stand trial in California for child molestation. He suffers from dementia. Just saying... Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure this person is notable enough for an article. See WP:PERP. If it turns out that he is, then it can be under something like William Ayers (therapist). --rogerd (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

praise and critiscm section

I just want to point out....even those who supposedly "praise" Ayers don't nessesarily "praise" his past actions, so that section is pretty misleading.70.48.210.150 (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, shouldn't the sentence beginning with "By contrast, Studs Terkel called the ..." be moved to the praise section? I've seen immediate rebuttals like this in many wikipedia articles. Its an embarrassing NPOV issue, since it seems to defend the person criticized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.16.218 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content

Recently several editors seem to be attempting to edit war a coatrack of contentious material into this article.[10] The source is a long new anti-Obama screed written for the partisan magazine American Spectator by its publisher. Under guise of having conducted an "investigation" the piece rehashes many anti-Obama talking points from the 2008 US presidential election, in particular the "Obama pals around with terrorists" Bill Ayers presidential election controversy smear, before concluding that both Ayers and Obama "lied outright" in downplaying their relationship. The tone and approach of the article are clearly an expression of opinion. It is clearly not a news piece, and by its own admission it contradicts the "mainstream" media account. The proposed addition includes 14 citations to the piece, which is certainly over the top. Any experienced editor ought to know better than that, and also better than reverting contentious BLP materials with a demand that others have to justify their removal. My review is that because the piece is not a reliable source, any contentious claim it makes about Ayers or Obama would have to be credited, reviewed by terms, and verified for weight and relevancy by a third party mention of the article. We don't have that, and even if we did, this apparent attempt by a conservative magazine to resurrect old campaign attacks is best covered in the article about these campaign attacks. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your POV. The source is reliable. You must have better reasons other than you just don't like it... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the spurious accusation? I'll toss one right back, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as I gave specific reasons immediately above: (1) the piece is partisan, (2) it is an opinion piece, not a news story, (3) it is out of the mainstream, (4) the conclusions (calling people liars, impugning their character by association) are not the business of reliable journalists; (5) it is plainly a rehashing of an old controversy, not an "investigation" as claimed; and (6) it if full of material that more mainstream sources say is untrue. Meanwhile, when three editors suddenly show up to a quiet biography page about a once-controversial person to edit war *fourteen* badly formatted citations to a brand new hit piece on Obama from a third tier source, all the while leaving ridiculous warning templates[11] and making plainly incorrect references to Wikipedia policy on consensus,[12][13][14] something other than productive encyclopedia editing is going on. If you think something about this source deserves a mention, please state your reasons why the source is reliable, relevant, and of due weight for this article. If any of the factual claims cited to this article are true and worth noting here, surely other sources have covered them. Where are they? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ism Schism, if you're not going to make any arguments for inclusion or respond to any of Wikidemon's points, then WP:BURDEN alone indicates that the material must stay out of the article (never mind that it violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Any "liars" comments should be removed from BLPs, but in this case most of the information that has been removed from the article is sourced by reliable sources. As such, it should not have been removed - only edited. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Aside from Wididemon, there is no consensus to remove info that is reliably sourced. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't reliably sourced, it's sourced to a partisan attack outlet. (see Arkansas Project) Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN has already been explained to you. If you're not going to make any arguments for inclusion, then there is very little left to discuss. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the assertions in the article are a radial departure from the accepted view. They served on boards together, they worked at ACORN at the same time, and, of course, were both involved in Chicago politics together. The section, in its current form, reads like an Obama apology. Let's work on including some alternative POV instead of just dismissing the Obama-Ayers controversy. One suggestion would be a section allowing for this viewpoint to be expressed.Tommyboy1215 (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The first step would be for those supporting inclusion of this material to provide reliable sources, not fringe partisan attack publications. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize or accuse Obama, this is a biography of Bill Ayers. The controversy isn't a real one except in the field of politics, something Ayers has not been involved in for years. It's only significant in a biographical sense because it raised some awareness, and the Republican characterization of him as an "unrepentant terrorist" or something like that became part of his public image. Ayers himself mostly sat it out aside from a joke or two. For the most part all of this is better treated at the Obama / Ayers election controversy page, and most of these points are in that article already. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

For stuff opposed to Ayers, I found an article from a rightist think tank publication.

• Stern, Sol. "The Ed Schools’ Latest—and Worst—Humbug." City Journal. Manhattan Institute. (northern hemisphere) summer 2006.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Magnificent Clean-keeper has reverted me when entering the word "terrorist" to describe Ayers. He cites WP:TERRORIST which is a guideline, not a policy. He claims that citing "a partisan hitpiece ... doesn't do" since I've cited a former federal prosecutor, Andrew C. McCarthy.[15] Others who have described Ayers as a "terrorist" or "former terrorist" include Glenn Kessler, fact-checker for the Washington Post,[16] and Daniel D. Polsby, a distinguished law professor, formerly at Northwestern, now dean of the law school at George Mason.[17] This broad spectrum of opinion from notable sources satisfies WP:TERRORIST. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the reversion notice, we've gone over this -- the fact that contributors to the National Review consider him a terrorist doesn't justify adding that opinion to his biography. Check the archives, there is a record of the consensus there. Mfenger (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

[rolls eyes] Did you even read what I said? It isn't just a contributor to National Review, who happens to be a former federal prosecutor. Do the names Glenn Kessler and Daniel D. Polsby mean anything here? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? We've been over this, your addition doesn't add relevant information, just opinion (by a "former prosecutor", who of course was never involved in any prosecution involving Ayers). The archives show that this was discussed at length in 2008.Mfenger (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote. This is 2013. Five years have passed and Barack Obama has won the final election of his career, thanks in no small part to people in various media giving him a free pass, so using Ayers to prevent Obama's re-election is no longer an issue. If McCarthy had been involved in prosecuting Ayers, we should mention that and include the criticism. There's plenty of praise for Ayers included in this article, and the word "terrorist" is being used by several people who cannot be accused of partisanship. If you prefer, we can quote Kessler or Polsby instead of McCarthy, but evidently that would remove the final trace of conservative opinion on this page.

Are conservatives entitled to have an opinion about Ayers? If they are notable conservatives published in reliable sources, do their opinions deserve to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article about Ayers? Speaking objectively, Ayers' actions fit the definition of terrorism since he set off bombs to achieve political goals. And the FBI classified the Weather Underground as a terrorist organization. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote you added absolutely does not belong in the intro paragraph. The rest of the graph is factual (and includes his founding of the Weather Underground). There is plenty of criticism in the article.Mfenger (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Prairie Fire Document

I recently added text pointing out that Sirhan Sirhan is, in fact, in the dedication list of the Prairie Fire book, along with a link to the book itself as the (conclusive) source. KillerChihuahua promptly reverted, saying "usasurvival.org is a highly charged propeganda site, not a reliable source", which quite obviously conflates the source itself (the book) with one organization that is furnishing the book on the web (usasurvival.org). That's too bad, because that section of the article, as now written (likewise, as written before my edit), clearly leaves the reader wondering as to whether Ayers did or did not, in fact, dedicate the book to Sirhan. Perhaps worse, omission could easily be interpreted as POV since it's so easy to resolve this question by sourcing the original document. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Find another source, which meets WP:RS. You can't do original research here, you can't cite that website. So, find a better source. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is the book that's being cited, not the website. Moreover, sourcing a plain, observational fact in an original document meets WP:PRIMARY, so that's not an issue, either. Given the nature of this article, I think it is good to be able to link to the document directly so that readers can easily see for themselves. However, this book is not particularly easy to find online. Is there some sort of concern that perhaps "usasurvival.org" has altered the document in some way, thus rendering it unreliable? Or, what about citing the source (the book) without any reference whatsoever to the website? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Even if a reliable source can be found, what you are writing is synthesis, a form of WP:OR. You would need a reliable source that specifically states the contradiction. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no synthesis whatsoever in observing that Sirhan's name is in the dedication list of that book. It's a simple observational fact that addresses the question at hand, that being, "was Sirhan in the dedication list?". (The two Chicago Trib sources already state the contradiction.) I've no appetite to get into a debate, much less an edit war. Sadly, it appears that this information will not find its way into the article. Best wishes, Agricola44 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

I wandered by here recently and am glad to see that the above efforts to censor the fact that Ayer's and his co-authors' book Prairie Fire is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan (among others) has been overcome. Maybe there is hope after all of WP actually becoming an agenda-free, objective source of encyclopedic information. Agricola44 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Proposal

WP:TERRORISM redirects to this sentence "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term."

Well, there's no doubt at all - from a "comic strip" of Ayers' own words cited by ABC News' Jake Tapper from Ayers' own blog - that Bill Ayers set explosions off in order to satisfy Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of the term "terrorism" : "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal." Otherwise, he could simply have exercised his right to free speech to condemn the uses of the facilities he instead blew up with explosives.

(NOTE: At this point my post was bisected by WikiDemon so that authorship was obscured. I am now restoring the missing part of my post, complete with the slug showing I wrote it, and when. loupgarous (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC))

Ayers himself admitted that he was acquitted on a technicality of the bombing charges (the iconic “Guilty as sin, free as a bird — what a country, America.” quote). So WP:TERRORISM doesn't apply in this case. Bill Ayers was, whether he weasel-words himself out of the definition in his blog or not, a terrorist. loupgarous (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

However, recognizing that the previous statement violated WP:SYNTH, I made it here. I didn't make that particular statement in the article at any time. loupgarous (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I mistakenly placed the above section break here - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Since CNN correspondent Jake Tapper (back when he worked for ABC News) reproduced a literally graphic (comic-book format) portrayal of Bill Ayers admitting to complicity in terrorist bombing by the definition above, I took the opportunity to place this information in the article's lede, with an in-line citation of Ayers' own admission from the graphic which Mr. Tapper reproduced in his own blog while a correspondent with ABC News. This addition fully complies with the guideline to which WP:TERRORISM redirects. loupgarous (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool story. But however you phrase it, calling it terrorism is your own personal opinion based on WP:SYNTH and exactly what WP:TERRORIST cautions not to do. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you were justified in deleting the word "terrorist," not reverting the entire passage.

When, exactly, does the burden for calling an act 'terrorist' get reached? Would the bomb the Weathermen threw at a judge's home have counted as 'terrorist' if the judge and his family had been murdered in their beds by the flames? Merriam-Webster's offers a perfectly serviceable definition of the term 'terrorism,' and Bill Ayers' acts met it, by HIS OWN ADMISSION - the 1:1 correspondence between the motive he cited for setting off those bombs ("armed propaganda") and the M-W definition "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal" of terrorism. At some point WP:TERRORISM may need to be revisited to permit reporting of acts of terror.

However, I removed the term "terrorist" - I have serene faith that most wikipedia readers recognize terrorism without a helpful sign pointing the way. loupgarous (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the whole thing again. One step a time, please. You're adding a fair amount of stuff that appears to be WP:SYNTH, and argumentative rather than encyclopedic — over a holiday period (for many people) when there are not many people available to process this. This article is supposed to be a neutral, factual biographical account of his life, not an attempt to prove that Ayers is or is not truthful in his self-description (Ayers claimed X. However facts show Y and he even admitted Z). Let's go over one or two points first as a group, and see what changes if any they merit for the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I admit that my changes to the lede may have been inadvertent violations of WP:SYNTH (I thought inserting documentation of a terrorist act having been committed by an organization amounted to grounds for labelling the act and the organization as terrorists - mea culpa) there's still the majority of the other changes you reverted to be considered.

I invite you to demonstrate a single violation of WP:SYNTH in the other changes I made (the ones under the heading "Statements Made in 2001"). Please be rigorous in your analysis. You don't appear to have visited that issue at all, you simply reverted all of my changes without looking at the reflist supporting the changes under "Statements made in 2001" or evaluating the nature of those changes. You also restored a sentence to the article making allegations of "misleading" with respect to the relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama which was unsourced and violated WP:WEASEL - and was otherwise ambiguous enough to be effectively meaningless and untrue.

The added material under "Statements made in 2001" balances Rick Ayers' statements that his and Weather Underground's acts were not against people with the factual record (and this material also appeared in the separate article Weather Underground) showing assaults on people by Weather Underground which is referenced and which has the proper in-line citations. Your reversion of this added material was uncalled-for. You're also failing to assume good faith on my part Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and imputing all sorts of bad motives (argumentation and violations of WP:SYNTH) to all of the changes I made, which you reverted completely (with no discerniible attempt to evaluate which changes were properly documented and compliant with wikipedia guidelines, and which were not).

I won't speculate on your own motives for reverting this information in its entirety without attempting to edit the material to bring it into compliance with wikipedia guidelines; I'm simply saying that for the second time in 24 hours, you reverted edits of mine without sufficient need. You're the one provoking an edit war. loupgarous (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're reading things into my comments that aren't there. Let's stick to the content. You are proposing some changes to the article. Let's go over them at a manageable clip. What would you like to propose and what's the sourcing and justification? - Wikidemon (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see the part of your comments above that I boldfaced; those charges (quoting from your post here so your remarks survive future editing: "I've removed the whole thing again. One step a time, please. You're adding a fair amount of stuff that appears to be WP:SYNTH, and argumentative rather than encyclopedic — over a holiday period (for many people) when there are not many people available to process this.") are certainly there - except, of course, for ANY documentation of whether the charges were true or are true. I am unaware that editing on a holiday was an infraction of wikipedia guidelines. Please show me THAT guideline. You can't, because in that WP:WEASEL charge, you managed to imply dishonesty when none was intended. I had a night alone in a hotel room and did some Wikipedia editing. End of story. loupgarous (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing was documented in approved Wikipedia format, with proper in-line citations. The only reason I can see that you're reverting my edits is to await a "consensus" consisting mainly of people sympathetic to your unwarranted reversions. Forgive me if I err in that estimate, but the sources I supplied were considered sufficient to make the same point in Weather_Underground; that point stands, that Ayers and the Weather Underground undervalued the lives of a New York Supreme Court judge and his family enough to throw incendiary bombs at their home under cover of night, yet Ayers's statements since 2001 were that they did no such thing. The sources show otherwise.

Are the users of wikipedia well-served by allowing Ayers and his apologists here in wikipedia to have the final say on whether or not to balance the reporting on Bill Ayers's statements that he and the Weather Underground didn't attack people when abundant Wikipedia-compliant sources in Weather Underground show he and his organization did exactly that? All the consensus you seek can do is bless a one-sided canonization of Bill Ayers by himself in the wikipedia article on him.

Returning to the part of Weather_Underground which documents the internal decision-making which led to the incendiary bomb attack on the Murtagh family home,

"Two major decisions came out of the "War Council". The first was to go underground, and to begin a violent, armed struggle against the state without attempting to organize or mobilize a broad swath of the public. The Weather Underground hoped to create underground collectives in major cities throughout the country.(name="Sale") In fact, the Weathermen eventually created only three significant, active collectives; one in California, one in the Midwest, and one in New York City. The New York City collective was led by Jacobs and Terry Robbins, and included Ted Gold, Kathy Boudin, Cathy Wilkerson (Robbins' girlfriend), and Diana Oughton.(name="Wilkerson") Jacobs was one of Robbins' biggest supporters, and pushed Weatherman to let Robbins be as violent as he wanted to be. The Weatherman national leadership agreed, as did the New York City collective.(Good, "Brian Flanagan Speaks," Next Left Notes, 2005.) The collective's first target was Judge John Murtagh, who was overseeing the trial of the "Panther 21"."

Reference: Good, "Brian Flanagan Speaks," Next Left Notes, 2005.

and, of course, the narrative of the execution of the bombing which I originally adapted (editing for brevity and grammar and nothing else),

"===New York City, Judge Murtagh arson attacks, February 1970===

On February 21, 1970, gasoline-filled Molotov cocktails were thrown at the home of New York State Supreme Court Justice Murtagh, who was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party over a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. One bottle full of gasoline had broken against the front steps, and flames scorched the overhanging wooden frame until its contents burnt out. In addition windows were broken, and another molotov cocktail caused paint charring on a car. Painted in red on the sidewalk in front of his house was "FREE THE PANTHER 21", "THE VIET CONG HAVE WON", and "KILL THE PIGS".(name=jmm>Murtagh, John M. Fire in the Night, City Journal, April 30, 2008)

References: Murtagh, John M. Fire in the Night, City Journal, April 30, 2008

The same night, molotov cocktails were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn.(Perlmutter, Emanuel (February 22, 1970). "Justice Murtagh's Home Target of 3 Fire Bombs". The New York Times.) The son of Justice Murtagh claims that the Weatherman were responsible for the attempted arson,(name="jmm") based on a letter promising more bombings sent by Bernardine Dohrn to the Associated Press in late November, 1970,(Fire in the Night |The Weathermen tried to kill my family | City Journal April 30, 2008) Some authors assume that letter is generally assumed to refer to an October bombing of a Queens courthouse.(Queens Courthouse Damaged by Bomb; Warning Is Given New York Times, October 10, 2008)

NYPD Chief Detective Seedman quoted Dohrn's December, letter as stating ‘two weeks before the townhouse explosion, four members of this (WUO) group had firebombed Judge Murtaugh’s house in New York as an action of support for the Panther 21." (Seedman, Albert (1975). Chief!. Avon. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-380-00358-7.) No one was caught or tried, for the arson attempt,(name=jmm) several sources(name="Jacobsm">Google books, Jacobs, Ron The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997, pg. 98)(name="bergerd">Google Books, Berger, Dan Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity, 2006, pg. 341)(name="WilliJL">Google Books, Lazerow, Jama, and Williams, Yohuru R., In Search of the Black Panther Party: New Perspectives on a Revolutionary, Social Science, 2006, pg. 243)(name="wilkc">Google Books, Wilkerson, Cathy, Flying Close to the Sun,Seven Stories Press, 2007, pp. 324-325) state that the arson attempt was enacted by the Weathermen but was considered a failure."

References:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1061FF83F5C117688DDAB0A94DA405B808BF1D3 |title=Justice Murtagh's Home Target of 3 Fire Bombs |publisher=The New York Times |date=February 22, 1970

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html Fire in the Night |The Weathermen tried to kill my family | City Journal April 30, 2008

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0611F63F5C1A7493C2A8178BD95F448785F9&scp=18 Queens Courthouse Damaged by Bomb; Warning Is Given] New York Times, October 10, 2008

cite book |title= Chief! |last= Seedman |first= Albert |year= 1975 |publisher= Avon |location= |isbn= 978-0-380-00358-7 |page= 285

http://books.google.com/books?id=SD2TvqDh8EkC&pg=PA98&dq=Murtagh+home+bombing&sig=ACfU3U1rP-hg8PFqR4c2gUPFISHE2-RKCw Google books], Jacobs, Ron The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997, pg. 98

http://books.google.com/books?id=6KC36MHH3j8C&pg=PA341&dq=Berger+Dan+Outlaws+of+America+The+Weather+Underground+and+the+Politics+of+Solidarity+Murtagh#PPA341,M1 Google Books], Berger, Dan Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity, 2006, pg. 341

http://books.google.com/books?id=mi2G28ZcmvsC&pg=PA243&dq=In+Search+of+the+Black+Panther+Party:+New+Perspectives+on+a+Revolutionary+Murtagh Google Books], Lazerow, Jama, and Williams, Yohuru R., In Search of the Black Panther Party: New Perspectives on a Revolutionary, Social Science, 2006, pg. 243

http://books.google.com/books?id=aPGfSQZKCQ4C&pg=PA325&dq=Wilkerson+Cathy+Flying+Close+to+the+Sun+Murtagh Google Books], Wilkerson, Cathy, Flying Close to the Sun,Seven Stories Press, 2007, pp. 324-325

How do we have one article in Wikipedia (Weather_Underground) plainly stating that the Weather Underground collective's decision-making supported an attack on a judge's home, and narrating the course of the attack, with sources affirming Weather Underground's culpability in the attack, and another (Bill_Ayers} which denies that this happened?

Each and every one of the references given above were in the article's reflist BEFORE you, WikiDemon, reverted my changes. Your request to see references appears to be disingenuous; the references were there for your inspection in the reflist BEFORE you reverted my changes.

Balancing the section "Statements Made in 2001""Views on his past expressed since 2001" with the documented evidence cited above describing a deliberate (decided at a meeting of the Weather Underground collective) attack on a judge and his family at their home is the ONLY way to avoid implying to Wikipedia readers that Ayers's statements denying attacks on people by Weather Underground have merit, in the face of contradictory evidence documented by Wikipedia-compliant sources in another Wikipedia article that the attacks happened and that the attack on Judge Murtagh was carried out with collective Weather Underground consent. loupgarous (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot readily tell exactly what you are proposing above. Let's address the proposal you're making below, and then if there's another specific change you wish to make we can flesh that out.- Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I was intentionally very clear in what I was proposing - but I'll rephrase the final paragraph for maximum concision:

PROPOSAL: Document (in the section "Views on his past expressed since 2001" that while Bill Ayers denied that Weather Underground targeted people in their bomb attacks (he very explicitly said that in his "comic book" blog entry cited and reproduced by ABC News's Jake Tapper), that as far back as the SDS-Weatherman split, New York Supreme Court Judge John Murtagh was deliberately targeted by Weather Underground for a bomb attack, that the attack was carried out, and that several sources document that this attack was indeed carried out by the Weather Underground - contradicting statements Bill Ayers made in 2001 and later about the nature of Weather Underground bomb attacks.

It is very hard at this point to escape the conclusion that this wikipedia article has already become advocacy writing - in favor of Bill Ayers's contention that his Weather Underground did not target people when they clearly did and another wikipedia article, Weather Underground shows it. Some wikipedia editors are abusing the idea of protecting this piece to let it continue to advocate for the thesis that Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground organization never targeted people. If that thesis can be logically defended without the suppression of the evidence as it now exists in Weather_Underground. I would of course be interested to see it. Right now, all we're seeing is advocates suppressing evidence in wiklpedia to keep an encyclopedia article advocating a false idea.

The sources documenting this attack and its provenance are from the reflist of Weather_Underground; they were not controversial in that article and cannot be considered controversial in Bill_Ayers; they document the variance between Ayers's statements and very publicly documented evidence regarding the Weather Underground's targeting of Judge John Murtagh and the attempt to burn him and his family with Molotov Cocktails in their home while they slept.

Your previous comments that my changes were "argumentative" fail, in that the changes to the article you described as "argumentative" were simply transferred from the text of Weather_Underground with editing for concision and proper grammar and spelling, and the addition of a link to the article Molotov cocktail for the reader's information as to what a Molotov cocktail is and what it is expected to do to its target. Simple inspection of the changes and the reflist would have shown that those changes in no way violated wikipedia guidelines.

A neutral assessment of some of Bill Ayers's statements made since 2001 must include any adequately-sourced controversy regarding the truthfulness of those statements, especially when evidence contradicting those statements is documented as well as it was in the article Weather_Underground. Omission of this evidence makes the section "Views on his past expressed since 2001" one-sided and non-NPOV.

What, precisely, do you still not understand? Which other hoops will you or your friends produce for me to leap through at the last minute, and which unsupported charges will you bring against me next?

Please be concise and accurate in your assessment of my proposal and avoid your previous charges that I was argumentative, unless you can objectively document where I was argumentative or was guilty of transgressing WP:SYNTH or other wikipedia guidelines. All I've done is restate sourced information and cite its references as it appeared in Weather_Underground. loupgarous (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You haven't explicitly stated what your proposal is, but quoting some of your text above and putting it into encyclopedic format it seems to read: "...While Bill Ayers denied that Weather Underground targeted people in their bomb attacks [cite Jack Tapper], as far back as the SDS-Weatherman split, New York Supreme Court Judge John Murtagh was deliberately targeted by Weather Underground for a bomb attack [that] was carried out ... by the Weather Underground [cite several sources] -- contradicting statements Bill Ayers made in 2001 and later about the nature of Weather Underground bomb attacks. [cite?]. We would need to see the specific citations for the second point (that the Weather Underground deliberately targeted the person of John Murtagh, as opposed to his house) and we need a citation for the third part to tie it all together and avoid WP:SYNTH, that the weather underground's having done this contradicts Ayers' statement. Poking around a little I do see several sources that tie the Weather Underground to three Molotov cocktails thrown at Murtagh's home although perhaps some dispute over that. I don't see a reliable source to show that they were specifically trying to kill anyone, or any obvious contradiction if it was the WU, but rather a flurry of commentary in the context of the 2008 US election campaign. Incidentally, I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole about all of these complaints about Wikipedia and its editors including myself. Again, you're misreading things. Leave it be. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'll "leave it be," because that would leave an advocacy article in wikipedia without my best efforts to provide alternate opinions to Mr. Ayers' statement that people weren't attacked by the Weather_Underground bombing campaign, despite several references supporting the attack on Judge John Murtagh's family home. I also wish your implication that I was dishonest in editing this article on Christmas Day removed, because it's a flagrant violation of WP:Assume_Good_Faith, as well as being defamatory. As far as the distinction you make between Weather Underground's targeting the home of Judge Murtagh and his family as opposed to their persons, that's disingenuous. We need other editors in this discussion, because the advocacy position of leaving this article unedited violates wikipedia principles.

In which way is the boldfaced text beginning "PROPOSAL: Document (in the section "Views on his past expressed since 2001"... " not explicit, by the way? loupgarous (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed the Sentence "This was misleadingly characterized as his own claim by some," Following a Claim Inserted in Ayers' "Fugitive Days" by Mr.Ayers.

I removed the sentence "This was misleadingly characterized as his own claim by some." following a claim inserted in Ayers' "Fugitive Days" by none other than Mr. Ayers. It's difficult to see how saying that a claim was made by Mr. Ayers in his own book can be misleading.

The statement is non-NPOV, anyway. loupgarous (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the sentence you reverted, WikiDemon. "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.[40] In a new edition of his memoirs, Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War-Activist, he added a new afterword describing the blogospheric characterization of their relationship as "neighbors and family friends" ("In 2008 there was a lot of chatter on the blogosphere about my relationship with Barack Obama: we had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fundraiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign."). This was misleadingly characterized as his own claim by some."

How, precisely, can saying ("characterizing") that Bill Ayers uttered the quoted material in a new edition of his book Fugitive Days be "misleading"? That's exactly what that final sentence says. Without going into your motives for reverting this edit, it looks like a reflexive action uninformed by an appreciation of what the removed text (which you placed back in the article) says. Regardless of whether you can assemble a show of hands that it's a meaningful and logical sentence, it's not.

If, as seems likely, the original editor responsible for that sentence meant to say "This was misleadingly characterized as Barack Obama's own claim by some," the sentence still needs to be revised and a source for the fact in the sentence cited, or deleted, because it falls afoul of WP:weasel_words and is completely unsourced. Why did you put it back in the article? loupgarous (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, please stick to the content. It's hard to be sure but it appears that you are first proposing here to remove the sentence "This was misleadingly characterized as his own claim by some". On the face of it "by some" is indeed a textbook violation of WP:WEASEL and would have to be reworded even if directly sourced. Reading the text and the sources it is abundantly clear that: (1) Ayers wrote a new afterward to his book that contained the sentence quoted in full in the text; (2) the sentence is not an admission that Obama and Ayers were family friends, and to claim it does would be a misleading; and (3) Ayers gave an interview on Good Morning America complaining about this mischaracterization, among other things. What's missing in terms of sourcing are: (a) that anti-Obama operatives were in fact making this mischaracterization, and (b) that including this new afterward in his book, its mischaracterization, and Obama's granting an interview about it, are of due weight and relevance to include in this article, all of which seem unlikely. Nothing about this new afterward is included in the main article for this section, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, and this one incident (the new seems like a minor side-note to the overall controversy. As for the sourcing, the press as usual is not doing its job. Rather than covering whether or not operatives were intentionally mischaracterizing a statement by Ayers in furtherance of their political objectives, the newspapers simply reporting that there was a disagreement. We could say something that is adequately supported by the existing sources, that Ayers said that his book afterward was misquoted. But being an encyclopedia, not a press outlet, we need to cut through some of this clutter and get to the substance of the matter, which we may or may not be able to do given the sourcing. Likely there are some more pertinent sources out there if we make the effort. But it looks like the entire episode is not of due weight to include here. My solution would be to remove the entire paragraph about Ayers' new afterward to his 2001 memoir, and elaborate on it if at all in the article about the election controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Sticking to the content," as you put it, I concur with you that that entire paragraph is misplaced in the article. It's also very badly phrased, and its final sentence is as you put it, "a textbook violation of WP:WEASEL," as well as being unsourced.

Sourcing the final allegation of the paragraph (the sentence I originally removed and which you reverted en bloc with the original article) would be difficult - not because (as you say) "the press isn't doing their job," but that they for once failed to take a side in a political controversy, choosing instead to report on the general existence of a controversy on the matter. The absence of documentation of an alleged attempt to wrongly characterize or misrepresent the relationship between Ayers and Obama isn't necessarily a sin of omission on the press's part - alleging that the press didn't do their job because they didn't document such allegations is WP:SYNTH.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that there were misleading comments about Ayers's friendship with Barack Obama - on both sides of the political divide. Finding a source to fully document the controversy would be difficult, and it seems better to me to avoid non-NPOV commentary which cannot be satisfactorily sourced by removing the material in question - the entire paragraph - as you suggest. On that we seem to have reached consensus. loupgarous (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Content Disputes: A reminder and emphasis

I am formally disputing WikiDemon's charges that my changes to Bill_Ayers under the heading "Statements Made in 2001" were argumentative and violated the WP:SYNTH guideline. I further protest WikiDemon's clear implication that by editing an article on December 25th, 2013, I deliberately sought to avoid exposing the changes I made to other editors. That is a false and defamatory statement about me by WikiDemon that I demand be withdrawn. It is also, by its nature, a breach of WP:Assume_good_faith.

Finally, protection of what by now is clearly in part an advocacy article which supports Bill Ayers's disproven statement that his Weather Underground organization at no time targeted people (my changes brought statements and reference citations from Weather_Underground showing Ayers's statement to be false before WikiDemon reverted it for reasons best known to him) has been abused to keep an advocacy article in wikipedia.

The intellectual and moral honor of wikipedia is rapidly being tarnished by a core of wikipedia editors (and at some point, administrators) who are specializing in false charges against other wikipedia editors for trying to keep wikipedia neutral. If their intent was to renew the implication in some public quarters that wikipedia is an unreliable source of facts, they couldn't be doing their job better.

Quoting the guidance under "WP:Content Disputes": Content disputes[edit] On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. Policy shortcut: WP:PREFER When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above). Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes. loupgarous (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This[18] is all too much. If you can state any content proposals in a brief, orderly way, I'm more than happy to consider them. However, I am not going to comb through a long digression or screed of accusations to try to figure out what the proposal is. Please try to focus on content and not editors if you wish to proceed. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the boldfaced text in the "Proposal" section which starts "Proposal." It is a succinct statement of the content change I proposed, with reasons for the context change following it. Is English not your first language? loupgarous (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My request stands. - Wikidemon (talk)

So does my content change proposal, the first paragraph of which is succinct and does not address editor misconduct.

If the text after it contains references to prior editor misconduct, you left that door gaping wide when you accused me of dishonesty very early on. I suggest a retraction of that comment.

Also, if you can't make sense of the boldfaced paragraph following the word PROPOSAL: then I don't know what to say, assuming your good faith, except as a degreed technical writer, I suggest that you pursue remedial English coursework.

If you sincerely can't read that paragraph, your English teachers did you a disservice. loupgarous (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We're done here then — proposal rejected. I see no point to further engagement. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You started this discussion by violating Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. Particularly, Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Unacceptable_reversions. Also, Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" is relevant. I'm formally documenting this. Whether other Wikipedia administators want to act on it is their affair. This article has been censored for what are clearly political reasons and to advocate for a certain political viewpoint. Despite all your evasions, I've sourced the edits I made, and submitted to an arbitrary and useless proposal process in which you didn't choose to read anything I proposed.

So enjoy your "victory." More victories like yours will undo thousands of editors' good work in removing inaccuracies in wikipedia articles and making them as professional and informative as possible - so that Internet users now largely believe what they read in wikipedia.org. As it stands now, Bill Ayers may as well have written the part of this article at issue himself. Hope you're proud of that. loupgarous (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of Quotations Throughout Article

I find it odd that there are so many favorable quotes in this article, most of them from Ayers himself. I would appreciate it if an experienced user could rectify this situation. The quote about him bombing the Pentagon makes him seem downright clever for doing so. I don't believe that Wikipedia should use quotes in this manner, much less this extensively. Also, would the admins please take note of pro-Ayers vandalism.171.221.247.94 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the quotes seem to be mindless, pro-Ayers fluff. Ie. "I also like Henry David Thoreau, Mother Jones and Jane Addams" That quote can definitely be cut off sooner. I can't imagine reading in Encyclopedia Britannica that Winston Churchill was a fan of Jane Austin. Pure tripe. 171.221.247.94 (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Also should his rebuttal of the terrorism charge be included? Whether he felt he was justified or not doesn't affect whether his actions can be classified as terrorism. Further, he doesn't seem to understand the generally accepted definition of terrorism. Why is a portion of a supposed encyclopedic article dedicated to Ayer's own opinion piece?171.221.247.94 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well done whoever edited this. It is at least in the ballpark of an encyclopedic tone now. I still think the quotes need to be cleaned up though. The "$500...no one was harmed" quote is rather misleading.171.221.247.94 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what your concern is here. What is a "favorable quote" or "pro-Ayers vandalism"? Those are nonsensical terms. It sounds like some of the information about Bill Ayers in this article appears as "fluff" to you, and it certainly might appear that way to you, but other readers (and certainly the editors who added it) find that same information interesting. As for quotations attributed to Ayers, I'm sure you'll agree that there is no better source for Ayers' personal opinions and points of view than Ayers himself, and those are sometimes conveyed as quotations when they aren't paraphrased. You are welcome to paraphrase direct quotations, of course, as long as the same information is accurately conveyed — but I don't see the present use of quotes to be excessive. Are you sure you aren't confusing "conveying Ayers' opinions" with your dislike or disagreement with Ayers' opinions? This article is about Ayers, after all. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill Ayers. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)