Talk:Bill Moyers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is part of WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to The University of Texas at Austin, the people, history, and sports teams of the University, and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

UT Portal

Contents 1 Education, etc 2 Anti-Moyers? 3 POV 4 Reverted Page 5 Birthday 6 Image Copyright? 7 Link not working properly 8 The term "left-wing" is pejorative--try "progressive" 9 Liberal 10 Modifications by 24.130.117.205 11 minor date issue 12 Anti-Moyers bias typical of right-wing liberal hatred 13 FAIR 14 Political Commentary vs Criticism 15 Weasel Words 15.1 My Points, which you have not addressed 16 Gerkinstock revert 17 Citations Needed 18 Recommended Changes and Possible Compromise 19 father of negative political TV ads - POV 20 Moyers personal names 21 Bill Moyers for President Section 22 Discover the networks

[edit] Education, etc

I came to this page looking for his education, degrees, etc. I'm surprised that it lacks the typical biographical information. Or is that too controversial?  ;-) -- Mulp 19:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I've added two links with his own personal retrospective and have added to his education in rough and incomplete form. If a biographical wikitekii can do some template magic, I'll try to get back and fill in the detail in the near future (like I promised on some other articles, grrr too little time). --Mulp 20:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] POV

I don't believe the criticism section has the tone or sound of an encyclopedia. It would appear that the only noteworthy thing about Moyers is his politial views. Of course my second statement is actually true from the standpoint of adults who would be doing a search for Moyers - if not for his criticism, would anyone know who he is at all? That said, I think Google is a better venue for locating that kind of info, and wiki should be more historical/biographical in my opinion. I would reduce the criticism section to links as well - it wouldn't (the wiki page) be nearly as controversial in that case, and the criticism would not appear to outsize the bio.

[edit] Reverted Page

I just reverted the page to the Apr 8 version. An anonymous person had added "Moyers has lately been accused of fanatic liberalism as his independance has recently come into question." If this is true, fine, include it, but you need to back it up. Who made the accusation? Why? When? His independence from what has been called into question? Without any supporting evidence it just sounds like slander. The term "fanatic liberal" may have some NPOV problems as well... --Osbojos 21:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

This page is linked to from June 5 as well as June 6, both of which list those days as his birthday. Does anyone know for sure which it is? I've seen it listed as both all over the Internet.

--Gjking

He was born June 5, 1934. (By the way, the most famous June 5/6 confusion is, sadly, the assassination of RFK. He was shot on June 5 and died on June 6. When the assassination happened, Bill Moyers went to Bobby Kennedy's headquarters in NY or DC -- I'm not sure which -- and said, "I'll do anything -- make coffee, anything...")

[edit] Image Copyright?

What's the copyright status of the recently-added Bill Moyers image? The user who added the image has very few edits and may be unaware of the copyright policy. --Osbojos 20:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note:I found a public domain image Dec 27, 2005 --Osbojos 23:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link not working properly

The first external link, Marshall News Messenger - http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/ - does not work properly so I will remove it.

[edit] The term "left-wing" is pejorative--try "progressive"

I object to the use of the term "left-wing" to describe Bill Moyers. He was born a Southern Baptist and is still, by all accounts, a devout and conservative Christian. He worked for Lyndon Johnson, who was a moderate to conservative Democrat, selected as VP to balance the liberal views of J. F. Kennedy. As Johnson's press secretary, Moyers took a lot of heat from liberals for the Vietnam war policy. As a television journalist, he has often explored issues from a populist point of view, but that does not make him "left-wing" in the usual sense of espousing larger, more centralized government. I think "progressive" would describe him more fairly. Let's keep polarizing terms like "left-wing" out of Wikipedia! --WLH

"Progressive" implies progress. A2Kafir 02:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal

WLH, I agree with you re the term "liberal" having been turned into a pejorative (apparently for political reasons) which was why I added the qualification indicating it was so "by US standards". Politics aside, I would like to see Wikipedia carrying an international flavour and perspective - avoiding any national overlays. Because of its cultural/economic dominance this cccurs most frequently from a U.S. perspective.

cariboo 02:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Modifications by 24.130.117.205

This IP seems to keep editing the article with nonNPOV statements about Moyers' journalistic activities as well as adding lots of links to anti-moyer articles. I think the second is okay as Moyers is a somewhat controversial figure, but if articles are being linked there should be a balance between pro and anti Moyers opinion peices. Tombride 19:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted a revert (a wikipedia first for me), and actually find myself in the awkward position of defending ip 24.130.117.205. I disagree with ip 67.40.0.28 that his last edit constituted vandalism. The Moyers quotes 24.130.117.205 provides seem accurate, and providing quotes where Moyers presents an admittedly "left-wing" perspective seems better than his previous edits, which consisted mostly of hearsay and name calling. I suggest that instead of deleting his comments someone provides a bit of balance by expanding on some of Moyers less controversial accomplishments. I'd be happy to do some of this myself, but I want to make sure there's a consensus that 24.130.117.205's most recent edit is appropriate and relatively npov. A problem I can see with my suggestion, however, is that this article could turn from focusing on Moyers to a lengthy series of attacks and defenses of Moyers' credibility. What do others think? --Osbojos 21:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is 24.130.117.205. There are links provided where Bill Moyers speaks for himself and the NOW link comes from his (and now David Brancaccio's) view of what the show offers its viewers. I don't see how providing exact quotes from Moyers' is in any way inappropriate. Nearly every conservative commentator has criticized Moyers for promoting his personal ideology at taxpayer expense, while railing against those on the Right who do so free of charge to the taxpayer. FAIR is as clearly a left-wing group as Accuracy in Media is a right-wing one. All the attendees at Take Back America were left of center. I certainly wouldn't erase any links providing pro-Moyers commentary. John Stossel's page includes a link to FAIR's criticism of him (FAIR only criticizes non-liberal journalists, as AIM only criticizes non-conservative ones), and he's far less conservative than Moyers is liberal. David Horowitz's page is filled with anti-Horowitz links, and don't intend to erase any of them. --Cryptico 19 June 2005

[edit] minor date issue

Not a huge deal, but the article says Bill Moyers was Press Secretary from 1965–1967. The box at the bottom, though, as well as the White_House_Press_Secretary page have his term as 1965–1966. I don't know which is correct, but I thought I should bring it up.

Bill Moyers was press secretary from July 1965 to February 1967.

[edit] Anti-Moyers bias typical of right-wing liberal hatred

This page is typical of many other Wikipedia articles on liberal politicians and journalists. The old saying goes that the victors write the (revisionist) history, and this is precisely what is happening. The entry on Lyndon Johnson is enough to turn your stomach, and it, as well as this entry, is enough for me to conclude that Wikipedia is basically worthless as a source of unbiased historical information.

What the hell are you yapping about? Bill Moyers is a liberal activist who has tried to masquerade as an unbiased journalist for decades now, but there is quote after quote after quote that show him to be nothing more than a left-wing hack, no different from right-wingers he berates on a regular basis (except that those right-wingers are honest enough to call themselves conservatives, and they don't bilk the taxpayers to subsidize their shows). His alliance with FAIR, Al Franken, Eric Alterman, Take Back America and numerous other left-wing organizations is proof enough that he is no journalist. Name one quote or piece of information on this page that is untrue.

If Moyers has ever done anything worthy of being called "objective journalism," then stop whining like a sissy and add something about it to this page. Maybe conservatives are just better readers and writers and are just all-around more computer literate... otherwise, how to explain your contention that right-wingers control things at this site?

Anyone who is concerned about a coup in America after a close election is either a) a crazy conspiracy theorist who barely lives up to the journalistic standards of blogs, let alone NPR or b) trying to stoke the partisan fires. Which do you think Moyers was trying to do? He's not stupid or crazy, just biased. It's clear from even a basic sampling of his work. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his views, or that he's any more or less biased than, say, Bill O'Reilly, but he's clearly more of a liberal commentator than an objective journalist. To argue otherwise is to deny the facts. The problem we have here is in assuming that labelling him a liberal commentator automatically invalidates his decades of work or career in journalism. It doesn't - it is just a new, and probably more accurate, way of looking at his work.--Xinoph 03:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is outrageous that the entry for the most honored person in broadcast journalism should including not a single one of his honors, but only a long "Criticism" section (much of it hearsay.)

from the article: "Best known for his work as a journalist, Moyers has been awarded over thirty Emmys and virtually every other major television journalism prize, including a gold baton from the Dupont Journalism awards and a lifetime Peabody award. He is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters and has been the recipient of numerous honorary university degrees." Further, none of the remaining criticism is hearsay, google those quotes. I've removed the Silberman allegations, which certainly were hearsay, but the remaining criticism is a pretty accurate summary of his beliefs, and personally, I don't even think it makes him look bad. Read interviews with Moyers, he's not shy about being a progressive. Also, you can sign your comments by hitting the button that looks like a scribble at the top of the edit box, it makes it easier to tell who's talking to whom. Also, go look at your talk page, I've explained why I've reverted your edits there. --Osbojos 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAIR

FAIR is clearly a "liberal" group; it describes itself as "progressive" on its website (a popular euphemism for liberal, if technically inaccurate) and produces liberal shows and writing to balance what it sees as a "conservative bias" in the mainstream media. FAIR does not come within striking distance of, say, Wikipedia's own NPOV policy. If I wrote articles from the viewpoint that FAIR produced media, then claimed to be objective, all my edits would get a "not-NPOV" tag. --Xinoph 03:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

-sigh- If it's technically inaccurate, it is inaccurate.

Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive

Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv

Function: adjective

1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression

3 : moving forward or onward : ADVANCING

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al

Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free

1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS

4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>

5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

The two are different, even if they often share common goals.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

The two are different, even if they often share common goals.

That is obvious bullshit. In politics, progressive means liberal-- nothing else. But, I'm sure your spin would be appreciated by Dan Rather, Bryant Gumbel, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, The Boston Globe, Ted Turner, et al. -- Gerkinstock 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If progressive simply meant liberal, then the dictionary entry would say "see liberal". Or vice versa. Positively amazing that I can list entries from a dictionary and have it called spin. I applaud you. To put it another way, a square is a rectangle but a square is not a rectangle. We must understand potential differences even as we identify similarities. Overgeneralizing does not cut it.

Even if "progressives" and "liberals" unite on certain goals, making them politically similar or even approaching politically identical..... "liberal" means broadminded while "progressive" concerns itself with progress and new ideas. Did you even read my post?

I could be interested in the progress of my stock portfolio and new ideas concerning how to invest that stock portfolio but that in no way requires me to be broadminded in the sense that liberal indicates.

In practice, the two often coincide, but it is not specifically required by the definition of the words. I understand that the progressives you obviously refer to are probably in favor of liberal progress, etc..

My point before: if it says progressive, just say progressive. If their definition of progress and new ideas are open-minded in nature, then you could call them progressive AND liberal. We have to be careful with words, as evidenced with this whole conversation.

You perhaps assumed that I was saying they are *completely* different. That is not so, if you read what I typed. Going too far the other way is incorrect as well.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

"Liberal," in political terms, does not mean "broadminded." There is nothing that objectively shows, for example, that opposing the killing of human life when it's capital punishment is "broadminded" while opposing the killing of human life when it's abortion is "closeminded." Or that supporting the racial discrimination that liberals support is "broadminded," or that supporting a failed welfare system is "broadminded," while changing it is "closeminded" (as the Republicans did in 1994).

In politics, there is NO difference between "progressive" and "liberal." That there are meanings to those words that have nothing to do with politics is irrelevent. Newt Gingrich and the Republicans called for more change in government in 1994 than the Democrats have in 30 years. In fact, the Democrats were the ones supporting the status quo back then. I never saw Newt Gingrich described as "progressive," ever, simply because right-wing positions are never described as "progressive"-- only left-wing ones are.

You would make a good P.R. guy for Moyers, who likes to pretend he's an unbiased journalist while anyone right of Noam Chomsky is part of the "right-wing media machine." The quotes provided show his immense bias. To say that "progressive" is not the same thing as "liberal" is a flat-out lie. A rose by any other name is still a rose. If Newt Gingrich calls himself a duck, should Wikipedia follow suit? If McDonalds describes its offerings as "health food," should Wikipedia follow suit? If Bill Maher calls himself an expert geologist, should Wikipedia follow suit?

You say you are in search of truth. I hope one day you find it, and it nips you right on the butt.

P.S. -- A few critics who have called Moyers on his bias include Bernard Goldberg, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, George Will, John Stossel and Cal Thomas -- Gerkinstock 01:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

-sigh- For the sake of argument, I will attempt to answer the myriad of little claims you have put forth.

In politics, there is NO difference between "progressive" and "liberal."

Objectively speaking, progressives appears to refer to a sub-division of liberal that specifically concerns itself with social, economic, and environmental justice and sustainability. I think you can make a case that they may operationally be similar. But writing them off aa synonyms appears to be at least partially inaccurate. I'll grant you that progressives appear to be liberal, but not all liberals appear to be specifically focused on "progressive issues".

Newt Gingrich and the Republicans ........simply because right-wing positions are never described as "progressive"-- only left-wing ones are."

The last time I checked, we were debating the differences and similarities between progressive and liberal. Instead, you are describing Republican stances and views.

You would make a good P.R. guy for Moyers, who likes to pretend he's an unbiased journalist while anyone right of Noam Chomsky is part of the "right-wing media machine."

WP:NPA Can I get a witness? lol.

If Newt Gingrich calls himself a duck, should Wikipedia follow suit? If McDonalds describes its offerings as "health food," should Wikipedia follow suit? If Bill Maher calls himself an expert geologist, should Wikipedia follow suit?

If by "should Wikipedia follow suit," you mean "Should we depict statements made by McDonalds, Gingrich, or Maher"....... do I even have to respond? If any of those parties released such statements, they could be depicted on Wikipedia. Of course, mere depiction of even ridiculous statements such as your examples does not somehow lend truth to them and anyone who represented them as truth just because they were declared, would be going too far. But if they were made, they could be shown.

You say you are in search of truth. I hope one day you find it, and it nips you right on the butt

I think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. WP:WQT, WP:AGF. 'nuff said.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 07:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Political Commentary vs Criticism

Political commentary was rolled into criticism, which was a mistake, as it was done. (When I say the criticism follows the man's record, I mean: "lay out his record first, then the criticism".)

Political commentary of Bill Moyers was merely collected and cited, in of itself, and then dumped into the criticism section. The commentary in question, while potentially relevant to criticism, was not even cited/referred to by the critics and their criticism listed in the Criticism section.

Thus, a Wikipedian saw fit to represent commentary of Bill Moyers as criticism of the man. Very sloppy.

Last time I checked, Wikipedians are not supposed to formally author criticism sections (WP:NOR). They are to supply content representing criticism other critics have.

As it is, the criticism content (that is, the words of a critic) that was submitted, doesn't even have a source! The source that was listed did not have the content in question within it. So while a Criticism section may have relevance, leaving the little bit there that I did was being kind. The section has merit, it just needs to be expanded.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

I've asked for a 3rd Opinion WP:3O & submitted a Wikiquette alert WP:WQA regarding our interactions so far on this page. (Antelope In Search Of Truth 09:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Antelope, I agree the criticism needs to come from verifiable sources. I spotted the request for a third opinion and will see if I can lend a hand. I'm in the process of reading the talk page to get a better understanding of what is going on. Davidpdx 12:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

"Some critics" is incomplete. If there are critics, simply list them when you list the criticism. Saying "some critics" think "x" is not responsible when you are listing criticism of a single critic.

If more than one critic agree, fine...... there should be a subsection within criticism for the Issue being Criticized and then those criticisms can be listed under that subsection.

But when you say some critics and deliver only one or are unclear about who the actual critic(s) is/are, that is inaccurate.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 22:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

My quotes are 100% accurate, they show his political bias, and I added several names and links. You are not "kind" in the least, you are Bill Moyers' #1 fan at this site. But erasing facts you don't like is not journalism, it is propaganda. If you don't think this page accurately portrays what you consider to be his positive attributes, please add to it, rather than erasing everything about him you find embarrassing. -- Gerkinstock 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your quotes? The last time I checked, they were his quotes. Besides which, no one was debating their accuracy. No offense, but can you read? At this point, I really don't care about Moyer's views and I find your anger humorous.

"If you don't think this page accurately portrays what you consider to be his positive attributes, please add to it, rather than erasing everything about him you find embarrassing."

Such comments do not address the inaccuracies you are adding or the slanted way you are organizing the information. If you would back off of pushing inaccurate edits, I would have time to flesh out the points of criticism that are actually present in one or more of the sources you've tried to cite. I was not erasing any content.

I was placing his words in another section because they don't belong in a section about criticism unless he is criticizing himself or unless a critic is citing those words while criticizing him. If a critic has some criticism, by all means, put it in the section. But YOU placing HIS words to support a critic's point who does not actually cite those words, is misrepresenting the critic's point. If that critic did not support his point, it does not fall on YOU to represent it properly.

We report it, we don't do it for them. If the source does not say it, we are not the ones to interpret it or read between the lines.

Furthermore, all those links you added all had criticisms that could be listed, but you failed to flesh any of them out. I'll do what I can with the solitary argument of criticism that has been left out there without it's premises. Until I can find the critic that made the argument, "Bill Moyer's donor ties to FAIR renders him a liberal commentator, rather than an objective reporter," that sub-section looks like original research ( WP:NOR ).

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

What is wrong with you, anyway? Why do you think you're so immeasurably important? You criticized me for not including sources for those who criticize him for having a liberal bias, then when I provide them, like a spoiled child you erase them. I changed the wording so that it makes clear that the critcisms don't deal with his association with FAIR. And by "my quotes" I meant the ones I added here.

I agree, nuff said by you. Please leave Wikipedia until you're able to able to accept that not all people worship at the altar of Bill Moyers, as you apparently do. You have absolutely nothing to do with truth whatsover, you act as if you work for the man. Please take your nonsense elsewhere. You flat out lie and say that "progressive" and "liberal" have two different meanings, which is like saying "conservative" and "right-wing" have two different meanings; some "right-wingers" are liberal, some are conservative, some are middle of the road. His words belong on the page because there are PLENTY of pages at Wikipedia that include quotes, especially those that showcase the person's POV, and his quotes show his liberal/progressive/Antelopean bias.

Yes, I can read. Can you tell the truth? Bill Moyers calls himself "progressive" NOT because "progressives" is a word distinct from "liberal" in the political vernacular or because it is some sort of subdivision of liberalism. He calls himself a "progressive" because many Americans associate "liberalism" with immense failures of his former boss, Pres. Lyndon Johnson.

If Bill Maher calls himself a "libertarian," that in no way means that Wikipedia must accept him as libertarian, esp. if he holds non-libertarian views. Just because Moyers runs away from the label of "liberal" doesn't mean he is not a liberal. Fox News Channel doesn't like being called a "conservative" news channel, but much of the media insist on labeling it as such, and Wikipedia's FNC has a section dealing with liberal accusations of FNC's conservative bias. That is relevent, as are the numerous conservative critics acknowledging Bill Moyers as a liberal commentator rather than objective journalist are relevent. Charen calls him a "preacher in the Church of Unreconstructed Liberalism" and Bill O'Reilly describes him as a "committed progressive who dances with the far left" (left = liberal = progressive) and George Will describes him as "an intellectual icon in the sort of deep blue precincts that think red America is paranoid" (blue = pro-Democrat = pro-liberal) and Brent Bozell's columns give examples of Moyers' liberal bias.

Why don't go buy some cookies and edit Barney's page, or maybe Kermit the Frog's page?

"You flat out lie and say that "progressive" and "liberal" have two different meanings,"

I already answered this above at the end of the FAIR discussion [[1]]: "I'll grant you that progressives appear to be liberal, but not all liberals appear to be specifically focused on economic, and environmental justice and sustainability." Keyword there = "specifically". I was NOT saying they are completely different (which we agree, would be inaccurate), but that they have some differences. It seems like it's all black and white with you. I hope this is not the case.

By way of example, take trees. There are many different kinds of trees. But to say, "a tree is a tree is a tree" is not the whole story. Sure, there are common characteristics, but Weeping Willows have differences from Fir Trees, even as they share commonalities. It is the specific focus of progressives, that is the difference, however small, in this case. Even if, in reality, this difference is stated, not actual, the fact that they have stated a specific focus different from other liberals, at the very least, constitutes a difference.

If we applied your logic to "the right", someone could then conclude that all Republicans = Religious right = Log Cabin Republicans. It's all the same. And yet if you click on the links, there are obvious differences that can be noted.

But fear not! If "progressive" and "liberal" really are the same, then the record regarding what they advocate, will show this. It is not our job to show this by slanting the language. By glossing over all of it and declaring that, "whatever they say, progressive is liberal", etc., you appear to be saying, "liberals and progressives advocate the exact same things, even if they appear to say otherwise". But Wikipedia is in the business of recording information. If you are purposefully ignoring information just because you don't think it is true, this renders you un-objective and therefore, prone to breaking WP:NPOV.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] My Points, which you have not addressed

"You criticized me for not including sources for those who criticize him for having a liberal bias, then when I provide them, like a spoiled child you erase them."

Point #1: The argument of criticism being depicted was that Moyer has ties to FAIR and that these connections have led critics to accuse him of being a liberal commentator, not an objective reporter. NONE of the sources you listed even mention FAIR. End of story.

Point #2: Interviews by Moyer were being tossed into the Criticism section to support the criticism. UNLESS such critics formally refer to content from those interviews, that content does not belong in the criticism section, unless by some chance, Moyers is criticizing himself. So far neither one of those things appears to be the case, so the commentary in question by Moyers does not belong there. End of story.

When you are the one gathering the data and making all the connections, instead of the critics, you are committing Original research.

"If Bill Maher calls himself a "libertarian," that in no way means that Wikipedia must accept him as libertarian, esp. if he holds non-libertarian views. Just because Moyers runs away from the label of "liberal" doesn't mean he is not a liberal."

Point #3: As Wikipedians, if someone declared Moyers, "liberal", all we do is depict that so and so called him a liberal. If they supplied reasons why, we supply those reasons. We do not, as your language implies, ASSUME or JUDGE the truth for ourselves. Whenever possible, we do NOT use language that implies assumption of truth. WP:NPOV !!

Depicting a claim made by Bill Maher that he is a libertarian, in no way means Wikipedians are accepting the truth of such a claim. We merely present that claim and any evidence HE brings up to support it. We need to be able to see the difference between objective depiction of a claim made by someone and the acceptance or judgement of truth for that claim.

I do not care if there is criticism here about "the man" that I supposedly work for. But criticism depicted will say what it says and nothing more.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Gerkinstock revert

Gerkinstock, please do not revert Antelope In Search Of Truth's edits until consensus has been agreed and issues have been addressed. Reasoning that Antelope In Search Of Truth "must work for Bill Moyer" is not justification for removing edits, please assume Assume good faith and continue mediation process--Zleitzen 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When a consensus is reached, fine. But Antelope was the one who came in here and did all the editing (check the recent history of this page). It is his edits that should be placed aside until a consensus is met. As for my comment, I assure you it was meant as sarcasm only. -- Gerkinstock 16:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that your comments above such as "What is wrong with you, anyway?" and "Why don't go buy some cookies and edit Barney's page, or maybe Kermit the Frog's page" are attempts to address the edits or reach consensus. I would suggest that you keep to discussing the particular edits here. Breaching Wikipedia Etiquette WP:WQT will only lead to a block or ban. --Zleitzen 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But Antelope questioning my reading skills is a genuine attempt to reach "consensus" and "address edits." -- Gerkinstock 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When you read my posts, yet continually fail to address the issues I'm raising..... I would not question your ability to read, so much as your ability to comprehend what I am saying.

What am I to think when the only responses I receive are laced with frustration and anger? What we have here is a failure to communicate.  ;)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

I provided citations for the various quotes and critiques and changed some of the wording. All those "citations required" labels were there to make all the critiques of Moyers look bad, as none were added (before now) to the positive things. Here is another example of Moyers' anti-conservative bias: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript351_full.html BTW, the quote I added was from a Take Back America conference-- an anti-Republican, pro-liberal group. -- Gerkinstock 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that both editors involved in this conflict temporarily avoid editing or reverting the article while there is a mediation / request for comment in process. --Zleitzen 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"I would recommend that both editors involved in this conflict......(etc., etc.)"

lol. I go along with that as long as he does.

"I provided citations for the various quotes and critiques and changed some of the wording."

The wording there still depicted a specific claim (Moyer's ties to FAIR have led critics to call him a liberal commentator, rather than an objective reporter), that was not being made by the critics in question. Don't get me wrong, those critics did have claims, just not the particular claim that was being depicted.

"All those "citations required" labels were there to make all the critiques of Moyers look bad, as none were added (before now) to the positive things."

First off, if you check one of the earliest edits I did on this page, I did, in fact, add "citation required" labels to his commentary, which I will refrain to referring to as "the positive stuff". For gods sake, let the readers sort out judgement for the content.

Secondly, those labels were placed next to statements which did not appear to have basis in the sources that were provided. NONE of them mentioned FAIR or Moyer's ties with FAIR. That's important when depicting that those ties are why critics think whatever.

"Here is another example of Moyers'....."

We are not understanding one another. Look, if a critic has criticism, it goes in the criticism section. If Moyers says something, it goes in part of HIS section. If something Moyers says is refered to by a critic who is making a point, it goes in the criticism. We do not just dump something Moyers says into the criticism section because it supports a critic's point. That's verging upon Original research.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Citations Needed

Gerkinstock's recently added "citations needed" links are inappropriate and motivated purely out of anger that he's being asked to find citations for the more contentious assertions in the criticism section. For uncontroversial common knowledge, citations are unnecessary, see WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources --Osbojos 00:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't pretend those endless "citation needed" labels put next to every quote I added were not put there for the exact same reason. Those quotes had been all over the Internet and referenced in innumberable commentaries over the last year-and-a-half. There was nothing "controversial" about the quotes I added; just look at earlier posts on this page made after I first added them (as "Cryptico"). It had long ago been accepted that they were legitimate quotes, until Antelope came here and started shaking things up. -- Gerkinstock 15:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Osbojos.... and Zleitzen for cleaning things up. "WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources"..... :)

The rephrasing of the "FAIR" criticism, referenced by the Tomlinson commissioned study, is the type of solution I was looking for (i.e., a line of criticism with argument and premises all from a critic, not an editor). I would have done it myself but I had to leave for the day. Besides, it was getting so that anything I touched would have been reverted because of my "employment by Bill Moyers".  ;)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Just please don't try to make the ridiculous assertion that "progressive" and "liberal" aren't the same thing in American political jargon again. Those are the kinds of fallacies that allow me to question your "objectivity" here. POV is one thing, but lies are something else entirely. It would be no different to say "right-wing" and "conservative" have different meanings, even though the terms "Christian right" and "Christian conservative" are used interchangably. -- Gerkinstock 15:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any issues with the article in it's present state, Gerkinstock? --Zleitzen 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

At some point I will probably add to the "Criticism" section (which needs to cleaned up a bit, grammar-wise) a mention of his support for Take Back America, a left-wing political group. Otherwise, no, I don't have any issues with it. -- Gerkinstock 15:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended Changes and Possible Compromise

I think this article is good overall. I've taken some time to read over the article and the talk page. It sounds like the disagreement is over the criticism section of the article.

There has been a lot of discussion as to what is "liberal" what is "progressive" etc. I think that conversation is not helpful. Neither of you are going to agree on this. You can sit and argue about that until your both blue in the face, but I don't think it will get you anywhere.

I'm going to put out there right now what my bias is, which I am a liberal. I won't hide it. But at the same time I have written many articles on conservative politicans in Oregon. Your more the welcome to look at my user page and scroll down and look at the list of articles I've worked on. I may not agree with what some of these people say, but I try my best to keep the article NPOV.

That said, I can see two problems with the criticism section.

1) This line needs to be changed slightly to be more objective:

"Moyers' frequent criticism of conservatives and conservatism has led conservative critics to label him a liberal commentator rather than an objective journalist."

Instead I propose that it read, "Moyers' frequent criticism of conservative and conservatism has led conservative critics such as Brent Bozell to label him a liberal commentator rather then an objective journalist." (Note: Brent Bozell has an article so his name would be linked. Also the link to the article Mr. Bozell wrote should be in the notes section as well.)

2) This line needs something added to make it more apparent why it is in the article:

"He has also been involved with the group Take Back America, an organization that seeks to help elect liberal political candidates." (Note: the link to Take Back America should lead to an internal article with in Wikipedia, not an external website. If you want the website linked, then it should be added to the "External Links" section.)

I think it also need to be brought up how he is linked to Take Back America. This is important for the reader to understand the possible conflict of interest.

Lastly, if there is something that you would like to add then lets look at it and analyze why it should be added to the article. Remember, the article needs to try to maintain balance and stay NPOV. If there are too many things pro or con it puts the balance of the article out of wack.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you'd like. Davidpdx 12:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you are going to agree on this.

Actually you're a little late. lol. We already settled that bit, though I think that was back on our own talk pages. Besides which, since Moyers identifies as "progressive," it was a minor issue of sorts.

Reasonable points though. I'll reword that sentence; clarifying it and also making it more readable while trying to keep the same meaning. Feedback is great.  :)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

I see! I'm glad you two were able to do that. Davidpdx 17:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] father of negative political TV ads - POV

Calling Moyers "the father of negative political TV ads" is POV language, is inaccurate, and even if it were accurrate, has no business being in the first line of the article because it's not something Moyers is primarily known for. Tricityjdw's edit would have "advisor to Democrats, liberal activist, father of negative political TV ads" listed before "journalist" and "public commentator". That's like saying Mark Twain was an avid stamp collector, enjoyed blueberry pie, and also wrote some books. Further, the link you provide as a reference doesn't identify him as "the father of negative political TV ads" it merely states that he created negative ads to run against Goldwater. If this information can be verified, then it belongs under criticism, not in the lead. --Osbojos 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate Bill Moyers. In my opinion, his great work (like interviewing and subsequently co-authoring a fantastic book with Joseph Campbell) is more than outweighed by the unbelievable bias contained in the self-produced taxpayer supported propaganda he's used to enrich himself. That notwithstanding, I am in complete agreement with your statement regarding his being the so-called "father of negative political ads". It's POV, needs to verified for it to even be in the article, and even then shouldn't be in the lead as it was. Lawyer2b 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moyers personal names

After some research I have found confirmation of Mr. Moyers birth name in his bios on the websites of both the LBJ Presidential Library and the Biography Channel as well as numerous less prestigious sources. I also found confirmation that he had his name legally changed later, only indicated the name Bill in the change. I could find no confirmation that his legal name change was William Daniel—however that does not mean that it was not changed to that. If a source can be found supporting that his legal name was changed to William Daniel, why not change the lead to: William Daniel Moyers, born Billy Don Moyers. If a source cannot be found for William Daniel, change the name to Bill Moyers, born Billy Don Moyers, since we know that he now goes by Bill Moyers and that his birth name was Billy Don Moyers. -JCarriker 11:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who originally put in the William Daniel Moyers name, and I used this site as a reference. Searching Google, there is little else that supports "William Daniel," and if new evidence has confirmed he was actually born Billy Don, then we should use that. PBP 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Moyers for President Section

Does this really merit an entire section? A few people have written articles urging him to run that were published in small media outlets barely known outside of the progressive community, and I don't think Moyers has made any public comments even entertaining the idea. This perhaps bears mentioning, MAYBE even it's own section, but I think this is too much information and gives the article an adulatory tone. (For the record, I also think the criticism section has gone overboard). --Osbojos 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discover the networks

Discoverthenetworks is not a reliable source. It lacks editorial oversight, and is not regularly cited or cooberated by other sources. I suggest an alternative source for any important information that came from discoverthenetworks be found. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You get this information from? --NuclearZer0 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the source and found it wanting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me where it says DTN has no editorial oversight please. --NuclearZer0 17:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature)." Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on your source. --NuclearZer0 18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They don't have a published editorial policy, do they? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without", not that one without has no reliability. Again can I please see your source. --NuclearZer0 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I found two different sources for the 'coup' comment; I hope you accept George Will and Ed Koch as reliable. Zsero 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like DTN is a new aggregator. I expect that most of the comments they have there can be tracked back to their original source. This may not always be easy, and may require a college student with Lexis/Nexis rather than a simple google search, but it should be dooable. Thatcher131 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)