Talk:Bill Moyers/Archive 5

Addition of unsourced or badly sourced derogatory material

Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is adding derogatory material sourced to right wing sites. This is not allowed, as he must know by now. I warned him on his user page. This will go to a noticeboard if it continues. ► RATEL ◄ 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do everyone a favor and actually read what you delete and call unsourced/poorly sourced. The 3 sections you deleted all have strong sources in addition to the opinion sources. The MLK section is sourced to a book on MLK & LBJ. The section on money in politics refers to an article in the Philidelphia Inquirer. The section on profits refers to an article in the Weekly Standard. I would be facinated to know what you actually regard as left-wing sites (or is everything not left-wing, a right-wing source in your world).

Not liking material about an individual you're fond of doesn't qualify as defamation or poor sourcing. Bullying by threatening blocking is not going to work to intimidate me.--Drrll (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the noticeboard. This is absurd. These are blatant violations of BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Presenting opinions, even well-sourced ones, as fact violates neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All 3 sections have non-opinion sources.--Drrll (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the disputed content per WP:BLP. The burden is upon the editor that wants to add the material to demonstrate it meets WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the sources state, the disputed text presents opinions as facts. If the opinions are not found in the original sources then the BLP violation is even more egregious. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the opinion sources, added another book source, changed a section heading to "Allegations of...", moved a section & changed its section heading to a neutral one, and changed some wording here and there. It deserves to be actually examined and not treated in such as draconian manner as reverting it entirely.--Drrll (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The edits are rubbish. The sentence on King is an interpretation of what's in the book cited, and fails to distinguish between what came from Moyers's own volition and what was ordered by LBJ. The earnings section is badly sourced (William Kristol's rag) and inadmissable without corroboration in a true RS; moroever, much of what is said is speculative, since Moyers refuses to disclose his financial affairs, as a private citizen. The "Allegations of hypocrisy(sic)" section has no source URL and is completely inadmissible, for several reasons we can explore, in a BLP. The section seems to be concerned with the grants Moyers has made through the Schumann Foundation, which is the sort of querulous politicking best reserved for partisan newspaper articles, not wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The King sentence is not an interpretation of the books (two cited, not one). Here is what I put in the article:

Moyers gave J Edgar Hoover the go-ahead to discredit Martin Luther King, played a part in the wiretapping of King, discouraged the American embassy in Oslo from assisting King on his Nobel Peace Prize trip, and worked to prevent King from challenging the all-white Mississippi delegation to the 1964 Democratic National Convention.

and here are the relevant quotes from the books:

"Lyndon Johnson, acting through Moyers, had now unambiguously given J. Edgar Hoover a green light to discredit King--so long as he did so quietly rather than in public proclamations." (Kotz, p. 234)

"His part in Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover's bugging of Martin Luther King's private life, the leaks to the press and diplomatic corps, the surveillance of civil rights groups at the 1964 Democratic convention, and his request for damaging information from Hoover on members of the Goldwater campaign suggest that he was not only a good soldier but a gleeful retainer feeding the appetites of Lyndon Johnson." (Safer, p. 96)

"The FBI broadside and a telephone call from Bill Moyers contributed to deterring embassy officials from assisting King on his Nobel Peace Prize trip, as custom and American interest usually dictated." (Kotz, p. 235)

"Johnson assistant Bill Moyers then ordered the usurpers removed." (Kotz, p. 219)

The point about what was ordered by LBJ is a fair one and can be made in the text. On the other hand, Safer's point about Moyers having a choice in whether to give in to LBJ applies.

The earnings section is sourced to a reliable magazine source (The Weekly Standard) with "editorial oversight" and a solid reputation whether you like the source or not. I'm sorry it's not a left-wing or liberal source, but it is a reliable source. The $200,000 salary is a matter of public record. The other sources of income listed don't speculate on how much he makes from them, just that he does.

So what that the money in politics section source has no URL. If that were a WP requirement an awful lot of sources would have to be axed in articles. I would give the URL if it existed. Readers can go to a library and access Lexis-Nexis if they want to read the actual Philadelphia Inquirer article. The section does not concern itself with specific Schumann recipients, just that he distributes large grants to those who work to influence public policy.

Sorry that you find this material inconvenient.--Drrll (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your additions which were removed are poorly written and presented in non-neutral language.[1] Please discuss these additions on the talk page before re-inserting them. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What specifically is poorly written and non-neutral? How do you suggest improving it?--Drrll (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a horrible sense of deja vu, as if we are dealing with Andyvphil again. All the same issues, plus some new ones, seem to be under discussion. (1) You will not be allowed to ascribe LBJ's actions to BM, under any circumstances, so that takes care of the MLK stuff. (2) Wally Safer, an avowed enemy of BM's, will not be a source on the page any further, due to undue weight concerns. What Safer feels is "suggested" by things he (Safer) thinks Moyers may have done is nothing more than a vague slur, and fails BLP completely. Lastly, "Moyers wonders aloud whether his hard-hitting coverage of presidents Reagan and Bush has vexed Mr. Wallace and Mr. Safer, who, friends say, have become more politically conservative as they've grown older and wealthier." Quite so. (3) Kotz: this source underlines the problem with your edits. Kotz does not hesitate to state that LBJ is behind the actions you seem keen to ascribe to BM. (4) Whether or not BM had a "choice" to refuse to do LBJ's bidding is perhaps the subject for a Political Science dissertation, but it's not fit material for a BLP. (5) Show proof that an opinion piece from the far right Weekly Standard political magazine is a reliable source for this sort of data. Go to the RS noticeboard. (6) That BM earns $200K from a 503(c) is a trivial detail. It is not worth reporting here IMO. What do other editors think? (7) Having no online source for your "hypocrisy" section is problematic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and an inaccessible proof clearly fails this. ► RATEL ◄ 07:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Unless Moyers was an imprisoned puppet of LBJ with no ability to resign from his post, he IS responsible for HIS actions, even if he was ordered to do every one of them.

(2) Again, you try to disqualify a reliable source because the source says something you don't like. That Safer is an "avowed enemy" of Moyers and that Moyers "wonders aloud" about Safer's motives is nothing but pure speculation and hearsay on your's and Moyer's part.

(3) Again, like I said earlier, something like "acting under LBJ's direction" can be added to the text.

(4) The Kotz and Safer quotes above speak for themselves on Moyer's involvement.

(5) The piece is a work of reporting, not opinion, The author Stephen Hayes is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and served as director of the Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University. Nothing is controversial about this "sort of data" on his earnings. What actually in WP policy would preclude use of The Weekly Standard?

(6) By itself, it would be an isolated fact. Instead, it's included in a section on earnings.

(7) The source is readily accessible at libraries. Please point to the WP policy that requires universal online access for a reliable source.--Drrll (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:V speaks directly to this in the "Access to sources" section:

Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible.--Drrll (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen F. Hayes's writings lack credibility. Please note that WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and WP:Weight all apply. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack credibility because of what? What WP policy would prohibit use of Haye's work or that of The Weekly Standard?--Drrll (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the policies I mentioned. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some specifics from those policies that would disqualify Hayes or The Weekly Standard.--Drrll (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

While I think it would be helpful for everyone to provide more specifics, please note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

From the Sources section of WP:VERIFY :

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy…

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria…Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications…

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

From these criteria, I argue that The Weekly Standard is a reliable source and not a questionable source.--Drrll (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The concerns I see being discussed are WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, not WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no possible way The Weekly Standard can be regarded as a RS, so even WP:V is contravened. Just look at the criticism section of its founder and editor in chief, William Kristol, where he is castigated for inaccuracy. Fail. ► RATEL ◄ 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Just look at the criticism section of its founder and editor in chief", eh? Well I did, and talk about a section that needs some serious work on its sources. The criticisms stem from 3 blogs, the self-described "flagship of the left" Nation magazine, the far-left Media Matters group (calls itself "progressive"), and a column whose title refers to Kristol as a "hack."--Drrll (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is enough evidence that Kristol is a political apparatchik and that his mouthpiece paper, WS, is not a reliable source, to win a case on this issue at RS/N. Please take it there. ► RATEL ◄ 04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The proper venue is WP:BLPN, as I pointed out near the beginning of this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Both venues are appropriate. I'd like to comment, once again, that I find a disturbing similarity in the pattern of edits between Drrll and other editors above, who also attempted to avoid consensus against inclusion on this talk page. Is a sockpuppet investigation warranted, I wonder. ► RATEL ◄ 04:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, what do you see as the specific WP:BLP & WP:NPOV violations for specific areas of my article text?--Drrll (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) BLP and RS dictate that unreliable or false information should not be presented as fact. NPOV states that information should be presented in a neutral point of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What specifically in my article text is unreliable, false, and not presented in a neutral point of view?--Drrll (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the sources and your relation of them, which also suffers from the defect of very poor writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples of what I wrote or cited, please, and how you see them as unreliable, false, non-neutral, bad sourcing, and poor writing. How would you suggest improving what I wrote?--Drrll (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do not want to spend extensive time explaining this to you. Could you please familiarize yourself with WP policies. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have familiarized myself with the WP policies. Broad pronouncements about policy violations and writing quality without specific policy quotes and article text quotes aren't sufficient.--Drrll (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Where this is going

I think the editors have all had their say on these edits, Drrll. The consensus is not to include. We do not need to convince you of the wisdom of that judgement, as you seem to think ("Broad pronouncements about policy violations ... aren't sufficient"). Our interpretation of policy precludes the edits, and I for one cannot see how they can be improved for inclusion. ► RATEL ◄ 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In the beginning, you dismissed my edits because they were using "right-wing" sources. After I removed the 3 opinion sources (2 of which were actually left-leaning sources [The Advocate & Slate]) & added The Philadelphia Inquirer, you shifted your basis of opposition to the 4 solid sources on various grounds. For the Kotz source, you said it was my interpretation of the source (argued until I produced the actual book quotes) and a lack of distinguishing between what Moyers did on his own and what he was ordered by LBJ (to which I granted you that point and offered to add "under LBJ's direction"). For the Safer source, you ascribed nefarious motives to Safer based solely upon hearsay and speculation about Safer. For the Philadelphia Inquirer article, you said it was inadmissible because it wasn't easily accessible, despite crystal-clear policies in WP:V that say otherwise. For the Weekly Standard article, you argue that the source is not reliable. As of now, 4 out of 4 people on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard disagree with you (1 other doesn't make clear his view, but appears to lean the same way). BTW, you still haven't answered my response to the 7 points that you made earlier.

As for Ronz and The Four Deuces, I would be happy to discuss specifics from my article text and how specifics in policies would apply, but so far they have not taken my up on that.--Drrll (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is an award-winning magazine and very clearly a reliable source, and the only good-faith reason for thinking otherwise is a severe misunderstanding of WP:RS policy. THF (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the WP article, "The Weekly Standard is a American neoconservative opinion magazine". Opinion pieces are not reliable sources for BLPs. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Weekly Standard does original reporting--as they did in the Moyers article. The left-wing The Nation blog is cited twice in this article, as is the truthdig blog, as is the left-wing buzzflash website. I detect a double-standard about reliable sources here. In any event, the Weekly Standard is certainly a RS for what authors who write for the Weekly Standard have said. THF (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

An error-strewn opinion column in the far-right Weekly Standard is not a RS for a BLP. Yes, other poor sources may have been used on the page, but when derogatory material is put forward for inclusion in a BLP, then the bar is set that much higher. ► RATEL ◄ 03:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There weren't any errors in Hayes's piece. The solution is not to memory-file the Hayes piece but to link to both it and Moyers's response and let readers decide for themselves. THF (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You have no idea of what a BLP is, do you? ► RATEL ◄ 04:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Separately, when you use "far right" to describe the very much mainstream-right Weekly Standard, you make one doubt the good faith of your arguments, and suspect POV-pushing. "Far right" refers to Nazis and Klansmen, not William Kristol. Please avoid such uncivil language. THF (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazis are extreme Right. Kristol is a neocon, far right. Lots of sources back me. ► RATEL ◄ 04:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't know what "neocon" means, do you? It's most certainly not a synonym for "far right." I repeat: do not use such inflammatory language again, and please edit collaboratively. Weekly Standard is a reliable source, and there's no reason to exclude its assessment of Moyers from this article -- especially when Moyers's partisan attack on Hayes is in the Hayes article. THF (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Neocon may not be far right, but it is still just an opinion piece. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"still just an opinion piece"

I'm glad we could narrow the issues: now the objection is that it is "just an opinion piece." To which the answer is: so what? Al Franken's opinion is in the Rush Limbaugh article. FAIR's opinion is in the Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) article. Are you seriously claiming that that's inappropriate? THF (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let us stick to reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. The Weekly Standard is a reliable source for what The Weekly Standard said about Bill Moyers, just as Al Franken is a reliable source for what Al Franken said about Rush Limbaugh. Can you please answer the question I posed? I'm trying to understand what the objection is to inclusion, and why you think opinion pieces are verboten. THF (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read wp:BLPSTYLE as well as the criticism section following. This hit piece is verboten on numerous grounds. ► RATEL ◄ 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We can use opinion pieces to show notable opinions of individuals but we cannot use them as a source of facts. We must also consider whether or not they are notable. Are Franken's comments about Limbaugh notable? No idea, but that belongs in the discussion about that article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject ... Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. I agree entirely. Therefore, The Weekly Standard's critique should be documented in the article (sourced as coming from Hayes and WS), along with Moyers's rebuttal. THF (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article — so where else have the views been published?
2. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. — we judge it not notable. How 'bout that? ► RATEL ◄ 05:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is not a tiny minority. It's a reliable third-party published source. End of story. THF (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) It is a neocon neoconservative rag. End of story. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

When you (1) use the word "neocon" as an apparent insult and (2) describe an award-winning magazine as a "rag", you say more about yourself than you do about the article. "The views of a tiny minority" in WP:BLP mean that Hillary Clinton's article isn't tarred with bogus conspiracy theories that she killed Vince Foster, not that a mainstream opinion magazine's critique of a journalist is to be censored from Wikipedia. THF (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments are about the magazine not any WP editor. "Neo-con" is a short form for neoconservative which refers to communists who later supported the Republican Party. Michael Harrington gave them the name along with "socialists for Nixon" but they have accepted the neo-con label. "Rag" just means a publication of little credibility. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no basis to say TWS has "little credibility": it's a reliable source. We include a standup comedian's critiques of Rush Limbaugh in his article, we can certainly include TWS's critique of Moyers in this one. That TWS is "neocon" is an argument for inclusion: that's a mainstream political position, and thus a notable POV to be included in an NPOV article. THF (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Limbaugh's page , this is the second time you've used wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Give it a break. ► RATEL ◄ 23:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed neocon to neconservative. But the fact one clown is a reliable source is no reason to accept another as a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This has gone beyond tendentious. You have no good-faith reason for the exclusion of this source, other than bootstrapping WP:IDONTLIKEIT to falsely claim that TWS is not a reliable source--even as you do nothing to remove sources that do clearly violate the BLP policies you purport to be enforcing. You are thoroughly inappropriately misapplying policies intended to exclude conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers to legitimate mainstream sources. If you are here for reasons other than POV-pushing, please edit collaboratively and propose compromise language. THF (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I took TWS to the WP:RSN and all outsiders agreed that it was a reliable source for facts in a BLP. The piece in question is a work of reporting by a reputable journalist, and therefore is not an "opinion piece"--Drrll (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Op-eds are never reliable sources for facts, although they are RS for their writers' views. Whether or not those views should be included in an article depends on relevance. However, you may find a fact in an op-ed and then search to see if it was reported in a reliable source, then use that source for the article. This is not an onerous burden for editors. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is an op-ed (typically written by a third party and appearing in the editorial pages of a newspaper). It is reporting by a staff journalist of the publication.--Drrll (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it news reporting or is it opinion? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly reporting. Have you been complaining about TWS all this time without once looking at the cited news piece? THF (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, this is not reporting, it's opinion journalism. I'll insert comments to help you see this: "In another sense, though, the choice of Moyers to lead a national reflection in the wake of September 11 was strange (strange to me, neocon Frank Hayes, that is). Moyers hardly qualifies as politically nonaligned, a neutral moderator respectful of all sides(in my opinion). In recent years, this veteran of the Great Society--he began his public life as an aide to President Lyndon Johnson--has drifted further to the left, his arguments increasingly strident(in my opinion). " ► RATEL ◄ 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

proposed text for section on work with Schumann

Let's get proposed text from both Four Deuces and Drrll and we'll hash out compromise language. THF (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of hypocrisy on the influence of money in politics

Though Moyers regularly objects to the influence of money in American politics, he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups, opinion publications, and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy. Moyers hands out these funds as president of the endowed Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.

THF, do you have some proposed text from TWS piece?--Drrll (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. Unless the Phil. Inq. says "hypocrisy," that editorializing can't be in the section head. A more neutral heading would be "Schumann Center for Media and Democracy", as that is a notable part of his biography and resume, but there's nothing in the article about that. THF (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I put in "allegations of hypocrisy" because I had the section under the Criticism section and because the sourced article said as much, though not in those words:

No TV journalist has reported more aggressively on the influence of money in American politics than Bill Moyers, the anchor of eight hours of hard-hitting, award-winning documentaries on the topic. But Moyers has failed to tell one important story about the power of money in public affairs: his own.

...Moyers said he saw no irony in spending more money to shape public policy than many special interests do.

We can certainly leave out "allegations of hypocrisy" if that is too editorializing, even though I contend that the source makes that very point.--Drrll (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Make it short, very short, and just the facts, M'am. Long diatribes, full of errors, aspersions and opinions, from this warrior of the Right, are not going in. ► RATEL ◄ 23:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, your personal attack is not acceptable behavior. Please edit collaboratively and propose language. I agree that we're talking about a couple of sentences; I've similarly shortened the article's discussions of other Moyers controversies. THF (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(re-reading) Ah, so this is where the "personal attack" was incorrectly inferred. Please note that I am referring to Stephen F. Hayes, a neocon author who has published a book asserting that Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots. I thought that was obvious. ► RATEL ◄ 14:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On further reflection, the material on Moyers's role at Schumann merits more than two sentences, though it's important to write those sentences neutrally to reflect just the facts; it's easy enough to let readers judge the implications. I'll try to throw together some text over the next day or two. THF (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the neutral sentences here for our consideration? ► RATEL ◄

Newsday

My attempt to expand and source the Newsday section to avoid the WP:RECENTISM problems was repeatedly reverted by two edit-warriors who have given no explanation for the deletions. I invite other editors to insert the text. THF (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

====Newsday====

His journalistic career began in earnest when he served as publisher for the Long Island, New York, daily newspaper Newsday from 1967 to 1970. The paper won two Pulitzer Prizes and several other awards while Moyers was there. But the owner of the paper, Harry Guggenheim, a conservative, was disappointed by the liberal drift of the newspaper under Moyers, criticizing the "left-wing" coverage of Vietnam War protests. For this and other family-related reasons, Guggenheim sold his majority share to the then-conservative Times-Mirror Company over the attempt of newspaper employees to block the sale, even though Moyers offered $10 million more than the Times-Mirror purchase price; Moyers resigned a few days later.

• I made a small alteration. I see no problem with this properly cited version going in. What do other editors think? ► RATEL ◄ 09:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the alteration. While family-related reasons explains the timing of the sale, it doesn't explain why Guggenheim refused to sell to Moyers, who offered more money. THF (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

section seems balanced now. ► RATEL ◄ 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an editor has introduced dubious unsourced material into the section. There's no basis for calling Newsday "unsuccessful"--it had won many Pulitzers before Moyers showed up--and I'd like to see a source for "conservative." THF (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The words "unsuccessful" and "conservative" are not my interpretation but are directly taken from the four sources I used in my edit. As I also cited my edits, there is no ground for calling my edits unsourced. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your "four" sources seem to be four reprints of a single source. And the source seems to be unreliable: other contemporaneous sources indicate that Newsday endorsed Lyndon Johnson in 1964, which is not "conservative", and that Guggenheim granted the paper independence. The paper ran for a twenty-plus years before Moyers got there, and not once in that lengthy discussion of Moyers's tenure of the paper does it indicate that the paper was "unsuccessful" before it got there. THF (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Untrue. They are four separate standard mainstream works. The fact that one source mentions a fact and the other does not does make one reliable and the other not. And if they appear to contradict one another (a fact that I don't concede as I haven't read this link in detail yet) we can't simply and arbitrarily pick one source over the other. Gamaliel (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, per NPOV, we go with what the weight of the sources say: and I've been reading books and dozens of articles about the Guggenheim-Moyers fallout for days without anyone ever claiming that the pre-Moyers newspaper was "conservative" (which the facts clearly show it wasn't: a conservative paper doesn't endorse Lyndon Johnson in 1964) or "unsuccessful." So I find it dubious that you show up with a source unavailable on the web and claim otherwise. Please provide an ungated source or a direct quote. Please also demonstrate that the four sources have different authors and aren't simply duplicating text. THF (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you are struggling with the fact that a publication owned by a conservative who was so enraged when it became liberal he sold it at a loss was once a conservative publication. Well so much for AGF. If you don't believe that I have used four different authors, I don't know how I can prove it to you. Go to the library yourself if you don't believe me. Any decent library will have these sources. Here's a direct quote: "Moyers was hired by Newsday, a Long Island-based publication, as its publisher in 1970. Before Moyers, the paper had a conservative bent and was somewhat unsuccessful. He changed the face and organization of the paper, bringing in new people and making it more liberal. The circulation of Newsday increased, and won two Pulitzer Prizes, the ultimate journalistic award. When the owner, Harry F. Guggenheim, was ready to sell Newsday in 1970, Moyers and others wanted to buy it. Guggenheim refused to sell it to them, and sold it to another group for less. Moyers left the paper soon after." Gamaliel (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're funny and self-refuting: a direct quote from which of the four? Or was it from all of them? What did the other three say that the first one did not? THF (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That particular quote is from the following source: "Bill Moyers." Contemporary Heroes and Heroines, Book IV. Gale Group, 2000. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2010. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What did the other three say that this one did not? THF (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"unsuccessful" and "conservative"

This adjectives seem to be utterly false. First, Gamaliel justifies the claim by saying that "Guggenheim sold the paper at a loss" -- which is clearly false, since Guggenheim co-founded the paper. Second, contemporaneous sources say that Newsday was successful, or even "one of the most successful new newspapers of the postwar era".[2] Also saying Newsday was succesful: New York Times, Time Magazine ("highly successful" "the most profitable big daily paper started in the U.S. in the last 20 years"), Time Magazine again ("highly successful").

While Guggenheim was conservative, the paper was not: endorsements from 1964 backwards were: 1964-Johnson over Goldwater; 1960-Kennedy (with a separate pro-Nixon statement from Guggenheim); 1956-Stevenson over Eisenhower.

I'm skeptical that Gamaliel's source says what he says it says, but if it does, it can't be considered a reliable source. THF (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You refuse to check the source yourself, so you make demands, implying that I'm lying. I comply, providing a direct quote, which you are now implying I've altered or fabricated. Checking the source would require work, but making inflammatory allegations comes easy. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

When there are (1) dozens of ungated sources available, and when (2) you have not added a single source to the article, that you suddenly show up with a gated source that (3) contradicts all the ungated sources, (4) contradicts verifiable historical facts, (5) has a quote that seems shockingly similar to the one I independently drafted in the article except for the addition of the historically inaccurate adjectival characterizations; and (6) happens to do so in a direction that supports your personal point-of-view, the two possibilities are fabrication or historical revisionism/shoddy scholarship by the source. I'm perfectly willing to believe it was the latter, as coincidental as that would be. Email me a password to get past the gate, and I can rule out the former, otherwise you'll have to wait til I get to the library. I don't care much which it is, so long as the factually incorrect stuff isn't in the article. THF (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time trying to justify your unwarranted accusations. Either look up the source or don't. I don't have a password to give you (and even if I did, giving it to you would of course be a violation of the terms of use of most commercial databases), I have a library card. You'll have to get your own card. Gamaliel (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This edit is a bad-faith edit, given the discussion above, and Gamaliel's failure to identify additional sources for this factually false information. Bad faith is further demonstrated by the fact that Gamaliel did not readd the npov-section or dubious tags when the neutrality of his language is clearly disputed. Please self-revert.

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing

THF (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

disinheritance

Why on earth was this material, sourced to the New York Times, which plainly thought it notable, deleted? THF (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Guggenheim, who died a year later, disinherited Moyers from his will.

It's on the Newsday page already. Why is it notable that an enemy of Moyers did not leave him anything in his will? ► RATEL ◄ 00:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If your complaint is that it's on two pages (which seems silly), why remove it from the Moyers page, rather than the Newsday page? Again, you don't decide what's notable. Secondary reliable sources decide this, and the Times (and many many other sources if you really want me to waste the time pointing them out) thought it notable. Please restore. THF (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Put it on Guggenheim's page. It's his life, his will, his decision. I bet BM didn't even know about it, and doesn't give a toss anyway. This has nothing to do with the life and achievements of Mr Moyers. ► RATEL ◄ 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"progressive direction"

This edit contradicts the source, which purportedly said "liberal," not "progressive." THF (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The source says "progressive". [3] ► RATEL ◄ 00:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence that Gale is a sloppy source: the word "progressive" did not mean "liberal" in 1970. I object to this misleading edit, which contradicts contemporaneous sources. THF (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So you object to the wording in a published multi-volume biographical encyclopedia. Noted. ► RATEL ◄ 13:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rove content

How come the Rove content was reinserted without the NPOV-section tag? THF (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-insert it. It may have come out in the copy and paste process. ► RATEL ◄ 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because you've already falsely accused me of edit-warring. You need to reinsert the tag. THF (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you do it yourself? Gamaliel (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it would be a revert, and this page has had a ludicrous amount of wikilawyering, so I'm not putting my head in that noose.

I'm also demonstrating that you and Ratel are not editing in good faith: I've proposed multiple compromises, and the two of you are taking a hard line--including deleting the npov-dispute tag and refusing even to make the minimal effort to undelete it. I've added material positive of Moyers; the two of you haven't added anything critical of him.

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing

THF (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All you are demonstrating is that you are guilty of the same things yourself and we are not willing to immediately jump to fulfill your random demands. You want it in, provide a good faith reason for us to restore it that doesn't involve you "demonstrating" anything except that you want to improve the article. Or you could restore it yourself. Anything else is a waste of time and does nothing to improve the article. Gamaliel (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag belongs because it was placed there as evidence of a pending NPOV dispute, and it was removed, though the dispute has not been resolved.

Thanks for demonstrating conclusively that you're in this for WP:BATTLE, rather than article improvement. I'm sure this was a coincidence, too.

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing

THF (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you this much fun in real life too? Gamaliel (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we all take a small wikibreak from the article, and come back in a day or two to tackle each problem, one at a time, in a collegial atmosphere? I am not averse to changes if they are for the good of the 'pedia and improve the page. THF, you've made the good point that many of BM's achievements are missing from the page, and that his views can be sourced from many other places besides an interview. There's a lot to go on there. ► RATEL ◄ 02:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)