Talk:Bill Moyers/Archive 6

David Limbaugh and Bush Derangement Syndrome

Now as I said above, I am getting older and I do miss some things and ask for tolerance from younger editors, but it appears to me that Moyers is not even mentioned in the Bush Derangement Syndrome section of Limbaugh's book. I therefore removed the sentence. Can anyone confirm? ► RATEL ◄ 23:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not sure, please discuss and then delete, rather than edit-war first. It is mentioned in the chapter. Limbaugh gives a list of over-the-top anti-Bush statements including Moyers's (230-232), and then wraps it up with Krauthammer's neologism (233). THF (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The real edit war here is the fact that it keeps getting reinserted when you don't have consensus for inclusion. Does a passing mention on a list from a book by a [redacted] author from a [redacted] publisher really merit being included in an encyclopedia article? You never told me what George Will had to say about it. Perhaps his comments would be more suited for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the cite to the book I've provided is the only secondary source in the section, which currently violates WP:PRIMARY, and given that you have yet to provide any policy reason for excluding the book, I fail to see what you're contributing to the discussion. THF (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. 1) your source is not the only secondary source in the section, look again and 2) your linking of the Moyers section in Limbaugh's polemic to the separate section on BDS is a classic example of wp:SYN. ► RATEL ◄ 09:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what WP:SYN is. SYN is when you say something the source doesn't say. I summarized something the source did say. QED. My secondary source is the most notable secondary source in the section: you've added blogs, I (tried to) add a best-selling book. THF (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, best-seller status doesn't automatically make something into an RS. And when you connect two separate sections of a book to make your own "summary", you are indeed engaging in a SYNTH violation. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your RS objection was addressed above, and you never responded to it; I'm not getting into another goose chase with you. [WP:CIVIL violation removed] I did not violate SYNTH and fairly summarized what Limbaugh said. Let's get an independent editor to evaluate it. THF (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did, and posted my response immediately below your comment there. Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good, you acknowledge RS. So why do you raise it again after conceding that Limbaugh is a RS for the proposition of the sentence? Perhaps you mean NPOV? But NPOV says we include all notable points of view--and it's quite clear that the most notable secondary source on Moyers's speech is not the little-read blog that is currently cited, but the best-selling book that talked about it. We have four paragraphs of WP:PRIMARY material bashing Rove (why is Moyers a RS on that BLP? he's clearly less mainstream than the best-selling Limbaugh), and one sentence of balance. If there's UNDUE there, it's not because we have the one sentence of balance. THF (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For the two editors who are implausibly claiming that Limbaugh sentence is SYNTH: what is your proposed alternative language to fairly summarize a chapter where Limbaugh defines BDS and gives Moyers's speech as an example of it? THF (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not SYN. It's a BLP violation because of the content (see Bush Derangement Syndrome), the source (a single person's opinion), and the lack of independent, reliable sources demonstrating that this opinion is worthy of note. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that it's not SYN. It's in a best-selling book by a notable author: it's therefore worthy of note. Why is the blog commentary on the speech acceptable, but not the best-selling book's commentary not? NPOV says otherwise: we don't get to include the non-notable praise while excluding the notable criticism.

In the alternative, we can all agree that the speech is a relatively non-notable event in Moyers's life, and delete the five paragraphs currently devoted to it in the article. THF (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"It's in a best-selling book by a notable author: it's therefore worthy of note. " Sorry, no it's not. See WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.

"Why is the blog commentary on the speech acceptable" It may be, it may not be. This specific discussion isn't about the speech. There's no quid pro quo here, especially where BLP issues are concerned. Start another section on the speech if it's needed. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is not a "quid pro quo." NPOV requires balance: it is not the case that only praise is included in a BLP; it's stated very clearly that opinion is the source's opinion. Al Franken is in Rush Limbaugh's BLP; plenty of criticism of Bill O'Reilly is in his BLP. There already is a talk-page discussion on the speech, supra. THF (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll further note that the notable Charles Krauthammer[1] accused Moyers of Bush Derangement Syndrome in his Washington Post column.

Then use Krauthammer as a source for the article instead of Limbaugh if his comments are about that particular speech. But it doesn't "validate" the Limabugh source or make it any more appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it per BLP, NPOV, SOAP, and COAT. This is getting tiresome. Pointing out that other stuff exists does not address the concerns in my 21:47, 16 Feb comment. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, we don't include unfounded diagnoses of mental illness. Even made-up mental illnesses. And we don't depend on columnists for medical diagnoses. Guettarda (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text for Moyers and MLK

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

--Drrll (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it per BLP. Looks like cherry-picking of specific information out of context in order to attack Moyers. Find some additional sources. Demonstrate that this belongs in a biography of Moyers. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What specific parts of BLP policy does it violate--quotes please? I took the proposed text to the WP:BLPN twice and both times no one found the material objectionable enough to comment on it. I have had the two proposed text sections on this Talk page for almost two months. I have additional sources, but they are opinion sources. They could be added, but I thought a scholarly book about LBJ and MLK & a book by a prominent journalist were superior sources. I don't believe that I have taken anything out of context. Judge for yourself:

• "Lyndon Johnson, acting through Moyers, had now unambiguously given J. Edgar Hoover a green light to discredit King--so long as he did so quietly rather than in public proclamations." (Kotz, p. 234)
• "His part in Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover's bugging of Martin Luther King's private life, the leaks to the press and diplomatic corps, the surveillance of civil rights groups at the 1964 Democratic convention, and his request for damaging information from Hoover on members of the Goldwater campaign suggest that he was not only a good soldier but a gleeful retainer feeding the appetites of Lyndon Johnson." (Safer, p. 96)
• "The FBI broadside and a telephone call from Bill Moyers contributed to deterring embassy officials from assisting King on his Nobel Peace Prize trip, as custom and American interest usually dictated." (Kotz, p. 235)
• "Johnson assistant Bill Moyers then ordered the usurpers removed." (Kotz, p. 219)

You can further check the context of Kotz book through Google books. I believe the Safer book is available there too, but it is more difficult to see the context.--Drrll (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including this. You might want to word it differently, though - it's confusing to read. Gave the go-ahead to J Edgar Hoover to discredit King? How? Try to keep it concise, but so anybody reading it can know the means, or at least so it makes sense on the surface. It's good information, and I feel it's important, but it leaves me scratching my head as written now. Kelseypedia (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Moyers gave J Edgar Hoover the go-ahead to discredit Martin Luther King" is based on the above quote on p. 234 of the Kotz book. How do you think it could be worded more clearly?--Drrll (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Johnson gave the go ahead. Moyers relayed the message. TFD 23:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true, although I begin my wording with "under the direction of President Johnson." Perhaps something like "relayed to J Edgar Hoover the permission to discredit MLK"?--Drrll (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Unless better/more sources can be found, this either cannot go in or if there is consensus to insert it must be prefixed "According to author Nick Kotz ..." ► RATEL ◄ 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you can get much better sources than a book about LBJ and MLK by a historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, confirmed by another award-winning prominent journalist. I could add two other sources, but they are opinion pieces. WP:RS requires that opinion pieces be prefaced with something like "according to," not something like a book about history. Nonetheless, "according to historian/journalist Nick Kotz" could be added.--Drrll (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You should use sources that discuss Moyers, not a footnote in a book about someone else. Moyers is a well-known person and if there is nothing about this in direct writing about him then it is unimportant. If no one else thinks this is important then we follow their lead. TFD 04:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

TFD is correct. WP is not here so that individuals can mine obscure facts from single sources and soapbox these facts into articles. WP follows, and follows quite far behind btw, other sources. It never leads by becoming the platform for obscure items of information. ► RATEL ◄ 04:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Moyers is not a footnote in the Kotz book--he is discussed in at least 27 places (nearly all are not footnotes) in the book--see Google Books. He is discussed on at least 3 continuous pages in the Safer book. If you are talking about using only sources that are primarily about Moyers, that standard is neither supported by WP policy nor is it done in practice in nearly every WP article, including this one. As far as book references here about Moyers, out of 7 books, only 1 book is primarily about Moyers (as an interviewer). Ratel, these facts are backed up by four sources, not a single source. Please quote specific WP policy that says that relatively unknown facts about a subject should not be included.--Drrll (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text for Moyers and Schumann foundation

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

--Drrll (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Provide additional sources that demonstrate this belongs in an encyclopedia on Moyers.

Is this article available anywhere? I'd thought I found in an archive somewhere, but cannot find it at the moment. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can provide another source--a Stephen Hayes piece in the Weekly Standard that was judged reliable for facts in a BLP on the WP:RSN. The Philadelphia Inquirer article is available using library databases, probably through WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, or I could email you a copy. Please see my response to The Four Deuces below for relevant excerpts from the article.--Drrll (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One must explain the connection between objecting to the influence of money and distributing significant amounts of money. It could be that Moyers is trying to level the playing field. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The connection is made in the Philadelphia Inquirer article referenced. Here are some excerpts:

"No TV journalist has reported more aggressively on the influence of money in American politics than Bill Moyers, the anchor of eight hours of hard-hitting, award-winning documentaries on the topic. But Moyers has failed to tell one important story about the power of money in public affairs: his own...Moyers said he saw no irony in spending more money to shape public policy than many special interests do."

It reads more like and editorial expressing an opinion than a news article reporting a fact. In that case you have to demonstrate why this opinion is notable, and if it is used the article must clearly attribute the opinion to the author (e.g., "According to x..."). The Four Deuces (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The way that it's worded breaks NPOV, too. The information itself could be relevant if you can demonstrate its relevance and importance and phrase it appropriately. Kelseypedia (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, it is investigative reporting by a Knight-Ridder national correspondent who worked in their Washington Bureau--a journalist, not an editorialist. Nonetheless, the section could include something like "according to investigative reporter Frank Greve." Kelseypedia, based on the above quote from the article, I contend that my wording accurately reflects the thrust of the article, but I'm open to suggestions about wording changes.--Drrll (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) The conclusions of a journalist in a 1999 article do not appear notable enough for inclusion. The article did not receive wide publication at the time and has been remarked upon virtually only by publications like the Weekly Standard. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the publication year has anything to do with notability, especially given that Moyers' career started in the 1950s. There are several older references already in the article, including a couple from 1975. The article was published in one of the largest newspapers in the country, and from a quick Google search, was picked up by Current, by columnist Paul Greenberg, and other columnists and websites.--Drrll (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not the publication year, but the fact that there has been no reference to it since, except in New Right magazines. TFD 22:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How many articles, including the other ones referenced here, get talked about much in other sources beyond just a few weeks or months past the publication date? It just doesn't happen that often.--Drrll (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The events they describe do get discussed - if they are notable. What other articles mention long forgotten comments? There is no mention in the article about Moyers meeting Jeremiah Wright in the 60s, for example. TFD 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot use that sentence. Starting with "Though.." and making a derogatory observation is specifically prohibited in wikipedia. The best you can do is note that BM made/makes contributions through the foundation. Readers can make up their own minds without your snarky editorializing. ► RATEL ◄ 00:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I include the "though" clause is because the source supports that. I could leave out "though" and make it a separate sentence, but I think it would make the sentences disjointed.--Drrll (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Moyers is president of the Schumann Center is already mentioned twice in the article, and its funding activities are also mentioned. TFD 15:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right that Moyers as president of Schumann is mentioned twice and doesn't need to be mentioned three times, but the funding activities are only mentioned tangentially in regards to one organization. Something as important as being president of a foundation that distributes large amounts of funds deserves its own section.--Drrll (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We cannot mention that someone is a president of an organization and then go into detail about what that organization does. We could need a source that explains Moyers' role in the Center. TFD (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On Karl Rove

Resolved

 – --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an ad hominem attack on Rove: "He concludes, "This 'degenerate and unlovely age', as one historian calls it, exists in the mind of Karl Rove, the reputed brain of George W. Bush, as the seminal age of inspiration for the politics and governance of America today."[42][43]"

If this stays in the article, indeed if the whole section of Rove stays in the article, then the heading, "Ad Hominem Attacks on Karl Rove" is justified and should be added back.Malke2010 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the "ad hominem" part should be in the section title, but perhaps it should go in the main text. (Refactored: comment on editors removed, Drrll notified)--Drrll (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree.Malke2010 18:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Without a source, it violates WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The section on Karl Rove violates WP:BLP because it's not balanced. There's no counterweight to what Moyers is saying. It makes it therefore seem like Moyers is recounting fact when he is only recounting the ruminations in his head. And there are reliable sources that question what is in his head.Malke2010 18:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"There's no counterweight to what Moyers is saying." There doesn't need to be any counterweight. See WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There does need to be a counterweight, and it would hardly be WP:UNDUE. More like overdue.Malke2010 19:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Consensus and policy states otherwise, but you're always welcome to take it to WP:BLP/N. Just keep it out of this article per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't nonsense to add in reliably sourced criticisms of Bill Moyers' attacks on people. There are plenty of people who question what he does and says. PBS had to hire an Ombudsman just for him. This is well within Wikipedia policy and certainly fits in with WP:BLP. You must remember, you don't own this article.Malke2010 19:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"It isn't nonsense to add in reliably sourced criticisms of Bill Moyers' attacks on people." But, of course, that isn't what I claimed was nonsense, was it? --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not an ad hominem attack. TFD (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bill_Moyers_2 --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

|}

Please look up the term ad hominem. TFD (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How is this a BLP violation and who decided you had the right to delete another editors comments without consulting the editor?Malke2010 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an ad hominem attack on Karl Rove: [2]. It was bad enough that Karl Rove complained to the PBS Ombudsman who agreed with him.Malke2010 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that we can at least agree that the material didn't belong. My edit summary, "blp on top of blp - section should be trimmed and better sourced" referred to the BLP problems against both Moyers and Rove. I didn't change the rest because of the much better sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to offer explanations before you go around deleting what another editor has written.Malke2010 20:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm talking about what is written on this talk page. The talk page is for discussing and working out problems/issues.Malke2010 20:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" - WP:BLP --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What/where in my comments, that you deleted on your own without offering any discussion, does this rule apply?Malke2010 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you are claiming is a poor source? [3].Malke2010 20:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke2010, you should read your sources more carefully. After reading your main source (at least that appears to be your main source), I find that the ombudsman did not agree with Karl Rove that it was ad hominem. In fact, he never even phrases it in a way that he could be said to be calling it an attack. What he does say is that he believes it to be poorly-sourced editorializing, specifically, "In this case, I thought a central point of the criticism was not supported for those listening." He also does not say that PBS hired an ombudsman just for Moyers, but only "half-jokingly" says that they should. Do you have a source that supports claims of ad hominem? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's all been solved.Malke2010 16:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bode 2005 ref

As I noted above, I found a more accessible version of this reference and updated it accordingly direct link to ref. I don't recall reading it before, but I've extremely concerned on how it is being used in this article. It is the sole reference for Tomlinson's viewpoint, but the reference covers considerable more on the matter. Basically, it looks like criticisms against Moyers are being cherry-picked from this reference without placing them in proper context of the full reference. Do others agree? Are the other references enough to make up for this problem? --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if editors agree that this reference is being used improperly, then this suggests the first two paragraphs of the Allegations of bias section need to be rewritten or removed per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing by An Employee of Bill Moyers

I'm new to Wikipedia and attempting to change a number of factual errors and clarify a number of statements on the Bill Moyers wiki. Full disclosure: I know Bill Moyers. Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), please note that I'm making factual changes, and am not interested in entering political/cultural warfare over this entry - and you'll see by my changes that I'm not. But, I am encouraged by Wikipedia to improve the site content. If any moderators have further advice, please advise - it's difficult to cite sources for things like his name and his political party. PATdiane talk 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken this to the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard because I don't know the answer to the question about whether you're edits are OK: please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bill_Moyers_and_User:PATdiane. I imagine that most of your edits won't be a problem, but your one edit that removed a sourced statement of fact may be a problem. (refactored) Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The sourced statement deletion to which you I believe is this one[4]. Considering that it was was a reference to a web log "http://billkeithbooks.com/wordsmith", it could likely have needed to be deleted anyway because of WP:BLP policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the source is questionable and the specific link when tried didn't directly support the statement made.--Drrll (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit of controversial material by PATDiane that is a clear conflict of interest. Please refrain from making such controversial changes on behalf of Bill Moyers in the future. Drrll (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Do you have any specific problems with the material or the sources? --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If what PATDiane added is not in the interest of her employer, Bill Moyers, then I don't know what is and the WP rules on COI have no meaning. From WP:COI:

"COI editing is strongly discouraged...Even though most COI editing is discouraged, in limited cases some edits from COI editors may still be welcome. See the non-controversial edits section below:...:

Removing spam and reverting vandalism.

Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.

Fixing spelling and grammar errors.

Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.

Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.

Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.

If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page." Drrll (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When you remove sourced material you should explain your reasons for doing so. The fact that the editor inserting the material may have a bias is not an adequate reasons and shows a failure to assume good faith. Please explain your position before again reverting. TFD (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've taken this edit and the ensuing reinstatement of the edit to the COI/N: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_PATdiane

By the way, Ronz, you are usually very interested in BLP issues, but silent when it comes to BLP issues about an opponent of Moyers, Kenneth Tomlinson. Drrll (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Drrll (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you explain what you're talking about, I'll look into it. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to what I said about it in the COI/N and refer to PATdiane's additions about Tomlinson. Drrll (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain the BLP issue, or at least give me some direction on where and what to investigate. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The additions say that Tomlinson broke federal laws without pointing out that such claims were never adjudicated and don't give Tomlinson's side (available at Kenneth Tomlinson). Such omissions are likely to occur with COI edits. Drrll (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it could use some very slight changes then, but overall the additions resolve some very large BLP problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the Bode 2005 (note updated link), think that the reference was not being used properly. I think PATdiane's contributions are a good step in proper presentation per NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you have a problem with COI policy as to an interested party making edits of controversial material? Regardless of the merits of what was added, it seems to me that such edits should not be allowed to stand. Otherwise, COI policy is pointless. Drrll (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no point in responding to any further COI discussions on this article talk page. Those discussions are already occurring at WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no COI policy. WP:COI is a guideline intended as a strong warning to those who are in that position. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be a guideline, but there is a COI noticeboard to address violations of this guideline. Drrll (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The noticeboard is not for addressing COI violations (because having a COI is not a policy violation), but "for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time." (from WP:COIN) The noticeboard exists to assist editors who have a COI, or address particularly problematic ones, but not every COI situation.

Calling WP:COI is not a way to remove an editor you disagree with. Address the edits, and if consensus emerges against the edits on the talk page, we can remove them. If PATdiane were unwilling to accept consensus here, then the noticeboard is the correct place to go. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about WP:COIN. BTW, I'm not trying to remove PATdiane from WP or even this article. I'm trying to see that she abides by the COI guideline to not edit controversial material and the provision "do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests." Drrll (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits have added context to material on the page. The previous version merely states that Tomlinson was CPB chairman and commissioned a report that a) (he stated) found liberal bias, and b) had findings that were supported by commentary from a conservative editor. I removed none of these. However, no where did it state the fact that Tomlinson's actions broke federal laws and CPB rules, and in part, commissioning this report led to the fact that he was ousted from CPB. It was presented as a CPB Chairman commissioned report, but it did not state the fact that the CPB board neither knew of nor authorized the report. These are ESSENTIAL facts if you are to reference the report at all - which someone other than me sought to do. Additionally, I have read the report, and contrary to Tomlinson's comment it did NOT find liberal bias, but I respect that there is no room for original research here.PATdiane (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We should be paying attention to the potential problems with conflict of interest editing. In this case, the editor disclosed the potential conflict of interest, which indicates good faith. Also, the edits are well sourced and appear to improve to the NPOV balance of the article and I can see no problem. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Salty, then what's the point of the COI guidelines that instruct COI editors to not make edits of controversial material and what's the point of the COI noticeboard? Also, what's the point of the COI guidelines that state "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests." Clearly, the edits are designed to promote her own interests (Bill Moyers) in denigrating an opponent of Moyers (Kenneth Tomlinson). Let's say that Dick Cheney or an agent of his was editing his WP entry, putting in negative material about one of his most vocal critics. Would you be so cavalier toward that COI? Drrll (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• (Referring here from WP:COIN). Yes, COI is not a policy but a guideline for editors who have a Conflict of Interest and wish to stay within the relevant policies. The guideline does "strongly discourage" COI editors from making controversial edits to articles in their COI-affected area. The fact that there is disagreement back and forth here regarding PATDiane's edits strongly suggests that they are controversial. That doesn't mean they don't belong in the article, it just means that PATDiane is not the one who should be making them. Rather, she should bring proposed edits here and discuss them, and then form a consensus as to whether they are appropriate, at which time someone else should add them.
• Now, taking off my COIN hat and speaking as just another editor weighing in here: The recent addition regarding Tomlinson's study, as it stands in the article today, seems to be inappropriate, and doesn't supply the context that PATDiane explained above. Right now it just says effectively: "T was an outspoken critic of M, and commissioned a study of NOW. Oh by the way, T also broke federal laws". Nowhere does it explain or even imply that the 2 statements have anything to do with each other, and seems more to vilify Tomlinson for commissioning the study. The source for the report doesn't explicitly state that Tomlinson was ousted because of the report itself, just that he presented the report to the board, and was given the boot. One possible conclusion could be that the 2 events were cause-effect, but we're not supposed to draw conclusions based on sources. Likewise, the source given for the "violation of federal laws" statement suggests the violated laws were in relation to Tomlinson working to get a WSJ show aired on PBS and not for the NOW study. As such, I feel that this recent addition should be removed as being leading and implying events not supported by the sources given. Arakunem^Talk 13:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

First addition

The content added by PATdiane consists of two additions based upon a single source [5]. The first addition is "without informing or getting authorization from the CPB board." In context, "In 2005, Tomlinson commissioned a study of the show, without informing or getting authorization from the CPB board." I find this to be a fairly good addition based upon this new source. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That source does not directly support the assertion that the study was done "without informing or getting authorization from the CPB board." It says he "was ousted from the board two weeks ago when it was presented with the details of the report in a closed session". Arakunem^Talk 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, with whom do you agree, TFD? Arakunem^Talk

On page 2 of the new source, it says, "The inspector general criticized another contract with a researcher to monitor "Now" when its host was Bill Moyers because Mr. Tomlinson had signed it without informing the board and without board authorization." --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I did read page 2, but apparently missed that. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 18:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Second addition

I find the second part of PATdiane's addition to be much more problematic, adding "Two weeks after Tomlinson was ousted from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, investigators at the CPB, who examined the commission of Tomlinson's report on NOW with Bill Moyers, said that they had uncovered evidence that its former chairman had repeatedly broken federal law and the organization's own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias." Based upon the material from the new references, I agree that this creates WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP problems. I'm removing it because of this. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the re-worded revert of your removal: That version was still Synthesis in regards to the specific study. Yes he was investigated after the board kicked him, and they did find all sorts of evidence of various wrongdoings, but the tie to the study itself is nebulous at best, and in context to the overall "Allegations of Bias" section, it is still presented in a rather POV fashion: "He went after Moyers, but look at all the laws he broke." The sequence of the sentences in that version still seem leading and attempting to impress something on the reader. I've removed that section on those grounds. I would encourage discussion about what those edits serve to accomplish in the article, and how better to word them if deemed relevant by consensus. Arakunem^Talk 18:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article? It specifically mentions the illegality of the Tomlinson studies, and mentions the Tomlinson study of the Moyers show by name. How is this synthesis? It is literally written in the NYT article. Also, this is a NPOV balance issue. It is imbalanced to mention the Tomlinson study making allegation without giving the context that Tomlinson was formally investigated about making such politically motivated studies was found to be in violation of law (and of CBC regulations). The article gives the impression that Tomlinson's allegations were done officially and legally, when it is sourced that they were not. Also, why did you delete the sentence and not just fix it? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says Tomlinson violated various laws and statutes. It also says he conducted the study of Moyers without approval of the CPB board. It is not clear that commissioning a consultant to monitor the show was illegal or what law it was violating if any. The NYT article only said that his hiring of contractors was against CPB's contracting policy, and that the study was done without approval, a fact which is already in this article. The source does say that his efforts to secure a WSJ-based show did violate laws, but that in itself is not related to the study. If there's a source that specifically states that the Now study was illegal (without having to infer that fact from evidence provided) then it is not a Synthesis problem. I still think that mentioning Tomlinson's illegal activities in the "Accusations of Bias" section at all is leading and POV, though. The section references people who criticize Moyers for various reasons, politics being one of course. Pointing out that such criticism may have involved illegal research doesn't really change the fact that the criticism was made. It just comes across as trying to offset any criticism by vilifying the criticizer, which is POV. It would be similarly POV if the Bias section swung the other way, and tried to interpret the simple facts that Moyers was criticized as implying that he was in fact biased, given the vocal-ness of the criticism. Arakunem^Talk 19:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are misusing POV and NOR policy. The policy actually is that all significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing must be covered fairly. This POV, seen in this NYT article is that Tomlinson was reported to have violated law and policy through his studies of public broadcasting, generally, and specifically in context with Moyars TV show.

Similar with NOR/synthesis policy: This isn't editor WP:OR synthesis because it is the NYT reporter that makes the synthesis, not the Wikieditor. Per WP:V policy the NYT is allowed to synthesize, though we aren't. Wikipedia suffers from lack of this information about the impropriety of the Tomlinson "studies" of public broadcasting programing including (per the source) Moyars. I suspect that we can find a compromise wording acceptable to editors, but deletion of the entire sentence is too harsh. Tweak the wording please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The proposed text in this article said (emphasis mine): "Following the ouster of Tomlinson from the chairmanship of the CBC, investigators reported to Congress evidence that the Tomlinson study "repeatedly crossed statutory boundaries". The Times article does not say that the study of Now was illegal, so that sentence is not supported by the source. If the Times did in fact do the synthesis and suggested that the study was illegal, then yes we could potentially mention it. But it did not.

As it stands, the Times only says of the study: "The inspector general criticized another contract with a researcher to monitor "Now" when its host was Bill Moyers because Mr. Tomlinson had signed it without informing the board and without board authorization." It nowhere states, suggests, or even infers that the study was illegal, or crossed any statutory boundaries. At worst, it was against CPB's policies.

Striking the word "study" from the proposed text would be supported by the source, but it then no longer has anything to do with the study, which is what was brought up in the "Bias" section of the article. As such, it is out of place and out of context with regards to Tomlinson's study being critical of Moyers. Arakunem^Talk 20:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the compromise is to strike the word studies, and just describe Tomlinson's actions. Proposed wording: Following the ouster of Tomlinson from the chairmanship of the CBC, investigators reported to Congress evidence that Tomlinson in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias repeatedly broke federal law and the organization's own regulations. That sentence does seem supported by the source and doesn't seem to synthesize, taken almost verbatim from wording found in the NYT article[6]. If that isn't OK with you suggest corrective wording please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That text is Syn-free and verifiable, agreed. My concern is with its relevance to the paragraph, and a POV-push that it seems to have, in that it pushes the reader towards a certain opinion of Tomlinson rather than just presenting the facts. The first paragraph describes Tomlinson's criticisms of Moyers, and the next paragraph describes Moyers' response. Both are presented factually and neutrally in tone, from what I see. The bit about Tomlinson breaking laws in his other pursuits against PBS may be appropriate for the article on him, but here it serves no purpose other than to cast his motives in a sinister light. I can't propose different text as I don't think a qualifying sentence is appropriate for that point in the article. Arakunem^Talk 21:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is plainly relevant because it matches the context seen in the NYT article (with NYT presenting it in context of Moyer's Now TV show), and it is NPOV because it gives readers a more clear and full view of the context of the Tomlinson allegations described in the first paragraph of our article's section. Without this sentence readers would not be aware of the impropriety of Tomlinson's actions as documented. And this impropriety is certainly one significant POV seen in this NYT reliable sourcing. It is not POV push to try to include all significant POV's seen in reliable sourcing, indeed omission of such would be POV pushing. Check all the sourcing, then include all the significant POV's found; that is the policy neutral way. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say I still disagree. The text added would be appropriate for a complete analysis of all of Tomlinson's actions taken as a whole (in the article about him for example). In context to Moyers and the Now monitoring, all that is relevant is that the study was done without CPB board knowledge or approval, which has already been stated in the article, and which I agree with (see previous section). By including it here, we're essentially pointing out that he broke other laws in a section that has nothing to do with those areas. I'm not trying to suppress anything, I'm just trying to keep things NPOV, and to me this addition needlessly impresses a POV on the reader: "Look at all the other bad things this guy did, that MUST mean his hounding of Moyers was uncalled for, etc". (Remember, I've got no dog in this fight, I just came here due to the COI notice on that noticeboard, and this is how the article currently reads to me). Imagine this scenario: "Mr A and Mr B argue over X. Mr A, a wife-beater and tax cheat, says so-and-so about Mr B." All of that may be true, but you see how the unrelated piece of info can impress a cognitive bias on the reader. Arakunem^Talk 13:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that Tomlinson was using a bully pulpit as Chairman of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting to make these allegations of bias. Because of his elevated status, this gives his allegations of bias extra weight. The reader of this article needs to know the context of Tomlinson's allegations against Moyers within Tomlinson illegal campaign to combat bias. According to the NYT, the allegations against Moyers do not stand alone and isolated, we read in the NYT article that the Moyers allegations are presented in context within the whole illegal campaign to combat bias conducted by the chairman of this organization. To present the neutral viewpoint required of us we must fairly mirror what we read in the NYT article that examines this matter. Give the readers the whole picture, (just like the NYT chose to do) and trust the readers to sort it out. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point regarding the bully pulpit. It still strikes me as being off the way it is presented. Perhaps it is just a matter of verbiage. I'll ponder that some, but I agree that there should be some mention of it in context. Arakunem^Talk 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the wording of that first paragraph is clumsy and could be improved. Unfortunately wording flow tends to suffer within articles that are hot topics, where editors push and pull trying to get the precise and best NPOV wording, the prose suffers. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)