Talk:Fred Moosally

Major concerns regarding the use of the Thompson book as a primary source.

There are some major concerns regarding this article, notably coming from the subject of the article itself, who has contacted the office, somewhat understandably about his portrayal. The Thompson book is a major source of information about the article, however, as evidenced as indicated by the out-of-court settlement, the facts coming from the book may be brought into question.

I am not suggesting we overlook all of the editors' hard work on achieving featured status on this article, notably that of Cla68. On technical merits, the article is indeed a quality piece of work!

The subject of the article would like it deleted. My interpretation of our policies is that this would be very difficult to accomplish. However, we should not dismiss the subject's concerns out-of-hand, as there is some merit. However, given the nature of the book and its heavy bias against the subject of the article; as well as the out-of-court settlement, the weight of the book in the article should be questioned, and any fact derived from the book should be backed up by additional sources. I hope we can do so, with the help of the major editors of this article. Bastique ^demandez 18:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, the book meets our definition of a reliable source. The author uses his real name, names his sources in the book, using his sources' real names, and the book is published by a reputable publishing company, which apparently stands behind its content. As noted in the article, the subject did sue the publisher and author, but the publisher and author did not publicly retract or repudiate anything said in the book. Did the subject provide the Office with any private correspondence from the publisher or author which retracts anything said in the book, or is it just his word against theirs? Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

One way around this, perhaps, would be to use the phrase "According to Thompson..." or "Thompson claims that..." in front of every assertion in the article which is sourced solely to Thompson's book. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article gives too much due weight to Thompson's views by citing his book extensively, and thus the article does not meet WP:NPOV and the neutrality requirement of WP:FACR. --Aude (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the book meets the RS criteria. As I mentioned above, I'm proposing that whenever Thompson is the sole source for an assertion, that it be caveated with "Thompson says..." or "Thompson claims...". Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Attributing Thompson as a source is helpful, though that does not go far enough to address my concerns. The article extensively uses Thompson as a source, to such an extent that I think it gives undue weight to his viewpoints. As for being a reliable source, with the book being published by W.W. Norton, I would normally tend to say yes it is reliable. However, in this case, the validity of the information in the book was brought into question in a defamation suit; the result was an out-of-court settlement with the publisher. (I will take a look on Lexis-Nexis to see what I can find about the case, but the site's down right now, perhaps for maintenance) Given the circumstances and that this is a BLP, I think the article needs to be more judicious in sourcing, and diversify the sourcing with other high quality sources to provide more balance. I know there are other sources used, but don't think the balance is right. --Aude (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What would really help is if the court documents submitted by the plaintiffs in the case were available somewhere. I assume that in their evidence submission, Moosally et al refuted in detail the assertions in Thompson's book that they don't agree with. Cla68 (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing to remember, though, is that the plaintiffs appear to have had their day in court, but in the end the publisher stood by its book, reinforcing, in my opinion, that it is a reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for court documents, which I agree would be helpful. The publisher settled out of court with the plaintiffs, which indicates the defamation charges had some legitimacy. I do question the reliability of the source, but beyond that issue is the one of NPOV and undue weight towards Thompson's views. Anyway, I need to track down a copy of the book and other sources to understand better how material in this article is referenced. I might need to order a used copy online which will take a few days to arrive, so please bear with me. In the meanwhile, I might be able to track down court documents or other sources. --Aude (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you have Lexis Nexus access, you might be able to track down many of the early reporting on the incident in the Virginia local newspapers which aren't available online. Many of those reports may help confirm Thompson's assertions because he mentions them at length in his book. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Settling out of court does not mean the plaintif was correct. It only means that court costs are expensive and it was an easier way to prevent greater costs. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the financial settlement was, but other than that it appears that all the plaintiffs received was a letter containing an obviously backhanded, sarcastic "apology" from the publisher. Like I said before, I wish the plaintiffs had posted their complaint documents with the supporting evidence somewhere on the web, because that would have been very helpful in making their side of the story available. Cla68 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have my copy of the Thompson book now. I was hoping to find footnotes, so I could further trace particular pieces of information. However, there are no footnotes. I'm pretty disturbed by the lack of footnotes to indicate where Thompson got particular bits of information that are in the book. There only is a list of people interviewed in the appendix and vague reference to documents. As a BLP, I think the standards for sourcing should be higher. I would like to see information in this article backed up by multiple sources and not rely solely on Thompson's book as the only source for certain information. --Aude (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Early life and education section

I would like to start reviewing the article by looking at the first section. Details that appear in the Schwoebel, and Schwoebel is quoting Moosally's own statement in a hearing. The same statement is found in the Senate hearing documents [1], with snippets available for search on Google Books.

• He was born and raised in Youngstown
• Graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1966

Steve Vogel's 2001 article in The Washington Post is a source for:

• "Moosally played defensive tackle...", the "Cotton Bowl", and the "Most Valuable Player" award.

The sources (just the Thompson book ) are inadequate for Moosally's date of birth. I suggest just saying that he was born and raised in Youngstown, and don't mention the date.

I also think the sentence saying "Moosally was one of six children ...Syriac Maronite Church" needs to either be removed or backed up by other, more reliable sources. --Aude (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with removing the birth date. The number of siblings and religion comes from Thompson's book. Since Thompson is a reliable source, I think it's ok to keep that in the article while mentioning that Moosally disputes the veracity of the source. If anyone wants to remove that particular information, however, it won't bother me too much. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the portion that says his birth date. I still find the religion and family information questionable, and would like additional sources. But can keep looking and come back to that later. --Aude (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thompson book availability

BTW - Thompson's book is not available on Google Books for searching (not even snippets) and I know it was never published as a paperback. I wonder if the unavailability of the book (except for used book stores) relates somehow to the lawsuit and court settlement. --Aude (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Salon article, Thompson and his publisher imply that the Navy's "suppression" of the book (their claim) kept sales down. If the first hardback edition run did not sell out, they would not have an incentive to release a paperback edition. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe at all that "suppression" is the reason for not releasing a paperback edition. The Navy doesn't have a say as to what Amazon.com and other major booksellers can sell. If you do a Google Book search of books published by W.W. Norton in 1999-2000, and go to the last search result pages and see the availability on Amazon.com [2], W.W. Norton's books are available as new books, mostly in paperback format. The Thompson book is an odd exception. The book is completely out of print, and I'm quite sure it has something to do with the lawsuit against the publisher. --Aude (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Documents

I now have some court documents to look through over this weekend. These documents don't appear to be available online yet (except for the official court opinion), though I hope that some can be made available online such as through the South Carolina court website or another such place. Offline but accessible sources (such as obtained from the Naval Historical Center) may also work. --Aude (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I look at them also? Are they electronic and small enough in size that you could email them to me if I email you through your Wikipedia account? Cla68 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would need to get permission to do that. I can ask. --Aude (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Cla68 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting.

I'm busy changing all the inline refs to links, and consolidating them into a single ref name=" where possible to easily see how much a ref is used. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-16t14:49z

FA?

This is a featured article. It's supposed to be Wikipedia's best work. I have no desire to try to remove the star. However, in approving it, some may have looked too much at the details and lost focus over the main article.

The article changes focus in the middle changing from Captain Mooseally to the Iowa. Some details are about Mooseally but about the ship. There are also problems in the focus of the Wikipedia article.

In the spirit of cooperation, I will not challenge the promotion but think that someone who knows about Moosally should re-write it. User F203 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Consistency with data in USNA Register of Alumni

An earlier edition (1973) of the Register has Moosaly's class standing as 821, not 812. The 1998 edition puts it at 185, clearly an error.

The 1998 Register lists his retirement date as 1 July 1990. The date cited in the article (May 1990) is probably the date of the retirement ceremony. Not unusual for one to have a retirement ceremony, then remain technically on active duty while using up unused leave time.

Consistency with data in USNA Register of Alumni

An earlier edition (1973) of the Register has Moosaly's class standing as 821, not 812. The 1998 edition puts it at 185, clearly an error.

The 1998 Register lists his retirement date as 1 July 1990. The date cited in the article (May 1990) is probably the date of the retirement ceremony. Not unusual for one to have a retirement ceremony, then remain technically on active duty while using up unused leave time.

BullDurham (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is useful information, thank you. Does the Register list the dates of all of his promotions and assignments? Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fred Moosally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413162531/http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/13200722929.htm to http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/13200722929.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208090255/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_63_239/ai_n30938813/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_63_239/ai_n30938813

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fred Moosally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709010230/http://dev.defenseindustrydaily.com/voted-off-the-island-the-uscgs-deepwater-frc-program-03160/ to http://dev.defenseindustrydaily.com/voted-off-the-island-the-uscgs-deepwater-frc-program-03160/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226204755/http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/SPEF_LCS020807/Industry_Testimony020807.pdf to http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/SPEF_LCS020807/Industry_Testimony020807.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227023702/http://homeland.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20070517172913-98771.pdf to http://homeland.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20070517172913-98771.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fred Moosally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311114208/http://www.ussiowa.org/turret2/news/later/html/memories_vpls.htm to http://www.ussiowa.org/turret2/news/later/html/memories_vpls.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fred Moosally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717063622/http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13127/ to http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13127/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)