Talk:Bill Moyers/Archive 2

Anti-Moyers?

This page has more content of anti-Moyers POV than it does much of any facts of his public service, his journalism career, etc.

AMEN!

Yeah there is more text in the criticism than the rest of the page.

I agree, the criticism is getting out of hand. Go to a right wing blog if you want scandalous hearsay. I deleted the references to the Wall Street Journal Silberman op-ed because (1) an opinion piece from the WSJ cannot be reported as fact, (2) I can find no reference online to Silberman's accusations (which he claims originally were revealed to the public in 1975) outside of people referening the Silberman piece itself, and (3) the criticism section is far longer than the rest of the article. If the Silberman claims are true, fine, provide another source to confirm it and then why not add them to a page like Right Wing criticism of Bill Moyers and add a link in the Moyers page to it? Otherwise, I think a POV tag might be the way to go.--Osbojos 17:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The best thing to do is balance the criticism with postive thing about Moyers, not try to hide criticism. Bill Mpyers is a very successful man, I find it hard to believe that there is not enough good things to say about him to balance out the bad. In the mean time I'm adding this article to my own POV attention list. -JCarriker 17:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like Bill Moyers, but I don't think he's a particularly significant figure. He was a white house press secretary 30 years ago and a journalist for a few publications and programs most people have never heard of. The far right's fetish for attacking him is completely disproportionate to his actual power or accomplishments. I think having to fill the entry with a bunch of superfluous positive biographical information to balance out partisan attacks is the wrong way to go and will hurt the article overall—unless you want a wiki entry consisting mostly of irrelevant information and right-wing rage. --Osbojos 15:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Silberman's personal testimony is sufficient documentation. He was there, he read the files, and he says this is what he found, and this is what Moyers said to him. His word should not be doubted without any proof; it should certainly be given at least as much weight as Moyers's own words. Zsero 00:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How is this sufficient documentation? I would classify it as slander. Given how eager right wingers are to perform a hit job on Moyers, why has no one else been able to independently verify this information? I could say that Moyers invented napster, but it wouldn't make it true. I won't remove your information even though I have misgivings about it's truthfulness, at least not until people reach a consensus on the talk page. For now, I've just rephrased it slightly and added Moyer's denial. Let's get some input from other people though, Does this (unverified) Silberman allegation belong here? --Osbojos 23:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How could anyone verify it, without reading the files themselves? As for the conversation, there were only two participants, and it wasn't taped, so how could anyone independently verify how it went? What we have is Silberman's word, which is at least as trustworthy as Moyers's. If we would include a story on nothing more than Moyers's word, then we should do the same for Silberman. You've correctly included Moyers's denial, and rephrased it as a case of he-said-he-said; and that's where it should remain. Zsero 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course no one could verify the details of their conversation (or could they? FBI wiretap!) But other people have reviewed the Hoover files via FOIA requests. For example, see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566630177/ref=nosim/librarything-20 or http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/foiaindex_m.htm There would be no reason to redact the Moyers memo. So if Silberman is right, I suspect someone else would have independently verified it by now. Do a google search for the terms silberman and moyers and you'll see ever reference to this memo is a very minor rephrasing or a direct cut and paste from the Silberman op-ed. Putting personal politics aside, this doesn't make you a little uncomfortable about the truthfulness of the allegation? --Osbojos 17:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some insights on the right's problems with BM: Back to Bias Basics at PBS by Brent Bozell, May 2, 2007

1964 Presidential Campaign

I believe that the edit by Ratel, erasing a passage detailing allegations about Moyers activities during the 1964 Presidential Campaign (see below) is unfair for the following reason.

Wikipedia articles are not and should not be resumes or CVs. Even if fundamental facts about a person are negative in nature, so long as the facts are truthful and relevant (and CITED), they can be included. Reasonably speaking, Bill Moyers (a respected journalist) has a reputation as an individual who would NOT use a person's sexual orientation/preference to win a political campaign. Given this reputation, I believe that the claims by Laurence Silberman, that Moyers requested that J. Edgar Hoover get the FBI to provide dirt on Goldwater For President campaign staffers and then ten years later had an abortive phone conversation regarding said request are relevant.

The passage in question:

1964 Presidential Campaign

In October 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson's top aide, Walter Jenkins resigned after being arrested for having sex in a YMCA men's room several blocks from the White House a few weeks before the 1964 presidential election. Moyers became the President's informal chief of staff.

According to former Deputy Attorney General Laurence H. Silberman, who examined J. Edgar Hoover's secret files upon their discovery in 1974, Moyers "was tasked" to have J. Edgar Hoover (director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) investigate the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity.

According to Silberman, Moyers called his office outraged and claimed the document was a "phony CIA memo". But when Silberman offered to conduct an investigation to clear Moyers' name, Moyers paused then said, "I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?", then hung-up. Moyers denies the allegations, stating, "Silberman's account of our conversation is at odds with mine."

I invite Ratel and any other editors who feel so inclined to: add other relevant facts, add further quotes from Moyers, even change wording - but not to censor.

68.192.145.56 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring the extensive discussion of this point on this page. The consensus was not to include. ► RATEL ◄ 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Bill Moyers, not Bill O'Reilly. If you want to make edits regarding Bill O'Reilly, then please got to Bill O'Reilly's article and edit it as you see fit.

Here is a fundamental fact that is not in dispute, Moyers did admit that a phone call occurred. So as far historical accuracy is concerned, the passage is truthful.

The question for you, Ratel, is this, 'Why are you advocating the concealment and/or distortion of historical facts?'

Would you like to address the question, Ratel, or are you going to continue to be a WikiCensor?

68.192.145.56 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wake up! there is a Silberman discussion on this page. If you cannot find it, you have no place editing wikipedia. Any further reversions will get your IP banned. ► RATEL ◄ 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read the discussion of Silberman's mention of Moyers on this page, and don't see either well founded arguments or the consensus you claim. It is clearly a significant allegation about Moyers from a reputable source. WP:BLP: "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." Period. Andyvphil (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reputable source? Silberman, a well known uber-conservative (can you spell A-G-E-N-D-A?), is the only source! Novak just repeats it word for word. This is a piece of junk trivia that should be mentioned, maybe, in a long biography, not a short thumbnail such as this. Overweight, should be deleted. ► RATEL ◄ 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it in until other editors remove it, since the opposing editors are no longer active, it seems. But I have cut some of the fat out of it and inserted a line about Silberman himself. It is untenable for this short page on Moyers to carry a long, one-man slur by Silberman against Moyers without a counterbalancing statement about Silberman himself, who, if you read the piece on him by Goldberg, is a highly biased source with a history that would make me doubt absolutely anything he said. ► RATEL ◄ 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the comments in the Silberman section above, a consensus was reached that this material should not be included. This is purely an issue of wikipedia policy, NOT an issue of politics, and here's why:

1. from WP:BLP

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

2. see also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

This material is poorly sourced, as there is only one source for the allegation, and that is Silberman himself. If anyone can find an article independently verifying Silberman's allegations, then the inclusion of the Silberman allegation may be justified. However, every article I've ever encountered that makes this assertion references Silberman and only Silberman. At this point, that amounts to hearsay and slander, two concepts wikipedia strives to keep out of the biographies of living persons.

Further, the Hoover files are now public record. If Silberman's allegations are true, they should be easy to independently verify. Given the number of people who would like to damage Moyer's reputation, the fact that no one has managed to independently verify the claim is particularly telling. In short, Silberman's allegation is dubious as a matter of logic, not just as a matter of politics. As I said, verify it, and I and everyone else who doesn't think this allegation belongs in the article won't have a leg to stand on. But until/unless it can be independently verified, it has no business being included in the Moyer's article. --Osbojos (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Novak's parroting of what Silberman said cannot be used as independent verification. ► RATEL ◄ 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. First, the underlying event is well established.

Clearly the worst offender in demanding political information from Hoover was President Lyndon Johnson...when Johnson's aide, Walter Jenkins, was involved in a homosexual episode in 1964, L.B.J. suspected that a Barry Goldwater supporter may have set up the arrest. He angrily ordered Hoover to seek derogatory material on Goldwater's Senate staff to be held for use if the Senator made an issue of the Jenkins matter in the presidential campaign. Goldwater never did so.(Time,Dec. 22, 1975[5]

...the only question is how LBJ communicated this order to Hoover. Laurence H. Silberman, who does not have to meet Ratel's political approval to be considered reputable, is reliably reported (the WSJ is a RS for the authenticity of the attribution of the article to him, thus fully satisfying WP:V) to allege that he found a memo from Moyers to Hoover communicating that order. Is this an "exceptional claim"? Not in the slightest. Moyers is who you would expect to be writing the memo to Hoover. His predecessor as Johnson's chief of staff, Jenkins, "had served as Johnson's liaison to the FBI"[6] and it is not unexpected that Moyers would succeed him in that role as well. I note that Osbojos offered this link above in support of the idea that if Moyers had been involved in the misuse of the FBI it would have come out. Apparently he didn't notice that Amazon allows you to "look inside the book", and the index shows that in "From the Secret Files of J. Edgar Hoover (Paperback) by Athan Theoharis (Author)" Moyers shows up on p.229,233, and 239-240. Further, there are other accounts of Moyers communicating orders from LBJ to Hoover that are similarly out of step with his preferred persona. Deke DeLoach, author of "Hoover's FBI: The Inside Story of Hoover's Trusted Lieutenant", opens his book with the sentence "Messieurs [Walter]Jenkins, [Bill] Moyers" and (Clif] Carter were particularly interested in suppressing dissent from black groups." When questioned by Brian Lamb about this ("Bill Moyers interested in suppressing dissent from black groups?"- Lamb) DeLoach explained

...the Bill Moyers of then is not the Bill Moyers of today. Bill Moyers had an assignment from President Johnson to control what went on at the Democratic National Convention in 1964. And the rules committee of the Democrats at that particular time were especially concerned regarding the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. They wanted to be seated as delegates. The rules committee voted that the regular delegates who have been voted on as a state were to be seated rather than the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. The Freedom Democratic Party came in and sat in the seats of the regular delegates. Moyers wanted them out of there. Moyers wanted to control the situation. Moyers asked us on his radio and on his transmitter, asked us for the FBI to move these delegates out of there. We refused to do so because I thought that was sheer politics and I refused to have anything to do with it. But it was a different situation then and he was acting under the orders of the president.[7]

And all this from the briefest look into a record with which I am largely unfamiliar. It appears to me that Silberman's comment on the Moyers of this period gets relatively little attention because it is so unsurprisingly typical of the Moyers of this period. Indeed, what would truly be an exceptional claim would be if Bill Moyers or any of his defenders would claim that while "Landslide Lyndon"[8] was perfectly willing to misuse the FBI (indeed was the ~"worst ever"~ at this) and engage in other forms of borderline-to-fully-illegal politics he would nonetheless choose as his right hand minion someone too high minded to do his will. Andyvphil (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, what a lot of pointless waffle, Andyvphil! Your ramble proved precisely nothing to me, including your absurd references to Amazon and the index of some book (now if you had the text of the Moyers references, that would be different). The DeLoach stuff is not germane, just bluster to pad your weak argument. And again, the partisan Silberman on his own is not a reliable source in BLP case like this. Come up with more sources, or it must be excluded. And stop adding it back in while it is under discussion. ► RATEL ◄ 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are showing very little understanding of Wikipedia policy. Individuals are not, by definition, what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources". The reliable source for the fact that Silberman identified Moyers as LBJ's channel to Hoover is, for one occasion, The Wall Street Journal, and for another occasion Novak's column in various reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (specifically we use CNN). Nor do you possess a veto over the material that is included in the article. Andyvphil (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

...and one major significance of the DeLoach material turns out to be that it indicates that even before Jenkins left the scene Moyers was, with Jenkins, LBJ's primary interface to the FBI, so that with Jenkins gone Moyers is exactly whom you would expect to be LBJ's primary channel to the FBI.[9][10] Andyvphil (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are erring into WP:OR here. And yes, I understand policy very well thank you, and I also recognize an attempt to smear a living person via WP when I see it. I suggest you review WP:PSTS and WP:REDFLAG. What especially offends me is that you are inserting disputed fragments of a conversation between Silberman and Moyers. That sort of stuff just does not make it into WP, whether you like it or not. If this goes further I shall report you to the BLP noticeboard, and you may be blocked (again).Note the 3RR rule does not apply to reversions made in defence of the BLP policy, but it does apply to your attempts to re-insert this junk. I'll leave your edit to see what other editors do for a while, but I'll heavily modify or revert boldly if nobody else does. ► RATEL ◄ 14:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot understand policy if you think it is possible to characterize individuals as either WP:RS or not WP:RS. Further, it is not WP:OR to point out that your assertion that Silberman is making an WP:"exceptional claim" is nonsense, because it is precisely Moyer whom we would expect to be LBJ's channel to Hoover after Jenkins was canned. And your claim that reverts made "in defense of" WP:BLP are exempt from 3RR (more precisely, the exemption is for "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons") is subject to the condition that "exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly." The statement that Silberman says he found a memo from Moyers to Hoover instructing Hoover to investigate Goldwate's staff is true, not libelous, and is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced, but fully sourced to the WSJ. I will report you if you violate 3RR, and fully expect you will be blocked in that event. Andyvphil (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've tried to find middle ground here, and my current edit allows some of this stuff in, despite my reservations, and despite it all coming from a the pen of a known GOP hitman [11], printed in a right wing newspaper, and moreover from a disputed claim in an opinion column (I mean, how fringe and isolated can you get?). If you attempt to re-edit it to give it undue weight WP:WEIGHT or try to belittle Moyers on this page by minimising his public service, it'll have to go to the noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 15:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No time or inclination to fix your version, which has a factual error, but feel free to do it yourself and I'll look at it tomorrow. Silberman did not mention Moyers in public in his testimony, or at any time before his article in the WSJ so far as I know. Reread the cite. Andyvphil (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

...and if you think expressing on this page the POV that Moyer's work as Johnson's minion and mouthpiece wasn't much of a service to the public is in some sense actionable, please proceed. This I gotta see. Andyvphil (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted to the last version by Ratel. The argument above is a mess, so I'll explain/justify here. 1. WSJ allowed Silberman to publish an opinion piece in their paper, that doesn't constitute independent verification by WSJ. 2. Moyers appearing in the index to the hoover files book also isn't independent verification. However, if you look inside this book and find actual evidence to support Silberman's allegation, then you'll have your independent verification. If you're so confident the allegations are correct, just verify them and I won't have a problem with the inclusion of this material. This should be a relatively easy task-if the allegations are true. 3The DeLoach statement you quote above provides partisan, circumstantial support for the Silberman claim. I'm not saying it completely lacks probative value, but it certainly does not constitute independent verification. It's as if I said "George Clooney drowns puppies," got it published as an editorial, tried to include it in wikipedia, and when challengned pointed to a quote from another person to the effect of "George Clooney is a bad guy" as independent verification of the puppy drowning claim. Again, simply verify it, that's standard procedure for responsibly evaluating contentious claims in journalism and in wikipedia. Until you do, I will continue to revert it. --Osbojos (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Actually, WSJ endorses Silberman's "Hoover's Institution - Anecdotes from the FBI crypt--and lessons on how to win the war" as a "Featured Article".[12] Were it libelous, they would be liable, so I have no reason to think that this piece had less attention from their lawyers and fact checkers than anything else they publish. Silberman's assertion of the existance of the memo is, by the way, uncontroverted. Neither Moyers nor anyone else in a position to know has, to my knowledge, denied its existance. In Silberman's account Moyers challenges its authenticity but he didn't question Silberman's ability to provide it if required. Anyway. the relevant section of WP:RS reads as follows:

===News organizations===

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

There is no question that the WSJ is what Wikipedia policy calls a "high-quality news organization" and the assertion that Silberman found a memo from Moyers in Hoover's "secret" files has "in-text attribution" to Silberman, so their is no question of this material's suitability per policy. In fact, as I've already noted, provided "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:BLP)

2. Sheesh. You are the one who supplied the link to the book at Amazon. See 17:51, 31 October 2006, above. I've merely pointed out that what you did not know but could have found out about it points in the opposite direction than the point you were trying to make. Jenkins was LBJ's primary liason with the FBI before his disgrace, and at least on the occasion of the '64 Dem Convention Moyers seems to have been by a number of accounts a near equal in that function. You made a plausibility argument, that if the memo from Moyers to Hoover actually existed it would have come out under the FOIA and become a cause celebre. I am making the opposite argument, that with LBJ and Hoover involved nobody recounting the incident has paid much attention the the flunky doing unsurprising service as the transcriber of LBJ's orders. Silberman doesn't even mention Moyers in his House testimony and in 2005 Novak reports his target is still Hoover, not the ankle-biter. Find some occasion on which Moyers was too high minded fo obey LBJ's orders and I'll reexamine your assertion that it is implausible that Moyer's did LBJ's will in this instance. Otherwise your insistance on Moyers' unsullied probity is just unsupported POV. And NPOV requires all POV found in high quality RS be represented, even in BLP.

3. Again, what is at question here is the assertion that what Silberman said Moyers did is an "exceptional claim" requiring "exceptional sources",WP:V because it "seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest [he] had previously defended" [or, in this case, subsequently presented himself as a defender of]. That he had worked in favor of seating the Dixiecrat delegation from Mississipi by siccing the FBI on the mixed-race alternate delegation is precisely on point. Far from being a hostile ("partisan") witness, DeLoach defends to Lamb Moyers vigorous attempt to use the FBI to advance the political interests of his patron as appropriate under the circumstances (as he does his own refusal in this instance, since he had a different loyalty -- but see his friendly letter to Moyers after the '64 convention [13].p."179").

4. A long as you don't violate 3RR you and Ratel can continue to revert it, no matter how specious your arguments. And I can continue to add it. And that deadlock can and will continue until an unless the attention of other, NPOV, editors is brought to this issue by RfC or other dispute resolution and the local obstructive pro-Moyers claque is overwhelmed. We'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but you still haven't convinced me this is sufficiently verifiable to be worthy of inclusion, and I'd be saying the same thing if this was a one-source hit job on someone like Dick Cheney or Bill O'Reilly. Take a moment to step back evaluate the Silberman claim as if it's being made about some public figure you highly respect, and then tell me you still think it's sufficiently verifiable.

If that remains unconvincing, then rather than engaging in an endless revert war or endless arguments about whether this is an "exceptional claim" demanding additional verification, why don't you just find independent verification of Silberman's assertion? That would sidestep our disagreement entirely, and, if Silberman is correct, I suspect this material should be relatively easy to find--perhaps as simple as reading the actual Moyers-related pages included in the index.

I consider both sides of the argument here to be a matter of reasonable, well-intentioned parties having a justifiable difference of opinion. In the future, I suggest you avoid referring to other editors' good-faith efforts to ensure the accuracy of wikipedia as "specious." A lack of civility is likely to start exactly the kind of obnoxious edit warring all parties would rather avoid. --Osbojos (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call your "efforts" specious. I called your arguments specious, and if you don't want them called that, make better arguments. There is nothing implausible about Silberman's identification of Moyers as LBJ's channel to Hoover, he is in a position to know, the fact that he's made the assertion is reliably sourced, and the text I've written is NPOV. My respect for public figures doesn't depend on my believing them to be paragons of unsullied virtue. It seems quite likely that the information in the press that Moyers had authored the memo to Hoover that caused Moyers to call Silberman was a leak by Silberman. If the author of the Time piece that reported the incident were to announce that his source was Silberman I would absolutely support mentioning the allegation that Silberman was a leaker in Silberman's bio even if the allegation were single-sourced, provided that the identity of the author and the fact that he made the allegation could be established by publication in a RS. If you come up with an alternate explanation in a RS of how Hoover got his instructions, let me know. Andyvphil (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

...and here's the "independent verification":

Under the Johnson administration, the FBI was used to gather and report political intelligence on the, administration's partisan opponents in the last days of the 1964 and 1968 Presidential election campaigns. In the closing days of the 1964 campaign, Presidential aide Bill Moyers asked the Bureau to conduct "name checks" on all persons employed in Senator Goldwater's Senate office, and information on two staff members was reported to the White House.(Memorandum from Hoover to Moyers, 10/27/64, cited in FBI summary memorandum, 1/31/75.)[14]

Andyvphil (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Everything you state in (1) does not get around the fact that this is single-sourced derogatory attack on Moyers' character (especially the part about the phone conversation) that is not confirmed independently by any other party, and is in fact disputed by Moyers (the conversation). The whole thing is based on the one-eyed Silberman's recollections of memos he saw and conversations he had THIRTY YEARS after the fact! Point (3) above is pure WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Point (4) denotes an attitude to editing WP that is combative and has been reported on the BLP noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 07:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the realty of the phone conversation was confirmed by Moyers to Novak. And I don't quite read Silberman's recollection of it as an admission of guilt by Moyers. Guilty or innocent of writing the specific memo he might not have wanted to raise the profile of his work as a minion of LBJ. Still doesn't. As far as I know he's never said anything in public about not having written the memo. Andyvphil (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a reading comprehension problem. I never said Moyers disputed the reality of the conversation, but that he denies Silberman's version of the contents. And of course Silberman's version is an attempt to paint Moyers as a guilty liar pushed into a corner — not surprising considering Silberman's shocking history as a GOP attack dog and the documented abuses of his position on the judiciary. In general, we still just have a situation here where two partisan soldiers disagree about the contents of a conversation, and the claim by one of the opponents that a particular memo was written, or signed by, Moyers. YOU need to get hold of further proof that the memo WAS written/signed, capiche? It shouldn't be difficult, given that a book was written about these issues. And even if you do find proof the memo was actually written, you need to formulate this kerfuffle into a short version that does not outweigh the whole of the rest of Moyer's career in the government/s. Given the brevity of the description of Moyers' public service on the WP page, I don't believe it can be done. ► RATEL ◄ 09:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You have delusions that you WP:own this article. Turns out that Moyers is identified in the Church Committee report, on the basis of Hoover's reply, not merely by Silberman reporting finding Moyers' own memo, as the one who requested the FBI investigate Goldwater's staff.[15]. Better luck next time. Andyvphil (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the bad faith editing and ad hominem's. The link you provide proves nothing. ► RATEL ◄ 10:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Helping you out here: "In the closing days of the 1964 campaign, Presidential aide Bill Moyers asked the Bureau to conduct 'name checks' on all persons employed in Senator Goldwater's Senate office..."[16]. And, oh yeah, the SMOKING GUN![17] Swish! Andyvphil (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Those links do seem to establish that Moyers was within the chain of people that requested information on "derogatory details" (no mention of homosexuality) of anyone on Goldwater's staff, although most of the memos are missing and it looks like their existence is inferred by commentators, including Silberman. So now all you have to do, Andyvphil, is formulate this into about 1 to 2 sentences, max, without mentioning the affronting embroidery woven in by Silberman (the content of the phone call). I'm even less inclined to believe Silberman's version of that call now, given that Moyers must have known these documents were there and would come to light, and that to deny them would be futile. Please post your proposed edit here for discussion before inclusion. ► RATEL ◄ 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your delusions of WP:OWNership are showing. Significant well-cited details are not deleted from articles to keep their svelte appearance. The relevant policy is WP:SIZE, which reads, in part:

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).[emphasis added]

Summarize and export, if necessary (it's not, for this article) -- deletion is not an option. Andyvphil (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not going to take over the entire page with this incident. This is POV pushing in the extreme. The page is medium length, the time spent in government by Moyers comes to ONE PARAGRAPH, and you are not going to write an essay on the page about something only one or two people have ever commented on. You clearly do not understand the concept of undue weight. The size policy is something else altogether, not applicable here. I suggest you reformulate this into a single comment, such as that Moyers was ordered by Johnson to request name checks on Goldwater's staff in 1964. Leave out all the Rush Limbaugh-ish embellishments, and the comments by Silberman about homosexuality, phone calls, and the possible reasons for the name checks, all of which are unverifiable, presumptive, speculative or circumstantial. Wikipedia is a TERTIARY SOURCE, remember. ► RATEL ◄ 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't been awake during this discussion nor have you been examining the citations you are deleting. One of them is to TIME magazine, like the WSJ a "reliable source". Read it. Your judgement that it is unworthy of mention that Moyers' participated as Johnson's primary henchman in what the Church Committee called "POLITICAL ABUSE OF INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION"[18] is unconvincing and contrasts tellingly with your earlier contention that it was a truly black slander, back when you were contending it hadn't been proved. The nature of Moyers' work for Johnson clearly deserves elucidation in any article purporting to be a biography, and the length at which this incident is treated will not be less than the minimum needed to properly recount it. Andyvphil (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "biography", it is a short page on Bill Moyers in Wikipedia. I shall wait for someone else to revert your changes, as surely they will. Meanwhile, read the undue weight rule, for you still show a blithe disregard for it. ► RATEL ◄ 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. If you don't know what the "B" in WP:BLP stands for, follow the blue link. Then read WP:NOTPAPER -- there is no reason in policy to exclude WP:N, WP:V facts from this article. And it's unusual to be charged wth "betrayal of the public trust". by a Congressional investigative committee -- a paragraph mentioning and explaining it doesn't seem like a WP:WEIGHT violation to me. Feel free to start an RfC. Andyvphil (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, rest assured, this will go to RfC if no other editor gets involved to support the rules. If you'd considered the undue weight policy carefully, you'd see that you have transgressed here: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. You are also making the obvious WP:WEIGHT error of giving huge prominence to this incident completely out of proportion to its importance in the subject's life, or the level of awareness in the public of the incident. As editors, we are not supposed to highlight little known incidents about people's lives. You have made this one single memo, sent by the subject under command, into something of equal weight to his whole career in the various government administrations! It's only your rabid POV-pushing, as can be clearly seen in your distasteful Talk page history, that blinds you to this. I think WP:SOAPBOX was written with people like you in mind. ► RATEL ◄ 00:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Public Service" puffery

Andyvphil said: and if you think expressing on this page the POV that Moyer's work as Johnson's minion and mouthpiece wasn't much of a service to the public is in some sense actionable - I find this a very disturbing admission of POV editing and indicative of the many disputes this editor has had over partisan issues (see his Talk page). I've asked for independent input on his bad faith editing on this and other pages. ► RATEL ◄ 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an admission of POV editing. It is, however, a declaration that I have a POV on the claim that anyone who succeeds in getting a paycheck signed by the Treasurer of the United States is doing "Public Service". When Moyers told Hoover Johnson wanted him to dig up dirt on the Goldwater campaign he was serving Johnson, not the public. Care to provide a link to your assertions against me of "bad faith"? I might want to refute you. Andyvphil (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, the title "Public Service" refers to Moyers' time in government, commonly called "working in the public service". To re-title that period of his life as "Working for Johnson" or anything similar is an intolerable POV edit. If you work for the government, you are in the Public Service. It's not a laudatory statement, just a shorthand. Are we clear? Secondly, your whole argument to include the paragraph on this memo seems to be that because the 30-yr old Moyers was instructed by his boss, the President of the US, to write a memo to the FBI giving certain instructions, this shows a major and notable flaw in his character and he needs to be carpeted for this in Wikipedia, and that this bagatelle is somehow worthy of mention in this extremely truncated general interest biography. Now even if Moyers did write that memo, as he was ordered, who cares? If he'd disobeyed any orders from the President, his career would have been toast. What is notable about this, if anything, is that the US was so backwards at the time that homosexuals were being entrapped and persecuted (and to a certain extent this situation still pertains, largely as a result of the sort of thinking espoused by the side of politics you seem to support). I believe you are giving this incident, of which none of us is absolutely sure, undue weight. It would be appropriate, if checked out properly and found to be true beyond doubt, of inclusion in a comprehensive biography on Moyers, perhaps to show that as a young man he was forced to do things for his President that eventually led to their falling out. Moyers will soon be publishing a biography, so let's wait for that to come out and see if this issue is covered. ► RATEL ◄ 06:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The title I've used is "Employment by Kennedy and Johnson administrations" which seems perfectly NPOV to me. Working for the government is called "public service" only by praise singers and self-idolators. No reason for Wikipedia to join that chorus -- we're not looking for a place at the trough, so far as I'm aware. And, no, I don't see Moyer's ambitious willingness to participate in using the FBI for opposition research and private security as much of a character flaw. It's the later, oleaginously hypocritical Moyers, most recently on display in the Wright interview ("When people saw the sound bites from [the "chickens coming home to roost" sermon] this year, they were upset because you seemed to be blaming America. Did you somehow fail to communicate?") that makes me want to throw my shoe at the TV. That the younger Moyers was not nearly so self-righteous has obvious value to a BIOGRAPHY(!) Andyvphil (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If the term public service is so unpalatable, we can use the same format as is used on the Rumsfeld page, simply a Career heading followed by Kennedy and Johnson administrations subhead. End of issue. The rest of your bilious rant is lost on me. ► RATEL ◄ 09:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's unpalatable. And unacceptably pro-Moyer POV. Either you change it or I will. Andyvphil (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Moyers' 1964 request for FBI name checks — truth, weight and prominence issues

In 1964, President Johnson ordered aide Bill Moyers to ask the FBI for FBI Name Checks on 15 members of opponent Goldwater's staff. That much is neutrally verifiable. One editor (me) feels that this is enough information for the short sketch of Moyers' governmental career (currently runs to one paragraph). Dissenting editor wishes to expand this incident into another two paragraphs [edit: he has now added even more controversial and tangential material] and include unverifiable details such as speculation about the motives for the name checks, use of the word homosexuality (nobody knows whether this had anything to do with the name checks), trying to link the name checks to the Walter Jenkins arrest (this link is pure speculation by Republicans and their supporters), the disputed content of a phone call between Republican Silberman and Moyers about the memo, and the opinion of the Church committee on the name checks. All this about a name check request by another individual (Johnson) and moreover name checks that were never used or acted upon.

Including all these details would make Wikipedia a leader, where it should be a follower. Wikipedia would become the most comprehensive source of information about this memo on the internet. The section on Moyer's 6 years in government service would then largely consist of highly judgemental text about this one issue. Please consider weight and soapbox issues. ► RATEL ◄ 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph which Ratel is attempting to edit war out of Moyer's biography is as follows:

In 1975 Deputy Attorney General Laurence H. Silberman examined the secret files of Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation J. Edgar Hoover in order to testify about them to the House Judiciary Committee. He testified that during the 1964 presidential election the FBI had sought, at the direction of President Lyndon B. Johnson, to gather unfavorable information on an opponent. Silberman says that the press subsequently discovered that this was instigated by a memo from Moyers to Hoover directing him to investigate the staff of his Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater, to find evidence of homosexual activity. Johnson intended to use anything found if Goldwater made an issue of the arrest in October 1964 of his top aide, Walter Jenkins in a YMCA restroom a few blocks from the White House. (In the event, Goldwater didn't do so.) Silberman says Moyers then called his office and claimed the document was a "phony CIA memo", but that he declined Silberman's offer to conduct an investigation to clear Moyers' name. Moyers later declared "Silberman's account of our conversation is at odds with mine." In 1976 the Church Committee identified Moyers as the aide who requested the FBI check Goldwater's staff and who received the resultant memorandum with "derogatory information" on two individuals, something the committee characterized as "totally improper" and a "betrayal of the public trust".

Ratel makes a lot of allegations about "unverifiable details", "speculation", "Republican supporters", etc., but here is what the cite to TIME magazine says:

Moreover, when Johnson's aide, Walter Jenkins, was involved in a homosexual episode in 1964, L.B.J. suspected that a Barry Goldwater supporter may have set up the arrest. He angrily ordered Hoover to seek derogatory material on Goldwater's Senate staff to be held for use if the Senator made an issue of the Jenkins matter in the presidential campaign. Goldwater never did so.

As far as I have seen this not only confirms Silberman's account of the event but is in agreement with every other recounting of this event. There are no dissenting accounts in RS. None.

As to the assertion that this paragraph has undue weight merely because it equals in length the the rest of the recounting of Moyer's work in the Kennedy-Johnson administrations, the answer is to expand on any other notable things he did or that happened to him in this period. For a "public servant" (as Ratel insists Moyers ought to be referred to in this period) to be identified by name as doing something "totally improper" by a reputable Congressional investigating committee seems, to me, worth a paragraph in his Wikipedia biography. It's no more than the length it needs to be. Andyvphil (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the Church Committee was referring to Moyers and identifying him by name as doing something totally improper *himself*. For Moyers to transmit the order of the President might or might not be significant about Moyers. I looked at the source and didn't find substantiation for what Andyvphil claimed. The notability here is not about Moyers, it's about an order of the President. Moyers was just a servant delivering a message and receiving the reply. Was this a major part of his career in that period? I haven't seen it yet. Assuming Silberman's testimony is true, Moyer's "crime" was transmitting a Presidential order for something unethical and sleazy. And it sounds like Moyers was embarrassed about that, "I was young." Now, if Moyer's career in this period consisted of mostly running nasty errands like that, sure. But one isolated incident? Did Moyers do anything illegal? Was Moyers himself censured by the Church committee as implied by the text above? If I missed it, where is it? What is currently in the article, a brief mention of this, without salacious and unconfirmed details, is appropriate weight or even more than appropriate. The rest smells like coatrack to me, and it's about Johnson, not Moyers. --Abd (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The TIME magazine piece was uncited and unattributed, and almost certainly based on an interview with Silberman, so it has no more probity or authority than what Silberman or any other Republican speculated at the time about what motivated the memo. The memo itself is merely a request for name checks & makes no mention of "homosexuality", so the claim that the memo from Moyers ... directing ...to find evidence of homosexual activity is clearly pure BS. ► RATEL ◄ 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by Ratel to have a look. The Time item is an editorial, and represents their opinion, and does more than report the news--it advocates a particular course, giving a summary of the stories. They're a responsible news source, and their editorials have weight, but it does have to be stated this is an editorial. That they should include this means that there will be real sources. They need to be found; a passing mention in an editorial is not enough. But the information is relevant as part of the background to give the historical context. So when properly sourced put the paragraph back, as part of an expansion of the section. His involvement in historic events is appropriate context, and this counts as an historical event. It's an important part of his life, and he was already notable. His later notability is based on part on his political connections from that period. It's not undue prominence. I really don't see the point of making such a to-do about it. DGG (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, DGG. If the source for the claims in the Time editorial can be properly identified, we can reconsider the inclusion of all the extra details Andyphil wants, but within reason, given Abd's very good points made above (viz. this is a Johnson issue, & coatracking). However, if all the extra juicy stuff is simply Silberman doing what he does best again, it's not notable, probably not true, and not for inclusion under any circumstances. I found "The Attack Article" section of WP:COAT particularly suited to this situation. ► RATEL ◄ 04:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The TIME Magazine article is not an editorial. I supplied the "print" version to get it all on one page without extraneous material, but the link on the bottom of the page makes it clear that this is an "article"(note the subdirectory):"Find this article at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879566,00.html". The fact that it is unsigned is a sylistic feature of the magazine of the period. I searched for "Laurence Silberman", sorted by oldest,[19] and confirmed my recollection from the first article that comes up[20] that this was a feature of the style of the magazine at the time. And a Google brings up a confirming quote, "The trio's major innovation was to break away from Newsweek tradition, then decades old, of mimicking Time magazine, with its unsigned articles..."[21] So someone should add this fact to the discussion of TIME's stylistic changes at the magazine's Wikipedia article, lest it confuse other editors not old enough to remember an earlier TIME.

Ratel's fantasy that in 1975 TIME accepted as sufficient basis for a statement of fact in a news article a Silberman speculation, that Silberman himself never published until 2005, about why Johnson ordered Moyers to do something when Silberman was not present is of a piece with his previous unsupported assertion that Silberman lied about finding Moyers memo to Hoover. Needless to say, TIME's fact checking process did not spring into being when it started giving out bylines, and its article is a "real source". Nor do I see any reason to think the Wall Street Journal 's "featured article" by Silberman was exempt from the WSJ's fact checking process. 1975-1976 is before the advent of the internet and most of the articles in magazines and newspapers from this period are either not online or premium content and therefor presumably do not show up as Google "hits", but I don't see why I should have to dig up a third RS for Silberman's account given the total absence of contradiction except by Ratel's wishes as to what ought to be true.

As to Abd's contention that the Church Committee wasn't talking about Moyers when they said something totally improper had been done, their exact words were,

"Such participation in political machinations by an intelligence agency is totally improper. Responsibility for what amounted to a betrayal of the public trust in the integrity of the FBI must be shared between the officials who requested such information and those who provided it...
...Under the Johnson administration, the FBI was used to gather and report political intelligence on the, administration's partisan opponents in the last days of the 1964 and 1968 Presidential election campaigns. In the closing days of the 1964 campaign, Presidential aide Bill Moyers asked the Bureau to conduct 'name checks' on all persons employed in Senator Goldwater's Senate office, and information on two staff members was reported to the White House."

The Comittee didn't provide a helpful index of individuals whose actions were totally improper, but they chose to mention Moyers by name. The text at issue says Moyers performed the improper act at the direction of LBJ, so to the extent that that is extenuating we've got it covered. Andyvphil (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• So the Time article has no author and gets its information from who knows where, right? And this is a RS? You're kidding, right? So we're back to Silberman, the infamous Silberman, as the only definite source of most of these pejorative claims (link to Jenkins, connection to homosexuality, phone call). It's not good enough, Andyphil. ► RATEL ◄ 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it had an author or authors but TIME did not choose to identify them. It also had sources which TIME did not choose to footnote. WP:RS policy does not require such transparency, but instead says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." Yes, TIME is a RS. No, I am not kidding. You can raise the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you disagree and see what support you get. Not much, I'll warrant.

Btw, this source credits "Bill Moyers ask[ing] the FBI to find out if there were homosexuals on Goldwater's campaign and Senate staffs" to Victor Lasky, probably in his "It Didn't Start With Watergate"(1977). May just deadend at TIME, but worth a look. And Bechloss documents audio of LBJ going directly to Hoover for info about homosexuals on his own staff, mentioned here. So we've a RS saying it happened (TIME) and two RS (Silberman, Lasky) either saying the same or repeating TIME in WP:RS media with independent fact checking processes, as well as a wealth of information indicating that there is nothing unexpected about the underlying assertion. I think it's time you you to come up with some research backing your opinion rather than pulling it unexamined out of your ass. Andyvphil (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, that was incivility, and it can get you blocked. I'd suggest you apologize and strike it, promptly. The problem here is difficult enough without rampant rudeness (and rudeness seems to be multiplying on all sides). --Abd (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Google books, when searched, gives multiple hits for "moyers FBI "name checks"" - all of which essentially support my edit exactly (see my edit below, highlighted). But if I search using the same string plus "homosexual", I get zip. So there is nobody outside of Silberman, who is not a RS under any circumstances, no matter where his opinion columns are published, and arch-conservative author Victor Lasky, the guy who claimed that Watergate was just "a media event" and made a career out of proving that Democrats are bad guys. I see. You have impeccable sources for this bilge. Time could only have got this, directly or indirectly, from this dirty duo. And where did they get it from? It's called "imagination" because they cite no sources, ever, except themselves. So it's essentially a nasty smear job originating from one of these characters and repeated by the other, eventually echoed in the press (especially the right wing press like the WSJ, your original "RS"), and now promulgated here by an editor with a long history of biased political editing, as can be seen in the overweight edits he has made (example diff) to the Barack Obama page recently, apparently mostly to paint the man as a dangerous Muslim.
2. In reference to your abuse of edit summaries to make accusations of bad faith, I did not "canvass" DGG, I simply wanted an admin input here. DGG is not my pal, in fact he usually disagrees with me.
3. You have re-inserted the disputed edit today, despite the admin DGG telling you it is inadequate as is, and you've gone further and inserted another completely outrageous edit concerning obscure seating arrangements at a Democratic convention, making the article a true attack piece. Even the Richard Nixon page gives only a brief mention to his abuse of FBI name checks, and does not even mention the underling he had write the memo for him. You are waay out on a limb here, and hopefully some sane editors will intervene to balance the page again. I'm going to stand back awhile — mainly because you have edit warred this issue to an extent that invites disapprobation — and let others comment, because my views are now very clear. For their benefit, here is my preferred edit:

Before the election, Johnson ordered Moyers to request FBI name checks on 15 members of Goldwater's staff, although the information gleaned was never used.[22]

Over to the other editors.► RATEL ◄ 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is telling that you want to devote part of the one sentence you are now willing to allow to the declarative unsourced statement that the "derogatory information" obtained on two members of Goldwater's staff was never used. We don't know what it was or whether it was used, merely that Goldwater did not bring up Jenkins.

Our source for that (though there are many others) is the TIME article which you keep unaccountably attributing to Silberman. As I've pointed out, we have no record of Silberman mentioning this before 2005, or Lasky before (probably) 1977, so TIME's reporting may be the only original source for all accounts of why LBJ requested this specific "name check". As such, it is perfectly adequate. As I've demonstrated it is not an exceptional claim and the account has been picked up by several prominent secondary sources that we know of without attracting any demurral anywhere. That is to say, it is not what Wikipedia policy calls a "controversial claim".

The significance of Richard Nixon's biography is lost on me. I assume Lyndon Johnson's biography doesn't make much mention of FBI name checks either. The question here is the nature of Bill Moyers' work for LBJ, and as a 30-year-old aide historical events that are relative footnotes on Johnson's ledger appear somewhat larger in his. And then there's the matter of how ill his actions match with his later image.

You continue to be highly resistant to attempts to dispel your ignorance. What you call "obscure seating arrangements at a Democratic convention" is in fact a justifiably famous historical event, a famous failure prefiguring Fannie Lou Hamer's triumph at the '68 convention in ousting the Dixiecrat delegation, important both to the Civil Rights movement and the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican. Got that?: IMPORTANT. History with a capital H. Start reading.

The edit that you supply a diff of has nothing to do with Obama's experience of Islam. Now that you mention it I do want to change the part of the paragraph that falsely implies that his stepfather was not a practicing Muslim, but in fact this edit leaves that part of the paragraph unchanged and has solely to do with insisting to the pro-hagiographic claque at Barack Obama that specifying Obama's religion as "Christian (United Church of Christ)" (which the article does) totally misrepresents it, as the UCC is 99% white (I'm relying on what Obama said for this) and very white bread theologically as well, while his particular church, Chicago Trinity, is almost entirely black and hews to the "black" branch of Liberation Theology. In light of the Jeremiah Wright controversy you would think the significance of this fact would be undeniable, but the depths of their denial is of a piece with yours.

Regarding your assertion at DGG's talk page that, "You have scoured the man's life for some bagatelle with which to nail him...", you are, as usual, wrong. What brought me to this page was Moyers' disgraceful interview of Wright, which even the usually willfully blind-to-bias PBS ombudsman had to agree with Howie Kurtz went beyond belief in offering to Wright a softball "question" suggesting that the excerpt of his "chickens" speech had led to him being "misunderstood" as "blaming America". What did I see but a two-editor pro-hagiographic claque edit warring against the last of at least three editors who have tried to give the "name check" material a mention, offering the usual bogus arguments about prior "consensus" and such claptrap. So I weighed in. And I see I'll have to be the one to add the latest rebuke from the Ombudsman as well, since the pro-hagiographs certainly will not. Andyvphil (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, as Ratel mentioned above, you still haven't provided a source for the assertion that Moyers was tasked with finding evidence of homosexual activity. As it stands, I have no objection to the inclusion of the substance of the disputed material so long as the "homosexual activity" portion is independently verified, or otherwise changed to a verifiable description of Moyer's activities (e.g. "name check"). You repeatedly claim that those who disagree with you either don't comprehend your arguments or that their own arguments are without substance. What you fail to understand is that

1. the Sources based solely on Silberman do not meet the standards for reliability or verifiability

2. the other sources you provide consist of circumstantial evidence that may hint that Silberman's allegation re:homosexual activity has merit, but do not actually confirm it

3. no sources outside of Silberman back up the claim that Moyers was looking for information on homosexual activity.

You're investing a massive amount of time and effort in this, but you're going about it all wrong. Just find a source that can't be traced back to Silberman that says "Moyers asked Hoover to investigate Goldwater's staff for evidence of homosexual activity." That's all you have to do. If you can't manage that then you should stop wasting your own time and everyone else's. Without verification this allegation has no business being in wikipedia. --Osbojos (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are both wrong and confused. An article by Silberman featured in a RS, namely the WSJ, absolutely meets Wikipedia's criteria. And it's TIME(1975), not originally Silberman(2005), that says the reason LBJ sought info from the FBI was to get homosexual dirt on Goldwater's staff. Then its Silberman and the Church committee that independently identify Moyers as the individual who both sought and received the information. "Moyers asked Hoover to investigate Goldwater's staff for evidence of homosexual activity" is completely substantiated by TIME and the Church Committee without any reference to Silberman at all. Andyvphil (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

...ok, I take it back. TIME says that LBJ asked Hoover for dirt on Goldwater's staff and Silberman and the Church Committee independently confirm that Moyers was the one who both asked fot it and received it, but we are relying on Silberman for the assertion that it is specifically homosexual dirt that was sought. That's also what Lasky said, evidently.[23] As a matter of policy it's perfectly fine. But I'm willing to rewrite to clarify this point. And will. Andyvphil (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION The section above is well cited, and I would consider it relevant for the reasons DGG gave above- Moyers is a political analyst, and this is part of his career in politics. User:JeremyMcCracken on May 12, 2008

Spin unspun

• Back from a little wikibreak, I thought I'd add these two points that largely invalidate Andyvphil's (AP) edit.

1. AP is using Silberman's WSJ opinion (from 2005) (and Novaks' word-for-word parroting of the opinion) to claim that the reason for the FBI checks ordered by LBJ was that LBJ aide Jenkins had been arrested for trying to pick up a policeman, and evidence of homosexuality should be sought on the other side. However, there is no proof that this is the case, no testimony anywhere to that effect, certainly nothing in Moyers' memo, and indeed the only totally reliable account of the business is from the memoirs of William Sullivan, the FBI's third-ranking official of the time: The Jenkins scandal broke just weeks before the presidential election of 1964, and Johnson (and, of course, the FBI) moved to prevent Barry Goldwater from using Jenkins's misfortune as political ammunition against LBJ. Jenkins had once been cleared for membership in Goldwater's air force squadron and he had accompanied Goldwater on many flights. Johnson planned to play up the relationship, and a lot more dirt that our agents had dug up on LBJ's opponent as well, if Goldwater tried to take political advantage of the situation. LBJ told his FBI liaison man DeLoach that Goldwater would find it difficult to deny that he knew Jenkins quite well personally or that Jenkins had traveled with Goldwater on several occasions. [24] Even the breathless quote from the anonymous TIME magazine piece (from Dec. 22, 1975) does not mention anything other than looking for derogatory material (which is a superfluity, since that's exactly what a name check does anyway): He [LBJ] angrily ordered Hoover to seek derogatory material on Goldwater's Senate staff to be held for use if the Senator made an issue of the Jenkins matter in the presidential campaign. Update for andyvphil: derogatory ≠ homosexual. So where does this "homosexual" stuff come from, other than from unpublished speculation by Lib-hating writer Victor Lasky [25] and its later repetition by his friend, Silberman? It's clearly bunkum.
2. AP's edit also implies, via Silberman, that Moyers was trying to conceal and deny his involvement in the name check memo, but this is wrong according to Church Committee records. The Committee stated in 1975 that "Moyers has publicly recounted his role in the incident, and his account is confirmed by FBI documents." (December 3 1975) US Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations, With Respect To Intelligence Activities

Consequently, any inclusion about Moyers and the memo needs to strike homosexuality as having anything to do with the whole business, and needs to refrain from casting slurs on Moyers when the evidence simply does not support it. We should not be editing to imply that Moyers was on a gay witch hunt (as I've seen written on some GOP-supporting websites), or that he is, in effect, a lying hypocrite who tried to weasel out of his role in the name checks. If you parse Silberman's words carefully, he is very equivocal about some of the claims: Evidently, the president was concerned that Barry Goldwater would use that against him in the election. Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the files. There is no evidence in any of the official mentions of this incident of anything other than a straightforward name check request from LBJ via Moyers. Silberman is spinning the facts because they evidently seem plausible. Alternately, the "evidently" could be Silberman's nod to Lasky's obscure claim about a homosexual slant to the name checks. But as editors working on a BLP, we need to resist the temptation to allow political spin from opponents of the subject onto the page. I'll rewrite the section in a few days unless someone else does a good job. ► RATEL ◄ 05:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting the claim by Silberman that Moyers denied the memo's existence in a private phone call in 1975, it is strange to me that in March 1975 (see Lima link down page) it was public knowledge that Moyers had sent the memo for Johnson. Moyers is quoted discussing it with reporters. Given that there are numerous newspaper refs for the fact of the memo's existence and Moyers' acknowledgement of it, why is the Silberman quote, 25 years later, needed at all? The page should simply state the fact, perhaps footnoting Silberman's (diputed) claim of denial. ► RATEL ◄ 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(a) The "Evidently" isn't so mysterious. It modifies the preceeding sentence, not the simple declarative "Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity." It's quite possible Silberman is following Lasky on this, though that you think it was "unpublished" is odd. I've suggested "It Didn't Start With Watergate"(1977), above. Anyway, Silberman when published by the WSJ is a perfectly adequate RS for this statement, and while I have no problem with attributing it there is no reason to suppress it. Rather it is desirable to mention it specifically to point out that the sources don't all say this. And if you can dig up a copy of Lasky's book you may be able to show that he misread his sources. But what sould be done then is not suppress mention of this detail of the event, but to say explicitly, at least in a footnote, that the detail was invented by Lasky, so that someone who follows the cites is put on notice.

(b) The "Lima News" story doesn't contradict Silberman unless Silberman's conversation with Moyers, and hence the "CIA forgery" denial, took place after Mar 16, 1975. And the Dec. 3 document from the Tower Committee is also too late to be of significance. You don't have any source asserting that Moyers was forthcoming before his conversation with Silberman.

(c) Still, despite your continued fulminations, I'm glad to see you've actually begun doing research. You may yet learn that it's better to discredit than to censor. Andyvphil (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(a) I'll work in the Silberman/Lasky stuff somehow, but only to mollify you, because I don't find it believable, well sourced, notable or even relevant, for all the reasons stated. Just give me a few days.► RATEL ◄ 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(b) I don't have exact dates, but nor do you. My guess is that the phone call was to protest the same gay-baiting stuff we're objecting to here.► RATEL ◄ 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(c) Instead of making personal comments about how I spend my time and the quality of my editing, why not go off and do the necessary work on the LBJ page please. Try to make it short and neutral.► RATEL ◄ 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(a) You can have as many days as you want. You just don't get to hide anything in the interim.

(b) The phone call to Silberman was in early '75. If Lasky misread his sources and invented the detail that the request to the FBI was specifically for information about homosexuality that was probably in 1977. Silberman's anecdote that what Moyers said was that the memo was a CIA forgery is nowhere specifically contradicted. To the extent that Novak reports that Moyers claims that something unspecified in Silberman's account is inaccurate, we mention that. Not going to censor details found in RS on the basis of your unsourced speculations.

(c) Not editing that page. Don't have to. The material should be here whether or not it's there or in several other articles as well. See next section. Andyvphil (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Placement of details of this name check

It occurred to me that the correct place for granular details of this event is not on the page of the minion who signed the memo (Moyers), but on the page of the man who ordered it, Lyndon Baines Johnson. There's nothing there, and that's the logical place for it, not here. I'll move most of it over soon.► RATEL ◄ 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Details should be repeated in as many placeS as helpful. There is no reason to specify here any less about the event than is necessary to indicate why you are mentioning it, except the partisan hope that the reader won't follow the blue link or won't pick out the relevant details if he does. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper. Andyvphil (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise edit

Some editors object to the following text:

Moyers' actions as an aide to President Johnson are sometimes seen to contrast with his later image. Faced with a shocked response to his having written that Moyers' was "particularly interested in suppressing dissent from black groups" at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, former Deputy Director Cartha D. "Deke" DeLoach, said of this period, "the Bill Moyers of then is not the Bill Moyers of today...it was a different situation then and he was acting under the orders of the president". Tasked by LBJ to control what went on at the convention Moyers asked the FBI to clear the seats vacated by the white-only Mississippi Democratic Party delegation (which had walked out) of the members of the integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, whose challenge for the seats Johnson had quashed. DeLoach refused.

Another action that came under scrutiny occurred later that year. In 1975 Deputy Attorney General Laurence H. Silberman examined the newly discovered "secret files" of Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation J. Edgar Hoover in order to testify about them to the House Judiciary Committee. Silberman found a memo from Moyers directing Hoover to investigate the staff of LBJ's Republican opponent in the 1964 presidential election, Barry Goldwater. Johnson wanted ammunition if Goldwater made an issue of the arrest, in October 1964, of his top aide, Walter Jenkins, for engaging in sex in a YMCA restroom near the White House. Silberman had not mentioned Moyers but, when the press discovered Moyers' role he, according to Silberman, made a phone call in which Moyers claimed the document was a "phony CIA memo", but declined Silberman's offer to conduct an investigation to clear his name. Moyers later declared "Silberman's account of our conversation is at odds with mine." Moyers confirmed to the press that he had relayed LBJ's order, and in 1976 the Church Committee confirmed, on the basis of FBI documents, that Moyers was the aide who both requested the "name checks" and received the resultant hand-delivered "derogatory information" on two individuals. something the committee characterized as "totally improper" and a "betrayal of the public trust".

Andyvphil (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Ratel supplies the following alternative:

The current edit, seen below, is a pretty good compromise of all views, IMO.

Before the 1964 election, President Johnson ordered Moyers to request FBI name checks on 15 members of Goldwater's staff. The Church Committee stated in 1975 that "Moyers has publicly recounted his role in the incident, and his account is confirmed by FBI documents." In 2005, conservative federal judge Laurence Silberman claimed that Moyers denied writing the memo in a 1975 phone call, an unverified claim that Moyers disputes.

In it, we have 1) the basic facts, stated in a non-partisan and balanced way, 2) Silberman's claims and 3) Novak's report of denial. It reads logically into the flow of the page, and there is not undue weight. ► RATEL ◄ 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it omits or misstates the basic facts, and misleads in every way possible. This is a "compromise" between what and what? Andyvphil (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Between the view expressed by long time editors of this page that the Silberman stuff is inadequately reliable, coming as it does from one highly partisan source, and your view. I'm afraid your tendentious editing means we must take this to dispute resolution. ► RATEL ◄ 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the incivility from the editor, sooner rather than later, probably. He's edit warring, with incivility, and I'm puzzled that he hasn't yet been blocked, that combination will usually do it. Except that a lot slips through the cracks on Wikipedia. (He's actually been blocked three times, so that it's escaping attention is even more puzzling.) Let me know if you start dispute resolution. First of all, I'd ask Andyvphil, are there any experienced editors you trust, whom you'd be likely to listen to advice from? --Abd (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)