Talk:Bess Myerson

Recent ovehaul

Made a number of changes to the article. It was poorly written and contains a number of ambiguities. I have added tags to those areas where vagueness is leaving readers uninformed. I hope to get to looking further into the references and finding the answers to the ambiguousness, if anyone else wants to try and fix it first, have at it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "ambiguities." What you did was to remove sourced text on a number of crucial aspects of this biography:

• You removed the reference to her brother, who died at the age of three. It is standard practice in biographies to mention any siblings.

• More importantly, you made changes that removed en masse the significance of her winning the Miss America pageant, the first Jewish woman to have done so, at the end of World War II. A paragraph that said as follows:

She was the first and, to date, only Jewish Miss America. Her attaining that title shortly after the end of the Second World War, with the memory of the Holocaust still fresh, was a seminal event for American Jews as an affirmation of the community's acceptance by U.S. society.[1]

... was watered down to read as follows:

At the time of her death, Myerson was the only Jewish Miss America. With World War II just ending and details regarding the atrocities committed against the Jewish people during the Holocaust finally being fully disclosed, Myerson winning the title was seen as a remarkable achievement.[1]

That was sourced to the Times obit[1], which said as follows:

"To many Jews, often blamed for the war by anti-Semites, newly traumatized by images of the liberated Nazi death camps and often confronted by that anti-Semitism in their everyday lives, the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America. 'In the Jewish community, she was the most famous pretty girl since Queen Esther,' Susan Dworkin wrote in 'Miss America, 1945: Bess Myerson’s Own Story,' published in 1987."

This paragraph:

While competing in the Miss America pageant as Miss New York 1945,[1] she refused, despite entreaties, to use a pseudonym that "sounded less Jewish."[5][6] She faced anti-semitism after winning the Miss America title on September 8, 1945, "including the withdrawal of three of the annual beauty pageant’s five sponsors from the arrangement by which the queen would represent the company during her year-long reign."[2][5][6] She later campaigned for civil rights, in particular, working with the Anti-Defamation League.[5]

.. you changed to

While competing as Miss New York in the 1945 Miss America pageant,[1] she had been asked to use a pseudonym that "sounded less Jewish." Myerson refused.[3][6] As a result, controversy arose after she won the title on September 8, 1945, when three of the pageant's five sponsors withdrew from having her represent their companies as Miss America.[2][3][6] Myerson later became a supporter and activist for civil rights, including working with the Anti-Defamation League.[3

All of the material that you removed, without explanation or discussion, is amply supported by the sources, including the New York Times front-page obituary, the LA Times obit, the websites sited and the Dworkin biography, which I have and am starting to utilize to incorporate into the article. I have added a source to the second paragraph and will continue to beef up the "Miss America" section of her biography, which was the subject of the authoritative Dworkin book.

Rather than reverting and removing en masse I would encourage you to discuss any such significant prospective text removals here in talk, rather than slashing away and then posting the vague note that you did above. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: Claim in article that she was a subject of anti-semitism and the Jewish community saw her MA win as a "seminal event". The attached reference says nothing of the kind. Anti-semitism is mentioned, but not in relation to Myerson's win. As well, nothing in the article gives proof that Jewish Americans felt her win was "seminal" nor that her win was affirmation. All the obit says is, "To many Jews...the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America." Note the words "To many Jews" and "seemed". Both qualify for WP:WEASEL status, and neither statements are supported by references. There are no sources attached to either statement that supports these obviously POV, emotional, and hyperbolic claims as being real or anything other than original research and personal opinion by the obit writer. What evidence do we have that the sponsors were actually anti-semitic? None. Both of these claims need to be removed as, even after a BLP article subject dies, WP:BLP policies still apply to the article for up to two years followig the article subject's death. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: The Ha'Eretz reference used to support "anti-semitism": it is also POV. This would need to be supported by a non-biased source. There is no specificity in the article that gives context, just the claim of anti-semitism. Further, in reading throughly both the obituary and the Ha'Eretz article, you have taken WAY too much of both, paraphrased only slightly, and are bordering on plagiarism and WP:COPYVIO with the prose and content you keep reverting back in from those articles. For reasons of borderline plagirism and copyvio along with the reasons per BLP guidelines stated above, I am also removing the content you keep putting back in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of course, discussion from you here is welcome, Coretheapple. Better to actually discuss than run to Jimbo's talk page and complain about, how did you put it? Oh, yeah: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see here: [2]) That, in the vein of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, along with your edit warring behavior, plagiarism and copyvios... Doesn't look to good at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The passage in the lead section is clearly supported by the Times article, and your objection to it makes absolutely no sense. You may not like what the Times says, you may think the journalists who wrote it are off base, but it was a front-page times article that easily passes WP:V. You're making more of an WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim more than one that is based on policy.

As for the section in the Miss America passage: I don't see how you can continue to argue against that in good faith. It's supported by all the sources, including the Los Angeles Times, which I added, as well as the websites and Haaretz (not "Ha'Eretz"). The latter source is neither "biased" nor incorrectly used nor "POV," whatever that means in that context, and to claim that "copyvio" or "BLP" is somehow involved in this is simply ridiculous. You clearly do not feel that Ms. Myerson was subject to antisemitism and that all these reliable sources are blowing smoke, but the opinions of Wikipedia editors are not pertinent in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My feelings have nothing to do with the article content. In fact, I personally lean toward the anti-semitism claim. But my feelings have nothing to do with fact. The feelings of the writers have nothing to do with fact. Making claims of anti-semitism 70 years after he fact with no real evidence of actual anti-semitism is as stupid and POV as the claims of those saying anyone who didn't vote for Barack Obama did so because they are anti-Black. And yes, you did lift content from those articles. It's easy to see. So no, not ridiculous at all. I stand by my statements above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, plainly you have not read and/or comprehended the sources and are in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode, so I see no point in repeating myself. Coretheapple (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Another non-AGF and personal attack from you and lobbed in my direction noted. If you are truly interested in cooperatively editing the article in a collegial manner and having a real discussion, you will change your tone. I keep hoping. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A source reads: "To many Jews, often blamed for the war by anti-Semites, newly traumatized by images of the liberated Nazi death camps and often confronted by that anti-Semitism in their everyday lives, the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America." Supported by that source we can write: "Myerson's winning the title of Miss America took on heightened significance in light of newly emerging information about the Holocaust." Bus stop (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that can be added to what's there now. Coretheapple (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added it but not necessarily integrated it. My wording may duplicate wording already there, therefore adjacent sentences may have to be rewritten. Bus stop (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've merged two sentences and added a reference to the Times obit. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

... which was, I see, quickly reverted by Winkelvi, contrary to talk page consensus and without discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Two editors using an article talkpage during the early morning hours and not waiting for other article editors to weigh in is not consensus building. What you added was essentially an echo of what already existed, creating a ridiculous redundancy. For that reason, and because there was no true consensus, is why it was taken out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The correct procedure is to discuss, not to edit war. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The correct procedure in consensus building is to wait for others to join in, not take your opinion and the comments of another editor and call it consensus. Consensus building takes time, not minutes, usually hours or days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added material from NPR concerning her lecture series, which began in reaction to the antisemitism she encountered touring the country as Miss America. It belongs, clearly, in the Miss America section, not in the section dealing with her work as a TV game show regular. I have moved it there and changed the title to reflect that, even though I don't feel it's strictly necessary. If you feel differently, here's the place to discuss it, not in edit summaries you geneerate while edit-warring. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotefarm

The article is becoming over-run with quotes an starting to not just look like a WP:QUOTEFARM but an online WP:MEMORIAL. The concentration camp survivors quote is really over-the-top and not necessary. It should go, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the coverage in reliable sourcing, beginning with the front-page New York Times article, emphasized the impact of her Miss America win on the Jewish community, and it is intimately tied to her notability. The two policy pages you quote are utterly inapplicable. Coretheapple (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how well the quotes are sourced. There are starting to be too many of them. Especially for an article of its (smaller) size and with Myerson not being all that prominent or well-known in the last 25 years. It's not as if she had the star power of Robin Williams or Philip Seymour Hoffman. As far as the policies quoted, they are quite applicable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. She was the subject of a page one obituary in the New York Times. She has been the subject of three books. What you're saying is pure WP:RECENTISM. Coretheapple (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Still doesn't warrant too many quotes. We had to fight too many of those at the Hoffman and Williams articles, too. Which pretty much makes your accusation of WP:RECENTISM null and void. What I'm "saying" is common sense and WP:POLICY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak to those articles, but this one so far is pretty far from being a "quotefarm" and certainly the treatment of her troubles (though it can be expanded) makes this article anything but a memorial. The article does require substantial expansion, that I do agree. I suggest that you work on sourcing and adding text,and not in stubbifying this, and also that you exercise care in the language that you use. Referring to the Sholem Aleichem cooperative as a "Yiddish housing project" is awkward language at best. There is no need to use excessive shorthand and truncation like that. Nor is it accurate as the residents were not entirely Jewish or Yiddish-speaking. I'd appreciate it if you would self-revert that edit. As you may know, you are well over 3RR at this point as it is. Additionally, you revert-warred to remove the word "cooperative" from the housing project's name, even though it is referred to as "cooperative" in the majority of reliable sources, including the New York Times obituary.Coretheapple (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"No Jews"

In the newly expanded Miss America section, the content, "Myerson encountered "No Jews" signs when touring the country as Miss America" needs to be more specific. Where were the signs seen? Were they KKK-related? Were the signs seen in areas of the South? Was it truly because she was Miss America? Was it because they were placed purposely for her benefit? "No Jews" signs mean nothing in relation to this article if they weren't directly connected to her. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. You're nitpicking content appearing in an indisputably reliable source, over material directly related to the subject of this article. There is no need whatsoever to state exactly where the signs appeared, who put them up, or what grade of nail was used to hammer them into place. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense? Asking for more detail so readers will have a clear picture rather than having to guess is "nonsense"? Yes, there is a reason to be more specific. You have said you want this article to reach GA and FA status: being ambiguous by adding content about "No Jews" without context or specifics will no doubt be called into question by someone reviewing the article for GA/FA. I refrained from removing it because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your immediate response of "Nonsense" rather than responding with a collegial and cooperative tone has not renewed that benefit. Only adding another reference rather than clarifying the content is not enough. Please stop for a moment and think about what I'm saying because it is ONLY about benefitting and improving the article (attempting to improve the article is all I've been doing since I started editing it). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It's nonsense because the lack of such detail does not mean it should be excluded from the article. Please stop wasting everybody's time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As it stands currently, the content would be challenged by anyone reviewing it for GA/FA. You said that's your goal for the article. The content deserves expansion and clarification. And, another rude personal attack from you is noted ("stop wasting everybody's time"). I could respond in kind (and have been known to do so colorfully before), but frankly, your negative attitude and personally directed comments say more about you than me. My hope is you will turn things aroud and stop focusing on editors rather than edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is being built up now, and more details will be added as they become available, unless of course you continue to revert war to remove pertinent details and to make good wording bad/inaccurate. We are not reviewing it for GA or FA status; your edit-warring and disruptive behavior, such as this discussion, has made that difficult. You have access to all of the online sources that I have; if you are genuinely interested in adding details you can and should do so. You are not the reviewer of a prospective Good Article nomination that has not been filed. Right now we are adding relevant details, and this is clearly relevant, amply sourced, above dispute--except by you. Again, why are you wasting everybody's time challenging a detail that is clearly proper? You really need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't need to "stop". I see you are still focused on an editor rather than edits. Still hoping you will change your tack. I removed the irrelevant and bordering-on-unreliable reference you added to support the "No Jews" content. The reference didn't mention the signs at all. I have, however, expanded the content for clarification and added an appropriate reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes you do. This discussion is utterly pointless. There was absolutely no basis for disputing inclusion of the material in question. Please stop wasting people's time. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are not going to be choosing the right road and stopping your rude and personal-attack comments anytime soon. Okay. We all make choices. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"May be true"

Alan, "may be true" is simply not encyclopedic language. There has to be a better, more encyclopedic way of saying it, regardless of how many versions of the story exist. We are supposed to be including facts, not suppositions, no matter what reliable source presents those suppositions. It's okay to say that varying versions exist, it's even okay to say that certain individuals think either version may be true, it's not okay to present them in such a manner that it appears editors are making a judgement about the varying accounts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

May be does not make any judgement. As I said you may work on better wording, if you want, but we have to present all the evidence concerning it to the reader - now. So, as not to give a false impression. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, not really. Now? There is no deadline in Wikipedia. The section is actually fine without the "may be true" sentence. There will be no confusion to any reader if we leave it out for now. There is likely to be confusion for readers if we leave it in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Now - this is a BLP - so to the extent there are contradictory stories about her life we have to be as up front as possible. The last source - you seek to remove - is moreover the most detailed - and explanatory. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't want to remove the reference, just the "may be true". Like I said, there has to be a better way of saying it. As it is now, it's just not encyclopedic and, according to BLP guidelines, really shouldn't have been reverted back in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You did remove the most detailed reference - and no - that "someone joked" is decidedly vague - if you read the references all those things happened: she did not know she was entered, she did want a piano, someone joked about it, she did go ahead with the pageant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Both sources may be true" would seem to be the closest we can come to a correct rendition of the situation. I'm a bit visually handicapped today so I am restricted as to what I can read, and have not been able to read the Dworkin book cover-to-cover. However, it confirms the "she didn't know about it" version. The book may also discuss the "piano" version as well and I haven't gotten to it, and it is poorly indexed. I suggest retaining this current language. Even if it is not in the Dworkin book, it may be true as well. Coretheapple (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"May be true" isn't going to cut it. The language will have to be changed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Have to be changed?" Uh no, that's not how we do things here. This is not child pornography or some urgent BLP problem, it is a semantic issue at most. Parenthetically: citing WP:CRYSTAL as you did in your edit summary is unhelpful, as that clearly does not apply. It also disturbs me if we are going to have to have reams and reams of talk page discussions over every piddling little wording issue, compounded by edit-warring. That is what "has to be changed," not this wording. Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Going through much talk on an article talk page is nothing new in Wikipedia. It happens all the time. It's how consensus actually happens. Sorry you don't like what I said above, but I stand by it. The wording, put plainly, sucks. And it's not encyclopedic. Alanscottwalker, I'm trying to find in the associated reference that both stories regarding Myerson's entry into pageants could be true. Would you be so kind as to point me to where the article states that? Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already supplied the detailed source about the incident. I said the wording can be changed - but it cannot be reverted to the misleading presentation it was. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. I asked where in the reference attached to the content is the statement that both accounts "may be true". I'm asking honestly and just want to know how to better support the concept with the context from the article. Are you saying you already gave an answer to this elsewhere? If so, where? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Have you read the sources? The one I supplied has the detailed content about the contest entry in it - the others very briefly talk of a "legend", with a jokey half sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking specifically about the reference attached to the statement "Both may be true". So, after looking once again through the attached reference, it seems to combine both stories. Are you saying that because the attached source appears to combine the stories, that is the evidence that "both may be true"?. I'm sincerely just trying to understand what you are saying and to come up with a better way to word the content. Taking the time to clarify would be appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the stories are one story - they reconcile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either the new or the old versions of the language are optimal. Both are awkward. Let's get more input. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've reworded, but my version isn't very good either. The problem with all our efforts here is that we are engaged in original research. I think the solution is to go with the detailed account in the Dworkin biography, which indeed makes no mention of making money for the piano, and then adding the additional account about the piano money. The biography does mention the scholarship money, but makes no reference to a piano. I don't think we should be saying "both accounts may be true," however we phrase it. Let's just put out what's there, that she was entered without her knowledge - that appears to be unquestionably what happened - and that, as the biography says, she was motivated to succeed by the scholarship money, which other accounts say she wanted for a piano. The fact is that they don't necessarily contradict and we don't have to imply that they do. Also, in BLPs biographies are given greater weight than journalistic accounts. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph of material from the biography and retained the "piano" story. Both mesh fine. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Awkward and gawky"

Core, when reverting my wording change, you said in your edit summary, "this quote is from her authorized biography, the Dworkin book, just saying "said" is sufficient". It's not sufficient when the source you state contains the quote isn't being used as a reference to support the quote. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it most certainly is. The footnote to "Dworkin, p. 36," at the end of the paragraph. That is the source for the last two sentences of the paragraph. We don't have to have references for every sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. For whatever reason, I only saw the obituary reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On another subject, I see that you used the revert tool to remove a sourced reference to Myerson acting as host of the pageant for 14 years that was added by another editor. You have got to stop this hair-trigger reversion of sourced facts that are, in this case, true. Your edit summary says that Burt Parks was host. I'm old enough to remember that Burt Parks was host of the pageant itself, while Myerson was host of the broadcast, sitting in a booth at the rear of the auditorium. I clarified, but the fact is that the original language was correct as well, and was sourced. In the future, when you see something that is added, is sourced, reflects the source correctly but you feel is incorrect, please show some respect to your fellow editors and take it to talk, rather than using the revert tool to remove it entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Worthwhile source

New York magazine had a cover story in 1987 by Patricia Morrisroe on the "Bess Mess."[3] I've added it to the "further reading" section but it would be useful as a source, in which case I presume it would have to be removed from that section. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Heritage Museum

This [4] says she was a founder of the museum in NYC. Seems like something about it might belong in the article somewhere. It's the only thing left that I saw that might be worth adding - but I'll leave it to others to follow-up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, since the article is now fully protected because of edit-warring, you or somebody would have to propose language to be added and place the appropriate edit-request notice. Coretheapple (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do hope that someday WV learns to reach for the revert button last - and improving content added by others more - it is more cooperative that way (and WV needs to read sources first - not after editing). But as for this, it looks like I got my 'important' adds in under the wire, and I was basically through with this article (it was pretty bad, when you drew attention to it - so good work) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're not unduly discouraged by the edit-warring and other nonsense and keep an eye on the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious claim that Myerson was Miss America host

Regardless of what the attached reference states, I am finding nothing online that says Myerson was the televised pageant host. It's common knowledge that Bert Parks was the long-time iconic television host of the Miss America Pageant from the 1950s through 1979. The argument for adding the content back in is that there was a difference between the television broadcast and the pageant itself. Really? If so, why is Parks noted all over the internet as being the television host of the pageant from 1955 on and nothing is said about Myerson hosting except in the NYT obituary? Look at the following links... At PBS.com: "Bert Parks virtually became an American icon as the host of the annual Miss America Pageant from its second telecast in 1955 until 1980" [5]; at missamerica.org: [6] Each are reliable sources. One is the actual Miss America website. Does the article at the MA website say one word about Myerson hosting the show? If it were true, you would think that site most certainly would, yet, nothing is said about it. In fact, 1959 Miss America Mary Ann Mobley's page at the MA website states clearly that she was a co-host on the televised pageant in 1989.

The PBS website regarding its documentary on the Miss America Pageant does state for 1954 (the first year of the televised broadcast), "Grace Kelly is a judge and Bess Myerson reports from backstage". Backstage reporting is not the same as the host (Bob Russell was the host that year). There is nothing more at that website about Myerson on TV with the pageant [7]. Even the press release on Myerson's death at the MA website says nothing about Myerson hosting the television broadcast of the pageant ([8]).

The content as it stands is dubious. And, truly, if you think about the times, how often were there female televison hosts of anything in the 1950s and into the mid-1960s? It was very rare in the 1960s, relatively unheard of in the 1950s. I can see her possibly being a co-hostess. But the only host of the storied television broadcast? No. Bert Parks was the recognized "flagship" TV host of the pageant. Myerson may have been on the show as a backstage commentator (as the PBS website states), but she wasn't the host for the broadcast, regardless of what the NYT obituary says.

And don't confuse pageant emcee with television broadcast host (as Core seems to have done in the revert edit summary). Parks wasn't the pageant emcee, he was the television broadcast host from the 1950s-1979. Everything you find online at reliable source after reliable source states as much.

Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do, eh? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)