Talk:Bill Moyers/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Moyers requesting FBI information on LBJ staff

It might prove useful to discuss this more fully. An addition to the Moyers article was made outlining his requesting information from the FBI as reported by the Washington Post on 02/19/09. The addition was undone with the explanation "This issue was well discussed on the talk page and/or archives".

A check was made of the talk page and archives. There was discussion on LBJ ordering "aide Bill Moyers to ask the FBI for FBI Name Checks on 15 members of opponent Goldwater's staff." However, the WaPo article specifically refers to Moyer's requesting the information "on the sexual preferences of LBJ staff members". That's an entirely different request than the request regarding Goldwater staff. Integre (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's exactly the same issue. Please take the time to read the material above. ► RATEL ◄ 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Its the same issue, but with more detail and more individuals named. It most certainly belongs. CENSEI (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a central issue, that being the issue of the FBI being used to investigate people. The Wikipedia article on Moyers specifically mentions the investigation of Goldwater staff. The new WaPo article on 02/19/09 notes the request of information from the FBI on the sexual preferences of LBJ staff members. If you could cite specifically in the Talk section where there was a discussion on Moyers requesting information on LBJ staff members, that would be appreciated. I apologize, but I cannot find it.Integre (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a small extra wrinkle on the investigations ordered by LBJ through Moyers after the Jenkins affair, not new information. Note that Moyers was not the person calling the FBI and encouraging them to investigate Valenti "as a sex pervert". Now that would be noteworthy. ► RATEL ◄ 23:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points, first the WaPo article does not mention that Johnson ordered Moyers to contact the FBI, although that seems a reasonable conclusion. And the issue of Valenti being investigated is not newsworthy per se, when pertaining to Moyers. What seems newsworthy is Moyers requesting information from the FBI of LBJ staff members concerning their sexual preferences. Moyers was an active participant in the process requesting this information. That Moyers requested information on LBJ's own staff members leads to the reasonable position that this is new information, as previously, information was gathered on Goldwater staffers.

Since there is apparently going to be continued disagreement on whether the item from the 02/19/09 WaPo article should be included in the Moyers WikiPedia article, suggestions are welcome on how next to proceed in this dispute.Integre (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What dispute? You'll notice that I slightly rephrased and moved the para in question. That shows I support the inclusion. ► RATEL ◄ 01:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, I had not refreshed that browser window. Thank you.Integre (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Morley Safer

From his 1990 autobiography Flashbacks: On Returning to Vietnam

Moyers' 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 he was not only a good soldier but a gleeful retainer feeding the appetites of Lyndon Johnson.

It seems that with the newest recent revelation of Moyers gay witch hunt, the critics will crawl out of the wood work. The question is how do we incorporate it all into the article? Safer's thoughts on Moyers would be a good place to start. CENSEI (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the facts, please. The hostile ruminations of Safer, a long-time opponent of LBJ's administration, are far from noteworthy. BLP does not allow this sort of muckracking and speculative opinion and nobody cares what Safer's misinterpretation of the facts "suggest" to Safer. ► RATEL ◄ 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Safer's opinions are notable because he was investigated and deported by the Johnson administration (with Moyers as the tip of that spear), and other reliable sources have deemed it notable enough to comment further on it. CENSEI (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You remind me of Andyvphil, who was banned temporarily at the exact same time you started your CENSEI account. It may be simply a coincidence, although it seems a remarkable coincidence. I notice the Andyphil account, once it became unbanned was thereafter only used for non-contentious edits in the main, almost a complete character change from his previous persona.

I removed your sentence accusing Moyers of threatening Safer over "communist ties" because the book actually reads: "Johnson threatened that... the White House would go public" about Safer's communist ties.[1] You've substituted "Moyers" for "Johnson", which shows you are not editing in good faith and you're deliberately altering the record because of your dislike of Moyers. In essence, you are quite prepared to lie and vandalise this page to get your way, and you should be blocked again.

Safers is a notable person. Other notable people (Alterman) writing in other notable sources (the Washington Post) have also noted its notability. It passes all requirements for inclusion. Too bad for you. CENSEI (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You also removed the word "suggest" from the sentence "[Moyers actions] suggest he was not only a good soldier but a gleeful retainer..." By using this word, Safer was saying it is possible that Moyers was happy to do LBJ's bidding — although we know now that there was tension between the two that eventually led to their falling out. Now, is it notable in this short biography, to record the unconfirmed suspicions of a political opponent? Absolutely not. By all means note that Safer (himself a very minor figure on the world scene, a mere TV journalist) and Moyers/LBJ clashed, but to quote Safer's unconfirmed and probably inaccurate suspicions about the relationship between LBJ and Moyers in a BLP is not on on notability and weight grounds. ► RATEL ◄ 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed suspicions dominating significant sections of an article... you mean like allegations about Matt Drudge's sexuality? Maybe we could kill two birds with one stone and get Moyers to run a dir digging operational Matt Drudge, he seems to have been rather good at it in his former life.

Methinks the woman doth protest too much. CENSEI (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm absolutely certain you're an Andyvphil sockpuppet. Ho-hum. How long before you're banned again for tendentious editing? I'll wait it out, and edit out your rubbish when you're gone. ► RATEL ◄ 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Afraid thats not going to happen like that. Care to continue this discussion?

added item

Added Bill Moyers quote re: Karl Rove resignation.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

MLK wiretapping

I have just reverted this sentence which was added back: "Moyers oversaw the Martin Luther King wiretapping by the FBI and worked to prevent King from challenging the all-white Mississippi delegation to the 1964 Democratic National Convention.[2]" While this is certainly a notable aspect, I think that common sense really dictates not to count something mentioned on the side in an opinion column as reliable. Upon a google search, I was not able to find reliable sources, only blog accusations. This does not mean that there are no good sources on the matter, and if they are found, just add back this portion with the sources.--Henry talk 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts should never be sourced to opinion pieces, since they do not have the same fact-checking as news stories. This is especially important for biographies of living persons. Even if the facts are true it has to be shown that they are notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The source is part of a magazine's (The Advocate) website, but I'll add other references.--67.232.89.238 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It still does not meet the criteria for reliable sources for biogrphies of living persons. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia policy:

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

...

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.

and...

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.

Slate is an online ("electronic") magazine published by the Washington Post with "editorial oversight."--Drrll (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts should not be taken from editorials but should be sourced to news. Since the information in the editorial was obtained from news reports, it should be possible to directly source them. See Statements of Opinions: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." The Four Deuces (talk)

It's by no means a given that the Slate column was not subject to the same "editorial oversight" that any news article in Slate would be. "Op-ed columns" are provided by third parties, not by staff members of a publication, so the "editorial oversight" would not apply to them.--Drrll (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't make the rules, I am merely stating what they are. My suggestion is that you either remove the material or source it to reliable sources acceptable for biographies of living persons. Otherwise I will request dispute resolution for this matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, we're talking about an article subject to editorial oversight, not a third-party op-ed referenced in WP rules. I disagree with your interpretation of the rules.--Drrll (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have tagged the article for using sources that are inadequate for a BLP. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the tags?

What are the basis of the section tags? When even PBS covers allegations of bias against Moyers, I see no reason it should not be part of the article. THF (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. ► RATEL ◄ 04:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Harvard speech

The article contained a six-paragraph summary of a speech Moyers gave at Harvard, sourced only to the original speech. Moyers has given hundreds of speeches, and there's no reason to think this one is especially notable. Happy to include a shorter discussion of it in the article if there's a reliable secondary source discussing it, but right now, it violates WP:NOR, and I've removed it. THF (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The collegial action would have been to tag it. RSes for this exist, and you could have just as easily found them rather than deleting the whole section. ► RATEL ◄ 04:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing to tag: it doesn't merit six paragraphs. Find the secondary source, and summarize concisely. Meanwhile, you undid substantial improvements to the rest of the page, which is a wholly inappropriate use of Twinkle, and I will report you for that abuse of the privilege if you do not self-revert. THF (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your addition were all iffy, so I removed them all. Let's start with your insertion of unsourced statements that you attribute to Guggenheim. What was that about? ► RATEL ◄ 04:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Guggenheim would have been sourced to http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/56024707.html?dids=56024707:56024707&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+05%2C+1990&author=Pat+Guy&pub=USA+TODAY+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=Fact-heavy%2C+candid+look+at+%60Newsday%27&pqatl=google, but I found a better source that isn't behind a paywall. If you hadn't wasted my time with edit-warring and tendentious talk-page disputes -- or if you had bothered to do a scintilla of real research rather than quote mining 2003 speeches -- you could've determined this for yourself, as the Moyers-Guggenheim spat is well-documented, and far more notable than the vast majority of items in this article. THF (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm seriously not playing this game: you know darn well that the edits were not just a couple of additions, but substantial improvements and corrections. When I wake up tomorrow morning, I want to see you self-revert. If you then wish to place a cite-tag or reinsert text I deleted and explain each reinsertion and address the reasoning given for the deletion, you can do that, but your Twinkle wholesale revert was abusive edit-warring, a violation of WP:OWN, and an abuse of the editing tool: people have had their Twinkle privileges revoked for less. THF (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Start seeking consensus before deleting whole sections of a carefully edited page and then inserting unsourced derogatory comments. Go ahead and report me. ► RATEL ◄ 04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're punishing my WP:BOLD edit of a WP:OR/WP:COATRACK/WP:WEIGHT violation by undoing every meritorious edit I made because you couldn't stand to have the few paragraphs out of the article for a day or two while it was being discussed? Congratulations for admitting you used Twinkle to violate WP:POINT. Again, I highly recommend you self-revert. THF (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are truly interested in improving the page, discuss your proposed changes here. But to simply delete large, sourced sections of the page, giving reason like "interview not notable" and "speech doesn't merit 6 paragraphs", IOW because you have some objection that you'd rather not test with other editors of the page, is not the way to go. ► RATEL ◄ 05:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I did discuss the deletion, and you still haven't responded. Second, even if I hadn't, it does not justify your misuse of WP:TW to violate WP:POINT -- especially since you still haven't sourced the WP:PRIMARY violation. Your edit did far more than reinsert six paragraphs (which, contrary to your claim, are not sourced to a secondary source, and thus violate WP:OR). THF (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I've already re-sourced the speech and shortened some of it. It's a key speech, notable, and not too long. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not a subjective opinion. Notability is indicated by discussions in secondary reliable sources. You continue to cite a primary source. Where is the evidence of notability? Without it, you are violating WP:NOR by quote-mining Moyers's speeches to find the ones you like. THF (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you go looking before deleting, you'll find plenty of RSes. In fact, this speech is widely praised as a brilliant piece of oratory by Moyers. ► RATEL ◄ 15:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Widely" usually means more than one. And funny you mention books: second Google result is this. I trust you'll abide by NPOV and include the criticism of the speech. I suggest: "Moyers's speech was singled out by David Limbaugh as an example of Bush Derangement Syndrome." with the appropriate cite. I note also that Moyers gave several Take Back America speeches, so your proposed google search is overbroad. THF (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you still haven't restored the appropriate edits you undid from your misuse of Twinkle to prove a WP:POINT. THF (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WEIGHT and COATRACK violation

Moyers served a substantive role in a presidential administration, was the publisher of a Pulitzer-Prize-winning paper, has written books, runs a multi-million dollar foundation, has hosted several controversial television shows, was talked of as a third-party presidential candidate, and is the father of marginally notable activists. But as the article currently stands, the thing we give the most space to is four paragraphs to a speech attacking Karl Rove, a currently retired politician. This merits two or three sentences at most; I'm not sure why we need to spend several paragraphs mentioning that Moyers compared Rove to Hanna when Rove himself says he's modeled himself after Hanna--it's not like the idea originated with Moyers or has any relevance to Moyers's biography. THF (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile this edit deletes the only single balancing sentence in the subsection -- though it was far better sourced than the original research in the subsection -- and had an uncivil edit summary to boot. David Limbaugh meets WP:AUTHOR; he's plainly notable, and a bad-faith AFD nomination of his article would be a SNOW keep, so please avoid trying to marginalize him by claiming he's "non-notable" -- especially when the same subsection is citing stuff.co.nz. THF (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

At the request of Ronz I will explain my addition of this tag and the removal of the David Limbaugh quote. Though some may find this notion offensive, I stand by my contention that both Limbaugh and Regenery are fringe and inappropriate for sources in WP BLP articles. They do not, despite Drrll's crowing edit summary, represent the mainstream and in fact Regenery brags on its webpage that it does not represent the mainstream. Surely there must be actual mainstream conservatives who disagree with Moyers that can be used instead of a fringe source. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an misuse of the "Fringe" policy. WP:FRINGE is a policy intended for Holocaust deniers, homeopaths, Trotskyists, and Klansmen: it is not a synonym for "conservative," and it is offensive and unCIVIL to have my personal political views characterized that way. This is a fifth request for Gamaliel to stop doing that.

Regnery's books are regularly on the best-seller list: there is no reason to exclude the publisher. In any event, the source, David Limbaugh is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. NPOV requires the inclusion of his view of the speech. (Limbaugh's views are far more mainstream than Moyers's, I might add: the US has twice as many conservatives as liberals.)

That said, I agree the NPOV tag belongs for the reasons I stated above. THF (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am clearly not using it as a synonym for "conservative", as I ended my comments with a plea for sources from "mainstream conservatives". Apparently you didn't read all the comments, but once you do I ask that you withdraw your accusation. Thank you.

Presence on the best seller list or the existence of a Wikipedia article are not things we use to measure whether or not something is a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

David Limbaugh is very plainly a reliable source for what David Limbaugh has said about Moyers. His presence on Wikipedia is evidence of notability, which is relevant to NPOV. Meanwhile, you said Regnery was fringe: the fact that they're on the best-seller lists demonstrates otherwise. THF (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is a reliable source for what he thinks. But the question here is whether or not the Bill Moyers article should include what he thinks. The fact that he is a fringe author indicates to me that the answer to that question should be "no". Wikipedia does not use best-seller lists (especially ones from a publisher that has historically gamed those lists through bulk purchases) as a gauge of mainstream. Mainstream to Wikipedia is what is mainstream to experts, academic and professional sources. That mainstream may differ from that of the general public. Polls of the general public show widespread support for things that this mainstream does not support. (the existence of ghosts, a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, creationism, global warming denialism, etc.) When there is disagreement, we go with the mainstream of professional experts. Gamaliel (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Who do you view as an expert on the subject of "opinions on Moyers's 2003 speech"? The subject here is political opinion, not science, so best-selling views are pretty much by definition mainstream in a democratic society. In any event, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, Limbaugh is not WP:FRINGE. You're welcome to take your opinions and seek a change of WP:NPOV and WP:V and WP:FRINGE, but what you're expressing here has nothing to do with what those policies actually say, and it's disruptive (and indistinguishable from POV-pushing, even if your argument is made in good faith) when you continue to ignore the consensus definition of those policies on multiple pages. (And I'm still waiting for you to explain why the left-wing blogs in that section satisfy RS, while a published book doesn't: it makes it very hard to AGF when you have such a plain double-standard.) THF (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There are mainstream political commentators which are considered appropriate for citing in WP articles. Regenery authors are not in that mainstream. And as far as I can tell, those "blogs" are being used for nothing more than the text of Moyers' speech, not commentary. As long as we are talking about AGF, it makes it very hard to AGF in your actions when you refuse to withdraw the false accusation you made in your initial comment in this section. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to any specific WP policy that defines what's mainstream for WP and what isn't? As THF pointed out, we're not talking about science, we're talking about political opinion and a mainstream publisher of the dominant US political viewpoint is hard to characterize as fringe or out of the mainstream.--Drrll (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite policy, please. All you've given so far is your assertion that your personal opinion about the merits of particular points of view trumps actual Wikipedia policy. THF (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly cited policy. Apparently we differ in how we interpret policy. Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've cited policy titles, but you haven't actually cited any policy, as multiple editors note. Quote for me the language in WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV#Balance that supports your view that NPOV precludes the use of opinions found in Regnery books for political subjects. THF (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've stated my view, with repeated explanations and multiple references to policy. You know where I stand and I know you disagree. We're not covering any new ground here. I think it's time for other people to chime in here. You are welcome to try to get them to agree with you and gain consensus for your interpretation and desired article wording. Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't stated your view: you've run around in circles and wasted everyone's time. You claimed WP:FRINGE, but when I point out nothing in Fringe applies to this, you then claim RS. When I point out that it is an RS, you returned to FRINGE while ignoring my initial rebuttal. I want a quote from policy, or it will be clear that you're editing and arguing tendentiously. THF (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the one wasting everyone's time with your inability to comprehend what has clearly already been discussed, your endless litany of complaints, and your grandstanding demands. Gamaliel (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) No personal atttacks, please: if you spent half the time cutting and pasting from the policy page that supposedly supports your position as you did insulting me and posting non sequiturs, we could resolve this immediately: are you going to quote policy, or are you going to concede the fairly obvious point that WP:NPOV requires inclusion of all notable views about the speech if we're going to include the speech in the article? THF (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"All notable views" does not include your synthesis of the content of Limbaugh's little known book. Just let's get that straight up front. ► RATEL ◄ 10:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem not to understand WP:SYN. There isn't any SYN in writing a one-sentence summary of what Limbaugh's best-selling book says about Moyers's speech -- especially when it is the most notable secondary source being proposed. THF (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's possibly one of the most obvious cases of SYN I have ever seen. Period. That you cannot see it says something.► RATEL ◄ 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope of WP:FRINGE; WP:UNDUE and Harvard speech

Fringe applies to Holocaust denial or pseudoscience. It doesn't apply to mainstream political commentators.

As for WP:WEIGHT, there's certainly an argument that the speech is non-notable -- but other editors have insisted on including four paragraphs of WP:PRIMARY original research about the speech, rejected my argument that the speech is non-notable relative to the rest of Moyers's biography, and I fail to see why my one sentence of balance from the only secondary source in the subsection is the UNDUE violation. THF (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

THF -- Again -- please see WP:Fringe to understand what it does and does not apply to. You seem to be confusing WP:Notability with WP:Fringe -- David Limbaugh is a notable person, but his THEORY about Bill Moyers is a fringe theory. WP:Fringe pertains to THEORIES NOT PEOPLE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree in part: Fringe applies to theories, not people. It's Gamaliel who says that Limbaugh himself (and Bozell and George Will and Morton Kondracke and essentially every other center-right writer) is fringe, and thus anything they say needs to be deleted from an article, which is why I've found it so frustrating dealing with him.

I disagree that Limbaugh's argument is fringe: it's a mainstream conservative view (consistent with and citing to columnist Charles Krauthammer, who writes for the Washington Post). As twice as many Americans are conservatives as liberal, Limbaugh's view is closer to the mainstream than Bill Moyers himself. NPOV requires inclusion if the speech is going to be discussed at all. I certainly agree with the proposition that the speech isn't sufficiently notable to be included in the article, but I was reverted twice when I tried to remove the overkill. If there's going to be four paragraphs uncritically repeating Moyers's ranting about Karl Rove, NPOV requires at least a sentence about what the only reliable secondary source has said about the speech. THF (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you find other authors who make the same claim? How many? I would say that if you can't find a substantial number of people who have published this view in notable places, that it would probably qualify as fringe. I agree with you however that Limbaugh himself cannot be "fringe" by definition. If Gamaliel said that, then he was in error. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's talked about the speech other than Limbaugh and some bloggers. If it's notable at all, it's notable for what Limbaugh said about it. I view quoting Limbaugh as a compromise solution to the first-best option of deleting the entire section. What's not acceptable is the status quo where there are four paragraphs of original research with the editor's point of view about the primary source and no balance. There are three editors on the page who simply refuse to edit collaboratively, though.

And again: Limbaugh's view is less fringe than Moyers's view in the speech.

Your help on the talk-page will be appreciated, because Gamaliel is surely going to redouble his recalcitrance after seeing your post on WQA. THF (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, if nobody has talked about it other than Limbaugh and some bloggers, I'd recommend removing it altogether (everything -- Moyers AND Limbaugh) per WP:Undue -- I will back you on that if you decide to do so (assuming that what you've said about the notability of the speech is true). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Separately, while Limbaugh is the most notable commenter on this particular speech, I've compiled a dozen or so reliable sources who have similarly said that Moyers's criticism of the Bush administration is over the top. THF (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First you say it's not notable, then suddenly, when it suits you, you have sources coming out of your ears. ► RATEL ◄ 10:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I have said, and continue to say: (1) The speech isn't worth four paragraphs. (2) The criticism of Moyers has gotten far more coverage than the coverage of his speech. THF (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

George Will on Moyers' coup remark

I note further that George Will's commentary on Moyers was sanitized from the article. I'm still waiting to hear what center-right writers ever pass muster. THF (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to George Will's comments about the speech? I haven't read them. Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's in User:THF/Moyers, where I userfied my attempts to edit the article, since other editors were tag-team reverting me. THF (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your version does not appear to contain any mention of the speech at all, much less Will's comments about it. If I am wrong, please direct me to a specific section. Gamaliel (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How hard is it for you to do a control-F for "Will"? Why do you pretend that you're responding when you're clearly not? THF (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You think you are so clever that no one will notice that you retroactively added that header with your latest edit? Until you did, this was part of the section regarding the June 2003 Take Back America speech. You added the header to cover up the fact that you made an unrelated complaint about Will's reaction November 2004 Moyers speech and then attacked me for "missing" Will's comments instead of admitting that you mixed up the two speeches. You are quite the profile in courage! Gamaliel (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you ever going to use the talk page to talk about improving the article? For someone who is so free with the epithet "trolling"... THF (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice dodge! So are you going to produce Will's comments on the 2003 speech so I can evaluate them or will you admit that you confused the two? Gamaliel (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't confuse anything: I never said Will commented on the 2003 speech. I said that editors were systematically deleting every center-right source from the article, including Will. Are you ever going to use the talk page to talk about improving the article? THF (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why on earth would you add this completely unrelated complaint to the section about the 2003 speech? Must you add the same litany of complaints to every section. It would improve editing of the article greatly if you gathered these complaints together and limited them to a single section, as not to interfere with discussion of improvements to the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"coup"

First Ratel moves this well-cited material from the correct section, then he removes it because it's supposedly in the wrong section. If Ratel doesn't self-revert, we'll know that he's POV-pushing. THF (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm old, and maybe I missed it in the source. Can you point me to where it is in the source (Guggenheim comment). Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 05:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're being tendentious by responding with a non sequitur. Diffs were provided. Address why you have deleted the "coup" controversy. THF (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the Kerry stuff, it didn't fit well into the Rove-oriented section. It can go back in under another subhead, if you think it's that notable. I don't. ► RATEL ◄ 09:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't in the Rove-oriented section until [3] you put it there. You need to put it back in the article: I'm not falling into the trap of getting accused of edit-warring if I do it. THF (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Did some research on this. Appears to be entirely non-notable, with one commentator offering a throw-away line. The "poking fun" phrase was a bit of unwanted editorialising as well. It was cherry-picked in by editors antipathetic to the subject. I now oppose its re-inclusion. ► RATEL ◄ 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your research is faulty, since the original paragraph cited two commentators whose jaws dropped at the remark, and I quickly found three others (cited at User:THF/Moyers): it's an example of WP:SECONDARY coverage that the encyclopedia aspires to, and that a neutral editor pointed out the article lacks. If you don't like "poke fun" as a characterization of Will's remark, then propose another one, because it belongs in the article far more than half the stuff currently in there. THF (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A sixth source is Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe, December 30, 2004. Given that people were commenting on Moyers's ludicrous remark, made on national television, two months after he made it, it's pretty clear that it's notable. Google News Archives has another half-dozen reliable sources on the remark as well. THF (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an off-the-cuff remark. It changed nothing in Moyers's life, therefore ipso facto not notable. That a few righty commentators noticed it and commented on it does not make it notable. BTW, supply links to those comments here, don't send me to your user pages. ► RATEL ◄ 10:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what's notable. What's notable about Moyers's life is what is covered in reliable secondary sources. THF (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Buzzflash interview

Buzzflash is not a reliable source; nor is a primary-source interview it made with Moyers notable. Yet Ratel reinserted this WP:NOR and WP:RS violation without explanation. THF (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of a person are notable on that person's wikipage, within reason. Please link to the RS/N discussion showing BF is not reliable for this sort of data, and I'll concede the point. ► RATEL ◄ 05:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY as your violations of these policies have been pointed out multiple times and you respond with non sequiturs. It violates WP:NOR when you pick and choose from thousands of Moyers interviews to include the COATRACK material you most like; meanwhile you have deleted material that was covered in secondary sources because you didn't like it. You are POV-pushing. You need to self-revert. THF (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I never inserted that material originally, actually, but I did restore it when you deleted because his opinions are important on his bio page. You have still not shown how quoting his own words, published on a site not run by him (so not OR, or primary) contravenes any rule, other than your own sense of how the article should read.► RATEL ◄ 09:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See my 06:06 statement: I'm not playing Argument Clinic and repeating myself over and over and over when you still haven't addressed the argument I've actually made, but have instead addressed your misunderstanding of the policy. Moyers has written books and articles and made hundreds of statements that have been deemed notable by secondary reliable sources, so we don't need to quote-mine blog interviews to find encyclopedic value. THF (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a commentary section, quoting Moyer's views from an interview. Seems perfectly apposite to me. If you'd like to propose different interviews or his books as sources for his commentary, let's see them here. As long as we get a representative selection of his views, it shouldn't make a whole lot of difference one way or the other. ~~Still not sure why you're getting your panties in a knot over this.~~ ► RATEL ◄ 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll see you on WQA since you refuse to defend your edits here or provide secondary sources and reinstead insult me. THF (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That didn't work out too well for you though. ► RATEL ◄ 10:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Presidential draft initiative section

This section -- a play-by-play account of an unsuccessful Internet effort to darft Moyers for a presidential run over his objection that garnered less than 1000 signatures and doesn't have a single reliable source -- needs to be cut to a single sentence as it's currently an insane violation of WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOT#NEWS. THF (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's too long. Shortened to a few sentences. ► RATEL ◄

Still not convinced it merits its own section: there aren't any secondary reliable sources cited in the section, it's all blog-posts and primary sources. It's also awkwardly worded, and still reads like a play-by-play instead of an encyclopedic summary. THF (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Y RSes added. ► RATEL ◄ 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Plea for calm, sequential editing

This talk page has become a dog's breakfast, full of sound and fury, with the same issues raised multiple times in multiple sections.

Can we please do this stepwise, one issue at a time, calmly, and come to considered conclusions, rather than hordes of non-consensual amendments and deletions to the article in one day? Why is there a rush? Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this would be nice. If we could all leave our attacks and accusations, and counterattacks and counteraccusations, and just focus on the article. I haven't seen one issue on this page that couldn't be dealt with by normal collaborative editing, provided we retain our collective sanity. Gamaliel (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)