Talk:Bill Ayers/Archive 5

Not a "terrorist"
The descriptions are explicit with references to the best possible sources. Main article describes the WU in this manner. Questions? Arkon (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please review the talk page and archives here and there, and particularly this RFC: Talk:Weather Underground Organization/Terrorism RfC (keeping in mind that the RfC was conducted at a time when calling Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground terrorists was a deliberate Republican campaign strategy in the presidential election, and that many of the participants were later banned as sockpuppet or disruptive accounts). The basic arguments boil down to: (1) it was not the predominant way to describe them at the time, and never made as an official designation; (2) per WP:TERRORIST it is a loaded word and we try to avoid judgmental tone for reasons of POV and maintaining an appropriate encyclopedic voice — the designation disparages them but does not add to the explanatory content of the article; (3) the terrorism label means something very different today than it did at the time; and (4) there are BLP concerns with designating a living person who plausibly denies being a terrorist as a terrorist or part of a terrorist organization (which amounts to the same thing). Incidentally, the Weatherman article does not designate them to be terrorists. Editors occasionally make that drive-by edit and it is quickly reverted. For some reason nobody noticed the last one, five days ago, but I've fixed that now. BTW, please don't edit war. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Shall I copy the text directly from the WU article? Although it's funny that you just made that edit, which I will revert also.  From the body:


 * "The Weather Underground was referred to in its own time and afterwards as a terrorist group by publications such as the New York Times, United Press International, and Time.'''

Arkon (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I cautioned you here and on your talk page not to edit war, but you are continuing. It is a behavioral problem at this point. We'll take this up on AN/I. In the meanwhile, this conversation is over. You have not presented anything new that has not already been discussed so as far as I am concerned the status quo, and consensus, stand as before. Over and out. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that. AN/I will barf out content disputes in a second.  It's AN3, BLP/N, or you actually make a good argument.  Arkon (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, now that the behavioral issue is being addressed, I trust you will not edit war your proposed change if I or another editor restores the status quo version. If you're just going to edit war regardless of discussion, I'm wasting my time discussing. "The Weather Underground was referred to in its own time and afterwards as a terrorist group by publications" is an unsourced statement. No proposed source says this, it is a somewhat sloppy synthesis by Wikipedia editors of three or more particular articles. It does not establish that the organization is terrorist, only that there were three or more news pieces that "referred" to them as such. So the content would be something like "that was referred to by some contemporaneous sources as terrorist" not "was a terrorist organization". The outcome of the RfC and enduring consensus is that this material belongs in the appropriate article body, and in Ayers' article insofar as people calling him a terrorist is part of his life and legacy. I could find plenty of sources that refer to supply-side economics as "voodoo economics" or simply invalid. However, it takes far more than that to say in an article lede "supply-side economics is an invalid[source] theory of economics". Calling a person a terrorist is a lot more of a problem for BLP, POV, and encyclopedic tone than simply calling a political position invalid. As discussed at great length, there were a few sources at the time, and many more later (particularly during the 2008 election cycle) that called Ayers and the organization terrorists. Wikipedia policy discourages unnecessary use of pejorative terms. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Times, UPI, and Time, did not as an organization call them terrorists.

Whether or not the word terrorist is appropriate in the article, it shouldn't be where it's being proposed. an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in a terrorist movement who opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Because that movement itself wasn't a terrorist movement. If you are to describe WU as a terrorist group, make sure you limit it to WU. He is known for his 1960s radical activism as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. In 1969 he co-founded the terrorist group Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group with the intent to overthrow imperialism. As for whether it's appropriate, from what I've seen it's generally accepted that the WU was a terrorist organisation but I'm no expert and have no dog in this hunt. SPACKlick (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand why it's so hard to apply the terrorist label here. From Wikipedia's own article "Terrorism is any act designed to cause terror.[1] Terrorism is generally understood to feature a political objective." By almost any definition what Ayers did with the Weather Underground was terrorism. They bombed public buildings. He sought to instill fear for a political purpose. That's textbook terrorism. Also, vandalism goes both ways, someone is religiously monitoring this page to ensure that it is favorable to Ayers. I trust that the admins will see to this issue.171.221.247.94 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason you are finding it "so hard to apply the terrorist label here" is because Wikipedia strives to convey verifiable factual information, rather than subjective rhetoric or speculation. As you already noted, our article on terrorism defines it as acts designed to cause terror and fear, not as acts designed to cause property damage while removing the element of terror and fear by first evacuating people from the property. So even if the Weather Underground wanted to commit terrorism, they defeated their own attempts and failed spectacularly. As for your curious phrase, "textbook terrorism", you should be aware that there is no such thing. As the very first sentence in our Definitions of terrorism explains, "There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism." While "terrorist" is an ambiguous term, there is little question that it is a derogatory label, and as such, it is often frivolously used without intelligent reason or justification simply to disparage a subject.  That is something Wikipedia strives to avoid. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in its campaign of bombings had a practice of frequently, even usually, calling a warning in on bombings to allow the area bombed to be evacuated. They used specific codewords to prevent confusion by false bombing threats.   In the few instances where they did not, or by error may have misled, this was pointed out by authorities as further evidence of misconduct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing    Yet, there are not too many people who would hesitate to apply the term "terrorists" to them.  Your statement including "...defines it as acts designed to cause terror and fear, not as acts designed to cause property damage while removing the element of terror and fear by first evacuating people from the property" sounds quite contrived and phony, in light of this. Obviously, you are engaged in a double-standard.  216.161.88.111 (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've decided to put in an edit which cites the FBI labelling Bill Ayers as being a "domestic terrorist". Some of you don't like the FBI, and you'll really hate the FBI calling Bill Ayers a "domestic terrorist".  But it's a verifiable cite by an organization that is generally thought of as being authoritative on such matters.   216.161.88.111 (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Having just reverted my edit labelling Bill Ayers to be a "domestic terrorist" (so sayeth the FBI) Xenophrenic didn't bother to discuss on this Talk page his reasons. His very brief comment used the initials, "RS", which perhaps means "reliable sources".  Problem is, my source cited the FBI.  Is Xenophrenic taking the position that ANY source which labels Bill Ayers as a "terrorist" is AUTOMATICALLY not a "reliable source"?  I will give Xenophrenic a few hours to stew on this, and then restore my edit.  After all, WP:BRD.  Will Xenophrenic actually DISCUSS this matter?    216.161.88.111 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Bill Ayers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031121928/http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath2a.pdf to http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath2a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122122202/http://www.zmag.org:80/zmag/viewArticle/12798 to http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/12798
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622202847/http://m.cnn.com/cnn/lt_ne/lt_ne/detail/178228 to http://m.cnn.com/cnn/lt_ne/lt_ne/detail/178228

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

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