Talk:Bill Moyers/Archive 3

Survey
Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.


 * Use edit as outlined above under "compromise"
 * I feel this edit is adequate and not overcritical or overweight while covering the issues -- Ratel
 * My concern here is that Andyvphil is insisting on controversial material in a BLP, presented in a defamatory way, particularly the "homosexuals" part, for which there is no objective evidence that involves Moyers, without having found editorial consensus over it. BLP is strict. All we know, on evidence about Moyers is that Moyers wrote a memo on behalf of the President. What the President's motive was, whether Moyers knew what the President's motive was, all that is, from what I've seen, pure speculation or, at best, uncorroborated. --Abd (talk)
 * I prefer the compromise edit, both because it represents a more NPOV, and because Andyvphil's proposed edits are very lengthy given the relatively low significance of the event. That said, I do think some parts of Andyvphil's edits are of benefit to the article see my comments under discussion below. --Osbojos (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC). Upon further consideration, unless the allegation that Moyers asked Hoover to search specifically for homosexual activity, I don't think this event is sufficiently notable to deserve any mention in the article. See comments in section below. --Osbojos (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Use edits advocated by Andyvphil
 * OUTSIDE OPINION Disclaimer: Andyvphil asked for my comment because I responded as an outside opinion to the previous RfC. As I look at the compromised version, it basically amounts to whitewashing the article. This isn't a BLP concern because it's cited- the BLP concern would arise from WP:V, but we have that. As for WP:NPOV (of which WP:UNDUE/WP:PROMINENCE is a subsection), it demands balance, but that doesn't mean removing bad things about a person because we can't find sources to dispute it. It seeks to stop opposing material (in this case, material that denies Moyers did any of this) from being excluded. As for WP:COATRACK concerns, this section by no means constitutes a large section of the article. One other thing, I was a bit confused by one of the web sources being an IP address; the website's name is booknotes.org, and replacing the IP with that does work: This URL should be used instead. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've improved the cite in the proposed text per your suggestion. Booknotes is CSPAN, btw. See Brian Lamb, the interviewer and CSPAN CEO. Andyvphil (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Some remaining issues and a summary of where we are now. Andyvphil is not so much concerned with getting it right as getting it Right, but as editors working on a BLP, we must do better.

► RATEL ◄ 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While for the most part I prefer Ratel's edits. I do think the facts need some context. If verifiable, I think the fact that the name checks were requested in response to the Walter Jenkins event should be included. Many readers will be unfamiliar with what an FBI name check entails or the appropriate scope and purpose of branch authority. Also, it's notable that damaging information was in fact delivered to Moyers. Thus I think the section below from Andyvphil's May 16th edit should be included, so long as a source can be found to verify that the church committee did characterize the name checks as "improper." (I'd paste the source, but the page is protected): in 1976 the Church Committee confirmed, on the basis of FBI documents, that Moyers was the aide who both requested the "name checks" and received the resultant hand-delivered "derogatory information" on two individuals.[10][11][12] something the committee characterized as "totally improper" and a "betrayal of the public trust".[13] --Osbojos (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) See comments in "survey" section below.--Osbojos (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For now, I'll address just a few lines in Ratel's table, to show how bogus it is: Andyvphil (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Andyvphil, I see you have changed the source link for the "totally improper/betrayal" statement from to . Care to explain why? Is http://www.icdc.com a site we should regard as reliable? And can you show where the improperness and betrayal are linked directly to Moyers, or is the Committee referring to the hundreds of people involved in using the FBI for political purposes over the years?
 * I simply do not find the Convention incident notable. It's complex, it's too trivial for this short page, and if it reflects on anyone, it's LBJ. It may be history, but not with capital H, because neither Moyers nor the incident is even mentioned on Fannie Hamer's wiki page. You won't get my vote on that one. ► RATEL ◄ 11:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see you have now added another line to your table about the homosexuality issue. Note: I am not against including the reason for LBJ's request the fact that Jenkins was arrested (since Osbojos supports it), but I am against saying that Moyers asked the FBI to look for homosexuals, which is what you originally wanted to insert. The TIME mag quote does not support it either. My concern about including it is one of weight. This is beginning to be a major negative edit, involving him as a foot-soldier following orders from a very powerful man whom he could not control. It also only made up a fraction of his career. We cannot ignore that. ► RATEL ◄ 12:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The icdc version puts it on one page and its text can be copied, as opposed to the aarclibrary pdf. But the site has various drafts (check the directory) and I will continue to cite aarclibrary in maintext, since that is clearly the final printed version. As I said before, the Committee doesn't provide an appendix of the individuals who engaged in "totally improper" behavior but its description of what consitituted that behavior is very clear (I should think the bolding I supplied is dispositive) and Moyers is one of the first of the very few it specifies by name in this section of the Report.
 * 2. LBJ was a notorious micromanager but there is in this instance no testimony that it was anyone other than Moyers who tried to order the FBI to hustle the MFDP off the convention floor. And that is in any case irrelevant. The question isn't who had the most responsibility for keeping Mississippi blacks unrepresented until '68. Johnson, obviously. The question is what Moyers was willing to do at this stage of his life on LBJ's behalf. It's Moyers' biography. And since DeLoach refused, Hamer wasn't dragged off the Convention floor by the FBI. Probably would have made even her Wikipedia bio if Moyers had his way. And the incident is mentioned at Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. But try reading more widely than Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm not expecting to get your vote. There is none so blind as one who does not wish to see.
 * 3. I revised to include the third line because it was so quick and easy to demonstrate that you were so clearly wrong -- and determinedly oblivious to a source repeatedly pointed out to you -- in suggesting that LBJ's reason for asking for the information was in question. Whether the FBI was specifically asked for information about Goldwater staff homosexuality is a different line in your table, and it's something I'd already moved to a footnote, specifying that only some sources say so, since my best guess is that it came from Lasky and, since I haven't seen Lasky's citations, it's possible that Lasky misread his sources. Or not. Andyvphil (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Andyvphil, this is a biography of a living person. As such, Wikipedia sourcing standards become even more rigorous. Your description above displays, definitely, a bias, a preconception of what is notable about Moyers, and you've acknowledged this elsewhere, saying that it was important to you, as I recall, to expose Moyers as a hypocrite, because of his wimpy questioning of the Rev. Mr. Wright of recent Obama-connected fame. We should all be very careful about such bias, for it can lead us to place undue weight on events. Asking the FBI for a name check on political opponents is generally considered improper behavior. For an aide to pass on a request when so ordered by the President is not necessarily improper. It's not the place of an aide to determine what is proper Presidential behavior, unless it is totally outrageous, and this didn't quite get to that point. (I.e., if it had been an impeachable offense, clearly illegal, yes, an aide should refuse, if the aide realizes it. But it was improper, not illegal.) Moyers was willing to serve the President. That required him accepting some things that he probably thought wrong in some way. Aides are not peers. If you sincerely want Wikipedia to be improved by adding material about Moyers, I highly recommend seeking consensus. And remember, your motive to discredit Moyers, which is blatant, can lead you astray. Making the article balanced is quite proper. Placing undue weight on facts is not allowed. In all this, there are subtle judgments to be made, and how Wikipedia makes these decisions is through consensus. If consensus can be found here, fine. If not, there are escalating processes to discover it. The earliest steps are often seeking the participation of knowledgeable editors. I'm here because your main nemesis here asked for that, with a request to DGG. If we can narrow this down to one small issue at a time, it will be much easier to find consensus. When it starts to become a shotgun, about all we can do is say "No!" The article is now protected as a result of your edit warring, and, frankly, I'm surprised you have not yet been blocked, it's not like you have not been warned (you've been blocked three times, and you have been uncivil). It's a BLP article, so there is bias for removal of negative information. If you want negative information in the article, you'll have to find consensus for it.--Abd (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't specified any problem with sourcing, so there is nothing for me to reply to on that point.
 * You misquote me, of course. My words are on this page, so there is no excuse for it. I would never use such an inapt term as "wimpy" to describe Moyers interview of Wright. Try "fawning". The fully deserved rebuke by Kurtz, and its slightly muted echo by the PBS ombudsman, still deserve to be and are not on the page.
 * And only you and Ratel have previously used the word hypocrite, though the shoe fits. Or poseur. My low opinion of Moyers does indeed contribute to my noticing that the evidence in favor of my point of view is, contrary to Wikipedia's core content policies, missing from this page. WP:NPOV: "'As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'.'"
 * WP:BLP is an elaboration on, not an exception to, WP:NPOV. Which also reads, in part: "'If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.'"
 * I already have DeLoach making a Nuremberg defense of Moyers in maintext, so I don't see why you feel the need to repeat the point. It's the suppression of the other POV, the Church Committee's declaration that what he did was totally improper, that violates Wikipedia core policy.
 * Since you keep repeating your ad hominum smear about having been blocked, let me say that I have three times been blocked by admins using a template accusing me of violating the three revert rule and in no case had I actually done so. The last time, when I reverted an editor who had violated 3RR an admin who was involved on the opposite side of the content dispute blocked us both, with fine impartialty as to who was guilty and his own conflict of interest, on the grounds that I hadn't replied anew on the talk page to the 3RR violator who had in fact posted nothing on the talk page for me to reply to. The previous time I left off reverting a tendentious edit at three and returned to Wikipedia to find that I was accused of resumed reverting as an IP sockpuppet. When that was disproved -- the ip was 700 miles away -- the clueless admin fell back on asserting without any evidence that the ip might be a meatpuppet and insisted on continuing to block us both as well as the 6RR violator. And the first time I was blocked it was by an "edit warring" vigilante who, dissatisfied with the 3RR process, set up an "edit warring" noticeboard in his user space and in this case blocked three editors, two of whom had, as I recall, two reverts, and none of whom had four. He actually said of blocking me that I didn't deserve it, but that he did it becuse he would otherwise be accused of partiality. What this proves is that the judgement of some admins deserves the same contempt that the judgements of some editors deserve. Andyvphil (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and the article is protected because Ratel compounded his attempt to edit war this material out of the article with a lying post at WP:RFPP: Andyvphil (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Andyvphil, you call me a "liar", you call Mr Moyers, who may be reading this page, a "poseur" (NOTE: BLP provisions apply to Talk pages too), and your long defence of your blockings turns the page into a forum, which you must not do. You then say that you have "contempt" for the judgement of some admins and editors (editors like us, I am invited to infer). You also admit to editing with malice, and trying to publish little known and single-sourced material (please read the General notability guideline) onto a page purely to damage a subject's reputation. I believe your contributions are sailing dangerously close to earning you a permanent block. ► RATEL ◄ 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't just call you a liar. I cited it, and have now reprinted it below. And it's bizarre to assert that by replying to ABD's repeated ad hominum attack that I've gone off the subject. Review Point of privilege. And my opinion that Moyers is a poseur was also a response to a mischaracterization both of what I'd said and of its significance. I am certain that if you were in charge here I would be denied the right of reply, but that is not the case. Andyvphil (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the sentiments Abd expresses above. While this is not supposed to be a hagiography, it's definitely not allowed to be a hatchet job either, no matter how much we may like or dislike Mr Moyers. Jimbo has made himself perfectly clear on that. I happen to like Moyers because of his superb work with Joseph Campbell. I live outside the USA and do not vote in US elections, so I have no vested interests. Just making my position clear. To address your points, Andyvphil:
 * 1) The icdc site link is someone's personal webpage, not usable. Find the exact quote in aarclib and we'll have a look and discuss further.
 * 2) You are wrong, the incident (Moyers telling the FBI to unseat MFDP) is not on the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party either. Not notable, should not be included for that and other cited reasons.
 * 3) After Osbojos' comment, I'm not averse to saying why the name checks were sought (Jenkins arrest), but it may be better footnoted. ► RATEL ◄ 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The quote is already properly cited to aarclib in my edit. You can't figure out how to click on the "next page" arrow? Sheesh.
 * 2. You don't know what "notable" means. Read WP:NOTE. nb: Refers to article subjects, not content.
 * 3. "better footnoted"? Oh, yes, anything to make the telling less intelligible. Andyvphil (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should I, or any other reader, be forced to read through pages of dense text looking for the citation? Provide a page number!
 * As I said above, your DeLoach edit will fail because of numerous problems, just one of which is Notability, specifically in that it has NOT received "substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" as required in the General Notability Guideline. Is that impossible for you to grasp?
 * By saying that I am trying to make the material less intelligible, you are breaking the WP:AGF rule. That's another black mark, Andy . ► RATEL ◄ 01:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. I started off giving you the quotes on one page of searchable text. And the quotes are within the first few pages at the aarclib cite. If you want to disqualify your opinion from consideration go ahead and don't bother to read the source.
 * 2. And as I said in as many words, you are confusing an article creation guideline with a content guideline. I haven't attempted to research how many reliable sources examine Moyers' role in managing the '64 Dem Convention for LBJ because DeLoach's book and Booknotes is enough. WP:NOTE: "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." Motivate me. Mention in how many RS will cause you to drop your objection to the paragraph?
 * 3. WP:AGF:"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry and lying." The evidence against you is not limited to your lying. Andyvphil (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Claiming that an editor is lying will almost certainly be considered blockable incivility unless it can be not only proven but shown as necessary. So, my intention is now to look at what evidence Andyvphil gave (one reference) of lying. It better be good, Andyvphil, or, I suspect, you are toast. Perhaps if you promptly retract it before I go to all that trouble -- or someone else does -- the whole thing might be defused. I've *already* seen enough blatant incivility that, were I not involved and I had the admin bit, you'd be blocked -- if you did not desist upon warning.--Abd (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You want more than one reference per instance of lying? Well, I've supplied the link twice. Does that count? As to necessity, Ratel's accusation of an AGF violation surely entitled me to present the evidence specified by the policy as exculpatory. Here, for a third time, is Ratel's lying post: ========
 * Temporary Full-protection - An edit war exists with one tendentious, hostile, uncivil editor refusing to debate the issues, ignoring consensus, making daily reverts, and editing in poorly sourced material that attacks the subject's ethics and character. ► RATEL ◄ 15:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a tissue of falsehoods, and while not every falsehood is clearly a lie (some are possibly, if one stretches AGF, erroneous opinion or ignorance) I've highlighted an unequivocal lie for your benefit. As to your impartiality in looking at the evidence, the way you weighed in to say it was ok for Scjessey to call me a racist makes it clear that you ought never get an admin bit. Too many Bozos have it already. Andyvphil (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The aarclib pdf file citation is NOT searchable from what I can see, and since page numbers are given I cannot understand why you are not supplying one! Is it that you cannot find the  "totally improper" quote there? If you cannot cite it properly, it's out, without debate.
 * While Notability does refer to topics, the Notability page refers to undue weight for topic contents, and you have still not shown that the anti-Moyers minutiae you have sniffed out (and are attempting to insert against consensus) can possibly bypass the undue weight rules. You are ignoring the fact that under the undue weight rule, this subrule exists: Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article. In addition to that, the DeLoach stuff exists in one place only (his book and an interview about his book, which means technically it exists in only one place), unless you can prove otherwise. Can you? If not, out it goes without further debate. I also note that the DeLoach book is published by the infamous Regnery Publishing house, which makes the book a questionable source in any event. What does BLP say about such sources? Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used.
 * I'm asking you for the last time to stop your incivility. If you do not, I shall take it up with an admin. ► RATEL ◄ 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Sheesh. Of course the aarclib scan isn't searchable. That's why I both copied from and cited the icdc copy. At aarclib the characterization as totally improper and a betrayal of trust is on p.226, and the names of those requesting in such "political abuses" begin on p.227 (Roosevelt, Eisenhower(unspecified aide), Robert Kennedy, Johnson - large footnotes, short page) and p.228 (Moyers, Marvin Watson). Are you really unable to find your bottom with both hands and a map or are you just funnin' me?
 * 2. Like the WSJ, Regnery is a "questionable source" per Wikipedia policy only in your fevered imagination. Like Silberman, DeLoach is the person to whom Moyers spoke and is with Moyers the only possible ultimate source for what was said. BLP does not exclude such material, merely requiring that it has appeared in reliable sources. All that is left is your assertion that Moyers request that the FBI strongarm the MFDP off the convention floor is insignificant. And your ignorance in thinking that this was just some minor kerfuffle about seating arrangements should long since have been dispelled.
 * 3. It's a little late for you to complain about the tone of the exchange which you established at its start. Andyvphil (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of complaining about who started it, from now on all parties will be civil to one another. How does that sound? Gamaliel (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey conclusion
After the latest egregious incivility from Andyvphil ("Are you really unable to find your bottom with both hands and a map") and since all editors have said their piece, my tally makes it 3 editors voting to retain the existing edit, with the inclusion somewhere on the page of the Jenkins arrest, and one editor who wishes to add several further obscure and "derogatory" details about Moyers to the page. That's called consensus. Debate is over, and any further edit warring on the Moyers page will simply be taken to Arbcom. ► RATEL ◄ 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ratel, didja really have to add the digs? Let it go. Don't try to prove another editor's incivility, others have eyes and can read. It just provokes more response. This has nothing to do with whether or not the other editor was actually uncivil. Let others less involved deal with the incivility. I've been under massive attack by sock puppets and SPAs and *mostly* just let it blow by, beyond calling a spade a spade when it's relevant; I make reports to WP:AN/I or WP:SSP only when it is truly disruptive. I tend to treat myself as if I were an administrator (which all editors were at one time, when the earth was young), i.e., I don't use process (in my situation, that is complaint rather than actual button pushing) to punish incivility when I'm the target of it. You might notice that I intervened, to some extent, here, precisely because I wasn't so involved. I made an AN/I report about the edit warring, which was the most serious thing. Why that did not result in action is beyond me at this point. Admins can be overloaded, is all that I can say. For now, the article is protected. What that means in practice is that edits will need admin approval, and admins will look for consensus. Incivility is a really, really stupid way of trying to gain consensus. So, if an editor is uncivil, they can rant and rave and only create more fodder for their own blocking, if nobody responds except perhaps to say, "No, that proposed edit is improper." It is not necessary to explain why unless the reasons are obscure. I probably should have taken the report to WP:BLP/N instead of to WP:AN/I.... --Abd (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This has a snowball's chance in Hell of going to Arbcom. And, no, a thinly based majority isn't "consensus". I note that the original RfC garnered two editors, both of whom disagreed with you, so I've refreshed it. The idea that you can declare "debate over" is typical of you. As wrong as your idea that I am edit warring and you are not. You can find admins who will see edit warring in a few reverts, but you will find they tend to find reasons to block both sides. Andyvphil (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One canvassed vote is not sufficient. Consensus remains. Let it go. ► RATEL ◄ 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add that that one voter doesn't seem to grasp the nature of the disagreement (he claims there are no WP:V issues), or understand that WP:BLP calls for heightened verifiability for controversial claims. --Osbojos (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Ratel, we don't take disputes to ArbComm just like that. There is a whole process, and ArbComm is the last stop on the line. (Well, there is another stop, called StartYourOwnDamnWiki. But hardly anyone goes there. Andyvphil is irritating, but, yes, a short comment period doesn't necessarily establish consensus, but it can certainly show lack of it. There is no consensus at this point for the insertion of *some* of the material proposed, and there is indeed, as Osbojos points out, an increased level of verifiability necessary for controversial claims with the biographies of living persons. But we can't say what tomorrow's consensus will be, no door is closed. "Edit warring" to remove controversial material from a BLP, as long as it is at all reasonable, and definitely Ratel's position is within that territory, isn't likely to result in block unless it is clearly contrary to consensus. Edit warring in the other direction is much more likely to be blocked. So, given this, I'd suggest everyone relax. If someone wants to continue to rant and rave and foam at the mouth, well, eventually the dog-catcher will arrive and take him away. Whatever side he's on. The article protection can be extended if needed, and it does not prevent improvement of the article. What we can agree on here can rather easily be incorporated. What is over is the possibility that simply by reverting enough times, one can control the text, at least for part of a day. To Andyvphil, if you want to improve the text from your point of view, there is a clear path: first of all, be civil and polite. I like Bill Moyers, but not enough to support concealing anything verifiable -- and balanced -- about him. Insulting other editors is not a great idea if you are trying to find consensus with them. Seek consensus, with civility, and you might be able to accomplish something more than just getting yourself blocked. --Abd (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, since Abd feels all editors must agree to obtain consensus (which is clearly not going to happen here), I'll succinctly put my objections to the main remaining issues: 1) the inclusion of the condemnatory words by the Church Committee (CC) and 2) the Deke DeLoach (DD) seating affair.
 * The CC's words related to the actions of many people over many years. As far as I know, none of the WP pages relating to these people carry the CC judgements, so why should the Moyers page, unless a POV is getting pushed?
 * The DD affair about convention seating amounts to a relatively unknown incident that DD claims happened. Now immediately that raises red flags: we are not supposed to be reporting little known facts on BLP pages, especially so if the fact is derogatory. If you don't know that, you ought to read the rules more carefully. And quite apart from that, the page on Regnery Publishing shows that it is simply a right wing front organisation e.g., the same people who published the Swift Boat smear. Read the Regnery Publishing talk page. Everyone knows that Regnery is one of the major purveyors of books by right-wing attack dogs like Anne Coulter and G. Gordon Liddy. What they choose to publish about one of their greatest enemies, Moyers, is not for inclusion here, when it comes only from one man, Deke Deloach, who only became deputy director of the FBI in 1965 (so he was not "#3 at the time"), and who, according to Ronald Kessler in The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI, once attempted to blackmail Senator Carl T. Hayden. This is not a reliable source. And even if by some miracle this incident actually did happen, it is simply not notable prima facie, because Moyers was merely a conduit for LBJ's orders, and because the order was not enacted. ► RATEL ◄ 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Church Committee actually named very few as having solicited totally improper acts of the FBI. Here's the list again: p.227 (Roosevelt, Eisenhower(unspecified aide), Robert Kennedy, Johnson) and p.228 (Moyers, Marvin Watson). DeLoach changed titles in this period, but was #3 throughout. See the inside front flap of his book. Your assertion that the actions of subordinates are "prima facie not notable" is simply silly, as is your suggestion that info in books published by Regnery can, per policy, be ignored. I'm interested in your assertion thiat this incident is "unknown". What accounts of this period in Moyers' life omit it? Andyvphil (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For more on DeLoach, see this.
 * ...This source says DeLoach was 4th highest FBI man as of Aug 1964.
 * And here is Moyers giving Hoover the ok to spead dirt on Martin Luter King, something RFK had previously prohibited. Make sure you read the footnote. Andyvphil (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And that source says: "Lyndon Johnson, acting through Moyers, had now given Hoover a green light to discredit King..." which is what we've being trying to tell you. Q.E.D. Maybe you should add this stuff to the LBJ page, if you actually want to improve Wikipedia. Just a suggestion. ► RATEL ◄ 14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never denied that LBJ was acting through Moyers. For the umpteenth time, my edit exemplifies the NPOV in that it quotes DeLoach making exactly that point. It's the jump from the observation that Moyers was LBJ's agent (even in his, so far as we know, independent actions such as requesting the FBI clear the convention floor of MFDP members) to the assertion that what Moyers did for LBJ has no place in a biography of Moyers that is indefensible. Osbojos admits that if what Moyers did for LBJ was "counter to his public persona" it belongs in this article. Oddly, he then goes on to assert that merely doing something the Church committee described as totally improper doesn't rise to that level unless compounded by the specification that Moyer's request for derogatory information specified homosexuality as the deogatory information desired, and never mind that Lasky and Silberman say exactly that and no source says otherwise. It will be interesting to see if he thinks that Moyers telling the FBI that "it was both his and the President's opinion" should "go ahead and disseminate" its hit piece on MLK (Judgment Days, by Nick Kotz, Houghton Mifflin (not Regnery), 2005, footnote, p. 234), something Kotz characterizes a "authorizing Hoover to spread defamatory information throughout the government", rises to the level of being "counter to his public persona". Andyvphil (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the abrupt change of opinion, but now that I've had a little more free time to carefully consider the issues at hand, I realize I was failing to see the forest for the trees. I agree with Ratel that the Church Committee "improper" characterization is not referring to Moyers specifically--the language appears in the introduction to a section detailing "Examples from the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations illustrat{ing} failure to distinguish between political and nonpolitical intelligence."

Regardless, if the "improper" reference were referring to anyone, it'd be Lyndon B. Johnson, not Moyers. Not only is this event not mentioned on the LBJ page, but mention of Johnson--let alone Moyers--isn't even made on the Church Committee page. If this finding isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the CC or LBJ pages, it's hard to justify including it on the Moyers page. In fact, the only reason this event would be sufficiently notable to be included on the Moyers page is precisely because his taking part in efforts to ferret out homosexual activity runs so counter to his public persona, and, as far as I can tell, everyone participating in the talk page discussion agrees that the only source for the homosexual activities detail is Silberman (and his accompanying verifiability problems). Unless it can be verified that Moyers asked specifically for evidence of homosexual activity or some other equally uncharacteristic request--as opposed to say, damaging information in general--it's hard to see how the Hoover incident is notable enough to merit inclusion here.

The Deloach allegations, in addition to being non-notable, fail for lack of verifiability for much the same reasons the Silberman allegations failed.

Thus I don't believe either proposal--Andyvphil's or Ratel's compromise--can justifiably be included in the article. --Osbojos (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. However, how much fuss has been made about this incident? I don't know, but it's possible that the fuss is notable, in a way similar to the Swift Boat Veterans incident is in the Kerry bio. Would this be in the Moyers article? I don't find the answer obvious. In any case, what was in the text, for example, the text claiming or implying that the Church Committee condemned Moyers, was inappropriate. Suppose the President sent a telegram to the FBI asking for the name check. Would this be a notable incident in the career of someone who delivered the telegram? Probably not. Moyers, it appears, may have regretted being involved in quite a number of different situations with Johnson, but the ethics violation here would be ascribable to Johnson, not to Moyers, at least not based on what I've seen. The President asks his aide to ask the FBI for a name check. Who is in charge? If it was a crime being requested, then Moyers would have had an obligation to refuse. But for the President to ask for a name check, then, wasn't a crime and it probably isn't one now. It was unethical, that can certainly be argued, but it is not unethical for an aide to the President to deliver a request as ordered. I noticed before that the Church Committee document didn't make that unethical charge against Moyers personally, but against the action of querying the FBI, and it was an example of Presidential actions, not of the actions of aides to Presidents. But if there is a major charge levelled at Moyers, notable in itself, I could see that this could be described in the article, but that charge, unless proven by reliable source, can't be stated as fact. The "fact" is that the charge is being made. And I'm not at all sufficiently familiar with this to have an opinion yet. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Likening Moyers responsibility for his actions as LBJ's chief of staff to that of someone who delivered a telegram seems simply wrong to me, and is in any case not the point of view of the Church Committee, which would not have named Moyers had they agreed with you that he was just an errand boy. Not saying you can't include that POV on the event -- as I've noted, I've quoted DeLoach making exactly that defense of Moyers' other request of him -- but it's not a reason to exclude the other POV. Btw, Moyers wrote about this event in Newsweek, March 10, 1975, an article called "LBJ and the FBI", but I haven't found more than a few scattered quotes yet. Andyvphil (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Ratel's Position - At the risk of turning horse carcass into leather, the expanded edits (as asserted) are overreaching and seem to attempt to re-write history (or, at the very least, embellish the truth a bit). I don't see how the citations support the text, nor do I see the text having overcome WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. User Andyvphil seems to have earned a serious block for edits elsewhere, so perhaps he'll think better of edit warring this issue, given the clear consensus against the inclusion. ► RATEL ◄ 22:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)