Talk:The Rest of the Story

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please explain the reversion. The radio show routinely features urban legends such as John HancockHanson being the first president of the United States and Alexander Fleming saving Churchill from a ditch as fact. They're not. - Nunh-huh 05:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They are. Hancock was the first President, if you count the Presidents of the Continental Congress. But besides that, I have never heard anything on TRotS that made me dubious as to accuracy. About the Fleming/Churchill incident, that sounds perfectly accurate. I would applaud you if you could disprove me. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 06:21, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

They aren't. The presidents of the Continental Congress were not Presidents of the United States, and Fleming didn't rescue Churchill. The fact that you would think these are "true" is proof that this radio program misleads people. - Nunh-huh 06:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By the way, going to snopes.com's urban legends site and searching for "Paul Harvey" will reveal a lot. e.g. "Paul Harvey did offer a "Rest of the Story" segment about Mel Gibson on 24 June 2000, and it was a typically (for Paul Harvey) exaggerated version of the truth". -- Nunh-huh 06:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And John Hanson wasn't even the first President of the Continental Congress. RickK | Talk 06:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, NH, you've confused Hanson with Hancock. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 06:44, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't just NH's confusion, it's a widespread confusion. RickK | Talk 07:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm correct that neither was president of the US. <for the record, it was Hanson that Harvey was claiming, and the ref I gave disproving it refers to Hanson.> - Nunh-huh 07:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter WHO Harvey was 'peddling', that's not the discussion (and by the way, Presidents of the Continental Congress still had say over what would become the US). If the items on TRotS were even remotely untrue, wouldn't it be Harvey's obligation to put out a disclaimer about it? Surely, not informing the public about something's accuracy would not be a good business practice. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 14:19, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, fact-checking would be a good business practice and arguably precautions to avoid misleading one's audience are a moral necessity. Nonetheless, risible mistatements routinely make it to air on this show. -- Nunh-huh 21:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everything in history is not complete; that's why there are historians! Why was JFK killed off?? When did Jesse James really die?? Where is that Holy Grail?? What really were the Phoenix lights?? And on and on and on... --Merovingian ↕ Talk 03:55, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, there is a lot of stuff I hear on the radio that I wouldn't bet a nickel on. It's stuff that's nothing near the (dis)provability of "The Rest of the Story." --Merovingian ↕ Talk 06:49, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Paul Harvey routinely peddles recycled disproven urban legends as true. A warning is in order. - Nunh-huh 07:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I quote from Amazon.com, from the book's jacket: eighty-two astonishing true stories of the famous and infamous, the outrageous and the unknown. Now you tell me, why would a book's jacket be entirely dishonest about its contents? --Merovingian ↕ Talk 14:19, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

To sell books? - Nunh-huh 21:17, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

People wouldn't like the books if they found out they were being lied to. So why would a liar sell so many books? --Merovingian ↕ Talk 03:55, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Because he appeals to a certain ... shall we say conservative? ... audience which likes their messages cut and dried without any questionable things like truth included. RickK | Talk 04:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dishonest book jackets are routinely used to sell books, and radio shows present anecdotes in exaggerated or improved forms to boost listenership. This show is particularly egregious in that regard, and frequently misinforms its listeners. -- Nunh-huh 04:03, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

This conversation is, in effect, going nowhere. Nunh-huh, what do you propose I do to neutralize accurately represent the article and its subject matter? I would appreciate if you could give me a version you preferred, and we could go from there. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 08:44, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't propose you do anything. You're the one who doesn't feel it's neutral. - Nunh-huh 08:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with NH. I think his additions are perfectly acceptable and NPOV. RickK | Talk 15:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is this version OK? --Merovingian ↕ Talk 05:24, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me. The only change from the version you reverted seems to be the removal of an "its". - Nunh-huh 05:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you show me where? --Merovingian ↕ Talk 09:08, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

The missing its? It makes a cameo appearance in this difference - Nunh-huh 09:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(BTW, compare Wikipedia's Lord Cornbury with the completely credulous treatment given in Harvey's book... ) -- Nunh-huh 09:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll abstain; this argument conversion is over. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 09:26, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)