Talk:Bill Ayers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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: [1] and [2]

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)

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)

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.[3] 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)

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)

So why even the dilemma on whether to turn themselves in or not? The article says his wife took a long time to come to agree with him that they should turn themselves in. Rodrigo de Salvo Braz (talk) 18:02, 19 October 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).[4] 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[5] 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: [6] -- 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 [7]
• Jeremy Varon, Bringing the War Home (2004) cites Grathwohl's book in footnotes and lists it in the "Select Bibliography" (page 366) [8]
• Ron Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground (1997), Bibliography (page 189) and many notes [9]
• Jon Wiener, Gimme Some Truth (2000), snarky/disparaging (page 317), but not impugning Grathwohl's credibility [10]
• Dan Berger, Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity (very sympathetic book toward the Weatherman), page 147 [11]

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)

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)

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

The Definition of Terrorist is someone who uses violence to promote an agenda, TERRORIST!--76.173.255.40 (talk) (UTC)

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.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Trite, but very true. Why not address this concept directly: "Ayres considered himself a radical activist, but many would label him a terrorist". John History below is correct that there is a duty to be honest, but simply because one side says terrorist doesn't mean the other side (towards which i lean) says radical.

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[12] 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

Terrorism has a legal definition in the United States and is a crime. My understanding of American law is that American citizens charged with a crime are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Does anyone know if Ayers was actually ever convicted of terrorism? That seems relevant to this discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he never was. He was accused of terrorism, but never convicted. --GoodDamon 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The actions to which Ayers admits would constitute him a terrorist under the legal definition of the term. The man spends a good deal of time discussing illegally manufacturing and deploying bombs in his autobiography. If Ayers isn't a terrorist because he was never convicted of terrorism-related charges, then neither can we describe Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab Zarqawi, the nineteen hijackers of 9/11 or countless Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists. That would appear to be an absurd standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.82.222 (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted this Talk:Bill_Ayers#FBI definitions.28s.29 of terrorism earlier, in order to resolve these repetitive discussions. At the time (which is what's relevant, as I don't know nor am I interested in discussing what they woulda coulda shoulda called him if he were doing those things in 2008) he was not considered a domestic terrorist by the U.S. government. Therefore, it doesn't make sense, imo, to use that word in this article. Flatterworld (talk)

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

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

{{editprotected}} The major at the University of Michigan should be "American Culture" rather than "American Studies." Michigan has never had an American Studies major; this specialization is handled by the Program in American Culture, which was created in 1952.The forest's edge (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

N Declined at this stage; no reliable sources are provided for the proposed change.  Sandstein  21:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Its not an opinion piece, look past the word "Commentary" and think past one dimension. CENSEI (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If an entire magazine unabashedly espouses a particular bias, that pretty much limits it to being a reliable source about its own opinions. But all this is moot; if the article in question doesn't even have anything to do with Ayers, this is a non-issue. It doesn't belong in his WP:BLP. --GoodDamon 01:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again just because it has the name "Commentary" doesnt mean its an opinion journal. And if we are using a nortoriously bad journal like ZMag as a source in this article, which we are by the way, why are we now arguing to restrict the use of a journal that includes diplomats, senators, academics, presidents, ambasadors and many nobel prize winners amongst its contributors. CENSEI (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it's not an opinion magazine. It's a non-partisan news and analysis jour... er... wait... I think I've found some undoubtedly false claims that they're publishing from an anything-but-neutral viewpoint!

"Flagship of neoconservatism?" Preserver of "high culture in an age of political correctness?" What scurrilous source would label the highly respected non-partisan journal of news and analysis that is Commentary magazine of being biased? Well whaddya know... It's Commentary magazine. I think we're pretty much done here. --GoodDamon 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for ZMag, that's a different issue. Feel free to bring up NPOV issues with it. In another thread. I think this one's ready for closure. --GoodDamon 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So, are we saying that any journal of opinion, even if its not all opinion, are not allowed as sourced in BLP? Are you really going to make what has got to be the biggest most spectacularly laughable argument ever made here at Wikipedia? I am sure ZMag is different, I would expect no less. CENSEI (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So are you really saying that an avowedly biased opinion journal somehow magically becomes a reliable source for statements of fact when it calls one of its articles a "news" article? That, I'm afraid, is the laughable argument here. Rule of thumb: If opinion pieces in respected news outlets like the Washington Post aren't acceptable, neither are "news" articles in NeoconsAreAlwaysRight magazine. --GoodDamon 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me see, we use The Nation, Mother Jones, ZMag, The American Prospect, and The New Republic (just to name a few) as sources for facts in BLP's (not just opinions). So do me the pleasure of explaining this apparent contradiction to me. CENSEI (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Like I said, different issue. I'm not a big fan of using any of them in biographies, and perhaps another thread ought to be started to sort them out. Most of them could easily be replaced with better and more neutral sources. Regardless of how accurate they all are, they are definitely not neutral. But... aren't we talking about Commentary magazine? Because if we are, you appear to be agreeing with me. --GoodDamon 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you are confirming for me that while journals like The Nation, Mother Jones, etcetera are icky they are acceptable but since Commentary is named "commentary" and is the leading journal of Neo-con thought it cannot be used. The sources themselves do not have to be neutral, they only have to meet the requirements called out in WP:V and WP:RS. CENSEI (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm agreeing with you that The Nation, Mother Jones, etc. are not acceptable sources and should be replaced with high-quality neutral sources, such as newspapers that do not espouse a particular bias. I personally like the way Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations lays out examples of quality news organizations for BLP articles. And apparently, you're agreeing with me that Commentary also does not qualify. We green? --GoodDamon 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is the Administrator in Charge of this Page?

Just asking. Seems like its in urgent need of one - Mblaxill (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin's aren't usually "in charge" of articles. Do you have a perticular complaint or suggestion? Thanks, --Tom 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know who's been editing. I came to get some information about Ayers being named Chicago's "Citizen of the year in 1997. It shows on the google page, but even going into google cache, I can not find it here. Whatever you think of him, being named "Citizen of the Year" should be included in this article. Gingervlad (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)gingervlad

Using violent in the lead to describe Weatherman

An editor insists on removing violent from the lead claiming BLP issues. What issues are we talking about here. Should we provide sources that the Weatherman were violent? Considering the subject's(Ayers) invovlement with this group, this is relevant, verifiable and makes sense to give context. Thanks, --Tom 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article long enough to know what the arguments pro and con for using the term "violent" are. What do the neutral, verifiable sources say in describing the bombing activities? --GoodDamon 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well naturally the cop killing and bombing activities were committed in a very peaceful manner. CENSEI (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Once more, we can't call them something just because you think it's obvious that the descriptor applies. There are real-life consequences to what we do here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

From my recollection of researching this a few weeks ago the neutral, reliable sources most commonly use the word "radical", particularly the contemporary accounts. They often use some variant or combination of "left" and "militant". "Terrorist" is used less often but still often, and we have had a discussion about that. "Violent" does not seem to be a common descriptor. It appears quite often in connection with the weathermen, though. Usually they describe the acts as violent, or "violence" committed by the weathermen, but it's not used as often as an adjective for the group itself. And there are some words I'm not counting because they're not germane - e.g. Sixties, student, etc. That's just an impression. If you really want to know you might have to start counting sources. I have no content-type objection to the word "violent", but it does seem a little awkward there, probably for the reasons stated. When you call something violent you naturally bring up the question of what the violence was, and in this case it was mostly bombing buildings. There's a bit of a conceptual disconnect between that and what most people think violent means. I don't see that as a POV issue though, just a quesiton of finding the right word. It's more wordy, but you could take the more direct approach and say something like "In 1969 he cofounded the radical left organization the Weather Underground which condcuted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s." or something like that Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't mind you suggestion, but I doubt others will like it. GoodDamon, if you read a few sections above, this seemed to be discussed and there wasn't much objection, but ScJessey is very opposed to using violent, citing BLP concerns, which I don't agree with. Since he cofounded and was involved with this group, why is it a problem to include a proper discription of this group. It seems that "radical left" doesn't fully cover them. Anyways, --Tom 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the use of this word is twofold. First of all, Wikipedia should not be using uncited characterizations in the leads/introductions of articles. Secondly, and most importantly, this is an article about Bill Ayers, not the Weather Underground. That is where the BLP problem occurs because using that word automatically brands Ayers as "violent" by association. Characterizations of the Weather Underground should only be in the article about the organization (assuming they are properly cited), not in associated articles and certainly not in introductions. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayers was either one of the prime movers of that organization toward violence or he was the prime mover in that regard. He was constantly trying to make the organization more violent up to the time of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion in which the three victims were 1. his girlfriend, 2. his best friend, 3. another friend. Cathy Wilkerson who survived the blast, called Ayers one of the people who bears some of the blame for those deaths because he was such an influential advocate of violence in the Weatherman. It seems to me that Weatherman's violence is quite relevant to an article about this subject, and Weatherman's violence was the biggest reason behind Ayers' notability. -- Noroton (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayers and the WU advocated, supported, and carried out violent acts. That makes them violent. That makes violent the right word for the lead. SnapCount (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose now that I have come to the conclusion that none of this matters. Even if the edit is 100% within the bounds of policy and even if the edits can be supported by dozens of Reliable Sources, as long the large number of editors who are edit warring to keep this material out of the article and have administrative cover to do so, these arguments are pointless. CENSEI (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree, also Scjessey, you said that word automatically brands Ayers as "violent" by association, are you saying that Ayers dosen't have a violent past? --Tom 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "telling it like it is", but rather reporting what reliable sources say about a subject. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Weathermen were violent. BLP status is not a defense against well-cited truths. I like Wikidemon's suggested language, but I see no good argument for not using the word "violent" to describe the Weathermen.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayers wasn't convicted of or directly linke dto any violent act. In this BLP, it appears the moniker "violent" is being used to try and insinuate that Ayers himself was actively involved in violence, which is incorrect. It may be an appropriate moniker in an article about the Weathermen, but adding such in a BLP without a direct link is inappropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with you that Ayers wasn't linked to a violent act, it doesn't matter. The Weathermen were, and that's what we're describing. If an encyclopedia cannot say what is true despite the fact that virtually all sources say it's true, what good is it. I do not believe this is a BLP issue. Again, having said that, Wikidemon's suggestion is still my preference...it is more direct and descriptive.LedRush (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while and reading everyone's comments, I'm at a bit of an impasse. There seems to be a few major points, and I'll see if I can summarize them:

• The Weatherman organization was not successfully violent towards people, which is the primary definition of violence, but they were certainly violent towards property, which is an acceptable, if imprecise, definition of violence. So the Weatherman organization itself could reasonably be described as violent.
• However, most WP:RS sources seem to describe it as "radical" far more often than "violent," perhaps out of cognizance of the nuanced meaning of the word. That does not discount the ones that describe it as "violent," it just means there's some weighting considerations.
• This is a BLP, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't state someone has a violent past if impeccably reliable sources say they do. I'm of the opinion that the goal behind adding the word is to eventually tie Ayers to Obama and basically say, "See? See? Guilt-by-association!" But that doesn't mean the word in and of itself does not belong. So in other words, the push to include it may originate in bias, but that doesn't rule the word out as applicable.
• Since this is a BLP, and since Ayers himself has only been called "violent" by, as near as I can tell, people trying to tie him to Obama, the word does have some extra weight that should perhaps be avoided in the lead.
• Wikipedia does not want to get sued. Things that could even be construed as accusatory have to be tread around carefully, so if we're going to include this word, we have to make it abundantly clear in the text that it is not an accusation against Ayers himself, just a recitation of what some reliable sources have used to describe the organization he founded.

So, does that basically sum it up? Because at this point, I'm not sure whether to support its inclusion or not, and would like some further insight on these points. --GoodDamon 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good summary, but I want to make two points:

• You don't need successful violence towards people to be the "primary" definition of violence. If I take a swing at you and miss, that is a violent act. Violence is in the intent and the act, not in the outcome. (additionally, no where in a dictionary definition have I seen "people" being needed for violence in either a primary or secondary meaning. I mean...I've never even seen it mentioned...I don't think it's a part of the definition at all. Usually, it means using brute force for anything http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violent )
• Remember that the word is an adjective for the Weathermen, not for Ayers.LedRush (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I was going from Wikipedia's definition of violence. But you're right, the violence does not have to be successful for an act to be considered violent. However, this leads down another rabbit hole... Reliable sources have also generally indicated that the Weatherman organization intentionally avoided violence towards people, which might also be why "radical" is the more common term. I'm starting to think including that word might be the best way to sidestep the issue completely in the lead, and provide a bit more detail (with the word "violent") elsewhere in the body, so that there isn't even the appearance of accusation against Ayers. --GoodDamon 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are clear that the WU made a bomb packed with nails which shows a clear intent to take human life. SnapCount (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but they also warned well ahead of time which building they were bombing. Hey, I'm not trying to make excuses, they were a very bad organization. But there's a big difference between massive property damage and, say, the violent actions of Hamas. --GoodDamon 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - Let me repeat this for those people who aren't getting it. My objection is that the word has been used in the article introduction (where characterizations do not belong) and without citation (which is absolutely necessary when using any characterization). Let me clear about this - I have no objection to the use of the word to describe the Weather Underground (not Ayers, as he wasn't convicted of anything) in the main body of the article (if deemed appropriate), just not the introduction. What is also unacceptable is the edit-warring going on over this. Consensus for inclusion must be sought before adding controversial text to BLPs, and the default position is always exclusion. This policy protects both the subject and Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken it a step further. With the addition of 8 reliable sources calling the WU a terrorist organization. CENSEI (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Would "militant" be better? --Tom 17:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "militant" would be the perfect description and possible solution! Cheers. --Floridianed (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Floridianed, that actually might be the best solution. Others? --Tom 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now we have included that they bombed buildings. That seems ok. What do others think? --Tom 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not okay. Weather Underground details belong in the article for that organization, not the BLP of Bill Ayers. It would be akin to documenting the activities of the University of Illinois at Chicago - also inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You lost me there. A breif description of the group he cofounded in the lead is appropriate. What is the real agenda here? Maybe its time to come clean? --Tom 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Scjessey... While I agree the details don't belong in the lead, we're talking about a major, defining period in Ayers' life. Some detail is appropriate. --GoodDamon 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with militant, violent, or with Wikidemon's more specific language.LedRush (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Describing Weatherman

Wikidemon's suggestion in the discussion above seems to have been overlooked in continued discussion of the use of "violent", which is unfortunate as the suggestion is clearer than either "radical" (which is much broader than what the WUO were) or "violent" (which might imply something narrower than what they did), and avoids the potentially judgemental tone of the latter. Does anyone object to the wording Wikidemon proposed: "In 1969 he cofounded the radical left organization the Weather Underground which condcuted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s"? No-one appeared to in the discussion above AFAICS.VoluntarySlave (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that but doubt the objecters will like that much. --Tom 17:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be said? A description of the Weather Underground can be found at the article for it. There is no need for duplication, and certainly not in the lead of this BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be said? A description of the Weather Underground can be found at the article for it. There is a need for including this material, and certainly in the lead of this BLP. --Tom 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And how many times does this need to be said: The only reason he is notable is because he and his crew plotted to kill cops, soldiers and thier unsuspecting dates, no other reason. CENSEI (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous assertion. Bill Ayers is a very well known professor in a very well known university, and a significant civic figure in Chicago. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, if Ayers wasn't involved with the weatherman, he wouldn't even have an article here. Time to get real. --Tom 17:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is quick example on why you shouldnt make assertions that you cant possibly hope to back up with anything other than talk:

Google hits for "Bill Ayers" 587,000

Google hits for "Bill Ayers" educator 199,000

Google hits for "Bill Ayers" terrorist 231,000 (ouch!)

Google hits for "Bill Ayers" Weather Underground 118,000

Google hits for "Bill Ayers" Professor 196,000

I know, its harldly "scientific" but its seems to be a clear indication on what Billy o' Boy is really known for. CENSEI (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. It implies the WU went out of their way not to target people, which is false. We need a word that accurately describes the full range of the WU's actvities, and if we're not going to use terrorist, "violent" seems like a resonable compromise to me. SnapCount (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SnapCount, would you accept "millitant"? --Tom 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me think about it. Though reasonable people may certainly disagree, I'm still inclined to think we need a term that clearly distinguishes the WU from the Black Panthers, the SDS, and other "militant" groups from the 60s/70s. Advocating violence AND carrying out violence is what made the WU different from these other groups, and I think it's important that the article note that somehow. SnapCount (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not about finding a compromise - it's about following Wikipedia policies. You are proposing that we pick the "least wrong" choice, but wrong is still wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, it might be time to step aside from this article since your POV is getting in the way. A number of editors are trying to get this right and you just don't seem to get it?? --Tom 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Its worse than just don’t get it Scjessey has taken his bias into a full on edit war by again making more than 3 content reverts here in the past 24 hours. Not that an admin would block him for it, but his editing pattern has definitely crossed over into the disruptive range. The BLP defense is bunk and there are just too many RS's that describe Ayers as a violent terrorist to ignore. The refusal to include this particular well sourced POV into the article violates POV becasue it is ignoring an opinion that seems to have overwhelming WP:WEIGHT behind it. CENSEI (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversions based on violations of WP:BLP (which these most certainly are) do not come under the auspices of WP:3RR, as you discovered with your malicious, bad faith attempts to get myself and others blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI, considering you just had a malicious 3RR report of yours summarily closed, I'd be careful hurling that particular accusation around. May I suggest refactoring that statement? I will refactor this one if you do. --GoodDamon 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked so many time for you to justify that statement, its a BLP violaton, and your refusal to do is becoming quite tiresome. The proper attribution of a claim like this with multiple high quality sources is the textbook way to go about doing this. CENSEI (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained it about eleventy-billion times. I no longer feel it is necessary for me to justify myself to you, given your editing record. I have clearly stated above why this violates WP:BLP. It is not my fault if you are experiencing a failure in your ability to comprehend. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, all you have done is claim that its a BLP violation to call Ayers or the WU a terrorist organization. What you fail to realize is that we are simply repeating the thoughts, opinions and statements of multiple high quality reliable sources like the FBI, academics and politicians who consider Ayers and co terrorists. CENSEI (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This "number of editors" you describe largely consists of SPAs determined to get their non-neutral point of view into various articles in the hope that they can influence a US election. All of you appear to be completely ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which are particularly important when it comes to biographies of living persons), and all of you are prepared to edit war to get want you want. Fortunately, there is a far greater number of diligent, neutral editors who only wish to make Wikipedia the best it can be. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If anybody thinks that the material on this project will influence an election, that is pretty sad. That is why I suggested that your own POV is getting in the way of editing this article in a NPOV way. Anyways, --Tom 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

determined to get their non-neutral point of view into various articles in the hope that they can influence a US election sounds like another group of non SPA's ... interesting. CENSEI (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated (about three times) above, I am fine with Wikidemon's suggestion (assuming we don't also add militant or violent as adjectives). One of the three is enough...LedRush (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, as long as it isn't in the lead of the article, and as long as it is properly cited. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go along with it, too. In fact, it's already there. Everyone fine with calling this the consensus and closing the discussion? --GoodDamon 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not, so lets not force this one and prematurely close it to give this the vaneer of consensus. CENSEI (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, CENSEI is confusing "consensus" with "my way or the highway" again. Grsz^X 18:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon's/Wikidemon's proposed consensus wording

OK, then, since CENSEI has said "obviously not," let's see if we can get a rough tally of where everyone stands. The proposed wording, which is currently in the lead: "In 1969 he cofounded the radical left organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s." This looks like a good compromise to me, providing bird's-eye-view notable detail about the activities of the group Ayers founded, without specifically accusing him of violence. Should this be the wording for the lead?

• Agree - Obviously, as the editor hoping for consensus on this. --GoodDamon 18:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Makes sense. --Tom 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Makes perfect sense. Grsz^X 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - does what (almost) everyone wantsLedRush (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Dis-agree - but let me commend everyone on the timing of this, very well coordinated. Multiple RS's have been provided to support the claim that the WU was widely considered a terrorist organization. CENSEI (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - although I have some sympathy with the idea (I think this is Scjessy's concern) that this implies that Ayers himself participated in these acts. I think the proposed wording is clear enough that we are talking about WUO rather than specifically about Ayers, but if anyone can think of wording that makes that even clearer (without being absurdly unwieldly), I would support that.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree This is acceptable. Modocc (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Dis-agree - Makes it sound like he conducted a campaign of bombings. Don't we mean "cofounded the radical left organization the Weather Underground, whose other members conducted a campaign of bombings"? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was some debate over whether he was personally involved in any of them. --GoodDamon 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then we certainly should not imply that he was involved. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In any event, I don't think the wording implies that. It specifically describes the Weather Underground as conducting the campaign. It makes no such statement about Ayers himself. That said, if you were to insert your additional language, or a variant thereof, for clarification after the lock expires, I wouldn't contest it. --GoodDamon 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - I can live with this for now. SnapCount (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - looks good to me. Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree (with caveat) - if we are going to be saying this, would it not also be fair to say why? See my proposal below. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree This is the only neutral and non-libelous wording I've seen. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree strongly. There is nothing to fear but fear itself. JohnHistory (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

• Agree Appears to be the best proposal so far. I've never understood why people get so hung up on words when you can more easily let the reader decide. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree The sentence appears to be neutral and to the point. To Nil Einne: I agree, that has always baffled me to. Brothejr (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree --Mbz1 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI's proposed consensus wording

Alternate: "In 1969 he cofounded the radical left organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s and has widely been called a terrorist organization."

• Agree- obviously, see Eric Rudolph . CENSEI (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing out the gross policy violation in Eric Rudolph. I've corrected it Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - Just to be clear, I don't like the Eric Rudolph article, either. --GoodDamon 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - per WP:TERRORIST, we shouldn't use the word "terrorist" without a discussion of the context in which that term has been used.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Nay - No excuse for continuted violations of policy at Rudolph, lets keep this article better. Grsz^X 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • One difference with Rudolph, by the way, is that he was convicted. Still, you're right about policy. --GoodDamon 19:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say that as well. Grsz^X 19:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, turns out WP:TERRORIST is a guideline, not a policy. Best to follow, but with sensible exceptions. So in the end, CENSEI's comparison with Rudolph is a completely inappropriate one. Whether the word applies to a person or not would appear to be something that should be decided individually, with a bias towards not including it but no set-in-stone rule against it. --GoodDamon 20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree The group was a terrorist organization, but per wikipedia policy it's better to describe what made them terrorist (bombing buildings, like in the language above) rather then use a loaded term with all that baggage.LedRush (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree- CENSEI has cited NUMEROUS reliable sources in support of this wording. has anyone actually bothered to look at WP:TERRORIST? It clearly says the term can be used if backed up with RS. And in this case, there are many. SnapCount (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not can it be used but whether it should be used.LedRush (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also point out that while reliable sources have called them a terrorist organization, many more reliable sources have called them things like "radical" and "extremist." --GoodDamon 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps, as a compromise, we should say that. "...and has been described by various sources as radical, militant, and a terrorist organization." SnapCount (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But why would we get hung up on the labels of the organization when we've described what they actually did? Show, don't tell.LedRush (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reject out of hand and close as disruptive - This was already decided by RfC. Calling the organization terrorist is not open for discussion, period. No discussion on this page could overcome that, and re-proposing it here is just making trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, discussion and debate need to continue. Consensus can change over time, so it's not disruptive at all in my view. SnapCount (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton made an excelent observation that you have been misreresenting the outcome of the RfC[13], color me shocked naturally, but I actually gave you the beenfit of the doubt that you did not twist that one to your advantage. CENSEI (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, consensus cannot change like that, and to try to change it is utterly disruptive and disrespectful of Wikipedia and the many editors who participated in the process. Again, no result here could possibly overturn the RfC. The person proposing this is a problem editor and the proposal is a blatant Wikigame. This is simply not a legitimate discussion and it is a waste of people's time (and incitement to pit editors against other editors) to bring it up in this way. Please close this discussion now before we waste anymore time. Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree in the strongest possible terms. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• ok, 'widely been called a terrorist organization' is weaselly you need to attribute it to someone, who called them a terrorist organisation? As long as you can cite it, it's a verified fact. --neon white talk 00:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree strongly. Why can't some users understand that human dignity is more important than winning a presidential race? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree strongly. we shall not be afraid to call a spade a spade. come out from the shade of your fake parade and into the light of the clear blue right. by the way, it's you Eric the Red, that keeps mentioning the election. why is that? it seems that you are the one with victory and defeat in November on the brain. JohnHistory (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Alternate proposal by Scjessey

Building on GoodDamon's proposal, I think it would be fair to also say why they bombed public buildings. I am not sure if this should be the exact wording, but I think the concept is clear enough:

In 1969, he cofounded the radical left organization the Weather Underground. During the 1960s and 1970s, the group conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings to protest against the war in Vietnam and other US policies of the time.

• Agree- obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - Good idea on its face, but those are the kinds of details best left to the Weather Underground article itself, with perhaps a mention in the body of this article. We shouldn't be trying to front-load the lead with excessive detail that really belongs in the body. --GoodDamon 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - The brief context is helpful. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal by Brothejr

Here's my quick two cents. Why not just keep it simple:

In 1969, he co-founded the radical left organization the Weather Underground.

We add a blue link to the Weatherman Underground Organization and leave it to the readers to follow the link and learn more about the Weatherman Organization. Brothejr (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I do think we need some context since they are a highly controversial group and Ayers involvement with them has generated a lot of controversy Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Due to edit warring between multiple parties, I temporarily protected the page. I did notice several mentions of the biographies of living persons policy; however, I am not well-versed with the topic at hand, so if there are violations of that policy (e.g., unsourced, potentially libelous statements) that need removal, please use {{editprotected}} to summon an administrator. Otherwise, please discuss your content disputes on this talk page. Thanks, and cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 19:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncited claims that look in violation of WP:BLP

I've just noticed that the article (in the section "Years Underground") contains the sentence: "Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days." However, no page reference to the book is given and, having looked through the book, I can't find anywhere where Ayers claims to have participated in any of these events. Indeed, he specifically says on p. 256 "I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon." I think this kind of unsourced claim violates WP:BLP, so I'm asking an admin to remove this sentence. VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced to a book, so I am hesitant to remove it. Ayers certainly was involved in a great deal of that sort of thing at the time. Give me a few minutes to try to check on this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed to NYT article, see here. I am removing the editprotected tag, please re-add if I've missed a detail or something else comes up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to it - I'd prefer that the sourcing be given directly to the article, rather than to the book, unless we can verify the book actually says that. But that can wait till after the page comes out of protection.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, books are generally better sources, but certainly adding the article wouldn't hurt. Please feel free to let me know if you require any assistance in the future. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone could help by sourcing this stuff it would be great. If you look to the weatherman article there are several incidents there, and a few dozen listed in the child article about all their actions. They really need to be sourced in detail. A big project, but it would be invaluable to the encyclopedia and the community at large not only by backing up statements about who participated in which bombings, but also as a pointer for people who want to go beyond the Wikipedia article to read more about the history. If everyone could vow to confirm and cite one bombing a day, we would have this whole thing done within the week - much more article improvement value for your time investment than certain content arguments around here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, books are only better sources if they actually say what we attribute to them - the NYT article does say that Ayers claims to have participated in these bombings, but goes on to say: "But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it," and quotes a passage from the book in which Ayers' writes "I bombed the Pentagon," and then he immediately writes that he didn't actually bomb the Pentagon. It would probably be better to summarize the discussion of ambiguity from the NYT the article. It would also make sense to see if there are other sources that attribute particular Weather activites specifically to Ayers. Just skimming the Weatherman article, I don't see any specific attributions of acts to individual members. I believe Larry Gratwhol has made claims connecting specific individuals to specific events; by chance, I'll have access to a couple of other books on the WUO next week, so I'll look for more detail then. VoluntarySlave (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The NYT article says that Ayers "calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction." So it makes no sense to quote either the book or article as fact. You Need another source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.185.60 (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Bill Ayers, violence against people - as opposed to the usage of bombs for vandalism - was quite controversial in the Weather Underground. Ayers speculated in 2001 that New York chapter Weatherman Oughton might have intentionally detonated the explosion. He apparently further reports that a rather nasty argument had occurred during all of the previous day and night in which Boudin favored using antipersonnel bombs, and that Oughton had misgivings.[14] Furthermore, Bill Ayers has said:

Because of the explosion, the Weathermen apparently decided to try not to hurt people:

We were very careful from the moment of the townhouse on to be sure we weren't going to hurt anybody, and we never did hurt anybody. Whenever we put a bomb in a public space, we had figured out all kinds of ways to put checks and balances on the thing and also to get people away from it, and we were remarkably successful.

— Bill Ayers

There may have been actual terrorism in the organization, but Ayers was likely not one of the terrorists. The New York chapter appears to be the main part of the Weathermen out to hurt people, and even then there may have been controversy within that chapter. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing spaces between sentences

It's hard to read this article because many sentences do not have spaces between them. The Radical history section is missing them in at least three places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharksaredangerous (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Distinguished Professor" is an honor

As I recall, someone edited out the fact that "Distinguished Professor" is an honor from the Ayers page. I was surprised, because at my own university, it is the highest honor one can get. So I just went Googling on the UIC.edu page, and here is the first hit that I found which speaks directly to that point. It is from a UIC press release:

"Thomas A. DeFanti, Co-Director of the Eelectronic Visualization Laboratory, Director of the Software Technologies Research Center, and Professor in the Computer Science Department is named a "UIC Distinguished Professor".

This title was created to recognize and honor faculty at the rank of professor who have made major impact upon their field through scholarship, creativity and leadership. A panel of current UIC Distinguished Professors and University Scholars carefully reviewed the nominations as did the Campus Research Board and the Vice Chancellor for Research to select this year's recipients.

http://www.evl.uic.edu/core.php?mod=4&type=4&indi=124

This excerpt is unedited by me, except for bolding key stuff. Hence I suggest that the last sentence of the intro be edited to include this. Here is my suggested wording, with my suggested addition in bold:

He has the status of Distinguished Professor at the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, an honor awarded to those who have had major impact on their field through scholarship, creativity and leadership.

I have never dealt with a fully protected page before, so I DK if the procedure is for an Admin to do this straightforward edit or if there must be a consensus discussion first. In passing, my guess is that I may be the only one on this page to remember the Weathermen were active, and to recall the Bob Dylan song from which the term came from. But I am much more interested in what Ayers is doing now, than 40 years ago. YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, consensus is required, and indeed, unanimous support would be best. Fyi, lots of us are Older Than You Think. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the wording as more NPOV and clear than now. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that like the difference between "Reverend so-and-so" and "The most Reverend so-and-so"? The idea is good but I think you have to be careful. If you say it's awarded to those who had major impact, then Wikipedia is endorsing the soundness Chicago's decision. As august as that institution is, it's self-interested in praising the accuracy of its honorific declarations. You would need a third party source. A more neutral way to word that is to say that it's an award the university gives to those professors they consider to have had, etc.Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon is right. So here's my re-wording:

He has the status of Distinguished Professor at the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, an honor awarded to those the University deems to have had major impact on their field through scholarship, creativity and leadership.

Someone wondered if Distinguished Prof. is an honor or a status. In my university (and all others I know), it is both. It is both the highest scholarly accolade a university can award (i.e., an honor), and it also comes with status change (i.e., less teaching - more time for research grants; research funding). Really from a NPOV, I think it is pretty amazing that a person can go from being a Weatherman founder (that's the name I support) to Chicago's "Citizen of the Year" and Distinguished Professor. There's a movie in there, perhaps. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

jftr...Distinguished Professor used to be wikified, and so any definition of what it meant would probably belong in that article instead. Also, 'professor' was used in the lead, and 'Distinguished Professor' was used in the Bill_Ayers#Academic_career paragraph. Flatterworld (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

More on Ayers life now?

Hi - I came to wikipedia to find out more about Ayers current life after hearing about him in the media. I got very little of that here. What I see is one of those typical Wikipedia articles gone wrong with pages dedicated to one side of things, but very little about who is is now, or how he changed from his early life to now. I hoped to find a little more biographical summary because I was curious about this. I know there is some kind of rule about this in wikipedia - about lopsided articles. Because awhile back I did some editing of pages, but I have forgotten all the rules. Anyway, as a reader, If someone could fill in on some of the intervening years more clearly, I would appreciate it. Thanks.--65.101.185.60 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I just saw this NYT article:

[15]

With this paragraph:

Mr. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lives in Mr. Obama’s neighborhood. He was named citizen of the year in Chicago in 1997, has worked with Mr. Obama on a schools project and a charitable board, and gave a house party when Mr. Obama was running for the State Senate.

What I want to know if more about this "citizen of the year" thing. That seems pretty prestigious. Is it for real. Is it given by the city or by some group that would be slanted towards "radicals" etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.240.203.156 (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(I added a wikilink to the NYT piece, but it doesn't tell anything about the in-between years.) 204.52.215.14 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Former founder"

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, "former founder" of the Weathermen. Either he founded it or he didn't - you can't undo actions to have formerly have done them. It sounds apologistic to my ears. I'm assuming someone meant "Founder and former member." Bagsc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.237.80 (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think someone is trying in a slightly clumsy way to indicate that the Weathermen no longer exist so people don't think he's still a radical. But you're right. Grammatically he is the founder (and possibly "former leader") of the Weatherman. The article is protected so it is hard to change, but if everyone agrees an administrator would do it. I would agree with correcting this to remove the word "former".Wikidemon (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I put that there. I meant to type "founder and former member" but was typing fast then moved on to something else. I apologize for the sloppy phrasing. SnapCount (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That wording works for sure.Wikidemon (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FBI definitions(s) of terrorism

I remembered the FBI changed their definition of terrorism awhile back (to include ALF and ELF), but I didn't remember exactly what they changed. Based on their 2001 publication, which includes more than one definition, it appears what they changed was including property as well as human life. This probably explains why the Weather Underground wasn't called a 'terrorist' organization by the FBI back when they were active. Yet another reason why we should avoid the term. Anyway, I'm providing this as a Permanent Reference for when this discussion returns. http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)...

Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state....

Flatterworld (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, although we cannot draw any judgement ourselves from this as that would be original research. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is they were called a terrorist group later on it still may be relevant. However my personal view is that modern accusations of terrorism should probably go in the Obama–Ayers controversy article. --neon white talk 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Judge Murtagh home bombing

The Wiki article is lacking a reference to the 1970 Judge Murtagh home bombing, which is pertinent to the question of whether the subject of the Wiki article engaged in acts intended to harm persons, since fire bombs were placed near exits to the home, one being under the car at the rear exit, two being at the front. See the following reference for linkages between the Murtagh bombing and the Weather cell in which the subject of the Wiki article participated. See--http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.htmlAjschorschiii (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Weathermen and/or an article listing their actions describes that bombing. There were 20-30 of them so it makes sense to consolidate them in one place. Wikidemon (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that a reference in the Weather Underground article to the Murtagh bombing is appropriate. However, since in the W. Ayers Wiki article he is quoted making what might be construed as an implied claim that property, not persons, were the subject of his bombing activities, a potential contrary view is appropriate for inclusion in the W. Ayers Wiki article to provide balance. Similarly, the Wiki article on W. Ayers neglects to point out that R. Elrod, to whom Ayers is reported to have apologized, was paralyzed for life during the Weather Days of Rage. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2006/Sudden-Impact/. Such a reference would put the apology in better context.Ajschorschiii (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that Murtagh's opinion is true. For many reasons, the involvement of the Weather in the Murtagh bombing seems highly unlikely. As for Elrod, one can certainly blame the riot for that but to blame Ayers personally...Brian Flanagan was the one who went on trial and was acquitted because of a photo and conflicting testimony by police witnesses. Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please state the evidence supporting the claim that Weather was not involved in the Murtagh bombing, and also evidence refuting claims that B. Dohrn did take responsibility on behalf of Weather for the bombing as Murtagh Jr. has claimed.Ajschorschiii (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also refute the conclusion of Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, http://www.amazon.com/Way-Wind-Blew-Underground-Haymarket/dp/1859841678, that the Murtagh home was bombed by Weather.Ajschorschiii (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More recent developments

There are two very relevant issues addressed in this article:[16]. First, the chief prosecutor of the Weather Underground case wrote the New York Times and disputed the charges that the Weatherman indictments were dropped because of 'prosecutorial misconduct', which is how this article currently states the case. The chief prosecutor, William C. Ibershof, wrote:

It was dismissed because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director.

He also wrote something that is extremely relevant to the recent politicized use of Ayers relationship with Barack Obama:

I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child. 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.

I propose that an administrator add these two changes to the article:

1. In the "Years Underground" section, "prosecutorial misconduct" be changed to "misconduct by Attorney General John N. Mitchell and W. Mark Felt, assistant director of the FBI.
2. In the "Obama-Ayers Controversy" section, add the sentence "William C. Ibershof, chief prosecutor of the Weather Underground, wrote in an October 9 letter to the New York Times that he is "amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child."

Thank you, ~ priyanath ^talk 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be better (for the second point) to say something more along the lines of "Some people , including the chief prosecutor of the Weatherman, William C. Ibershof have expressed disagreement and outrage over the linking of Ayers to Senator Barack Obama." and then cite the letter. Otherwise it might violate WP:WEIGHT. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It would need to be more specific. "Some people" is a bit weasily. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the inclusion of the quote from the letter and prefer it with just the specific reference to the chief prosecutor. IP75 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How about, "The chief prosecutor of the Weatherman, William C. Ibershof, has expressed disagreement and outrage over the linking of Ayers to Senator Barack Obama." I'm just worried that the proposed quote is too long. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If it needs to be shortened, I think this would be more accurate— "The lead federal prosecutor of the Weatherman, William C. Ibershof, wrote that he is "amazed and outraged" over the linking of Ayers' past to Senator Barack Obama."

In 2008 Bill Ayers Employers donates 448,000 dollars

Bill Ayers employer the University of Illinois donated 448,000 to the Obama Campaign and there is descrepancies on the schools actual donation but is listed on Obamas campaign list.

Even if true, what does that have to do with this article (or anything at all, for that matter)? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that the State of Illinois (UIC is a state school) donated to the Obama Campaign. That would be front page news for breaking any number of laws.... ~ priyanath ^talk 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be front page news, but being biased seems to be running wild these days —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.94.227 (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request from IP

{{editprotected}}

Change "former founder" to "founder and former member" Added by an IP to the top of the article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, also mentioned just above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper names

{{editprotected}}

Footnote 42 - the correct name of the newspaper appears to be The Dallas Morning News. --Bachrach44 (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I also used the {{cite news}} template and added the date.  Sandstein  05:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Now that you've fixed the link...The Dallas Morning News only reprinted the story from the New York times (Scott Shane, The New York Times), so the footnote should be the original NYT source. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html Flatterworld (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Section needs copyediting

[17] has spacing issues and requires other minor stylistic changes. Enigma ^message 03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How did he transform himself

One of the things I came to this article to find (and did not), was how Ayers transformed from being a fugitive and indicted for serious crimes, to being a supposed outstanding citizen and a college professor who freely associates in the upper echelons of society, to apparently include a presidential candidate. Was Ayers exonerated at one time, did the statute of limitations expire on the acts he as accused of? I think that a few sentences on how me made this transformation would be a fine addition to the article. Dman727 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not appear to have read the same article that is currently there, which makes clear he turned himself in as a fugitive in 1980, and then proceeds from there. In fact, you seem to have a point to make about Barack Obama, which is unsuitable for this biography of Bill Ayers. If you regard the article as deficient in information regarding Ayers' post-1980 activities, feel free to locate reliable sources of information about him and incorporate them. Please do not include information about the current campaign efforts to tie Barack Obama to Ayers. --GoodDamon 20:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to be nasty. It seems that you are uncomfortable with the question, so I apologize for offending you. Yes I do view the article as deficient in that regard, that's why I posted the question. Personally, I have no qualms about editing articles that I have expertise in, but frankly I do not know much about this guy, other than what I've heard on the news lately (and yes that was in relation to the election). I was hoping an Ayers expert such as yourself could add a few sentences - If not then kindly ignore the request. So my statement stands, I think some text on how this gentlemen turned his life around would make a fine and positive addition to the article. Dman727 (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. This article has been steadily inundated with inappropriate campaign-related attempts to turn the article into a coatrack for largely discredited rumors and innuendo about Barack Obama's tenuous ties to Mr. Ayers. If I came off as blunt, it is because I no longer have very much tolerance for attempts to turn articles into extensions of political campaigns. Mr. Ayers is an interesting fellow in his own right, and turning this biographical article into a smear against someone else does it disservice. In any event, to answer your question, I think his personal turning point was in turning himself in, but that's just my own interpretation. There is apparently some question about why the case against him was eventually dismissed, and whether he himself was ever involved in the bombing activities of the group he founded. I would need to dig into his writings on the subject and the writings of neutral biographers. But in any event, he was released, then pursued higher education. --GoodDamon 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for the followup. Dman727 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)