Template:Community article probation

United States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

The William Ayers bio should present coverage of all of the former leader in the Weather Underground's general controversialities.

Yet, as the dual sub-article of the above mentioned biography and also with the "Barack Obama 2008 presidential election campaign" article, this sub-article ought be sure to encyclopedically reference its connection with Obama, to avoid ambiguity (that is, be as non-misleading about the who? what? where? etc. of the subject it covers. For example, see guidelines at style manual, naming conventions. Hence: Good: Bernard Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik; bad: an overly ambigous title e/g Bernard Kerik election controversy.)

How 'bout----

1. "___?___"
2. Barack Obama acquaintance with former radicals
3. Barack Obama association with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn
4. Barack Obama—William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn election controversy
5. Barack Obama—William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn controversy

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the title of the article being more explicit, but I'm not sure what the best way would be. The first two above don't work because they assert that the subject of the article is an actual acquaintance or association, which is a POV thing and not the subject of the article (the subject is the controversy). The second two don't work because B. Dohrn isn't part of the controversy as far as I know. The closest I can come to it is "2008 William Ayers - Barack Obama election controversy" but that sounds clunky. Wikidemo (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like it.

• SUPPORT: 2008 William Ayers—Barack Obama election controversy. Thanks for your input, Wikidemo. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dohrn is indeed part of the controversy. Not as much as Ayers, since Obama wasn't involved with putting her on the Woods board, but she co-hosted Obama's coming out party and the pair are often shown together in photos illistrating the articles.[1][2] With her quote about how cool Charlie Manson was and her connections to the Brinks robberies (Google Dohrn and "Broadway Baby") and the associated murders it seems she's an even nastier bit of work than Ayers. "Actual acquaintance or association" isn't POV -- it isn't controversial that Obama knows these people and has associated with them. It's the weight to be attached to the association that is disputed, not its existance.

• So, Barack Obama's association with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn looks right to me. That it's a controversy will emerge in the telling. Andyvphil (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... and just a headsup. You'll be hearing more about this before November.[3]Andyvphil (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Dohrn is more encyclopedic. ...Let's see if anybody else agrees. — Justmeherenow (   ) 10:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It may be that a name for this situation will (has?) formed from those that write about this. Dohrn does seem to be much more marginal in this than Ayers, for the reasons already given. As with the proposed renaming of the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, what's the practical advantage to the reader? Is there something separate about Dohrn's relationship with Obama that she doesn't already share with Ayers? I don't see a need to change the name, so far. It isn't very important to me either way. Noroton (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've read every single article about this controversy, in the Chicago and national media, and Bernardine Dohrn is not part of it other than being married to Bill Ayers. If you want to include her because she 'co-hosted' the political coffee (I certainly wouldn't describe it as a 'coming-out party'), you would have to include her mother as well, as I believe she was also living in the house with them at the time. I realize you want to make this as ooh! ooh! an article title as possible, but we're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.
As far as the title itself, encyclopedia articles should be as short as possible. For example, google 'teapot dome' which was about an oil reserve scandal. None of the various sources call their articles about it anything but teapot dome or teapot dome scandal. You have to go to the article to get names and dates. We don't summarize articles in the title, except for disambiguation purposes such as 'John Doe (Idaho politician)'. Currently, we have Jeremiah Wright controversy, and Bill Ayers election controversy. The articles are linked in various ways to and from the Obama article, so I don't see any absolute necessity of adding that to the title. If we add the name, then we could argue we should add presidential election and/or campaign to the title and it gets over-long. The longest I could consider would be Barack Obama and Bill Ayers controversy (we don't use hyphens to connect names unless the hyphen is actually part of someone's legal name).
I think a possible solution would be a Wikipedia List of controversies we could link to (the earlier article we had was deleted, but a List should be acceptable).
I can understand the interest in Ayers, but quite frankly, Obama is 'on friendly terms' and has served with hundreds, if not thousands, of people. He's been on lots of boards and panels, there's everyone in the Illinois legislature, everyone in Congress, everyone at the University of Chicago (not just the law school), a lot of people in Kenwood-Hyde Park....to pick out Bill Ayers and claim he was a 'friend' (in the sense of hanging out together on a social basis) is simply misleading at best. I think we all know that, yet some insist on implying the two are BFFs, and in cahoots to overthrow the government and criminalize baseball, mom and apple pie. I don't care if you do that in your personal blogs (you can claim the earth is flat, for all I care), but that sort of thing doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Another thing. It's important that we stay balanced with how the John McCain (and possibly Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ron Paul and Bob Barr) articles are handled. I'm very concerned about Wikipedia's reputation in general. imo there have been too many efforts to document the scandal du jour here (and not just in political articles), when we should be concentrating on giving weight to encyclopedic material. There is no scandal with Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. There is some media coverage trying to 'gin up' (the current phrase, it appears) shock and awe that they have both worked to improve conditions, particularly in education, in Chicago.
We don't have to decide on a new title today, so let's think this through and look at similar articles (and no, I don't like the Giuliani example at all). Flatterworld (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOW maybe SUPPORT Barack Obama and Bill Ayers controversy as I'm switzerland as to (not a hyphen, but) an en-dash----'though the house Manual of Style does specify them as appropriate as an occasionally-necessary joiner of proper nouns in titles: "Taft–Hartley Act."

En dashes in page names. When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. However, editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash (e.g., Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia.----WIKIPEDIA MANUAL OF STYLE

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a current David Broder column, "The country was captivated by the Kennedy-Nixon encounters." Then, an unrelated news headline reads "Obama-McCain battle to focus on swing states"; and this from the Pittsburg Post Gazette: "Some 83 days passed between the two most recent Bush-McCain meetings." So the house style manual's advice re connecting proper nouns via (hyphen/)endash seems to be the proper way to punctuate this type of expression. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(July 2008)

Let's try "Obama/Ayers controversy." Curious bystander (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll try a bold move soon. Any objections to "Obama - Ayers controversy" (I like a dash better than a slash). If someone thinks of a better name we can always move again and people can follow the redirects. Wikidemo (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Flatterworld (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Y   Justmeherenow (  ) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo's suggestion included 'spaces' around the dash which imo makes sense. Two last names with just a dash between is suitable only for hyphenated British last names such as Antony Armstrong-Jones (and those married women who choose to hyphenate their 'two last names'), imo. Is there a guideline on this? I just want to be sure we're being consistent with other articles. Flatterworld (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the in-house style manual says that an endash placed between spaces is stylistically akin to an emdash, for our usage it suggests just a bare endash: "En dashes[...]substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions (Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Lincoln–Douglas debate, Michelson–Morley experiment, diode–transistor logic; but a hyphen is used in Sino-Japanese trade, in which Sino-, being a prefix, lacks lexical independence. [... ...] When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. However, editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash (e.g., Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)."   Justmeherenow (  ) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted, not renamed. Some aspects of it could be merged into Bill Ayers. It's another WP:COATRACK of a WP:POVFORK. The entire controversy could be fully explained in a single paragraph with a couple of references. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's been discussed. It's independently notable, a distinct subject, not a fork, doesn't belong in the Bill Ayers article, and would have weight problems in the Obama election campaign article. As long as it's here the best thing is an accurate, neutral title. Wikidemo (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: There doesn't seem to be enough here for a separate article. Why isn't there an "Obama" section in the Ayers article? Obama is only mentioned once in that article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there is no Obama section in the Ayers article is that Obama is of no relevance to Ayers' life, and because there is a more logical place - here - to discuss the controversy as it relates to the 2008 election. Wikidemo (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ayers is getting more publicity this year than he's ever gotten in his life. He may not want it or like it, but it still seems very notable, and I don't think it would be undue weight to include a section about it in his bio.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. This article (as a topic, not necessarily the quality of the current version) addresses a particular media event. That has an independent encyclopedic interest, which is not the same as the interest in a biography of Ayers. Any inclusion of more material from here in Ayers' article would be WP:UNDUE weight. LotLE×talk 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge for the reasons Wikidemo and LotLE have stated. Flatterworld (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge per Wikidemo and LotLE. This is similar to what has happened with Jeremiah Wright, though on a smaller scale. The article needs work, but the topic of of significance. This controversy has impacted not only Mr. Ayers, but Barack Obama, his presidential campaign, and the 2008 United States presidential election (though not as much as Wright, granted). Including all this material at the Ayers BLP would result in too much undue weight on this one matter. Should it be mentioned there? Of course, but this serves as a main article for the less-detailed mentions on other pages. Happyme22 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the merge. I've begun to rethink this. The topic is notable, but there is not enough here to assert why it has impacted the race and to how great of an extent (little extent? large extent? etc.) . So I'll swtich my input over to 'neutral' for now. Happyme22 (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem you can expect will be solved. There is a mountain of reliable, encyclopedic information on the Web alone. I'm surprised it isn't in here already. Noroton (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge the subject is too large to be merged, even if the article at present isn't. That imbalance should be corrected. Noroton (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much information should Obama's bio article have on his embarassing associates -- Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko? The Barack Obama talk page now has an important discussion about this (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details).

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Other examples:

• Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
• John McCain and John C. Hagee
• Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article. On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (here, at least). Noroton (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI is the official U.S. determiner of who is and isn't a terrorist, and of which kind - yes there are several 'levels'). If you can find a reference in their website about Bill Ayers specifically, we can use that descriptor. Otherwise, no. 'Terrorist' is not a term which should be tossed about casually in an encyclopedia, and the NYT is not authoritative in that area.Flatterworld (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know where to begin:

• What gave you the impression that anyone but Wikipedia is the official determiner of who is and isn't to be called a terrorist in Wikipedia?
• What gave you the impression that the FBI had to say so?
• What gave you the impression that any use of the word "terrorist" means it's being "tossed about casually"? It was footnoted to a New York Times story calling it a "terrorist group". That's my evidence. Where's yours?
• Find some facts or policy. Otherwise you look like you're POV pushing. Noroton (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a policy or guideline page on this somewhere...someone will look this up eventually...where we are advised to avoid using either "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" and simply say what they did. I won't opine on who is entitled to make the designation official. FBI list itself is of limited scope and is US-centric. But anyway, better to simply say what happened. And anyway, the article that does that best is the Weathermen article. Wikidemo (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Al Qaeda, first paragraph. I'm keeping a set of "terrorist" citations in my "Favorites" list on my computer. There are quite a few WP:RS calling Ayers a terrorist. Going way back in time. Setting off bombs is kind of a classic element of it. Noroton (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda tried to kill innocent civilians. Bill Ayers did not. Can you spot the difference? I expect I can find plenty of mainstream, major news media in other countries which label various American politicians as terrorists - are you suggesting that's sufficient to update their Wikipedia articles? That's the point behind 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. (Of course the FBI is US-centric. Bill Ayers only acted within the US, so I doubt anyone's interested in what, if anything, Iceland might have thought of him. It's encyclopedic to add to an article: 'x group was added to the FBI's y List of Terrorism Groups in March of 1998'. That's a verifiable fact. A reporter's opinion, shared or not, is not a verifiable fact.) I asked you to read the other Talk pages about Bill Ayers, and apparently you couldn't be bothered. Fine - consider this link nothing but an audit trail then, but the topic was discussed at length and I see no reason to repeat it just because you can't or won't read it for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Ayers#Terrorist Flatterworld (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to that discussion. I didn't realize a lot of this content was discussed over at the Ayers article talk page. Phil Sandifer showed he has a good handle on NPOV policy and how it works. What was completely inadequate about that discussion is that editors didn't indicate they knew what a range of sources said about Ayers. I've been reading up on him over the past several days, and there is good reason to call him a terrorist and an even better reason to explain it, just as there's good reason to call him unrepentant and good reason to explain that, taking into account his own statements and the statements of others. Killing innocent civilians is close to a good definition of terrorism, but you can terrorize without killing -- setting off bombs in public buildings, even if they go off when no one is around, is easily understood to be terrorism. There is not a great deal of dissent from the view that Ayers was a terrorist -- it's a common way of describing what he was and those descriptions from reliable sources vastly outnumber the few sources that dispute the term. There ought to be a section of the Ayers article that presents the dominant view and the objections to it. The Greenwich Village townhouse explosion involved an accident with a bomb with nails in it that the terrorists were going to set off at a dance for noncommissioned officers at Fort Dix army base. That's what former Weatherman leader Mark Rudd wrote, and that's terrorism. I think this should be put within the language of the Ayers article before we do it here, so I'll work on it over there later. Where there's a widespread, dominant opinion in the sources, we're not required to refrain from saying something just because someone somewhere objects to it. Noroton (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are STILL missing the two cogent points. Ayers had nothing to do with Greenwich Village. The rest of the WU members renounced killing people after the bomb blew up. The GV information belongs in the Weatherman (organization) article, but it's obviously misleading to use it in an article about Ayers to imply he EVER wanted to kill people. A Catholic can be in the parish of a convicted priest, but that doesn't make the parishioner responsible for the priest's actions. The problem with using the word 'terrorist', obviously, is that the current connotation is ONLY with people trying to kill non-combatants. You can make the denotation argument as loud and as long as you like, but the connotation remains. That's why the main Bill Ayers article is there to address his WU 'career', and the main Weatherman article is there to address the organization. We have hyperlinks. There is no reason to repeat bits and pieces in this article simply to lead our readers down the garden path. If you read Clinton's comments at the debate, it's obvious that's EXACTLY the image she was trying to project. So are you. As far as 'outnumbering sources' - well they would, wouldn't they? They're all based on what was said in that NYT 'interview'. It appears you're not checking any original sources, but simply what the media is repeating. Reminds me of Curveball - everything goes back to one source which wasn't accurate in the first point because of a private agenda. Flatterworld (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you like Ben Smith so much, he calls Ayers "a former violent radical', NOT a terrorist. From the source you added to the article: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3FC289D8-3048-5C12-009AD5180C22FF0B As I said - you're cherry-picking things from articles just to reinforce the points you already decided to make. Just like the NYT. Judith Miller is NOT the role model to be followed. And of course, Ben Smith couldn't refrain from quoting the NYT itnerview: "“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001." Ayers wrote a letter to the editor immediately after that appeared, as he said the journalist conflated two separate sentences, thus mischaracterizing what he said and believed. But nobody wants to hear that, do they? Not when they can choose ooh! ooh! trash instead. Fine. People are idiots. They believe the National Enquirer, so what's new? But I'm not interested in encouraging them, certainly not through the use of an encyclopedia that requires a trust factor. If something is not true, we do no one any favors by adding to the repetition. Flatterworld (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta go and haven't read your whole comment yet, but you miss something when you say A Catholic can be in the parish of a convicted priest, but that doesn't make the parishioner responsible for the priest's actions. (1) Ayers was on the five-member governing board of the entire Weatherman organization ("Weatherbureau"), and he says in his 2001 memoir (again and again, according to the NYT review) that he can't say everything he knows because he wants to protect people). The analogy is to the Bishop, not the guy in the pew; (2) Ayers girlfriend was one of the Weather people in that house. It's not a simple matter, but there's no exoneration here. And nothing Ayers says, when you look at it, is simple and clear. So don't strain so much to exonerate him when he's being weasily. The evidence for him being weasily is in his own writings and in what plenty of reliable sources say about him. If you've really done the reading, including the bottom of that Sept. 11 piece in the Times, you know you've got to be careful with his statements. And again you're completely failing to follow WP:AGF when I'm trying to add information in a non-POV way. Don't you realize that making charge after charge of POV pushing while doing nothing but try to make him look good doesn't actually help your own credibility? And it's just plain uncivil. Go hit a punching bag. Treat people with respect. I spent some time writing on your talk page trying to suggest ways of dealing with editing disagreements. Even MastCell tried to reason with you. If you won't try to get along, step away from the keyboard. Noroton (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you've become so caught up in this you can't even recognize that you are the one who needs to step away from the keyboard. All you've been doing is coming up with various excuses as to why the sources I provide shouldn't be used, and your media echo chamber of the original NYT interview is the gospel truth. I'm not arguing for exoneration, I'm arguing to present all sides. You're arguing for a guilty verdict based on what you've read in the NYT and 'Musings & Migraines'. And then you blame me. Wrong answer. Flatterworld (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo changed the language in the lead paragraph to "a characterization by opponents of presidential candidate Barack Obama". I have these questions about that edit:

• 1. Please provide proof that the name of this article is a "characterization by opponents".
  2. And is it the name of the article you're saying is a characterization or something else? Please clarify. We don't normally say "is a characterization by opponents of" in the lead of an article since the actual topics that articles cover is generally a neutral subject. If you don't have proof, I'm going to have to conclude that edit is POV. Noroton (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No. 1 - citations already in article. None of the underlying facts were ever hidden. There was a Bloomberg article which as far as I can tell was the first mention in the current election cycle. It got picked up by a lot of blogs and partisan news sources, overwhelmingly conservative ones, as a way of attacking Obama, and then some Clinton supporters seized on it as a matter that would supposedly invite conservative opposition. Covering the underlying events as an association, connection, etc., would be hard. There is no affiliation between the two, and if there were that is not the subject of the article. This article is about the political controversy, not an attempt to show that the two men are connected.
• No. 2 - the name of the article has been questioned, and there have been proposals to rename. The scope of this article is supposed to be (at least when created) the controversy arising in the 2008 presidential election about the purported / alleged connection between the two men. I don't think anyone has ever shown that the two men are in fact related, associated, friends, etc., only that they have had certain contacts. The rest is partisan politics. Wikidemo (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being clear -- It's late where I am and perhaps where you are, so maybe that explains it. It is unclear from the sentence just what is "a characterization by opponents". Is it a "characterization by opponents" to call it a "controversy"? Is that what you mean? Or is it a "characterization by opponents" to call it "Bill Ayers election controversy". I just don't get it. It seems to me that the standard way to treat this is the way the news accounts treat it and to call it what the news accounts call it. If there's no standard way of treating it, we don't just say "characterization by opponents", we describe the differences, taking into account what opponents, proponents and neutral parties are saying. But first you've got to be clear.

Also, you're treating "connection" and "association/associate" as if they were controversial words. That's not controversial at all. It isn't debated and there's barely a difference of description about that no matter where you go. There is widespread acceptance at this point (that is, barring any new information), that they met and knew each other. The point that's controversial is whether or not Obama should have separated himself from Ayers even on the level that everyone accepts was the case. Click on any of the links in the references and you'll find what I'm saying is the case. If you've got evidence otherwise, give me a link. I'm getting the impression you're not familiar with the sources. Please read them if you haven't. Noroton (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example:

[...] their connection to the Democratic presidential candidate -- they hosted a gathering for him in 1995 when he first ran for the state Senate and later contributed $200 to his reelection campaign -- has been [...]" -- Washington Post article, fourth paragraph

"Connection" and "association" are not a big deal. Either word refers to the accepted fact that they were on a foundation board together, but it could also mean a lot of other things, including that Ayers helped out Obama with that meeting at Ayers' house -- which you strangely removed from the article. See Merriam-Webster. No POV is implied. Noroton (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo removed the following from the article after I had just added it. I added it back unwittingly when I just copied and pasted a whole paragraph due to an edit conflict. Here's the passage:

"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn," Chicago blogger Maria Warren wrote in a 2005 blog post. "They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread." Warren later wrote that she was concerned Republicans would use her comment for "left-baiting" to hurt Obama."

Wikidemo's edit summary mystified me: (rm irrelevant coatrack material) I have no idea how WP:COATRACK is supposed to apply to a description of what the meeting was like and what it was about. The passage is the clearest information I've come across in all the articles I've read about this as to what that meeting was all about. It gives details others don't have, especially Ayers enthusiasm for Obama at that point, something I hadn't seen elsewhere. I found it in Ben Smith's Politico piece. We should have an adequate description of that meeting, with details, since it is one of the fundamental elements of the connection between the two men. Noroton (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unreliable source is denigrating two people (BLP) as legends in their own minds. The quote (though a nice, evocative opinion piece) is utterly unnecessary and unrelated to the subject of the article, namely that there is a controvery over Obama's alleged association with Ayers. We can certainly summarize, no? I'm not sure we should cite a blogger for anything, but if it passes RS and WEIGHT we can say that a blogger recounts Ayers and his wife Dohrn, as introducing Obama to local society. Whether you call it coatrack (using a reliable source's mention of something to heap on criticism of Obama and Ayers) or something else, the stuff about being legends in their own mind and the greatest thing since sliced bread is just cattiness and has no place in a Wikipedia article. Wikidemo (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean with the "legends in their own minds" phrase, and I've got no problem with removing it. I think you're right about the cattiness, and I should have thought about that. But she's the source Bill Smith uses in his article at Politico.com and Ben Smith & Politico.com are a reliable source (both separately and together). Your concern for WP:WEIGHT is perplexing: The meeting itself is one of the most prominent parts of the facts that underly the controversy. You can't have a controversy article that's any good without giving as full a description of the underlying facts as is possible in the space we have. The woman quoted is one of the few people who gave out any information about the meeting. It is only natural that her description be included in the article. You talk about summarizing in an article that is two steps removed from a stub. You summarize because the article shouldn't get too long -- it's not a concern until then. Aren't we trying to provide the best, most complete account possible of the controversy?

Does removing the "legends in their own minds" phrase settle all the WP:COATRACK concerns? Noroton (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ben Smith writes a blog which is the equivalent of a political gossip column. That's fine, he doesn't represent it as anything else, but it's not a reliable, encyclopedic source. Flatterworld (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you couldn't be bothered yourself, here's the original source material as opposed to Ben Smith's portrayal of it, from the 'Maria Warren blog, aptly titles "Musings & Micgraines" http://warrenpeacemuse.blogspot.com/2005_01_23_archive.html I trust you can tell, by the casual language she uses throughout her blog, that just perhaps she isn't an authoritative resource we should rely on, 'eye-witness' or not. btw - journalists use something called 'corroboration'. Ben Smith was only interested in corroborating that those people were there (which he did, and no one disagrees), NOT who said what, who called the meeting, who knew whom when, or any of the rest. Flatterworld (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ben Smith writes a blog which is the equivalent of a political gossip column'. Review WP:RS. Ben Smith, 30, a reporter for The Daily News in New York, who will be writing a blog for The Politico about the 2008 presidential campaign. [4] Why not learn a bit more about policy and the facts of the situation before -- or instead of -- going on the attack? Go see what Norm Sheiber of The New Republic had to say about Smith (link is in the footnotes). Why do I have to do your research for you? Noroton (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read Ben Smith's blog every day. I enjoy it. It's entertaining. But he's not the authoritative expert on everything, especially not in Chicago (which is why he relied on the stringer listed at the end of the article), and he does have his biases. Journalism is the first draft of history, which means you can't expect it to be 100% correct. Just because he got a few things confused doesn't mean he did that on purpose, but it also doesn't mean we have to believe everything he ever wrote is the gospel truth. He wouldn't claim that, so why should you? (Do I care what Norm Sheiber says? No. He's not on my personal whitelist of trusted sources.) If all you're going to do is quote journalists quoting other journalists, then no wonder you're going off on the wrong track. (And of course I noticed you had nothing to say about the...shall we say 'quality level'...of the Maria Warren blog.) Flatterworld (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(redent)Forgive me for not following your link to the blog, but I haven't been following everything you say since you attacked me. You made a point about WP:RS and my response was to that, not to whether someone is totally accurate. What I have been doing is looking at various articles on newsbank.com to see how this story was reported and commented on. I see The Observer of London noted Smith's story was apparently one of the first, if not the first, significant, in-depth articles on the topic. Noroton (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So to summarize...you're researching nothing but the media coverage, while I'm researching on the actual facts. Obviously we're not likely to come to the same conclusions. And blaming my 'attitude' for your own ignorance of the facts isn't going to change that. But do feel free to continue your rant that everything is my fault, if it makes you feel better. Flatterworld (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico is, also, a newspaper----whose print version (see ...here...) I believe is distributed particularly in the D.C. area. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the links to the original source material (Warren's blog) in hopes those who relied on quoting Ben Smith's quotes would correct the article to reflect the original source material (including Warren's reaction to Smith's 'report'). That wasn't done, so I'm now made the changes myself. Legends in their own minds reflects her flippant blogging style and her attitude to the meeting. She was NOT writing (or attempting to write) the definitive report on that meeting, just making a joke about it - which that phrase makes clear. Her blog is for her friends, and they all live in the area and know the people involved. Again, we are an encyclopedia which means researching the facts and relying on original sources as much as possible - NOT recycling whatever journalists happen to write at a particular point in time. If you're going to insist on doing that, then the original source material they relied on, when available, should be added to show how ridiculous that journalist's assumptions were in writing that. Flatterworld (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw - if you read her blog entries, she wasn't concerned about Republicans engaging in left-baiting. Flatterworld (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should remove all that material as unreliably sourced, and on BLP grounds. A flippant blogger describing someone as a legend in his own mind isn't very dignified here. Wikidemo (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're striving for accuracy, not dignity. The problem is that Ben Smith treated it seriously, which caused some of his readers (including other journalsits) to take it seriously. If we remove the entire Maria Warren and Ben Smith section, that would be satisfactory to me IF both names are included in the Edit Summary so we can find it again easily when this discussion resurfaces a month or two from now. Flatterworld (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned with accuracy, don't look at Ben Smith. November, 1995 was the special Democratic primary election for the Mel Reynold's congressional seat that Alice Palmer was running for. The state senate election was a regularly scheduled election for 1996. He misstates this, and it's been months and the man hasn't corrected the error. I guess it's only journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.38.29 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be frank. The Palmers have been concerned about power and the importance of their issues and concerns. They were the generation that came from the civil rights movement. Barack Obama was a new generation, and they most likely wished to have control over the Reynold's seat and the State Senate seat. Obama probably would be groomed for a congressional seat or to assume Alice's seat if she won. The meeting at Ayers was to introduce Obama to the political tastemakers in the area, the donors and the close circle around the Palmers. Barack was Alice and Buzz' candidate and Alice would have wished to have her supporters on board while she pursued the Reynold's congressional seat in the fall of 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.38.29 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way you've (Noroton) rewritten the article, it appears you think there were two separate meetings at the Ayers house. There was one. Again, you'd have to read the Bill Ayers Talk page, but what's clear is that various sources imply various things. The meeting was at the Ayers house, but it was Alice Palmer's meeting. As you've stated, one source claims that's where Ayers first met Obama. Others have implied they were already some sort of BFF and Ayers was 'launching' Obama's political career (quite unlikely, for various reasons). Now you've got a blogger claiming she remembers exactly what was said 10 years before she wrote it down. I think we're going off the rails here.... Flatterworld (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put this tangential criticism in its own section because it appears to have nothing to do with the previous one. Your concerns:

• The way you've (Noroton) rewritten the article, it appears you think there were two separate meetings at the Ayers house. There was one. Again, you'd have to read the Bill Ayers Talk page, but what's clear is that various sources imply various things. The meeting was at the Ayers house, but it was Alice Palmer's meeting. As you've stated, one source claims that's where Ayers first met Obama. Others have implied they were already some sort of BFF and Ayers was 'launching' Obama's political career (quite unlikely, for various reasons). I haven't yet seen a source that says Ayers met Obama before the meeting at his house. Could you provide me with the ones you know of? If they conflict with the witness who remembers Ayers trying to sell Obama, then so be it. It isn't a contradiction for Palmers to have a meeting at Ayers house and for Ayers to try to sell Obama at that same meeting. If there is a definite conflict and we can't sort out which is right or wrong, Wikipedia policy is to present the differences in what the sources say, not to present nothing or only one side. One way of doing this without violating WP:OR might be to say something like "According to XX source(s) this was the first time Obama met Ayers, yet according to YY source, Ayers was promoting Obama at the get-together..." I'm open to suggestions, but not if they keep the article in a near-stub state, the way I found it.
• What is "BFF"?
• Now you've got a blogger claiming she remembers exactly what was said 10 years before she wrote it down. What do you mean by remembers exactly what was said? The way I read it, she described the meeting in general terms. Don't you have memories older than 10 years? The fact is that Obama and Ayers have refused to talk about the meeting. Same with Palmer. So we go with the best sources we have, and she was an eyewitness. It's simple and straightforward.
• I think we're going off the rails here.... Not a constructive comment. Noroton (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BFF - Best Friends Forever

You're the one who added this: "Obama was introduced to Ayers and Ayer's wife, Bernardine Dohrn in 1995 at a "meet-and-greet" political meeting the couple held for Obama at their home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, where all three lived.[7]" The exact words of the source (your NYT article you like so much because it includes 'unrepentant terrorist' which they cribbed from the earlier NYT interview in a rather incestuous fashion): "Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said." Beyond that, your wording makes it appear all three lived in the house - which is EXACTLY how rumors get started.) This really isn't difficult. Alice Palmer had decided to run for higher office. She wanted her supporters to meet Obama. The Ayers agreed to hold this meeting at their house, as they were supporters of Alice Palmer. They, along with the rest, met Obama. The only thing in conflict involves your misinterpretation and extrapolation of the facts.

No, I do not trust my memories (enough to commit them to print) from any wine-and-cheese party I attended 10 years ago. Remember Obama waas being introduced? Sure. Remember exactly who said what? No. I also don't know any responsible journalist (as opposed to a casual blogger) who would state something categorically from 10 years ago if he/she didn't have his/her contemporaneous notes from the time. That's why they take notes. Why on earth would you trust this blogger any more than a stranger on the street telling you something salacious? And then add it to an encyclopedia entry? No way.

"Near-stub state"? No, it was concise. It covered all the points raised in the media - there just isn't that much there. Unfortunately, Wikidemo removed the rebuttals to Clinton's remarks which were footnoted in the main Bill Ayers article (last time I looked, anyway). You also ignored them, so imo they haven't made any progress here.

Your POV is obvious. Research is about finding all the information about a person or subject, putting it together, analyzing it, and then writing the results, whatever they may be. It is NOT deciding what you want to say, and then finding supporting sources. Cart, horse, before. Flatterworld (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a real attitude problem about knocking other editors who don't agree with you 100 percent, don't you? You like attacking people? You're being disruptive. I don't care how old you are, act like an adult. I'm not even going to read the substance of your reply now because I'm sick of your childishness. If you can't abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA don't interact with other editors. I'm trying to do a serious job here, it is demonstrable that I haven't pushed only one side of this, and I've listened to you and Wikidemo and been flexible. I've made a number of improvements. What good have you done? I'll address the substance of what you say, if there is any, later.Noroton (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember exactly what I've removed on each occasion and I've slowed down on removing stuff. I've tried to trim things back a few times, for a couple reasons. First, I was hoping to succinctly describe the controversy, the positions of various parties, how it arose, and a few underlying facts. By repeating too many snipes and zingers on both sides, it seemed like the article was turning into a proxy for the controversy itself. Second, the people kept expanding the transcript of the debate to the point where we were repeating quite a large chunk of primary material here. A link to the debate would be more appropriate. Wikidemo (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's an article about a controveersy, and a controversy will involve some back and forth. From the sources I've already seen, I can add a bit on how it arose. They say two British newspapers picked up on it first in early February, the Ben Smith article in Politico.com was the first or almost the first to treat the issue in depth, and before February it had been mentioned but, apparently, not treated in depth by the media. As I put in the article, Fox news has been running with the story for some time. Ayers has been controversial, even with regard to associations, in ways unconnected to Obama but especially after 9/11. I haven't read a lot of the commentary yet (sticking to news accounts mostly, so far), but I've added a bit in the reaction section. I expect to add more and balance that out. That's got to be a large part of an article about a controversy.Noroton (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't disagree. But on the other point, two paragraphs or so of Obama and Clinton "debating" each other (I use quotes because throwing faint coded jabs at each other is hardly like anything I ever thought of as a debate) was a bit much. If a reader really wants to see or read that they can follow the link. Wikidemo (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if they follow the link, and we have offered nothing to rebut her statements, they may well assume that Clinton was being honest and accurate when she implied that Bill Ayers's comments were made after, or in response to, the September 11, 2001 attacks; that people other than the Weatherman's own members (see Greenwich Village townhouse explosion) died from their bombs, or there was any intention by Ayers to ever kill people; and that Ayers was referring specifically to setting more bombs (again with the implication 'to kill innocent people') rather than his wish they had done more in some way to stop the Vietnam War. That's the problem: to refute invalid statements, we have to repeat them. If we ignore the statements, and especially if we casually use the word 'terrorist', we're sending an inaccurate message (and I would say the same if I were working on Robert McNamara's article with his 'confessions of lying' book). We don't want 'technically true' statements, we want to convey the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Flatterworld (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(redent)Nails were within the bomb that blew up in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion that killed Ayers' then-girlfriend. Mark Rudd and others have said the bomb was planned to be used at a dance at Fort Dix that night. That's classic terrorism. More important than that we call it terrorism, we can report that many, many others call it terrorism, describe the other opinions about that and his response to that, and simply describe what he did as a leader of the Weatherman. A lot of that needs to be done in the Bill Ayers article, which has extremely little information on the thing about him that is most controversial and prominent -- his activities in Weatherman. Noroton (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except Bill Ayers was in Michigan at the time. That's why, in his memoir, he thought perhaps Diana Oughton was trying to stop the bomb-makers. Clearly making a bomb to kill people wasn't his idea. Now go research some original sources and stop relying on 'journalists' with an agenda. Flatterworld (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the debate coverage. There is a huge block of text on that, from what I saw. While we have quotes in the article and we need them, I think the link is the best way to present the whole thing. There needs to be some kind of balance with being able to tell people how the matter came up and what was said and the problem of having too big a chunk of text in the article, leading to editors adding a little bit more here and there (maybe now that Clinton is leaving the race that won't be a problem). There certainly is no need to go into every single detail that gets us farther and farther from the subject.Noroton (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're mischaracterizing what I said. Flatterworld (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor has twice[5][6] made the same change over my reversion, and despite a discussion on my talk page.[7] The problems with the addition, among others, is that it incorrectly says that the controversy "followed Hillary Clinton's discussion" (whatever that means), it fails to actually assert in the lead what the controversy is (it just says incorrectly when it arose), and it adds a spurious editorial comment praising Ayers and Dohrn's post-Weathermen accomplishments as "overshadow"-ing their controversial past. In fact, As these sources from February 15[8] and February 23,[9] 2008, show, it was a controversy long before George Stephanopoulos brought it up at the debate, which was Clinton's first direct comment. The controversy hasn't been traced to Clinton's campaign. We've wrestled back and forth about what to call the controversy - it's really a political football of some sort, a partisan political issue. But how do you describe that in neutral terms? Best to say that it's a public debate or something like that. Wikidemo (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite discusson on your talk page? I left a message on your talk page, which you ignored upon another revert. The current lede contradicts the article itself and pushes several POVs. The article states categorically that this controversey had not recieved media attention until February 2008, when Hillary Clinton started discussing it. As you say on your talk page, the relationship between Obama and Ayers was well-known before that and was not controversial. It only became controversial - there only came into existence an "election controversey" - when Clinton started trying to exploit the issue. Have a look at the two articles you linked to above. How does the first one start? "Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton questions whether Barack Obama would be able to withstand..." Doesn't that prove my point? Your evidence for the start of the controversy is an article that directly attributes it to Hillary Clinton's "questions". Every link mentioning the controversy in the References section comes after the Clinton campaign began briefing on Ayers in early February. Furthermore, the article discusses the controversey only in terms of the debates between Clinton and Obama - everything else is defined as part of the reaction to the controversy. It provides no evidence that this controversy exists beyond the Presidential campaign - no evidence, for instance, that it would be an issue in any other campaign - therefore it is mis-leading to elide mention of the campaign from the lede, as it implies this is some self-sustaining controversy independent of the briefing points the campaigns give to the media. The current lede also equates "controversy" with "discussion", which is wrong. And by neglecting to mention that Ayers is one of Obama's constituents the lede ignores the primary reason for their relationship, which pushes the POV that that the relationship is inherently improper - it also pushes this POV by using the words "nature" and "propriety", which are loaded and imply that there's are serious claims that the relationship is improper and secretive. Finally, it claims that McCain has "criticised" Obama for the relationship, which is not supported by the source referenced, which states merely that McCain has "questioned" the relationship. As to your second point, that is not a "spurious editorial comment" - it comes from the article referenced in that section, which is currently quoted out of context in another attempt to push POV.--92.11.212.158 (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What definition of "ignored" does my response[10] fit? By posing this as a POV issue this editor makes it one. And reverting a third time[11] - edit warring from an IP account. The new revert rephrases things but still inaccurately blames Clinton personally for starting the controversy, and still contains the inappropriate commentary (that's seemingly untrue) that Dohrn's and Ayers' subsequent lifetime accomplishments overshadowed their radical past. "Overshadowed" is an opinion so it's hard to argue either way, but in the minds of the public that's hardly true. Repeating Ayers' "colleagues" purported opinion of his overall value to society is not relevant to this controversy. What is likely true and relevant is that Ayers was accepted into academia dn the backwaters of local Chicago politics despite his past - many people in Chicago local politics have unsavory pasts. Like any politician in Chicago Obama had to deal with all kinds. Here is the source I was thinking of, already in the article, that gets to the origin of the rumors as being British press and blogs.[12] Wikidemo (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried rewording it to be more matter of fact. There were a couple problems I'm trying to address. First, most articles begin with a simple identification, e.g. Horse is a type of animal. The article omitted that and just said when it started, like The Horse was first introduced to America by Spanish Conquistadors. (without identifying what it is). The previous attempt to say what it is went kind of like The B.A.E.C. is a discussion... which was really awkward for two reasons. First, it is a controversy, to put it politely. More of a political issue, or partisan talking point, etc. There's not a whole lot of controversy, just grumbling. But more importantly it's not a "discussion" or "dialogue" - it's a series of op ed pieces, blogs, Internet rumors, and an occasional news story or fact check talking about the op ed pieces, blogs and rumors. You can't really say the "x controversy is a controversy". So I decided to sidestep it and get right to the point. The second big problem is that there isn't clearly a "relationship", "connection", or anything else between Obama and Ayers. That's what the whole controversy is about. All of those words describing how two people are related have two meanings, one being the amount or lack thereof, but the other implying a certain minimum level. When you say two men have a "relationship" there's an implication of some reciprocal expectations, shared history, etc. Something beyond trivial. When you say two people have a connection you imply the same thing. But many argue - and the sources seem to show - that any interaction was merely incidental and didn't mean much. Even if you don't agree, and you think that the two of them were blood brothers, you have to admit that it's not universally believed and the controversy is over whether or not it's true, and if so what it means. So we can't cover the controversy properly by introducing it in a way that asserts that the disputed claim is true. I tried to convey that with the phrase "connection, if any". Any attempt to define Ayers and Obama in the lead beyond identifying them is likely going to snowball - best just give their primary title / notability and let the body of the article and the linked articles say more. Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decoupled the following sentence:

Ayers, who had been one of the five-member central committee of the Weathermen in the late 1960s and early 1970s,[13] donated $200 to Obama's 2001 state senate campaign.[14]

The information remains in the article, but the two facts have been moved to more appropriate places. Left like this, the article suggested that there was a connection between Ayers' participation in the Weatherman committee and the donation to Obama's campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. Noroton (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC) (falls off chair)[reply]

pare it down so its small enough TO BE merged, and then merge it into the campaign article. Nothing is developing, and I have a hard time buying that the few meetings between two people who both have their own WP page- and mention each other on the respective pages- should somehow have ANOTHER page on these actual few, very well reported as innocuous meetings, is not ideal in my mind. The main argument for supporting such a large level of text for these meetings, seems to be more because of media reaction and not so much actual notability. Which was a fine argument a few months ago when there was media activity on the subject. Looking now though there is nothing, which reminds me of wp:recentism and I fear once again WP has over-notablized a current event. Clearly when taken against the background of world history, and of the 2008 presidential campaign, there will be mentions of this event within the context of the historical events it was a part of- the 2008 race and the bio's of the two people. But as many feel and recentism supports, there is no separate notability there and this article is not the answer. Any length concerns are even more trivial- the subject has no independent notability and needs to be trimmed to fit in the proper articlespace. Arguments "that it won't fit in BO 2008" are spurious... it should be made to acceptably fit, regardless of how long or short that ends up being, because otherwise its a serious undue weight situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree once again. We've been through all the arguments on both sides, tried numerous variations, and this is still the solution that is 'least worst' of not 'best'. I would prefer this not be brought up every few weeks, as it's looking like harassment. Flatterworld (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Flatterworld here. This is the lesser of about 37 different evils. It can't go into Barack Obama or Bill Ayers because of weight issues, and it is too elaborate and well-sourced to be fully subsumed by the (already long) primary campaign article. Perhaps after the election, when it is becomes clear how this was nothing more than a failed smear campaign, it will be merged with List of failed Republican smear campaigns. </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too early to tell. If we go through the entire election cycle and nothing comes of it, we may want to trim and merge it as a matter of news, recentism, trivia, etc. However, it has lots of notable sources and has been in the news more or less for six months now in a variety of contexts. And, as mentioned, there is no better place to put this material for now. Wikidemo (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the initial reportings on the manufactured "controversy" I didn't hear anything yet for quite a while by the media. I was "reminded" of this when I first came to the Obama article, and since then it's the only place I read about this!!!!! Doesn't that say something about importants and weight? And yes, I pay attention to the news (the "real" news!). Guess I made my point very clear. --Floridianed (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it just seems to be undue weight here, as is. If it needs to be shorter to fit in the main articles, so be it. It could be a lot shorter in my mind. We are talking summary style here. I could see all the informational content being conveyed in two paragraphs, or three at most. Right now we use numerous quotes and lists of responses, when most of these are totally politically predictable and fall into broad categories that are easily summarized. And all the lead-up (fundraisers and board meetings) basically needs to get summarized because its not very encyclopedic right now. And also these meetings are factually very simple and do not need sentence after sentence wedging in minutiae and more quotes.

so if all this is accomplished I think a merge might be feasible. I will try some edits and you guys can let me know. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor, User:72.0.180.2 (the un-logged in version of good faith editor User talk:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats - no accusations intended), made a series of major edits[13] that seem well-intentioned but I think introduce a number of problems. For example, by repeating Chicagoan Maria Warren's claim that Ayers "launched" Obama's campaign, without context, it spreads an inaccuracy - she clearly did not launch the campaign, she denied the statement, and she was not claiming anything about Obama's campaign. Similarly, by removing all the context about Ayers and Dohrn being "fixtures" in the neighborhood that everyone knew, and instead focusing on a litany of contacts between Ayers and Obama, it makes it sound more conspiratorial than it should be. The mention of google hits is impertinent (and also out of context - saying it has more currency "out of mainstream" without pointing out the coverage is in conservative blogs and sites is misleading). I was going through these one by one but it's a hard task and I would end up reverting much to most of it anyway. I'm suggesting that if the editor or anyone else wants to make some changes we should go in smaller pieces, and consider a manageable piece at a time. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just working on improving the summary writing style of the article fyi. I am fine with your opinion on the "launch" comment, I was just trying to remove all the slang used in that section. And I never said "she" launched the campaign, I said she described it as such (which she did). I though using her words was bette than the long list of semi-denials we were using at that point.

believe it or not my intention was to make it sound less "conspiratorial" by focusing on the facts. All the "Ayers as a community leader" stuff is fine, but its kind of a sidenote to this subject and it really belong on the Ayers page at that level of detail. Also it sounds a bit treacly and soft for a political page. Again we can summarize if neccessary but we shouldn't use it all.

as for Google hits, yes I know thats semi-encyclopedic, but I was trying to find some way of quantifying the vast differential we all know exists between RS reporting on the subject, and what people are actually saying and thinking (yes I agree it is mostly right wing stuff, but how do we say that and stay npov??)

anyways I hope this helps-- what other sections did you have concerns with?

PS- please also note my long post on this subject in the other section. Don't totally understand why you didn't reply there before RVing me.  :( 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which other section? I wouldn't favor a merge at this time if that's what you mean, but think we'll be in a better position later (probably after the election) to assess whether this controversy was meaningful or not. I agree with your approach. As it is the article is a big pile of semi-raw information. I don't mind trimming and organizing this article better but can we deal with it in chunks? There are too many issues for me to call out each one - that would become unworkable. But if we do a paragraph or two at a time we can probably figure this out over the course of a day or two as long as nobody starts objecting. Wikidemo (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so we are supposed to merge "controversy" sections in with main text, and not use words like "controversy" or "criticism" unless necessary... so I think the article needs a new title that is more NPOV, like "Relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers" or possibly "Obama-Ayers connections" but I don't think we should keep using the current title. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relationship between Obama and Ayers. A title, or premise, that assumes as much has a fatal POV problem. The subject of this article is a political controversy over allegations of a relationship, a fact that is neutral, notable, and easy to source. Wikidemo (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well then how bout connections, like I also suggested???? please admit that this is about more than "allegations" because face-to-face interaction took place however brief... there are many summary words we could successfully use (ties, connections, meetings, interactions)- but my point is we should NOT be using the current title... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this is about more than "allegations"". In criminal justice someone would be already under "criminal investigation" under these terms. So please refine your words. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged connection is an okay term to describe what the controversy is about, but that there is an actual connection, relationship, whatever is still POV, unproven, and not notable either. If you look to the talk history of this page and some others, you'll see my comment that all these words exist in two senses - first, a tie between two people without regard to its strength (or lack thereof), and second, that there is a tie of sufficient magnitude to be worth nothing, which is the underlying dispute. Saying that the tie is worth writing an article about (i.e. notable) is tantamount to choosing one side of the controversy, the more conspiratorial fringe theory side at that. This was one of the problems with housing the information in any article. The actual meetings are insignificant and not relevant to Ayers' life or Obama's. Nobody ever mentioned them except in the context of a campaign issue. So if there's any notability at all it is as a campaign-related controversy. Thus, the only place it reasonably fits is in an article about the campaign. It's already there, in a brief summary and link, in Obama's Presidential primary article. Wikidemo (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor for a merge and by that I mean to merge the slight connection between Ayers and Obama to the Ayers article and be sure, the name of Ayers shows up somehow (with WP-link) into by now to be newly (repeated) proposed articles. I guess that would be the right approach and avoids any "WP:COATRACK" suspicion. --Floridianed (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put it in the Ayers article - it's a weight/NPOV problem just to be there. We're not listing in the Ayers article every notable person Ayers ever met. Including it is only fuel to the silly controversy because it acknowledges the contacts as notable. There was some edit warring in the Ayers article over how to handle this, which is what lead to this article's creation in the first place. Also, note that the Republican Party is now making a deal out of it - see my recent addition to the article. The controversy is gaining in notability as McCain is "going negative", and it's just too early to figure out where that's going to end up. Wikidemo (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That needs more attention that I can put in here with a "side note". Since I don't have the time right now let me tell you my "quick thought" on this. We could put the "controversy" in both, McCain's and Obama's campaign article (in the appropriate section; "media campaign" or so, depending who speaks out first about it). The question of the extend of the issue is of course still open and it might be necessary to "split" it in-between the Ayers and campaign articles. I'm talking about the controversy brought out by the media (scrutiny) so it should focus on that and not Ayers past itself especially not in extend. Does that sound reasonable to you and in general? --Floridianed (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title seems just fine as it is, IMO, since it has been a controversy. As with any controversy, we need adequate space for the underlying facts and then a description of what was said about the situation. This controversy is far from over, and controversial information about Ayers is surfacing and may well continue to surface as we get closer to the election. In upcoming days I expect to be adding some information about Ayers and Dohrn, although we need to treat it with some care. You might call it "explosive" ... -- Noroton (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see this is precisely what the problem is. "New information" about Ayers and Dohrn belongs in their BLPs, because none if it relates to this particular "controversy". Bear in mind that this "controversy" is an historical event because it hasn't received any significant coverage since the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. Consider this article watchlisted. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but don't worry. Noroton (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more advice- controversy is a word we should not be using, long-term at least. especially as a title word. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship again

An editor has twice now changed the lede[14][15] to assert that there is a "relationship" between Ayers and Obama, after adding a now-deleted paragraph that also asserted a "relationship."[16] As has been argued on this page (above), the word "relationship" and similar words imply that the two men are in fact connected beyond an incidental way, and that this article (and the controversy) is about detailing the connection and what it means. In fact, the reliable sources do not establish that there is in fact a relationship (a few use words like that casually, most that address the point conclude quite plainly that there is nothing to it). The subject of this article, then, is the attempts (controversy, one might call it) by some to allege that there is a relationship - not the details of a relationship that has been established. I do not wish to revert past 1RR given article probation (nor should the other editor), but I do believe the lead should be reworded to be neutral as to whether a "relationship" (or any other word that tends to imply anything beyond an incidental degree of contact) is present or not. Wikidemo (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the entire subject of this article is how the allegations of a friendly relationship between Ayers and Obama is a campaign controversy, I'm surprised by this deletion of sourced content,[17] which seems to be the most significant part of the controversy to date. For the GOP, on an official attack site, to play up the controversy, seems quite a notable development (they also issued a press release).[18] It's sourced to a very reliable source (a significant mention in the San Francisco Chronicle) but it could also be sourced to Wired Magazine,[19] ABC News,[20] Boston Globe,[21], CNN,[22] New York Times,[23], local affiliates of Fox News,[24] ABC,[25] and various lesser sites.[26][27] No doubt I missed some. They're even covering it in France.[28] Plus, some very interesting aftermath.[29] I would say that the sources establish weight/notability, and it's directly on the point of this article. If the GOP has decided to make Ayers part of their official strategy, I only see that becoming more of an issue over time. So why delete it? I'm actually surprised nobody has improved or expanded that point. I won't edit war but I would hope people can weight in. Wikidemo (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion of that paragraph. Let's restore it. Noroton (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I think there's an aesthetic problem of a section which contains just one or two sentences. But I also think there's a structural problem. The article has a section with the portentous title 'Rise of the controversy', suggesting that the things described in that section (the February media coverage and the April debate question) were just the prelude when they were actually the flourishing of this controversy. Then we have a section on the reaction. Then there's this final section, which seems to treat its subject as the legacy of the campaign, as if this is coming back to haunt us. The feeling I get from the article is that the actual controversy exists somewhere between this rise, reaction and legacy - but we aren't told where. I'm going to try moving bits around in the hopes of improving this.--The Bruce (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barone raised the issue in his US News column this week, as did a New York Times opinion piece, and RealClearPolitics linked to an opinion on this as well. According to Barone, "They were closer than Obama implied when George Stephanopoulos asked him about Ayers in the April 16 debate". Although US News' editorials and RealClearPolitics aren't necessarily MSM gatekeepers, they are gatekeepers of a sort, in that they've pushed talk about Chicago Annenberg Challenge up one level from the blogs. See also this Chicago Tribune column. An LA Times blogger is on this as well, and LA Times bloggers are subject to some editorial control (an editor banned any blogging on latimes.com about Edwards' alleged infidelity, as you might recall).Bdell555 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of a conservative pundit isn't really a good guide for the size of this issue. Furthermore, sources are reporting the smear campaign rather than the association. This is essential news about news. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the "Reaction to the controversy" section of this article is NOT "news about news"?Bdell555 (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of a conservative pundit isn't really a good guide for the size of this issue but it's a perfectly good source about the opinion that that prominent conservative pundit actually gave, which is acceptable under WP:ASF section of WP:NPOV, which, Scjessey, you might want to familiarize yourself with. -- Noroton (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New addition

This edit[30] is a coatrack. It repeats a partisan anti-Obama book (a non-reliable source) to rehash various Republican anti-Obama talking points, namely:

• "conservative commentators said the situation raised questions..." - we know that. They did not say - they repeated a campaign talking point.
• "his association with Ayers...." - there was no association with Ayers. It is POV, and assumes one side of the controversy, to premise a sentence on that claim.
• "The Obama Nation, which appeared at the top of the New York Times bestseller list" - trying to bolster a shoddy source to attack Obama is unacceptable. It is POV to call Corsi a "conservative commentator" - he is a partisan operative and fringe theorist, as the sources in the article on that book indicate.
• "David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama, which was No. 5 on the list." - again, attempt to bolster the credibility of an unreliable source by irrelevant mention of sales statistics is not helpful.
• "According to Freddoso , Obama's associating with Ayers raised these "worthwhile questions": [list of accusations]"...Freddoso is not a reliable source; his partisan comments cannot be mentioned in this way. Even if the book were reliable, which it is not, this is a clear statement of opinion and clear advocacy against Obama, with no indication that the opinion is notable.
• "Freddoso continued, " [BLP-vio continues]

I'm going to remove the BLP vio, and I suggest we prune everything except perhaps a simple, neutral mention that the issue was raised in two anti-Obama campaign books. A link to those books would be okay. Wikidemo (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - the Barone and Chapman material are even more unreliable and problematic. Barone is a BLP vio as well so I am removing it. Chapman is merely an unreliable partisan source, so in the interest of being as modest as possible with my reverts I'll leave it. But it should go too, at most be mentioned neutrally without quoting or trying to advocate it, if some other source can establish that this criticism is notable. Wikidemo (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo, will you please read the WP:BLP section about sources and the section on WP:WELLKNOWN; and readWP:NPOV, especially the section WP:ASF. WP:NPOV very clearly allows a representation of a range of opinions, and the opinions you just censored from the article are very clearly significant ones in this controversy. The entire section is called "Reaction ..." and is meant to be a representation of opinions. You can't just have opinions favoring Obama. The opinions you just censored out were no more or less opinions than Schrieber's or Kinsley's or Daley's or Washington's. I notice you didn't censor those opinions out and they've stood in the article for quite some time. So why is your edit not a WP:NPOV violation? You will note that that policy does not require "neutral" opinions as it specifically states. Please read it. This is an article about a controversy. Controversies involve different opinions.

Also, you don't have BLP violations when you're talking about criticisms of WP:WELLKNOWN individuals and verifiable facts about them, and Obama, Ayers and Dohrn are all WP:WELLKNOWN, the last two are well known because they are former terrorists, as you well know I have shown again and again and again with citations from numerous reliable sources. We can certainly treat the opinions of reliable sources on that as material falling well within WP:BLP guidelines. -- Noroton (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from any patronizing insults - on another page you accuse me of other things and I wish we could stick to the point.Stricken after above comment refactored. Certainly you know that I am a seasoned editor who has read BLP many times and participated in the ongoing maintenance and discussion of that policy. I know full well what it says. The material I removed quoted unreliable sources, partisan operatives, to accuse a living person of a major felony, and a moral corruption that he denies. "Unrepentant terrorist" is not the way to describe a University of Illinois professor. Wikidemo (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored my comments at 02:58 because I certainly don't want to offend you. What I said about you on the other page concerned my problems with your argument, but I'm going to go back there now and look over my comment. I understand you have sincere concerns about these passages being unfair and BLP violations concerning Ayers (and perhaps Dohrn). I value your concerns because I recognize you as a sincere editor committed to accuracy and fairness. I don't think you know just how much research and care I've been taking before I made these and other edits in recent days about those two. I've done everything I can to find the best sources about them and about Weather Underground. Perhaps I first should have added more of that sourcing I found to the Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn articles. I think that would have answered your objections. I'll comment more on this on your talk page and add more sourcing. Your justification for removing the information is contrary to the very clear language of WP:ASF section of WP:NPOV and the equally clear language of WP:WELLKNOWN at WP:BLP. You're making assertions completely contrary to those policies and I need to point them out, but perhaps that's not going to be clear until I explain just how solid the sourcing is on Ayers' past. Noroton (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the civility. Thanks. On the BLP question for The Case Against Obama I don't think there is question under BLP that we could allow a partisan author writing in a book premised on defeating Obama in the election to call Ayers an "unrepentant Communist terrorist" by way of trying to defeat Obama in the election. This violates BLP in a number of ways. BLP places the burden of evidence "firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores material". Sources are supposed to be "high quality", and poorly sourced material is supposed to be removed "immediately and without waiting for discussion." As per the "Criticism and praise" section criticism must be relevant to the subject's notability, and written so as not to overwhelm the article or take sides. The material is to be responsible, conservative, in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, not to represent a minority view as a majority one, and avoiding "biased or malicious content." We are told specifically to avoid guilt by association. Calling Ayers an "unrepentant communist terrorist" fails on nearly all counts. It is not necessary to bash Ayers in this way in order to describe the subject of the article, a controversy over Obama's alleged ties to him. The article was just fine and described the controversy perfectly well, describing Ayers as a founder of the radical Weathermen group. Labeling him an "unrepentant communist terrorist" merely heaps insults on Ayers in order to disparage Obama by association, without adding anything. It is certainly not neutral, responsible, or conservative to use those kinds of pejorative terms. The section on questionable sources is important too. Questionable sources are those that are "extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." a political attack book certainly qualifies as being promotional and a matter of opinion. Per that section, questionable sources are to be used as sources only about themselves. Quoting a political attack book to disparage Ayers fails this test. Ayers himself disputes that he is a terrorist, communist, or unrepentant. Calling someone a "terrorist" when he plausibly denies it (and calling him "unrepentant" at that) is way over the top. It is not our place to allow a political partisan to make those accusations here.

The Michael Barone quote suffers most of the same failings - it is a news blog, but clearly an opinion piece written by a conservative pundit, which is automatically unreliable. It too describes Ayers as an "unrepentant terrorist", again something we cannot repeat.

The argument is made that because Ayers is a well-known person we can accuse him of terrorism. I don't believe he is well known in that sense. He is well-known enough to have an article for sure - as is everyone who has an article. But he is not well-known as an unrepentant terrorist - that is a disputed claim. In any event BLP cautions that if the person is truly well-known, then any accusation against him will have "a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources". I do not see reliable third party sources that call Ayers an "unrepentant communist terrorist" and seriously doubt such sources exist. For every unreliable source that says so there are plenty of sources that document that Ayers is not a terrorist, and that he has expressed regret for his actions (though the question itself of whether he repented or not fails BLP whatever the source - it is an irrelevant disparagement). Further, this is the wrong article for the question of whether Ayers has regrets or not - that is rightfully treated in his biography. Neither article is the right place for affixing the meaningless epithet "terrorist" to Ayers - that is rightfully treated in the article on the Weathermen (I say meaningless because the actual events Ayers and the Weathermen is not in any serious dispute; calling him a terrorist or not is merely a value judgment).

We can argue separately about the other pundits. Jerome Corsi's book is utterly unreliable and should not be used at all as a source (and trying to rehabilitate it by citing sales stats is pointless). I think some paraphrase of Freddoso's list of questions, best attributed to multiple authors who raise them, is allowable as a way to frame what one partisan side of the controversy hope to show - that Ayers may have influence on Obama and that it impugns Obama's judgment. Chapman is clearly not a reliable source. His blog post is based on two false partisan claims, that Obama and Ayers are "friends" and have "warm relations." Anything with that premise is dubious, and claims that Obama and Ayers actually are close associates are off topic. Chapman's calling it "the simple truth" and not a "smear" is editorializing, and in fact goes to the subject of the controversy, whether it is true or just a smear. Wikidemo (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, the only thing to come out of this reasonably is a brief statement that some conservative writers use the incident as a way of questioning Obama's judgment, and whether the contacts with a former radical might have influenced Obama. These could be cited to some of these authors, but quoting their material in this way is no good (and for the most part, a non-starter of a BLP violation). Wikidemo (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking over the matter I've gone ahead and summarized the partisan criticism accordingly - no cause to reprint opinions from unreliable sources, whose prominence has not been established (or to call Corsi a conservative commentator). I'm allowing the scaled-back version to pass as acceptable if phrased that way; otherwise please consider the entire addition to be contended and leave it out until and unless there's consensus for inclusion. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) 1. See WP:TERRORISM.

2. The Weatherman (organization) has long been called a "terrorist" group by reliable sources, including:

• Article: UPI wire story, "Weathermen Got Name From Song: Groups Latest Designation Is Weather Underground", January 30, 1975, last paragraph: "On Jan. 19, 1971, Bernardine Dohrn, a leading Weatherperson who has never been caught, issued a statement from hiding suggesting that the group was considering tactics other than bombing and terrorism."
• Article: "Guilty Plea Entered in 'Village' Bombing: Cathlyn Wilkerson Could Be Given Probation or Up to 7 Years", July 19, 1980: First sentence: Cathlyn P. Wilkerson, expressing a wish to begin a new life after 10 years in the terrorist Weather Underground, pleaded guilty in Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday ... Elsewhere in the article: Miss Wilkerson's cell was apparently using the town house at 18 West 11th Street to construct bombs -- a later Weatherman statement said "antipersonnel bombs"
• Article: "Many States Are Adopting Stiff Laws to Curb Terror Bombings", August 16, 1970. The article uses a picture of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Caption: A passer-by photographed the explosion of what was described as a bomb "factory" at 18 West 11th Street last March. [...]
• Book: Diana Oughton, who died in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, was Ayers' girlfriend. Proof of that is in their Wikipedia articles. Shortly after her death, a book about her was published. Written by Thomas Powers, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, the book's title is Diana: The Making of a Terrorist. He and Lucinda Franks, both working for UPI, won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 1971 for their project of the same name. If the girlfriend was a terrorist, why not the boyfriend who was higher up in the hierarchical organization certainly was.

3. Two definitions:

a. Merriam-Webster defines the word "terror" as "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands."

b. The same dictionary defines "terrorism" as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

4. Dohrn was the top leader of the Weatherman group. Ayers was one of the top leaders. Both were on the "Weather Bureau" (later called the Central Committee) that controlled the group.

There is no WP:BLP violation whatever. We judge these things by reliable sourcing. Barone, Freddoso and the other sources are reliable for their own opinions. Ayers and Dohrn are well known because they were terrorists and it is clear from their articles that they are unrepentant, a fact that is noted widely among numerous reliable sources. -- Noroton (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (((added bit about Diane Oughton -- Noroton (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC))))[reply]

Moot. Ayers was not convicted of anything, so calling him a "terrorist" opens up Wikipedia to potential libel action, and also violates WP:BLP. Also it is worth noting that both Barone and Freddoso are conservative commentators with a vested interest in a McCain election victory. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practically, I doubt Ayers would sue anyone for libel so that's a bit of a red herring. But by the policy behind it, BLP, we don't accuse people of major felonies they deny and for which they have not been convicted.Wikidemo (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, you have made this statement before and it's been proven false before. Yet you continue to make it. You have also just committed a WP:BLP violation by saying certain people have a vested interest in an election. You should back that up with a reliable source if you ever say it again. -- Noroton (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):No, opinions are not citable in this way to accuse living people of crimes or of corrupt thoughts in their minds, particularly when they deny it. Nor can we use synthesis of dictionary definitions or editorial word use choices. "Unrepentant terrorists" is a drum banged mostly by deliberate Obama opponents of late. We're not going to use this article to paint Ayers as a terrorist by way of disparaging Obama. We may or may not choose to report that Obama's opponents were calling Ayers a terrorist in order to create that POV spin, but we cannot per NPOV (much less BLP) endorse that here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions are without foundation in policy; opinions may be cited in Wikipedia articles. One phrase in Barone's comment mentioned "unrepentant terrorist" and I have restored everything but that. Your edits were disruptive. Noroton (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton, I'm getting pretty tired of you conveniently 'forgetting' past discussions. Diana Oughton was indeed killed in the Greenwich Village bombing, but that doesn't make her a terrorist, especially given the difference in use of that term in 1971 vs. in 2008. According to Ayers's book, he believes it's likely she was either trying to stop others from making a bomb intended to kill people, or she intentionally caused it to blow up to prevent them from doing so. Now if he were truly a self-defined 'unrepentant terrorist', in your meaning of the term, that belief wouldn't make sense, would it? He'd be bragging about her role.
This is the same problem I have with the authors of those smear books. Instead of looking at the facts dispassionately and letting the chips fall where they may, they decide what the result 'should' be and then selectively choose whatever factoids and spin will support their claim. That isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia. Period. Flatterworld (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

especially given the difference in use of that term in 1971 vs. in 2008. There is no difference. It means today what it meant then. Ayers book is not reliable, as multiple reliable sources have said in reviews and elsewhere. Ayers himself has said on multiple occasions, including in that book, that he does not assert the truth of what he writes in it. He doesn't have to be a self-defined unrepentant terrorist for us to say so. he were truly a self-defined 'unrepentant terrorist', in your meaning of the term, that belief wouldn't make sense, would it? -- so therefore it would be impossible to call anyone a terrorist unless they said they were? Neat trick. The commentators are being cited for the fact that they hold these opinions, not for the facts. That's why they're in a "reaction" section. The truth that Ayers was a terrorist is in my post above, but you conveniently ignore that, don't you? We go by what reliable sources say. We have reliable sources -- non-opinion sources -- saying the organization he helped lead was a terrorist organization. When asked whether he's repentant for the bombings that the group did, he said he is not, although he does deny that they were terroristic -- a semantic difference, not a substantive one. -- Noroton (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted

I have reverted Noroton's latest edits on BLP and BRD grounds, and based on the principles of article probation. In light of the above discussion I am concerned that this is reaching a point of tendentious editing, and I urge Noroton to take a step back from editing these articles lest this become an administrative issue or community sanction. Please do not add contentious material back to the encyclopedia, particularly not material that has been questioned on POV, RS, and BLP grounds. We have discussed this, often rather heatedly, for the past day or two (an extension of a months-long discussion), and this material has never had consensus. If you have a problem, please address that on the talk page or through dispute resolution channels, not by revert warring. Thank you. Wikidemo (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo, your reading of WP:BLP is seriously wrong, as is your edit reverting opinion that is allowed to be reported in Wikipedia articles. I note that you've reverted only the negative opinion you disagree with, not the positive opinionns you agree with, which makes your edits look extremely tendentious. I didn't notice the Freddoso comments about "unrepentant Communist terrorist" when I added back the comments. I'll let that part ride. But you've taken everything out, not just that. I'm not going to address the "unrepentant terrorist" business at this point. I'm too tired. But I'll get back to it later.

You really need to study the relevant policies more. Your interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is wrong in these ways:

1. As per the "Criticism and praise" section criticism must be relevant to the subject's notability, and written so as not to overwhelm the article or take sides. This isn't a BLP article. It's an article about a controversy. Controversies are about public debate. The public debate doesn't overwhelm the article, in fact it's too short. And it only represents one side now that you've cut out the other side.
2. It is certainly not neutral, responsible, or conservative to use those kinds of pejorative terms, When we report on opinions, neutrality means representing different opinions, not censoring opinions because they aren't "neutral". You fundamentally mistake presenting facts with presenting opinions. Reread that section of BLP, and that should become clear to you. Your other objections to "unrepentant terrorist" I'll get to another time, but you don't censor opinions for that reason -- if you have to remove an opinion, it's done for other reasons.
3. a political attack book certainly qualifies as being promotional and a matter of opinion. The word "promotional" is about promoting a product for money. It doesn't apply to a journalist voicing his opinions. Freddoso's book is not called irresponsible by any reliable source that I know of. It is the expression of an opinion (along with some reporting, but I'm not using it for that here). Quotes from it are mentioned in the article to express his opinions. We are allowed -- even encouraged -- to present differing opinions at the WP:ASF. I've certainly been citing this enough in discussions you've taken part in. So I'm mystified that you still don't understand this. What is the reason for that? You have absolutely no reason to call this book a "questionable source", and frankly, it's hard to believe that you misunderstood the meaning of the word "promotional".
4. clearly an opinion piece written by a conservative pundit, which is automatically unreliable and Chapman's calling it "the simple truth" and not a "smear" is editorializing And just who the hell do you think Michael Kinsley and Norm Schreiber are? Why is it not tendentious for you to edit out the conservative and not the liberals? Again, WP:ASF is a pretty fundamental part of WP:NPOV. Are you trying to make a WP:POINT?
5. We can argue separately about the other pundits. Jerome Corsi's book is utterly unreliable and should not be used at all as a source (and trying to rehabilitate it by citing sales stats is pointless). Nope. When a book hits the New York Times bestseller list it's worth reporting that it has an opinion on this. The book's reliability is irrelevant to simply reporting that it talks about the Ayers case. What's pointless is your assertion doing the work of building a reasoned case.
6. I think some paraphrase of Freddoso's list of questions, best attributed to multiple authors who raise them, is allowable as a way to frame what one partisan side of the controversy hope to show You're setting an artificial standard for opinions you disagree with while ignoring that standard for opinions you agree with. How obvious.
7. what one partisan side of the controversy hope to show - that Ayers may have influence on Obama and that it impugns Obama's judgment. Now who's trying to read minds after complaining that others are trying to read someone's mind? You don't have a clue as to what one side of a controversy is trying to say because you're not bothering to try to understand it.
8. Chapman is clearly not a reliable source. His blog post is based on two false partisan claims, that Obama and Ayers are "friends" and have "warm relations." Anything with that premise is dubious, Bullshit. It isn't a premise. What he was quoted as saying had nothing to do with whether or not they were friends or nodding aquaintences. You're stretching logic in order to remove a comment you don't like.

Read the relevant policy. -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reasonably firm grasp on policy. I reverted some contentious material you added, back to a scaled down version that I could live with. We can take that out too. You should not have restored contentious material of any sort given article probation (much less material accused of being poorly sourced and a BLP violation) and I would not have reverted a second time but for BLP concerns. Regarding your specific counterarguments:

1. BLP applies to all information about living people, not just a specific class of articles. Criticism of any particular person - Ayers, and Obama - should be relevant to the subject's notability, i.e. the notability of the controversy. Trying to establish that Ayers an unrepentant communist terrorist is gratuitous. The article is about a political scandal / partisan political tactic, not about Ayers' past.
2. BLP applies to opinions even more so than factual claims. We can't make a partisan attack on a living person, then hide behind a claim that our partisan source made the attack, not us.
3. Corsi's book and Freddoso's are both questionable sources under the verifiability policy. Corsi's is not written to inform or even advocate a position - it is written as a simple exercise in trying to change the outcome of an election. The author acknowledges as much. He is not advancing ideas but promoting an instrumental goal. Though it does not literally fit, the rationale for not accepting statements of facts from books nakedly promoting political outcomes is similar to the rationale for avoiding facts from books promoting brands or companies. Truth is not the goal - outcome is the goal. But no matter - if you take the softer interpretation Corsi's book is one long opinion. Which brings us to Freddoso's book, which is clearly an opinion - the Case against Obama - obviously an opinion. So it falls squarely under the latter type of questionable source. Sure, those books can be used as sources about themselves. But the subject of the article is not the books, it is the Ayers controversy. Two partisans' opinions that Obama is unfit to be President is neither here nor there, nor is their smearing Ayers to get there. These irrelevant opinions can't ride in on the quotes like some trojan horse. The payload meant for the article, calling Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist", is not an opinion about the subject of the article. It's a coatrack.
4. I don't respond to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments invovling "what the hell", but if it helps I have no idea who Michael Kinsley or Noam Scheiber are. They seem to be off topic. You should not be calling me tendentious or accusing me of WP:POINT violations - if you have a complaint about my behavior this is not the appropriate forum.
5. (No point responding to the incivility or the attempt to defend Corsi's book)
6. (No point responding to the incivility or the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS claim)
7. (No point responding to incivility or ad hominem) - Freddoso and the other conservative bloggers announce exactly what they are trying to show, so saying so here on the talk page is perfectly reasonable - I'm paraphrasing the partisan quote you had inserted directly into the article
8. (will not respond to the personal attack) Chapman is a bad source here, not legit.

That's about it. The proposed edit is rejected, and given that the discussion has become uncivil I don't think further consensus discussion is a good idea right now.Wikidemo (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reasonably firm grasp on policy. No, you don't:

1. Trying to establish that Ayers an unrepentant communist terrorist is gratuitous. Actually, it's one of the two elements at the heart of the controversy, which is why it gets repeated so often by sources who are sincere and not trying to be unfair. If you read more of the sources who are criticizing Obama about this, you'd be aware of this fact. It isn't as if I haven't provided many of them in the past. You're censoring Wikipedia's reporting of a controversy with this specious reason.
2. We can't make a partisan attack on a living person, then hide behind a claim that our partisan source made the attack, not us. Thanks for the ABF, so glad you weren't uncivil and decided to take the high road. You don't get to call the criticism you don't like "partisan attacks" because you don't believe them. Following WP:NPOV policy of reporting criticism rather than making our own criticism is not hiding "behind a claim that our partisan source made the attack", it's doing what we're supposed to do. WP:NPOV does not distinguish "partisan" sources from non-partisan sources: In fact, comments by Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- the most partisan sources around, by definition -- are also perfectly fine for this article, so drop the "partisan" canard, please.
3. Corsi's book and Freddoso's are both questionable sources under the verifiability policy. Not for their own opinions they're not. And you cut out more than the "unrepentant terrorist" part of the Freddoso comments. Corsi's is not written to inform or even advocate a position - it is written as a simple exercise in trying to change the outcome of an election. That doesn't matter when we cite a source for that source's opinions. We don't require that standard of Hillary Clinton, McCain or Mayor Daley. You can't seem to get the idea that we're not citing any of these commentators for the facts. Freddoso's book [...] obviously an opinion. So it falls squarely under the latter type of questionable source. Well yeah, if I'm citing something because I want to cite a range of opinions in the article, I go for sources that give opinions. You don't get it: WP:ASF and WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLP#Reliable sources all allow critical opinions, even about BLPs and even if the sources are partisan. I refuse to believe you've actually read and understand either one because you're showing evidence to the contrary with this point. I've quoted them, and you still don't get it. And you've removed from the article far more than what anyone would call "facts". If any partisan source is automatically a questionable source, then WP:V negates all quotations of partisan sources, including Clinton, McCain and Obama. Still think you have a firm grasp on policy? Two partisans' opinions that Obama is unfit to be President is neither here nor there, nor is their smearing Ayers to get there. These irrelevant opinions can't ride in on the quotes like some trojan horse. Uh, the controversy is a notable controversy because Obama is running for president. That's obviously a part of this. No passage in the article said that they don't think Obama should be president because of this, but if they did, that would not even be a bar for a comment to be included here because that's got nothing to do with the immediate subject either way.
4. if it helps I have no idea who Michael Kinsley or Noam Scheiber are. They are just exactly as partisan as Corsi, Freddoso and Barone. They are all political commentators. If you don't know who they are, you should consider whether you are in over your head here. That's not a personal attack. If you're not familiar with politics and political commentary, you are going to find pitfalls here. In fact, you already have. You treat independent opinion journalists as political hacks, which would be consistent with being ignorant in this area. You don't understand the implications of calling someone "partisan" when the whole subject of the article is a controversy with strong connections to a political campaign.
5. The rest of your response is not worth answering.

Except for this comment: The proposed edit is rejected, and given that the discussion has become uncivil I don't think further consensus discussion is a good idea right now. What makes you think it's not going to go on without you? -- Noroton (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes me think you are going to stop? This: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Noroton. You cannot say I did not warn you or try everything else first.[31] Wikidemo (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on?! Steve Chapman is indeed a reliable journalist, and he's been a member of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune for years. He drew an important parallel between Obama-Bill Ayers and McCain-Gordon Liddy. That was the point of his piece that Noroton had first footnoted, claiming he said something quite different. I corrected that, and Noroton claimed I was showing POV. Rubbish. He was the one spinning Chapman's piece, and that isn't what Wikipedia should be doing. So now Wikidemo thinks he's 'fixed' it by leaving in the ooh!ooh! claims made in some sleazy books (which have been shown to have plenty of inaccuracies but are apparently considered 'notable'), but leaving out the Chapman point which is indeed a balancing view. So again: what's going on?! Flatterworld (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "fixing" anything. I am objecting, per BLP and the BRD editing process (and also NPOV, RS, and WEIGHT) to the repeated attempt to insert disputed content against consensus. I am not required to improve the entire article to make an objection here. Regarding that last point, Chapman may or may not be a respected journalist but the opinions voiced in his "Minority of one" blog are not a reliable source on the facts - punditry that says what Obama ought to do predicated on the statement that Obama and Ayers are "friends" who have "warm relations" is an opinion piece based on a false premise, and we must treat it as just another opinion from the sidelines. Calling his own opinion "the simple truth" does not make it so. For that, I do not deserve to have my comments called "bullshit". Having been basically told I am an idiot who does not read policies or sources, I am being browbeaten out of participating, then told the discussion will proceed without me. That line of discussion has broken down to the point that it needs to end. Please don't use this space to comment on editors - if you have a suggestion for improving the article please make it. Wikidemo (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kinsley: Rhodes scholar. Former managing editor of The New Republic. Liberal foil on groundbreaking PBS series Crossfire. (Firing Line.) The founder of web opinion site Slate. Currently also contributing pundit in Time magazine.   Justmeherenow (  ) 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not objected to his material, but punditry from any source educated or not is a specialized kind of opinion, not terribly reliable, which is useful only to the extent that the opinion itself is notable. Wikidemo (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now you've changed your opinion, Wikidemo. Therefore, what is your remaining objection to including comments from David Freddoso's book, the No. 5 New York Times bestseller? It seems to me you just dropped your last complaint against including the information not including the "unrepentant terrorist" line. -- Noroton (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No change of mind at all. I didn't say I approved Kinsley's material either, simply that the objection I made to the new BLP/NPOV violations did not address the Kinsley material already in the article. The attempt to show inconsistency in editing is unwarranted - please desist from collateral criticism of me as an editor. Beyond that, I'm not sure where this is going with quoting sales statistics of books but calling Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist" here is a BLP violation however it comes in. It's a Republican talking point, and I'm not sure if I've ever seen it in a reliable source. Freddoso is a partisan who wrote an advocacy book to oppose Obama. It's inherently unreliable to the extent that calling someone a terrorist is an opinion, and partisan arguments about the degree of repentence of Ayers mind (when he denies it) are also advocacy/opinion. The fact that some people consider Ayers a terrorist, or Obama a muslim, or whatever, does not need repeating to describe the subject of the article. It's all unreliable BLP stuff, and even if it could be elevated beyond that it's coatracking. Wikidemo (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On whether "calling someone a terrorist is an opinion" or not or is acceptable Wikipedia practice:

1. See WP:TERRORISM.

2. The Weatherman (organization) has long been called a "terrorist" group by reliable sources, including:

• Article: UPI wire story, "Weathermen Got Name From Song: Groups Latest Designation Is Weather Underground", January 30, 1975, last paragraph: "On Jan. 19, 1971, Bernardine Dohrn, a leading Weatherperson who has never been caught, issued a statement from hiding suggesting that the group was considering tactics other than bombing and terrorism."
• Article: "Guilty Plea Entered in 'Village' Bombing: Cathlyn Wilkerson Could Be Given Probation or Up to 7 Years", July 19, 1980: First sentence: Cathlyn P. Wilkerson, expressing a wish to begin a new life after 10 years in the terrorist Weather Underground, pleaded guilty in Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday ... Elsewhere in the article: Miss Wilkerson's cell was apparently using the town house at 18 West 11th Street to construct bombs -- a later Weatherman statement said "antipersonnel bombs"
• Article: "Many States Are Adopting Stiff Laws to Curb Terror Bombings", August 16, 1970. The article uses a picture of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Caption: A passer-by photographed the explosion of what was described as a bomb "factory" at 18 West 11th Street last March. [...]
• Book: Diana Oughton, who died in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, was Ayers' girlfriend. Proof of that is in their Wikipedia articles. Shortly after her death, a book about her was published. Written by Thomas Powers, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, the book's title is Diana: The Making of a Terrorist. He and Lucinda Franks, both working for UPI, won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 1971 for their project of the same name. If the girlfriend was a terrorist, why not the boyfriend who was higher up in the hierarchical organization certainly was.

3. Two definitions:

a. Merriam-Webster defines the word "terror" as "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands."

b. The same dictionary defines "terrorism" as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

Wikidemo, you didn't respond to this before (I just cut and pasted it from above) and now you're repeating the same statement on a different day. Please respond to this evidence. -- Noroton (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose applying the pejorative label terrorist, something Ayers denies, as a way to identify either Ayers or the Weathermen, on BLP and NPOV grounds. There is a more balanced and appropriate discussion of this issue in the Weathermen article, and a discussion in Ayers' main article about his reflections on his past. I've talked about this quite enough and it seems to have consensus. I'm not interested in opening this up again. Wikidemon (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this from the article:

Warren later criticized Smith for quoting her "grossly out of context" in his attempt "to paint Barack Obama as a closet leftwing radical".^[1]

Maria Warren says Smith quoted her "grossly out of context". That's ridiculous. Smith quoted her blog post. We have a link to the very short blog post. We have a link to Smith's article. There is no quoting out of context as anyone can see. Warren simply didn't like the information getting out there and said so in subsequent blog posts. That isn't cause for us to report Warren's whining unless we just want to try to cut down Smith's credibility. If someone can point out what specifically Warren found wrong or can make a case for it, I'm all in favor of returning the passage, but we can't have her mudslinging a BLP on a Wikipedia article unless we can see something plausible in it, and I can't. It's also a criticism of a report of the subject of the article, and pretty tangential. But if someone can point out to me where the criticism might have something to it, I'd agree with restoring it. -- Noroton (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if we remove the whole thing. Warren isn't a reliable source and the Warren quote is highly misleading (and factually wrong) without that context, so I'll remove the Warren quote as well.Wikidemo (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I thought you just agreed to back off editing as I continue to edit that section, as I requested on your talk page and as you said you would do on that same page. Yet you went back to editing. Which is it? Will you please clarify?

2. Your application of WP:RS is faulty. Information reported by reliable sources -- Ben Smith of The Politico -- is reliable. The information was sourced both to her blog and to Ben Smith's report, as you can see from the footnotes of the passage you eliminated. Please review. Also explain what is "highly misleading (and factually wrong)" I don't follow what you mean there. Is Ben Smith wrong in what he reported? How so? I don't see an error. I don't even see Warren identifying an error. Please explain. Noroton (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old Warren blog post is quoted out of context by the campaign attack machine to promote a lie that Ayers launched Obama's political career - something clearly not true given the history of Obama's campaigning. The people advancing the claim must know is not true if they have even the most rudimentary grasp of the history of Obama's campaigns, and sitting here on Wikipedia we know it is not true. We don't need to reproduce that kind of misinformation here. Having already established by reliable sources that Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet for Obama, the only legitimate thing that quote adds is a little opinionated sniping that Ayers and Dohrn were full of themselves (that's not encyclopedic but interesting - it characterizes them as gadflies, outside of the Chicago liberal establishment) and that they thought their introduction of Obama was important. It doesn't actually establish that they started Obama's career or introduced Obama to Chicago - quite the opposite. The quote is a put-down of Ayers, saying it was all in his head. Ben Smith is clearly unreliable on the subject - he's a partisan blogging in an election cyclce. If Warren (unreliably) says X, Smith takes Warren's saying X out of context to badmouth Obama, and Warren criticizes Smith for misrepresenting her, it's misleading to quote Smith on the subject and omit Warren's denial. And the result, on the Wikipedia page, would be to convey the misimpression that Ayers launched Obama's career. Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend any further edits on the paragraph? You seemed to be done. In any event an IP editor has restored everything to this paragraph so now we have a long back-and-forth between Warren and Smith about which one of the two is the irresponsible blogger. Murky and irrelevant. But I'd suggest nobody revert that because it would be silly to get into a revert contest over this kind of trivia. Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your post at 18:35 above, It's a Republican talking point and from 19:18 above: The old Warren blog post is quoted out of context by the campaign attack machine Your attitude is troubling in that you seem to indicate we should remove facts (or perhaps at some point add them) only because some political group is using facts in a way you don't like. That is tendentious and contrary to WP:NPOV. Whether or not a political group is doing that is neither your concern nor mine and certainly not Wikipedia's. We provide an adequate description of the subject. Warren, an eyewitness to an event that very little is known about, tells us that Ayers and Dohrn seemed to be heavily supporting Obama at that meeting. That is a relevant fact to this article. It is not your job or mine or Wikipedia's job to lean one way or another in presenting a fair description of this event, which is an important element of this article. You will have to provide proof of Ben Smith being unreliable. The Politico does reporting and that's what Smith does for Politico, certainly that's what he's doing in this article. Noroton (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]