Talk:Bill Moyers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

Wrong Image

Why in the world is the image of Moyers one from forty years ago? He is known as a journalist -- has been for decades. Google him and journalism hits are what come up. What's going on here? If I knew how, I'd post a photo from his current show, BILL MOYERS JOURNAL... Fulana 00:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For a long time there was a recent image I uploaded from a press kit. Apparently that's not acceptable under wikipedia policy anymore. ( see here.) Someone needs to replace the photo with one a photographer/media outlet released under a creative commons license. However, I don't have the time or energy necessary to fix the issue anymore. Fulana, it's fairly straightforward to figure out how to upload images. I think you could figure it out. But if you find an appropriately licensed image and can't figure out how to upload it, leave a message on my talk page and I'll give you a hand. --Osbojos 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, informative reply! If I can figure out how to get a "kosher" photo and upload it, I will. Fulana 01:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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.


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)

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...")

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)

Link not working properly

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

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)
What would be the opposite of "progressive"? If some one isn't "progressive" like Moyers, what would he or she be? 03:39, August 21, 2007 (HFC)

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)


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

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.


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)


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))

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)
I think the "Criticisms" section should be rethought and renamed. How about "Political controversy"? My understanding of the Tomlinson issue is that the guy was told to analyze data based on a political agenda. The end result was to his discredit, not Moyers' discredit. While I think the incident is notable, I think its inclusion under "Criticisms" is suggestive and misleading. I also think that the way it's worded is a bit POV. And the bit about him and Hoover, really? How is this relevant to his life and work? It's cited as being from Robert Novak. As with the O'Reilly dispute, I find the inclusion of this blurb to lower the quality of the article. Phyesalis 08:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, and I've edited accordingly.   Skopp   08:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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))


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))

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

  • I think a section is fine, but this section is a bit too involved. Some of the sources cited don't meet WP:V standards either. I think it needs some ruthless editing. - Crockspot 00:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

DUI in Vermont

In the summer of 2002, Moyers was arrested and charged in Vermont with driving under the influence of alcohol.[1] He later pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of negligent driving and was fined $750, ordered to take a drunken driving course, and given a choice of paying $1,000 to an anti-drunk-driving group, or doing 200 hours of community service. His attorney indicated that Moyers would make the $1,000 donation.[2][3]

  1. ^ LeMay, John (2002-08-02). "National journalist charged with DUI: PBS newsman Bill Moyers cited in Arlington". Bennington Banner. Retrieved 2007-06-06. 
  2. ^ "Journalist Bill Moyers pleads guilty to negligent driving, fined $750". AP. 2002-08-12. Retrieved 2007-06-06. 
  3. ^ Crabtree, Peter (2002-08-13). "Bill Moyers appears in Vermont court". Rutland Herald. Retrieved 2007-06-06. 

I think that the above should be in the article. I've written it as concisely and neutrally as I could. I can't decide where to put it though, there is no notable criticism in RS sources that I can find, so the criticism section isn't really appropriate, and I don't think it deserves its own section. Any thoughts? - Crockspot 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • For lack of a better place, I put it at the end of Criticism. I'll try to find a notable critic to source, or someone can move it into a better area of the article if they can work it in. I just didn't see a more appropriate place, given the way the article is organized. - Crockspot 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Get it out of the Controversies section, please. Also it seems to be taking a jab at the guy for a DUI with no reasoning why the article goes into detail about it. Perhaps treat the item if it were someone you respected like - "In the summer of 2002, Moyers was charged with driving under the influence (of alcohol) in Vermont. He plead guilty to the lesser charge of negligent driving and was fined." Benjiboi 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • How is this notable? Does he have a history of DUI, like Limbaugh with drugs? Or is this a one-off, perhaps after too many beers with a pal? Anyway, I have removed it as the sources are dead. Skopp (Talk) 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources are not dead. web.archive.org is down right now, which probably effects a million links posted on Wikipedia. The citations are complete, so a URL is not even necessary. You already know this, having been informed of it on the Editor and Publisher rfc on Talk:Drudge Report. Did you just forget that? I'll take Benjiboi's suggestion and pare it down, and try to find a better place for it. - Crockspot 03:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking for somewhere else to move it, I see that there's something from 2007 under "Education and early career". Should that be there? But again, there really isn't any place to move that either. There's an odd structure to the layout of the article. - Crockspot 03:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Skopp, I don't understand your last two edits. I thought the discussion was to pare that down to a minimum, so I removed some of the factual data, and now you are adding in quotes... Also, the .10 reading may not be proper to include. He blew a .10 at the traffic stop (the legal limit is .08), but in Vermont, roadside tests are not admissible in court, so by the time they got back to the station for another test, he blew below the limit (don't remember the exact number), and that is the reason that the charges were reduced. You inserting that figure puts Moyers in the worst possible light, and seems to run counter to your previous comments. So I'm confused. I reverted. - Crockspot 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The point was that 0.10 is the legal limit in some states, so he would not have been arrested elsewhere. Moreover the quote shows him to be a law-abiding driver for all of his life. That's my reasoning. I may add some of it back in when I have the time. Skopp (Talk) 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I see, you want the .10 in there for original research purposes. All makes sense now. What states have .10 as their legal limit? - Crockspot 16:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, I looked it up myself. If by "elesewhere" you mean Delaware and Minnesota, I still think you are trying to paint Moyers in the worst possible light. 48 of the 50 states have a legal limit of .08 or lower. And even in those two states, if he blew a .10, he would have been arrested anyway. - Crockspot 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're full of it today, Crock. [2] Skopp (Talk) 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And you're always full of incivility. Since your link does not state what date those numbers were effective, and mine states 2004, and considering that the trend in the past decade has been to lower the limits, not raise them, I would say that the link I provided is probably more accurate. It does not reflect on how full of shit either of us are. It is simply conflicting content, which logic can tell us which one is probably more accurate. And content is what we are supposed to focus on, not the contributor. I don't know if you'll ever learn this key concept of behavior on Wikipedia. - Crockspot 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I must keep coming back to is this really anything worth much of a mention? Seems like it's not newsworthy except to three very local papers that might not exist anymore unless I'm missing something there. DUIs are pretty common and this didn't seem to be terribly life notable so why is it getting anything but a passing glance. Did he rally against drunk driving or hold someone else to the fire in his political or journalism career that make this stick out as hypocritical? There are dozens upon dozens of more notable events in Moyers life that seem much more deserving of effort than this. Benjiboi 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I chose the local papers, and one AP story, because I could find full versions of them on web.archive.org (By the way, they are not dead or gone, the Wayback machine has just been down for a couple of days, affecting hundreds of thousands of links on Wikipedia), but the story was widely covered in national news. When I was originally searching for these articles, I ran across quite a bit of commentary about a couple of stories he did about alcohol abuse, where he was hammering someone on camera for driving drunk. I'm sure some of those stories are in the mix of the link I provided above. There is also some fairly mild criticism in some of the stories in that search, but it was all pretty low key and more snickery than real criticism, which is why I didn't source it previously. But since I don't have the time to devote to researching this deeper at the moment, I won't object to removal for now. If I come up with something later that meets Benjiboi's general criteria, I'll bring it back up here. The current sources are posted above, so they won't be lost, which is my main concern. I put in a bit of work finding those sources, and I don't like seeing good citations vaporized. - Crockspot 03:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it's still a trivial life event, Crock, given undue weight in this short article on Moyers's long and interesting life. But if you can find a pattern of him targeting drunken drivers, for instance the way Falwell targeted gays, I'll support the inclusion. Skopp (Talk) 03:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As it fits into the article currently, and with its current sourcing, yes, I agree. There, see how easy that is when no one is poking anyone with a sharp stick? - Crockspot 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're being fair now, and it's nice. You could work more with me (and other, seemingly opposing editors) on some issues and still come to useful outcomes in your eyes. For instance, on the other page where we're talking, it may be a plus for conservatives not to have in their ranks weak links that expose the GOP underbelly to critics. I'm sure most true conservatives are not thrilled with having subterfuge-laden running dog lackeys in their ranks. Think about it. Light is a great disinfectant. Skopp (Talk) 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not here representing the GOP. In fact, in my lifetime, I have voted for more Democrats than Republicans, and was a member of the California Green Party for ten years, but I have never been a registered Republican, though I have been voting Republican since 1998. So I really don't have as much invested in these arguments as you assume. As to the other thing, I can pretty much work productively with anyone, as long as they are addressing the content, and doing so in a reasonable and logical way. I can be convinced to change my opinion in this manner. But I have little desire to work with, or even listen very carefully to editors who are uncivil, question my good faith, and attack me with nearly every edit. But if such an editor shows that they want to improve their behavior, I'm always willing to let bygones be bygones. User:BenBurch is a good example. We used to fight worse than Eleemosynary and me, but now we are friends, and communicate regularly off-wiki. I'm not the big dumb freeper that people try to paint me as. I actually studied politics and philosophy in college, and have a lifetime political experience that ranges from Reagan-era-conspiratorial-progressive (yes we used the word progressive back in the early 80's) to NRA-fiscal-conservative-social-moderate. So I haven't only heard all the arguments, I've actually believed in many of them at one time or another. I don't know how old you are, but people do change their views gradually as they get older. - Crockspot 06:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm probably older than you. I have grown-up children :) I apologize for seeming so uncivil, but I have carpal tunnel and frequently cut corners to type less, which often gives offence. Skopp (Talk)
  • We probably aren't far apart. I'm old enough to have children pushing 30, and have a 17yo step son. Anyway, must sleep, let's try to continue this conciliatory tone tomorrow. - Crockspot 06:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please chill on the personal issues. If the issue was widely covered and got national attention AND part of the coverage focused on Moyers being a hypocrite then that's what should be written. Really little need to use small papers if national ones do the job just fine. i suggest rewrite the section and post here to avoid drama. Benjiboi 09:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, the reason I chose those papers was due to availability online of full text. The WaPo and other big papers only have abstracts online. I did also include an AP wire story, which is what most of the big papers reprinted anyway. - Crockspot 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would still start with the largest circulation/nation papers first then fill in details from the smaller papers as needed. if the large papers didn't include those details there might be a good reason for it (they didn't think it was important, couldn't verify, who knows). In any case, start with (and source) that it was nationally important enough to cover and what hypocritical evidence is given and then use the archived small papers if needed. Benjiboi 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not missing anything. It's not worthy of inclusion, and is being used to attack Moyers by an editor who cannot get beyond his political bias. If Moyers routinely criticized politicians for being drunks, or driving drunk, that might merit inclusion. As it stands, it's an attack. I'm removing it. --Eleemosynary 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. It does seem a trivial life event that was only included to cast aspersions. If Moyers was a drunk, or he was involved in a hit-and-run, or his blood alcohol content was not just barely over the limit (in that state), then maybe... Skopp (Talk) 01:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the removal and should this issue arise we have some documentation to work with archived on these pages. Let's give the other editors good faith credit that they were trying to present a balance and not simply attacking Moyers. Benjiboi 03:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly

I think the minor mention of O'Reilly that I have modified should stay in the article. There are no ranting quotes, it's simple, straighforward, true, and verified by no less than four secondary references in mainstream news sources that are not O'Reilly himself or Fox News. I also added one sentence about the full page ad that Moyers took out to defend himself against an attack by O'Reilly (with source). If O'Reilly's opinions were truly non-notable, why would Moyers take such action? And why would several reliable sources reference various disputes between the two? I have added this same source to the mention of Moyers in the O'Reilly article. These two have been at each other for years, it's notable that they have disputes, and it can be mentioned properly without going into all the dirty details and rants. I have to wonder about the motivation behind editors who would want to exclude such well-sourced and well-known information. - Crockspot 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me and I see no BLP violations since it is well referenced with third party sources. I've reverted to your last edit.--MONGO 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the section once again, as I believe it gives undue weight to what is little more than unproven slander by O'Reilly, and does not merit a place in an encyclopedia article. Crockspot, the answer to your question "If O'Reilly's opinions were truly non-notable, why would Moyers take such action" is this: Moyers felt the need to defend himself against slander, and did so. If you want to rewrite the section as "O'Reilly's Slandering of Moyers," then I'd be all for that. Your statement that "these two have been at each other for years" is not quite true. Several years ago, O'Reilly attacked Moyers, after which Moyers defended himself and called O'Reilly a liar, which O'Reilly did not dispute. This does not meet that standard of an "ongoing dispute," nor does it enshrine O'Reilly as a legitimate "critic" of O'Reilly any more than it would someone screaming about Moyers on the sidewalk.
Regarding your "cites," please note the most recent non-editorial one that claims there was any dispute at all (the Kurtz Post article), is from over four years ago. That's hardly a case for notability. The others are an AP report from 2002, a National Review(!) columnist's editorial from 2004, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article that is inaccessible without payment, but whose headline--"Rush and pals like to play the media blame game"--hardly sounds like it makes the case that O'Reilly is issuing anything more than bluster, and a transcript of O'Reilly's own show (which is hardly an objective source). These cites, viewed separately and in context, do not make the case that O'Reilly's invective rises to Wikipedia standards of notability.
As for your final statement, I have to wonder about the motivations of editors who want to include information on the page of a liberal commentator about which they would scream bloody murder were it on the page of a conservative commentator.
I invite more editors to weigh in on this. Eleemosynary 04:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you see no conflict with your argument above, and your argument on Matt Drudge advocating the inclusion of an external link that makes the unproven allegation that Drudge is a "nasty little faggot"? I'm advocating for sourced neutrally presented criticism from a notable television personality, and you are advocating the inclusion of derogatory comments from a much less notable person. - Crockspot 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you're trying to insert slander on a liberal journalist's page, and censor sourced, relevant info about a right-wing gossip columnist who often traffics in homosexual allegations. That's your MO. But you already knew that. (Nice job completely misstating the argument, btw.) --Eleemosynary 08:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I find this edit by Crockspot very interesting, given his actions on the Drudge pages. Looks like I was right about this editor all along. Skopp (Talk) 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to look at the page by Eleemosynary. I guess what concerns me about the O'Reilly comments, here as with George Soros, is that he makes some very serious personal attacks on ideological opponents who he feels attack him as well. In the Soros article an administrator ruled that such comments cannot be included without a "strong consensus," and the article was protected to prevent their inclusion because a strong concensus did not exist. I think the same standard should apply here. Is there a strong consensus of editors to include this material?--Samiharris 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I know I'm late in the debate here, but an admin ruled that the comments on the Soros page were possibly in voilation of BLP. On the Moyers page, however, it's just a question of O'Reilly criticizing Moyers' journalistic methods. That criticism should definately exist here, in addition to the Goldberg comments.
And actually, the real analogy is not in comparing this article to the Soros one, but in comparing this article to O'Reilly's article, where every critic of O'Reilly's journalism has a posting.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless this is a case of WP:POINT, there really is no point in comparison. Stating A is broken so we should break B is not a justification for anything. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Even though I think BOR is a blowhard and entertainer rather than a serious commentator, I do not oppose a concise summary of his criticisms of Moyers. However, I do oppose paragraphs of vague "he said, she said"-type inclusions, especially when the source is the heavily biased Fox News website. Let's get a source that 1) is not BOR's employer, and 2) has some credibility. Skopp (Talk) 00:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop using wikipedia as your own liberal soap box. Fox News is just as good a source as CNN or MSNBC. Just because they offer some viewpoints that may oppose your POV, does not mean they are not notable. O'Reilly's comments catch Moyers in the act of an outright lie to smear someone whom he disagrees with politically. Your ridiculous claims about O'Reilly smearing bear no fruit here, O'Reilly simply presented the facts by presenting Moyers' own words to Rolling Stone and to O'Reilly's producer. I ask you please stop the vandalism of this page. The criticism is very valid and notable in an unbiased encyclopedia. This is not your personal ideological propaganda page.Arnabdas 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You are giving undue weight to a trivial argument between BOR and BM over trivial issues. If BOR has ever said anything notable and substantive about BM, something more notable than things like "BM tried to deny things I say he said, roll the tape". And talking of vandalism and bias, I ask you to stop using this page as your personal notepad for every iota of anti-liberal invective gleaned from your TV propaganda channels. Skopp (Talk) 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion on undue weight holds no baering. Slander is not a trivial issue. Moyers was shown to attack someone he disagrees with on tape and then deny it on tape. It goes to his bias and credibility. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't make it any less true. This is not a Moyers promotion page. It is an encyclopedic entry that is supposed to be an objective. Arnabdas 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The undue weight argument is irrefutable. In addition, you fail to understand that the criticism section is there for substantive concerns, not a scratchpad for drone-like O'Reilly or Limbaugh fanboyz to note down every inconsistency or (supposed) gotcha their hero trumpets, every fluffy piece of paranoid misperception, every politically motivated, carping attack they dream up to fill the timeslot. It is not encyclopedic that O'Reilly claims (or even proves) that Moyers misremembered something he said about O'Reilly or claims he didn't say it. It's simply inconsequential noise generated to entertain the masses. Skopp (Talk) 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It is about showing people for whom they really are. Moyers tries to put on this facade of objectivity and honesty when O'Reilly proves him dishonest. If you don't find what O'Reilly said to be noteworthy, then you shouldnt be hypocritical. I ask you be consistent and nominate Criticism of Bill O'Reilly as an article for deletion. Arnabdas 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

The items probably should be in chronological order and the one having to do with him in the Johnson Whitehouse isn't clear. Benjiboi 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Sorted section into chronological order and wikified Johnson Whitehouse one. Benjiboi 08:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Goldberg

I've removed the B Goldberg quote, taken selectively from [3]. The editor User:Arnabdas needs to be careful about choosing sentences from sources to make a point, while deleting other sentences and completely ignoring opposing POV. Moreover, it is not encyclopedic that a GOP hack like Goldberg thinks that BM is so awfully and extremely liberal that it reminds him of a fundamentalist Christian. This is gossip and insult, not substantive or notable criticism. It's like me adding to the O'Reilly page that Moyers thinks he is paranoid and nuts. Skopp (Talk) 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This was Goldberg's analysis based on Moyers' actions. Please stop vandalizing this page and preventing the legitimate criticism of Moyers. I also ask you again to stop making ideological statements by understanding WP:SOAP. Arnabdas 18:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop abusing the word "vandalism." --Osbojos 19:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
To qualify as worthwhile criticism, you have to have a more rigorous analysis than what Goldberg offers. Just parse what he says carefully -- there's no proof, it's pure opinion, not a smidgen of fact, just the usual baseless waffle that's become the Bernard Goldberg hallmark. Skopp (Talk) 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Goldberg was referring to the whole exchange with O'Reilly and the Bush Impeachment deal. That's why he said his last statement of "what did he leave out?" because he is saying that Moyers, though having a talent for highlighting topics others aren't, often does misrepresent issues through ommission. Ommitting relevant information from a presentation slants what is being presented. The old "statistics don't lie, statisticians do" quote. Arnabdas 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected Page

Could someone please justify protecting this page? Only admins can edit this page because one guy keeps trying to insert baseless accusations and refuses to listen to reason? That seems a bit excessive. If any drastic action needed to be taken at all (and I don't think it did) wouldn't the answer be to block the problematic person/people from editing rather that to protect the page from all edits? --Osbojos 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I do find it funny how there are people who try to remove relevant information they find "baseless" because they don't like the message that is being said. How open minded and "progressive" of these people. Arnabdas 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And with that, you both just demonstrated why this page is protected. --Hiddekel 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because an exchange lends itself to a smug reply doesn't make your smug response accurate. Please explain how I demonstrated the need for page protection? --Osbojos 21:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly dispute

First off, let me say loud and clear that I despise "criticism" sections in articles, particularly in BLPs, as their sheer existence is testimony of failed consensus building. They attract trolling, POV pushing, vandalism and whatnot and basically never improve an article. Criticism sections are the POV versions of Trivia sections. But that's about my own personal POV.

I believe that clearcut POV disputes like this one should be settled as quickly as possible. The problem may be that compromising between individual POVs may not do the job. NPOV cannot simply be achieved by balancing all POVs. So, everyone should suspend their judgment, and adopt objective axioms for a moment.

To sum up the dispute as I understand it: One "party" (of which there should be none) wants the Bill O'Reilly info in the article, the other "party" wants it out. Right?

Ok, well, here's my opinion:

  • What O'Reilly said about Moyers can be cited in this article as a simple formulation. It does not constitute "criticism" as in "professional journalistic criticism striving for objectivity", simply because O'Reilly is vastly well-known to be a right-wing pundit. Cry foul if you think this isn't true or consitutes a POV, but keep in mind that I'm not proposing putting this in the article: yet we should establish consensus on the premises in order to resolve the issue at hand. As a compromise and for simple formulation's sake, the blockquote formatting should be left out.
  • The relevance for including the info stems from Moyers own (substantial) actions/reactions. If it weren't for that, everything O'Reilly said wouldn't be more than a footnote, but in fact there was an exchange between the two of them, and as far as I know Moyers started it.
  • Most importantly: Practically every reader has their own preconceptions (which they are entitled to). "Left-wing" readers may categorize criticism by O'Reilly somewhere between flattering, irrelevant and inaccurate. "Right-wing" readers may categorize it as accurate, relevant and "unflattering". There's nothing we can do about any of that, except assuming the occasional "naive" reader and therefore striving for completeness, reliable sources, and simple formulations which truly reflect what the sources say and don't over- or understate it in any way (i.e. no blockquote formatting in this case).
  • So, why not leave the info in the article? As long as it's referenced (which it is) there's no OR. As long as it's a simple formulation (which it is), it satisfies NPOV. Since Moyers has actively participated in the exchange, it's relevant info. What Moyers said about O'Reilly should be added to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly and linked to from here.

AldeBaer 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable position and I agree that if the exchange between O'Reilly and Moyers can be summarised into a simple formulation of one paragraph of a couple of sentences, giving the salient points, without quotes and without bias, it is acceptable. Anything more and the (trivial) exchange becomes an overweight addition to this short bio.   Skopp   05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I support the inclusion of a brief and neutral mention of it. I'm not a big fan of lots of quotes myself. - Crockspot 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I am glad you are agreeing to put it in. I put in the quotes to give the exact position of what the people are saying. I always found that to be the best form to avoid bias in reporting what someone says. However, if you guys feel that a summary would suffice I am more than happy to agree IF it does not distort the article in anyway. I also completely agree that Moyers' Rolling Stone comments should be in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly as well as O'Reilly's rebuttal. If Moyers has a specific rebuttal to this particular point of Bill O'Reilly's then I also believe it should be included here. We are not here to promote any one person's POV but rather provide information that allows readers the COMPLETE information on people for them to make educated decisions for themselves. Arnabdas 15:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking to put in something like was put in the Politics of Bill O'Reilly article:

O'Reilly has gone after PBS personality Bill Moyers. O'Reilly criticized Moyers for having no balance in his presentations. He also called Moyers dishonest for making disparaging remarks about O'Reilly to Rolling Stone and then later denying them when confronted by one of O'Reilly's producers

Arnabdas 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We're having a similar discussion in George Soros, another of O'Reilly's targets. Again, what is at issue are personal attacks and not "criticism." While perhaps relevant to an O'Reilly article in the correct context, I see problems here from WP:WEIGHT and also whether O'Reilly can be considered a reliable source as pertains to personal enemies. I say leave it out.--Samiharris 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're not relying on O'Reilly as a source for anything beyond what he said about Moyers (and vice versa, for that matter). Also, it's not our place to make a judgement on whether or not any of the statements on record constitute a "personal attack", since that would be OR. And even if a reliable third party source can be quoted on that, we must not assert that opinion itself.
With regard to WP:WEIGHT: As I said above, the fact that there has been an exchange of "pleasantries" is —in my personal opinion— enough to justify inclusion both here and in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly — in a simple paragraph, much like what Arnabdas proposes. Besides: WP:WEIGHT is more about rivalling views on a subject matter, of which there really are none in this case; we're just including something that has been said by two popular figures about each other. Although, it would be a nice touch of overdoing it to quote them both on disagreeing with what the other said :D —AldeBaer 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't accept that, certainly not as pertains to biographies of living people. BLP policy would be rendered meaningless if statements that are controversial or derogatory must be "labeled" as such by a third party source. These are judgments we must make as editors and I frankly see no wiggle room. My view would be that WP:WEIGHT applies on the general issue of whether to include these remarks, in proportion to their significance to the biography. Even though Moyers is a public figure, under BLP we must treat these kinds of accusations with sensitivity. --Samiharris 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Making such a judgment (i.e. whether a published statement contitutes slander or accusations) ourselves, without attributing that meta opinion, is original research. As far as we're concerned, if it is published in a source that is reliable with regard to what is being asserted (in this case, simply the wording of O'Reilly's statements), we can include it. Also, I believe WP:WEIGHT can be satisfied in this case simply by obeying WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. —AldeBaer 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Arnabdas, now that you've boiled the whole schemozzle down into a few sentences, it looks pretty insubstantial and petty, doesn't it? Unless you can gussy it up into something more encyclopedic, I'll oppose.   Skopp   17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think Arnabdas' proposed wording is a good starting point. —AldeBaer 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In other words: How would you formulate it? —AldeBaer 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
1. This is petty, trivial information, and I'd feel the same way if similar information were included in the O'Reilly page, or any other biography page.
2. The only source is fox news. I wouldn't be so opposed to its inclusion if a more reliable source were found to back up O'Reilly's assertion. The problem is, a more reliable source can't be found because the assertions are disingenuous. Review the transcript. The Moyers clips are of him criticizing fox news and the right wing media in general not O'Reilly in particular. That is a FACT, not a matter of debate unless your reading comprehension skills are woefully inadequate or you're purposely misrepresenting a statement to suit your own agenda. Say for example a person says "Presidents, such as Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, are dishonest." In a later interview this speaker is asked "Why did you call Clinton dishonest?" Well, the speaker didn't call Clinton dishonest, he was speaking in generalities. (And, regardless, even people with superhuman memories aren't going to recall whether it was coulter or o'reilly they cited as one of several examples of a "slime-thrower" in an old interview.) This is classic fox news stuff, they love to take quotes out of context and disregard the most simple rhetorical devices whenever it suits their needs. A blustering, uninformed opinion based on intentionally misinterpreted statements has no business being in an encyclopedia, even if the assertion had some sort of substantive value, and this one does not.
3. It's a petty, childish argument. Take the 1964 homosexuality investigation included in the article for example, that's substantive, verifiable, reputation-damaging criticism that does have a place in this article. Compare that with "O'Reilly doesn't like Moyers. Moyer's kind of insulted fox news in general once and denied it when he was asked the question 'Did you insult O'Reilly directly'" and you'll see just how petty the latter "criticism" is.
4. As for this being an "exchange of pleasantries," I would have to disagree. Moyers didn't address O'Reilly's criticism at length, he said "I didn't say that" (which, again, if you review the transcript, he clearly didn't) when someone else brought it up.
5. Admittedly, the "simple formulation" as proposed above is not citing O'Reilly's criticism as fact, but a cursory review of the transcript reveals his criticism to be baseless and borderline slander. Thus this is not an opinion of a matter "subject to dispute" by any honest party and thus fails to mee the WP:Weight guidelines.
6. I'm not speaking as an ideologue here. I've been watching this page for several years, and occassionally an overzealous Moyer's fan will get on here and insert POV or unencyclopedic stuff, and I don't hesitate to revert that. If you think I'm coming from a POV, just review the page history.
7. And by the way, disputes on this page have always worked out in the past without a page freeze being necessary. I hope this can be avoided in the future. --Osbojos 21:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
1. That's your opinion which everyone here respects as such. I, for one, think it doesn't harm the article to include it. Then again, I'm almost always for the inclusion of referenced info.
2. But Fox News is the definitive source for something broadcast by Fox News - and nothing else is being asserted. Noone argues that what O'Reilly is "correct", only that he did say it.
3. I wish you wouldn't use words like childish, but I accept your opinion.
4. Ok, but O'Reilly still made those statements which refer to that Moyers interview.
5. Again: Maybe it's slander, maybe not. It's not what we're discussing. Even if it is slander, it is still published, attributable slander, that's what counts since we're not qualifying O'Reilly's statements as anything else than simply his statements (=simple formulation).
6. Each of us subscribes to a POV (or rather, a whole set of POVs) simply by participating in this discussion, don't you think?
7. Second that. —AldeBaer 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've nothing to add to most of your points, however, #3 - sometimes there's no kind way to say something, I wasn't being intentionally offensive, but "childish" was the most apt description I could think of. #6 - Sure, everyone has a point of view, but facts are facts, and in this case, O'Reilly's assertions simply aren't backed up by facts, and that's evident from the very fox news source cited. That's why I've repeatedly called this this a baseless accusation, not because of personal political views. I don't object to some information about O'Reilly being a frequent critic of Moyers being included in the article. Also, I recognize that it isn't wikipedia's job to do original research, but a responsible encyclopedia cannot publish information that is facially false, even by prefacing it with "O'Reilly believes." The only way I would feel comfortable with this specific criticism being included is if it was rebutted with excerpts of the transcript showing that Moyers never said the things he was accused of, and denied saying. Since this seems like a trivial criticism from O'Reilly anyway, it seems inappropriate to dedicate so much of an article to the criticism and its rebuttal. Again, I wouldn't be opposed to inclusion of other O'Reilly criticism of Moyers being included if the criticism doesn't include information that can so readily be proved false. O'Reilly has certainly dedicated enough of his breath to criticizing Moyers that such information should be available. --Osbojos 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I was initially going for the Golden Godwin here, but instead I re-read your posts and I think what your point is really about, if I understand it correctly, is that the O'Reilly info was in the "Criticism" section. In my opinion, it would be a huge service to this article (and to every other article with such a section) to refactor the page or at least rename the section to "Moyers in the media" or something along those lines. Get to think about it, "Criticism" as a section headline works much like a qualifying disclaimer —a bit like arbitrarily employing policy links per WP:COW and WP:MC— whence all the brouhaha it often causes.
Ok everyone, I'm hereby extending my above suggestions to additionally renaming the section to "Moyers in the media". And while I'm at it, when we're done with this discussion, we should form a cabal and propose this at each and every page with a "Criticism" section. For further explanation of my style POVs, please pay a visit to my userpage. —AldeBaer 00:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I should explain my Golden Godwin reference: What I mean is that since we don't assert anything with regard to the quality of O'Reilly's statements, we don't need another source. Even if O'Reilly had said that Moyers and Moyers alone is responsible for cancer, world hunger and various acoustic crimes, the notion or fact that those statements are arguably more or less baseless is no grounds to exclude them. To finally obey Godwin's law: Hitler made "several" "rather" very very baseless accusations, yet the undisputable fact of their complete and utter baselessness is not a reason not to mention that he made them, is it? God, I'm glad that's been said. :D —AldeBaer 00:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • While many may find your juxtapositioning of Hitler and O'Reilly quite apposite, I would say that apart from their ideological similarities, one was a world leader of stupendous historical significance, thus making his every murmur notable, while the other is a cheap propagandist and pamphleteer employed by a network that's become an international byword for execrable journalism. O'Reilly is most known for forcing intrusive phone sex on an unwilling female employee. Nothing he says, ever, is notable, and certainly not this garbage.   Skopp   01:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why I mentioned Godwin's law: It wasn't in the least bit my intention to juxtapose O'Reilly with Hitler, but instead to juxtapose baseless statements with baseless statements. However, don't you think it's a bit overblown to describe O'Reilly as a world leader? —AldeBaer 01:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the immortal words of Nelson Muntz speak the loudest - HA HA!   Skopp   02:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • For my part, I find Osbojos to have the most logical and compelling argument. I still oppose the inclusion of this boring, unencyclopaedic, Fox-generated spat, especially now that I've seen it reduced to its sorry essentials as a simple formulation. Renaming a criticism section to "Moyers in the media" is misguided and ill-advised, since his whole career has been "in the media". There certainly are valid criticisms of Moyers to be listed, but Fox's ratings-grabbing, contrived melodramas do not meet the required standard.   Skopp   01:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not married to the idea of including it, but we're here to find a compromise, and ideally establish consensus. With "in the media" I meant as a subject. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, that whole qualification thing regarding what constitutes valid criticism an what doesn't could be avoided by neutralizing the qualifier "Criticism", which, the more I think about it, totally violates a simple formulation no matter what the content of that section is. —AldeBaer 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems the biggest beef users like Skopp et al have are these pseudo-intellectual (pseudo-intellectual because of alleging propaganda which not only is untrue with regards to this particular statement, but overall to anyone whom actually fairly watches his program without regurgitating what REAL propaganda sites like media matters or hate sites like moveon or daily kos promote) POV discussions about Bill O'Reilly.

This is not an issue about whether or not you may or may not like O'Reilly. It is a matter of pointing out Moyers' credibility as an honest journalist. There have been proven allegations that Moyers reports with a slant towards his POV.

As for the ridiculous comparison of O'Reilly to Hitler, we should point out that a tenet of fascism is to suppress any and all dissent against the authority. Apparantly, there are people here who don't want proven dissent against Moyers to be highlighted and personally attack those whom do dissent against Moyers so that the public won't be aware of Moyers' criticism. That seems more in line with fascism. Arnabdas 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, my argument was a bit unfortunate in that the misunderstanding is apparently too plausible not to make it. Again, I never meant to compare O'Reilly with anyone. I was trying to make a point with regard to those who argue exclusion of O'Reilly's statements on the basis that they are (allegedly) baseless. My point is simply that it doesn't at all matter whether or not they are baseless, as long as we make it a simple formulation and don't assert any opinions themselves.
However, here's another comparison: Calling Media Matters for America left-leaning is a bit like trying to offend the pope by calling him a Catholic. Obviously, MMfA is left-leaning, but not any more so than Fox News is right-leaning. Both of them are propaganda platforms, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just what they do. And of course they all believe they are unbiased, "fair and balanced", "correcting misinformation" etcpp. As long as we don't let ourselves get sidetracked by parotting back such skewed propaganda messages, we should be fine. —AldeBaer 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
To make this clear: I do not have a problem with quoting Bill O'Reilly, biased as he himself, baseless as his statements may or may not be. Let the readers judge for themselves. As I argued above, depending on their individual point of view, readers are going to differently judge any criticism by either O'Reilly or Moyers anyway. And it does not matter whether those statements are baseless or not: because we are not going to assert either opinion. —AldeBaer 17:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comparing Fox News to Media Matters is like comparing Joe Lieberman to Rush Limbaugh. The more accurate comparison is Fox News (and by Fox News I mean hard news) leaning right and CNN leaning left. Media Matters is on the same level of Sean Hannity, both are committed to their POV and will present all material towards their POV even if material is ommitted. Arnabdas 19:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In your comparison, does Limbaugh equal Media Matters or Fox News? The thing is: Fox News regularly omits material to advance their neoconservative message. CNN is right-leaning as well, just not as blatantly biased as Fox News. But Fox News being an obvious neocon propaganda platform is still not important when discussing whether they are reliable on what O'Reilly said. —AldeBaer 12:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Arnabdas:
  1. I find some of your grammar unintelligible, viz. the first sentence of your latest contribution above.
  2. Calling other editors "pseudo-intellectuals" is breaking one of the cardinal rules of partaking in editorial discussions on wikipedia, so please desist with this insulting tack or face a simple reversion without discussion of your edits.
  3. Your latest comments do nothing to convince me that the insubstantial carping from Fox News via their minion, B.O'R., deserves inclusion in this short biographical page.   Skopp   23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
1. I find it hillarious how liberals always try to point out to grammar mistakes yet always fail to answer the question or counter the point with a substantive argument.
However, you are correct in that it is a bit difficult to decipher for which I apologize. To be clear about it, the only reason people are objecting to this particular quote from being included is because of some irrational hatred of Bill O'Reilly. My personal opinion is that the irrational hatred comes from ignorance of not knowing who O'Reilly is. Anyone who does watch his program regularly will know that he is not a conservative and has many opinions that are dramatically opposite conservative POV.
Still, once again, O'Reilly's own political ideology (whatever it may be) is irrelevent. The issue is whether or not his criticism of Moyers is notable. Yes it is, because it goes to Moyers' credibility and proof of him engaging in slanderous remarks.
2. I did not call any editor pseudo-intellectuals, I called the POV argument certain editors make as pseudo-intellectual. If you're going to threaten me, please get your facts straight.
3. You aren't being convinced because you don't want to be convinced. The argument is absolutely sound on its merits. You are letting your own ideology dictate your own objectivity in addressing this issue. If you want to live in your bubble and worship all liberals while lambasting anyone who does not have a far left POV then feel free to. That doesn't mean you get to use wikipedia as your own pov propaganda page. Arnabdas 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is my compromise edit to get this dispute out of the way: "Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly has criticized Moyers for, in his view, lacking balance in his presentations." I excluded your other sentence (dealing with Moyers's supposed dishonesty) because of the point raised by Osbojos above, namely that BOR is deliberately ignoring the fact that BM was using a rhetorical device, not impugning BOR directly. Please cite the sentence as well as you can (Fox News is not really a reliable source).   Skopp   23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not addressing what Moyers exactly did. Saying what you said is like describing the 9-11 attacks as "two buildings were imploded in New York." And you really should stop being a broken record by trying to irrationally regurgitate that Fox News is somehow not reliable, especially when O'Reilly proved his case on their airwaves. Please stop using this talk page as your propaganda page against Fox News and any criticism of Moyers and adhere to WP:SOAP. Thanks. Arnabdas 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm done debating you, Arnabdas. You seem incapable of discussing this without using insulting language. I oppose your inclusion on the grounds stated.   Skopp   22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Ok, I know this. Moyers used O'Reilly in a clip as an example in a documentary on media bias and O'Reilly responded that he was being taken out of context and showed an extension of the footage that Moyers presented to make his case. We can use both the Moyers show and the O'Reilly one as sources for verification of this. Although we should not jump to conclusions as to who is right or wrong. As to Fox News being reliable, I started a discussion at WP:RS to get input on this so anyone is welcome to chime in on that. MrMurph101 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fox News reliable? Here's why it isn't: [4]   Skopp   22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed this still hasn't been resolved. I think my comments have been drowned out by all the partisan talk coming from both sides here. So let me restate/rephrase: I am opposed to the inclusion of this particular O'Reilly criticism in the article because 1. I think it's petty, and 2. More important, it's a false allegation. This isn't a matter of opinion, just review the transcript, O'Reilly is clearly taking Moyers out of context. Excuse me for lacking good faith here, but let me be honest, I think many people who add to the criticism section have the goal of saying something, anything, negative about Moyers, rather than contributing to actual content. I think this desire is making it hard for them to see that this particular "criticism" is both inconsequential and inaccurate, and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia. Again, please, just review the transcript with an open mind. Meanwhile, others are letting their personal distaste for all things fox dominate their arguments. Here is where I think the compromise comes in. I think all parties are willing to accept that 1. every honest person in the world will admit that Moyer's allows a leftist/liberal/progressive/whatever-you-want-to-call-it worldview influence his journalism, and 2. Bill O'Reilly frequently criticizes Bill Moyers. Both of these facts, I believe, are worthy of inclusion in and will add to the content of the Moyers article. My Proposal: Arnabdas or someone else who is familiar with O'Reilly's views find some other representative criticism of Moyers from O'Reilly. It should be something that summarizes the core of their disagreement, but here's my one sticking point: it shouldn't be a "criticism" that's so blatantly dishonest as taking some video clips out of context. I hardly ever watch/listen to O'Reilly, but I know he says negative things about Moyers all the time. It should be very easy to find a more substantive and honest bit criticism from O'Reilly. So Arnabdas, why don't you look for something like that and stick it in the article. Inevitably other editors (maybe even me) will cry POV, and the criticism will be altered and rephrased until it's something everyone can live with. Again, the core of the dispute here isn't that people don't want Moyers to be criticized, it's that this particular criticism is very weak. This doesn't have to be a partisan fight, a tiny bit of cooperation could make the inclusion of something like this a genuine benefit to the Moyers article rather than a left-wing/right-wing PR-battle.--Osbojos 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say they're taking each other out of context. I agree with your proposal though. If this example is not worthy than find another and hash it out from there. These two have a bit of a feud so maybe it should presented that way like it is in the Keith Olbermann article. Chronical some of the points the two made about each other and leave it at that without any POV-pushing. MrMurph101 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the proposal is acceptable, but still I find the argument as to O'Reilly's comments being "taken out of context" etc. to be irrelevant (not true or untrue, merely irrelevant). That kind of reliability would be important iff we were going to allege it. As I said several times, almost all readers have their respective opinion regarding O'Reilly/Fox News and will read any criticism by or about him according to their own preconceptions. —AldeBaer 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


  • I would ask that the mediator carefully read the transcript in question, in which Moyers correctly denies saying the things he is accused of saying against O'Reilly. Thank you.   Skopp   03:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this transcript is where O'Reilly accuses Moyers of taking him out of context. MrMurph101 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's the clip Arnabdas was linking to in the original disagreement, but the transcript to which you link is priceless, and simply more ammunition for my side of the argument. Not once does O'Reilly prove the point he is striving to make. I now think that not only is the man a little deranged, but stupid as well! I urge readers to READ the transcripts closely and critically (you know, the way his audience never does). Quite amusing, really.   Skopp   07:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how anything could be more clear about O'Reilly proving Moyers flat out lied. Straight from the transcript I posted a while back shows precisely Moyers denying he said anything disparaging of O'Reilly followed directly by the clip of him blabbing to Rolling Stone. O'Reilly's contention is that Moyers is dishonest and he proves it right there. This case cannot have more proveable evidence beyond this. The only way one can deny this is if the person does not want to believe it. And for the record, I do not believe that we should include something else INSTEAD of including this obvious lie Moyers propagated. We can include other criticisms of Moyers, but this one is absolute and cannot be challenged even in a court of law, let alone wikipedia. Arnabdas 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I don't know why I bother, but anyway, with a few spare minutes let me try once more .... here is the exact transcript:

/

WATTERS: Why are you attacking Bill, now?

MOYERS: I'm not attacking Bill.

WATTERS: Well, didn't you give an interview where you said he was part of a slime machine and trying to discredit other journalists?

MOYERS: I didn't say that.

WATTERS: Yes, you did. You said that's to Rolling Stone.

MOYERS: No, I didn't say that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Bill O'Reilly: To echo Jesse, yes, you did, Bill. Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOYERS: The FOX News, the talk radio, The Weekly Standard have not only mongered for war along with the administration, not only embraced the administration's policies because they were "conservative", including going to war, but also mounted a slime machine to discredit any journalist who dared to stand against the official view of reality.

(END CLIP)

Now clearly:

  1. Moyers did not mention O'Reilly by name
  2. He correctly denied saying that O'Reilly was "part of a slime machine", which his questioner accused him of doing.

An argument could be made that he was attacking O'Reilly by implication, but it's a weak argument, since Fox News employs many anchors and hundreds of reporters. So you have a reading comprehension problem, Arnabdas. Now please stop making it our problem too.   Skopp   22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got it exactly right, thank you. --Osbojos 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Either your deception knows no bounds or you simly cannot read. Clearly later on in the transcript O'Reilly brings up the clip of Moyers smearing O'Reilly by alleging he spews venom:

MOYERS: If a journalist tried to tell the truth about the intelligence the Hannitys and the O'Reillys and the Limbaughs and the Mike Savages would come down on them and you know slander them, discredit them. So that good reporting lost its power to break through because of this, this avalanche of opposition and venom directed at them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268302,00.html YOUR only problem is that you try to let your own ideology override your academic integrity. Arnabdas 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you still not understand this? The argument not to include has nothing to do with politics. Moyers didn't accuse O'Reilly of being "part of a slime machine" (Which is O'Reilly's supposed "gotcha!" moment from the transcript that you just can't let go of.) The quote you're now citing just says that "the O'Reillys" (i.e. people like O'Reilly) would attack a person who brought up the truth about the intelligence. This has nothing to to with the slime machine accusation. The accusation has no merit. Let it go. If you really want to include some O'Reilly criticism of Moyers in the article, find some that can't be refuted on it's face, that's in the interest of both the encyclopedia, and people with an interest in criticizing Moyers. --Osbojos 20:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How can you not understand that this is a blatant lie on Moyers' part. He tries to be deceptive and got caught doing it. Just because you don't like the fact Moyers got caught lying doesnt mean it doesnt deserve mention. The mere fact his name was mentioned in association with the slime machine warrants that Moyers alleges O'Reilly is apart of it. If he felt he wasn't, the wouldn't have included his name. Arnabdas 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Please go away. The answer is no.   Skopp   01:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Osbojos. The O'Reilly bit is highly contentious and not particularly notable given Moyers' prestigious career. Moyers invoked O'Reilly's name as an archetype along with others, not singling him out as his historical person. Given that there are no other viable sources discussing the incident, I don't think this constitutes a notable inclusion. I think it's fair to say that O'Reilly is a sensationalistic media personality, whereas Moyers is an award-winning journalist. In five years, ten, a hundred, will anyone care if O'Reilly decided to criticize Moyers on the basis of one statement taken out of context? To include such a non-notable incident in Moyers' bio seems to lower the level of what seems to be an otherwise fairly well written article (Grade B). Phyesalis 08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
But Moyers is a left-wing advocate, not an objective journalist. His immense left-wing bias was, at one time, presented (with all necessary links and citations) in some detail here, but it seems his fanbase at Wikipedia have gutted away most of that criticism, leaving it much more a glowing tribute to a liberal warrior/hero. Moyers once gave a speech in which he describes the media as consisting of two groups: one pro-conserative and the other pro-Republican (the latter he said was "better" described as pro-corporate). That is as blatant a lie as there is; the NY Times is right-wing? The LA Times is right-wing? PBS, the home of Moyers and Tavis Smiley (left-wing commentator and moderator of PBS's Republican and Democratic presidential debates), is right-wing? Academia, which has great influence over the media, is right-wing? MSNBC is right-wing? The mainstream media that is giving preferable coverage to the Democratic presidental candidates right now is certainly not pro-conservative or pro-Republican. The Washington-based MM that voted 89% to 7% in favor of Bill Clinton over George Bush in the 1992 presidential election and went out of its way to smear Clarence Thomas in 1991 was certainly not pro-conservative or pro-Republican. And Moyers is subsidized by the American taxpayer to boot, something that cannot be said of Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh.
It is Moyers' lies and hypocrisy and ideological biases (masquerading as objective truth) that urk his critics, and any real effort to address this has been deleted by his supporters at this site. He is no more a "journalist" than Bill O'Reilly is. Less sensationalistic, yes, but not remotely more objective. I would love to include more criticism of the man here but his loyal admirers will almost certainly censor any such attempt as soon as they get wind of it. -- Gerkinstock 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because the man is liberal, doesn't mean he has a liberal bias. Let's see... Moyers: ordained minister, professor in Christian ethics, best known for his respectful facilitation of interfaith and religious/secular dialogues, 3 lifetime achievement awards for journalistic integrity and investigative reporting, 30 Emmys and almost every other award known to jounalism, as well as a member of the Academy of Arts and Letters. JSTOR, an electronic database of academic journals, has 288 refs to him and his articles, books and shows. What an insignificant liberal whacko - though that whole Christian thing tends to hurt his liberal street cred with the godless socialists. On the other hand, O'Reilly is currently a commentator, not a journalist, best known for his self-professed sensationalism and factual inaccuracy. O'Reilly used to be a decent journalist (he did win two Local Emmys and one award from the Dallas Press Club early in his career - but that's about it). JSTOR has zero articles referring to O'Reilly or his work. BTW, "less sensationalistic" is a primary requirement for quality journalism.

Frankly, the O'Reilly material (contested as it is by Moyers) constitutes an extraordinary claim in a bio page of a living person. As such, per WP guidelines, it must have multiple high quality sources (as in peer-review journals or standard reference texts). If an editor can find one solid paragraph from a well-known peer-review journal (anything in a major journal database) that mentions this or any other treatment of Moyers' alleged bias, I will help them work it into the article and help defend its presence. I'm not saying it's not out there, but given the man's reputation, I'm not doing the leg work. Phyesalis 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you on this.--Samiharris 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So what if Bill Moyers is Christian minister? There are plenty of left-wing and right-wing Christian ministers and activists throughout the United States. Jesse Jacksona and Pat Robertson are Christian ministers-- would you say that exempts them from political bias? He is not an "insignificant liberal whacko"-- he is a liberal broadcaster who has used his presence on taxpayer-subsidized television to promote the stories and values he considers most important, without his personal political biases being put in check (as Chris Matthews and Tim Russert-- both Democrats-- are quite adept at doing). Would you say the fact that he was part of the Lyndon Johnson administration-- one of the most liberal administrations in American history-- says nothing of his own partisanship? And what do you say about him using his "credibility" as a "journalist" to promote left-wing values at Take Back America, a very liberal organization devoted to electing left-wing politicians to office, and stating that all American media is either pro-conservative or pro-Republican/pro-corporate America? Or to falsely claim the the right-wing has taken over American media, a media that voted 89% to 7% for Clinton over Bush in the '92 presidential election (a year after attempting to destroy Clarence Thomas with lies, innuendo and unproved allegations) and was deemed biased against Republican candidates in 2006/2007 in a Harvard University study (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20071109/bs_ibd_ibd/20071109general)? Why does he never cover the left-wing bias in Hollywood, the mainstream media, the NAACP/NOW/GLAAD or academia, but does cover the right-wing bias of the Christian Coalition and talk radio? Do you actually consider that unbiased?
Bill O'Reilly is definitely right-wing and definitely uses his show to promote his values. As such, there is an entire page devoted "Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly," a page that is longer than the Wikipedia entry on Bill O'Reilly. That there is not only no such page devoted to Bill Moyers and nearly the entire section of cited criticism has been gutted by pro-Moyers contributers says to me that his allies here don't want him to be put under the same scrutiny other commentators are given at this site. Moyers criticized PBS for being overtaken by the right-wing, an institution that still includes Moyers and has Tavis Smiley, a committed left-wing commentator, moderating Republican and Democratic debates. Why no page for criticism of Moyers or Keith Olbermann while there's an entire page devoted to Bill O'Reilly? You write as if the only controversy or criticism involves his feud with O'Reilly, which is absolutely not the case. Perhaps I should have started a new thread here instead of adding to this one.
Less sensationalistic doesn't mean less-biased. The NY Times, Washington Times and LA Times are less sensationalistic than the Fox News Channel, but they're not less biased. Their bias is more subtle (and, perhaps, more effective as a result) but just as profound. And, just so know, I'm not classifying the right-wing Washington Times as "liberal" here.-- Gerkinstock (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have clearly stated that if you find info from exceptionally reliable sources (as previously defined) to back up the exceptional claim for a WP:BLP, I will support the inclusion. If you feel that WP is diminished for its lack of a "Criticisms of Bill Moyers page, go for it. This does not relate to the discussion. Nor do the gross or subtle biases of various papers. As editors it is not our job to push our POV, but to compile the reliable and verifiable research of others. FOX is unreliable because of 1) conflict of interest - it hosts the Factor, and 2) The Factor does not have a reputation of reliable fact checking.
And yes, I know Moyers is not an "insignificant liberal whacko". It was a poor attempt at humor. My apologies for the bad form. If membership in a particular administration is tantamount to automatic bias, well... let's just say that if it were a liberal saying that on a bio like Karl Rove's, I doubt they'd get very far. That kind of argument is POV.Phyesalis (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You might support inclusion, but others have already deleted past verifiable statements and stories; thus, what you suggest I do has been done in the past, to no avail. And I'm not stupid-- it was clear you were accusing me of characterizing Moyers as an "insignificant liberl whacko." Being profoudly biased and equally dishonest about such bias does not equate with being a "whacko." Furthermore, I didn't say that his employment by LBJ was proof of automatic bias. His bias has come through after years of investigating The Religious Right and right-wing media bias while flat-out lying and stating that there is no left-wing media in the U.S., as if The NY Times and The LA Times were pro-Republican. That he is a Democrat and was a member of one of the most left-wing administrations in U.S. history is just one example of his liberalism; the speech he gave at Take Back America was a far better example, in fact. Tim Russert and Chris Matthews are Democrats who do a great job of putting ideology and partisanship aside People like Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann and Tavis Smiley are no more balanced than Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh would be in their positions, let's put it that way.
As "editors," it may not be your job to promote POV, just as "journalists" of the Fox News Channel are not supposed to promote their POV, either. What I'm saying is, on the whole, with regards to Bill Moyers, you have failed in your task. Maybe this page should employ some new editors? --Gerkinstock (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Failed in our task? Hardly. The page is informative and balanced as is. The contentious stuff removed may have some place in an exhaustive biography, and even that's arguable, but it does not warrant inclusion here.   Skopp   02:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have failed in your task, and the page is hardly balanced at all. It might as well have been written by Moyers himself, or perhaps his publicist. Bill O'Reilly has a criticism page longer than his bio page. Criticism of him wasn't simply removed, it was tranferred to another page. That people like you allow as little criticism or evidence of his liberal bias at Wikipedia, while similar info is the norm for other broadcasters, is not a success on your part. Perhaps you say it doesn't warrant inclusion because you're a Bill Moyers fan and want his page to reflect well upon him; the editors here seem to have a great deal of admiration for the man. You have certainly succeeded in slanting the page in his favor to a great degree. Too bad you're not nearly as fair and balanced as the editors of the O'Reilly page are. --Gerkinstock (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep cool heads and stop addressing the issue of editors and failures. Lengthy discussion of editors with zero productive content regarding an article is inappropriate. The issue has been decided per WP policy. Conditions for reinclusion, per WP policy, have been established.

Gerkinstock, I've started this discussion over on your talk page. User pages are appropriate places for this conversation. Article talk pages are not for debating the subject. Phyesalis (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)