Talk:Bill Ayers

Were they in prison?

The article describes that "the couple turned themselves in in 1980" without ever mentioning whether they went to prison and if so, for how long. Surely that's a very important piece of information. Rodrigo de Salvo Braz (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At that time there were no active federal charges on them so there would have been no trial or prison time. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Labeling Ayers versus describing his one-time acts

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

[... ...]

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

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

George S.: You should explain who Ayers is.

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

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

Mark: -- who committed a violent act --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

smashing monogamy

From Ayers' 9/11 article No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives

He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to smash monogamy. The Weathermen were an army of lovers, he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.

I'd think that this aspect of Ayers' life would be relevant to an article. It shouldn't be prurient but not mentioning it at all? That's a whitewash. TMLutas (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to take Ayers' word for it. From another account Ayers was just a horny youth with a self-aggrandized view of his own improtance. Many radicals in the 60s and 70s made claims about sexual revolution, ending sexual oppression, etc., when they were simply trying to overcome women's reluctance to sleep with them and/or excuse their socially inappropriate behavior. Women who wouldn't sleep with them were called anti-revolutionaries, unemancipated, etc. That's well known in other radical groups too. . . and cult religions. . . if one could source that adequately it might make a good article or addition to the right section of certain articles if it is not already. In a bio of Ayers you'd have to be careful that it's presented neutrally and of due weight - if it's just him being horny then I'd say it's worth no more than a phrase, and only if it can be worked in well. If it's truly a theory of his that defined his activism then it could go somewhere, and if it's the weathermen generally (which I doubt) it would belong in that article. Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

no offense metnt, but thats kind of a copyout to me. Wikiepdia is not some sort o f tabloid or anything, but if the main prurpose of this "Weathermen" group was to smash the value of monogamy and encourage wanton sexual 'expirimentiation' then it should receive a small but important mention in either this article or the overall Weathermen article. Smith Jones (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I supplied a link and a quote. You just say "another account" says otherwise without any sort of actual backup. Since Ayers also ended up sleeping with at least one guy as part of the "smash monogamy" campaign according to his book, I think it's safe to say he wasn't just doing it to loosen up the women. Here's something else, a blog quoting a book Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the '60s

"[The Weather Underground] initiated a 'smash monogamy' campaign to destroy bourgeois sexual hang-ups: Once monogamy was smashed, couples who in some cases had been together for years were harangued until they admitted their 'political errors' and split apart. "The next logical step was group sex. One of the last taboos was homosexuality, and the Weather command forced itself toward experimentation in this direction, instructing male and female cadres to 'make it' with members of the same sex."

So that's three reliable sources, the NY Times article, Ayers' book, and this other book by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. No mention in Wikipedia though that Ayers decided to go bisexual as a political point against the patriarchy. That might embarrass a presidential candidate... TMLutas (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't see any reliable source. The whole thing is sourced to Ayers' autobiography, through two lenses: the New York Times is simply reviewing Ayers' book here, which isn't reliable or particularly complete on the subject. Then we've got some kind of a Republican blogger. Not sure what this could possibly have to do with Barack Obama and if that's the motivation for raising this we should all go home. Again, lots of radicals had some sexual liberation weirdness going on. In most cases it was probably just using their position as radicals and leaders to get sexual favors - it was not a real part of their philosophy or agenda. If it was, it could go in the Weatherman article; if not it would have to be something particularly notable about Ayers personally and it might be worth treating here. Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

are yo implyign that the NEW YORK TIMES is not an reliable source. _I understand teh desire to shield Ayers from critisism but really this is getting prety silly. EVen the most sourced statements about this man that are even minorly critical of him are automaticaly rejected. This is really surreal. Smith Jones (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Weatherman (organization). The short form of my response is: (1) no, not implying that but NYT is not the source. (2) I'm not shielding Ayers from anything - if I'm right in my suspicion it reflects worse on Ayers (that he was a sexual deviant, not simply using sex as a tool of his radicalism) - (3) you're making connections that don't exist. I have no love for Ayers at all. You might be picking up on something else going on here in the article, which is his use by one side of the current presidential election as a smear campaign. That has nothing to do with his life and his organization. The guy planted bombs in government buildings - I hardly think that a matter as simple how he engineered to have sex with other people's girlfriends (and apparently a guy too) makes him look significantly worse. Wikidemon (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

NYT *is* a source because the article writer passed that article through fact checkers and editors and it's very likely that they either personally remembered the campaign or they fact checked it before it went into the article. And if you think simple sexual deviancy is less of a character flaw than manipulating the end of multiple long-standing relationships in order to serve some daft political campaign and engaging in deviancy for the revolution, you have a very odd moral compass that I just don't understand. Look, you like sticking your equipment in non-standard places, I find that a character flaw but something of a garden variety one. You organize to convince others to stick their equipment where they otherwise would not have and that's just plain evil and a variety that's much less common. TMLutas (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing the sources wins you no points with me. The source is the book, not the blog. The quote in the blog is a courtesy so you don't actually have to go to a library and find the book. You could also go to netflix and get The Weather Underground where, according to the WBAI review, they cover the smash monogamy campaign. So, are you going to discount WBAI because it's too left wing? Or how about a feminist critique of the smash monogamy campaign in Outlaws of America by Dan Berger? Is the sourcing too US centric? How about this Observer article which talks about the slogan "smash monogamy"? Here's another book Remembering Tomorrow by Michael Albert describing how Weathermen tried to break up couples. TMLutas (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should I care how many points I have? Yes, the source for all three is Ayers' book. That's what I have been saying from the beginning. It is not the New York Times and it is not the partisan blog. One source is the book directly, one is the book as reported by New York Times, and the final one is the book as reported by a right-wing anti-Obama blog. The New York Times most likely did not fact checking on Ayers' claim because it does not assert the truth of Ayers' claim. The statement in the New York Times is simply that "Ayers' describes in his book that..." and the only fact that needs to be checked is that Ayers does in fact describe this in his book. If he does, then it can be printed. I'm going to discount Ayers' statement as an unreliable source in that it's a radical movement leader writing, thirty years later, on sexual politics of his organization at the time - when he himself is the one who perpetrated this polyamory scheme. The other source I'm aware of, a woman who claims she was pressured by Ayers into having sex, suggests that he was not at all principled about the whole thing. Under the circumstances it would be very weak of us to take Ayers' word for it. The Albert source also has reliability problems (first-person account by person involved in the events) but at least it's corroboration...and it seems to corroborate my suspicions that it was sexual hi jinx more than it was a fully formed philosophy or action plan. Again, I am not proposing an agenda here other than going to reliable sources to try to get this material right. I will guess that if you keep looking there is going to be some very solid stuff on this and we'll get a very clear picture of what happened... or to put it in Wikipedian, we will find some solid reliable sources that agree with each other on the subject. The result may well turn out to be "evil" as you put it. In fact, it's evil either way. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. If Ayers was doing it for his own personal gratification that makes him one thing. If he was doing it as part of a radical doctrine, it makes the Weathermen something of a mind control cult. Take your pick. I just think we ought to look into this for some more solid information before deciding whether to cover it, and assuming we do, how and with what sources. Wikidemon (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You admit he "perpetrated this polyamory scheme" but don't want the fact in the man's personal page? Come up with something, anything reliable claiming any sort of dispute over the existence of the "smash monogamy" campaign or don't fight the text when it goes up. You're engaging in WP:OR by going with your gut hunches without anything to back your side. Come up with evidence, reasonably soon or this is going to the article without your input. TMLutas (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Smashing Monogamy proposed text

Here's a first draft because it's clear from the last section that we're not getting anywhere without a text to look at. Maybe taking it to the draft process would improve the air.

== Sexual Politics ==
Radical Feminism played a role in the Weathermen and the leadership, including Bill Ayers, pushed for a radical reformulation of sexual relations under the slogan "Smash Monogamy". Infidelity, polyamory, and homosexuality were all advocated. Ayers writes in his autobiography that he participated in all three as a matter of politics.

---

Ok, looking for constructive criticism, appropriate refs, etc. and I'm going to put the best up say the weekend after Labor Day (or whenever I get to it after that). TMLutas (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's good material but a few quibbles. "Smash monogomy" should not be equated with radical feminism - they are two very different things, right? It's a run-on sentence anyway. The statement about radical feminism needs to be sourced on its own, and belongs in the Weathermen article, not the Ayers article if it's a comment about the movement. Next, when you say the Weathermen leadership, including Ayers, pushed for "Smash Monogamy", I think the Ayers book as a primary source (and as a secondary source via the New York Times) adequately verifies that Ayers did so. However, I don't think given Ayers' biases and the book's fact problems the book standing alone is an adequate source to claim that the other Weathermen were behind this. It may or may not be - are there any other sources for this? It may turn out as I've argued above that it was just Ayers' scheme for expressing his personal sexual desires (in which case the sentence might be more like "Ayers, during his Weathermen period, pushed for a radical reformulation..." If it turns out that it was a real Weatherman position and not just people going along with Bill Ayers, the sentence would be more like "Along with other Weathermen leaders, Ayers pushed for a radical reformulation..." and it would reasonably go in the Weathermen article too.Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs its own section, maybe it could simply be included in the "Weatherman ideology" section. I also agree with Wikidemon that the radical feminism reference is unwaranted. In fact, at least one notable radical feminist, Robin Morgan, was highly critical of WUO's sexual politics. Ron Jacobs, in his The Way the Wind Blew, discusses this (p. 93), and also provides a source that opposition to monogamy was a policy adopted by the Weather Underground generally, not just Ayers (p. 46). It might also be worth mentioning briefly that WUO later gave the women's movement much the same status they gave the Black liberation movement in their initial statement (that is, the WUO's anti-monogamy position was fairly closely connected with the rest of their politics). I'll see what sources I can find on that.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A general plea - please cut and paste text edits to make things better if you can. I think that radical feminism's view of monogamy might very well be anti-monogamy. I'm not a radical feminist so I don't know for sure but that seemed to be a reasonable inference from what I read so far. So if radical feminism wasn't the source of the campaign, what was? Were all the little maoist groups floating around in the 60s doing this too? TMLutas (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

His role in the anti-monogamy business tells us something important about him and should be in the article. I agree with the proposed language. -- Noroton (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

---

New version to be put underneath the ideology section (still the same release schedule)

=== Sexual Politics ===
Radical Feminism played a role in the Weathermen and the leadership, including Bill Ayers, pushed for a radical reformulation of sexual relations. They ran their efforts to revamp sexual relations under the slogan "Smash Monogamy". Infidelity, polyamory, and homosexuality were all advocated. Ayers writes in his autobiography that he participated in all three as a matter of politics.

TMLutas (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm not really convinced that this is relevant here - it's not about something specific to Bill Ayers, but rather about an element of Weather ideology and practice which Ayers, among others, participated in; and it's a comparatively insignificant part of their ideology. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Weather Underground article, where it could be expanded with more discussion of Weather's sex/gender politics (their disagreements with Radical Feminism, their identification of women as an oppressed class, their concept of "minority leadership," etc). VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't "terrorist" be in the summery

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

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

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

Discussion of alleged "terrorism" in the introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see this editor has started revert warring[1][2][3][4] to insert the BLP vio comment that Ayers is a terrorist. It is hard to tell how many reverts this is in 24 hours because the editor inserted "terrorist" so many times into so many places in the article, but in any event this is against consensus, a BLP/NPOV violation, against consensus, and aviolation fo the terms of article probation - please stand back now. Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Edit conflict over whether Ayers actually said what the article asserts

I removed the following sentence because, after following the links to both sources (two blog posts by Ayers), I found the sources didn't back up -- at all -- what the sentence asserted. Here's the sentence:

Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.

The two sources: [5] and [6]

Now Wikideomo has reverted the edit. This statement violates WP:V. If it is to be kept in the article, editors need to explain how the source actually backs it up. It would be best to provide a quote. I think it is worth having a description of what Ayers says about this, but it's complicated and difficult to understand what Ayers is actually saying. In any event, we can't say that he says a certain thing when we can't verify it. -- Noroton (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was actually perfectly clear, and I don't know why you didn't find it so. Anyway, the September 9 Jake Tapper quote added to the article should take care of your problem with it:
On September 9, 2008, journalist Jake Tapper reported on the comic strip in Bill Ayers's blog explaining the soundbite: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being....'When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough s---.' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"(Tapper, Jake In a Not-Remotely-Comic Strip, Bill Ayers Weighs In on What He Meant By 'We Didn't Do Enough' to End Vietnam War ABC News, Political Punch, September 9, 2008)

Reversion of edits describing the unreliable nature of Ayers memoir

Wikidemo has reverted the following passage that describes how Ayers' memoir is not meant by him to be taken as absolutely factual. This is important, because statements in the memoir have been used against Ayers as admissions that he did particular things. He has been clear in numerous interviews and in a statement in the front of the memoir itself that not everything in it is to be taken factually and that his memory might be wrong.

In 2001, Ayers published Fugitive Days: A Memoir. The word "memoir" is used by Ayers "somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction", according to an often-quoted article about Ayers and the book by Dinitia Smith in The New York Times. In the book, Ayers writes, "Is this, then, the truth? Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me." Smith asked Ayers why he wrote the book in which parts "are admittedly not true"; Ayers responded: "Obviously, the point is it's a reflection on memory. It's true as I remember it."

According to the article, "He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972." But the article also states that an example of the way Ayers' book makes his actual role unclear is his description of the bombing of the Pentagon. Ayers also states in the book that on the day the Weatherman group bombed the Pentagon: "Everything was absolutely ideal. [...] The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them." Ayers' personal role in that bombing is unclear from the memoir, since he both gives details about the manufacture and placing of the bomb but also states, "Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon — we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it."

Wikidemo's edit summary (rv redundant expansion of criticism of book - unwarranted here. Attempts to contradict book really ought to be focused and scaled back.) It's not an attempt "to contradict" anything in the book, nor is it criticism. Nor has Ayers ever objected to the characterization as I presented it -- in fact, much of the edit is in his own words. In order to understand the book at all, you have to understand that it's not a typical "memoir", and this now-reverted addition made that clear, preventing confusion for the reader. -- Noroton (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a typical memoir (as opposed to a peer-reviewed journal article, a documentary, a biography or an autobiography) in that sense. It's one's own memory of the past. That's what 'memoir' means. Ayers makes it clear there was no conscious attempt to lie about anything, just that he's not going to bet the farm on whether every point of fact is correct. Haven't you ever talked about something that happened with family or friends and found that your memory didn't match theirs? That's life. I could also point out what Ayers has stated many, many times: Dinitia Smith's memory certainly doesn't match his about what was said during that one (1) itnerview which has been relentlessly quoted as 'fact' over the years. That alone should give you pause. Flatterworld (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Current relevence

Current relevence of Ayres links him to Obama. The two were friends at times and worked together on many projects. Seeing as how this is what Ayres is curently best known for, will someone please make mention of this in the intro? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrn, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders - in which articles an dwhere in those articles. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

In the past 3 hours or so, 5 different editors (including an IP and a brand new editor on the first signed-in edit) have made small to moderate changes to the lead, including reverting each other. I don't see that any of these are a whole lot different than any others, but if there's no consensus for the language we ought to discuss so I restored the (momentarily) stable version from before this series of changes. I'm kind of partial to my version (here's a diff between that and the version 3 hours ago).[7] My points are:

• Shortens disambig link (don't need to summarize the person's contributions in the link, just identify him)
• Lead - shorter but says just as much, clearer, and better flow. Turn 2 sentences (He was a radical activist / he founded the weathermen) into one (he founded the radical, etc., Weatherman org) - which is true. He's not known for being an independent radical on his own, he's known for being a leader of the organization. I also inverted the mention of school reform so it appears as the third sentence after the weathermen mention instead of the second sentence. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your version omits the point that the radical activism in question was violent in nature. This point should be mentioned to distinguish the WU from other 60s-era activists who were considered radical but did not advocate or engage in violent acts. SnapCount (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, equal weight. He's notable know for trying to kill the po-po and US servicemen, not for "school reform". CENSEI (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So add the word "violent" then. I'm okay but not thrilled with the current version so we're probably done for now. It's a really minor point but saying he is radical in one sentence, that he founded the weathermen in the next, is indirect. His entire carerr as a radical is tied up in the Weathermen. I don't understand where there is any bias in that. One strong sentence is better than two weak ones, and by placing this as the second sentence instead of the last two my version actually made that more prominent. I don't really care either way - my main complaint was the awkward disambiguation link, which is thankfully gone now - just that it's a lot more orderly to avoid so many reverts. Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

His entire career as a radical is tied up in the Weathermen? Really? Did he wander into the WU recruitment meeting a button down upper class suburbanite kid thinking it was a meteorological society and become instantly "radicalized" when he signed the membership form? Seems like a bit of a stretch. CENSEI (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you were quite right, CENSEI, to make it explicit that he is well-known for his political past, not just his current academic work. But I prefer Wikidemon's wording, because the particular radicalism for which Ayers is known is his involvement with the WUO. Do you have a specific objection to Wikidemon's version (except for the omission of "violent," which is easily fixed)? VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It does look like the notability as a radical is entirely through the Weathermen - the article mentions two activist incidents in his pre-Weathermen life, picketing a segregated pizza joint and getting arrested at a sit-in. If we cut it off there, he's not notable yet. The next step after that was the SDS group, the Jesse James Gang, that later became the Weathermen. And from there on out he's known as the former weatherman leader. It's a simple English issue. Instead of saying something like zinfandel is often used to make juice / it is a kind of grape, you combine the two sentences to say zinfandel is a kind of grape often used for juice. Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) - Trying to use the {{otheruses}} template as a propaganda tool is completely unacceptable. It's purpose is to distinguish individuals with the same (or a similar) name. I have switched to "radical activist" which is more than sufficient to accomplish this. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You people play this game that a man in his 60s is still the same man he was in the early 1970s, and no matter how many good things, how many useful policy changes he suggests, no matter how many books he writes to assist our society, he just cannot get the stench of TNT off his bloody hands. Why don't some of you editors and bots apply for a writing position for Hannity on Fox. I hear that he writes his own talking points, which sound tired and worn now that the economy is in a slump. Perhaps you can add some lipstick to his pig of talking points. The fact is, HE HAS BEEN AN ACADEMIC FOR MORE YEARS THAN HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND but that doesn't stop you from arguing if he should be noted for being an advocate for smaller schools, working for Chicago school reform or being a member of a radical political group. Are any of you human beings or are you only looking at it the way journalists do (if it bleeds, it leads)? If you are worried that people will get the wrong idea of his past, please don't worry, everyone already knows who will visit this entry. (No one will let him forget, and the fact that the bulk of this article focuses on stuff that is over 35 years old demonstrates that you people won't forget either. Did you hear about a library? I am sure you can pick up a few of his books and add to his academic information, but that would spoil the fun...Why work on writing a complete, unbiased entry when you can focus on the "circus" of his Weather Underground past? I love the smash monogamy section, best. Can't you people place some actual information on his academic career or the specific foci of his academic writings? No, it's easier to stick to the Weather Underground, right? And so nostalgic!) But if you are so shortsighted to just focus on ONE PART OF HIS LIFE, then go ahead. Focus away. All I can say is that you people are like the people who vandalize this entry and make it known again and again that he was an unabashed bomber. HE IS NOT ONLY THAT, BUT SINCE IT BLEEDS, IT LEADS...Right? How can you sleep at night?

That is not very helpful - it is close to trolling. Please concentrate on concrete suggestions for improving the article rather than making accusations (ridiculous and inflammatory ones at that) against other editors here. You have also repeated an edit that degrades the disambiguation section[8] and seems to completely misunderstand what that section is for. If you want to edit articles around here, please take the time to review various policies and guidelines on how pages are constructed, and the purpose of talk pages. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again. CENSEI said "He's notable know for trying to kill the po-po and US servicemen" to justify the word 'violent', but AYERS DID NOT TRY TO KILL ANYONE. I really don't know how many times this has to be stated before it sinks in. 'Vioent' does not belong any more than 'terrorist' does in this article. Flatterworld (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayers and violence

Flatterworld" "AYERS DID NOT TRY TO KILL ANYONE". Actually, not true.

Flatterworld, do you have evidence contradicting the following (and does anybody else)? These are quotes from the New York Times bestseller The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso:

Larry Grathwohl, a Vietnam veteran who had earned the trust of the Weathermen after being recruited by them, testified in a classified session before a 1974 Senate subcommittee that Ayers had discussed the deadly incident after the fact. [page 123/ page 124] [quoted paragraph follows]

[H]e cited as one of the real problems that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act ... He said that the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it ... [I]f he wasn't there to see it, somebody who was there told him about it, because he stated it very emphatically.[7]

Grathwohl also testified about an unsuccessful Weatherman bombing in Detroit, which he said Ayers had planed for a time when the maximum number of people would be present: [quoted paragraph follows]

The only time that I was ever instructed or we were ever instructed to place a bomb in a building at a time when there would be people in it was during the planning of the bombing at the Detroit Police Officers' Association building and the 13th Precinct in Detroit, Mich., at which time Bill said that we should plan our bombing to coincide with the time when there would be the most people in those buildings.[8]

Grathwohl tipped off police to that plot, and they cleared the area. When they finally found the bomb, it was unexploded[9] at the Police Officers' Association. It contained 13 sticks of dynamite with an M-80 firecracker to detonate them. All were found unexploded, along with a burnt-out cigarette.

"The only thing Bill didn't take into consideration in making his bomb," Grathwohl testified, "was the fact that these wicks, those fuses on those firecrackers are waterproof with heavy paraffin, and a cigarette burning by itself does not always have enough heat to melt that [page 124/ page 125] paraffin and light the powder. And I didn't volunteer any information to the contrary." Grathwohl said he didn't know who actually planted the bomb.

[...]

Ayers and Dohrn escaped prosecution only because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them.

Footnotes [page 263], quoted word for word:

6. Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. "Terroristic Activity Inside the Weatherman Movement, Part 2," October 18, 1974

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. "Storm Clouds for Weathermen," ' 'Time' ', Monday, August 3, 1970

Here's a helpful link to the Time magazine piece in Footnote 9: [9] -- here's a relevant passage: Although the indictment cited 21 overt acts furthering the conspiracy, no actual bombing was charged. Federal officials said that there was an attempt to blow up the Detroit police officers' association building, but the bomb never went off.

In addition to this, there's Grathwohl's book -- Grathwohl, Larry, "as told to Frank Reagan", Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen, New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1976, ISBN 0870003350 Here's what it says. Keep in mind that the book was published six years after the events, and Grathwohl wouldn't have been taking notes at the meetings and during the conversations, so any quotes are to be considered evocative, not word-for-word, but the import of what was said is what is important here:

[during a meeting] Ayers hammered on the desk. "Where did those pigs get the money to hire decent lawyers? The Police Officers Association put up the money. The pig officers can't afford to have their foot soldiers found guilty. [...]

Ayers had narrowed in on our target: The Detroit Police Officers Association Building. [...]

We blast that f___ing building to hell," Ayers said. "And we do it when the place is crowded. We wait for them to have a meeting, or a social event. Then we strike." [page 139 / page 140] While our focal was concentrating on the officers building, another unit was making plans to destroy the Thirteenth Precinct, the station house where the cops involved in the incident were assigned.

[...]

[page 143 -- conversation well after the meeting] I objected to leaving the bomb on the side of the building. "We'll blow out the red Barn Restaurant. Maybe even kill a few innocent customers — and most of them are black.

Ayers didn't appreciate my remark. "We can't protect all the innocent people in the world. Some will get killed. Some of us will get killed. We have to accept that fact. That bomb is going to be placed on the side of the building." He glared at me for questioning his authority. "Have you cased the building at night yet?" he asked me.

"No."

"Well, you'd better get on that. We want to be sure that enough people leaving the theater use that alley so that it won't look unnatural for two of us to be walking around there late at night."

[...]

[page 152 -- another meeting, some time afterward] "I still think we should put the bomb in the back of the building," I protested.

"Stop worrying about those people in that restaurant. That's not your concern," Ayers snapped. "You can't build a revolution worrying about a handful of people." [...]

[page 160] Local police detectives and FBI agents had spent all week watching the DPOA [Detroit Police Officers Association] building. [...] Thursday night had started out the same way. [...] [page 161/page 162] As the police were getting ready to call it quits, they noticed in the alley a brown paper bag that wasn't being pushed along by the wind. They raced across the street.

Inside the bag a cigarette had already burned down, and the wick of the firecracker was starting to sputter. The police easily dismantled the bomb. Then they immediately called the Thirteenth Precinct. A search of the station turned up another bomb neatly wrapped in a waterproof bag inside the toilet tank in the women's rest room. There were 44 sticks of dynamite in the two bombs.

I've checked in other sources to try to find out more about Grathwohl. I haven't seen anything that impugns his credibility. WP:RS tells us that to check out the reliability of sources, look to see if others have used that source. They have, including books sympathetic with Weatherman:

• Cathy Wilkerson, former Weatherman member (sympathetic but quite critical of the organization), in her memoir, Flying Close to the Sun (Grathwohl's book is listed in the bibliography, page 407)
• Harold Jacobs, Weatherman (1970) mentions Grathwohl quite a bit (as an alleged FBI informer), but I saw nothing in the book impugning his credibility [10]
• Jeremy Varon, Bringing the War Home (2004) cites Grathwohl's book in footnotes and lists it in the "Select Bibliography" (page 366) [11]
• Ron Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground (1997), Bibliography (page 189) and many notes [12]
• Jon Wiener, Gimme Some Truth (2000), snarky/disparaging (page 317), but not impugning Grathwohl's credibility [13]
• Dan Berger, Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity (very sympathetic book toward the Weatherman), page 147 [14]

Does anybody still have an objection to calling Ayers "violent"? If so, why? -- Noroton (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't call Ayers violent or imply that he tried to kill people. That would be a poorly sourced contentious statement disparaging a living person, a BLP vio. Freddoso's book is not reliable - it's a partisan book expressly intended to hurt Obama's presidential campaign. Nor is Grathwohl a reliable source - he's an FBI informant recounting personal stories first-hand. This is the same trouble we're running into at the RfC with calling Dohrn a terrorist or murderer based on the same sources. That won't work for BLP reasons. Please don't fork this stuff out of the RfC to try to argue the same case in the individual articles. What we can do is include a brief aside to identify who the Weathermen were. For what it's worth "radical" seems to be the most common adjective applied to the Weathermen by reliable sources, followed by militant, violent, and terrorist (in no particular order - they're all distant seconds) and then a bunch of other adjectives and identifiers. It's pretty obvious that we have to include "radical" and leftist because those define them. We're getting at the specific point that they planted bombs, which is neither implied by nor implies that they are radical and leftist. We can't heap on too many adjectives - that's not the point of the lead. One way to do it is to simply say something like "the Weathermen, who were known for constructing and planting a series of bombs in government buildings from 1969 through 1977." That's not exactly it, and I'm not sure if I like it, but it's just something to throw out to get over the question of how you identify their violent nature. Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly well sourced. Of course we can say Ayers was violent, and we can use Grathwohl and Freddoso as sources because nothing in either policy/guidelines or common sense prevents it. Freddoso is a journalist who is published in (and works for) National Review. The only information that would be sourced is the quote Freddoso uses of Grathwohl's testimony, which agrees with Grathwohl's own book (that book would have had to have been reviewed by the publisher to see if there was a legal liability regarding libel). Freddoso's opinions therefore don't matter. But he does support the credibility of Grathwohl (because he reprinted some of the testimony and Freddoso's publisher also would have had to review it to make sure there were no libel concerns), whose testimony and book very much do matter. And National Review Online also published an article by Freddoso which quoted Grathwohl's testimony, and that magazine would also look at the article for potential libel -- so that's three professional organizations reviewing those statements. an FBI informant -- so what. Being an FBI informant doesn't make someone unreliable. recounting personal stories first-hand. That doesn't make what he says unreliable. Since what he says is testimony he gave under oath, "stories" is simply unfairly disparaging his statements. Please don't fork this stuff out of the RfC What I'm doing here is talking about "violence", which is not what the RFC is about (it's about "terrorism", as you wrote in the top line of the RFC: regarding whether Wikipedia should describe the Weathermen, and their various members, as "terrorists".'). I'll be making a separate proposal on the RFC about changes related to the subject of terrorism. If we simply call Weatherman "a group described as 'terrorist' by the FBI and others" then the idea of "violent" would be included under "terrorist" and could be replaced by it. If we don't wind up call them "terrorist" for some odd reason, we need to at least call them "violent". We can't heap on too many adjectives - that's not the point of the lead. The point of the lead is to mention important points. The fact that he and the organization he helped to lead were violent has always been important in descriptions of Weatherman. For what it's worth "radical" seems to be the most common adjective applied to the Weathermen by reliable sources, followed by militant, violent, and terrorist (in no particular order - they're all distant seconds) -- Please show your research for that, as I've shown mine. The concept of violence is nearly universally a point that is mentioned in the coverage of Weatherman by reliable sources, especially the most prominent sources (a large number of which -- perhaps a majority -- also call it "terrorist"). -- Noroton (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So you want to use the FBI mole as a reliable source to accuse not only Ayers' wife but Ayers too of murder? No, I'm, not going to argue this case again in the umpteenth forum for the umpteenth time. Nobody is supporting this, it's just you. Will you please give this POV nonsense a rest? This is a biographical article of a professor and tertiary civic/political figure in Chicago who used to be a leader of a militant leftist organization that planted a number of homemade bombs in government and private offices in the late 1960s to mid 1970s. That's it. If you want to disparage Barack Obama please find some other project, but give Wikipedia a rest from this. Wikidemon (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly well sourced. Of course we can say Ayers was violent, and we can use Grathwohl and Freddoso as sources because nothing in either policy/guidelines or common sense prevents it. Noroton, that demonstrates a blatant ignorance, incompetence, or total disregard of how articles should be researched and writen. Instead of trying to do a professional, accurate job, you're looking for loopholes in order to insert your pre-determined prejudices into the article. Over and over you have absolutely refused to accept any sources that don't fit into your own little picture of the world, even if that means you're down to some remarkably dodgy sources and people. If you aren't clear on this by now, I doubt you ever will be. Are you going to stop, or do you want to go through the blocking process? I've had it with cleaning up after you and dealing with your endless screeds on the same few words over and over and over again. Flatterworld (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Moved the following two comments from lower down on the page into this discussion, to consolidate discussion on same topic all in one place (and deleted "Characterizations" section) -- assuming this is helpful, not controversial:

There is no need for POV pushers to keep adding unnecessary characterizations, such as "violent", to this introduction of this biography. It is more than adequately dealt with in the body of the article, and in the link to the Weatherman article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be left out? The introduction or lead section should be able to stand on its own and this seems pretty accurate. As I pointed out above, maybe this should have citations since there seems to be some disagreement on it's inclusion. Also, no need to to call others POV pushers, because the same could be said of yourself. --Tom 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus so far: Do I understand correctly that at this point we have CENSEI, Voluntary Slave, SnapCount, Tom and me in favor of including the word "violence" in the lead and Wikidemon and Flatterworld opposed? -- Noroton (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No. "Consensus" is when there is an agreement. There is no such agreement. This is not a vote. Incidentally, someone who tries to push their point of view into an article is a "POV-pusher". Trying to keep an article neutral is not. By trying to add BLP-violating, inflammatory words like "terrorist", "violent" and their variants to the article, you are trying to add a non-neutral POV to the article (hence "POV-pusher"). I just wanted to be sure there was no confusion there, after reading Tom's comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keep words out of an article that you do not like or agree with is POV pushing. You can call it Trying to keep an article neutral or anything else but that is your opinion. Again, what do reliable sources say about this issue? I would defer to those sources and include them in the lead rather than an editors pov. --Tom 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you are confused about Wikipedia policy here. Editors wishing to add defamatory characterizations to biographies of living persons may only do so if they have high quality reliable sources, and even then it should only be done if absolutely necessary. Using deliberately inflammatory language to describe a person is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. "Radical activist" is accurate and well-sourced, whereas "violent" or "terrorist" do not pass the RS/necessary tests. One more time: "radical activist" is neutral, "violent terrorist" is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it appears that you are confused. I never said that we should use the term terrorist. We should "label" persons the way reliably, well sourced, 3rd party, peer reviewed, authors have in the past. Again, this is not about the truth or your opinion or my opinion. Anyways, --Tom 21:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, the consensus at this time is that the term violent should be used. Just to be clear, my actual position is that we should be using the word TERRORIST to describe Ayers and the WU, but, since it doesn't appear we will ever get concensus on that word, I am willing to COMPROMISE and go with the term "violent" instead. It seems we have a cadre of editors here who do not believe in compromise and seek to impose their own POV on this article. And that is contrary to the spirit of WP as I understand it. SnapCount (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Scjessey, you are entirely wrong. A potentially defamatory characterization of a living person would be something like this: "A lot of people would cross the street to avoid the likes of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn." And there is nothing in the article like that. As for the phrase "radical activist," it is much too vague. As I pointed out in a previous discussion, there were many "radicals" active in the 60s/70s. The WU was different, because they were the only ones who endorsed violence. The SDS and other anti-war groups never tried to kill people. SnapCount (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. You are both wrong. There is no consensus (this is not a vote) to use characterizations like "violent" (or "terrorist"). Ayers has not been convicted of anything, so Wikipedia cannot use these words directly. The best you can do is say that "such-and-such has described him as..," but even that would have to be presented neutrally (with an opposing view). Any attempt to shoehorn this BLP vio into the article will be vigorously defended. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right that "terrorist" should probably used in the form "Ayers was described as terrorist" as you say but I don't think you are right about "violent" or any other label. The fact that Ayers bombed the pentagon for example is undisputed and fully admitted by Ayers and as such statements relating to that are not only 100% factual but are not in dispute. As such it would be silly to defend something that Ayers himself admits to. Hobartimus (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If setting a bomb isn't a clear act of violence, what is it? 66.135.13.190 (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is not proven so stating such would technically be in violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(<-- back left). Property damage is not violence. Violence is something you do to things that are alive. There is no evidence that any harm caused by the actions of the Weather Underground were intended to cause harm to people (accidents also do not count as "violence"), save for the lone testimony of a member of an organisation with a proven track record of making things up about anybody to the left of McCarthy. --124.197.53.15 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am stunned to read that Property Damage is considered "not violence" or that we should not disparage a living person by calling him/her violent. Go with the data available. Blowing up things or destroying things is a violent act. The key is - did Ayers participate in such events? If so, it should be mentioned. If there is some doubt but some partial evidence Ayers participated in property or other physical damage work, then mention the fact (if a fact) that Ayers' participation is questioned by some sources. Wikipedia should be as neutral and as scholarly as possible on Ayers, especially as he is currently a hot topic.Victorianezine (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Placing bombs is akin to setting off fireworks, simply on a larger scale. If you let off a skyrocket in the direction of a tree, that is not a violent act. If you let it off in the direction of a person, it is. Cf. It is well-established that Ayers participated in the placing of bombs causing property damage and accidental injury. This is mentioned in the article. --124.197.53.15 (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I removed the title as per other bios of professors and also per his faculty bio. Thank you, --Tom 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted myself since there dosen't seem to be a standard for professor titles. what do others think? Thanks, --Tom 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed much earlier. At that time, the consensus (following other articles) seemed to be that 'American professor' belonged in the lead, and his actual title, 'Distinguished Professor', belonged in the body of the article. At the risk of sounding like Ayers himself, I'll state here and now that my memory isn't perfect. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jake Tapper's quote, and "s---"

We have a link to the article where Jake Tapper reproduced the cartoon where Ayers said: a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough s---.' . The word appears pixelated in Tapper's copy of the cartoon image. I am curious to know whether Tapper blurred it or whether it was like that in the original. If it was like that in the original, we shouldn't be blanking the word here. However, on a brief search around the dates I've been unable to find the cartoon on billayers.org, which does make me wonder where Ayers posted it in the first place. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This anti-Ayers blog post has a copy of the cartoon, and it isn't pixellated. I agree that we shouldn't blank the word. Andjam (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Violent vs militant

I copy edited this. What do RS sources refer to him and this group as?--Tom 22:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and violence, above. -- Noroton (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

In addition to disputing "violent", editors have removed any mention of Ayers' wife, who had an enormous impact on his life (wives tend to do that, but this one also kept him underground for years after he was ready to surface). At the end of the lead paragraph, I included mention of Dohrn. She does, after all, have her own Wikipedia article and is famous in her own right. When they first turned themselves in to authorities, a lot of Ayers' notability was for being Dohrn's husband. Here's the way the lead looked when I last edited it:

William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born 1944) is an American Distinguished Professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is most well known for his violent radical activism in the 1960s and 1970s, his current work in education reform, curriculum and instruction, and a controversial association with 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. In 1969 he co-founded the violent, radical left organization Weatherman, which was active during the 1960s and 1970s. His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was also a leader of Weatherman.

--Why would we not mention his well-known wife? -- Noroton (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we keep discussing the same stuff over and over? His wife belongs in the body of the article, not the lead paragraph. Lots of people have well-known spouses, but they aren't in the lead paragraph of their spouse's article. I've worked on hundreds of biography articles, and I haven't seen that done once. Flatterworld (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When did we discuss including his wife's name in the lead before? It seems to me it would be common sense to do that when a spouse is about as famous as the famous subject of the article, and especially when their fame or notability is wrapped up in things they did jointly or when the fame of one was influenced by that of the other. It's done in both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, for instance. If the spouse was barely well known, then I can understand it not being in the top paragraph of a lead section, but even there, I'd be inclined to want to see it. The Elizabeth Dole article mentions Bob Dole but not vice versa, which I think should be the case (he's retired and she's a senator with his last name, so she now has something to do with his notability). Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert articles don't mention each other in their leads, but I disagree with that, especially since their notability stems largely from their working together in addition to being a couple. Cher mentions Sonny Bono in the lead, but the Sonny Bono article has a very short lead with no mention of Cher (it should mention her in a lengthened lead). William III of England and Mary II of England properly mention each other in their leads. While John Adams mentions Abigail Adams in the lead, it should also mention John Quincy Adams as his most famous son (instead it has a link to Adams political family). John Quincy Adams does mention John Adams in the lead. So there's quite a bit of precedent for this and it makes sense if we're going to cover the important points of the article in the lead. -- Noroton (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So you now want to run Wikipedia based on precedent by anecdotal evidence? I said hundreds of biographical articles I've worked on, you mention a couple you've seen (or perhaps made those changed yourself?) and then state you alone know the truth, which is that all the rest should do this as well. Everyone else at Wikipedia is wrong, is that what you're saying? You're some messiah come to save us all from scholarly, factual research and encyclopedic, non-inflammatory speech? Flatterworld (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Scale back the personal attacks. Noroton appears to have selected a few articles which he felt would be a barometer of the commonness of the practice, and in the absence of a hard line rule for the matter, found some relevant links to support his argument. For yiou to run with insults afterward is highly untoward and uncalled for. ThuranX (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing problems

At this point we have an RfC and an AN/I report about some of the editing behavior here. I am not going to engage anyone in debate or allow this to fork over here, so for the moment I am attaching an NPOV tag.[15] I consider the latest BLP vios to be non-consensus but I am not going to get sucked into yet another revert war or string of uncivil accusations. I will also ask that this article be protected or otherwise calmed. Once things will get back to normal we will probably have to look through the article carefully and as necessary restore it to neutral, well-sourced article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats mighty big of you(sarcasm). --Tom 18:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For no apparent good reason factual, footnoted, information regarding William Ayers' education credentials were deleted from this page. The information was accurate and correlates with Ayers' own Curriculum Vitae posted on his own website. It is information in the public interest so I re-instated it. It is of particular interest at the moment because it places Ayers in immediate proximity of Barack Obama in 1983. Obama claims to have not met Ayers for another 12 years, however they were at school at the same time a quarter of a mile apart. They also had Friends in common such as Edward Said.Truthwillout505 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't aware that Obama and Ayers both knew Edward Said. i agree the information should be in the article, SnapCount (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if those who edited the information, that had been there for many months, out of the article would care to explain to us why they felt the information should be removed, and why now...?

It appeared to be a deliberate attempt to hide information that might potentially be embarrassing to Obama as it might lead to him being revealed as a blatant liar since he has trivialized his relationship with Ayers and claimed he never met him until 1995.

This information may lead us to discover that Ayers and Obama, in fact, had a substantial ongoing relationship since 1982 or 83. This would make sense of a number of previously unanswered questions about Obama and would also give the electorate serious concerns about Obama's veracity as well as his past behavior and associations.

If we don't get a different, valid, explanation for removing the information we can reasonably assume the above theory to be true. Truthwillout505 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, I thought this was an article on Bill Ayers and not Barack Obama? I also thought that Wikipedia did not use original research and synthesis to come up with ties and information? Lastly, I thought that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia and not a platform for campaign attacks? If Wikipedia is such, then why are people so ardently trying to prove that Obama knew and were friends with Ayers? Brothejr (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There's several things going on IMO. There's concern over an ongoing effort to whitewash communists that spans a great many articles. There's concern that Barack Obama's got a crew whitewashing anybody controversial that was a previous associate. There's a concern that the right's tossing mud at Barack Obama's prior associates and acquaintences in order to dirty Obama up by association. There's a concern about the Chicago political angle, that the faction that rehabilitated Bill Ayers doesn't like to see its hard work undone. So you're going to have motivated people coming through here with agendas and counter-agendas, some striving for NPOV with special care to push against what they see as illegitimate POV from the partisans of one or more of the above groups, others who are the partisans trying to POV push to achieve their ideological/power goals. Until the election's over, it's going to get worse but it'll never die down entirely until the last red diaper baby and kid whose parents survived the gulag meet their maker. TMLutas (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the entire discussion thread and review previous versions of the article, it's pretty clear there has been a concerted effort here to whitewash Ayers in general and whitewash his connection to Obama in particular. Because Obama's connection to Ayers is factual and well documented, it is fair game for the article. SnapCount (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that your analysis is nonsensical, and that there is no basis for this continued pointy and tendentious approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The above by truthwillout seems like a deliberate smear based on his own hypothesis and SYNTH. Like brotherjr, I am suspicious of the motivations to include such a poorly supported tinfoil hat theory, and is much like trying to suggest that 'John McCain spent over 5 years living, sleeping, and eating in the same complex as many high ranking north vietnamese army officers.' No one would permit that either. WP is not the place to dust off your sopabox to decry Obama. ThuranX (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree wuth Brotherj's point that Wikepedia is an encyclopedia, which begs the question why would someone delete established, verified, facts from a page that is getting a lot of scrutiny at present? Truthwillout505 (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If the "facts" are synthesized and tangential, they do not belong here. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was "synthesisized".

The details that were deleted, were hard, indisputable, facts. It was the list of Ayers' academic credentials. Those are not "tangentral", they are seminal to his skill base and experience. They are not disputed, they are listed on his own Curriculum Vitae, and can be confirmed with Bank Street College and Columbia University. So my question was, and still is, - Why would someone go out of their way to delete them.? Truthwillout505 (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I can see here, there are three essential problems. Firstly, and most importantly, it appears there is a lot of original research in there that has not been backed up by enough in the way of reliable sources. Secondly, the way the section was introduced was structurally rather awkward. Finally, non-wikistyle markup was used. It seems likely that with the addition of a few more sources, and a cleanup of style, you can probably bring your stuff back and seek consensus for it to be included. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be to make a sandbox for it and work out some better sourcing, especially since the main article is currently locked? TMLutas (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The deleted items that I reinstated were properly sourced in the published version prior to deletion. They had footnote numbers 32 and 33 as references. I did not have a copy of the footnotes so when I reinstated the information I deleted the footnote reference numbers as the footnotes had been deleted too. This information is easily sourced by clicking the link to Bill Ayers' home page at he bottom of the Wikipedia page, then go to "Biography" and download Ayers' Curriculum Vitae.

There should be no controversy over the validity of the information, it is established, verified, and has long been in the public record. The only controversy is why would someone delete it? Truthwillout505 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Removed "Of course, the councils were formed precisely to provide parent and political activists with the power to influence schools." They're are barely any sources on this page but this is just retarded to have on wiki without a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moomoo445 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of consensus on Obama/Ayers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24.110.64.88 has twice ([16]/[17] and [18]) added (without an edit summary) this unsourced, inaccurate, unnecessary, undue weight, contentious WP:BLP violation:

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

These edits were:

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

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

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

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

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

Activism? No - Terrorism.

to call ayers an activist in the 60's and 70's is totally biased. this man was part of a group that bombed the Manhattan Police Department HQ (along with other police HQ's), the Pentagon, the capitol and many other crimes including rape and kidnapping murder armed robbery etc.

This guy was a domestic terrorist - plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHistory (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Terrorism? No - Activism.

Terrorism would be entirely subjective. Also, terrorism and activism are not mutually exclusive terms.

Look up the definition of activism. It fits perfectly.

Yeah, but it is biased to just play him off as one of the myriad of activists who didn't kill people and blow things up and commit robberies and kidnappings. that is the point and that you clearly are missing here. it's not enough - he passed the point of activism as it is commonly thought of today into the realm of terrorism. I don't think it is subjective. The weather underground were designated as domestic terrorists. they terrorized people. they wanted to get their way through violent acts that were not under the Geneva convention. I mean this not hard to see. This article is way too biased in his favor and makes it seem like no one was ever hurt by bill ayers - when the victims are many and the terror was real. you have a duty to be honest. JohnHistory (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Also, to call him an anti-war activist is kind of misleading because he was against the vietnam war, but he was no pacifist he was a violent extremist who murdered people. JohnHistory (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Except for you, no-one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that Bill Ayers killed anyone, or committed robberies or kidnappings. If you want to include these claims in the article, you need to find sources to support them.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. JohnHistory's libelous edit[19] was a gross violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Thanks for removing it. Modocc (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The NEw York times said he was a "domestic terrorist" today. Surely, that is a newspaper that YOU read. You need to get your head out of the sky - this man was involved intimately with bombings and kidnappings, robberies. etc , etc. You can check that for yourself. I don't have the time to argue with someone who is as unreasonable as you are. Figure something out later. JohnHistory (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Nitpicks - Word choice, etc

Section 2 of the article, "Radical history" ends with an observation "that Ayers, along with Bernardine Dohrn, were probably the two most authoritative people within the organization." The citation (currently cite 12) contains the exact quote;

12# Grathwohl, Larry, and Frank, Reagan, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informant in with the Weathermen, Arlington House, 1977, page 110: "Ayers, along with Bernardine Dohrn, probably had the most authority within the Weatherman."

Now, having authority and being authoritative are two entirely different concepts. I understand the desire to not be seen as plagiarizing a source but in this case, it is necessary so as to not confuse.

If this article weren't getting some extra attention due to the election year hoopla (and therefore unlocked), I would probably have all ready made this change.

Mat catastrophe (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)mat catastrophe 6 October 2008

Commentary Magazine

I don't know anything about this magazine. Can someone tell me why it's not reliable?LedRush (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I looked at three articles and they are 0 for 3 in terms of what I would consider good reporting. Please ignore my question.LedRush (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Commentary (magazine) has perhaps the most diverse and notable base of contributors of any magazine published. To say that it is not notable while other sources like the Utne Reader are is simply incomprehensible. CENSEI (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has said the magazine is bad, but an opinion article from any source, no matter it's credibility is inappropriate for a biography. Grsz^X 03:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, the article has nothing to do with Ayers, so it's a bad source for this entry, independent of whether or not it's a good source for other entries.VoluntarySlave (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jail Time?

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

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

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

"Connection to Barack Obama"

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

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

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

Self Admitted Terrorist

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

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