Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:27, 21 July 2008

Bill Ayers election controversy

Bill Ayers election controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

POV fork to get around WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very obviously a coatrack-type of POV fork designed to evade the rules at WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. A campaign-related event with very little publicity. What little media coverage it received was in the context of the poorly-conducted TV debate in which the matter was raised. I recommend that this article be deleted. Only the BLP of Bill Ayers links to this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed. Thirty minutes after I mentioned at Talk:Barack Obama that "no one here has nominated for deletion, Scjessey raced over here and nominated it for deletion. A blatant, shameless attempt to influence a content dispute in another article. Very notable, impeccably sourced. Should be a GA nominee rather than an AfD nominee. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a reaction to your mentioning it at Talk:Barack Obama. I had forgotten all about it, and realized this legacy WP:COAT page needed to be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• MERGE into "Bill Ayers" and/or an article in The "Barack Obama" series. But don't support deletion if not to end up being merged.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Strike merger proposal (per Wikidemo's argument, below).  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Don't delete WP's coverage of the 2008 Obama campaign's Ayers controversy in some form. It's a controversial (for various reasons) U.S. cultural/media touchstone; in fact, the now-also-famous (and likewise controversial) The New Yorker cover cartoon's flag-used-as-kindling motif is just about universally compared to this controversial shot of Ayers in the Chicago Magazine from 2001 when he was promoting his, um, controversial memoir.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a POV fork; controversies that are substantial enough should get their own article, with examples being Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, George W. Bush military service controversy, Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik, John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008, and many more. Is Obama-Ayers substantial enough to warrant an article? It's not a no-brainer, but given that this material is too detailed to fit in either bio article without throwing off the weighting there, and that much of the 'action' occurs well before the presidential campaign, and thus doesn't really belong in the campaign article, I would say yes. The article title is poor, though, since Bill Ayers has not run in any election. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - As the creator of the article I will vouch that it was not created as a POV fork. First of all, the material is eminently notable per the published sources. It has kept attention for a number of months so far as an ongoing matter of nationwide interest. Among these 400+ news sources most are about the connection between Ayers and Obama, and of those most are devoted to the controversy itself, not the biographical or historic details of the events. It is not a fork because there is not a second place where this was forked off of. It is the only place where this material is described. It was spun off the Bill Ayers article because, although well covered, it was not an appropriate part of Ayers' biography. That was done with consensus a few months ago at that article so that merge option should be taken off the table. Ayers' connection to Obama was incidental to Ayers' life. Likewise, it cannot reasonably be merged into the Obama or Obama campaign articles because of weight concerns - there is no consensus to include the material there, so that's not a legitimate outcome. Standing alone it is notable, but compared to the overall weight of the Presidential election or Obama's biography it is not. Weight is a concern applied within articles, not within the encyclopedia as a whole. Wikidemo (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I proposed the deletion, I am starting to come around to the idea of keeping it; however, it would need to be under a completely different title from the misleading one it is under right now. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference as to title and I agree that it's not a great one. I can't think of anything better right now though. Also, I'm not sticking up for the article quality. It tends to accumulate random stuff. But I do think the focus should be on the election controversy, because there's probably not enough substance under the controversy to actually cover the event. It's kind of like the Willie Horton thing, not notable for itself but notable as a campaign event. But obviously not nearly as prominent an issue as that. Wikidemo (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

..."Bill Ayers controversy"? " Bill Ayers' association with Barack Obama"? "Ayers-Obama association "?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "Guilt by association smears against Barack Obama" as a title? Then we can add things like ACORN too (partially serious suggestion). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did start an article like that...it was a list article on the more general subject of partisan attacks and controversies in the election, involving all the candidates. But it was deleted. It's kind of funny, attack ads and other partisan political techniques are a pretty important factor in modern politics. Lots of sources, a big industry. But people get confused between writing about a partisan thing, and the article itself being partisan. So our coverage is spotty. Some things like Obama's supposedly being Muslim, survive in the main article. Others like swiftboating get an article, and yet others are opposed as being POV. It seems kind of haphazard. Wikidemo (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Ayers continues to be mentioned in connection with Obama. Newt Gingrich did it just yesterday. Many sources think the issue will be revived again in the fall. The article is an NPOV treatment of the issue of their relationship. What this article doesn't say is that multiple reliable sources have reported that Bill Ayers has been unrepentant about setting off bombs in U.S. government buildings in the 1970s, and for helping to organize the Days of Rage riot when he was a leader of the Weatherman group. Despite the reliable sourcing, and despite no reliable sourcing to the contrary, bias on the part of Misplaced Pages editors has kept that out of the article. Also not in the article (something I plan to change soon) is the fact that Michelle Obama organized two panel discussions on which both her husband and Bill Ayers participated. Obama also wrote a rave review for one of Ayers books. Readers who hear about the Obama-Ayers connection deserve to be able to find a good, neutral Misplaced Pages article on the subject. I've contributed to this article quite a bit, and I've tangled quite a bit with the nominator at Talk:Barack Obama (largely about the Ayers connection), and I've made serious complaints about the nominator at AN/I, which I reminded the nominator of just today because he was commenting on the same type of matter. It's almost enough to make me wonder if the nominator is acting this particular day out of bad faith, but maybe it's all just a coincidence. If anyone wants links backing up anything I said, just ask me. Noroton (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm at the moment neutral on this AfD, but wish to point out that (a) that "many sources think" this will be revisited in the Fall is hardly a reason to have an article now - if it were to be dismantled or deleted, it could always be reconstituted if indeed it became a major issue in the Fall (we can't see into the future); (b) Ayers' past is amply discussed in Bill Ayers which of course is wikilinked, so this article about an alleged current event should not go into those historic details - I don't see that as bias on the part of Misplaced Pages editors and think that comment here is unnecessarily provocative (and I have not edited that part of the article, so I'm not defending myself); (c) all the reviewers can do is look at the article as it now exists, not as you think it should be; (d) the assigning of motives to the nominator is out of place here. I remain neutral at the moment - but I do think the article should be re-named if it is kept. Tvoz/talk 07:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All the "complaints" have fallen, unsurprisingly, on deaf ears. It was a perfectly legitimate AFD based on my belief that this was a WP:COATRACK article - particularly with the misleading and provocative title. Please keep your comments to the matter at hand, rather than your personal dislike for my contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget an April 20, 2002, hour-and-a-half panel discussion "Intellectuals in Times of Crisis," part of a seminar on the social role of public intellectuals (see here) featuring law instructor/politician Obama, memoirist Ayers, a columnist and other distinquished academics, at the University of Illinois-Chicago. As a Chomky fan, I'm sure these thinkers would have kept me on my seat's edge as well! .....& pps, a doctoral candidate at NYU I know----and who's working on a dissertaion on the history of anarchism BTW----is collaborating with another candidate who personally KNOWS AYERS QUITE WELL! But the only "gossip" I could pick up from my acquaintance was that Ayers just happened to have been neighbors with Obama and so they just ended up having the kind of associations that folks have when they're both associated with academia/politics. Darn! Oh well.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; use of the word "controversy" as an article or section title is prima facie evidence of NPOV violation Sceptre 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not true. See Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Scandal.2C_affair: "controversy" is preferred over "affair" and "scandal". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was startec by User:Wikidemo, who has been a supporter of Obama. I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, but the fact is that Misplaced Pages practice is to have controversy articles, and they serve an NPOV purpose of providing more information on notable subjects. Another controversy article is Controversies about the word "niggardly" which is neither a fork, nor POV. We also have these articles in Misplaced Pages about controversies in this campaign (and it wouldn't hurt to look at Category:Barack Obama and Category:John McCain to get an idea of how Misplaced Pages is treating this important campaign): Jeremiah Wright controversy, John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008; and we have these controversy articles from the 2004 presidential campaigns: George W. Bush military service controversy, And we have this Category:George W. Bush administration controversies, John Kerry military service controversy, Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. And then, of course, there is Category:Controversies and Category:Political controversies and Category:United States Presidential controversies. So we have quite a tradition of covering controversies in Misplaced Pages and calling them "controversy". Noroton (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget MoveOn.org ad controversy. Noroton (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• or the recent The New Yorker#Controversial covers  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Definitely could use a change of title, if kept. Bill Ayers has not been elected to anything. Bush v. Gore, now that was an "election controversy". Mandsford (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and per Sceptre. It seems to be a POV fork to me. --Chet B. Long/_ARK 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article is well-sourced, and serves well to keep the material in one place where it can be at least be watchlisted (as opposed to 10 different articles where people might attempt to soapbox.) Could perhaps use better title Yellow Rain (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. We've tried all the other options (such as various 'merges') and they didn't work. Read through all the Talk page discussions which show why we need this separate article. Flatterworld (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This belongs in the election article and is hardly enough of a "controversy" to merit its own article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic with extensive mainstream press coverage. Content clearly warrants an article (especially in light of the perennial gridlock on Barack Obama and daughter articles). Rather than blithly alluding to WP policy, the nom could cite specific instances? In my eyes, the article fulfills:

• WP:SUMMARY: "it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article.
• WP:CFORK: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork...Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View."
• WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
• WP:NPOV: "he elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". ...Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular."

Title might need massaging, but otherwise throw this in on a watchlist, category, or navbox with all the other 2008 controversies and keep an eye on it. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's a notable controversy. POV issues are not a reason for deletion, only for editing. The AfD page is not a good place to bring debates over article content. RayAYang (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The Bill Ayers election controversy article is a WP:POVFORK created to violate WP:BLP.
  

For example, the first paragraph of its Interactions between Obama and Ayers section is based on a three-year-old blog entry by anti-Obama blogger "red rabbit" (based on her recollection of an event a decade earlier) -- violating WP:BLP which states that: "blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person" and that: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages."

The editorial boards of both major Chicago newspapers concur:

• editorial (March 3, 2008). Clearing up another empty shot at Obama. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 27:

  Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204.

• editorial (April 18, 2008). Guilt by association. Chicago Tribune, p. 20:

  Now how about getting back to the real campaign?

Newross (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Those appear to be excellent examples of content that should be included in the article to ensure its NPOV. They are not justifications for deletion. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Indeed, the fact that this controversy has been the subject of editorials by major newspapers would seem to prove the notability of the topic. Per Newross's concerns, fix the refs to ensure compliance with WP:BLP, but otherwise, use the talk page, not AfD to resolve content disputes. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Doesn't look like the AfD is going to succeed anyway, but the article seems like slightly too much soapbox vs. encyclopedic content. OTOH, merging hugely disproportionate material into the various proposed candidates would be far worse than just keeping this one. LotLE×talk 06:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If this article hasn't already, it has the serious potential to turn into a WP:SOAPBOX, WP:COATRACK, and have Guilt By Association problems. If it is decided to keep it, then it should be strictly monitored to keep it WP:NPOV as those who are "crusading for truth" and adding any and every minor criticism of Barack Obama to show the readers the "truth", will continue to try to twist this into a negative POV/WP:OR attack on Obama. Brothejr (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep That's like saying we should delete the capital punishment and evolution articles because they have potential to turn into soapboxes. NuclearWarfare (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As is the current situation with the equally substantial McCain-Hagee controversey and lots of other similar examples, the matter merits a mention on Bill Ayres' article and no more.--The Bruce (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The matter of Obama's past association with Ayers has been a campaign issue and is likely to continue to be, if only as background rumblings. I may personally think that it's a prime example of a guilt-by-association smear, but it's a guilt-by-association smear that has been covered in reliable sources and as such deserves to be given encyclopedic treatment. I suggest that active editors review WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, in particular the bits about balance and structure; the article could perhaps be reorganized to give more weight to the views of experts familiar with the Ayerses in Chicago. But that's not an argument for deletion. (Incidentally, I agree that the current title is awful and should be changed.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep . CENSEI (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some kind of reason would be nice, CENSEI. Please see Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates